Proposal: Allow teams to trade at 50% off cap

Beezeral

Registered User
Mar 1, 2010
9,845
4,557
dumbest idea ever. Every large market team would be acting as a middle man every offseason. Hey I'll eat 1/2 the salary of the guy you are trying to sign this offseason in exchange for a couple 1st round picks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lt Dan

YP44

Registered User
Jan 30, 2012
27,021
7,378
Calgary, AB
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.

may as well just get rid of the cap at that point
 

LeafGrief

Shambles in my brain
Apr 10, 2015
7,616
9,532
Ottawa
Even with the "intense consequences" there are multiple teams in a bad situation due to cap mismanagement. I'm failing to see how lessening consequences is going to result in less people exhibiting the bad behavior. That's completely counter-intuitive This is like saying the way to discourage people from over drafting their bank accounts is to *lower* the overdraft fees.

If Tommy spends his whole paycheck on hookers and beer and doesn't have any left for rent, is he more or less likely to do it again if the landlord says "its ok we'll let you slide this time" rather than throwing him out into the street?

Yes, I get that some of these teams are pretty much completely f***ed but there really is only so much you can do to protect people from their own stupid decisions.. If it really bothers the owners, maybe they should hire GM's with a little bit of fiscal responsibility
You're not looking at this from the angle that I am presenting at all. You and the other guys who are arguing with me are all pointing out why it's only fair that the teams who did this to themselves suffer the consequences. Sure, I get that. But what I am arguing is that this is not good for the league. I don't give a rat's ass about the owners, I care that the Oilers are stuck with Chiarelli specials for another 3 years which directly effects their ability to ice a contender around McDavid. I care that the Panthers are spending like 15% of their budget on a sieve. I care that the Sharks aren't going to be able to rebuild properly for the next five years.

None of this has anything to do with dissuading bad contracts. Bad contracts are as constant as death and taxes, so it's about minimizing their impact on the competitive nature of the league. The day that GM's stop giving out bad contracts is the day the league folds, so they might as well give teams so more tools to deal with them. The league needs to figure out that letting teams hamstring themselves is creating a worse product and that being vindictive to the GM's is pointless.
 

BigDaddyLurch

Have some PRIDE, Eric...
Sponsor
Mar 1, 2013
21,800
18,274
Principle's Office
You're not looking at this from the angle that I am presenting at all. You and the other guys who are arguing with me are all pointing out why it's only fair that the teams who did this to themselves suffer the consequences. Sure, I get that. But what I am arguing is that this is not good for the league. I don't give a rat's ass about the owners, I care that the Oilers are stuck with Chiarelli specials for another 3 years which directly effects their ability to ice a contender around McDavid. I care that the Panthers are spending like 15% of their budget on a sieve. I care that the Sharks aren't going to be able to rebuild properly for the next five years.

None of this has anything to do with dissuading bad contracts. Bad contracts are as constant as death and taxes, so it's about minimizing their impact on the competitive nature of the league. The day that GM's stop giving out bad contracts is the day the league folds, so they might as well give teams so more tools to deal with them. The league needs to figure out that letting teams hamstring themselves is creating a worse product and that being vindictive to the GM's is pointless.

...no, what you're arguing is basically making Cap Circumvention OK...which is worse for the League than letting teams with terrible contracts live with them...there's a Cap for a reason...
 

Lil Sebastian Cossa

Opinions are share are my own personal opinions.
Jul 6, 2012
11,436
7,446
How brave and courageous of you to tell a Leafs fan that his team hasn't won a series. Simply astounding.

What's funny is that you hedged your post by recognizing that the Leafs have good players, which is the entire point of the cap arguments. If the Leafs end up trading Nylander for some depth or something whoop de f***ing do, that's not an actual cap problem, it's just shuffling the allocation around.

I didn’t hedge anything. Toronto has good players. That’s a fact. Individually the contracts aren’t bad either.

However, Toronto is also capped the f*** out with a team that needs some big time improvements to make noise in the playoffs.

The sole reason you’d want to get rid of contracts at half of their value is so that you can get really good value for one of your big pieces when you have to re-allocate those resources around to get a winning team and also not be stuck holding the bag for 3-5m for most of the year.

Seriously, this is just a halfbaked plan and of course it came from a fan of a big market team.

Detroit would have gotten such massive benefit out of this if it could happen... but it’s completely against the spirit of the CBA and having a cap at all.
 

Lil Sebastian Cossa

Opinions are share are my own personal opinions.
Jul 6, 2012
11,436
7,446
You're not looking at this from the angle that I am presenting at all. You and the other guys who are arguing with me are all pointing out why it's only fair that the teams who did this to themselves suffer the consequences. Sure, I get that. But what I am arguing is that this is not good for the league. I don't give a rat's ass about the owners, I care that the Oilers are stuck with Chiarelli specials for another 3 years which directly effects their ability to ice a contender around McDavid. I care that the Panthers are spending like 15% of their budget on a sieve. I care that the Sharks aren't going to be able to rebuild properly for the next five years.

None of this has anything to do with dissuading bad contracts. Bad contracts are as constant as death and taxes, so it's about minimizing their impact on the competitive nature of the league. The day that GM's stop giving out bad contracts is the day the league folds, so they might as well give teams so more tools to deal with them. The league needs to figure out that letting teams hamstring themselves is creating a worse product and that being vindictive to the GM's is pointless.

Your point is silly as hell. Why do you think the cap went up from 39m at its inception to 54m at around 2009-2010 to 81.5m now? The league was growing by leaps and bounds. Covid is hurting them real bad because they are still gate driven... but my god, don’t act like you’re acting for the good of the league when the league has grown incredibly even with the “terrible contracts”
 

LeafGrief

Shambles in my brain
Apr 10, 2015
7,616
9,532
Ottawa
...no, what you're arguing is basically making Cap Circumvention OK...which is worse for the League than letting teams with terrible contracts live with them...there's a Cap for a reason...
Yes. The purpose of the salary cap is parity and cost control. Owners did not fight for the right to punish their teams with dead cap space for years at a time. Cap-destroying contracts go directly against the objective of parity and therefore the league should tweak the CBA to make them less punishing.

I've said my piece and am going to depart the thread. Feel free to snicker amongst yourselves, but remember these arguments the next time you're on Capfriendly wondering what on earth the next guy is going to do to fix your current GM's mess.
 

BigDaddyLurch

Have some PRIDE, Eric...
Sponsor
Mar 1, 2013
21,800
18,274
Principle's Office
wellbye.gif
 

Bevans

Registered User
Apr 15, 2016
2,648
2,330
So, allow teams to go over the effective cap, driving down their Hockey Related Revenue and raising players Escrows.

Congrats you've come up with a plan that would be almost universally hated.
 

dumbdick

Galactic Defender
May 31, 2008
11,292
3,700
Why would regular trades ever happen, when you can just dump players between the teams as two separate transactions?
 

Spazkat

Registered User
Feb 19, 2015
4,361
2,277
You're not looking at this from the angle that I am presenting at all. You and the other guys who are arguing with me are all pointing out why it's only fair that the teams who did this to themselves suffer the consequences. Sure, I get that. But what I am arguing is that this is not good for the league. I don't give a rat's ass about the owners, I care that the Oilers are stuck with Chiarelli specials for another 3 years which directly effects their ability to ice a contender around McDavid. I care that the Panthers are spending like 15% of their budget on a sieve. I care that the Sharks aren't going to be able to rebuild properly for the next five years.

None of this has anything to do with dissuading bad contracts. Bad contracts are as constant as death and taxes, so it's about minimizing their impact on the competitive nature of the league. The day that GM's stop giving out bad contracts is the day the league folds, so they might as well give teams so more tools to deal with them. The league needs to figure out that letting teams hamstring themselves is creating a worse product and that being vindictive to the GM's is pointless.

I can totally see your angle, what I'm trying to do is highlight the logical conclusion of your proposal.

You're hoping that by minimalizing the effect these contractual gaffes that it will enable the teams to avoid any on ice consequences and remain competitive. My argument is that knowing they have a "safety net" will inspire GMs to sign even more outrageous contracts (since there will be effectively no consequences for doing so).


I surmise timeline will go something like this: "cap management tools" provided to league -> team actuaries find a way to maximize value of said tools by finding every loophole imaginable -> GM's league wide worry less about signing stupid contracts because they have the new safety net -> updated tools needed to deal with mountain of bad contracts -> congrats you've successfully destroyed the salary cap structure

And that's before you even get into the fact that these players are owed money that must be paid regardless, and any attempt to take player salaries outside the cap (to avoid these consequences you're arguing against) would be a huge advantage for the wealthier teams .
 
  • Like
Reactions: mouser

Lil Sebastian Cossa

Opinions are share are my own personal opinions.
Jul 6, 2012
11,436
7,446
Yes. The purpose of the salary cap is parity and cost control. Owners did not fight for the right to punish their teams with dead cap space for years at a time. Cap-destroying contracts go directly against the objective of parity and therefore the league should tweak the CBA to make them less punishing.

I've said my piece and am going to depart the thread. Feel free to snicker amongst yourselves, but remember these arguments the next time you're on Capfriendly wondering what on earth the next guy is going to do to fix your current GM's mess.

No, they shouldn't. They negotiated the deal. If you want to change the deal, you wait until the next CBA and you push for change. They absolutely should not change the CBA to make them less punishing. I'll remember this argument as the guy who came up with the worst possible solution to it and then got butthurt when nobody liked what he came up with.
 

Qwijibo

Registered User
Dec 1, 2014
3,348
3,191
You're not looking at this from the angle that I am presenting at all. You and the other guys who are arguing with me are all pointing out why it's only fair that the teams who did this to themselves suffer the consequences. Sure, I get that. But what I am arguing is that this is not good for the league. I don't give a rat's ass about the owners, I care that the Oilers are stuck with Chiarelli specials for another 3 years which directly effects their ability to ice a contender around McDavid. I care that the Panthers are spending like 15% of their budget on a sieve. I care that the Sharks aren't going to be able to rebuild properly for the next five years.

None of this has anything to do with dissuading bad contracts. Bad contracts are as constant as death and taxes, so it's about minimizing their impact on the competitive nature of the league. The day that GM's stop giving out bad contracts is the day the league folds, so they might as well give teams so more tools to deal with them. The league needs to figure out that letting teams hamstring themselves is creating a worse product and that being vindictive to the GM's is pointless.
The fact that you don’t give a rats ass about the owners is the reason your proposal is pure fantasy. Without the owners there is no league. The league suffered two significant work stoppages so the owners could get a salary cap and 50/50 shared revenue. They aren’t going to discard those things to give a loophole to help a few poorly managed teams
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spazkat

BurgoShark

Registered User
Jul 1, 2004
3,640
689
Gold Coast
They already have this. It’s called “trade for an uninsured guy who is LTIR” or “pay someone his bonuses before trading him”, or “pay a guy a whole bunch of bonuses in the early years”

William Nylander’s contract is a good example. If he was traded at the end of this season, he would be half way through his contract, with roughly 30% of the money left.

The NHL should be looking to close some of these loopholes rather than encouraging them.
 

Lil Sebastian Cossa

Opinions are share are my own personal opinions.
Jul 6, 2012
11,436
7,446
I'm torn. On one hand, teams should get penalized for bad deals. However, on the other hand take a team like San Jose. They are buried in bad contracts. On one hand, the signed them. On the other hand, I can see being a long term fan and watching an inferior product on the ice. That's not good for the league/product. As a Ranger fan, I'm paying among the highest prices in the league to see a team that's barely compliant due to Staal (who was since dealt), Hank, Shattenkirk, and Girardi.

Again, what's the answer? Idk, but I can see both sides.

I don't.

San Jose dealt a lot for Erik Karlsson from Ottawa (taking advantage of a cheap owner in Melnyk). Karlsson is dogshit now due to injury. That's the risk you take when you trade for an extend Erik Karlsson. If he wasn't hurt, he's fabulous. They signed Vlasic to a deal when he was a really good defensive D. That deal was way too hefty for what he provided and it didn't age well.

They're buried in bad contracts because they made moves to try to better their team and they didn't work out. I'm a Wings fan. I saw 30 years of the greatest f***ing hockey in the history of the world. Then the league turned and put the cap in place to directly deter something like the 01-02 Wings from happening again. They survived and were one of the teams that came up with the backdiving contract idea. The league closed that loophole and f***ed their rebuilding into the ground. The rules related to the cap are the best thing for the league. Loosening those rules or allowing loopholes is best for the teams like Detroit, New York, Toronto, Montreal, etc. who have unlimited coffers.
 

Lil Sebastian Cossa

Opinions are share are my own personal opinions.
Jul 6, 2012
11,436
7,446
Dumbest thing posted here in a long time.

I mean, that is real dumb, but I think you gotta look at post #1 in this topic for that. This is a solution that everyone would hate to a problem that doesn't exist.
 

mouser

Business of Hockey
Jul 13, 2006
29,285
12,586
South Mountain
Yes. The purpose of the salary cap is parity and cost control. Owners did not fight for the right to punish their teams with dead cap space for years at a time. Cap-destroying contracts go directly against the objective of parity and therefore the league should tweak the CBA to make them less punishing.

I've said my piece and am going to depart the thread. Feel free to snicker amongst yourselves, but remember these arguments the next time you're on Capfriendly wondering what on earth the next guy is going to do to fix your current GM's mess.

I would argue that Yes, the owners collectively did fight for that. The most obvious example being owners voting down expansions to and/or continued use of Compliance Buyouts. A second example being Cap Recapture.

The fundamental problem with your proposal—like most cap change proposals—is you’re trying to find a solution that alters the cost control. Allowing teams to spend more money on players then the current system permits. While overlooking that no matter how much the Teams spend the Players will still only get 50% of league revenue (HRR). Altering the system to let teams spend more then they can now results in one of two outcomes:

A) The Players lose more of their paychecks in Escrow. The Players hate this, and the union has been fighting to minimize Escrow as their top priority in CBA negotiations,

B) Decouple the 50/50 split of league revenue between the Teams and Players so Players get more then 50%. The Owners hate this and have been fighting to maintain the 50% as their top priority in CBA negotiations.
 
Last edited:

jay from jersey

Registered User
Jan 30, 2008
5,788
3,953
1 compliance buyout every 3 years, but if you use it, you forfeit your 1st round pick. Can only be used before the season starts and your draft placement is set.

EDIT: maybe 4 years.
This would be the way to go, especially with no cap increases due to covid.
 

Qwijibo

Registered User
Dec 1, 2014
3,348
3,191
This would be the way to go, especially with no cap increases due to covid.
There’s no cap increase because players are being paid more than their 50/50 share of revenue. (With the league agreeing to cap escrow at 20% this year and reduce it every year over the next few seasons). The players will eventually have to pay back that difference through an artificially low cap once revenue does start to increase again

There is literally no chance the owners agree to pay out even more to players in the form of compliance buyouts. People need to let go of the idea that compliance buyouts are a possibility
 

jay from jersey

Registered User
Jan 30, 2008
5,788
3,953
There’s no cap increase because players are being paid more than their 50/50 share of revenue. (With the league agreeing to cap escrow at 20% this year and reduce it every year over the next few seasons). The players will eventually have to pay back that difference through an artificially low cap once revenue does start to increase again

There is literally no chance the owners agree to pay out even more to players in the form of compliance buyouts. People need to let go of the idea that compliance buyouts are a possibility
Yea I don’t think it’s going to happen, but that’s a far better idea then teams being able to acquire other players on other teams cap hit for picks. The compliance buyout worked once before. I think with tweaking of some form it could work again, but I agree we’re not going to see it
 

Qwijibo

Registered User
Dec 1, 2014
3,348
3,191
Yea I don’t think it’s going to happen, but that’s a far better idea then teams being able to acquire other players on other teams cap hit for picks. The compliance buyout worked once before. I think with tweaking of some form it could work again, but I agree we’re not going to see it
Neither are an option. The op’s idea is pure fantasy. It totally ignored the owners interests.
 
Last edited:

Dr Jan Itor

Registered User
Dec 10, 2009
44,928
19,782
MinneSNOWta
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...

The teams that would be getting the advantage would still be paying for it, and the seller can set the price.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->