Cap exemptions for re-signing players?

[Dupree13]

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/Ottawa/2006/07/11/1679104-sun.html

I feel that their should be salary cap exemptions for re-signing homegrown talent. It would prevent the types of spending orgies on free agents while not punishing teams with great farm systems.

Could this be possible?

Click to read more...

 

[kdb209]

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/Ottawa/2006/07/11/1679104-sun.html

I feel that their should be salary cap exemptions for re-signing homegrown talent. It would prevent the types of spending orgies on free agents while not punishing teams with great farm systems.

Could this be possible?

Nope. At least not for another 5 years - when the new CBA expires.

This is a BAD idea - just look at the joke of a salary cap in the NBA with all of its exceptions.

Besides, this would have several bad effects - increasing the gap between the big and small revenue teams (teams not spending to the current cap, surely won't go over in re-signing players, so this is just a benefit to the big market clubs) and inflating total league salaries causing ALL Players to give back more through escrow (assuming there is still linkage in the next CBA).

And besidess, the PA would never go for it for any definition of "homegrown" player if it meant treating two players on the same team differently - resigning any RFA/UFA on the team maybe, but with any discrimination, never - a player who is traded suddenly has his earning potential lowered w.r.t. another player who wasn't.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

If it's like the NBA's Larry Bird rule then no thanks.

like kdb said it could be an unfair advantage for big markets and really the players that teams would be re-signing to this hometown deals are the very best in the NHL, it would be like raising the cap around 5 million dollars (rough guess) while keeping revenue the same.

 

[Captain Ron]

I think the NHL has the best cap model of the salary capped sports. Why would they want to regress by trying to emulate others?

 

[Sens Rule]

I think the NHL has the best cap model of the salary capped sports. Why would they want to regress by trying to emulate others?

I agree. The NHL systme seems to be very good. Except that the NHL should try to haelp fans to be more aware of the cap riles and the cap hits of players. I would like to se the contract status and cap hit of every player in the nHL on NHL.com.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

The only "exemption" I would be okay with if there was one "franchise player" exemption for each team or something of the sort.

 

[Captain Ron]

I agree. The NHL systme seems to be very good. Except that the NHL should try to haelp fans to be more aware of the cap riles and the cap hits of players. I would like to se the contract status and cap hit of every player in the nHL on NHL.com.

I have E-Mailed both NHL.com and NHLPA.com in those regards........not surprisingly I still have received no response.

 

[Northern Dancer]

I think the NHL has the best cap model of the salary capped sports. Why would they want to regress by trying to emulate others?

I agree with you, it does seem to be very well thought out and iron clad for abusives etc.

My only tweaking would be to have a very stiff luxury tax (maybe as much as dollar for dollar) for teams chosing to go over the cap. Tampa Bay and Ottawa spent years building solid teams via the draft and youth. Now just as they are peaking both teams have to cherry pick who to keep, who to unload and who to let walk. In my opinion should they have the revenue to support it they should be entitled to keep there teams to-gether.

It is possible that both teams will be weakened enough by cap restrictions that they could be weaker going forward causing less ticket sales, less play-off revenue and possible implosions into the mess both were years ago. This totally defeats the purpose of trying to be a contender thru the new NHL.

Watch Pittsburgh going forward, great young talent (in fact it is scarey!!). They are trying to et a new rink built. Just as there players are maturing and the team is peaking and just as they move into there swanky new digs (creating at last a profit situation) they will have to pick and chose as to who to keep amongst the following Crosby, Malkin, Armstrong, Ouelett,Fleury, Anshakov, Stall etc.

To me they should and deserve the right to keep the team to-gether.

 

[shakes]

The only "exemption" I would be okay with if there was one "franchise player" exemption for each team or something of the sort.

Yeh they really should have something like this.. fair to the teams that actually do make money. Why should teams that contribute to the success of the league be punished and lose their best players. As long as its under the same max contract rule they have now of course. Of course the teams would actually have to be able to afford the salary, so it might not help teams like Pittsburgh and Buffalo, but at least they would have a chance to keep some of their players.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I would like to se the contract status and cap hit of every player in the nHL on NHL.com.

The line of thinking as to why they aren't is because (A) contract info is private ... which is why the NHLPA lists their players' salaries every year, and (B) they think fans will start worrying more about the salary cap than about the actual on-ice performance of the teams.

Which is why I set up my site for those who want info on the cap numbers of players - it's not 100% accurate, but it's pretty close for 99% of the guys in the league.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Yeh they really should have something like this.. fair to the teams that actually do make money. Why should teams that contribute to the success of the league be punished and lose their best players. As long as its under the same max contract rule they have now of course. Of course the teams would actually have to be able to afford the salary, so it might not help teams like Pittsburgh and Buffalo, but at least they would have a chance to keep some of their players.

I think it would actually help all teams, but yes it would definately be something to give to the teams actually making the league money.

 

[braincramp]

Yeh they really should have something like this.. fair to the teams that actually do make money. Why should teams that contribute to the success of the league be punished and lose their best players. As long as its under the same max contract rule they have now of course. Of course the teams would actually have to be able to afford the salary, so it might not help teams like Pittsburgh and Buffalo, but at least they would have a chance to keep some of their players.

One underlying premise of the salary cap is to obtain more equity in the skills of the various teams -- exactly the opposite of the view that financially successful teams should be allowed to spend more money and perpetuate their dominance.

 

[Drury_Sakic]

3 Things I would change Regarding the Salary Cap

1) A Player can take a 10% salary cut at any point in his carrier ONCE for ONE year.

I.E. if Player X was making an Average of 4 million per year for over 3 seasons, he could choose to take a 10% reduction for one of those years(10% less average of the cap hit, not the actual yearly salary) meaning his Cap hit would only be 3.6 million. Say he did this in his 2nd year. Would make his cap hit over the 3 years 4, 3.6, 4 respectivly. It would give a player a choice to take a paycut to allow a team to stay together if he desired. The full contract amount would still go against the players revenue % .

-Why? This was a supid mistake in the CBA. Players should have the right to take a paycut to keep a team together. If a vet player's skills decline and their team is tight up against the cap odds are they are going to get traded, demoted, or bought out. What happens if said player does not want to leave the club?

2) Players Drafted by the club they are playing for only count 95% against the cap. If traded, the full cap hit would apply. Would help keep home town talent from leaving. Say Team X drafted a player who was becoming an UFA. He is being offered 5 million from Team Y. His drafting team X could offer him 5.25 million to stay for the same cap hit of 5 mill. Totally fair IMO that teams that draft well are rewarded. Clubs can do this to a max of an extra 1.5 million above the cap(comprised of the 5%) per year .

3) Teams are allowed an extra 2 million over the cap over the life of the CBA to spend as they see fit total. Each dollar over the cap carries a 2 dollar lux. tax. Revenue generated is divided amongst teams not over the cap that did not make the playoffs.




Why to all of this? It would result in less movement of players. While it is fun this summer to see players flip from team to team, I DON"T want this to turn into the NFL Part II where you are cheering for the shirts rather than the players. In the NFL you could have both teams change uni's at half time and for the most part not tell the difference. The NHL needs to find some way to stablize the rosters.

That said. This only allows a team that is smart and drafts well to take full advantage.

 

[braincramp]

3 Things I would change Regarding the Salary Cap

1) A Player can take a 10% salary cut at any point in his carrier ONCE for ONE year.

I.E. if Player X was making an Average of 4 million per year for over 3 seasons, he could choose to take a 10% reduction for one of those years(10% less average of the cap hit, not the actual yearly salary) meaning his Cap hit would only be 3.6 million. Say he did this in his 2nd year. Would make his cap hit over the 3 years 4, 3.6, 4 respectivly. It would give a player a choice to take a paycut to allow a team to stay together if he desired. The full contract amount would still go against the players revenue % .

-Why? This was a supid mistake in the CBA. Players should have the right to take a paycut to keep a team together. If a vet player's skills decline and their team is tight up against the cap odds are they are going to get traded, demoted, or bought out. What happens if said player does not want to leave the club?

2) Players Drafted by the club they are playing for only count 95% against the cap. If traded, the full cap hit would apply. Would help keep home town talent from leaving. Say Team X drafted a player who was becoming an UFA. He is being offered 5 million from Team Y. His drafting team X could offer him 5.25 million to stay for the same cap hit of 5 mill. Totally fair IMO that teams that draft well are rewarded. Clubs can do this to a max of an extra 1.5 million above the cap(comprised of the 5%) per year .

3) Teams are allowed an extra 2 million over the cap over the life of the CBA to spend as they see fit total. Each dollar over the cap carries a 2 dollar lux. tax. Revenue generated is divided amongst teams not over the cap that did not make the playoffs.




Why to all of this? It would result in less movement of players. While it is fun this summer to see players flip from team to team, I DON"T want this to turn into the NFL Part II where you are cheering for the shirts rather than the players. In the NFL you could have both teams change uni's at half time and for the most part not tell the difference. The NHL needs to find some way to stablize the rosters.

That said. This only allows a team that is smart and drafts well to take full advantage.

The compensation, free agency, and cap provisions are already quite complex. I'll bet the framers of the CBA are surprised to learn how much interest the fans have in (and are puzzled by) those provisions and their impact upon the strategy of managing a hockey team. We don't need more things to keep track of.

I think the cap hit reductions you propose would have small impact on decision-making in any given year. If tha average player salary is about $1.3-million, 10% of that, or $130,000 is too small a percentage of the $44-million cap to make a real difference on re-signing decisions.

In short, too much trouble for too little impact.

The objective is questionable also. Teams are making changes because they feel changes are needed to improve the team, not (primarily) to manage the cap. Retaining players just for fan recognition is not what GMs want, in most cases. They want to win.

 

[SJeasy]

3 Things I would change Regarding the Salary Cap

1) A Player can take a 10% salary cut at any point in his carrier ONCE for ONE year.

I.E. if Player X was making an Average of 4 million per year for over 3 seasons, he could choose to take a 10% reduction for one of those years(10% less average of the cap hit, not the actual yearly salary) meaning his Cap hit would only be 3.6 million. Say he did this in his 2nd year. Would make his cap hit over the 3 years 4, 3.6, 4 respectivly. It would give a player a choice to take a paycut to allow a team to stay together if he desired. The full contract amount would still go against the players revenue % .

-Why? This was a supid mistake in the CBA. Players should have the right to take a paycut to keep a team together. If a vet player's skills decline and their team is tight up against the cap odds are they are going to get traded, demoted, or bought out. What happens if said player does not want to leave the club?

2) Players Drafted by the club they are playing for only count 95% against the cap. If traded, the full cap hit would apply. Would help keep home town talent from leaving. Say Team X drafted a player who was becoming an UFA. He is being offered 5 million from Team Y. His drafting team X could offer him 5.25 million to stay for the same cap hit of 5 mill. Totally fair IMO that teams that draft well are rewarded. Clubs can do this to a max of an extra 1.5 million above the cap(comprised of the 5%) per year .

3) Teams are allowed an extra 2 million over the cap over the life of the CBA to spend as they see fit total. Each dollar over the cap carries a 2 dollar lux. tax. Revenue generated is divided amongst teams not over the cap that did not make the playoffs.




Why to all of this? It would result in less movement of players. While it is fun this summer to see players flip from team to team, I DON"T want this to turn into the NFL Part II where you are cheering for the shirts rather than the players. In the NFL you could have both teams change uni's at half time and for the most part not tell the difference. The NHL needs to find some way to stablize the rosters.

That said. This only allows a team that is smart and drafts well to take full advantage.

Well thought out options and reasoning. It should be considered. Retention of players can also help in marketing, increasing revs. for both owners and players. The advertising world has a much easier time selling the individuals and not the teams. The options should not really hinder the ability to increase individual salaries, nor provide a significant advantage to high rev. teams.

 

[thenextone]

I doubt they would do that. I think a lot of teams are looking to poach on the Penguins, Blue Jackets etc...when their young talent becomes too expensive for their caps

 

[missK]

I agree with you, it does seem to be very well thought out and iron clad for abusives etc.

My only tweaking would be to have a very stiff luxury tax (maybe as much as dollar for dollar) for teams chosing to go over the cap. Tampa Bay and Ottawa spent years building solid teams via the draft and youth. Now just as they are peaking both teams have to cherry pick who to keep, who to unload and who to let walk. In my opinion should they have the revenue to support it they should be entitled to keep there teams to-gether.

It is possible that both teams will be weakened enough by cap restrictions that they could be weaker going forward causing less ticket sales, less play-off revenue and possible implosions into the mess both were years ago. This totally defeats the purpose of trying to be a contender thru the new NHL.

Watch Pittsburgh going forward, great young talent (in fact it is scarey!!). They are trying to et a new rink built. Just as there players are maturing and the team is peaking and just as they move into there swanky new digs (creating at last a profit situation) they will have to pick and chose as to who to keep amongst the following Crosby, Malkin, Armstrong, Ouelett,Fleury, Anshakov, Stall etc.

To me they should and deserve the right to keep the team to-gether.

Wow, excellent post. Thanks!

 

[joshjull]

Kind of ironic that a economic system that will enable Ottawa to be economically viable is being criticized by an Ottawa reporter. My Sabres are in a similar predicament. They will lose a few or more of their players in the next year or two. But I'm smart enough to realize that they wouldn't probably be here if it wasn't for the new CBA. Teams that have strong farm systems will have the occasional poaching of their players. But long term that farm system is what will keep them competitive. Teams that will have to continually poach players to succeed will have a tougher time long term to be successful. Because they will have to overpay to get players and they will eventually bump up against the cap. If the Pens or others want to keep their stars they can. No one can out bid them if they chose to spend the player max on a Crosby for example.

 

[Live in the Now]

The only "exemption" I would be okay with if there was one "franchise player" exemption for each team or something of the sort.

I like this idea too, but with the tidbit that they have to pay the franchised player a certain amount, no more, no less. The amount should be high, like near the max.

 

[gooseman]

I have E-Mailed both NHL.com and NHLPA.com in those regards........not surprisingly I still have received no response.

I hit THN with the same request, they actually responded the next day claiming they were already looking into it.

As for cap exceptions, I think the five year answer was legit. Once thing are under control and stabilized, and the playing fields has been equalized, there could be some consideration to allow teams some leeway in retaining talent. When the CBA is up for renewal, it could be a consideration for some slight loosening of the rules, but only under tight controls, IMO.

 

[Northern Dancer]

Kind of ironic that a economic system that will enable Ottawa to be economically viable is being criticized by an Ottawa reporter. My Sabres are in a similar predicament. They will lose a few or more of their players in the next year or two. But I'm smart enough to realize that they wouldn't probably be here if it wasn't for the new CBA. Teams that have strong farm systems will have the occasional poaching of their players. But long term that farm system is what will keep them competitive. Teams that will have to continually poach players to succeed will have a tougher time long term to be successful. Because they will have to overpay to get players and they will eventually bump up against the cap. If the Pens or others want to keep their stars they can. No one can out bid them if they chose to spend the player max on a Crosby for example.

Agreed, but what about Malkin, Stoll, Fleury etc. if everything pans out they cud be all asking for the maximum of 20% of the cap. So you wud have to jettison at least 3 of them. (not only that you cud only do salary dump type trades for draft picks, prospects etc. so the vicious circle starts all over again) Look what Tampa Bay has had to do since winning the Stanley Cup.

 

[joshjull]

Agreed, but what about Malkin, Stoll, Fleury etc. if everything pans out they cud be all asking for the maximum of 20% of the cap. So you wud have to jettison at least 3 of them. (not only that you cud only do salary dump type trades for draft picks, prospects etc. so the vicious circle starts all over again) Look what Tampa Bay has had to do since winning the Stanley Cup.

Old CBA or new CBA the Pens would have lost these players. They wouldn't be able to afford them. But the new system at least gives them options in terms of who they will keep because they can't be out bid for their services. Keep in mind the Pens situation isn't happening in a vacuum. Every team in the league is going to have issues with resigning players to one degree or another. As for Tampa they have made certain choices. Time will tell if they were the right ones. I don't think any team would be wise to tie up so much money in three players but Feaster thinks otherwise.

 

[PeterSidorkiewicz]

My idea, and yes this is due to me being a Sens fan so id like us to keep our homegrown talent, is that each team gets one franchise player exempt from the cap, but has to be a player DRAFTED by your team. I like this rule, and someone brought up to me this is exactly like the larry bird rule in basketball? I dont know how that rule works so I have no clue.

A lot of people probably wouldnt like this rule, but when UFA is so low now, teams can be vastly different within 2 years, i would like to see slight stability, and I think this rule helps. Hey, the Sens may not be able to even afford to do this, but id still like to have the rule in place.

 

[Northern Dancer]

Old CBA or new CBA the Pens would have lost these players. They wouldn't be able to afford them. But the new system at least gives them options in terms of who they will keep because they can't be out bid for their services. Keep in mind the Pens situation isn't happening in a vacuum. Every team in the league is going to have issues with resigning players to one degree or another. As for Tampa they have made certain choices. Time will tell if they were the right ones. I don't think any team would be wise to tie up so much money in three players but Feaster thinks otherwise.

I don't get your point, if Pittsburgh gets there new rink, if these youngsters all develop into a dynamite core of superstars, if Pens are rolling in dough, you have no problem with them being forced to weaken there team because of cap issues. Why not have a luxury tax where they can keep as many as they can afford.

 

[kdb209]

My idea, and yes this is due to me being a Sens fan so id like us to keep our homegrown talent, is that each team gets one franchise player exempt from the cap, but has to be a player DRAFTED by your team. I like this rule, and someone brought up to me this is exactly like the larry bird rule in basketball? I dont know how that rule works so I have no clue.

The Larry Bird Exception allows a team to exceed the cap to resign any of it's own players, not just players the team drafted.