“Homegrown” cap discount

[member 147413]

You have to be clear on what you mean by this.

For example, William Nylander's contract has expired, but his rights remain with Toronto (as of now). Even if he were to re-sign with Toronto, under this scenario would Toronto receive the discount?

Furthermore, there is the argument to be made that all contracts expire, and that extensions or re-signing are new contracts (as the key terms and conditions thereof change). Are you stating that this principle is only to apply to those signing contracts during the duration of their entry level deals?

I should have said rights and not contract status.

 

[member 147413]

So then they should be even worse? All this would do would make the “rich” teams that can afford to spend millions on scouts do exactly that. You’d almost need to include the salaries to scouts in the cap as they would become one of the most important salaries

Ottawa is one of the best in the league at scouting, drafting and developing.

 

[madmike77]

It’s a decent idea, but it would encourage tanking even more than it’s already encouraged.

 

[YYC]

So the Flames would get 5-10% off what we could sign Taylor Hall for this off season being he's from Calgary? Im in.

 

[Ms Maggie]

Potentially dumb idea, but should encourage teams to focus more on drafting and development instead of “paying for talent”.

What if the league introduced a cap hit discount for players drafted and developed by the same team.

The “discount” would then be void if that player were moved/contract expired.

Let’s say Vancouver drafted J.Hughes, he develops well and asks for 8x10. Vancouver obliges, but since he was “homegrown”, Vancouver receives a cap discount of 5 or 10 %.

I.e Hughes would be paid 10mil per, but his cap hit towards the cap would either be 9.5mil or 9mil.

If traded, his hit would be 10mil, now let’s say he returns to Vancouver in a trade, his hit would be 10mil instead.

Am I out to lunch?

Interesting and a lot of upside!

 

[rynryn]

would unfairly be biased toward hockey markets and handicap non traditional markets at a time when they're trying to "grow the game" so no.

edit: one way to look at it: one team has $90m worth of players for $70m, and one has $70m worth of players for $70m. the team with two first lines is gonna win.

 

[ThatGuy22]

This would be a good way to depress the trade market even more.

Trades are already hard enough to make, and picks are one of the main currencies. Adding the value that players picked only cost 80 or 90 cents on the doller is a good way to ensure picks in the top 2 rounds never get traded.

 

[Vegan Knight]

It couldn't be implemented. For reasons that were laid out.

The owners are not going to give more money for this idea to work which is enough to stop it.

The players union is not going to like it at all which is enough to stop it. Think about it, you're essentially punishing players for getting traded from the team that drafted them.

The market for these players would become inflated to the point the cap savings wouldn't matter. Agents would know what the formula would be to calculate this new cap and would then adjust their negotiations.

 

[Echo Roku]

Potentially dumb idea, but should encourage teams to focus more on drafting and development instead of “paying for talent”.

What if the league introduced a cap hit discount for players drafted and developed by the same team.

The “discount” would then be void if that player were moved/contract expired.

Let’s say Vancouver drafted J.Hughes, he develops well and asks for 8x10. Vancouver obliges, but since he was “homegrown”, Vancouver receives a cap discount of 5 or 10 %.

I.e Hughes would be paid 10mil per, but his cap hit towards the cap would either be 9.5mil or 9mil.

If traded, his hit would be 10mil, now let’s say he returns to Vancouver in a trade, his hit would be 10mil instead.

Am I out to lunch?

Out to lunch. The cap itself already pushes teams to draft and develop.

This solves one thing. Fans that feel like they're being punished for being "too good at it" when in reality they just learn that team building doesn't mean you can hold onto every piece you want to keep.

That's without going into the nature of how it'd be unfair to players and they'd never accept it

EDIT: Oh, and it'd totally turn into players demanding more since it isn't as much of a cap hindrance. So it'd probably undo most of what little it accomplished

 

[PatriceBergeronFan]

Teams that tank for a decade for an elite core then get the privilege of keeping them forever at a discount?

 

[Super Hans]

Not a bad idea, but I think the lengthy RFA period is already enough to allow teams to keep their homegrown talent.

 

[Butch 19]

you had me at dumb idea

 

[txpd]

selectively expanding the salary cap only helps the rich teams that can afford to do that. So, NO

 

[Spazkat]

Teams that tank for a decade for an elite core then get the privilege of keeping them forever at a discount?

That’s almost the point, teams should be investing more resources into drafting and development. If it’s bad now, it can get better as a result of this rule change.

Unless what you're really looking for is what @PatriceBergeronFan said, then the only way this works is if you make all lottery 1st round picks exempt from this little bonus. Collecting a bunch of top5/top 10 picks and calling that "skill" at drafting and development is pretty much bullshit.

Good drafting is pulling talent like Palat in the 7th round - Benn in the 5th - Manson in the 6th - Zetterberg in the 7th. Selecting Matthews/McDavid 1st overall or Marner at 4th is due to a lucky roll of the lottery dice- not any brilliance on the part of the scouting staff

 

[Critical13]

Having the player is the reward.

I also imagine someone could make the argument that it would deflate UFA salaries.

 

[Dache]

Ottawa is one of the best in the league at scouting, drafting and developing.

They are up there for sure, but if scouting gave you a discount on the cap you can be guarnateed all their best ones would be paid triple by a different team

 

[48g90a138pts]

Who are we kidding, drafted players would just ask for 10% more. It would equal out in the end.

Taking heads on TV were suggesting a franchise player that wouldn't count towards the cap. Of course the topic was how the Leafs could keep the kids in TO. And they wanted to cap it at 10mil.

That's sounds like a more likely scenario.

 

[Mickey Marner]

I think the option to sign them to an 8th year is sufficient. I don't mind the idea of a "hometown cap discount" contract though. I would prefer them structured under these rules.

• Must be entirely UFA years
• Must have a full NMC over the entire duration of the contract
• Must have previously been under contract with the team for no less than one year
• Entire value of the contract must be salaried; Ineligible for either performance or signing bonuses
• Full cap hit remains even if the player retires before completion (over 35 rules)
• Contract AAV must fall with league minimum and maximum before and after discount
• Limited total number of discount contracts per team, say 3

I'm sure there's a few loopholes I'm missing and IDK how it would work with the current CBA, but I like it in theory.

 

[JetsFan815]

In the next CBA there really needs to be some provision to give teams some cap relief for salary caps of players they drafted. With RFAs these days demanding to get paid like UFAs, something like that is needed to allow teams to keep players together for a few years. Either something like 15% of the cap of drafted players not counting against the cap OR 1 team drafted player whose salary does not count against the cap (and the player that this provision applies to can be changed at the team's discretion).

NHLPA would love this and the NHL could even use this as a carrot to avoid a lockout.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

Did you think the NHL considered linkage @50% serious enough to lose a season and a half of hockey to give it away? Never in a million years would they do this.

Your proposal would enable teams to spend an additional $10M+. That isn't going to happen.

 

[pcruz]

There is a system in place to regulate the contract demands from players coming off their Entry Level Contracts.
Don't sign them to the contracts the players demand.
The players don't have arbitration rights, they can sit at home and earn nothing while stagnating their development.

It's the same thing over and over. General Managers find new ways to screw themselves and then look to the CBA reworks in order to prevent them from screwing themselves as badly in the future.

 

[Spazkat]

Is it my imagination or did we not have pretty much this EXACT same thread like 2 days ago?

Edit: its here “Homegrown” cap discount

 

[NorthCoast]

In the next CBA there really needs to be some provision to give teams some cap relief for salary caps of players they drafted. With RFAs these days demanding to get paid like UFAs, something like that is needed to allow teams to keep players together for a few years. Either something like 15% of the cap of drafted players not counting against the cap OR 1 team drafted player whose salary does not count against the cap (and the player that this provision applies to can be changed at the team's discretion).

NHLPA would love this and the NHL could even use this as a carrot to avoid a lockout.

That's just raising the cap. I know your intention is so that teams keep stars...but in reality the rich teams would simply apply whatever drafted players they have to your loophole just so that they could spend more on non cap players.

 

[Big Daddy Cane]

RFA prices would adjust in the long-term.

The likes of the Leafs and going by the fandom of the OP, the Jets would benefit in the short-term. I suspect that's all that really matters when it comes to this particular topic.

 

[The Moose is Loose]

OP is just being a homer, his team has a lot of drafted players, and wants more cap space.

Not to mention this would discourage trades