Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe
I couldn't disagree more. (my entire response isn't directed at you GioForPM by the way - only partly).
I think there definitely are some teams that can have a bad deal on the books and it doesn't affect them as much, but it does effect every single team.
The NHL is basically a competition of who can build the best bang for your buck team, no? That's what it boils down to. Every contract that you sign for market value keeps your team average. Every deal you sign that is below market value helps push your team forward, and every deal that is negative pushes your team backwards. The more 'value' you get overall, the more likely it is that your team moves forward. This is a very simplistic view, and I know that it doesn't account for everything, but this is basically how a cap system works.
Now you look at Calgary's other handicaps besides Huberdeau's deal (will be 38 entering the last year of his deal) and Kadri's deal (will be 39 entering the last year of his deal). Both of these players will be regressing without question. I argue that it is 2 deals, with Kadri's deal POTENTIALLY with it being shorter not affecting the ability of the team to compete - but couple it with Huberdeau's, and it becomes difficult to operate with 17.5 million.
There is an opportunity cost here. Maybe it won't affect re-signing your own players (at least under Kadri's deal), but then again, maybe it will. If there are good UFAs out there that Conroy will want to sign, now he is handicapped. Doubly-hard, actually. There is no way that Calgary can compete by adding another bad deal on the books long-term, so now Conroy has to bat 100%. Conroy simply can't make a misstep now with any deals with term.
Also, Calgary is a team that has to pay the 'Canadian tax', or the 'small market tax', or the 'cold weather tax' - Calgary has to overpay for UFAs - and probably their own players to stay. Recently, even their own top-tier players don't want to stay in Calgary, and many beyond those two only wanted to stay if they got overpaid. Winning will help to change that, as will a new arena, but Calgary will be a 'has not' team in terms of attracting and retaining top-talent, and will have to overpay more than underpay.
I think these bad deals are going to be a bigger issue than most realize. I also think they are deals that will be difficult to make 'go away'. I don't see a reason that the NHL would once again create a compliance buyout either as many people are hoping - the compliance buyouts came amid cap and revenue restructuring. I guess if there is a big change in that area, we may see teams being given compliance buyouts again, but it doesn't look like it is trending that way.
A team like New York that has a long list of players wanting to play there and willing to take a bit less to do so won't be as impacted by a bad deal. Ditto for a team like Florida that operates in a much lower tax bracket, has warm weather, and is winning - they can absorb a couple of bad deals because they sign players for under market.
-----------------------------------
As for suggestions for the upcoming CBA:
1) Tax Adjustment: One of the rules I would like the NHL to adjust in terms of the cap is adjusting for tax. Players are more concerned with how much they pocket, so Florida has a substantial advantage as they give players lower money deals than other locations. I think the cap should adjust for this advantage from location to location, and set an overall average cap, but have an individual team cap, if that makes sense. I think it is more of a tweak than a major revision, but the intent of the cap was to make it as fair as possible, so why not take this step?
2) Compliance Buyouts: I would also like to see a team have compliance buyouts that they can use once every 5 years, or every 7 years. At least this way, a team isn't stuck forever. I would also like to see the ability of the buyout being traded as well - will give an advantage to small market teams that can't afford to buyout a player, so a richer team will have to spend assets to gain an extra buyout window. It really sucks when your team is 'stuck' because one bad GM or one bad decision, or simply one instance of bad luck derailing a player's career happened.
3) Playoff LTIR 'loophole': Perhaps instituting a cap during the playoffs would be of some benefit. I think it should exclude the 'black aces' from the cap, and I think teams should still get an unlimited number of recalls in the playoffs. Perhaps increase the cap by 10% for the playoffs and treat it like the off-season? If a player says he is hurt and can't play, no amount of doctors paid by the NHL can argue with that prognosis. Imagine if the NHL-appointed doctors say that a player is fine, and that player ends up having to play and suffers a severe health-issue related to the injury that the doctors weren't able to pinpoint? You can't make someone play if the player says he is hurt, so the NHL will have to go find a fix in a different direction. They do have to implement something even if you are a person that believes that this hasn't been taken advantage of yet. I think the perception that some teams are taking advantage of this is enough of a reason to fix it.
|