Proposal: Allow teams to trade at 50% off cap

Discussion in 'Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk' started by Kcoyote3, Feb 22, 2021.

  1. It's phishing season. Members should beware of an email informing them their password is about to expire. You should delete it. This is a scam to steal passwords.
    Dismiss Notice
  1. Mrfenn92 Proud to be American

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2018
    Messages:
    11,006
    Likes Received:
    9,604
    Trophy Points:
    131
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    CME
    Location:
    Chicago,Illinois
    Would be down with that
     
  2. Sysreq Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2015
    Messages:
    2,688
    Likes Received:
    859
    Trophy Points:
    109
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    ... so like a compliance buy-out?

    I suspect they add one after the dust settles from the Seattle stuff. If the cap is still limited, I think it’s in both labor and management’s interest to add one. These young super-stars are going to want to get paid in a few seasons. A lot of the current deals were built around the notion that the cap is going up year after year.
     
  3. Qwijibo Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2014
    Messages:
    1,263
    Likes Received:
    955
    Trophy Points:
    109
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    Won’t happen. Compliance buyouts go against the players 50% share of hockey related revenue. Having a compliance buyout adds big out of pocket expense to the owners with no return plus adds to the amount the players owe the owners. We won’t see anything like this until revenue outpaces costs enough for the players to pay back the owners their share. As it is the cap could stay flat for 4-5 seasons
     
  4. Whalers Fan Go Habs!

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2012
    Messages:
    2,162
    Likes Received:
    958
    Trophy Points:
    109
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    Location:
    Plymouth, MI
    I have a better idea... don't sign players to bad long term contracts. If a team negotiates a bad long term contract, they can live with it.
     
    pengineer and go4hockey like this.
  5. SML2 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2018
    Messages:
    2,718
    Likes Received:
    3,351
    Trophy Points:
    101
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    Gender:
    Male
    I find it so funny that teams would rather force themselves into bad situations to keep teams like Toronto and NY, (who have one cup combined in over a hundred years with their big wallets swinging around before the cap), from possibly benefiting in any way.
     
    wingerdinger likes this.
  6. themelkman Always Delivers

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    7,238
    Likes Received:
    4,148
    Trophy Points:
    142
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Alberta
    For sure I do. I was more refering to non existent deals. With this ability, big markets would be able to hand out crazy deal and then get out later
     
  7. The 6ix Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2010
    Messages:
    6,973
    Likes Received:
    2,547
    Trophy Points:
    156
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    Location:
    Toronto
    Well, I don't know if its so dumb.

    Lets say the Leafs and Pens both want to reduce salary and increase cap space.

    The Leafs send Kapanen to the Pens at 50%, and the Pens send the Leafs Bjugstad at 50%. Completely separate transactions if you need to, since you aren't allowed to take any assets back-- whatever that means?

    The true win-win trade. You could go through your whole roster and this could really take off.
     
  8. mouser Business of Hockey

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2006
    Messages:
    25,078
    Likes Received:
    5,930
    Trophy Points:
    187
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    Location:
    South Mountain
    Why does the cap exist at all?

    Obviously there must be a reason.

    If you want to come up with clever ways to allow teams to spend more money then the cap system currently allows, then the necessary tradeoff to maintain a 50% split of revenue requires that the cap ceiling decrease.
     
  9. MikeyMike01 U.S.S. Wang

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Messages:
    10,195
    Likes Received:
    1,978
    Trophy Points:
    186
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    Location:
    Long Island
    The NHL only wants player salaries to be a predictable fixed cost. Competitive balance is irrelevant. They don’t care if some team wins 5 cups in a row.
     
  10. Ledge And Dairy Registered User

    Joined:
    May 17, 2019
    Messages:
    2,393
    Likes Received:
    1,777
    Trophy Points:
    101
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    Occupation:
    Dragonologist in Training
    Location:
    Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry
    This has to be the most convoluted way of cheating the system to benefit large market teams I've seen yet
     
    Spazkat likes this.
  11. Barnaby Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2003
    Messages:
    6,833
    Likes Received:
    1,477
    Trophy Points:
    184
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    Location:
    Port Jefferson, NY
    I’d like to see contracts limited to 5 and 6 years respectively, but the players have zero reason to agree to that.

    It’s silly that GM’s must be protected from themselves.
     
  12. Marner4Life Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2019
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    16
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    Gender:
    Male
    Ya they will probably buyout Mathews at the same time
     
  13. LeafGrief Votes Matthews in polls

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2015
    Messages:
    5,549
    Likes Received:
    5,474
    Trophy Points:
    126
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    Location:
    Ottawa
    Not sure if this is the way, but the NHL is going to want to figure out a way to get teams some cap relief. Look at the Sharks for example, they're in bad deals up to their eyeballs for the better part of a decade. It's enormously shitty for a franchise that they could be stuck with that much bad money for so long. It prevents teams from rebuilding properly, or even contending. There's definitely problems with big market teams like my Leafs having potential to misuse a system, but is it still worth it when budget teams are stuck with big contracts for years as well? Contracts like Skinner and Bobrovsky can completely cripple teams for years and it has enormous implications on team profitability.

    As the fan of a rival it's pretty fun to look at the Price, Weber, and Skinner contracts, but I can't imagine that the league will be well served by having a Habs team with zero cap flexibility for the next 6 years. The Canucks are drowning in bad deals and it caused them to lose key players and take a step back this year. I can't see owners being happy with that.

    If it were up to me, I'd give every team 1 compliance buyout every three years. Maybe give it a rule saying that a player must have been in the org for 2 years before they can be bought out with it. But I genuinely think that handing out some "Get out of Jail Free" cards would be better for everyone involved. The players would hate it at first ofc, but they also have to realize that Loui Eriksson and Jeff Skinner's contracts just make GM's more gunshy.
     
  14. tsweeney Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    7,256
    Likes Received:
    3,139
    Trophy Points:
    126
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    No. Dumb idea. You sign a bad contract, you're stuck with it. There are already levers you can pull to get out of the deal, but they come with drawbacks.
     
    go4hockey and Spazkat like this.
  15. tsweeney Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    7,256
    Likes Received:
    3,139
    Trophy Points:
    126
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    It's not shitty that they could be stuck with it. They signed the f***ing deals. If you aren't comfortable being bound for a long term deal, don't offer it. You won't get that player you're trying to sign, maybe, but it's called roster management.
     
    go4hockey likes this.
  16. LeafGrief Votes Matthews in polls

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2015
    Messages:
    5,549
    Likes Received:
    5,474
    Trophy Points:
    126
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    Location:
    Ottawa
    That's the hardcore way of looking at things, but is it actually good for the league? The threat of being stuck with a deal clearly hasn't stopped GM from signing bad deals, it's pretty much guaranteed at this point. Filling the league up with dead cap space can cripple teams looking to have competitive windows and completely sink a budget team that's stuck with a bad deal. Is the league going to grow when there's always five or six teams spending half a decade waiting out some bad contracts? Those teams will bleed fans and nobody will watch the games when the losers come to town.

    It's not fantasy hockey where a bad contract/player puts your buddy in the basement for the year and you get to make him wear a silly shirt for a week. It's a billion dollar industry that has proven time and again that GM's are going to make mistakes on contracts. I really don't think that crippling a team for years is a punishment that fits the crime of signing a bad contract. Fire the GM and let the team breathe. It's vindictive to the point of silliness that teams have to give up years of market share and the primes of good players just because another guy got overpaid.
     
  17. Spazkat Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2015
    Messages:
    4,196
    Likes Received:
    1,996
    Trophy Points:
    126
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    The only way this would really work as intended though (forcing teams to invest in their scouting departments and rewarding teams that built through the draft) is if it applies only to players outside the first 2 rounds or something. Otherwise all you're doing is adding a really huge benefit to tanking. Getting a top5/top 10 pick player is a reward in itself- teams don't need bonus reward for having gotten lucky already

    And you don't think offering them a way out will result in even more terrible contracts being signed since teams know they won't actually be stuck with them?
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2021
  18. Drive425 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Messages:
    2,203
    Likes Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    101
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    Location:
    St Louis Du Haha
    No, the cap is supposed to be a deterrent and equalizer for the rest of the league that doesn't have unlimited resources to compete. Bad idea.
     
    go4hockey likes this.
  19. HotDish Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2020
    Messages:
    1,794
    Likes Received:
    997
    Trophy Points:
    81
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The State of Hockey
    If they want to fix all the bad contracts the easiest solution would be shorting the max term length. Instead of 8 year make it 5 years like the NBA.

    this way you don’t have GMs who are on the hot seat signing 32 year olds to 8 year bloated contracts. It allows the next GM 2 years later to have an easier mess to clean up if the contract expires in 3 years vs 6.
     
  20. Advanced stats Registered User

    Joined:
    May 26, 2010
    Messages:
    10,506
    Likes Received:
    5,499
    Trophy Points:
    196
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    I actually prefer the concept that teams are allowed to trade cap space.

    Example: Los Angeles trades 2 million in cap space in 2021 to Tampa Bay for 2nd round pick.
     
  21. zar Bleed Blue

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    4,308
    Likes Received:
    1,654
    Trophy Points:
    140
    SB Cash:
    $ 64,692
    Location:
    Edmonton AB
    Oilers have lived with bad contracts for the past decade. It’s our own management’s idiocy.

    I have a feeling those long term deals to UFAs will be a thing of the past. 1/10 might be a fair contract... look at a couple of the recent ones that just started... Skinner, Karlsson, Faulk... just off the top of my head. Then you have that one year... Lucic, Backes, Ericsson, Ladd, Okposo, Brouwer.... I think Neal might have been that year too.

    I love Nuge but I hope the Oilers don’t make another long term mistake with him.
     
  22. zar Bleed Blue

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    4,308
    Likes Received:
    1,654
    Trophy Points:
    140
    SB Cash:
    $ 64,692
    Location:
    Edmonton AB
    This is not a good idea... it totally defeats the purpose of a cap.... just like the net income (tax margin differentials)... I am disappointed the league didn’t address this in the latest CBA... but look at the teams getting the advantage. Hmmm...
     
  23. zar Bleed Blue

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    4,308
    Likes Received:
    1,654
    Trophy Points:
    140
    SB Cash:
    $ 64,692
    Location:
    Edmonton AB
    This might be a good idea for 27 yr old + UFA contracts. Not sure the NHLPA signs off on that though.
     
  24. Qwijibo Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2014
    Messages:
    1,263
    Likes Received:
    955
    Trophy Points:
    109
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    The owners want nothing to do with compliance buyouts. Nobody held a gun to the GM’s when they signed those deals. They put themselves in cap hell. Now they have to deal with it.
     
  25. tsweeney Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    7,256
    Likes Received:
    3,139
    Trophy Points:
    126
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    No, it's the way of looking at things that is supported by the CBA negotiations. Teams agreed to the cap. They tried finding ways to finesse the cap before and a team will never be absolutely buttf***ed by a bad decision. Like Nashville was NEVER going to face a 24M cap hit in one year for Weber. That wasn't going to happen. But if you're going to offer long term deals, you have to plan ahead.

    You are a Leafs fan who wants your team to be able to keep your high profile players and still add because you're not good enough to compete but you're capped out. Dubas did a really bad job and now you have to live with it. The league has been growing by leaps and bounds (before COVID) and teams signed these awful deals that you're so adamant will kill the league.

    The league is growing just fine. It just doesn't need to give Toronto, New York, and Detroit a get-out-of-jail free card from bad GMing.
     
    Qwijibo likes this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"