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

[Blackjack]

I don't understand what you mean.

Are you suggesting that LTIR is a "bizarre contract exception?" If so, I would disagree because its not at all "bizarre", nor is it a contract exception.

The player contract is fully respected and remains in place. The only exception is to the salary cap, which does not apply while the player is injured and unable to play. That is not at all bizarre.

Yes, it's bizarre and arbitrary. Let's illustrate with a thought exercise: If a player is injured for the playoffs, let's have an exception where a team can make a trade for a replacement. Essentially, an injury exception to the trade deadline for the playoffs, the same way there's an injury exception to the salary cap for the regular season.

You'd have the same questions about the legitimacy of injuries that teams are claiming, you'd have the same "convenient" injuries that allow teams to ice a stronger roster than they would have if the player wasn't injured at all.

Why is it that in the playoffs, we accept that injuries are an unfortunate part of the game, but during the regular season we don't?

 

[Ted Hoffman]

And with that, LTIR is still not "some bizarre contract exception."

That is correct, no matter how many times people want to argue otherwise by complaining about this season like it couldn't (didn't) happen in any prior season. I still eagerly look forward to all their bad ideas to "fix" this problem that will merely create more problems.

 

[Ciao]

Yes, it's bizarre and arbitrary. Let's illustrate with a thought exercise: If a player is injured for the playoffs, let's have an exception where a team can make a trade for a replacement. Essentially, an injury exception to the trade deadline for the playoffs, the same way there's an injury exception to the salary cap for the regular season.

You'd have the same questions about the legitimacy of injuries that teams are claiming, you'd have the same "convenient" injuries that allow teams to ice a stronger roster than they would have if the player wasn't injured at all.

Why is it that in the playoffs, we accept that injuries are an unfortunate part of the game, but during the regular season we don't?

Because the salary cap is all about cost containment, and during the playoffs the players are not paid and there are no costs to contain.

That's why.

If you're thinking there should be other rules in place to ensure competitive balance thats fine and dandy, but it has nothing to do with LTIR, nor with the salary cap at all.

I can't imagine any owners or players agreeing to a rule that prevents players who are under contract and fit to play from playing for their respective teams during the playoffs.

Why don't you propose a draft rule to that effect and see how it flies?

 

[Machinehead]

Sounds a lot like someone who didn't watch much hockey pre cap era.

You mean when the Islanders, Devils, and Oilers won like half the Cups?

Wow, those big-market giants just throwing cash around!

 

[rojac]

If the PA or the owners see this as a big enough problem to be fixed, they may fix it. Otherwise, why worry about it? If it makes the NHL unenjoyable for you, stop following the NHL and spend that time doing something enjoyable.

 

[Blackjack]

Because the salary cap is all about cost containment, and during the playoffs the players are not paid and there are no costs to contain.

That's why.

If you're thinking there should be other rules in place to ensure competitive balance thats fine and dandy, but it has nothing to do with LTIR, nor with the salary cap at all.

I can't imagine any owners or players agreeing to a rule that prevents players who are under contract and fit to play from playing for their respective teams during the playoffs.

Why don't you propose a draft rule to that effect and see how it flies?

So the cap is not about competitive balance at all?

 

[Blackjack]

If the PA or the owners see this as a big enough problem to be fixed, they may fix it. Otherwise, why worry about it? If it makes the NHL unenjoyable for you, stop following the NHL and spend that time doing something enjoyable.

You can say that about any rule or structure in the entire sport and foreclose all discussion on it.

 

[Ciao]

So the cap is not about competitive balance at all?

No. It's about cost certainty for the owners.

 

[Machinehead]

So the cap is not about competitive balance at all?

The cap is about money and profits.

Imagine thinking the owners care how much you enjoy the product. They don't have to because the league has no competition.

 

[Blackjack]

No. It's about cost certainty for the owners.

Then no cap is needed at all. Owners can simply set their own internal cap and not worry about what other owners are spending.

 

[Machinehead]

Then no cap is needed at all. Owners can simply set their own internal cap and not worry about what other owners are spending.

You can't just not worry about what other owners are spending. The other owners set the market for what you end up spending.

 

[Blackjack]

The cap is about money and profits.

Imagine thinking the owners care how much you enjoy the product. They don't have to because the league has no competition.

I'm under no illusion about the owners, but my point is that the cap has to be about competitive balance. Owners want the ability to ice a competitive team without the spiraling costs the league saw when Bobby Holik was making $9 million a year. If you remove competitive balance as a goal, you no longer have a need for a cap at all.

 

[Blackjack]

You can't just not worry about what other owners are spending. The other owners set the market for what you end up spending.

There are roster limits and you can simply sign whoever is left. Remember, we're completely setting aside the issue of competitive balance, so the fact that you now have an AHL roster or worse is not a problem.

 

[Ciao]

Then no cap is needed at all. Owners can simply set their own internal cap and not worry about what other owners are spending.

Sounds good to me. I would be all for that.

However, that's not the view of the NHL. The Commisioner bluntly said the owners were spending g too much on player salaries before the cap, and that's why they locked the players out twice to achieve cost certainty, not to ensure the Devils, Ducks and Hurricanes could compete with the Leafs and Rangers -- as if that were hardly necessary.

I suggest you wrap your proposal for recission of the salary cap up with your restrictions on healthy players under contract playing in the playoffs and see where that takes you.

I don't think you would get too far.

 

[Blackjack]

Sounds good to me. I would be all for that.

However, that's not the view of the NHL. The Commisioner bluntly said the owners were spending g too much on player salaries before the cap, and that's why they locked the players out twice to achieve cost certainty, not to ensure the Devils, Ducks and Hurricanes could compete with the Leafs and Rangers -- as if that were hardly necessary.

I suggest you wrap your proposal for recission of the salary cap up with your restrictions on healthy players under contract playing in the playoffs and see where that takes you.

I don't think you would get too far.

I would prefer no cap or a luxury tax system with no loopholes to what we have now, which is a "hard cap" with giant loopholes that get abused and piss off fans.

The views of the NHL and what the owners and players are likely to do are irrelevant to what I prefer.

 

[Machinehead]

I'm under no illusion about the owners, but my point is that the cap has to be about competitive balance. Owners want the ability to ice a competitive team without the spiraling costs the league saw when Bobby Holik was making $9 million a year. If you remove competitive balance as a goal, you no longer have a need for a cap at all.

You're overestimating how much owners want or need a competitive team. To an extent, sure, because the product you're selling is hockey and you need to be able to play hockey, but it's probably not one of the bigger driving forces.

Sports fans are loyal to their clan and it's a rather inelastic demand. You also have to factor in how advertisers see the market which has nothing to do with hockey. We have very little evidence that on-ice success correlates with finances.

The Rangers and Leafs have one Cup between them since the Vietnam War and their profits are off the charts. Tampa is the best constructed team arguably in pro sports and their operating income is in the red. You could say the exact same of the Devils in the 90's.

There are roster limits and you can simply sign whoever is left. Remember, we're completely setting aside the issue of competitive balance, so the fact that you now have an AHL roster or worse is not a problem.

Teams have done this.

Before the cap floor, the Blackhawks actively iced the cheapest team they could. The Senators *still* try to do this.

 

[ClydeLee]

Kucherov is injured.

That's why he is not playing.

For how long? What's his recovery time expected. What would actually happen of say in the next 2 weeks he and the doctors say he is cleared to play?

 

[Ciao]

There are roster limits and you can simply sign whoever is left. Remember, we're completely setting aside the issue of competitive balance, so the fact that you now have an AHL roster or worse is not a problem.

Restrictions on roster sizes and the trade deadline were in effect long before the salary cap. It's not a cap issue.

 

[Ciao]

I would prefer no cap or a luxury tax system with no loopholes to what we have now, which is a "hard cap" with giant loopholes that get abused and piss off fans.

The views of the NHL and what the owners and players are likely to do are irrelevant to what I prefer.

And vice versa.

 

[Ciao]

For how long? What's his recovery time expected. What would actually happen of say in the next 2 weeks he and the doctors say he is cleared to play?

Maybe you should direct your enquiry to someone with access to Kucherov's personal health information.

The rest of us really wouldn't have a clue.

 

[ClydeLee]

Maybe you should direct your enquiry to someone with access to Kucherov's personal health information.

The rest of us really wouldn't have a clue.

It would be capwise topic of interest and several here seem to act like cap masters

 

[Machinehead]

You can see it pretty clearly in a sport like baseball that has no salary floor. Several MLB teams every year are very obviously not trying because just not having a team is more cost-effective than trying to make the playoffs.

 

[Ciao]

It would be capwise topic of interest and several here seem to act like cap masters

Well, perhaps one of them might know.

 

[ER89]

f*** that. Get rid of the cap altogether.

 

[Blackjack]

Restrictions on roster sizes and the trade deadline were in effect long before the salary cap. It's not a cap issue.

The post I was responding to suggested that the owners can't just not worry about what other teams are spending. My point is that if you remove competitive balance as a concern, they can.