Solution to the LTIR Issue

[MarkT]

There has obviously been tons of debate over the years and especially recently regarding the issue of players being on LTIR, their teams using that cap savings to add at the deadline, and then the player returning in the playoffs, thus giving their team a competitive advantage. Some Vegas fans and others argue that teams doing this are doing nothing wrong because they are not breaking any rules. Others, including myself, will argue that the rules as written encourage dishonesty in terms of when a player is actually healthy enough to play - there is a strong disincentive to activate the player for game 82, but a strong incentive to activate them for the playoffs. So whether there is actual cheating taking place or not, there are means, motive, and opportunity to cheat, and that is enough reason to do something about it in my opinion.

The most common suggestions I have seen for how to solve this issue involve some variation on adding a salary cap to the playoffs. These ideas have major issues because of the different way the roster operates in the playoffs - how do you account for Black Aces? If it's just the active roster, do you use the same cap as in the regular season that normally includes inactive players as well? I believe these solutions open up a whole can of worms that the owners aren't going to want to deal with. So what to do?

The best idea I know of (I take no direct credit because I'm sure others have thought of this too) is the following:

In order to be eligible to play in the playoffs, a player cannot be on LTIR in game 82 of the regular season.

That's it. It's just that simple. If Vegas wants Mark Stone to play in the playoffs, they would have three options:

1. Dress him in game 82 and have him play.
2. Activate him but leave him as a healthy scratch.
3. Put him on regular IR, which would make him ineligible to play for 7 days.*

In all three cases, he would count fully against the cap. The beauty of this rule is that teams would need to be cap compliant heading into the playoffs, and we could otherwsie use the same rules as always for playoff rosters.

The drawback for Vegas (or other teams utilizing the loophole in question) would be that they would not have been able to afford adding guys like Hertl and Mantha, because in game 82, they would become over the cap. You may argue that teams should be able to replace their injured player, but if that's what you're thinking, I want you to imagine something. Pretend that instead of Stone's injury being from February to (presumably) April, his injury kept him out from November to January. Would Vegas make trades in December for players to take up his entire cap hit? No, of course not - they would be over the cap as soon as he returned. So when someone argues that the team should be able to replace the player, what they really mean is they should be able to replace the player only if they get injured at the right time - either for the whole year or at the end of the year. Teams that happen to have key players injured at any other time are just out of luck I guess.

*if they chose this option, the smart move would be to put him on IR 7 days before the start of the playoff, not game 82

Click to read more...

 

[Stephen]

Bettman should just ban injuries. Problem solved.

 

[HarrySPlinkett]

The roster you ice in the playoffs has to be cap compliant.

You can either play your three $9M players or have a 4th line, but you can’t do both.

 

[amnesiac]

or just implement the cap in the playoffs

 

[Jee]

Remove Vegas from the NHL, problem solved.

 

[VivaLasVegas]

Name an owner who thinks there is a problem.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

The best idea I know of (I take no direct credit because I'm sure others have thought of this too)

Oh, trust me. They have.

That's it. It's just that simple. If Vegas wants Mark Stone to play in the playoffs, they would have three options:

1. Dress him in game 82 and have him play.
2. Activate him but leave him as a healthy scratch.
3. Put him on regular IR, which would make him ineligible to play for 7 days.*

In all three cases, he would count fully against the cap. The beauty of this rule is that teams would need to be cap compliant heading into the playoffs, and we could otherwsie use the same rules as always for playoff rosters.

Let's broaden this, because no one is writing a rule specifically for Mark Stone.

1. A player who is injured and lands on Injured Reserve has to be medically cleared to come off - which means, he's fit and able to resume playing. There's specific protections in the CBA to prevent a player from being taken off IR when he's still injured and unable to play. This, and every other idea like it, implicitly requires players to be forced off IR onto the Active Roster even when they may not be otherwise medically cleared to play, for no other reason than "this makes them eligible to play in the postseason," and the failure to be off IR and into a lineup or whatever - even when the player is still injured and unable to play - specifically prohibits them from playoff participation, in part or in whole.

There is no f***ing way the NHLPA is agreeing to a rule change that forces a player that might still be injured to have to play in a game - even if it's something as trivial as "stand on the ice for the opening faceoff, puck drops, step through the door and be replaced, go down to the locker room and be done for the night" - to be eligible to play in the playoffs or be prohibited entirely or forced to wait some mandatory period of time. No. f***ing. Way.

2. Same logic as 1, except we don't have some charade about the player playing.

3. Injured Reserve doesn't exist in the playoffs, because there's no limit on the size of the Active Roster in the playoffs. Your best bet is to ask the NHLPA to agree to a 23-man Active Roster for the postseason, which ... no, it's not going to do that either without getting something somewhere else in return.

And, since we need to make teams cap compliant in the playoffs seems to be the moment's screeching concern, I'm going to re-re-re-re-.......-repost an example that illustrates how these "simple" solutions blow up quickly:

Example: Cap = $85 million.

Team A:
* Carries $80 million in total cap hits for 4/5ths of the season.
* At the 4/5ths mark, when the trade deadline occurs, has been charged 80 x 4/5 = $64 million
* Can spend up to $21 million the rest of the way and still be cap compliant
* Permissibly - and without LTIR - makes trades and adds $15 million in cap dollars.
* Now carries $95 million in cap dollars from the trade deadline to the end of the season
* Gets charged 95 x 1/5 = $19 million for that last 1/5th of the season
* Ends the season having spent $83 million, so $2 million less than what was allowed under the cap

Your rule for the cap in the playoffs: that team - which had a roster that was completely valid in Game 82, which ran with a roster that was completely cap compliant the entire season, under the rules of how the salary cap is calculated had $2 million to spare - is non-compliant for the playoffs and must cut $10 million.

 

[MarkT]

The roster you ice in the playoffs has to be cap compliant.

You can either play your three $9M players or have a 4th line, but you can’t do both.

or just implement the cap in the playoffs

I like how I addressed this idea in my post, and you two still suggested it. Which cap do you mean exactly? The one that until the playoffs also included players on IR and healthy scratches? So if it's roster on the ice, it's actually functionally a higher cap than the regular season. And if it's not just your on ice roster, you can't have black aces any more. Can you see how my solution is simpler and achieves the same result?

Name an owner who thinks there is a problem.

It doesn't matter if 100% of the owners don't see a problem. If enough fans see a problem, the owners should listen.

 

[stl76]

Name an owner who thinks there is a problem.

This.

Nobody with actual power thinks there is a problem.

 

[MarkT]

Oh, trust me. They have.

Let's broaden this, because no one is writing a rule specifically for Mark Stone.

1. A player who is injured and lands on Injured Reserve has to be medically cleared to come off - which means, he's fit and able to resume playing. There's specific protections in the CBA to prevent a player from being taken off IR when he's still injured and unable to play. This, and every other idea like it, implicitly requires players to be forced off IR onto the Active Roster even when they may not be otherwise medically cleared to play, for no other reason than "this makes them eligible to play in the postseason," and the failure to be off IR and into a lineup or whatever - even when the player is still injured and unable to play - specifically prohibits them from playoff participation, in part or in whole.

There is no f***ing way the NHLPA is agreeing to a rule change that forces a player that might still be injured to have to play in a game - even if it's something as trivial as "stand on the ice for the opening faceoff, puck drops, step through the door and be replaced, go down to the locker room and be done for the night."

2. Same logic as 1, except we don't have some charade about the player playing.

3. Injured Reserve doesn't exist in the playoffs, because there's no limit on the size of the Active Roster in the playoffs. Your best bet is to ask the NHLPA to agree to a 23-man Active Roster for the postseason, which ... no, it's not going to do that either without getting something somewhere else in return.

And, since we need to make teams cap compliant in the playoffs seems to be the moment's screeching concern, I'm going to re-re-re-re-.......-repost an example that illustrates how these "simple" solutions blow up quickly:

Did you not read the part where I said the player could just be put on regular IR? Nowhere in what I posted is the idea that an injured player would be forced to play. You're arguing against a straw man dude. Next time, instead of copy-pasting a response, trying at least reading the idea first.

 

[Iwishihadaspacebar]

Every post-season, you hear how players have been suffering with injuries for months on end. You may well see more teams giving their players the time to be fully healthy for the playoffs. In my view, that can only be a good thing, as you want to see the best players at their peak performance.

 

[Folignos Helmet]

the funnest would be to get rid of cap from the trade deadline day, you need to be cap complaint again to start the next year.

 

[ItWasJustified]

My idea would be if you're on LTIR during game 82 you're not eligible to play for the entire 1st round of the playoffs.

 

[MarkT]

My idea would be if you're on LTIR during game 82 you're not eligible to play for the entire 1st round of the playoffs.

Why the first round? Why choose that instead of the 2nd round or the 3rd round or the first game, etc..?

 

[Saltcreek]

This.

Nobody with actual power thinks there is a problem.

Prove it. Please tell me how you know which individual owner is thinking.

 

[Big Daddy Cane]

That is the solution. Allows for teams to save to spend later, which should be permissible. The trade deadline is a good thing. For non-LTIR teams, banked space theoretically goes to 0 on the last day of the season.

It basically dissuades a team from using LTIR relief if the player is expected back; no banked space in LTIR = no ability to activate on the last day of the season.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

"Ted, why do you keep saying the average fan has no clue how a Collective Bargaining Agreement works?"

It doesn't matter is 100% of the owners don't see a problem. If enough fans see a problem, the owners should listen.

No one is making the owners or the players do anything they don't want. You or anyone else can rage post any idea you want, you're not making the two parties that make the decision do anything any more than you standing outside One Manhattan West and stamping your feet waiving a bullhorn demanding satisfaction. Please quit pretending "I think, therefore it must be right, therefore everyone else must do it" is a remotely plausible idea.

Did you not read the part where I said the player could just be put on regular IR? Nowhere in what I posted is the idea that an injured player would be forced to play. You're arguing against a straw man dude. Next time, instead of copy-pasting a response, trying at least reading the idea first.

1. I'm sorry that you, like everyone else who keeps proposing this, has an objectively shitty "solution" and won't listen to criticism of it because you f***ing swear to God your solution is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Or the Tamagotchi. Or the Thigh Master. Or all three combined.

2. A "straw man" argument is inventing some other claim and then attacking it. I'm not attacking something else, I'm attacking your "solution" because it's objectively shit for reasons I explained and it is never getting accepted by the NHLPA [and probably the owners either] - except in your imaginary world where

It doesn't matter if 100% of the owners don't see a problem. If enough fans see a problem, the owners should listen.

3. I did read your response. It's nothing new. Seriously, you may think you've stumbled on some novel idea because it's not. It's the same idea, just in a new post and presented as something new and fresh. It's 6-month old rancid milk that's still sitting in the hot sun.

 

[Czechboy]

My solution is for everyone to start doing it. It's in the rules and allowed. Looking at your Oiler's!

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

There is no issue and even if their were It's a CBA thing so you can't just change it.

 

[capfit9]

Why not move the trade deadline half way through the season ?

 

[the_fan]

It’s very simple. Just make it so teams have to be cap compliant in the playoffs. You can still use LTIR during regular season if you do have injuries, but when playoffs come, gotta be cap compliant. Problem solved

 

[Jacob]

GMs caught circumventing the cap should have their hands, feet and penis crushed in a hydraulic press.

 

[MarkT]

No one is making the owners or the players do anything they don't want. You or anyone else can rage post any idea you want, you're not making the two parties that make the decision do anything any more than you standing outside One Manhattan West and stamping your feet waiving a bullhorn demanding satisfaction. Please quit pretending "I think, therefore it must be right, therefore everyone else must do it" is a remotely plausible idea.

Good thing literally nobody said anything of the sort. I love that you're even bolding the word that I never used. I said the owners should listen, because the owner of any business should listen if enough customers are upset about some aspect of their business. I have to assume at this point you've just dealt with one too many whiny children because that would explain the tone of your posts. I'll try not to take it personally.

1. I'm sorry that you, like everyone else who keeps proposing this, has an objectively shitty "solution" and won't listen to criticism of it because you f***ing swear to God your solution is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Or the Tamagotchi. Or the Thigh Master. Or all three combined.

2. A "straw man" argument is inventing some other claim and then attacking it. I'm not attacking something else, I'm attacking your "solution" because it's objectively shit for reasons I explained and it is never getting accepted by the NHLPA [and probably the owners either] - except in your imaginary world where

Most of your post was talking about a scenario that would never happen.
"There is no f***ing way the NHLPA is agreeing to a rule change that forces a player that might still be injured to have to play in a game"
That's your main point, but why would any team do this when they could instead put the player on IR? And they could date the time of placing them on IR so that the player would be eligible for game 1 of the playoffs. This is the straw man I'm talking about - the idea that under my rule any team would ever force an injured player to dress.

3. I did read your response. It's nothing new. Seriously, you may think you've stumbled on some novel idea because it's not. It's the same idea, just in a new post and presented as something new and fresh. It's 6-month old rancid milk that's still sitting in the hot sun.

LOL. This is how I introduced my idea: "I take no direct credit because I'm sure others have thought of this too"
And you interpret that as me thinking I've "stumbled on some novel idea" and presented it as "as something new and fresh"

Man, you're exhausting to deal with.

There is no issue and even if their were It's a CBA thing so you can't just change it.

Obviously the change I'm suggesting would be for the next CBA. Why would you assume otherwise?

 

[Ted Hoffman]

GMs caught circumventing the cap should have their hands, feet and penis crushed in a hydraulic press.

Sadly, this makes more sense than this:

My idea would be if you're on LTIR during game 82 you're not eligible to play for the entire 1st round of the playoffs.

And this:

It’s very simple. Just make it so teams have to be cap compliant in the playoffs. You can still use LTIR during regular season if you do have injuries, but when playoffs come, gotta be cap compliant. Problem solved

And every other we'll just make the cap apply in the playoffs idea that's devoid of logic.

 

[JoVel]

Remove Vegas from the NHL, problem solved.

How about moving every other team to Vegas?