Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio
I don't mind LTIR, but I think it shouldn't be the full amount of salary. I think it should be capped to 975K or whatever an ELC max is. That way a team can replace the LTIR contract with someone. I mean, injuries do happen in hockey.
|
That's fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio
I also don't care for the luxury tax system. Teams can inflate franchise values and stay afloat without any effort to compete.
|
Ok, then scale it. The bottom 10 revenue generating teams get it in order of standings so the best of them get the biggest cheque. Or you could give it to non-playoff teams (scaled again so that the playoff bubble teams would gladly take playoff revenue over luxury tax revenue) or it get's donated to bottom revenue/non-playoff team supported local charities. Or it goes to the league and used for additional marketing. Where the money goes is less important then that the teams above the line pay a penalty. A range has to exist but it should exist at a point where half the teams are somewhere above the midpoint and half somewhere below... that is not currently the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio
I also like the contract variance because it's given some poor teams financial flexibility, such as Arizona last year with the Datsuk, and Pronger. Without that variance, some teams are essentially stuck with their bad contracts.
|
They should be stuck with bad contracts. Having competent contract management should be an asset to teams that have it. Don't want to be stuck with bad contracts? Then don't sign bad contracts in the first place and pay the price when you do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio
Furthermore, rebuilding teams would be in trouble to get all their prime players under the cap if there was no variance. Imagine the Flames trying to build a Cup winner while Monahan, Gaudreau, Brodie, Hamilton, etc are all in their prime years, getting paid prime-year money. They would exceed the cap.
|
... the Flames do have Monahan, Gaudreau, Brodie, Hamilton, are all in their prime years, getting paid prime-year money. The Flames actually have very little in the way of year to year variation. I think (at present) for their upcoming season the Flames salary exceeds the cap hit by about a million dollars. I'm talking about backdiving contracts... were you thinking I was talking about something else? The last CBA took care of a lot of it... I think they should go a little bit further in that regard.
Managers/owners are collectively overspending and the league is using the clawback to remedy that. All I'm suggesting is removing/limiting most the loopholes that managers are using to overspend. Remove the overspending and you remove the need for escrow to be so high, remove the need for escrow to be so high and you can lower the clawback to a level that the NHLPA won't be ornery about it.