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

[The Podium]

If the league isnt re-writting the rules the GMs arent trying hard enough.

 

[TaLoN]

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.

Disagree. If you draft a superstar, you should be able to retain your superstar.

The league is right in encouraging the best players to remain where drafted.

It's not like Mario Lemieux went shopping his services pre-cap. Neither did Gretzky... he moved his trade, not free agency.

The best of the best usually stay put anyway, and for the fan's sake, they should. The league understands that, which is why teams that already have a player can offer a year more on a contract than any other.

This has increased movement in lower tier players though, and that movement across more possible teams has leveled the playing field allowing many more teams to be good over time and increasing overall competition and fan excitement.

Every market has the ability to improve on a level playing field. It's their own choices that decide success or failure now, not the system limiting them.

 

[Voight]

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.

Of course its #1 in Canada, but the US is where the money lies.

Yes, the Leafs financial power came into use recently when they swapped Clarkson for Horton.

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.

What violations....... genuinely confused unless you are talking about when we missed the RFA deadline back in 2009.... but that turned out to be a non issue.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

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.

Ish. What's there is more punitive than it should be at times. If I've got a guy on a 5-year, $25 million contract paying 6/6/5/4/4 and I want to send him down after 3 years,

• I've incurred $15 million against the cap but paid $17 million, so I've got a net $2 million advantage that I should have to pay back for his NHL services rendered under his contract.
• Instead, I'm hit with a little over $6 million in cap charges across the 2 years.
• Even a buyout after the 4th year means I took a little over $3 million in cap charge for Year 4 + the charge from the buyout. What I should have is a $1 million cap charge for Year 4 and then the charge from the buyout. It's still probably too much - there should probably be a credit for the $1 million not paid back that's contemplated in the buyout - but at least it's directionally closer.

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.

You can get a Tavares or Pietrangelo or a Panarin if they decide to walk or the team that drafts them decides to move on. Or, you can get a PLD if he decides he wants out of where he's at. Yes, it's rare but it's not impossible.

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.

Life isn't fair. The biggest impediments toward parity in the league are

1. Teams repeatedly making the same mistakes and not learning from them. (Hello Edmonton, Buffalo and New Jersey!)
2. Teams offering stupid contracts
3. Teams taking on someone else's stupid contracts

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.

1. You realize this would make the cap more rigid, right? Why not just go to 1-year contracts?
2. The idea of players being UFA at 23 goes right with ...

100%.

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

The MLBPA even recognizes this is silly, and at one point they pretty much had control of everything in MLB and didn't go for that.

 

[ClydeLee]

Of course its #1 in Canada, but the US is where the money lies.

Yes, the Leafs financial power came into use recently when they swapped Clarkson for Horton.



What violations....... genuinely confused unless you are talking about when we missed the RFA deadline back in 2009.... but that turned out to be a non issue.

It was an issue and they could of been able to keep at least someone more probably lin 2010-2011. Though what I find interesting is nobody here or nationally seems to ever complain about the biggest cap factor of how Chicago saved themselves in 2010-11, which the rule was changed in the CBA. That they ate Huet's 5.6 mil deal of 2 years left by being buried and then he went to France I think. Of course it was allowed then, and changed to the you only save a mil now, but that contract could of hampered them gigantically to lose a players like Sharp or Seabrook.

But these advantages things get changed in the CBA. I wonder if the ability to add other teams LTIR players to boost cap flexibility will really stay in future discussions

 

[Richard88]

Curious to hear how Vegas can conveniently be allowed to slip Reaves onto LTIR just hours before the deadline, until the playoffs...

 

[Voight]

It was an issue and they could of been able to keep at least someone more probably lin 2010-2011. Though what I find interesting is nobody here or nationally seems to ever complain about the biggest cap factor of how Chicago saved themselves in 2010-11, which the rule was changed in the CBA. That they ate Huet's 5.6 mil deal of 2 years left by being buried and then he went to France I think. Of course it was allowed then, and changed to the you only save a mil now, but that contract could of hampered them gigantically to lose a players like Sharp or Seabrook.

But these advantages things get changed in the CBA. I wonder if the ability to add other teams LTIR players to boost cap flexibility will really stay in future discussions

Well recently we've had mutual terminations that have wiped players off the salary cap. Schipachyov is a recent one. Gusev as well if I'm not mistaken? Its not uncommon nor against the rules.

Huet was loaned to a French team. It was a mutual thing as for him the alternative was play in the AHL. I don't think its fair to call it a cap violation. As for the RFA stuff - we still paid and re-signed the guys. We didn't really save any money, the NHLPA filed a grievance and it was resolved quickly.

 

[madinsomniac]

Pittsburgh, a small market, is utilizing Tanevs injury to afford Carter until the playoffs....


Yeah you can sort of circumvent, but those injuries have to be substantiated by a team doctor at some point... it still keeps costs down... those players were all under the overall cap at one point... and they cost assets to obtain so there isn’t a free easy way to get around it

 

[Ted Hoffman]

IThough what I find interesting is nobody here or nationally seems to ever complain about the biggest cap factor of how Chicago saved themselves in 2010-11, which the rule was changed in the CBA. That they ate Huet's 5.6 mil deal of 2 years left by being buried and then he went to France I think. Of course it was allowed then, and changed to the you only save a mil now, but that contract could of hampered them gigantically to lose a players like Sharp or Seabrook.

Chicago didn't "save" anything from the first couple of years of that contract, though. Huet counted $5,625,000 against the cap and that was also his salary every year. What they paid him for his NHL service was what they incurred against the cap. If he'd been paid say $15 million and counted $11,250,000 on the cap, then you'd have a point. The Blackhawks would have received a $3.75 million cap benefit that they never had to pay back with Huet playing elsewhere.

The way it is now, Huet would have counted $4.7 million on the cap both years and the Blackhawks would have eaten $9.4 million more in cap dollars than they paid to the player while he was in the NHL on their roster. [Given figures back then and applying the scheme now to then, he would have counted a little more than that.] Some people will claim that's totally fine. I don't see it that way, and I hate the Blackhawks with a passion. Over the life of a player's contract, $ incurred on the cap should = $ paid for a player's NHL services. Right now, that's not guaranteed to happen and it ends up negatively affecting the players as a result.

 

[IceNeophyte]

Curious to hear how Vegas can conveniently be allowed to slip Reaves onto LTIR just hours before the deadline, until the playoffs...

He was injured in a game the night before deadline. He came off the ice for the rest of the game and everything!

 

[Blackjack]

I'm definitely rooting for Tampa Bay to win the cup, maybe if they roll through the league with $105 million worth of players, fans of other teams will wake up and demand reform.

I think LTIR needs to be scrapped entirely, and salary retention as well. Cap hit should equal player compensation for the year (salary + bonus) or simply require contracts to have equal payouts in all years.

 

[BLNY]

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.

Institute this AND get rid of LTIRetirement.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I'm definitely rooting for Tampa Bay to win the cup, maybe if they roll through the league with $105 million worth of players, fans of other teams will wake up and demand reform.

I think you underestimate the ambivalence of hockey fans (and society) everywhere. It's like all the people who SWORE TO GOD they would never watch another hockey game, buy another piece of hockey merchandise, etc. They're all still around. Damn, damn few of them really followed through on their threats.

I think LTIR needs to be scrapped entirely, and salary retention as well.

LTIR is a legitimate tool. I'm fine with keeping it, but I'd agree that reforming how/when it can be used would be a good idea. [One would think the NHLPA might be interested in that; apparently they're interested in their leader getting them more useless benefits that the vast, vast, vast majority of them will never use.] I was adamantly opposed to salary retention when it was first mentioned as far back as 2009; people assured me it was necessary to make more trades and that it would never get abused by teams. *whistles walking away*

Cap hit should equal player compensation for the year (salary + bonus) or simply require contracts to have equal payouts in all years.

This makes the cap an incredibly hard cap. It's a non-solution in search of a problem that will create serious problems. What we need is cap "savings" to get charged back against the team that realized the savings, instead of passing the payback off on someone else, along with LTIR reforms as I touched on above.

 

[Chips]

I think you underestimate the ambivalence of hockey fans (and society) everywhere. It's like all the people who SWORE TO GOD they would never watch another hockey game, buy another piece of hockey merchandise, etc. They're all still around. Damn, damn few of them really followed through on their threats.


LTIR is a legitimate tool. I'm fine with keeping it, but I'd agree that reforming how/when it can be used would be a good idea. [One would think the NHLPA might be interested in that; apparently they're interested in their leader getting them more useless benefits that the vast, vast, vast majority of them will never use.] I was adamantly opposed to salary retention when it was first mentioned as far back as 2009; people assured me it was necessary to make more trades and that it would never get abused by teams. *whistles walking away*


This makes the cap an incredibly hard cap. It's a non-solution in search of a problem that will create serious problems. What we need is cap "savings" to get charged back against the team that realized the savings, instead of passing the payback off on someone else, along with LTIR reforms as I touched on above.

What specifically could be changed about LTIR?

people say stuff like that when a great team benefits, but I don’t think they actually know how that would affect the league when you’re not looking at this specific LTIR “issue” in a vacuum


Any “fix” creates more, arguably worse problems and teams really don’t seem to care about changing the current rule since they all can (and will, at some point or another) do it. Teams don’t have percent vision, or luck, they want flexibility. Players want a chance to move and compete


I mean, the bolts announced the day of his surgery that kucherov would be back early playoffs, there was no outpouring of anger from actual NHL people, there’s no “if”


Teams don’t actually feel that regular season “doesn’t matter”. It’s 90-100% of teams games. LTIR is about icing a competitive (and entertaining, more so than watching AHL players; not to mention player movement/new looks/new players for a fan base is exciting) roster for that 90-100% and fighting for home ice which is important.

plenty of bad/average/okay teams have made mistakes with contracts before and need the rule. Great players stuck on crap teams benefit from the increased chance of playing meaningful games as well. Fans would be more unhappy more often with LTIR removed or seriously altered.

 

[BoltSTH]

It is not circumvention if it is legal by the CBA rules. If a GM is smart enough to know the rules using them to upgrade the team (now, or later), and an owner willing to pay for any non insured LTIR, there is no illegality. TB played with 11F and 6D last game to be compliant, as Rutta was not on LTIR until after the 5pm game day deadline. Bettman et. al. will not allow a team to play if it is not cap compliant.

Some might not like the current rules, but don't blame the GM for doing their job.

 

[ole ole]

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.

Totally agree and it's not often i agree with a Leaf fan.

 

[IceNeophyte]

A simple solution would be to maintain the cap in the postseason, but exempt call-ups from counting toward the cap. That way, a team could have its emergency call ups and get kids from minors in the lineup, for example, without playing LTIR games. LTIR would count against the cap if activated. If that takes a team over the cap, it can't play him.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

A simple solution would be to maintain the cap in the postseason, but exempt call-ups from counting toward the cap. That way, a team could have its emergency call ups and get kids from minors in the lineup, for example, without playing LTIR games. LTIR would count against the cap if activated. If that takes a team over the cap, it can't play him.

Players on IR count against the cap. So do players on LTIR. It's only been a misguided notion for 15 years and counting that players on LTIR don't count. I don't know where it started, but I know after having explained it hundreds and thousands of times and having written about it for others, this notion still lives on. It's time for it and a whole lot of other misguided notions about how LTIR and the cap interact to stop.

To your idea: we still have to define what it means by "maintain the cap in the postseason" since there's no certain daily accrual like there is in the regular season. Are we talking about the sum of the cap hits of guys on the roster? Just the guys on the playing roster for a given night? Are we talking about their full cap hits or just the pro-rated amount they counted against the cap during the season? Is that part across all teams or just the playoff team? Do we allow for the bonus overage or not? Can LTIR exist? If not, how do we handle players who are injured and may miss some significant part of the playoffs? [Fixed by just looking at a night's playing roster, but this still has issues.] There's a whole lot of questions that need to be answered before we can get to dealing with this idea, which I suspect needs to be rethought out - but since there is no roster limit and no "emergency recalls" as it is, I suspect we'd need some form of "taxi squad" in place where teams have their minor league affiliate out but want to bring up guys to be around for a deep playoff run with the NHL team, and the NHLPA probably will have thoughts (and demands) on it.

 

[IceNeophyte]

Players on IR count against the cap. So do players on LTIR. It's only been a misguided notion for 15 years and counting that players on LTIR don't count. I don't know where it started, but I know after having explained it hundreds and thousands of times and having written about it for others, this notion still lives on. It's time for it and a whole lot of other misguided notions about how LTIR and the cap interact to stop.

To your idea: we still have to define what it means by "maintain the cap in the postseason" since there's no certain daily accrual like there is in the regular season. Are we talking about the sum of the cap hits of guys on the roster? Just the guys on the playing roster for a given night? Are we talking about their full cap hits or just the pro-rated amount they counted against the cap during the season? Is that part across all teams or just the playoff team? Do we allow for the bonus overage or not? Can LTIR exist? If not, how do we handle players who are injured and may miss some significant part of the playoffs? [Fixed by just looking at a night's playing roster, but this still has issues.] There's a whole lot of questions that need to be answered before we can get to dealing with this idea, which I suspect needs to be rethought out - but since there is no roster limit and no "emergency recalls" as it is, I suspect we'd need some form of "taxi squad" in place where teams have their minor league affiliate out but want to bring up guys to be around for a deep playoff run with the NHL team, and the NHLPA probably will have thoughts (and demands) on it.

I do see the holes in the idea. Firstly, by "count against the cap", I meant that cap relief would go away in the same sense it goes away in regular season when a player comes off LTIR. Coming up with a surrogate cap is difficult when the players aren't getting paid. Let's say each game would have a cap hit equivalent to the daily cap hit of their salaries, and the cap would be the standard daily cap in a regular season game. Only the iced roster would count against the cap.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

What specifically could be changed about LTIR?

I'd have to sit and think about it a while to go through pros/cons and think scenarios out, but here's my starting list in about 7 minutes:

• Restrictions on when players on LTIR can be traded to another team.
• Restrictions on when players can be designated for LTIR.
• Minimum missed time for LTIR increases from 10 games and 28 days to 20 games and 45 days. [Puts it closer to the minimum of time missed requirements for insurance, where a player's salary may be insured.]
• Formal requirement that a player designated for LTIR be "tagged" for a specified period of time up to and including the end of the regular season. If, after that amount of time the player is still not fit to play, the team may extend the tag by no more than 10 games and 28 days unless the team designates the player as season-ending LTIR, in which case the player is deemed unfit to play for the remainder of the League Year, including the playoffs. Such a designation, once made, cannot be revoked. [Little more to this, but this is the essence of what I want to accomplish.] A player still unfit to play after the 2nd tag shall be deemed to be on season-ending LTIR.
• A player that, prior to the beginning of the season, is designated as LTIR for the entire regular season whether by initial tag or by initial tag + extension, is considered to be on season-ending LTIR.
• A team utilizing LTIR may not have more than 10% of the Upper Limit in cap hit designated as LTIR. Any excess is not replaceable by the team except that when trying to fill a playing roster, teams may use any player whose cap hit is equal to the league minimum.

Again, I haven't thought these out for pros/cons and loopholes. I'm also sure I've got ideas jotted down elsewhere. It's my "sit down in a handful of minutes, see what comes to mind" list.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I do see the holes in the idea. Firstly, by "count against the cap", I meant that cap relief would go away in the same sense it goes away in regular season when a player comes off LTIR. Coming up with a surrogate cap is difficult when the players aren't getting paid. Let's say each game would have a cap hit equivalent to the daily cap hit of their salaries, and the cap would be the standard daily cap in a regular season game. Only the iced roster would count against the cap.

There is no "daily cap hit of their salaries" in the playoffs. We don't know how long the playoffs will go on, so how many days are we counting? If we undercount, teams potentially get restricted when they could have had more space; if we overcount, teams potentially get more space than they should have had.

If a player is hurt in the postseason, shouldn't cap relief be available? If a player is legitimately hurt in the regular season and won't be back until the 2nd round or so, why shouldn't cap relief be available? If we're only counting the "iced [playing] roster" doesn't that need to be submitted for approval in advance of the game, so if there's an issue the league can ix-nay it and the team can re-submit and get a compliant roster approved? How close to game time can we do that? If there's a need for a late scratch, then how do we get a substitute in and the new roster approved? Coaches aren't memorizing their players' cap hits; they're not the GM, they shouldn't be required to know that stuff. GMs trust their coaches to fill out roster and know who to play on a given night. How do we maintain that reporting structure with some game-time like cap idea?

Again, lots of questions. No simple answers. Not something that's getting solved in say the next 60 minutes, or 60 hours, or probably even 60 days if we all sit and think about it. Don't know about all of you, I have a day job; I (still) don't have anyone paying me for my CBA thoughts and opinions to make up for that.

 

[LTIR Trickery]

A simple solution would be to maintain the cap in the postseason, but exempt call-ups from counting toward the cap. That way, a team could have its emergency call ups and get kids from minors in the lineup, for example, without playing LTIR games. LTIR would count against the cap if activated. If that takes a team over the cap, it can't play him.

In theory this isn't a bad idea at all, but the problem is you may end up turning the league into something like MLB with service time manipulation which will bring its own can of worms, and I can imagine the PA would certainly be pissed off about that.

 

[Blackjack]

I think you underestimate the ambivalence of hockey fans (and society) everywhere. It's like all the people who SWORE TO GOD they would never watch another hockey game, buy another piece of hockey merchandise, etc. They're all still around. Damn, damn few of them really followed through on their threats.

Not really looking to have this kind of conversation. People change their minds sometimes and things change sometimes. I'm just arguing for what I'd like to see changed.

LTIR is a legitimate tool. I'm fine with keeping it, but I'd agree that reforming how/when it can be used would be a good idea. [One would think the NHLPA might be interested in that; apparently they're interested in their leader getting them more useless benefits that the vast, vast, vast majority of them will never use.] I was adamantly opposed to salary retention when it was first mentioned as far back as 2009; people assured me it was necessary to make more trades and that it would never get abused by teams. *whistles walking away*

LTIR is no more or less legitimate than any other part of the salary cap, they're all arbitrary rules that can be discarded at any time. I didn't have strong opinions on any of the cap provisions after the lockout, but I think these two items have emerged as clear problems in recent years.

This makes the cap an incredibly hard cap. It's a non-solution in search of a problem that will create serious problems. What we need is cap "savings" to get charged back against the team that realized the savings, instead of passing the payback off on someone else, along with LTIR reforms as I touched on above.

I'm not sure what "non-solution" means, right now there are a couple of specific circumstances where teams are allowed to exceed the salary cap. If those exceptions are removed, they will simply have to act within the new confines of the cap.

If the current rule structure remains in place, you will continue to see fans suspicious of injuries, frustrated at what other teams are getting away with, and unhappy with the lack of parity. To me, it's no different than when the Rangers buried Wade Redden in the AHL and the rest of the league realized that that was just cheating, and changed the rules.

 

[IceNeophyte]

There is no "daily cap hit of their salaries" in the playoffs. We don't know how long the playoffs will go on, so how many days are we counting? If we undercount, teams potentially get restricted when they could have had more space; if we overcount, teams potentially get more space than they should have had.

If a player is hurt in the postseason, shouldn't cap relief be available? If a player is legitimately hurt in the regular season and won't be back until the 2nd round or so, why shouldn't cap relief be available? If we're only counting the "iced [playing] roster" doesn't that need to be submitted for approval in advance of the game, so if there's an issue the league can ix-nay it and the team can re-submit and get a compliant roster approved? How close to game time can we do that? If there's a need for a late scratch, then how do we get a substitute in and the new roster approved? Coaches aren't memorizing their players' cap hits; they're not the GM, they shouldn't be required to know that stuff. GMs trust their coaches to fill out roster and know who to play on a given night. How do we maintain that reporting structure with some game-time like cap idea?

Again, lots of questions. No simple answers. Not something that's getting solved in say the next 60 minutes, or 60 hours, or probably even 60 days if we all sit and think about it. Don't know about all of you, I have a day job; I (still) don't have anyone paying me for my CBA thoughts and opinions to make up for that.

Daily cap hit of their salary in a regular season game, projected to post season. I think you might be purposefully obtuse at this point.

 

[Chips]

I'd have to sit and think about it a while to go through pros/cons and think scenarios out, but here's my starting list in about 7 minutes:

• Restrictions on when players on LTIR can be traded to another team.
• Restrictions on when players can be designated for LTIR.
• Minimum missed time for LTIR increases from 10 games and 28 days to 20 games and 45 days. [Puts it closer to the minimum of time missed requirements for insurance, where a player's salary may be insured.]
• Formal requirement that a player designated for LTIR be "tagged" for a specified period of time up to and including the end of the regular season. If, after that amount of time the player is still not fit to play, the team may extend the tag by no more than 10 games and 28 days unless the team designates the player as season-ending LTIR, in which case the player is deemed unfit to play for the remainder of the League Year, including the playoffs. Such a designation, once made, cannot be revoked. [Little more to this, but this is the essence of what I want to accomplish.] A player still unfit to play after the 2nd tag shall be deemed to be on season-ending LTIR.
• A player that, prior to the beginning of the season, is designated as LTIR for the entire regular season whether by initial tag or by initial tag + extension, is considered to be on season-ending LTIR.
• A team utilizing LTIR may not have more than 10% of the Upper Limit in cap hit designated as LTIR. Any excess is not replaceable by the team except that when trying to fill a playing roster, teams may use any player whose cap hit is equal to the league minimum.

Again, I haven't thought these out for pros/cons and loopholes. I'm also sure I've got ideas jotted down elsewhere. It's my "sit down in a handful of minutes, see what comes to mind" list.

plenty of loopholes for some of those from some perspectives, especially from players perspectives potentially being punished missing playoff games they could have returned from genuine injury for without the tags

I just really don’t see this as an issue at all, let alone that the league would ever want to address with most/all of those or they would have.

It almost doesn’t sound the fixes are bad when you just look at the team as a Leafs/Bolts caliber team, but this hardly happens with a player remotely as good as Kuch (I doubt as many non-Canadian-non-leafs fans care about the edition of Nash caliber lol) as that on a team overall that good;

you’re way more likely to have lesser/average playoff teams have a variety of different injuries of different severity with different timing most who aren’t half as deep as the bolts. you want those teams to have good rosters

additionally factor is that it’s a business and they want players to play + better games. More depth = better hockey (especially when some of the team in it already aren’t nearly as fun to watch fully healthy, they have flexibility to not have their chances caved because of bad choices every team can make not seeing the future)

and that GMs, owners have personal relationships with their players who they know want to play, they would want that option open for themselves

teams getting those players will almost certainly just have more injuries rather than be able to ice their entire on-paper roster all playoffs. The fact is already every season teams have bad luck/good luck with their own injury timing/facing an opponent just as they lost their players after the deadline; I don’t think most /all teams view this much/any different when you consider the timing of a player getting injured to return for playoffs has to be pretty lucky (*again assuming it’s a real injury, and we’ve seen 0 indication any OP examples are faked). That’s the Bolts again I don’t necessarily care about the trading of a LTIR player himself question, but that seems like something you’d have to fundamentally change trading itself.


The league has its protocols for making sure injuries / surgeries are real. Beyond that I don’t think teams care to much at all, or that players wouldn’t want the chance to play after an injure/be traded from a garbage team to a playoff team.

the league isn’t looking at this from the perspective of fans who are just mad their own team seemingly has less chance of winning in their minds lol.



I’m sure we would hear more public griping from NHL people, or at least insiders writing about that which I basically haven’t seen despite us always having known for months the timing of Kuch’s return.
——————-
—————————
———————————

Can you elaborate on how you’d address “when a player can be designated LTIR” I assume timing in/around the season, but specifically? Idk if that’s about Kuch’s surgery pre season or a player declared right before the deadline, but again the league verifies appointments. I don’t see the need to hold a now-healthy player out if he was really hurt

———————
———————————
The LTIR is infinitely more about the regular season than playoffs, I doubt you’ll get much support from teams to basically double the minimum requirement as a 10 game stretch can already make or break a season
———————-
———————————

what’s the highest % of a teams cap given to one star? If it’s even approaching 10% I think teams should be able to replace that player missing significant time, and likely would need to.

again I really doubt there’d be much support for most/all of those outside of fans who will do anything to make so their own team has better odds lol.