Should the NHL make changes on the LTIR rules?

[Sun God Nika]

The way it works right now basically gives rich teams an advantage over teams that have a tighter budget. It can also be used as a "out" for bad contracts which has been done numerous times now.

My suggestion is if a team trades for a player that is already on the IR they should only get 50% cap relief.

Example: Toronto trades for Nathon Horton (LTIR) to get out of a David Clarkson contract. Since Toronto traded for an LTIR player and that player will remain on the LTIR Toronto would only be relieved half of Hortons Caphit 3.65 (5.3/2) that 3.65 will count against Torontos cap until Hortons SPC is done.


The same thing for a 35+ contract should apply. Teams know the risk they are taking of retirement when they sign a player at that age, they should also be aware that older players are more prone to injuries. Right now teams can use the LTIR as a way of avoiding to have a caphit with the 35+ retirement rule.

Example: Marion Hossa 4 Years remaining at 5.275 caphit, Hossa goes on LTIR instead of Chicago getting full relief of Hossas hit they should only get 3.6M (50%)

Click to read more...

 

[Advanced stats]

Nope, there should absolutely be some advantages for rich teams.

They put more $$$$$ in the "pool", they should get more reward out of it.

 

[Crede777]

LTIR doesn't benefit just rich teams.

Without it, teams on budgets wouldn't be able to take risks either because if they spend a lot on a player and then the player has a career-ending injury, then they're screwed.

It also benefits players who wouldn't get such contracts if they're deemed "risky."

Basically, everyone wins. Including the insurance companies. Well, I suppose players who have career-ending injuries lose, but it's making the best out of a bad situation.

 

[Sun God Nika]

LTIR doesn't benefit just rich teams.

Without it, teams on budgets wouldn't be able to take risks either because if they spend a lot on a player and then the player has a career-ending injury, then they're screwed.

It also benefits players who wouldn't get such contracts if they're deemed "risky."

Basically, everyone wins. Including the insurance companies. Well, I suppose players who have career-ending injuries lose, but it's making the best out of a bad situation.

if every contract was insured than you are right. But they are not thats where it becomes an unfair advantage to big money teams.

 

[LeafChief]

The way it works right now basically gives rich teams an advantage over teams that have a tighter budget. It can also be used as a "out" for bad contracts which has been done numerous times now.

My suggestion is if a team trades for a player that is already on the IR they should only get 50% cap relief.

Example: Toronto trades for Nathon Horton (LTIR) to get out of a David Clarkson contract. Since Toronto traded for an LTIR player and that player will remain on the LTIR Toronto would only be relieved half of Hortons Caphit 3.65 (5.3/2) that 3.65 will count against Torontos cap until Hortons SPC is done.


The same thing for a 35+ contract should apply. Teams know the risk they are taking of retirement when they sign a player at that age, they should also be aware that older players are more prone to injuries. Right now teams can use the LTIR as a way of avoiding to have a caphit with the 35+ retirement rule.

Example: Marion Hossa 4 Years remaining at 5.275 caphit, Hossa goes on LTIR instead of Chicago getting full relief of Hossas hit they should only get 3.6M (50%)

"It's not fair my favourite team doesn't have as much money as other teams!"

 

[Sun God Nika]

"It's not fair my favourite team doesn't have as much money as other teams!"

If thats what you derived from this, I don't know what to tell ya. best of luck in school you probably need it.

The point of the salary cap is for every team to spend similar. There are ultra rich teams in the league LTIR gives those teams extra luxuries other teams don't have.

 

[LeafFever]

They added a hard cap. The poorer teams have been helped enough. Those rich teams are keeping a lot of these poor teams afloat with revenue sharing as well. At some point it's enough and you gotta throw your most successful franchises a bone.

 

[Sun God Nika]

Nope, there should absolutely be some advantages for rich teams.

They put more $$$$$ in the "pool", they should get more reward out of it.

They added a hard cap. The poorer teams have been helped enough. Those rich teams are keeping a lot of these poor teams afloat with revenue sharing as well. At some point it's enough and you gotta throw your most successful franchises a bone.

Sure, the more successful franchises should get rewarded with out door games, drafts, all star games, NHL marketing attention. But not the on ice product that should be equal playing fields for all teams. Might as well remove the cap for the rich teams while we are it right?

 

[x Tame Impala]

[mod]

Example: Marion Hossa 4 Years remaining at 5.275 caphit, Hossa goes on LTIR instead of Chicago getting full relief of Hossas hit they should only get 3.6M (50%)

5.275 x .5= 2.6375

Not 3.6M.

 

[TheDoldrums]

The point of the salary cap is for every team to spend similar.

Not really. The point of the salary cap is to control labour costs.

 

[Sun God Nika]

[mod]



5.275 x .5= 2.6375

Not 3.6M.

....

 

[PensBeerGeek]

You think the NHL is going to risk the liability in forcing a player off LTIR and having something catastrophic happen to them?

 

[Ducks in a row]

Nope, there should absolutely be some advantages for rich teams.

They put more $$$$$ in the "pool", they should get more reward out of it.

Teams can spend more money on things like coaching and scouting and training facilities stuff like that and that should be enough of a advantage.

 

[Sun God Nika]

You think the NHL is going to risk the liability in forcing a player off LTIR and having something catastrophic happen to them?

I never once mentioned forcing a player off LTIR. My point is there is no good reason for a team to trade for a player on the LTIR unless they are trying to unload a bad contract which is against the spirit of the salary cap.

 

[A1LeafNation]

The way it works right now basically gives rich teams an advantage over teams that have a tighter budget. It can also be used as a "out" for bad contracts which has been done numerous times now.

My suggestion is if a team trades for a player that is already on the IR they should only get 50% cap relief.

Example: Toronto trades for Nathon Horton (LTIR) to get out of a David Clarkson contract. Since Toronto traded for an LTIR player and that player will remain on the LTIR Toronto would only be relieved half of Hortons Caphit 3.65 (5.3/2) that 3.65 will count against Torontos cap until Hortons SPC is done.


The same thing for a 35+ contract should apply. Teams know the risk they are taking of retirement when they sign a player at that age, they should also be aware that older players are more prone to injuries. Right now teams can use the LTIR as a way of avoiding to have a caphit with the 35+ retirement rule.

Example: Marion Hossa 4 Years remaining at 5.275 caphit, Hossa goes on LTIR instead of Chicago getting full relief of Hossas hit they should only get 3.6M (50%)

The poor team to that story is the CBJ who got out of paying Horton. Lol nice try.

 

[Canada4Gold]

TIL that half of 5.3 is 3.65, and half of 5.275 is 3.6

 

[FissionFire]

Easiest fix is to make the 35+ rule apply to all contracts onc a player turns 35. No getting around it then.

 

[BallPointHammer]

Just make a player's yearly 'cap hit' and 'salary' the same number. Get rid of the bonus system (except for ELCs) and all this front/back loaded contract nonsense. That alone would make all this CBA stuff less complicated and more 'fool proof' to circumvention, loopholes and subjectivity. And, if a guy is honestly no longer capable of playing due to injuries than pay the player but forgive the cap hit. How hard can it be?

Also,