Discussion in 'Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk' started by Kcoyote3, Feb 22, 2021.
Dumbest thing posted here in a long time.
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.
may as well just get rid of the cap at that point
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...
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.
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”
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.
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.
Owners say no bueno. Players who understand it means more escrow say the same.
Why would regular trades ever happen, when you can just dump players between the teams as two separate transactions?
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 .
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
The teams that would be getting the advantage would still be paying for it, and the seller can set the price.
Separate names with a comma.