Simplest solution

[me2]

Extend the exisiting CBA. Cave in to the players and give them what they want. Let teams spend what they want on players as per the old CBA.

In horse racing they put up a penalty but increasing the weight the horse must carry. Perhaps the NHL can handicap the league based on payroll. Something along the lines of 0.5 points per million over $30m. That way if a team wants to spend $60m it can, it just comes at a 15 point penalty in the standings (penalty no included for draft order). Detroit might feel it can still make the playoffs carrying a 20.5 point handicap by spending $71m because the extra $41m worth of players can get them those extra points. A few tweaks here and there for injuries and trades (no in-season trading could be good for the players).

It way to radical to be implemented but it does address many of the key issues

No luxury tax.

No cap.

No revenue sharing.

No fuss.

No breaking up teams if the can afford the players (ie no breaking up Ottawa).

It doesn't do much to address income disparity between teams but it does use pressure to keep salaries down without a direct impact on a player (ie trading them over a cap).

Click to read more...

 

[djhn579]

Extend the exisiting CBA. Cave in to the players and give them what they want. Let teams spend what they want on players as per the old CBA.

In horse racing they put up a penalty but increasing the weight the horse must carry. Perhaps the NHL can handicap the league based on payroll. Something along the lines of 0.5 points per million over $30m. That way if a team wants to spend $60m it can, it just comes at a 15 point penalty in the standings (penalty no included for draft order). Detroit might feel it can still make the playoffs carrying a 20.5 point handicap by spending $71m because the extra $41m worth of players can get them those extra points. A few tweaks here and there for injuries and trades (no in-season trading could be good for the players).

It way to radical to be implemented but it does address many of the key issues

No luxury tax.

No cap.

No revenue sharing.

No fuss.

No breaking up teams if the can afford the players (ie no breaking up Ottawa).

It doesn't do much to address income disparity between teams but it does use pressure to keep salaries down without a direct impact on a player (ie trading them over a cap).

Interesting idea, but the NHLPA will not go for it. They would say that it would have the same result as an overly strict luxury tax that will inhibit spending...

 

[Emerald City Bruin]

What's the incentive to stay under 30M? Any team that fielded a 30M team would not be able to hold the 20 point lead they would start out with over a 70M team. Even if they did, the 70M team still makes the playoffs and you can't really penalize them there.

 

[SENSible1*]

What's the incentive to stay under 30M? Any team that fielded a 30M team would not be able to hold the 20 point lead they would start out with over a 70M team. Even if they did, the 70M team still makes the playoffs and you can't really penalize them there.

Actually, the league could give the smaller payroll team 1 game win for every $10 M they were spotting their opponents in a playoff series. It's their league, they can make whatever crazy rules they want. Of course, this is purely speculation and has zero chance of ever taking place, but I do appreciate the attempt to think outside the box.

 

[Emerald City Bruin]

Actually, the league could give the smaller payroll team 1 game win for every $10 M they were spotting their opponents in a playoff series. It's their league, they can make whatever crazy rules they want. Of course, this is purely speculation and has zero chance of ever taking place, but I do appreciate the attempt to think outside the box.

Just give out wins because they spent less money? I don't think there was even a box to start thinking outside of. Take this scenario under your system. 15 65M+ teams and one 25M team make the playoffs. You wouldn't play a single game because no matter who won the other series', there is no way for the 25M team to not win the cup.

 

[SENSible1*]

Just give out wins because they spent less money? I don't think there was even a box to start thinking outside of. Take this scenario under your system. 15 65M+ teams and one 25M team make the playoffs. You wouldn't play a single game because no matter who won the other series', there is no way for the 25M team to not win the cup.

And given your scenario, how many 65M dollar teams do you think would exist?

A pretty effective curb on salaries wouldn't you say?

An impossible sell to hockey fans and bigger market teams, but theoretically a excellent way to decrease salaries.

 

[Emerald City Bruin]

And given your scenario, how many 65M dollar teams do you think would exist?

A pretty effective curb on salaries wouldn't you say?

An impossible sell to hockey fans and bigger market teams, but theoretically a excellent way to decrease salaries.

Yes, true this is all in theory.

But to give away wins just based on payroll and not on the ice play, even in theory, is wrong.

 

[SENSible1*]

But to give away wins just based on payroll and not on the ice play, even in theory, is wrong

100% agreed that it is wrong and they would never be able to sell it to the general public, but the real point is that it is the OWNERS private league and that they can set the rules. Sometimes I think the players forget the realities of the situation.

 

[me2]

What's the incentive to stay under 30M? Any team that fielded a 30M team would not be able to hold the 20 point lead they would start out with over a 70M team. Even if they did, the 70M team still makes the playoffs and you can't really penalize them there.

Its not designed ensure the worst teams (aka Penguins this year) get in over the Wings. Its just makes things a little more risky for big spenders. Make them question adding just one more big expensive player. No advantage or disadvantage for staying under $30m. Plenty of teams would spend the extra $10m or so because its worth it.

Big spenders gamble their regular season on being good enough to over come the handicap, if they do they get an advantage in the playoffs. Its no meant to ensure they get nothing, its merely downward pressure. If the handicap bites they could end up playing a quality team in the 1st and 2nd rounds. For example

Lets say the Wings are on $70m (20 point penalty) and Jagr and Pronger come up as possible aquisitions. Do the Wings sign them and push it to $90m and a 30 point penalty? If they overcome the 30 point handicap (115-30 = 85 points for the year) they are good to go in the playoffs, if not they run the risk of missing out all together. What is harder 115 points with Jagr/Pronger or 105 points as it. Tough choices.

 

[Chelios]

Just give out wins because they spent less money?

Maybe Chicago could win the cup!

 

[Emerald City Bruin]

Maybe Chicago could win the cup!

I smell a dynasty!

 

[It Kills Me]

This is just way to confusing, and didn't they already ex-tended the previous CBA an extra 5 years?

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

Its not designed ensure the worst teams (aka Penguins this year) get in over the Wings. Its just makes things a little more risky for big spenders. Make them question adding just one more big expensive player. No advantage or disadvantage for staying under $30m. Plenty of teams would spend the extra $10m or so because its worth it.

Big spenders gamble their regular season on being good enough to over come the handicap, if they do they get an advantage in the playoffs. Its no meant to ensure they get nothing, its merely downward pressure. If the handicap bites they could end up playing a quality team in the 1st and 2nd rounds. For example

Lets say the Wings are on $70m (20 point penalty) and Jagr and Pronger come up as possible aquisitions. Do the Wings sign them and push it to $90m and a 30 point penalty? If they overcome the 30 point handicap (115-30 = 85 points for the year) they are good to go in the playoffs, if not they run the risk of missing out all together. What is harder 115 points with Jagr/Pronger or 105 points as it. Tough choices.

Uh- huh. Gotcha.