helicecopter
Registered User
You don't know and i can't know, and that would be already disturbing. Probably in the majority of situations the infractions would not be very drastic, but there are many ways a player can get benefit through paths not directly linked with the ownership and thus not assessed. Also, the checking system would have to be perfectly unbiased (and uncorrupted), besides it would be one more expensive thing to have A CHANCE to be effective. In any case, cap is a tie and so brings tries to go around it, as a principle i don't like it and i'd rather to avoid it as far as it's not strictly necessary.dawgbone said:Then you put insanely heavy fines in place for the player, the team, the agent and the NHLPA (if they are aware of the infraction). You nail these guys with heavy fines, or worse, and it will be very rare. I am not sure how many illegal moves are made in the NFL or NBA... but I'll guess not many, and they can't be very drastic.
This is the key point where i disagree with you. Look at what happened with Shaquille and the Orlando Magic; that's exactly what i hate and what i really don't want to see in the NHL. It's not only the number of free agent movements, it's the 'quality' (kind and age of the player) of the free agent movements.dawgbone said:Not at all. Just because a player is a free agent at 27 it doesn't mean he is going anywhere. UFA's go where the money is, and if everything is capped, chances are there isn't going to be enough money laying around for all kinds of free agents to move around all over the place.
Look at Basketball... yes they have a lot of free agent movement, but not significantly more than Hockey does... and they have free agency well before 27.
If he is UFA, usually it means he is going elsewhere, not necessarily, but usually. Something like 90, 80% i would say..dawgbone said:Not at all. Just because a player is a free agent at 27 it doesn't mean he is going anywhere.
Obviously you have very good points here. The fact is my proposal was thought in a couple of minutes and i forgot to include a key additional rule that i guess would make it work: NO UNRESTRICTED free agency at all! Never, not even at 35! Of course this is what i would like and not something i can realistically hope for nowadays.dawgbone said:I don't think that would work at all... now instead of 3 or 4 prospects in return for Jagr, the Pens get nothing because no one wants to fork over a % of the money they just signed the guy they traded for. They suck it up for a year and wait till he becomes a UFA, thereby really messing the Penguins up.
The problem with your theory is 2-fold... if the monetary value is too low, it doesn't change anything. If it's too high, no team will do it leaving teams stuck with soon to be UFA's with no return in sight. Or teams sign these guys to a one year deal, then sign him to an extension, thereby completely circumventing it.
Your solution is simply a bandaid... and not a very good one. The money you are talking about isn't enough to do anything.