Why don't NHL ever resort to a "soft cap" system?

[HBK27]

Well every team that takes on bad contracts and dead cap space....

Teams that do this do so for the assets that are attached to these contracts.

Again, you stated that "you have teams that don't want to spend to the floor and are forced to" - if this were actually the case and there were teams out there that didn't want to spend to the floor, wouldn't these teams be just above the cap floor instead of $10-$20M above it?

 

[Flair Hay]

I swear, the people who scream the loudest about changes needed for the cap understand the cap the least.

Know why a "soft cap" won't exist? Because the revenue split is set at 50/50. The cap exists solely to ensure the revenue split is set in a certain way. I'm pretty sure that the "soft cap" idea would just hurt players overall.

I dont blame OP for asking.

But I think this is more or a "what if we had a system where big market teams could spend more" question...

Winnipeg fan here lol, nah I'm good thank you

 

[kaiser matias]

Maybe they are a Basketball fan just getting introduced to Hockey, so what.

I think this is the case. They've been asking a few questions trying to get a feel of the game, and are clearly interested in understanding things and why they are the way they are. That should be supported, as everyone has to start somewhere.

 

[joepeps]

Teams that do this do so for the assets that are attached to these contracts.

Again, you stated that "you have teams that don't want to spend to the floor and are forced to" - if this were actually the case and there were teams out there that didn't want to spend to the floor, wouldn't these teams be just above the cap floor instead of $10-$20M above it?

Again.. this is for this year... when they didn't know everything would be flat for the next 3-5 years. to get 50% doesn't everyone need to be at the max ceiling?

Cap space available
NJD 19,245,727
OTT 15,145,362
CHI 13,398,069
LAK 10,356,790

Then there are tons of teams in the 9-5 mil range

ANA 16,343,944 in dead cap space
DAL 9,550,000
TOR 10,650,000
COL 17,199,710
NYR 13,519,444

I'm not going to go through every team but you get the picture... some teams don't spend to it and take high cap hits with low ACTUAL SALARY... lots of teams do it...

Then you have other team IR and LTIR and buyout players to get more room...

Now you had ARZ have Pronger, Zetterberg, and many others on LTIR to hit the min floor for the past 3 years

 

[joepeps]

Teams that do this do so for the assets that are attached to these contracts.

Again, you stated that "you have teams that don't want to spend to the floor and are forced to" - if this were actually the case and there were teams out there that didn't want to spend to the floor, wouldn't these teams be just above the cap floor instead of $10-$20M above it?

and no they wouldn't because they take players with a high AAV Salary but a low ACTUAL SALARY....

 

[viper0220]

The NHL Salary Cap is soft, there are ways around it. Just ask the Tampa Bay Lightning.

If you are going to have a hard cap, have it in the playoffs as well.

 

[FMichael]

Soft cap is definitely a better system. Probably only a matter of time before they switch over

I'd say 70% of the BoG would vote against the soft cap.

As others have mentioned - cost certainty, and every franchise having a chance at making a profit is key.

 

[CascadiaPuck]

It starts to get a bit crazy when you look at finalists since 2010 (11 seasons)

NHL, 15 teams: Chicago (3x), Boston (3x), LA (2x), pens (2x), tampa (2x), caps, blues, flyers, canucks, devils, rangers, sharks, predators, knights, stars

NBA, 9 teams: GSW (5x), Miami (5x), cavs (4x), LA (2x), spurs (2x), Dallas, Raptors, Celtics, OKC

The NBA had GSW vs Cavs finals 4 years in a row. The 4 years before that had the heat in the finals. Lebron has made the finals 9/11 years. The soft cap definitely allows you to buy the best player AND an all-star supporting cast.

I think this is the meat of it. Obviously the goal is to win a championship. But fan engagement (and spending!) will increase if a team has a deep run. Your plot shows more variety of finals participants for the NHL than the NBA. It would be curious to see the relative diversity of team participation for semi-final rounds and earlier rounds as well. It feels intuitive that you might see more diversity of participating teams in the NHL than the NBA based on that analysis. And I bet over a longer timeline than 11 years you’ll see that really manifest.

 

[Machinehead]

Because the owners want the hard cap.

We have to stop pretending the cap had anything to do with on-ice play.

 

[HBK27]

Again.. this is for this year... when they didn't know everything would be flat for the next 3-5 years. to get 50% doesn't everyone need to be at the max ceiling?

Cap space available
NJD 19,245,727
OTT 15,145,362
CHI 13,398,069
LAK 10,356,790

Then there are tons of teams in the 9-5 mil range

ANA 16,343,944 in dead cap space
DAL 9,550,000
TOR 10,650,000
COL 17,199,710
NYR 13,519,444

I'm not going to go through every team but you get the picture... some teams don't spend to it and take high cap hits with low ACTUAL SALARY... lots of teams do it...

Then you have other team IR and LTIR and buyout players to get more room...

Now you had ARZ have Pronger, Zetterberg, and many others on LTIR to hit the min floor for the past 3 years

I'm really not sure what you're talking about in this post. Specifically, what do you mean when you write "to get 50% doesn't everyone need to be at the max ceiling"?

There will always be teams that spend well below the cap ceiling every year - in most cases, these will consist of rebuilding teams which is 100% the case for the 4 teams you listed. I'm not really sure what this has to do with the conversation though, as it was centered around the cap floor, not the ceiling, because of your assertion that there are teams out there that "don't want to spend to the floor and are forced to", which is patently false.

Which teams SPECIFICIALLY would be spending below the cap floor of $60.2M if given the opportunity, but instead are forced to go above it? Ottawa is the only team that comes to mind but they were still $12M above the salary cap floor this season. If they really wanted to spend even less, they could've not given Matt Murray $6.25M x 4 years - nothing forced them to make that move. Ottawa is also the only team that stands out that really values the lower salary versus cap hit in contracts, yet you're saying that "lots of teams do it" which I don't think is accurate.

What other notable trades were being made where a low salary relative to the cap hit was the main driver of the deal?

As for Arizona, they finished the season with an $80.575M cap hit this season - more than $20M ABOVE the cap floor. The only major LTIR contract on the books this season was Hossa's $5.275M cap hit, which was almost a detriment to them as they were aggressively trying to re-sign Taylor Hall this past offseason. They also took on Kessel's bloated salary two years ago and signed Ekman-Larsson & Keller to massive deals. That doesn't sound like a team to me that is being "forced" to spend above the cap floor.

 

[Bluto]

I want to add that
1) screw the NBA
2) screw their egomaniacal, uneducated, and selfish players (which accounts for about 98% of them these days. Guys like Tim Duncan, Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippin, Isaiah Thomas, Shaq, and Dirk Nowitzki were/are respectable people who enjoyed competing, something the modern NBA lacks). When I hear guys like LeBron, Durant, and Kyrie talk I wonder how the hell they manage to even survive. They have the combined intellect of a plastic spork.
3) Screw their idiot fans who jump from bandwagon to bandwagon. Everyone I know who watches the NBA has jumped ship from team to team at least twice over the last decade.
"Bro I liked Miami before the big 3 was formed"
same person 3 years later
"Bro I always loved Golden State"
4 years later
"Bro I've loved the Lakers since Kobe and Shaq stfu".

Add to it that I'm pretty sure the league is rigged and that guys like Tim Donague are the norm and f*** the NBA.

And don't even get my started on the NFL now my god it's become just as unwatchable. I watched 2 games last year and felt like I was watching the WWE.

 

[Captain97]

Cause of the 50/50 revenue split you can't really do a soft cap. That being said because of the 50/50 split I think you should be allowed to trade cap space, no actual money just the space.

 

[KingsFan7824]

If the NHL had more money coming in, maybe they would consider it. The new TV deal is better than it was, but it's still not a ton of cash.

However, the NBA has 12 players they have to worry about. 7, maybe 8 guys that play any meaningful minutes. 3 or 4 that play almost the entire game.

The NHL, the non-goalie player playing the most might touch 30min a night. It's double the NBA roster size. Less money going in more directions.

 

[Davenport]

I wish the folks in charge with the NHL would be honest with themselves about the importance of having strong teams in the Original Six cities and also U.S. cities like Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Washington and Pittsburgh. Replace the Salary Cap with a Luxury Tax, and let teams spend as much as they want - and tax the big spenders accordingly. That would be a lot more fair than the present system where the Maple Leafs are hamstrung by the Salary Cap and have to write a cheque for their have-not cousins. If the Leafs were free to bolster their blueline the way they bolstered their forward lines, they would be able to make a good long run in the playoffs. Think of the revenue for the team and the league. Plus, a Leafs team like that would be a big draw in every city in the NHL. Each of the big spending teams would similarly be a big draw.

 

[stator]

MLB has a soft cap, and many of the owners are trying to get rid of it. The major market owners don't. It doesn't work.

 

[HBK27]

I wish the folks in charge with the NHL would be honest with themselves about the importance of having strong teams in the Original Six cities and also U.S. cities like Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Washington and Pittsburgh. Replace the Salary Cap with a Luxury Tax, and let teams spend as much as they want - and tax the big spenders accordingly. That would be a lot more fair than the present system where the Maple Leafs are hamstrung by the Salary Cap and have to write a cheque for their have-not cousins. If the Leafs were free to bolster their blueline the way they bolstered their forward lines, they would be able to make a good long run in the playoffs. Think of the revenue for the team and the league. Plus, a Leafs team like that would be a big draw in every city in the NHL. Each of the big spending teams would similarly be a big draw.

Fair to who?

Certainly not the fans of small & mid-sized market teams. Why even bother having teams in these smaller markets if you're just going to rig the system against them being able to win?

With NHL expansion, came wider and wider disparities between the revenue of the top versus the bottom teams. I hate that baseball's system heavily favors big market teams - despite the fact that my family and friends largely root for the two New York teams that benefit from this system. Conversely, I like the NFL's cap system that gives every team a largely equal chance of winning - again, despite rooting for two large market teams.

 

[HBK27]

Because the owners want the hard cap.

We have to stop pretending the cap had anything to do with on-ice play.

The hard cap and protecting owner revenue certainly had the most to do with getting the cap implemented in the NHL, but don't act like more competitive balance was not a major factor as well for many owners.

 

[Crede777]

Cost certainty aside, the NBA is significantly different from the NHL in that gate revenue is NOT a major part of the NBA's overall revenue. It lags behind (by a significant margin) the TV deals and merchandising. (How The NBA Makes Money: The Second-Largest Sport in the Country)

The NHL, meanwhile, is largely gate-driven. That means attendance IS a major part of the NHL's revenue.

While the NBA can have a couple super-teams and not have it significantly impact the bottom line, a top-heavy NHL would kill attendance at many of the smaller and mid-sized markets. That would be devastating for the NHL's bottom line and likely result in a contraction of the league which would kill franchise valuation. Instead, it is vital that the NHL maintain parity and have most teams be highly competitive in any given season so that ticket sales remain high.

 

[Machinehead]

The hard cap and protecting owner revenue certainly had the most to do with getting the cap implemented in the NHL, but don't act like more competitive balance was not a major factor as well for many owners.

Since the implementation of the cap, three teams have won half the Cups.

The fabled competitive balance of the NHL.

 

[BlueAzN]

I believe in the free market babyyy, f*** the cap. f*** competition. Long live LEAFS

 

[HBK27]

Since the implementation of the cap, three teams have won half the Cups.

The fabled competitive balance of the NHL.

Extremely simplistic way of viewing it.

The hard cap wasn't meant to crush strong teams and prevent them from winning multiple Cups or provide a new Cup winner every year. It means that smaller market teams could actually be one of those teams that wins multiple Cups.

Pittsburgh is a great example as they're tied with Chicago for most Cup wins in the hard cap era. How exactly have their MLB counterparts fared in a luxury-tax system over that time frame?

There have been 20 teams to make it to the Cup Finals in the hard cap era - including Carolina, New Jersey, Nashville, St. Louis, Edmonton and Ottawa. Tampa Bay is not a major market, but they've been able to build a powerhouse team (that the hard cap is going to make it difficult to keep together). There's nothing stopping the smallest market teams like Florida from having the same type of success.

The hard cap absolutely does aid in the competitive balance of the league.

 

[ScaredStreit]

The NBA stinks now. There’s a few super teams, and 90% of the league has no chance. Boring.

 

[ScaredStreit]

Because the owners want the hard cap.

We have to stop pretending the cap had anything to do with on-ice play.

Just because it has little to do with on ice play doesn’t mean it hasn’t affected the on ice product.

 

[cowboy82nd]

Soft cap is definitely a better system. Probably only a matter of time before they switch over

Why is it a better system? Are you just talking about the team you root for or the whole league?

I prefer a hard cap with no exceptions (one or two players don’t count against the cap ...BS). It’s cost effective for the owners and helps the competitive balance of the league with help gate revenue.

 

[Machinehead]

The NBA stinks now. There’s a few super teams, and 90% of the league has no chance. Boring.

I literally can't remember the last time any team left in the NBA playoffs won a Championship.

Yeah, the Warriors had a dynasty recently and the last time they won before that was...???

The Cavs and Raptors also won their first ever titles recently.

This is just hockey-centric hogwash.