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

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Cole436

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.

For workers making 5 figure salaries I agree with you, but once those salaries start crossing into 6 figures that's where it's harder to have sympathy for workers aggrieved by the physical location of their workplace.

[Cole436]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

For workers making 5 figure salaries I agree with you, but once those salaries start crossing into 6 figures that's where it's harder to have sympathy for workers aggrieved by the physical location of their workplace.

I don’t think the amount of money they make should affect their ability to have some control of their lives. They’re all people who work for a corporation and should have the right to negotiate these clauses in their contracts, especially when billionaires are profiting off of them.

[Mindtravellee]

They need to do something for concussed players to remove the need to rush them back.

Kylingtons return was too quick

[Sylvanfan]

Something like Baseball where at the beginning of the series you designate your 23 man roster. If a guy gets injured you swap him out but once he's off can't come back that series. Set that amount to cap +5%.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by 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.

I hate to be that guy, but this is the necessary amount to buyout the final year of Monahan's contract (cap hit for year 1 is $2.375 M and year 2 is $2 M). If things don't improve for him either in the regular season or a decent playoff performance, I don't see why the Flames wouldn't do this. Essentially, you would free up the entire contract amount with the increase in cap and a buyout, that you could then put towards the Gaudreau/Tkachuk extensions.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

I hate to be that guy, but this is the necessary amount to buyout the final year of Monahan's contract (cap hit for year 1 is $2.375 M and year 2 is $2 M). If things don't improve for him either in the regular season or a decent playoff performance, I don't see why the Flames wouldn't do this. Essentially, you would free up the entire contract amount with the increase in cap and a buyout, that you could then put towards the Gaudreau/Tkachuk extensions.

I think it's likely he'd be tradeable with 2.375 MM retention wouldn't he?
Saving the second year cap hit of a buyout. I doubt Tre wants the black mark of another buyout if he can avoid it as well.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Cole436

I don’t think the amount of money they make should affect their ability to have some control of their lives. They’re all people who work for a corporation and should have the right to negotiate these clauses in their contracts, especially when billionaires are profiting off of them.

The whole point of the salary cap was to try and level the playing field across all markets (desirable and un-desirable), or crazy wealthy owner to just slightly wealthy owner to increase competition and give each team a closer chance to winning, vs. the have's and have nots that emerged in the late 90's early 00's.

I'd say for the most part, it has vastly improved that situation, and as much flack as Betman gets here up north, it's the only reason small market Canadian clubs managed to survive and re-emerge (Winnipeg) in the NHL.

And as much as I'd like to see all advantages other destinations might have over a small market get eroded away, I agree that you can't block off everything AND I agree that if a player is able to negotiate some control into where they play into the contract they should be able to do so. Players leave money on the table in exchange for their NTCs and NMCs, and if that's something they value they should be able to keep it.

I get it, along with many small market clubs, Calgary is often on those NTCs, but we still manage to bring in some good talent via trade and we also take advantage of lower costs by giving them out to some of our better talent as well. Too much of a win for the players to try and take that away from them (plus if the league did, we'd just see way more trade demands and hold outs. I'd rather not trade for a player to come here in the first place, than trade for them and have them demand a trade out right away).

What I'd love for them to figure out is a way to level the tax playing field. It's likely not possible at all given tax laws etc.. and even if it was, it would 100% impact revenue, but the Florida / Nevada tax advantage bugs me way more than NMC and NTCs.

[Jacks]

Any lineup you want to ice in the playoffs has to be cap complaint as if it were the last day of the regular season. You can still make deadline moves but you can't activate players just for the playoffs. If that were the case Kucherov would not have been eligible for last years playoffs (unless they kept enough cap room for him) as it should have been.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Mindtravellee

They need to do something for concussed players to remove the need to rush them back.

Kylingtons return was too quick

There are pretty strict protocols regarding concussions. You are making a big leap assuming he was brought back too quickly. Frankly his decline in play pre-dated the scary hit.

I'm the first to say the NHL needs to do more to prevent concussions (eliminating big hits and fighting) but that's very different from suggesting they are still bringing concussed players back too soon.

[lazypucker]

Is NHL the only league with an actual official NTC/NMC? I think football, baseball or basketball don't have that, and anyone can be traded to anywhere or sent down/cut at anytime. Although you have the likes of Lebron playing agent/coach/GM manipulating trades and signings, but still only the NHL has an official NTC/NMC.

Who thought of having NTC/NMC in the first place? The NHL should ban them from any future contracts being signed.

[SaskyFlamesFan]

If Florida dressed their 20 most expensive players this year they would still be under the cap. A team like Vegas would be about 5 mil over, so somebody like Smith/Dadonav and Patrick probably couldn’t dress. Seems like a fair solution to me.

[Saqe]

Originally Posted by Cole436

I don’t think the amount of money they make should affect their ability to have some control of their lives. They’re all people who work for a corporation and should have the right to negotiate these clauses in their contracts, especially when billionaires are profiting off of them.

Nobody is forcing players to play in the nhl, if they don't like the rules they are free to go elsewhere. The NHL obviously wants the best players so they have a symbiotic relationship´with the NHLPA and are accommodating many things but as a private organization they can make the rules as they please.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

I hate to be that guy, but this is the necessary amount to buyout the final year of Monahan's contract (cap hit for year 1 is $2.375 M and year 2 is $2 M). If things don't improve for him either in the regular season or a decent playoff performance, I don't see why the Flames wouldn't do this. Essentially, you would free up the entire contract amount with the increase in cap and a buyout, that you could then put towards the Gaudreau/Tkachuk extensions.

I don't know if that alone is freeing up enough space.

Gaudreau, Tkachuk, Mangiapane, Jarnkrok need new contracts
Only 3 defenseman signed of the top 7

Obviously you don't have to bring back everyone but of the 20 man game day roster, Gaudreau, Tkachuk, Mangiapane, Jarnkrok, Kylington, Gudbranson all looking at nice raises. Zadorov maybe not.

Going to be some tough choices for sure.

[Geeoff]

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.

I guess one solution would be for a player's cap hit in the playoffs to be what it was at the trade deadline (I guess the pro-rating not exactly clean because teams have different number of games remaining at the deadline)

But I think the issue is with LTIR specifically, since it is used in a lot of other controversial ways.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

For workers making 5 figure salaries I agree with you, but once those salaries start crossing into 6 figures that's where it's harder to have sympathy for workers aggrieved by the physical location of their workplace.

Are you suggesting that people who make $100,000 per year should be freely transferrable to anther city or even country?

You are clearly out of touch with reality.

[Saqe]

^


I wouldn't be ok with it but if I was 20 years old with no commitments and simply wanted to make as much money as I could, I would absolutely take 100k with the occasional mandatory change of cities or even countries. People are free to chose if they want to take a job like that.

[Cycling76er]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Are you suggesting that people who make $100,000 per year should be freely transferrable to anther city or even country?

You are clearly out of touch with reality.

Personal opinion; when the lowest paid person in the NHL makes more in one year then most people make in 10 years, they should be a little more open to being moved around. "It's part of the business" is a commonly used phrase by GMs and players alike.

I wouldn't take a 100k/yr job somewhere that I didn't want to live. But a 750k/yr job? I would give that some thought.

That being said, I don't think it unreasonable to allow a 3 team, pre-determined NTC. It should only be allowed to be submitted once at the onset of a contract. You didn't put the Pittsburgh Penguins on your list and now they look to be in the dumps for the next 10 years? Tough. You can be traded there.

[Geeoff]

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.

The one thing to consider is that the owners are much more wealthy than the players, despite being less visible. In addition, the players generate billions of dollars in revenue for the owners. So, the players are not the bad guys IMO

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Geeoff

The one thing to consider is that the owners are much more wealthy than the players, despite being less visible. In addition, the players generate billions of dollars in revenue for the owners. So, the players are not the bad guys IMO

It always amazes me that some people think there has to be a bad guy in every negotiation, and that the bad guy is automatically the person who has more money.

It also amazes me that some people don't appear to know the difference between revenue and profit.

[pseudoreality]

One thought I always had, but I know it will never get past the PA, is to have the cap and salaries go until the end of the playoffs, not the end of the regular season. Teams can still bank cap-day-dollars and load up for the playoffs somewhat, but they would still need to be compliant for the net sum of the year. Instead of players earning playoff bonuses, they continue to get their regular salary throughout the playoffs. Once you are out, you stop getting paid. This would better match revenue teams get with expenses, but it would also mean half the league missing out on two months of salary and hence the reason why the PA wouldn't go for it.