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

[Ciao]

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.

Nothing sells baseball like dynasties.

Would MLB prefer a World Series between the Yankees and Dodgers or the Blue Jays and the Brewers?

Competitive balance be damned-- nothing sells like powerful, dynastic franchises.

My only complaint is that the Leafs aren't one of them -- and for sure as Hell it hasn't been the salary cap getting their way as there was none.

 

[Ciao]

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.

The "Poor me, my team is getting screwed by the salary cap" excuses don't cut it with me.

There's lots of reasons for competitive imbalances, but perceived gaps in the salary cap isn't one of them.

 

[Machinehead]

Nothing sells baseball like dynasties.

Would MLB prefer a World Series between the Yankees and Dodgers or the Blue Jays and the Brewers?

Competitive balance be damned-- nothing sells like powerful, dynastic franchises.

My only complaint is that the Leafs aren't one of them -- and for sure as Hell it hasn't been the salary cap getting their way as there was none.

Nothing sells any sport like dynasties, as much as people don't want to admit it.

Soccer, which effectively has no rules and is a financial battle royal, has more fans than any major religion.

 

[Ciao]

Nothing sells any sport like dynasties, as much as people don't want to admit it.

Soccer, which effectively has no rules and is a financial battle royal, has more fans than any major religion.

Europeans with sports like soccer, skiing and Fotmula1 automobile racing must view North American sports like hockey as pretty bush-league stuff.

If what you want to see is the best of the best then get rid of the training wheels and let the strongest franchises really compete.

Let's see a commisioner of soccer tell Barca they can't buy a player because he costs too much -- as if Barca couldn't decide that for itself. Or Ferrari to stop spending so much on engineering.

 

[Machinehead]

Europeans with sports like soccer, skiing and Fotmula1 automobile racing must view North American sports like hockey as pretty bush-league stuff.

If what you want to see is the best of the best then get rid of the training wheels and let the strongest franchises really compete.

I'm ok with some limits, because I think it's over the top how some teams like Man City and Real Madrid in their heyday buy all-star second teams that sit on the bench just so nobody else gets them, but I always found the NHL too strict.

That's why I don't really care what Tampa does. They're the only legit *great* team in NA sports in a long time. I want to see them.

Outside of basketball that is, but basketball is different beast because 6 or 7 guys can play the whole game. That's an acquired taste in and of itself, although basketball destroys any other NA team sport worldwide. FIBA has as many members as FIFA.

 

[Blackjack]

The "Poor me, my team is getting screwed by the salary cap" excuses don't cut it with me.

There's lots of reasons for competitive imbalances, but perceived gaps in the salary cap isn't one of them.

If you don't think the salary cap rules affect competitive balance (and, by extension, your favorite team's ability to be competitive) I'm not sure why you would care about them. Any old rules should be fine, no matter how arbitrary or capricious.

 

[joestevens29]

Lol and here the Oilers are saving money because Slatter Koekkoek and his 850K salary are potentially an issue now because he's ahead of schedule.

 

[LudwigVonKarlsson]

Nothing sells any sport like dynasties, as much as people don't want to admit it.

Soccer, which effectively has no rules and is a financial battle royal, has more fans than any major religion.

Soccer is also one of the cheapest sports in the world to play and can be played year round. You don't even need shoes to play, just a ball.

 

[Blackjack]

I'm ok with some limits, because I think it's over the top how some teams like Man City and Real Madrid in their heyday buy all-star second teams that sit on the bench just so nobody else gets them, but I always found the NHL too strict.

That's why I don't really care what Tampa does. They're the only legit *great* team in NA sports in a long time. I want to see them.

Outside of basketball that is, but basketball is different beast because 6 or 7 guys can play the whole game. That's an acquired taste in and of itself, although basketball destroys any other NA team sport worldwide. FIBA has as many members as FIFA.

A team that only won one cup and isn't even the favorite to win again this year are the only legit great team in NA sports in a long time? I don't understand that at all. The Brady era Patriots and Lebron's Heat are far greater teams just in the last 20 years.

 

[Chips]

You said you hadn’t thought them all 100% out, so I pointed some out. That’s discussion on a discussion forum, there’s more I also hadn’t thought of from your list but those were the immediate ones that popped to my mind as to why the league may prefer to not use some of the options you listed. Idk if you misread my tone or what, I was keeping the conversation moving


My point to different people throughout these threads has been it’s easy toget annoyed a good team will be good and vaguely say “they should change this” but there’s a reason the league hasn’t changed it, because it’s not common enough of a “problem” on the level of the Bolts situation to really care, when it’s just a matter of luck and timing anyway, that every team faces every year with their or their opponents roster. That’s teams motivation to build a good roster in the first place.

Every “fix” creates more issues either from the leagues perspective, or the players that aren’t worth it when the original “problem” doesn’t actually change much in the way of every team having luck. Sometimes great players are out and replaced with a bunch of cap value, and return early to the playoffs. Sometimes they return late after their team already suffered more injuries.

Most of the time they stay injured, and or their team wasn’t a lock for the playoffs even with them in the lineup and it’s about 95% of the season over the 5%.

the last big example was Kane several years ago, and his team still only went something like 12-8-3 after the deadline if I remember, not a super impressive stretch

 

[Machinehead]

Soccer is also one of the cheapest sports in the world to play and can be played year round. You don't even need shoes to play, just a ball.

Right, but those kids are all wearing Barcelona jerseys instead of shoes.

Soccer has many advantages but I don't think we can just ignore the reach that these dynastic teams have. Being cheap to play doesn't explain why it's far and away #1 in virtually every first world country outside of North America.

A team that only won one cup and isn't even the favorite to win again this year are the only legit great team in NA sports in a long time? I don't understand that at all. The Brady era Patriots and Lebron's Heat are far greater teams just in the last 20 years.

Well, I did say besides basketball, to be fair. The Patriots in their day certainly qualify but for me, they stopped being fun awhile ago. They really limped to their most recent Superbowl in what was a transition year for the rest of the league. Now, I hope the Chiefs will be interesting for awhile.

Not all dynasties are created equal. The San Francisco Giants won 3 titles in 5 years but I was never awed by them. They would squeak into the playoffs and then put Bumgarner on the mound every other day.

No disrespect to the Kings, but they were 40-42 in the regular season one of their Cup years. The 14-15 Blackhawks were the lower seed in every series. Not every team that gets over the line is necessarily dominant.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

You said you hadn’t thought them all 100% out, so I pointed some out. That’s discussion on a discussion forum, there’s more I also hadn’t thought of from your list but those were the immediate ones that popped to my mind as to why the league may prefer to not use some of the options you listed. Idk if you misread my tone or what, I was keeping the conversation moving

I know you (mis)read my comment about having spitballed ideas that might or might not be feasible and that none of them should be treated as serious ideas because I wasn't spending the time to do all of that, treated all of them as serious and final ideas, and ran accordingly.

 

[Chips]

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?

they’ve been really transparent and basically said everything from the day he had surgery, about 4 months which is typical and on the low end. We’ve seen multiple players get this surgery just over the last few years who missed at least 4 months. Keep in mind stamina conditioning, strength in the legs, flexibility etc so doesn’t just get re injured.

Even if the league didn’t have its protocols to evaluate any IR appointment (not just long term), every team would have asked the league to look into it, everybody has been aware of it. I assume they’ll evaluate again and if he were ready earlier they’ve face cap punishment and or I assume Kuch wouldn’t play.

Seguin had been playing with basically the same injury needed the same surgery for years (over which we know he looked way below his prime) and was just getting the shot to hold over, and as his GM described it he “destroyed” the injured muscle. He’s going to be out even longer than Kucherov

honestly I’d think it’s more likely he returns early less than 100%, than it is that he’s healthy way before and just faking out.


Playing on an injury sucks, and generally degrades further even in a normal year. Factor that, the fact this year is both short AND condensed, and the off-season was short especially for the bolts with whome Kuch played a bunch of games injured already..

Cherry on top, factor that at the time of his surgery nobody knew if the no-bubble covid season would even finish... why risk further injury and or delay needed surgery to the start of the next for-sure season. Hard as people try, it just made sense to get the surgery.

maybe he’s faking, but it’s at least equally (probably more likely) that he needed surgery and the condensed seasons length relative to the surgery’s normal time was just convenient. He’s probably not going to be 100% for his team whenever he returns

 

[Chips]

I know you (mis)read my comment about having spitballed ideas that might or might not be feasible and that none of them should be treated as serious ideas because I wasn't spending the time to do all of that, treated all of them as serious and final ideas, and ran accordingly.

Well, in any case, we aren’t alone here lol. Other people are vaguely saying “we should change this”, you provided some ideas others who didn’t already want to put thought in might run with, I addressed them for any who read

 

[34]

The only problem with the NHL salary cap is that it is not $100 million with a $20 million luxury tax on top of that. It should be like the NBA.

 

[AvroArrow]

The only problem with the NHL salary cap is that it is not $100 million with a $20 million luxury tax on top of that. It should be like the NBA.

The players in todays generation are getting shafted royally for their money. I was just looking back, Sundin was making 9M pre lockout. The league was MUCH smaller at that point and the stars were getting paid 9M back then, adjust it for inflation and the salary would be insane. With how much the game has grown they should be making a lot more than that now. The NHL does need to increase their cap, but that would just result in the players being made that much more. That extra 20M wouldn't go towards signing 2 more star forwards, it would be re-allocated among your current stars.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

The players in todays generation are getting shafted royally for their money. I was just looking back, Sundin was making 9M pre lockout. The league was MUCH smaller at that point and the stars were getting paid 9M back then, adjust it for inflation and the salary would be insane. With how much the game has grown they should be making a lot more than that now. The NHL does need to increase their cap, but that would just result in the players being made that much more. That extra 20M wouldn't go towards signing 2 more star forwards, it would be re-allocated among your current stars.

Lots of things different between then and now. If now were then, Sundin probably doesn't make $9M; he's made that (much) earlier in his career. If then were now, all the RFAs would be making considerably less and all the UFAs would be getting incredibly overpaid based on past performance.

If I have time later, I may go dig out what Toronto was spending on salaries at that period of time vs. what say Edmonton was spending on salaries at that time. It puts Sundin was making $9M pre lockout in a much different context.

 

[Martin Skoula]

The players in todays generation are getting shafted royally for their money. I was just looking back, Sundin was making 9M pre lockout. The league was MUCH smaller at that point and the stars were getting paid 9M back then, adjust it for inflation and the salary would be insane. With how much the game has grown they should be making a lot more than that now. The NHL does need to increase their cap, but that would just result in the players being made that much more. That extra 20M wouldn't go towards signing 2 more star forwards, it would be re-allocated among your current stars.

Matthews, McDavid, and Panarin all made of 13-15 million in salary this year. Sundin making 9 mil pre-lockout doesn't mean his AAV would be 9 mil, you'd have him at a 6-7 mil cap hit with a couple years of 9 mil in signing bonuses up front.

If GMs signed big names to 1-3 year deals regularly like they did pre-cap, you'd see a lot of 14+ mil cap hits even though they wouldn't actually be getting paid more take-home money than they are today. Adding a star's cheaper 35-39 year old seasons onto a contract to get the AAV down doesn't reduce what they make in their primes.

 

[34]

The players in todays generation are getting shafted royally for their money. I was just looking back, Sundin was making 9M pre lockout. The league was MUCH smaller at that point and the stars were getting paid 9M back then, adjust it for inflation and the salary would be insane. With how much the game has grown they should be making a lot more than that now. The NHL does need to increase their cap, but that would just result in the players being made that much more. That extra 20M wouldn't go towards signing 2 more star forwards, it would be re-allocated among your current stars.

The NBA salary cap is $109.1M with a $132.6M luxury tax. That is what the NHL should be! Why should the NHL stars be worth 1/4 of what the NBA stars are! It is BS.

 

[Chips]

The NBA salary cap is $109.1M with a $132.6M luxury tax. That is what the NHL should be! Why should the NHL stars be worth 1/4 of what the NBA stars are! It is BS.

NBA pulls in way more money to begin with, and I assume has less costs. For sure the former.

 

[Dicky113]

And that allegory is the comparison to who in the hockey world?

If I understand the thread, Kucherov

 

[AvroArrow]

The NBA salary cap is $109.1M with a $132.6M luxury tax. That is what the NHL should be! Why should the NHL stars be worth 1/4 of what the NBA stars are! It is BS.

Revenue generated is the main reason, NBA and their deal with China absolutely skyrocketed their revenue. I agree NHL players should be making more money, but proportionate to what they generate for the league, not what league X is making.

 

[Optimist]

Sour grapes because Dubas and his team of capologists are really, really good at this while the rest of the GM's are left scratching their heads and wondering "How'd he do that"?

 

[rojac]

The NBA salary cap is $109.1M with a $132.6M luxury tax. That is what the NHL should be! Why should the NHL stars be worth 1/4 of what the NBA stars are! It is BS.

In 2018-19, the last "normal" seasons for the NBA and NHL, the NBA had revenues of ~$8.76B while the NHL had revenues of ~$5.09B. If the NHL had the NBA's revenues, the cap would be around $140M.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

The NBA salary cap is $109.1M with a $132.6M luxury tax. That is what the NHL should be! Why should the NHL stars be worth 1/4 of what the NBA stars are! It is BS.

Right? Imagine how much more money the players could make* under this kind of a system!

* NBA players are subject to escrow because they also only get a certain percentage of revenues; last year, they ended up losing $384.4 million to the owners. Furthermore, last year only 4 teams paid the luxury tax and they collectively paid about $5 million. The Lakers were not one of those teams. Also: there's only about 13-14 players on an NBA team and 5 of them play 36+ minutes out of 48 a night; there's 21-23 players on an NHL team and at best they play less than half the 60 minutes of a regulation game. Other than that those kinds of things, the two leagues and two groups of players are exactly the same!