Idea: Teams are allowed to terminate one contract a year. No payout, no cap-hit.

[Pinkfloyd]

Yeah, but it becomes one step towards ceasing to be a level playing field, and removing cost certainty.

The entire reason we lost 05-06

For the teams that have a concern about cost certainty, they will still have cost certainty under a one termination a year rule. The revenue rising will have little to do with such a rule existing. I think of it more of a player security issue than I do about a cost certainty issue. Giving the owners the ability to drop one contract consequence-free only gets negotiated in if the owners give up something to have that power because the players gain nothing from that.

 

[ponder719]

If teams can pay draft picks to add appealing players, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to pay draft picks to lose unappealing ones. Call it the "f*** off-er sheet," and set up a limit: players with a cap hit of league minimum to league average cost a 2nd rd. pick to buy out. Players from league average to 75% average cost a #1 to buy out. Players from 75% average to league maximum salary cost your next 2 #1s. Teams can structure the buyout money one of two ways: either pay out the contract according to the terms, or pay them out according to the buyout schedule. (Rich teams may want to get it over with; smaller-market teams would have the flexibility to spread the payments out.) You have to have your own picks to buy a player out, so you can only choose, at most, 2 players a year, one of which would have to be league average salary or below.

I think that'd be the only reasonable way to implement a cap-free buyout provision.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

For the teams that have a concern about cost certainty, they will still have cost certainty under a one termination a year rule. The revenue rising will have little to do with such a rule existing. I think of it more of a player security issue than I do about a cost certainty issue. Giving the owners the ability to drop one contract consequence-free only gets negotiated in if the owners give up something to have that power because the players gain nothing from that.

Some owners. Ottawa and Arizona would probably object.

What I mean by cost-certainty is this (the entire point of the 05-06 lockout):

50% of the leagues revenue is shared with owners. That estimated number IS the salary cap.
$82million is half of what each team estimates they will make through revenue sharing and such.

Lets say Lucic/Marleau/Eriksson get to have their contracts "compliance bought out".

That essentially means Toronto, Edmonton, and Vancouver got to spend an $88million cap for the duration of those contracts.
Which goes against what the the spirit of the cap was supposed to bring (parity).


And if the compliance buyout numbers count AGAINST the cap (which is locked at 50% league revenue), then basically the rest of the players will have to swallow those revenue losses through their escrow.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Some owners. Ottawa and Arizona would probably object.

What I mean by cost-certainty is this (the entire point of the 05-06 lockout):

50% of the leagues revenue is shared with owners. That estimated number IS the salary cap.
$82million is half of what each team estimates they will make through revenue sharing and such.

Lets say Lucic/Marleau/Eriksson get to have their contracts "compliance bought out".

That essentially means Toronto, Edmonton, and Vancouver got to spend an $88million cap for the duration of those contracts.
Which goes against what the the spirit of the cap was supposed to bring (parity).


And if the compliance buyout numbers count AGAINST the cap (which is locked at 50% league revenue), then basically the rest of the players will have to swallow those revenue losses through their escrow.

Even floor teams have contracts they would prefer to not have and utilize that money more effectively. Arizona will still have Mike Ribeiro as a legitimate buyout so of course having the option to have one be free is still to their advantage. But there would have to be enough of them to object for that to not be put into the negotiating list for Bettman and I just don't see that being the case. However, they have to come to the determination that it is something worth fighting for which I doubt would ever be the case.

With or without that provision, there is still cost certainty. Yeah, you give more wiggle rooms to teams that can spend it but the cost certainty is still there. They know what they'll have to spend and they'll know that this type of thing isn't going to materially change how they do business because the same free agents are available to them which is in effect not many and they were going to be outspent regardless of the situation. I'm not a proponent for this idea because it's too many get-out-of-jail free cards and contract security is not something I'd want the players to give up. But cost certainty being slightly altered isn't that big of a concern from floor teams at this stage.

 

[Newsworthy]

Just get rid of the cap. Simple.

A better idea would be to get rid of guaranteed contracts.

 

[Trojans86]

What's the fallout and who opposes it, the league or players union.

Honestly it is a great idea with some modifications like the once every 4 years rule

 

[aufheben]

Any team that needs to buyout a bad contract every year should just fold lol. The fact that teams are even allowed to buyout players at all is plenty IMO. Maybe they get a mulligan every 6-7 years.

 

[kilowatt]

I don’t hate the idea of one compliance buyout every five years. You could trade them, too.

 

[Eisen]

Yes, because that would solve a problem that the owners themselves caused...
If you don't want to guarantee a contract, don't offer that contract. If you can't win, well, that's tough luck, don't be stingy and own a sports team.

 

[drhockey4321]

Yes, because that would solve a problem that the owners themselves caused...
If you don't want to guarantee a contract, don't offer that contract. If you can't win, well, that tough luck, don't be stingy and own a sports team.

agreed. This is a horrible idea. It just makes it harder on the revenue challenged teams.

The rich teams already can afford to make mistakes and this only helps them to avoid the consequences. The revenue challenged already think twice.

teams like the Leafs and Rangers already use their financial advantages to buy their way out of mistakes. Id much rather see a tax neutral adjustment. So Tampa and Dallas don't have unnatural advantages. And Canadian markets aren't looking uphill.

And there should be a second team in the greater Toronto area. If there are 3 teams within 75 miles in N. Y. Metro then 2 in GTA is fine

 

[StoneHands]

I've said for a while that I think that there should be team option years built into every contract over 3 years. The last year of a 4 or 5 year contract should be an option year. If they choose to terminate the contract the player gets half the salary due and there is no cap hit. For 6-8 year contracts the last 2 seasons are team options and where the team can release the player and pay half the salary due with no cap hit applied.

Right now the players hold all the leverage in these negotiations and teams know that if they don't give a 6-8 year contract to their best players someone else will. Some of the onus needs to be on the players to live up to their contracts and making the last year or two of the deal a team option would help.

 

[Juicy Pop]

I can only imagine that this would do something disastrous to the current revenue/cap progression.

 

[Beezeral]

I've said for a while that I think that there should be team option years built into every contract over 3 years. The last year of a 4 or 5 year contract should be an option year. If they choose to terminate the contract the player gets half the salary due and there is no cap hit. For 6-8 year contracts the last 2 seasons are team options and where the team can release the player and pay half the salary due with no cap hit applied.

Right now the players hold all the leverage in these negotiations and teams know that if they don't give a 6-8 year contract to their best players someone else will. Some of the onus needs to be on the players to live up to their contracts and making the last year or two of the deal a team option would help.

So every player is going to ask for a contract that has the highest salary possible for that last year knowing that it will get bought out cap free. It's another way to hide cap hit.

 

[StoneHands]

So every player is going to ask for a contract that has the highest salary possible for that last year knowing that it will get bought out cap free. It's another way to hide cap hit.

I'm confused by this response but maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Cap hits don't change from year to year so I'm not sure how it would hide anything. Why would a player want their highest salary to be in a year when they can be bought out at 50% of that salary? If a player has an $8m cap hit but a $14m salary in the last year and it gets bought out they would lose $7m. Wouldn't they rather have the lowest salary possible that last year so that if it's $1m and they get bought out they only lose $500k?

Either way, there are simple ways to get around teams trying to front load contracts like making it a rule that any buyout/team option years have to have a salary equal to their AAV. So a player signs a 5 year $50m contract that's an $8m cap hit. They can structure the contract any way they want the first 4 years but the last year has to be an $8m salary.

 

[The Nuge]

What if it was less frequent (say 1 every 3 years), and you had to pay the player the buyout money (so the NHLPA would agree), and then steal a page out of the MLB’s book, and make it a sort of luxury tax, where you also have to pay the other teams the equivalent of the remaining caphit.

Say Edmonton wants to buy out Lucic. They pay Lucic the 16.5 million they owe him. Then they also pay 24 million to the other teams in order to buy the capspace. The 24 million then gets split up between the other teams on a scale based on revenue. So Edmonton pays 40.5 million to get their capspace, and the lowest earning team might get like 1.5-2 million from the buyout. It’s a steep price, but would lower the frequency of that type of buyout to the more extreme cases.

That way, teams with a big budget can still buy out players, teams with small budgets receive financial aid, and the players don’t lose any money compared to a normal buyout. Everyone wins

Another example. Toronto buys out Marleau. They pay Marleau the 3.833 he’s owed, and the other teams 6.25, for a total payment of 10.083 to get out of the last year of his contract.

 

[GrantLemons]

Just shorten the length of contracts to 6 years, 8 is way too long.

Union would die on a hill here, but I agree.

 

[ThreeOfAPerfectPair]

I'm guessing you've never been in a union standing up for the betterment of everyone around you.

Proud union member for 10 years, we don't have 10x pay differences though.

 

[GrantLemons]

What if it was one buyout per year, paid out to the player, but the buyout is only eligible if the player has served a percentage of his contract, e.g. 50%. So if a team blows a signing a la Lucic, he's only eligible to be bought out after the % threshold of his contract has been served.

I guess it wouldn't prevent rich teams from trading for Lucic and buying him out immediately. Unless you put in rules around acquired players and buyouts. Maybe that's not even an issue, I'm not too sure.

I feel like there should at least be something around buyouts that allow teams to do it.

 

[Beezeral]

I'm confused by this response but maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Cap hits don't change from year to year so I'm not sure how it would hide anything. Why would a player want their highest salary to be in a year when they can be bought out at 50% of that salary? If a player has an $8m cap hit but a $14m salary in the last year and it gets bought out they would lose $7m. Wouldn't they rather have the lowest salary possible that last year so that if it's $1m and they get bought out they only lose $500k?

Either way, there are simple ways to get around teams trying to front load contracts like making it a rule that any buyout/team option years have to have a salary equal to their AAV. So a player signs a 5 year $50m contract that's an $8m cap hit. They can structure the contract any way they want the first 4 years but the last year has to be an $8m salary.

I meant to say lowest salary possible.

 

[Jumptheshark]

LOL

I would love to get the NHLPA's reaction to this idea.

translation: you want NFL style of contracts not being secure

 

[StoneHands]

I meant to say lowest salary possible.

Ok makes sense. Still, it wouldn't be difficult for the NHL to put a rule into place saying that any team option years are required to be equal or greater than the AAV which would remove any cap circumvention.

 

[McShogun99]

Keep ELC at 3 years.

Cap 2nd contract at 6 years.

Any contract after your 2nd contract or if you're over 30 is capped at 5 years.

Any contract after the age of 35 is capped at 2 years and can't be bought out.

 

[RC51]

if we are looking for ways to make the business better then it MUST start with a level field. no tax advantges for any team, meaning if you state has only a low tax rate making a huge advantage in contract talks. the nhl should impose a flat rate tax or same tax rate for all NHL teams if the cities refuse then allow a force a smaller cap for for team in tax advantaged states. level the field

 

[Beezeral]

if we are looking for ways to make the business better then it MUST start with a level field. no tax advantges for any team, meaning if you state has only a low tax rate making a huge advantage in contract talks. the nhl should impose a flat rate tax or same tax rate for all NHL teams if the cities refuse then allow a force a smaller cap for for team in tax advantaged states. level the field

cool. Then let's make all revenue go into a pot and be distributed evenly among the 31 teams because we need to level the playing field. Also, any endorsement deals players sign should count against the cap. Level playing field. There should be a salary cap on coaching staffs and scouting departments. Level playing field. The NHL should also invest in weather machines to make every city have the same climate. Level playing field.

 

[SUBdrewgANS]

Maybe you get one to use over 5 years and it renews every 5 years.

Maybe also make it a tradeable asset..