Proposal: Allow teams to trade at 50% off cap

[Kcoyote3]

Teams are stuck with bad contracts everywhere.

What if the league allowed teams to trade players at 50% of their salary, and remove that from the cap? So basically, let's take Buffalo.

They trade Skinner to a team for $4.5 million x 7 years (still overpaid, but for the sake of argument). That team agrees to pay Skinner half his contract and take on that cap hit, while Buffalo agrees to pay Skinner that remainder $4.5 million x 7 years but no longer take the cap hit.

Couple of stipulations would have to be put into place.

1. A player cannot be traded in this manner again from a team. So if the second team does trade him, they cannot retain salary
2. A team cannot take back any assets for "dumping" said player, this is purely a for free situation. If it works out for the new team, fantastic, if not, well, they won't feel like they gave up anything but cap space.
3. Can only be done for contracts longer than 3 years, or else teams should just use a buyout


It's a win-win-win.

-Players keep their contract, and the money they signed for, instead of being bought out
-Teams free up space
-Teams with space get cheaper players that might be able to turn things around
-Less dead space on the cap in the form of buyouts, and more flexibility for teams that are avoiding buyouts

Edit: Also I think this is a bad title, but too late to edit it now. Basically allow teams to trade contracts and remove 50% of the cap from that player's contract.

Click to read more...

 

[LaVal]

You make your bed you lie in it.

This is coming from a Canucks fan, who have a team loaded with bad contracts.

 

[themelkman]

You make your bed you lie in it.

This is coming from a Canucks fan, who have a team loaded with bad contracts.

Agreed. Sharks have tons of awful contracts, but id rather teams like Toronto not be able to slither out of massive deals

 

[Boondock]

Teams are stuck with bad contracts everywhere.

What if the league allowed teams to trade players at 50% of their salary, and remove that from the cap? So basically, let's take Buffalo.

They trade Skinner to a team for $4.5 million x 7 years (still overpaid, but for the sake of argument). That team agrees to pay Skinner half his contract and take on that cap hit, while Buffalo agrees to pay Skinner that remainder $4.5 million x 7 years but no longer take the cap hit.

Couple of stipulations would have to be put into place.

1. A player cannot be traded in this manner again from a team. So if the second team do trade him, they cannot retain salary
2. A team cannot take back any assets for "dumping" said player, this is purely a for free situation. If it works out for the new team, fantastic, if not, well, they won't feel like they gave up anything but cap space.
3. Can only be done for contracts longer than 3 years, or else teams should just use a buyout


It's a win-win-win.

-Players keep their contract, and the money they signed for, instead of being bought out
-Teams free up space
-Teams with space get cheaper players that might be able to turn things around
-Less dead space on the cap in the form of buyouts, and more flexibility for teams that are avoiding buyouts

Edit: Also I think this is a bad title, but too late to edit it now. Basically allow teams to trade contracts and remove 50% of the cap from that player's contract.

One of the major reason the league went to a cap system was to level the playing field. If every team knows there is a level of cost certainty they can better plan and each team essentially has similar amounts of money to construct their team. In your suggestion teams like the Leafs (or any other big money team) would benefit from having disposable cash. Sign big name free agent #1 to a $9million dollar deal. It doesn't work out, eat half in cash and sell the player at 50% with no cap implications. A team like Ottawa (or any other small market cash strapped team) wouldn't have the extra $4.5 in cash to make these types of deals.

With this said, I like that you are thinking outside the box for ways to improve a fairly rigid cap structure. I had thought it would be a good idea if a teams own drafted players had a 15% reduction to their cap hit. This might force teams to invest in their scouting departments and reward teams that built through the draft. It will suck when the Avs have to let players walk because they drafted so well they can't fit them all under the cap.

 

[Pierce Hawthorne]

Sounds like an awful idea.

 

[CatchyTune]

Agreed. Sharks have tons of awful contracts, but id rather teams like Toronto not be able to slither out of massive deals

same. anxiously anticipating the Marner buyout.

 

[BStinson]

Really throws a wrench in the revenue split and provides large market teams an advantage.

 

[themelkman]

same. anxiously anticipating the Marner buyout.

Im not saying they have one right now, but give it two years they would love to do the proposal with Tavares

 

[Michael HOMERUNing]

Agreed. Sharks have tons of awful contracts, but id rather teams like Toronto not be able to slither out of massive deals

sucks that the leafs won't be able to trade matthews or marner

 

[Michael HOMERUNing]

Im not saying they have one right now, but give it two years they would love to do the proposal with Tavares

he has a full nmc. he will be he in TO till he's 33

 

[CatchyTune]

Im not saying they have one right now, but give it two years they would love to do the proposal with Tavares

doubt it.

i was joking, thought you meant Robidas or Clarkson type deals.

 

[Richard88]

One of the major reason the league went to a cap system was to level the playing field. If every team knows there is a level of cost certainty they can better plan and each team essentially has similar amounts of money to construct their team. In your suggestion teams like the Leafs (or any other big money team) would benefit from having disposable cash. Sign big name free agent #1 to a $9million dollar deal. It doesn't work out, eat half in cash and sell the player at 50% with no cap implications. A team like Ottawa (or any other small market cash strapped team) wouldn't have the extra $4.5 in cash to make these types of deals.

With this said, I like that you are thinking outside the box for ways to improve a fairly rigid cap structure. I had thought it would be a good idea if a teams own drafted players had a 15% reduction to their cap hit. This might force teams to invest in their scouting departments and reward teams that built through the draft. It will suck when the Avs have to let players walk because they drafted so well they can't fit them all under the cap.

You addressed the problem well here. The big money teams like Leafs and Rangers would use this to their advantage in a big way for sure.

Interesting idea with the 15% reduction on caphits for your own drafted players. That would create a whole new dynamic with young RFA's asking for higher salaries given that they're more valuable to their teams at a 15% discount for instance. This might also make it less enticing to trade struggling young prospects though, as teams will hold out in the hope that they'll turn things around in order to have that 15% discount if they do well. Maybe there would be salary or escrow considerations too. Interesting idea though on the whole.

 

[BigDaddyLurch]

Why have a cap, then??...

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Players don't really have a reason to agree to something like this. The amount of guys at that level that would actually get bought out is not worth the tradeoff.

 

[voxel]

I prefer a luxury tax... like a massive penalty. If a team wants to make a run one year and want to be $2M/yr over... then they pay the tax (say 100% or 150%) that is distributed to the bottom 10 revenue teams.

 

[Mrfenn92]

Bring back compliance buyouts
They don’t count against the players share of revenues

 

[Puckclektr]

How is this fair for the teams who don’t have salary issues? What do they get out of it?

 

[BigDaddyLurch]

How is this fair for the teams who don’t have salary issues? What do they get out of it?

Screwed...that's it, just screwed...which is why it's a terrible idea...if you sign a massive deal and the player doesn't meet expectations, that's hockey...

 

[Mrfenn92]

How is this fair for the teams who don’t have salary issues? What do they get out of it?

High five. A crisp one.

 

[go4hockey]

This is the dumbest idea I have seen on here in a while. Why even have a cap if you put in ways to cheat it.

 

[Qwijibo]

Good luck convincing the owners to write more checks for players they aren’t paying AND open up more cap space for GM’s to blow. There’s an agreed to 50/50 split of revenue. The flat cap atm is a mechanism of that. The owners are losing money hand over fist this season and trying to find ways for them to lose even more is going to fall on deaf ears.

This won’t happen for the same reason that compliance buyouts didn’t happen this past summer.

 

[_Del_]

I prefer a luxury tax... like a massive penalty. If a team wants to make a run one year and want to be $2M/yr over... then they pay the tax (say 100% or 150%) that is distributed to the bottom 10 revenue teams.

I'd be fine with a 5% overage of a soft cap. i.e. -- Soft cap at 81M and hard cap at 85.05M as long as the luxury cap is 200% and goes straight to the bottom 10 teams. If a team spends the year at 85.05M, that $8.1M cash on top that goes to revenue sharing.

 

[WTFMAN99]

Bring back compliance buyouts
They don’t count against the players share of revenues

Every 5 years (so in 2025...2030...) or simply let a team have one every 5 years to use as they wish.

 

[seroes]

As much as i would love to get out of the Jones, Karlsson and Vlassic contracts, as others have said the big market teams will abuse this. The sharks made those contracts to win now and now have to pay the price.

I dont like a pure luxury tax system for the same reason. Big market teams will use it to circumvent the cap and the smaller market owners increase their profits a little. They most likely won't use it to improve the roster.

If the GMs really want to change this they need to stop giving out 7 and 8 year deals to older players.

 

[BlueBaron]

Well I think it's silly but there is a solid reason why it probably can't happen.

Your deal causes inflation and increases overall spending on salaries and the amount is unpredictable.

Top that off with a huge drop in revenue due to Covid.

It also does not benefit everyone equally. Not every team has this problem.

This is the opposite of how the NHL likes to work but is a great gift for the NHLPA who would probably love your idea.

A better solution is to stop handing out bad contracts.