[News] TSN: NHL GM Meetings: To discuss playoff cap, player no-trade lists, cap increase

[getbak]

Here's today's Insider Trading: https://www.tsn.ca/video/~2408936. In it, they discuss the possible agenda for next week's GMs Meeting.

There is an expectation that they'll discuss some way of imposing a team salary cap for the playoffs. I'm not sure if this is something they could impose this year, or if it would only start in the future.

In fallout from the Dadonov situation, they'll likely look into ensuring players' no-trade lists will be registered with the league and/or PA going forward. This seems like a no-brainer all around.

Also, despite many teams playing in half-empty (or less) buildings this year, revenue increases are expected to be high enough that they're still expecting the cap to increase by $1 million. If this happens, it's good news for the Flames. Combined with the end of Brouwer's buyout, it would give the Flames an extra $2.5 million to work with this summer without doing anything else.

[Roof-Daddy]

Implementing a cap for the playoffs seems like a no brainer to me.

That's enough of the LTIR shenanigans. If they don't something about it now, it will only get worse.

[djsFlames]

Good.

Tampa and Vegas, and teams trying to emulate them can pound sand.

[Ferarri]

I know you could never get players to agree to this, but I find the concept of no trade lists detrimental to the game. Small market teams are at a huge disadvantage when it comes to player acquisition. Personally it takes a lot of the fun out of the games knowing that your team will never attract big name talent (unless you draft and develop one).

It’s a privilege to play in the NHL and it shouldn’t make a difference whether that opportunity comes in Winnipeg or New York. Player entitlement that they are above certain cities goes against everything the NHL should stand for.

Like I said, players would never give up this luxury in CBA negotiations but it really lowers the standard of competition and fairness when your team is on the list of undesirable locations.

[Mass_nerder]

It's mind bottling to me that player NTC/NMC aren't registered with the league/Union already.

[The Cobra]

If the salary cap is the same in the playoffs as during the season, it will put a virtual end to deadline deals.

So, expect at the very most a limit to the cap during the playoffs that is some millions over the in-season cap.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Implementing a cap for the playoffs seems like a no brainer to me.

That's enough of the LTIR shenanigans. If they don't something about it now, it will only get worse.

Yeah, similar to the Kovalchuk situation with the back-diving contracts. Everyone will push the limits until someone finally goes too far and forces a crackdown.

[Mathgod]

Maybe a better solution is to say LTIR gives 80% cap relief instead of 100%, a player on LTIR can't be traded until they are removed from it and register some ice time since being removed, and a player that has been traded can't be put on LTIR until he has recorded some ice time since being traded. Not a perfect solution by any means, but a big step in the right direction toward cutting down on abuse of the sytem.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

If the salary cap is the same in the playoffs as during the season, it will put a virtual end to deadline deals.

So, expect at the very most a limit to the cap during the playoffs that is some millions over the in-season cap.

Why? Why should a team be able to play in the playoffs in a manner it couldn't do all season? There is simply no rationale for that whatsoever.

[Mccree]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

Why? Why should a team be able to play in the playoffs in a manner it couldn't do all season? There is simply no rationale for that whatsoever.

Don't we do that already with how penalties are called in the playoffs. There is a clear difference between the regular season standard and the playoff standard.

[Demzy84]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

If the salary cap is the same in the playoffs as during the season, it will put a virtual end to deadline deals.

So, expect at the very most a limit to the cap during the playoffs that is some millions over the in-season cap.

But at the deadline, teams make trades and still have to be under the salary cap. So why would that change? To me, only impacts teams who have players sitting on LTIR that they are waiting to move off once the regular season ends.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

Why? Why should a team be able to play in the playoffs in a manner it couldn't do all season? There is simply no rationale for that whatsoever.

It's been the case since the beginning of the salary cap. The cap isn't adding up all the cap hits and forcing you to be under in a snap shot in time, it's based on daily cap hits and being under at the end of the season.

Without any shenanigans, a floor team on pace for 60M would arrive at the trade deadline and be able to add 105M in cap hits for a total of 165M and be cap compliant this year:

60M*0.8+165M*0.2=81M

Of course this never happens as floor teams aren't looking to load up but most playoff teams (those not having LTIR) accrue cap space as the season goes on to be able to load up at the deadline.

Even the Flames, on pace to be just under the salary cap, have a total salary cap of players (and dead hits) a couple million above the ceiling with 83M. The Panthers have a total salary cap of players at 87.5M.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Demzy84

But at the deadline, teams make trades and still have to be under the salary cap. So why would that change? To me, only impacts teams who have players sitting on LTIR that they are waiting to move off once the regular season ends.

If you have $2 million of cap space all year, you can acquire an $8 million player at the deadline. The Flames have essentially done this by banking some cap space without using LTIR.

IMO the easy answer is that the AAV of the lineup you dress for every playoff game needs to be under the regular season cap. Still gives lots of wiggle room and ability to make trades but stops teams from icing a $90 million lineup.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

IMO the easy answer is that the AAV of the lineup you dress for every playoff game needs to be under the regular season cap. Still gives lots of wiggle room and ability to make trades but stops teams from icing a $90 million lineup.

And then you no longer see big moves at the trade deadline. Giroux to Panthers (or Avs or any playoff team) could never happen.

[SaskyFlamesFan]

The one proposal is that the 20 players dressed have to be under the cap. So basically if you don’t dress you don’t count. Seems like a good starting point

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

And then you no longer see big moves at the trade deadline. Giroux to Panthers (or Avs or any playoff team) could never happen.

Unless the playoff cap was higher than the RS cap. That way, each team knows exactly how much extra salary they can have on their playoff roster vs RS roster, it's the same amount for every team, and it's set to a reasonable limit.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

And then you no longer see big moves at the trade deadline. Giroux to Panthers (or Avs or any playoff team) could never happen.

Absolutely disagree. Florida could easily still ice a cap compliant team in a playoff game. First of all it only requires 20 players so pretty easy to find a cap complaint lineup with that roster to choose from.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

It's been the case since the beginning of the salary cap. The cap isn't adding up all the cap hits and forcing you to be under in a snap shot in time, it's based on daily cap hits and being under at the end of the season.

Without any shenanigans, a floor team on pace for 60M would arrive at the trade deadline and be able to add 105M in cap hits for a total of 165M and be cap compliant this year:

60M*0.8+165M*0.2=81M

Of course this never happens as floor teams aren't looking to load up but most playoff teams (those not having LTIR) accrue cap space as the season goes on to be able to load up at the deadline.

Even the Flames, on pace to be just under the salary cap, have a total salary cap of players (and dead hits) a couple million above the ceiling with 83M. The Panthers have a total salary cap of players at 87.5M.

I always thought this was how it worked, but some recent events with the Flames have made me a bit more confused about how cap space accrual actually works.

[Madrox]

Originally Posted by Ferarri

I know you could never get players to agree to this, but I find the concept of no trade lists detrimental to the game. Small market teams are at a huge disadvantage when it comes to player acquisition. Personally it takes a lot of the fun out of the games knowing that your team will never attract big name talent (unless you draft and develop one).

It’s a privilege to play in the NHL and it shouldn’t make a difference whether that opportunity comes in Winnipeg or New York. Player entitlement that they are above certain cities goes against everything the NHL should stand for.

Like I said, players would never give up this luxury in CBA negotiations but it really lowers the standard of competition and fairness when your team is on the list of undesirable locations.

I don’t think that one is that hard, actually. Just do away with partial NTCs, then there’s no competitive disadvantage to them.

[Cole436]

Originally Posted by Ferarri

I know you could never get players to agree to this, but I find the concept of no trade lists detrimental to the game. Small market teams are at a huge disadvantage when it comes to player acquisition. Personally it takes a lot of the fun out of the games knowing that your team will never attract big name talent (unless you draft and develop one).

It’s a privilege to play in the NHL and it shouldn’t make a difference whether that opportunity comes in Winnipeg or New York. Player entitlement that they are above certain cities goes against everything the NHL should stand for.

Like I said, players would never give up this luxury in CBA negotiations but it really lowers the standard of competition and fairness when your team is on the list of undesirable locations.

Nah, at the end of the day people should have the ability to choose where they work. The NHL is making billions of dollars off their backs and workers have the right to negotiate contracts that make sense for their lives.