Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 08-16-2017, 11:07 AM   #1
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default Sooo Cap thoughts and changes

We're entering into a brave world in terms of NHL Salary Management.

For Star players we have pretty much seen the death of the bridge deal, a major cost control lever that's pretty much gone away as teams frantically try to lock up their stars long term.

We're also starting to see the acceleration of the super contract, the McDavids of the world getting $12.5 per year, Draisaitl after one good season probably hitting the 8 mark.

We're now moving into the generation of the top heavy teams, the teams that bumbled and stumbled and rebuilt by failure are now looking at their rosters where they have two or 3 super players that are going to eat their payroll and put them in cap hell.

The emphasis is really going to be around scouting and development as teams are going to have to fill large swaths of their roster with young and cheap players and start to rotate them as they become too expensive.

The Cap really isn't going to increase, its based on a mathematical formula built around an equitable share of the pot. And its not likely that the NHL will want to remove spending controls and hurt what they see is a competitive balance mechanism.

So what's the fix. Does the NHL push up the age of UFA so teams can hold onto their players and slow down cost acceleration?

We currently have a hard rookie cap for the players first three years. What if we basically set a sophomore cap that enforces bridge deals to a maximum value of 5 million dollars a year, and after their first 6 years its UFA. The ultimate hard cap. Because the fear has to be with these super deals. Lets say Nylander signs a 8 year 9 million dollar a year contract and busts out. Or Draisaitl cashes in after one good year and can never replicate it. The current situation is basically encouraging the GMS to blow their brains out.

Or what if we put in an enforced franchise player tag? What if you can designate your franchise player, pay him the max, but the maximum contract is really 5 years long. I mean if we did that we remove money from the table for these Superstars, they're going to get the max heading out of their franchise contract so it becomes about situation and fit. But teams get a break under the cap.

So right now, lets say the super trio in Toronto sign Matthews to a 12 million dollar deal, and Nylander and Marner come in a $9 million each. So suddenly against a $75 million dollar cap they have $30 million tied up in three players.

But what if you put the franchise tag on Matthews? So now against the cap you have $18 million for three players against a $75 million dollar cap, but the trade off is that you might lose Matthews in 5 years.

Edmonton if Drai signs for $9 and they franchise tag McDavid would have a 9 million dollar hit against the cap but they risk losing McDavid in 5 years. Or they could franchise tag Drai at $9 million for 5 years and have a $12.5 million dollar hit, but get to keep McDavid for 8 years.


First of all you would have to be really clear on who your franchise player is, Calgary has three guys that they could for example tag. Johnny, Monahan or even Hamilton. But Hamilton has a steal of a contract, so do you tag Johnny so his hit doesn't count but you risk losing him quicker?

Oh and the franchise tag is non transferable on your roster, also you can trade your franchise player but you keep the franchise tag and can then assign it to someone else.

Oh and its not mandatory to have a franchise tag on your roster.

Just my two cents.

Probably way out there.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2017, 11:47 AM   #2
Lanny_McDonald
Franchise Player
 
Lanny_McDonald's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

Don't like the tag concept. Just another advantage for teams who were lucky enough to have been gifted a generational player. No breaks. The cap is designed to level the playing field. Stick with it.
Lanny_McDonald is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2017, 11:49 AM   #3
TheFlamesVan
Retired
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Back in Guelph
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era View Post
Don't like the tag concept. Just another advantage for teams who were lucky enough to have been gifted a generational player. No breaks. The cap is designed to level the playing field. Stick with it.
And, unlike most of the NHLs brilliant ideas, it worked beautifully.
TheFlamesVan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2017, 12:02 PM   #4
Fire
Franchise Player
 
Fire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary, AB
Exp:
Default

The only change they really need to make is limit the length of contracts to 6 years if signed by your own team or 5 years otherwise. Given out 8 year deals too often turns out bad for teams. Which is not good for fans if you happen to cheer for one of those teams.
__________________

Fire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2017, 12:09 PM   #5
JohnnyTitan
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Exp:
Default

I like the idea of a "Sophomore Cap". And like ELCs...they could offer [I]some[I] standard league-wide bonuses to enable the truly elite the chance to earn some extra millions.

For any league to ever be successful with this cost-control stuff...they need to phase it in and sell out the younger generations. The current voting membership is more likely to throw future players under the bus if it doesn't effect them. So essentially I'm suggesting to propose the Sophomore cap but anyone in the league already is exempt. Maybe that helps teams keep their kids under a reasonable contract for two or three extra years?
JohnnyTitan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2017, 12:12 PM   #6
JohnnyTitan
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Exp:
Default

Also - a lot of ELCs get a year burnt off them. So that only really gives the team two years of cost-control.

Or if you got rid of offer-sheets, the second contracts would likely be more reasonable. Even though they rarely happen - the threat of them gets young players PAID. But would we see more hold-outs then? That would not be good.
JohnnyTitan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2017, 02:25 PM   #7
Boreal
First Line Centre
 
Boreal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Exp:
Default

What we are actually seeing is the true salary cap era. No more cap circumventing deals (with a few of the existing ones going stale).

It's going to come down to goaltending & value driven deals. Getting teams to eat salary in a deal is huge, & buyouts are crippling because you need value deals just to break even.
Boreal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2017, 02:31 PM   #8
Boreal
First Line Centre
 
Boreal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Exp:
Default

What we are actually seeing is the true salary cap era. No more cap circumventing deals (with a few of the existing ones going stale).

It's going to come down to goaltending & value driven deals. Getting teams to eat salary in a deal is huge, & buyouts are crippling because you need value deals just to break even.
Boreal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2017, 02:42 PM   #9
Resolute 14
In the Sin Bin
 
Resolute 14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Exp:
Default

First, can we get a tl;dr of that?

Second, same question I always ask when people take the players' side in a negotiated issue: What are you going to give up for all these owner-friendly changes you seem to be proposing?
Resolute 14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2017, 02:45 PM   #10
Itse
Franchise Player
 
Itse's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire View Post
The only change they really need to make is limit the length of contracts to 6 years if signed by your own team or 5 years otherwise. Given out 8 year deals too often turns out bad for teams. Which is not good for fans if you happen to cheer for one of those teams.
This. Long deals also make it easier to circumvent the cap by players conveniently retiring.


A sophomore limit is to me a bad idea.

I'm not even a huge fan of the ELC limit. Players deserve to get paid according to value, not age. The only real upside is that it helps teams not overpay for kids at too young an age.

Another issue with the ELC is that it's starting to limit the salaries of veterans. When you have to compete with value-for-money with players that can not be paid more than X amount, there's a lot of pressure to set your own salary at or below X.

With a sophomore limit a lot more players would be affected by this.
Itse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2017, 03:31 PM   #11
Oil Stain
Franchise Player
 
Oil Stain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nobles_point View Post
What we are actually seeing is the true salary cap era. No more cap circumventing deals (with a few of the existing ones going stale).

It's going to come down to goaltending & value driven deals. Getting teams to eat salary in a deal is huge, & buyouts are crippling because you need value deals just to break even.
Yeah.

I think we will see a lot more Versteeg type contracts as well.

If you aren't a star level player and aren't seen as on the rise, I think you aren't getting a fat contract.

I think the middle class is going to start taking a haircut. They have been overpaid anyway though.
Oil Stain is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Oil Stain For This Useful Post:
Old 08-16-2017, 11:02 PM   #12
getbak
Franchise Player
 
getbak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Exp:
Default

I don't think anything needs to change. The system is set up to give GMs the freedom to make their teams however they want, for better or worse.

If you want to spread out your payroll, it probably means your top-end won't be as good as other teams, but you'll have better overall depth. If you want to go top-heavy, you'll pay for it with a lack of quality depth players.

I do wish it was harder for teams to get away from their mistakes.



One change to contracts I'd be in favour of would be to allow for players signing second contract bridge deals to have performance bonuses on their contracts. I think that would make it a lot easier for both the teams and players in situations like Bennett's. They'd just have to make sure that the rules are set up so teams aren't just using performance bonuses with ridiculously low thresholds to circumvent the cap (you could do that by having the bonus count against the cap immediately once it's earned).

For example, I'd say: If a player is signing his second NHL contract and it is of a length where the player will be an RFA at the end of the contract (i.e. a bridge deal), the player's contract can contain bonuses for in-game performance with a total value of up to triple the base salary on the contract. Performance bonuses can only be given in the same categories used for Schedule A bonuses on entry-level contracts (no games played bonuses), but the minimum levels required for the player to receive the bonuses are free for negotiation between the team and player. There would be no other cap on the size of the base salary (except the total value including bonuses would not be able to exceed the individual player maximum salary or cap hit).


Let's say with Sam Bennett, he could sign a contract with a $1.5M base salary and $4.5M in potential performance bonuses. Those bonuses could be earned at different goal and assist thresholds (and other things like ice time and +/-). That way, if he has a really strong year, he could get up to $6M, but if he has a poor year, he might only get $2M.


I think a lot of players would benefit from signing that sort of second contract and GMs would be happy to give them out because it makes the second deal less of a gamble.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
getbak is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to getbak For This Useful Post:
Old 08-17-2017, 03:55 PM   #13
JohnnyTitan
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Exp:
Default

Just thinking about the Draisaitl thread -> how much was the threat of an Offer Sheet responsible for the escalation of his contract?

Without changing the CBA what-so-ever, could GMs just agree to never sign Offer Sheets?

Yes - that would be collusion. But it would be hard to prove. I mean, it might take a decade before the NHLPA really put 2 + 2 together.

Could that possibly materially decrease the 2nd contract?

Combine that tactic along with a couple hard-nosed GMs actually locking out there RFAs for a couple months certainly would put some pressure on second contract salaries I'd think.
JohnnyTitan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2017, 04:26 PM   #14
The Cobra
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Exp:
Default

Having a franchise tag on a player but not going against the cap simply allows the richer teams to spend more and would reduce parity to some extent.

If the NHL wants parity where anyone can win the Cup, they have it.

While intelligent cap management and successful drafting has never been more important, neither has good fortune in drafting and puck luck and randomness in the playoffs.
The Cobra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2017, 04:47 PM   #15
Sylvanfan
Appealing my suspension
 
Sylvanfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Just outside Enemy Lines
Exp:
Default

At the end of the day players still get 50% of the HRR, and that's probably the only thing the owners really care about. They'll let the PA fight an internal battle where the rank and file go after the star players who are now taking up more of the pie, or really the mid tier guy who's going to see his value reduced. At this point Fehr's only play is to try and get the players share up, and the owners certainly won't blink on that. They'll sewer another season if they have to.

I remember in the 04 lockout where I read an article stating that the Derek Morris' of the world would ultimately loose out in a cap environment with linkage. Players who were getting 3.5 million a year to be above average. They were comfortable, and stood to make a nice sum for quite some time so long as they were above average.

Today it's trending so that the players who draw in the fans and who are the top guys starting to ask for a bigger share of the pie. The result...the Dennis Widemans of the world shouldn't be getting no 5 million dollar a year deals.

Even recently we would see a lot of top guys getting 8 million AAV with more term, but mid level guys still getting 5 over 5. In a market of supply and demand there really was no way the 5 million dollar guy was worth that salary...from a pure replacement perspective that guy was maybe worth 3, whereas those top level guys are worth that premium.

The purpose of a cap is that teams who have a Crosby should have to pay him top dollar and try to build around him. The teams that don't should get the chance to put out a top 6 forward group of 5 million dollar guys to counter the 20 million dollar star duo, and see who wins. The beauty of a team game.
__________________
"Some guys like old balls"
Patriots QB Tom Brady
Sylvanfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2017, 09:13 PM   #16
Poster
Crash and Bang Winger
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sylvanfan View Post
....The purpose of a cap ...
Not really, but it's a by product.

The purpose is to achieve cost certainty with regards to player costs.
Poster is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:46 PM.

Calgary Flames
2023-24




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021