Proposal: Allow teams to trade at 50% off cap

[Mrfenn92]

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

Would be down with that

 

[Sysreq]

... 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.

 

[Qwijibo]

... 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.

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

 

[Whalers Fan]

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.

 

[SML2]

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.

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.

 

[themelkman]

doubt it.

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

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

 

[Ciao]

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.

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.

 

[mouser]

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.

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.

 

[MikeyMike01]

One of the major reason the league went to a cap system was to level the playing field.

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.

 

[Ledge And Dairy]

This has to be the most convoluted way of cheating the system to benefit large market teams I've seen yet

 

[Barnaby]

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.

 

[Marner4Life]

same. anxiously anticipating the Marner buyout.

Ya they will probably buyout Mathews at the same time

 

[LeafGrief]

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.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

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.

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.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

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.

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.

 

[LeafGrief]

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.

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.

 

[Spazkat]

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.

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

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.

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?

 

[Drive425]

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.

 

[HotDish]

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.

 

[Advanced stats]

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.

 

[zar]

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.

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.

 

[zar]

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.

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...

 

[zar]

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.

This might be a good idea for 27 yr old + UFA contracts. Not sure the NHLPA signs off on that though.

 

[Qwijibo]

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.

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.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

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.

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.