What if you could trade cap space?

[mouser]

Hmmmm yep I guess that’s a huge hole in it then....

But if it’s 1 to 1. Wouldn’t that still be 50/50?

If the team had to pay a dollar to the other owners pot for every dollar over the cap?

The player gets paid $1 extra. Then Team A's owner gives the other owners $1 to split in revenue sharing.

No new hockey revenue has been generated by Team A giving $1 to the other owners.

Either giving that player the extra $1 breaks the 50/50 split of league revenue between players and owners. Or else all the collective players just surrender back that extra $1 to the owners via escrow.

 

[Voight]

Then you wouldn't be the only league with a hard cap.

 

[Advanced stats]

I've often mentioned the idea that
1. You can trade up to 10% of your cap space.

2. There's a 5-10% cap increase in February till seasons end.

Think how many more trades would happen and how busy the trade deadline would be.

Often by that point you know who's going to use their cap space to the max and who won't. It doesn't harm the low cap teams and the cap tight super teams get some relief

 

[Based Anime Fan]

Arizona/Florida etc would have a team full of ELCs & Toronto/Rangers etc would have super teams.

Because historically, the Rangers and Leafs being able to outspend everyone else has provided success.

 

[TheOtherOne]

I would say the cap floor probably definitely still applies, so no Ottawa won't have a $10 team.

Maybe a team can only trade for up to 10% or something over the original cap.

Consider the following:
1. Nobody will NEED to trade away cap space. It's not hurting you even if you're not using it.
2. At least 10+ teams will be looking to add cap space. Maybe even 15 or 20.
3. 1 and 2 mean that the bad, poor teams hold all the cards. They can have bidding wars. Who REALLY wants that extra 2 million to put them over the top? What will you give up for it?

Basically this idea gives bottom-feeders value that they can trade away for assets, ideally meaning they'll graduate from bottom-feeders more quickly than they otherwise would have. No?

 

[I Hate Philadelphia]

Because historically, the Rangers and Leafs being able to outspend everyone else has provided success.

LOL I probably picked poor examples but I'm speaking more of pre-cap super teams like the Avs/red wings etc.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

This question has been asked and explained more than a handful of times. It's nothing more than a thinly veiled way to get high-spending teams some way to be able to spend more than they currently have, at the expense of low-spending teams, while floating the quaint [but ungrounded in reality] notion that "all teams could do this."

What you see right now is about all you're going to get, and I kind of wouldn't be surprised if that got rolled back just a little bit at some point.

 

[Johnny HFBOARDS]

What if you could DRAFT cap space?


now things get gud!