SnuggaRUDE
Registered User
- Apr 5, 2013
- 8,946
- 6,480
...
Yes, that's obviously true.
And?
That means you should build economics systems using reason, not temper tantrums.
...
Yes, that's obviously true.
And?
Then the PA says no. Removing ELC's is taking money away from current NHLPA members' pockets, because it's a zero sum game. Every dollar away from a rookie is a dollar in a vet's wallet.
To be perfectly honest... if a team sucks because their owner is cheap, then I don't have any ****ing sympathy for them whatsoever. The team's fans should strike and demand new ownership. And in any case, that's not an indictment of my system because those teams suck anyway and will suck no matter what system we have.
The key here is that IF management is skilled and committed to winning, they CAN thrive in the system because everyone has a level playing field. If Ottawa gets a new owner who wants to build a real competitor, they can go out of their way to do everything they can to lure the upcoming top prospects. The ones Toronto can't afford because they're busy competing with the highest paid 25-30 year olds in the game.
This would be a boon for them. They let role players walk, and sign high talent kids at cheap ELCs
I understand that. That's the point of the thread. I wanted to expose some of the many, many issues, and brainstorm how to resolve them. Of course, as with anything, practice is much more complicated than theory.The problem is you're easily fixing problems in your head. There are many, many, many issues that could spring up as a result of this, and countering that with essentially "all Ottawa has to do is get a new owner who wants to win and they'll totally lure all the top free agents it's that simple" solutions is naive.
I understand that. That's the point of the thread. I wanted to expose some of the many, many issues, and brainstorm how to resolve them. Of course, as with anything, practice is much more complicated than theory.
Why do we have discussion boards?
Please at the very least think this through before knee-jerk reactions. I've been wondering about this for a bit now.
- I honestly don't know if this would be a good idea.
- I know it won't happen anytime soon.
- I understand it's a complicated ask and brings a lot of issues that I haven't considered (and that's why I want to start a discussion on it).
Here's the foundation of my idea: There is no longer a draft. All players everywhere are UFAs until they sign their first NHL contract, which can be with any team the player chooses, but then they become an RFA with that team with the normal rules intact.
What would this do, and what additional rules would we have to add to make it work?
What is the purpose of the draft?
- To fairly distribute incoming talent to all teams, giving everyone a fair chance.
Is this wrong? Are there more goals?
"But how will bad teams attract top prospects?"
Here is the key, and I'm not sure how well it will work, but let's think it through. The salary cap still applies! Top teams competing for the Cup are already paying top dollar to the best players in the world, so they simply won't be able to offer an 18-year-old Connor McDavid a king's ransom and still make the cap work. If your team legitimately believes they can compete for a Cup in 19/20, are they going to be able to clear the space necessary to pay Jack Hughes, who has never played an NHL game in his life? Or at least that's the idea. Maybe more restrictions need to be added to ensure it?
Phoenix or Arizona or whatever, they're not competing, they have a bunch of cap space laying around, they can make a kid rich making him the face of a franchise's rebuild.
This means landing top talent requires certain skills now. You can use money, but everyone is on the same playing field so a franchise will have to sell itself in other ways too. The franchises who can afford the young talent has to also convince them that they'll be the ones capable of doing the best rebuild. I think this is great because it removes the luck of the lottery balls and makes every aspect of team development controllable. Instead of applauding your luck at landing the number one pick, you get to applaud your management's ability to lure the number one pick to your team!
Here is the main benefit for me and I really think it's huge. Fans will never have to cheer for losses again. Losing more games will not help a team get better. The games themselves will be separate from the salary structure. Each and every time your team wins a game, it will be a good thing, something to cheer about. But at the same time, if your team does bad overall, that means you either have free cap space, or you have mediocre players to let go of to make room for promising kids who can turn your franchise around.
I could probably go on and on for a while longer but it's probably a better idea to just open it up for discussion and see where it goes. Anyone interested?
That presumes that the owners would still be willing to split 50/50 with players getting UFA after 4 seasons of being under contract. I'm saying there's no way in hell the owners would give the players that kind of freedom and keep splitting revenues [as they're currently defined] 50/50. Maybe it's still "50/50" going forward, but as I said it would mean "revenues" got redefined more narrowly, in favor of the owners.Why do owners care? They still get 50% of the pot.
It's a piece of leverage to take away from the players. If the players are getting the freedom of being UFA in 4 years, they've got to give up security somewhere. What's a nice piece of security for the players? Getting a large check upon inking a contract and not having to wait until October 15 for that first paycheck to come in.Just curious, but why do you think owners would wish to target signing bonuses given their recent popularity?
I'm still amused that 26 years later, people still think Gary Bettman is making decisions and forcing them on the owners. At some point, they should realize that every decision Bettman has made has been with the backing of at least a large majority of the Board of Governors.it's interesting. I just hate the idea of bettman still is forcing parity on this league
This is critical to understand. One of the concessions the NHLPA forked over early in the 1994-95 lockout was a cap on rookie salaries. Guys who'd been in the league a number of years and put up solid stats resented the shit out of 18-year olds walking in and getting larger, longer contracts. The benefits to the owners were obvious; the benefits to the players were spelled out above.Then the PA says no. Removing ELC's is taking money away from current NHLPA members' pockets, because it's a zero sum game. Every dollar away from a rookie is a dollar in a vet's wallet.
Nah, we just contract those teams out of existence. Because some of them shouldn't even be around, and getting rid of the rest just makes the league stronger and gets rid of all the role players and makes the league so much more highly skilled and popular as a result.FIFA has a similar system. So, I guess the NHL would be a lot like the Champions League or whatever. You'd probably have to also introduce a promotion/relegation system with NHL/AHL/ECHL or there'd probably be some real awful teams in the NHL
1. The owners have been offered a luxury tax 3 times now. They've flatly rejected it each time - including the Torontos and Philadelphias and Montreals and NY Rangers of the league. But who knows, maybe the 4th or 5th or eleventeenth time will be the one that finally goes through.Not if there's a luxury tax and limit on how much you can spend on the draft.
It is hilarious that pro sports, a capitalist enterprise, has a socialist idea in the draft in it.
I've always been in favor of the relatively free market. Keep the salary cap with a 50% player/owner split and keep guaranteed contracts, and scrap ELC and RFA systems. The cap combined with guaranteed contracts is enough regulation to stop a team or even 5 from dominating the talent distribution of new players.
The Owners really shouldn't care, because they still get the same cut regardless. GMs will hate it, because it makes their job more important. But they can eat it, no more skating through a rebuilding being bad on purpose.
It all comes down to leverage and control. Which one gives the owners the most control over the players? Answer that question, and people will start to understand why the former is preferable to the latter - and why give the players expanded free agency rights is a non-starter for the owners without significant concessions by the players in other areas to offset.A league with no salary cap and basically zero free agency isn't the same as having a strict cap, and un-restricted free agency.
You're trying to create a solution and then search for a problem that it solves. That's a bad way to come up with solutions, because they typically create more problems that now need to be solved.Montreal may have dominated pre-draft but that doesn't mean the pre-draft system couldn't be modified to fix that. For example with a salary cap.
By this logic, the playing rules are broken because they're continuously modified every year, so ... what, let's throw out the rules entirely? You're not explaining how the current setup is so broken and irreparable, it has to be scrapped and replaced anew.Clearly it IS broken, as the draft is continuously modified. That's why there's a lottery system, and the current iteration of the lottery system is almost brand new. So obviously someone sees a problem and has been trying to fix it.
So really, this "solution" is about solving your personal angst about rooting against your team at times when you feel like you should always be rooting for it. News flash: even if something like this were to happen, I guarantee you're going to have times yet when you're going to root against your team and have the same kind of conflict. [Say, "I'd rather we lose and draw XXXXX in the playoffs than win and draw YYYYY, we'd have a better chance to advance if we started with XXXXX instead.] And I'm not real inclined to have new "solutions" to fix some alleged "problem" of teams trying to jockey for late-season positioning for playoff seeding to fix someone's personal heartburn.Granted HOW broken the problem is is in the eye of the beholder. I, personally, REALLY REALLY hate that every time my team loses I can't help but feel a little happy that the loss may directly lead to a better future player. I want to remove that connection no matter how much work it takes.
1) We already have this.Here is my no draft system, that I think solves most issues.
1) Hard cap w/ Guranteed contracts
2) Elimintate RFA system.
3)ELCs still exist, but have no cap on Salary/AAV. Just a term limit of 3 or 4 years (so that a bad GM doesn't completely nuke his successor with an 8 year deal to Yakapuv or Griffin Reinhart)
4) Any deal signed by an 18 or 19 year old must be a one way deal, with a player or club option to void in the event the player is not ready for the NHL and the club wants to send them to the AHL/Junior team/Europe.
5) Buyouts for players U23 @ 1/4th salary, 23-26 @ 1/3 salary, 26+ @ 2/3 salary.
I think that system has enough protection for teams to get them to agree to it, and enough contract mobility for all players to get NHLPA sign off.
That's the "everyone should have an equal chance at the #1 overall pick" idea which is better than the "no draft" idea in the same way that it's better that someone dragged me to the curb after I got hit in the parking lot so I didn't get run over again than it is they just left me there to get run over some more.2. Get rid of the lottery, or everyone gets 1 ball, picked until all are gone. Round 2 reverse order. Round 3 back to round 1 order.
Montreal may have dominated pre-draft but that doesn't mean the pre-draft system couldn't be modified to fix that. For example with a salary cap.
Clearly it IS broken, as the draft is continuously modified. That's why there's a lottery system, and the current iteration of the lottery system is almost brand new. So obviously someone sees a problem and has been trying to fix it.
Granted HOW broken the problem is is in the eye of the beholder. I, personally, REALLY REALLY hate that every time my team loses I can't help but feel a little happy that the loss may directly lead to a better future player. I want to remove that connection no matter how much work it takes.
Under my system, for every team overpaying Crosby and winning Cups for it, there will be a team overpaying Yakupov and setting themselves back for it, and a team jumping the gun on Larkin and getting themselves an earned advantage. I think you're all really underestimating how complex it would be. A GM can't just say "throw all our money at all the best 18 year olds all the time" and expect to succeed. There will be a lot of franchise skill involved in choosing which prospects to invest in. And I think that's a great thing for the league.
I've been in favor of abolishing the draft for awhile.
If you have a salary cap, which the NHL does, then talent will become distributed by necessity.
You can't sign McDavid to 12.5 mill per year straight out of junior if you don't have the cap space... if you don't have the cap space, then you'll have to move pieces other teams value in order to create it.
1) We already have this.
2) I'm still waiting to hear what major concession the players are giving the owners to get this. [And it will have to be a major one.]
3) Definitely not happening. The owners went right after this in the '94-95 lockout, the NHLPA handed it over because it also wanted older players making most of the money and not kids just getting into the league who hadn't done anything at all in the NHL.
4) Really not happening, especially if all the other NHLPA members aren't getting similar 1-way deals. The "option to void" makes no sense, because that really makes the player UFA and as little as the NHLPA may care for kids just coming in, I really don't think it's that insensitive or heartless that it's going to let kids sign contracts and join the club, then get that contract yanked out from under their skates because of a club decision the kid has zero control over. [And if you're thinking about having all contracts be 1-way to help out the kids and have all contracts guaranteed, you're nuts.]
5) So, really just a "cheaper" buyout for U23s.
I'm trying to figure out what protections exist for the teams, beyond "if the kid doesn't stick, the team can void his contract." [Which, as I noted above, the NHLPA isn't going to let happen.] I see a loss of control by teams over players after ELCs expire, I don't see what the teams are getting back in return for it beyond "a slightly cheaper buyout for U23s" and that isn't nearly enough to get any team to give it more than a second's thought before saying "no ****ing way in hell" and other similar pleasantries.
So how do you propose a realistic solution to fixing crappy ownership?
Clearly, the system is not as broken as you think it is. Revising the structure and odds for the top 3 picks is a fairly small revision. A minor change such as this is not evidence that the system is "broken".
You're trying to create a solution and then search for a problem that it solves. That's a bad way to come up with solutions, because they typically create more problems that now need to be solved.
This is a problem you're making a bigger deal of in your head then it really is, which is why it won't ever be implemented.
I really don't understand why you guys are throwing a fit over this.
I identified an aspect of the NHL that I don't like. I proposed a solution to it. I laid out my thoughts on the solution's difficulties and benefits, and invited further discussion. I gave thoughtful arguments about why some of your criticisms may not be the problems you think they are.
I think there were a lot of interesting points made and I am enjoying the parts of the conversation that aren't personal attacks. Isn't that why we have a discussion board?
Don't worry, I'm not going to unilaterally buy the league and implement this new system. I just want to talk about what effects it would have.
Please at the very least think this through before knee-jerk reactions. I've been wondering about this for a bit now.
- I honestly don't know if this would be a good idea.
- I know it won't happen anytime soon.
- I understand it's a complicated ask and brings a lot of issues that I haven't considered (and that's why I want to start a discussion on it).
Here's the foundation of my idea: There is no longer a draft. All players everywhere are UFAs until they sign their first NHL contract, which can be with any team the player chooses, but then they become an RFA with that team with the normal rules intact.
What would this do, and what additional rules would we have to add to make it work?
What is the purpose of the draft?
- To fairly distribute incoming talent to all teams, giving everyone a fair chance.
Is this wrong? Are there more goals?
"But how will bad teams attract top prospects?"
Here is the key, and I'm not sure how well it will work, but let's think it through. The salary cap still applies! Top teams competing for the Cup are already paying top dollar to the best players in the world, so they simply won't be able to offer an 18-year-old Connor McDavid a king's ransom and still make the cap work. If your team legitimately believes they can compete for a Cup in 19/20, are they going to be able to clear the space necessary to pay Jack Hughes, who has never played an NHL game in his life? Or at least that's the idea. Maybe more restrictions need to be added to ensure it?
Phoenix or Arizona or whatever, they're not competing, they have a bunch of cap space laying around, they can make a kid rich making him the face of a franchise's rebuild.
This means landing top talent requires certain skills now. You can use money, but everyone is on the same playing field so a franchise will have to sell itself in other ways too. The franchises who can afford the young talent has to also convince them that they'll be the ones capable of doing the best rebuild. I think this is great because it removes the luck of the lottery balls and makes every aspect of team development controllable. Instead of applauding your luck at landing the number one pick, you get to applaud your management's ability to lure the number one pick to your team!
Here is the main benefit for me and I really think it's huge. Fans will never have to cheer for losses again. Losing more games will not help a team get better. The games themselves will be separate from the salary structure. Each and every time your team wins a game, it will be a good thing, something to cheer about. But at the same time, if your team does bad overall, that means you either have free cap space, or you have mediocre players to let go of to make room for promising kids who can turn your franchise around.
I could probably go on and on for a while longer but it's probably a better idea to just open it up for discussion and see where it goes. Anyone interested?
That's a horrible thing to say, if you think about it.I don't care much about tradition for tradition's sake.
Why would you even ask that? Did I ever claim I had a "solution to fixing crappy ownership?" This thread has nothing to do with that.