Semi-soft cap exception idea

[Tawnos]

Do you think it would give the NHLPA incentive to accept a cap if the league said that money used to re-sign players wouldn't count against the cap?

For example:

These are hypothetical numbers

Sidney Crosby signs his first contract with Team X for $1 million per year. His next contract is for $4 million per year. $3 million of that does not count against the cap. But his next contract is for $5 million per year and only $1 million of that would not count against the cap. etc etc. Any re-signings for less count fully against the cap. ie... if he signs a $3 million deal after the $4 mil, nothing happens with the $1 million discrepancy.

Anyone like that idea from a financial standpoint? I mean, obviously from a fan standpoint, it's great because teams would want to keep their players. But I mean is that a concession towards the NHLPA?

Click to read more...

 

[Tawnos]

Seriously, no one has any thoughts on this kind of idea?

 

[roadrunner]

I dunno. Mah brain hurts.

 

[AlexGodynyuk]

Seriously, no one has any thoughts on this kind of idea?

Well, it's kind of a weird bastaradized version of the NBA cap. Why not just let teams re-sign their own players and if they're over the cap, they can't sign FAs (a la the NBA)

 

[Tawnos]

Because that would leave teams no real room to try to improve themselves. That's part of the reason why the NBA's system sucks.

 

[AlexGodynyuk]

Because that would leave teams no real room to try to improve themselves. That's part of the reason why the NBA's system sucks.

Actually the NBA has probably the best system of the 4 major sports in terms of balancing the playing field between small market teams and big market teams and rewarding those teams with smart management and penalizing those teams with bad management.
Never in the NBA do you see a team forced to trade a player because they can't afford his new contract (like they do in hockey and baseball).
Are you saying the only way for a team to improve is by paying FAs?

 

[two out of three*]

I think everybody is just sick of reading threads of ideas/rants/suggestions and people complaining about whats wrong with either side.

All I want is new CBA news.

 

[Tawnos]

Never in the NBA do you see a team forced to trade a player because they can't afford his new contract (like they do in hockey and baseball).

???

Sign and trades... for example, Erick Dampier in last years free agency. Golden State couldn't afford to keep him. Sign and trades happen every summer.

 

[mackdogs*]

???

Sign and trades... for example, Erick Dampier in last years free agency. Golden State couldn't afford to keep him. Sign and trades happen every summer.

What about Carlos Boozer?

 

[AlexGodynyuk]

???

Sign and trades... for example, Erick Dampier in last years free agency. Golden State couldn't afford to keep him. Sign and trades happen every summer.

Actually it wasn't because Golden State could not afford him, it was that they did not want to pay him what he wanted and the only way Dallas could get him (since they were over the cap), was to trade equivalent value in ending contracts. Big difference, and this in fact works in favour of Golden State as they get something for the player.
Right after they traded him, Golden State offered huge extensions to both Jason Richardson and Troy Murphy (not to mention the big contract that they signed Derek Fisher to in the off-season), it was not a matter of not being able to afford it was not wanting to afford.

 

[AlexGodynyuk]

What about Carlos Boozer?

That is the one loop-hole in the NBA CBA. Boozer came in as a 2nd round pick. 1st round picks have 3 year guaranteed contracts, after 3 years, a team holds a players bird rights (ie they can go over the cap to re-sign him). Boozer as a 2nd round pick only had a 2 year contract, after 2 years a team does not have brid rights, meaning Utah who was under the cap could offer big money and Cleveland who was at/near the cap could not match. It's quite rare that this happens.