[PST] Stanley Cup Final: Montreal Canadiens vs. Tampa Bay Lightning---Bolts win the Cup 4-1

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Almost like having a payroll 20% larger then the rest of the league creates a competitive advantage!

Yeah, people seem to forget this element.

Dont get me wrong, it seems likely that Tampa would have had a really good shot even without gaming the Salary Cap...but they still did it.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

They still had the 4th leading scorer in the league, who’d almost won the race just one year before. And it’s not like Bertuzzi suffered an unfortunate injury.

If Bertuzzi hadn't done what he did to Steve Moore (should've never played again, btw), the Calgary Flames would have very likely lost that series.

If the Leafs don't lose John Tavares 6 minutes into Game 1 in traumatizing fashion, they beat Montreal.

But as the Spartans like to say...

"If."

[Macman]

I agree the league needs to address this salary cap circumvention because it's a little bit unfair to put it mildy. Even if a team is able to add 1 player because of having others on the LTIR.
Could be as easy as having a minimum regular season games played requirement as mentioned in this article.

https://thehockeywriters.com/nhl-pos...ion-solutions/

[djsFlames]

I actually don't think Tavares would've been the difference.

Leafs are still fragile right down to their DNA when stakes are high.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

I actually don't think Tavares would've been the difference.

Leafs are still fragile right down to their DNA when stakes are high.

All the more reason they needed their captain.

[stemit14]

Originally Posted by Macman

I agree the league needs to address this salary cap circumvention because it's a little bit unfair to put it mildy. Even if a team is able to add 1 player because of having others on the LTIR.
Could be as easy as having a minimum regular season games played requirement as mentioned in this article.

https://thehockeywriters.com/nhl-pos...ion-solutions/

Can someone explain why the league does not have a salary cap in the playoffs? What is the logic/reasoning for that exception?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Macman

I agree the league needs to address this salary cap circumvention because it's a little bit unfair to put it mildy. Even if a team is able to add 1 player because of having others on the LTIR.
Could be as easy as having a minimum regular season games played requirement as mentioned in this article.

https://thehockeywriters.com/nhl-pos...ion-solutions/

From the link:

The idea behind this is simple. If every player must play one game, then you would need to be salary compliant at least once during the regular season.

Not really teams would just find a reason to put other players on IR. There are always reasons that can be found. Therefore you could ensure players get at least one game in.

I like the other ideas though.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by stemit14

Can someone explain why the league does not have a salary cap in the playoffs? What is the logic/reasoning for that exception?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think part of it is because it would deter teams from replacing lost players during the season, which they don’t want to do. And I kind of agree with that. It would suck for the fan base to lose a good player for a long time and have no options.

Plus, with the trade deadline, it removes the ability to make roster moves late in the season without being punitive. Teams would give up quality assets for a replacement only to lose someone on waivers later. Or it would force them to demote good players which I think would bother the NHLPA.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Not really teams would just find a reason to put other players on IR.

Not quite as simple as you make it sound. IR doesn't give you any cap relief. Only LTIR does that. A player has to miss a minimum of 10 games to qualify for LTIR, and the NHL has to approve.

WARNING: RANT INCOMING

People need to face up: The Tampa Bay Lightning did not break any rules. They gamed the system by taking the maximum possible benefit from a series of unlikely accidents. But the system was designed that way on purpose. Every year, contenders use their banked cap space to load up on extra talent at the deadline, and every year, those contenders go into the playoffs with a lineup that would not fit under the regular-season cap. Tampa Bay got a bigger boost than usual, but they got it by manipulating the same set of rules in the same spirit.

This whole mess could have been avoided if the cap system had been designed in a sensible way to begin with. Viz.:

Every team has to be cap compliant every day of the season, including playoffs. If you want ‘Black Aces’ in the playoffs, you have to designate them as non-roster players and can only activate them if enough roster players are injured to clear equivalent salaries. (Basically equivalent to sending them down to the AHL, except that there would not be waivers during the playoffs.) Cap room cannot be ‘banked’, and a team can't go over the cap by taking on a big expiring contract at the trade deadline.

The cap is $81,500,000? All right, if at any time, even the Stanley Cup finals, you put $81,500,001 worth of players on the ice, the officials disallow it and give you a choice: ice a cap-compliant roster or forfeit the game.

Of course, this will not happen. Capologists would hate it because they would be out of a job. The media would hate it because it would destroy the ratings value of the trade deadline. GMs of good teams would hate it because it would take away their ability to game the system by going over the cap for playoff runs. GMs of bad teams would hate it because it would wreck the market for them to dump their pending UFAs at the deadline. The fans would hate it because, frankly, it would be fair, and they would lose both the hope that the Good Guys might take advantage of the rules and the righteous anger when the Bad Guys do.

The system is borked, but we appear to be stuck with it.

/RANT

[t0rrent98]

Tampa to lose game 4 just so they can win it at home and celebrate with family.... Haha... Jk.

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by t0rrent98

Tampa to lose game 4 just so they can win it at home and celebrate with family.... Haha... Jk.

Could see it.

If it's close or a stalemate, could see them not really giving 100% cause its next to impossible for mtl to come back even if they eke out the next one.

At home is more fun.

[jayswin]

What a yawner of a finals. Boring story of a team sweeps the finals with +18mil cap over everyone else. Cool.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by jayswin

What a yawner of a finals. Boring story of a team sweeps the finals with +18mil cap over everyone else. Cool.

The Lightning do not, in fact, have ‘+18 mil cap over everyone else’. Fourteen other teams finished the season over the cap and used LTIR to compensate. Even the Habs had a final cap hit of over $82 million. St. Louis went over the cap by more than $8 million – and were swept in the first round.

[jayswin]

I've been over this, but for me personally it's not about the rules, it's just about how much I give a **** as a fan that's wavering on caring about hockey. Yes you are correct, but there's extra cap to a degree and then there's $18mil over with a perfectly timed return of a super star player.

You can argue all day and ultimately you'll be right as the NHL let it happen, but for me I just don't give two flying ****'s about a team dominating a Cup win with a team that is $18mil over the cap, legit or not, end of story.

[jayswin]

My comments were about whether I care or not and how exciting it is. I don't care because of how far over the cap they were able to get, and it's boring. That's my take, not legality related, but enjoyment related.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I think part of it is because it would deter teams from replacing lost players during the season, which they don’t want to do. And I kind of agree with that. It would suck for the fan base to lose a good player for a long time and have no options.

Plus, with the trade deadline, it removes the ability to make roster moves late in the season without being punitive. Teams would give up quality assets for a replacement only to lose someone on waivers later. Or it would force them to demote good players which I think would bother the NHLPA.

That's fine but during playoff games teams shouldn't be allowed to ice a team over the $81.5m cap, Tampa iced a lineup worth $86,503,000

[Geeoff]

Originally Posted by stemit14

Can someone explain why the league does not have a salary cap in the playoffs? What is the logic/reasoning for that exception?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

because players don't have a salary in the
playoffs

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

That's fine but during playoff games teams shouldn't be allowed to ice a team over the $81.5m cap, Tampa iced a lineup worth $86,503,000

I actually think its closer to $97M isnt it?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Locke

I actually think its closer to $97M isnt it?

He’s talking about the players on the ice. The big number people mention all the time included Gaborik and Nilsson, who remain on LTIR, for example.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Have there been any other Cup winners this far over the cap? Chicago did something similar but how much did they go over?