The NHL has a BIG problem (Cap Circumvention via LTIR)

[Ted Hoffman]

There's just no point in telling hockey fans that other things exist and work besides what hockey does.

We can discuss tweaks to what the cap system is in the NHL, as long as you can work with just a few constraints:

• The owners are never getting rid of the salary cap.
• The owners have repeatedly rejected the idea of a luxury tax, going as far back as the 1994 CBA negotiations, and including the 2005 CBA negotiations when a luxury tax on top of a salary cap was floated.
• The NHLPA, like the MLPBA, is never agreeing to non-guaranteed contracts.
• A significant amount of total league revenue is generated by the individual teams, not from "central" sources like advertising, broadcast revenue, merchandise, etc.
• Teams are not pooling significant amounts of their money for the collective good. [Cue agonizing screams from fans of high-revenue teams thinking about this possibility.]
• The players are never going for anything that makes the cap more rigid and might cause them to have to deal with more escrow. [Well, unless Don Fehr can get them high quality, personalized fuzzy slippers for the shower area - then, he might be open to it.]
• Above all, the owners are never getting rid of the 50/50 split of HRR. If anything, they'll go for 49/51 in their favor, even if that results in an expansion of what's considered HRR.

If you can work within those constraints, we can discuss realistic ideas. If you can't, ... well, you're right - I'm sure it's not you, it's all the other hockey fans [and the owners ... and the players] who don't get it.

 

[Machinehead]

We can discuss tweaks to what the cap system is in the NHL, as long as you can work with just a few constraints:

• The owners are never getting rid of the salary cap.
• The owners have repeatedly rejected the idea of a luxury tax, going as far back as the 1994 CBA negotiations, and including the 2005 CBA negotiations when a luxury tax on top of a salary cap was floated.
• The NHLPA, like the MLPBA, is never agreeing to non-guaranteed contracts.
• A significant amount of total league revenue is generated by the individual teams, not from "central" sources like advertising, broadcast revenue, merchandise, etc.
• Teams are not pooling significant amounts of their money for the collective good. [Cue agonizing screams from fans of high-revenue teams thinking about this possibility.]
• The players are never going for anything that makes the cap more rigid and might cause them to have to deal with more escrow. [Well, unless Don Fehr can get them high quality, personalized fuzzy slippers for the shower area - then, he might be open to it.]
• Above all, the owners are never getting rid of the 50/50 split of HRR. If anything, they'll go for 49/51 in their favor, even if that results in an expansion of what's considered HRR.

If you can work within those constraints, we can discuss realistic ideas. If you can't, ... well, you're right - I'm sure it's not you, it's all the other hockey fans [and the owners ... and the players] who don't get it.

You're operating under the assumption that I think anything I want is happening.

I also want the Rangers to stop being ass and for my salary to be six figures. Not counting those either.

Something like a franchise tag or a luxury tax could work insofar as leagues do them and they are things that exist. Insofar as the NHL actually do them? Ship has sailed.

 

[Machinehead]

If you're arguing that it is what it is then, well....it is what it is. But I think most hockey fans argue in favor of the NHL's hard cap because they think it "works better" and adds parity which I've shown it doesn't. It was never about parity or anything else. It was about the owners and the deal they wanted.

I think it makes the game less interesting but that's just my opinion that the owners don't care about.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Something like a franchise tag or a luxury tax could work insofar as leagues do them and they are things that exist. Insofar as the NHL actually do them? Ship has sailed.

They won't, for reasons that have been explained for 15 years and counting, but keep saying it will. Maybe one day it will be true. Back in the real world, these ideas will merely aggravate longstanding problems for the players and create new problems that need new non-solutions.

 

[Machinehead]

They won't, for reasons that have been explained for 15 years and counting, but keep saying it will. Maybe one day it will be true. Back in the real world, these ideas will merely aggravate longstanding problems for the players and create new problems that need new non-solutions.

I literally just said the NHL wouldn't do it

 

[libertarian]

Simply put, Cap Circumvention via LTIR

Teams like Tampa Bay and Toronto are using LTIR to bolster their rosters for the playoffs.

Kucherov being out the entire season, giving the Lightning $10.5M in extra cap relief throughout the season. But as soon as the playoffs come around, he can be activated off LTIR without a hiccup and Tampa will be playing in the playoffs with a roster that could have a cap hit north of $95M.

Toronto acquired Riley Nash from Columbus and it won’t count for a cent on their cap since he’s on LTIR and won’t be activated until the playoffs where there is no salary cap.

The Salary cap was created to give smaller market teams a fighting chance against the larger spending, big markets of the NHL. But with this LTIR loophole, it allows teams like Toronto and Tampa Bay extra cap space since in the playoffs, there is no salary cap.


There is a simple solution to this problem, have a salary cap in the playoffs. it would completely negate this loophole.

No the NHL dose not have a problem. Since the rules are equal for every team there is no issue. Most teams will not jerry rig their LTIR because they are not going ALL IN for the SC.

Both the Bolts and Leafs are going into cap hell and they know it. This season is most likely their last chance to win a cup over the next few years. The Bolts want to repeat as SC champs before they are forced to gut their team to stay under the cap. The Leafs on the other hand management are starting to realise that using half your cap space on 4 forward players is not a good idea for long term success. I think that they decided that this covid season with the North division is their best chance to win it all that they may have for many years to come. Hence they are going all in while the window is still open.

The point is since the rules are the same for every team it is not a unfair situation/rules that the Bolts and Leafs are taking advantage of.

When you have a salary cap league don't bitch when teams figure out how best to use the cap rules the league laid out to their maximum benefit to win a cup.

If anything I think the Bolts and Leafs management should be congratulated for their ingenuity to maximise the league rules to their benefit

 

[TaLoN]

If you're arguing that it is what it is then, well....it is what it is. But I think most hockey fans argue in favor of the NHL's hard cap because they think it "works better" and adds parity which I've shown it doesn't. It was never about parity or anything else. It was about the owners and the deal they wanted.

I think it makes the game less interesting but that's just my opinion that the owners don't care about.

What you showed, is that a team that drafts and develops multiple stars, are forced to make a choice.

What the cap prevents from happening, is small market teams who drafts and develop stars, being unable to make the very same choice.

Pre-cap, they simply couldn't afford those stars.

Small market teams, in a non-cap world, are functionally nothing but farm teams for the large market teams.

If they don't get their glimpse of success when the players are young and before their prime, they don't have success. When those players reach their prime, they are priced out of the market that developed them.

It's better for all teams to have the same level playing field and have the opportunity at the same choices, than to have just a few teams with more options than everyone else.

 

[Machinehead]

What you showed, is that a team that drafts and develops multiple stars, are forced to make a choice.

What the cap prevents from happening, is small market teams who drafts and develop stars, being unable to make the very same choice.

Pre-cap, they simply couldn't afford those stars.

Small market teams, in a non-cap world, are functionally nothing but farm teams for the large market teams.

If they don't get their glimpse of success when the players are young and before their prime, they don't have success. When those players reach their prime, they are priced out of the market that developed them.

It's better for all teams to have the same level playing field and have the opportunity at the same choices, than to have just a few teams with more options than everyone else.

I agree. I simply don't think the NHL's cap has done this. What have small market teams accomplished in a cap world? 11/15 post-cap Cups have been won by the top 11 richest teams by net worth (I cut it off there because the Penguins are 11th). 11/15! That's worse than before the cap!

And again, I'm not arguing for abolishing the cap. I'm talking about making some changes to it to make it less crippling to keep your own stars so that teams can augment their roster beyond the core players.

If we had a system that say, capped bringing in UFA players, but was more lenient on retaining players, smaller teams that developed those players would still have the inside track because it would cost the bigger teams cap. Teams would still have to be responsible about what they did in the market which is where the smaller teams really lose out.

I don't feel we currently have a league where everyone gets a choice. I feel we currently have a league where nobody gets a choice and the teams that just happened to draft the most talented of the core players pass the Cup around.

Get ready for ten years of Tampa Bay and Colorado. Any potential challengers are already in cap trouble.

 

[TaLoN]

I agree. I simply don't think the NHL's cap has done this. What have small market teams accomplished in a cap world? 11/15 post-cap Cups have been won by the top 11 richest teams by net worth (I cut it off there because the Penguins are 11th). 11/15! That's worse than before the cap!

And again, I'm not arguing for abolishing the cap. I'm talking about making some changes to it to make it less crippling to keep your own stars so that teams can augment their roster beyond the core players.

If we had a system that say, capped bringing in UFA players, but was more lenient on retaining players, smaller teams that developed those players would still have the inside track because it would cost the bigger teams cap. Teams would still have to be responsible about what they did in the market which is where the smaller teams really lose out.

I don't feel we currently have a league where everyone gets a choice. I feel we currently have a league where nobody gets a choice and the teams that just happened to draft the most talented of the core players pass the Cup around.

Get ready for ten years of Tampa Bay and Colorado. Any potential challengers are already in cap trouble.

I think it absolutely has done this. The Predators are a great example. They had a salary of $18-20m for the entire team pre-cap. Could not afford to keep their players let alone be active in free agency or get a rental for a playoff run... they were not sniffing the playoffs.

The cap came into play, they suddenly started being players in free agency to make up for those holes in the roster. They could afford to make moves like anyone else would afford to make, they made a cup finals run.

That run never happens without the cap in place.

 

[Machinehead]

I think it absolutely has done this. The Predators are a great example. They had a salary of $18-20m for the entire team pre-cap. Could not afford to keep their players let alone be active in free agency or get a rental for a playoff run... they were not sniffing the playoffs.

The cap came into play, they suddenly started being players in free agency to make up for those holes in the roster. They could afford to make moves like anyone else would afford to make, they made a cup finals run.

That run never happens without the cap in place.

The Predators didn't suck pre-cap because there was no cap and their talent was being poached.

They sucked pre-cap because they had no talent.

Their best player before 05-06 was Cliff Ronning on Social Security. The only players they developed worth a damn, Kimmo Timonen and Scott Hartnell, both left for Philadelphia -and here's the kicker- AFTER the salary cap!

When did they become players in free agency? When they took a flier Paul Kariya coming off of multiple concussions and the worst year he ever had? That was because of the salary cap?

This is just another example of a narrative about the salary cap that sounds like it might happen but didn't actually happen.

 

[North Cole]

They don't get paid in the offseason either (unless they're one of the handful of players getting a signing bonus payable on July 1), and yet there's a salary cap throughout the entire offseason.

Yeah you can exceed the cap by 10% in the offseason right? Or was it 10m? I thought the Leafs were near 92m in the offseason, prior to using LTIR at the start of the year, at which point they then had to be cap compliant?

 

[Machinehead]

In the decade leading up to the lockout, almost all of the biggest markets were dog shit teams and the Devils were the gold standard of the East as one of the poorest teams in the league.

Like, this isn't a hypothetical. We watched a post-draft, pre-cap league for 43 years.

It wasn't what people say it would be. The Leafs won 3 Cups with their last coming in the 60's. The Bruins won 2. The Rangers won 1. The Blackhawks won none. Small market teams like the Islanders, Oilers, Devils, and (at the time) the Penguins were winning them by the handful.

 

[TaLoN]

The Predators didn't suck pre-cap because there was no cap and their talent was being poached.

They sucked pre-cap because they had no talent.

Their best player before 05-06 was Cliff Ronning on Social Security. The only players they developed worth a damn, Kimmo Timonen and Scott Hartnell, both left for Philadelphia -and here's the kicker- AFTER the salary cap!

When did they become players in free agency? When they took a flier Paul Kariya coming off of multiple concussions and the worst year he ever had? That was because of the salary cap?

This is just another example of a narrative about the salary cap that sounds like it might happen but didn't actually happen.

You're ignoring the fact that they couldn't afford to be a player in free agency before the cap, and have been regular players in it ever since.

Like, this isn't a hypothetical. We watched a post-draft, pre-cap league for 43 years.

player salaries weren't out of control for most of that 43 years, so you can't even compare 90% of that time.

 

[Voight]

So for a sport with so much parity, the NHL should be outperforming the LeBron and Tom Brady shows, no?

Garbage point. NHL will never outperform the other leagues. Hockey isn't as popular and never will be. Thats an entirely different issue from this thread tho.

It definitely did not. This is just an NHL talking point that everyone bought.

We had a decade where three teams won the Cup.

Ok and in the 70s only 3 teams won, in the 80s only four (two of themw ere one-time winners) and in the DPE you pretty much only had Detroit, Colorado, New Jersey and Dallas making the finals.

Your point also ignores that since 2009, no two teams have met in the finals twice. Sure we've had repeat winners but they have faced different teams.

 

[Fatass]

Garbage point. NHL will never outperform the other leagues. Hockey isn't as popular and never will be.

Definitely true for the US. But in Canada hockey is by far number one. Well, in most cases, it’s the only one.
I think that’s why the Leafs make so much, and have the ability to use LTIR how they do. They dominate their market.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Yeah you can exceed the cap by 10% in the offseason right? Or was it 10m? I thought the Leafs were near 92m in the offseason, prior to using LTIR at the start of the year, at which point they then had to be cap compliant?

10%. Still, after signing bonuses on July 1 the players don't get paid again until the regular season. A salary cap still applies in that period of time.

 

[Spirit of 67]

Simply put, Cap Circumvention via LTIR

Teams like Tampa Bay and Toronto are using LTIR to bolster their rosters for the playoffs.

Kucherov being out the entire season, giving the Lightning $10.5M in extra cap relief throughout the season. But as soon as the playoffs come around, he can be activated off LTIR without a hiccup and Tampa will be playing in the playoffs with a roster that could have a cap hit north of $95M.

Toronto acquired Riley Nash from Columbus and it won’t count for a cent on their cap since he’s on LTIR and won’t be activated until the playoffs where there is no salary cap.

The Salary cap was created to give smaller market teams a fighting chance against the larger spending, big markets of the NHL. But with this LTIR loophole, it allows teams like Toronto and Tampa Bay extra cap space since in the playoffs, there is no salary cap.


There is a simple solution to this problem, have a salary cap in the playoffs. it would completely negate this loophole.

Salary cap sucks.

I'm all for circumventing.

Have at it.

 

[BlueBaron]

Definitely true for the US. But in Canada hockey is by far number one. Well, in most cases, it’s the only one.
I think that’s why the Leafs make so much, and have the ability to use LTIR how they do. They dominate their market.

Well to be fair the Raptor have closed the gap remarkably.

The combination of the recent Championship, changing demographics and the better marketing of the NBA has made the Raptors #1 among young people. Luckily, guess who owns the Raptors

But yes when the Leaf are in the playoffs it's like a weeks (however long 7 games lasts ) long religious festival in Toronto.

 

[Matty Sundin]

I don’t think it’s that bad. The loophole of sending players down to minors you don’t want to save cap was worse and was fixed later on.

 

[North Cole]

10%. Still, after signing bonuses on July 1 the players don't get paid again until the regular season. A salary cap still applies in that period of time.

Would people be open to having that same 10% buffer apply for the playoffs? It seems the consensus is that you shouldn't be able to exceed the cap at all. I guess I would question why you need a salary cap in the summer if you need to be cap compliant at season open anyways.

 

[Spirit of 67]

I'm missing something is Kucherov not hurt or something?

Yep.

What you're missing is the Leafs just put Andersen on LTIR.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Would people be open to having that same 10% buffer apply for the playoffs? It seems the consensus is that you shouldn't be able to exceed the cap at all. I guess I would question why you need a salary cap in the summer if you need to be cap compliant at season open anyways.

A salary cap is needed in the summer because the league (and players) have decided they don't want teams going out in free agency, signing a bunch of guys to contracts to hoard them and force other teams to then bid for those players to get a competitive, cap-compliant roster together.

Don't know if I'd be open to the 10% buffer for the postseason. I'd have to think about it. My gut says "no, then you get to permissibly exceed the cap with a roster you wouldn't have been able to have during ~80% of the regular season" but I might be talked into it if I can get a qualifier that says the team that gets iced for a game has to be cap-compliant without the 10% overage. But, that requires rosters to be submitted to the league and approved in advance, and I don't know what logistical issues that causes or what other problems such an idea creates.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

I absolutely am sympathetic to the argument that teams like Tampa and Toronto are hurt by the league's stupid salary cap rules that punish teams for having too many good players.

At the same time, there are 29 other teams in the league. You have a responsibility to the other teams to punish the cap circumventers. Chicago should've also been punished for all their cap violations. It absolutely does make a difference to have a 105M roster, like Tampa has, in a league of parity. For Chicago their salary cap violations might've been the difference between 3 cups and 1 or 2 cups.

I also think the NHL has to do something about these trades that cut the cap hit of a player in four. If the NHL wants parity, how does that help achieve parity? If the point of the cap is to prevent big teams from financially towering over other teams by offering money for assets, something the NHL likes to say they don't participate in, how can you allow teams to essentially be trading assets for additional salary cap space?

People complain about contracts where the real money to pay is different from the cap hit. It allows cheap teams to not have to spend as much money, and allows the big spenders to buy themselves extra quality for their roster. This is the same principle. If you don't want teams to financially gain an advantage, and you impose a salary cap with strict rules to accomplish that, enforce your rules, and don't go easy on the teams that find a way around those rules.

 

[The Macho King]

The reason parity is actually so underwhelming in the NHL is because unless you already drafted somebody Crosby, Kane, Ovechkin, or Stamkos, you're limited in the ways you can improve your team.

This is the dirty secret. The problem in the NHL isn't the cap or whatever - it's the complete lack of player movement from superstar level players. You're never going to get a Hedman unless you draft him/develop him. You're not getting McDavid unless you draft or develop him.

The RFA limit is the biggest impediment toward parity in the league. 7 Years is an insane length of team control. By the time players become UFAs, they're toward the end of their prime.

Edit - max contract length at 5 years, max RFA years at 5 years. Suddenly the McDavid's of the world are becoming UFAs at either 23, or if they sign for 5 years after their ELC, 26 years old.

 

[bossram]

This is the dirty secret. The problem in the NHL isn't the cap or whatever - it's the complete lack of player movement from superstar level players. You're never going to get a Hedman unless you draft him/develop him. You're not getting McDavid unless you draft or develop him.

The RFA limit is the biggest impediment toward parity in the league. 7 Years is an insane length of team control. By the time players become UFAs, they're toward the end of their prime.

100%.

There should be no RFA system at all. Every player should be a complete free agent when their contracts are up.