[Trade] Jets trade Rutger McGroarty to Pens for Brayden Yager

[FlamesAddiction]

The notion that the CBA allows things like this happen, therefore it's fine, isn't a strong argument IMO. The CBA constantly has to be revised to reflect the current realities and issues that harm competitiveness and franchise stability. It's why the salary cap was brought in for example. I recall a time when people said there would never be a salary cap, therefore there was no point in even talking about it. Eventually it got to a point that the NHL couldn't ignore it anymore. At one time, players and teams could renegotiate contracts, which led to things like Nieuwendyk and Yashin refusing to play unless the teams renegotiated a current and valid contract. It was within their CBA rights to do that, but that didn't mean that it wasn't harmful.

I don't know if American college draft picks refusing to play in Canada is at the point that it needs to be addressed, but I think it is trending that way and will eventually happen.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

You think Calgary is the only team that would offer him 3 years and $8M?

You are only expressing this opinion because of where Calgary is in its cycle. They would still need to pay a premium to attract players. And long term, that's the kiss of death.

Buying elite talent is never the long term answer. Developing elite talent is.

What I am saying is that the combination of a hard cap on what rookies can make and UFA status after 7 years of service is what really screws the Flames. They cannot do anything other than suck to get elite talent and once the elite talent is in the prime of their career they can leave for another city if they want. And players can just refuse to report in certain circumstances because they make the same amount of money for the first 3 years wherever they go as long as they are in the league.

A world where players entering could sign wherever and for whatever amount of money combined with a world where they reach UFA after 7 years and all of that under a hard cap would be the ideal situation for a small market team. If the rookies cost more the UFAs would cost less. Teams would probably have to pick one or the other to unload their money on because they would not be able to do both.

You would not be buying elite talent, you would still be developing it. In the bottom of your cycle you would have the ability to buy a lot more elite talent more quickly, significantly shortening your rebuild cycle.

It does not matter because it will never happen but the draft combined with the ability to leave by the age of 25 is what really screws small market teams imo.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Parallex

... How many Stanley Cups have those teams won in the Salary Cap era vs. the pre-cap era.

It's an interesting though...if we look at the entire salary cap era by winning percentage (19 seasons):

1) Vegas: .627
2) Boston: .627
3) Pittsburgh: .612
4) Washington: .604
5) Nashville: .595
6) New York Rangers: .595
7) Tampa Bay: .586
8) Dallas: .585
9) Minnesota: .576
10) St.Louis: .576

vs the top 10 in the prior 20 year period:

1) Detroit: .580
2) Philadelphia: .576
3) Boston: .555
4) St.Louis: .553
5) Montreal: .548
6) New Jersey: .545
7) Washington: .539
8) Calgary: .537
9) Edmonton: .531
10) Colorado: .527

And the bottom 10:

04-05 to 23-24:

32) Arizona: .486
31) Seattle: .490
30) Columbus: .503
29) Buffalo: .503
28) Edmonton: .509
27) Ottawa: .525
26) New York I: .531
25) Montreal: .537
24) Chicago: .539
23) New Jersey: .540

84-85 to 03-04

30. Winnipeg: .372
29) Columbus: .395
28) Tampa Bay: .417
27) San Jose: .441
26) Nashville: .454
25) Islanders: .457
24) Anaheim: .464
23) Carolina: .471
22) Florida: .471
21) Ottawa: .472

I'm not actually sure the salary cap has allowed smaller markets to remain more competitive...still better than an open cap world but I do think a luxury tax system might actually help more.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

The notion that the CBA allows things like this happen, therefore it's fine, isn't a strong argument IMO. The CBA constantly has to be revised to reflect the current realities and issues that harm competitiveness and franchise stability. It's why the salary cap was brought in for example. I recall a time when people said there would never be a salary cap, therefore there was no point in even talking about it. Eventually it got to a point that the NHL couldn't ignore it anymore. At one time, players and teams could renegotiate contracts, which led to things like Nieuwendyk and Yashin refusing to play unless the teams renegotiated a current and valid contract. It was within their CBA rights to do that, but that didn't mean that it wasn't harmful.

I don't know if American college draft picks refusing to play in Canada is at the point that it needs to be addressed, but I think it is trending that way and will eventually happen.

The CBA isn’t really “constantly revised.” It has a set duration and is re-negotiated when it expires or when the two parties want to extend the duration.

And I actually think “it’s fine because the CBA allows it” is a very strong argument, because that’s the legal framework that defines what is and isn’t allowed. The same things that are advantageous to players at the detriment to teams can also be advantageous to teams at the detriment to player, but as fans we only take issue with one of the two.

Any revision to the article that defines rules around ownership rights of drafted players that removes or restricts the freedom of those players is going to cost the owners something in return. Or the solution will likely only cost the owners something, and leave the player freedom intact.

A couple of proposals I’ve read that make sense are changing the compensation element so that signing teams have to supply an equivalent draft pick to the drafting team (i.e. you sign a 2nd round college player, you give the team that drafted him your 2nd round pick in the next draft) or give teams the ability to sign the players they draft to higher ELCs than the players they don’t. Both scenarios leave the player’s freedom intact while costing the teams, but both are more likely.

What will never happen is extending the team’s ownership rights over the player without compensation. Nobody, from owners to players, want to be in a situation where a player finishes college and the team either doesn’t want to or can’t sign him, and then he has nowhere to play until he waits for a trade or the team’s rights to expire.

[Just a guy]

What is the age of McGroarty in Pennsylvania?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

I'm not actually sure the salary cap has allowed smaller markets to remain more competitive...still better than an open cap world but I do think a luxury tax system might actually help more.

Disagree with your conclusion.

Large market teams are still outperforming the small market teams, in the aggregate, but that doesn't mean the cap isn't working, I would suggest that it means that the cap isn't doing enough. Simply comparing numbers from the pre-cap era doesn't prove anything, because the environment has changed too much.

If the playing field isn't level enough, the answer is to make it more level (for instance, free agency at a later age (which I know the PA wouldn't agree to, so save your counter-argument)), not less. And a luxury tax makes it less. If Toronto and NY could simply spend more and pay the luxury tax to build a better team, they would. There is a reason that the Yankees and Dodgers start every season among the favorites.

(For the record, I think the current system is fine - I think the lack of cups for Canadian teams has more to do with the fans than it does with an unlevel playing field. And we need to be careful to not equate 'Canadian teams' with 'small market teams', as they aren't the same thing)

[Bandwagon Surfer]

To me sports leagues with city based teams are fundamentally city vs city competitions. So the city should factor into the success of the city's sports teams. Otherwise, the city is irrelevant and you might as well just cheer for whatever logo looks nicest.

If fans want players to choose their city, they should help improve their city to make it a more attractive destination.

[wired]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

The notion that the CBA allows things like this happen, therefore it's fine, isn't a strong argument IMO. The CBA constantly has to be revised to reflect the current realities and issues that harm competitiveness and franchise stability. It's why the salary cap was brought in for example. I recall a time when people said there would never be a salary cap, therefore there was no point in even talking about it. Eventually it got to a point that the NHL couldn't ignore it anymore. At one time, players and teams could renegotiate contracts, which led to things like Nieuwendyk and Yashin refusing to play unless the teams renegotiated a current and valid contract. It was within their CBA rights to do that, but that didn't mean that it wasn't harmful.

I don't know if American college draft picks refusing to play in Canada is at the point that it needs to be addressed, but I think it is trending that way and will eventually happen.

My opinion. If a drafted player refuses to report or play for the team that has drafted them, then the drafted player should not be eligible to play in the NHL.

Commit to two or three years with the team that drafted you, then move on if that's your desire. This type of thing needs to stop.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by wired

My opinion. If a drafted player refuses to report or play for the team that has drafted them, then the drafted player should not be eligible to play in the NHL.

Commit to two or three years with the team that drafted you, then move on if that's your desire. This type of thing needs to stop.

I like it.

I also liked the idea someone posted earlier where the team that does end up signing the player has to give up some kind of compensation to the other team.

The CBA has all kinds of different free agency rules depending on specific situations, and one of them already require the other team to give up compensation for signing a player away. If the drafted player is offered the rookie max, make it count like a qualifying offer. If another team signs them, then they need to give something. I'd be fine if the original team didn't even have a right to match.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by wired

My opinion. If a drafted player refuses to report or play for the team that has drafted them, then the drafted player should not be eligible to play in the NHL.

Commit to two or three years with the team that drafted you, then move on if that's your desire. This type of thing needs to stop.

That’s how it is now.

Unless you mean indefinitely, which the NHLPA would never, ever agree to. You’d have no hockey sooner than you’d have hockey with that allowance.

[Enoch Root]

I like the idea that, if a player won't sign with the draft team, that whatever team signs him has to pay his equivalent draft slot. And not just by round, but actual value. So if a guy was drafted 14th overall, the compensation would be equal to 14th. If the acquiring team's pick doesn't equal 14, they need to add (or acquire more picks in trade), to get it there.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

In the bottom of your cycle you would have the ability to buy a lot more elite talent more quickly, significantly shortening your rebuild cycle.

So, there would still be much incentive to tank.

[stemit14]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I like the idea that, if a player won't sign with the draft team, that whatever team signs him has to pay his equivalent draft slot. And not just by round, but actual value. So if a guy was drafted 14th overall, the compensation would be equal to 14th. If the acquiring team's pick doesn't equal 14, they need to add (or acquire more picks in trade), to get it there.

That helps solve the problem with high draft picks but what about players like Adam Fox? He was a late draft pick (3rd/4th round I think) that developed into one of the best defensive prospects in the league before turning into one of the best defensemen in the league. This system would not account for that.

Honestly, I think the simplest solution would be to add a year before a player could reach free agency if they choose not to sign. If a player finishes college and refuses to sign with the team that drafted them, they would have to wait a whole year before they could sign with another team. I think that would be enough of a deterrent to keep most college players from walking to free agency and shunning the team that drafted them.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by stemit14

That helps solve the problem with high draft picks but what about players like Adam Fox? He was a late draft pick (3rd/4th round I think) that developed into one of the best defensive prospects in the league before turning into one of the best defensemen in the league. This system would not account for that.

Honestly, I think the simplest solution would be to add a year before a player could reach free agency if they choose not to sign. If a player finishes college and refuses to sign with the team that drafted them, they would have to wait a whole year before they could sign with another team. I think that would be enough of a deterrent to keep most college players from walking to free agency and shunning the team that drafted them.

if the compensation were more certain, Fox would have been drafted much higher

As for guys that have improved above their draft position, I would assume there would be multiple teams bidding, with the starting price being the original draft value, and going up from there.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

I'm not actually sure the salary cap has allowed smaller markets to remain more competitive...still better than an open cap world but I do think a luxury tax system might actually help more.

Not sure if luxury tax works - I'd have to think about it.

But yeah, the problem is that a flat cap favors teams that have other advantages - taxes, climate and city image (i.e. NYC versus Winnipeg). The latter two are beyond anyone's control. I do think there can and should be adjustments to reflect the tax advantage. Surely some smart accountant can work out what $1M in salary equals for each team and make an annual adjust so at least teams compete with the same dollars.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I like the idea that, if a player won't sign with the draft team, that whatever team signs him has to pay his equivalent draft slot. And not just by round, but actual value. So if a guy was drafted 14th overall, the compensation would be equal to 14th. If the acquiring team's pick doesn't equal 14, they need to add (or acquire more picks in trade), to get it there.

So we would have gotten a 4th round pick if Johnny hadn't signed?

A players value can change wildly from when he was drafted. Both up and down.

Tying compensation to his draft slot makes little sense.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

So we would have gotten a 4th round pick if Johnny hadn't signed?

A players value can change wildly from when he was drafted. Both up and down.

Tying compensation to his draft slot makes little sense.

They could have an arbitrator decide the compensation. It used to happen back in the day with RFA compensation. Back when we wore onions on our belts.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

if the compensation were more certain, Fox would have been drafted much higher

As for guys that have improved above their draft position, I would assume there would be multiple teams bidding, with the starting price being the original draft value, and going up from there.

And Fox is kind of an anomoly (along with Gaudreau). You really can't make the exceptions create the rule.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

So we would have gotten a 4th round pick if Johnny hadn't signed?

A players value can change wildly from when he was drafted. Both up and down.

Tying compensation to his draft slot makes little sense.

Under the current system, we would have gotten nothing.

And - as I said - teams could (and would have for Johnny) offer more.

It makes more sense than the current system does. But feel free to offer up a better one.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Under the current system, we would have gotten nothing.

And - as I said - teams could (and would have for Johnny) offer more.

It makes more sense than the current system does. But feel free to offer up a better one.

I think the current system works pretty good.

Not many players from the US actually go UFA, as they desperately want to burn a year off their ELC. So they either sign with the team that drafted them and play a game after their season ends, or force a trade, where the team trading them gets reasonable value. If the player is good enough, multiple teams will get involved, which pretty much guarantees reasonable value. If Johnny had wanted to sign with a US team, the Flames would have gotten good value for him. I'm not sure an arbitrator would need to determine value, as supply and demand would.

Now if a player decides he would forgo burning a year off the ELC, that does create a problem, and perhaps in the situation only an arbitrator could determine compensation. But that's pretty rare.