I'm a Leafs fan so I'm all about anything that gives us an advantage but that's what I think the owners are going to go after in the next CBA negotiation
The Nylander Chronicles Part XXI - Legal Drinking Age in the US Version
- Thread starter BertCorbeau
- Start date
- Status
I'm a Leafs fan so I'm all about anything that gives us an advantage but that's what I think the owners are going to go after in the next CBA negotiation
I think the owners of the poorer teams won’t have much of a say since they are the ones receiving charity from the richer teams. If anything, the richer team owners will be asking the poorer teams to give back if they are in the red.
Players on the other hand will be asking for a mandatory rise to the cap as well as Franchise player rule, where each team can sign someone outside of the salary cap.
PromisedLand
I need more FOOD
(just replying to your first scenario - the reply is the same to the rest of scenarios you present)
Fair enough from a mathematical pov to achieve the cap hit and the "total" dollar value I get your point it will workout the way you have demonstrated.
However, front loaded contract that gives Nylander 10 million dollars in hand as opposed to 6.044 as in your first scenario; (especially if signing bonus); this means 4 more million dollars in hand
it also means:
- investment (bonds, stocks, etc...)
- property investments
- earn intrest in savings accounts at the least or freakin' GICs like safe investment in Europe if not in Canada etc.....
So I guess I had it wrong before; it is in Nylander's interest to delay it in hope of getting that "higher" first pay
Ratboy
I made a funny!
- Jul 15, 2009
- 16,855
- 3,343
I hope so but what are you basing it on? Kypers tweet? Dubas meeting Gross in NY?
Or the flights of fancy, one so flighty its nothing BUT fancy!?
DanM
Registered User
- Oct 2, 2017
- 5,584
- 3,516
I am sure they will, it just sucks. I get that growth is healthy, but I just want some advantages, large markets deserve that much.
The players have wanted a lot of things over the years, unfortunately for them they end up losing more often than not, I'd be shocked if they got any of those things
The league has a vested interest in not screwing over the poorer teams and letting the bigger boys get there own way, it's been that way for years so why is it any different now?
Canada4Gold
Registered User
- Dec 22, 2010
- 42,997
- 9,190
You can frontload my examples too, it's just I did a backwards calculation from your results to obtain my numbers and it would have made the job much more complex with varying money throughout the term. I'm confident it wouldn't be that difficult to get a frontloaded example fairly close to your numbers through guess and check, but with 4 examples to do and wanting to be exactly the same it was easier to just use a formula to get from your results back to mine.
As far as signing bonuses that was the answer I expected initially. And while I cannot be 100% certain on that matter as I was about the now v. Dec 1st thing, I'm fairly confident using signing bonuses would change the formula. There's no precedent for it as nobody who has signed late has gotten a year 1 signing bonus, but CapFriendly's formula doesn't actually exist in the CBA. It's likely something they came up with based on the examples they had, and the way the formula is intended to work it divides the money the player actually gets paid by the term to determine the cap hit(if there's no bonus), if there was a bonus the formula would likely change to
[year 1 signing bonus + (days left/total days) * year 1 salary + remaining value] / term
as that's the way the formula was initially designed. However it would depend on the wording that the NHL has on file, whether in the CBA(it's impossible to pick any sense in it) or on other precedent files agreed upon. It is theoretically possible that the Leafs use a massive bonus, and then grieve the cap hit saying the signing bonus shouldn't be included in full and win that case based on the wording that has been used and get a silly good cap hit and getting Nylander more money too. Not likely by any means, but possible.
Nithoniniel
Registered User
My ideal lineup, and I might be alone with this, would be something like:
Leivo - Matthews - Nylander
Hyman - Tavares - Marner
Johnsson - Kadri - Kapanen
Marleau - Lindholm - Brown
Notes:
- First line elite duo has speed, zone exit and entry ability, playmaking and finishing. Compared to last season, complement player Leivo offers less speed and better ability to make plays.
- Second line intact.
- Third line actually gives Kadri talent to play with.
- Fourth line can play to an identity of straight line hockey but with enough skill to have an edge on most other fourth lines.
- No matchup lines. Just roll them.
- Regarding Leivo on the top line over Kapanen. I figured first line needed a complementary player, third line could use the guy who can create with his feet.
Last edited:
Like I said, that’s what probably what the players want but won’t happen bc it means less profit for the owners.
I can see having a soft cap like the NBA, as the luxury tax will be given to poorer teams. Kind of like it now except instead of profit sharing, the richer teams are getting something in return for sharing their profits.
Nithoniniel
Registered User
That connection is one I've never understood. Why does our market deserve an advantage?
To me, that's like saying that Usain Bolt should have gotten a head start because he draws more revenue to the sport than the others sprinters.
Personally, I'm glad we don't have any advantages. No excuses for when we win then.
PromisedLand
I need more FOOD
Yup now that I think about it you are right.
one can choose a front loaded contract too and your point will still stand. no reason to wait till dec. 1st
Nithoniniel
Registered User
Yes. As I explained in the post.
And hopefully not. He's one of few who might be better than just depth option for us.
DanM
Registered User
- Oct 2, 2017
- 5,584
- 3,516
Understand your view point but there are a few problems.
1. Different states have different tax rate. That already put some teams in an advantage over other teams.
2. Profit sharing, there must be reasons why some teams are successful and making money. Most often or not, these financial success teams charge a high amount for ticket prices, concessions and merchandises while teams in the red charge a lot less. Since there are profit sharing, in a way, fans for the financial success teams are literally paying for other fans. Furthermore, if these poor teams win the draft lottery, it would mean that us fans are bankrolling these these teams to have talents that we can’t have. That’s does not sound fair to me.
I am not saying teams like the Leafs, Habs and others should have advantages but there should be punishments for teams who can’t even be in the black.
I believe a luxury tax like the NBA will solve this. As rich teams can spend certain percentage over the cap while still giving money to the poorer teams as a form of tax. At the same time, I think if teams are in the red, their draft position have to drop a few spots as a form of punishment.
Nithoniniel
Registered User
Yeah. I'm of a different mind there, I want financial might and such as much out of the competitive field as possible. Or rather, I don't want rules that benefit a rich team directly. That's why I don't like the soft cap, it gives us possibilities that aren't there for other teams.
What I would be fine with, and that does allow us some possibilities, would be rules that allow some contractual advantages for developed players. Since that is a tool available to everyone, it doesn't necessarily unhinge the competitive field, but it's a tool that we'll be able to make use of. As an example, a cap benefit that grows exponentially with AAV. To use a current example, maybe we could give Willy $8M per year but at a cap hit of only $7M due to him being developed in our organization. Thus making it easier for us to keep our core together, without helping teams in any way buy success. And it's a tool that even cap floor teams could use, although most likely more sporadically.
That kind of rule would be something I could live with, to be honest.
Last edited:
DanM
Registered User
- Oct 2, 2017
- 5,584
- 3,516
Well said
Like franchise tags, that will lesson the amount of cap penalty. I have thought about that for a while, I think they should be allowed 2 players, developed, and have them count less.
Nithoniniel
Registered User
Absolutely. But there's no need to take a stance of perfection or nothing here. It's not a perfectly even playing field, but the closer we can get the better.
Here's where I see a differentiation between team and its fans. The team is the one competing. We are the customers buying a product. It's not one entity, and the teams are not competing to have the most fans. I see a clear separation between us buying products for our own reason, and that meaning the team we cheer for should get advantages. It's based on the idea that we are entitled to more because we pay more, but we aren't buying advantages. We are buying personal items.
But if we are allowed to pay to a higher cap than other teams, we do have an advantage. Pretty much as big of an advantage as you can get in today's NHL.
And by taking the poorer teams and punishing them with less opportunity to get elite talents, you are basically killing growth markets. They will always start out in the red, but through acquisition of talent can grow interest to eventually become an asset, and not a problem. If we start to punish these teams, they'll die out instead.
Nithoniniel
Registered User
Yeah. My idea with the exponential increase is that it doesn't really help a team with most of its players. It doesn't mean we can draft a ton of players, and get a cap benefit on all of them. On our current team, we might see zero benefit on our Brown's or Hyman's, just a small benefit on Rielly and Kadri, but a potentially meaningful one on Nylander, Marner, and Matthews. Enough that we get a bit of breathing room. I think it achieves the same thing as what you said here without setting any hard limits. You avoid the question of why having Draisaitl and McDavid is OK, but having Nylander, Marner, and Matthews is too much of an advantage.
Albus Dumbledore
Master of Death
- Mar 28, 2015
- 9,007
- 2,670
Gauthier isnt getting enough credit so far, 4th lines generally dont produce positive corsi yet gaut 6 games in has
2.1% corsi rel and 48.6% on the dot while starting 37.5% in the d zone, hes clearly been effective.
And if you watch the games, his skating is actually good, hes big and uses his body a decent amount, throwing hits and good board battles.
This time last year we never thought he would be an nhler, hes put in his dues and is a good bet for 4c duties, let him grow with the team and be our brian boyle(prolly not the same level of offense but hey).
2.1% corsi rel and 48.6% on the dot while starting 37.5% in the d zone, hes clearly been effective.
And if you watch the games, his skating is actually good, hes big and uses his body a decent amount, throwing hits and good board battles.
This time last year we never thought he would be an nhler, hes put in his dues and is a good bet for 4c duties, let him grow with the team and be our brian boyle(prolly not the same level of offense but hey).
To me, this is why a 'cap' with a heavy luxury tax makes the most sense to me.
If the cap stays at a 50-50 split (i.e in the cap) and everything above the cap is taxed like the MLB id be happy.
First time offenders would pay a fee of 20% on the dollar, second time offenders would pay a 30% on the dollar, and third or subsequent time offenders would have to pay 50% on the dollar. If you miss once, you go back to being a first timer.
Lets say you have an 80 million dollar cap and the Leafs want to bring in EK at 11 million putting them 10 million over the cap for 7 years.
If they remain the 10million over the cap...
Year 1- 2 million tax
Year 2 - 3 million
Year 3 to 7 - 5 million in tax
Leafs pay 30 million dollars in taxes over 7 years, on just one 'all star' level signing.
Usually in baseball you see anywhere from 3-6 teams going over a year. So I wouldnt doubt youd see the 'have nots' getting a million+ a year.
02-03 Rangers spent $106.64 million on their team (inflation included)
03-04 Red Wings, $106.81
02 St Louis, $100.9
02-03 Dallas, $98.62
Leafs highest is around $97.
Could be an easy way to get a few extra million a year to teams, while also letting the big guys spend the money they want to win.
Ratboy
I made a funny!
- Jul 15, 2009
- 16,855
- 3,343
Interesting lines. Switching Leivo for Marleau is what sticks out most to me. I dont think theres any chance in hell Marleau will go below the 3rd line, and Leivo cant seem to hit the net anymore. I mean for the past few years almost everytime he was called up he was sniping top corner.
Any ideas on why this guy can't do it anymore or is he just being affected by poor line make-up or teammates?
I'd be shocked if the owners gave up a hard cap, I believe they will die on that hill
The league has fought for this system and I can't see them backing off it any time soon
Morgs
#16 #34 #44 #88 #91
My god that Marleau contract looks worse by the day.
I remember when it got signed and it seemed I was the only one on this board that was just completely up in arms. That third year was a mess from the beginning.
- Status
