Idea to increase trades

[1dreamof1cup]

Trades are at it's lowest these since they introduced the cap.With potentially only 2 teams selling, they're will most likely not be much trades made this trade deadline too.

To increase the number of trades made, I thought about decreasing the cap % of said players traded by a %. Thought about 15-20% (Not sure if that would be too much or not enough to make a difference). Would obviously be a clause that teams could not trade a player then get him back right after.

What you guys think, could it potentially help the number of trades?

Click to read more...

 

[Helistin]

What is the need to have more trades?

 

[CrypTic]

Yes it would increase trades but it would kill the main purposes of the cap. You'd no longer have cost certainty bc you could get around the cap just by doing a trade. If two teams near the cap traded players with equal cap hits, each would reduce their overall cap hits. That would hurt parity. Why would you want to do this?

 

[patnyrnyg]

My idea would be that teams can go over the cap after the trade deadline. So a team with very little cap space can make a deadline day deal for that rental, even if it would put the team over. It does not change the gross salary for the league, so the % of HRR going to players does not change. Would not apply to anyone signing as a UFA this late.

 

[CrypTic]

My idea would be that teams can go over the cap after the trade deadline. So a team with very little cap space can make a deadline day deal for that rental, even if it would put the team over. It does not change the gross salary for the league, so the % of HRR going to players does not change. Would not apply to anyone signing as a UFA this late.

I don't think OP's would change the HRR either (or the total going to players who presumably would still get 50% of HRR).

1. Why do this?

2. This also defeats the purposes of a cap: cost certainty and parity. Teams at the cap could go over it. Teams struggling to be competitive in salaries would fall further behind. Many teams would feel pressured to sign someone bc other teams would do it and they couldn't justify not signing bc of the cap.

I don't know what you mean by the bolded. Do you mean that a team signing an upcoming UFA (i.e., a rental) near the TDL would have to count that? Bc that seems to conflict with being able to sign a rental. But if that's not what you mean, I don't know what you're trying to say. That it wouldn't apply to a team re-signing someone who'd be a UFA? Of course not bc the new salary doesn't count this year anyway and they aren't signing that player for this year. Can you clarify?

 

[SladeWilson23]

Why do we need to increase trades?

 

[patnyrnyg]

I don't think OP's would change the HRR either (or the total going to players who presumably would still get 50% of HRR).

1. Why do this?

2. This also defeats the purposes of a cap: cost certainty and parity. Teams at the cap could go over it. Teams struggling to be competitive in salaries would fall further behind. Many teams would feel pressured to sign someone bc other teams would do it and they couldn't justify not signing bc of the cap.

I don't know what you mean by the bolded. Do you mean that a team signing an upcoming UFA (i.e., a rental) near the TDL would have to count that? Bc that seems to conflict with being able to sign a rental. But if that's not what you mean, I don't know what you're trying to say. That it wouldn't apply to a team re-signing someone who'd be a UFA? Of course not bc the new salary doesn't count this year anyway and they aren't signing that player for this year. Can you clarify?

I am talking about just at the trade deadline. It is a month of the season. The cost certainty is already there. The cap is based on a league-wide salaries. The league-wide cummaltive salaries will not go up, so cost certainty is not an issue. As for parity, by the trade deadline, the parity is out the window.

Yes, signing a UFA at the deadline (or after) would count as that increases the league wide salary amount. What I was referring to was a player who had not been in the league all season. Not referring to extending a pending UFA.

 

[CrypTic]

I am talking about just at the trade deadline. It is a month of the season. The cost certainty is already there. The cap is based on a league-wide salaries. The league-wide cummaltive salaries will not go up, so cost certainty is not an issue. As for parity, by the trade deadline, the parity is out the window.

Yes, signing a UFA at the deadline (or after) would count as that increases the league wide salary amount.

I understood that you were talking about only at the trade deadline. Here, you acknowledge that it will increase overall salaries.

I understand about the HRR. I've said that but no one knows the HRR in advance. It's why they have escrow. The cap gives cost certainty in the sense that it creates a figure that can't be exceeded. HRR does not. It gives percentage certainty but no one knows what the $$ figure is going to be until after the season is over.

All my questions still apply bc IMO you haven't answered any of them except that you don't care about parity. Many ppl do. It's a benefit of the cap. Why should that be changed"?

 

[Grey Poupon*]

Does the OP realize that players are human beings with families and children? Could you imagine your child being enrolled in a school and then constantly being shifted throughout North America because of bored GMs?

What an awful proposition. The NHLPA would never agree to this and it's just inhumane.

 

[BruinLVGA]

Beyond ridiculous.

 

[Grey Poupon*]

Hockey players are not Pokémon cards and the NHL is not EA Sports 2017. Players don't need more trades. They need job certainty.

 

[MikeyMike01]

The NHL doesn't need more trades. The NFL (best league) has barely any.

 

[Big Guy]

Traded players' goals count for double in their first season after a trade like how traded pokemon get more XP.

 

[HockeyGuy1964]

Op obviously works for sportsnet & TSN if he thinks there NEEDS to be more trades.

He must also be a heartless p**** to see a need for uprooting real people & forcing them away from their families & friends for the sake of our entertainment & trade deadline day ratings & water cooler talk.

 

[iamjs]

I'm sure the players would all be in favor of this.

 

[Dirty Dan]

Traded players' goals count for double in their first season after a trade like how traded pokemon get more XP.

I heard players traded to Toronto while holding a bag of pucks evolve into Gretzky

 

[dechire]

Cap hit is already reduced at the TDL

 

[Jumptheshark]

Trades are at it's lowest these since they introduced the cap.With potentially only 2 teams selling, they're will most likely not be much trades made this trade deadline too.

To increase the number of trades made, I thought about decreasing the cap % of said players traded by a %. Thought about 15-20% (Not sure if that would be too much or not enough to make a difference). Would obviously be a clause that teams could not trade a player then get him back right after.

What you guys think, could it potentially help the number of trades?

what holds back trades is FANS not getting the fact that it is beyond cap, contract and other things that are stopping them.

Fans play EA sports and think it is that easy. It is not

Gms are afraid to lose a deal

Not all GMS are like Chia from the Oilers who is not afraid to lose a deal

 

[patnyrnyg]

I understood that you were talking about only at the trade deadline. Here, you acknowledge that it will increase overall salaries.

I understand about the HRR. I've said that but no one knows the HRR in advance. It's why they have escrow. The cap gives cost certainty in the sense that it creates a figure that can't be exceeded. HRR does not. It gives percentage certainty but no one knows what the $$ figure is going to be until after the season is over.

All my questions still apply bc IMO you haven't answered any of them except that you don't care about parity. Many ppl do. It's a benefit of the cap. Why should that be changed"?

I don't know how else to explain it. The overall salary of the league WILL NOT go up. If the Wings and Penguins make a trade, does the overall salary of the league change? The point is, under my idea, AT THE TRADE DEADLINE, if the Pens and Wings wanted to make a trade, again, AT THE TRADE DEADLINE, they could do so without regard to salary for the rest of the season. Could make deadline day more active and it likely would only deal with a pending UFA as a rental. Those deals will not have a significant impact on parity. Like I said, we are talking about a month of the season where it would apply.

 

[Kcoyote3]

The NHL may have the most major trades of the 4 NA sports. Doesn't need to be increased. Plus it comes in waves. Right now everyone is tentative because of Vegas. Once there's another team in the mix and more roster spots open across the league, you'll see more activity.

 

[CrypTic]

I don't know how else to explain it. The overall salary of the league WILL NOT go up.

I know that. Where did I suggest it would?

That's what the 50% of the HRR applies to. i've said that over and over. I have no idea why you think I don't understand that. (As I said, presumably that applies to the OP's proposal too. I don't think that would change that players get 50% of the HRR. At least that's how I interpreted OP's proposal so your proposal is no different in that regard than OP's.)

You still haven't explained why the NHL should do that (or answered any of my other questions).

If the Wings and Penguins make a trade, does the overall salary of the league change? The point is, under my idea, AT THE TRADE DEADLINE, if the Pens and Wings wanted to make a trade, again, AT THE TRADE DEADLINE, they could do so without regard to salary for the rest of the season. Could make deadline day more active and it likely would only deal with a pending UFA as a rental. Those deals will not have a significant impact on parity. Like I said, we are talking about a month of the season where it would apply.

 

[patnyrnyg]

I know that. Where did I suggest it would?

That's what the 50% of the HRR applies to. i've said that over and over. I have no idea why you think I don't understand that. (As I said, presumably that applies to the OP's proposal too. I don't think that would change that players get 50% of the HRR. At least that's how I interpreted OP's proposal.)

You still haven't explained why the NHL should do that (or answered any of my other questions).

SO TEAMS CAN MAKE MORE TRADES AT THE DEADLINE WITHOUT HAVING TO WORRY ABOUT THE SALARIES FITTING UNDER THEIR CAP. IT COULD MAKE DEADLINE DAY MORE ACTIVE. I already said that.

 

[CrypTic]

SO TEAMS CAN MAKE MORE TRADES AT THE DEADLINE WITHOUT HAVING TO WORRY ABOUT THE SALARIES FITTING UNDER THEIR CAP. IT COULD MAKE DEADLINE DAY MORE ACTIVE. I already said that.

And why do we want that? Why do you think that's a good thing? You haven't explained that at all.

 

[rumrokh]

What's the purpose of increasing trades?

 

[Daz28]

I think people are being too hard on the OP at least in the instance of occurrence. There used to be trades, because it helped teams fill needs, and also just to give guys a change of scenery. The cap has limited that ability greatly. I hope I answered a few people's questions. The cap is also limiting rentals, which makes what used to be fun trade day into a bore.