Cap musings

[CaptainCrunch]

So I worked today because most of my clients are merican, so I'm going to take Thursday and Friday off. But to my chagrin a lot of my Merican clients are taking the week off to spend with their stupid families.


So I got to thinking about the complaints about the cap that we've heard. its not fair because it doesn't take taxation rates into account, fans of big market teams complaining because it doesn't let them spend unlimited dollars. So then I started thinking, what are the alternatives, just some thoughts


1) Cap with a franchise player option. - This was bought up on TSN. That a team would have the option of naming a franchise player who's salary doesn't count against the cap. You can spend up to the maximum amount available to a player now based on a percentage of the teams total cap. But what if you modified the premise. What if the use of the franchise tag was optional, but for you to use it you would have to give up a draft pick.


Salary penalty


10 mil and above 1st round pick

7 to 10 mil 2nd round pick
1 to 7 mil 3rd round pick


This would allow a team to keep a developed player, or would allow them to get out of cap problems for one year. Every year you can change who your franchise player is at the end of the first day of free agency.


2) A soft cap with an add.


You have a hybrid cap. a hard cap of lets say $81.5, but then as a team you can go up to lets say $84 million dollars, but at the cost of your first round pick in the next draft. Again this would allow teams to get out of cap trouble for a year, possibly encourage shorter term contracts, but at a murderous cost to your development.


3) A true soft cap with luxury cap


Lets say you set your cap at 81.5, but teams are free to spend what they want. But the cost would be .50 cents on the dollar for every dollar over which is distributed to the less wealthy teams. That was the Rangers and Leafs and Flyers for example could spend what they wanted, and the smaller market teams would share in additional revenue?





4) Make the cap positional, split the cap between goalies, forwards and defensemen. That would force teams to actually address weaknesses, and create more competition and dare I say probably more RFA offer sheets.




Now I'm not saying that I don't like the current system, I do very much so, its allowed teams like the Flames to stay in place and at least compete. But this is just for fun, since we're now pretty much officially into the off season.

[topfiverecords]

There definitely has to be something done about the tax disparity as it’s giving teams a competitive advantage.

I’d invoke a climate/atmosphere/ocean proximity advantage penalty too.

Anxiously curious what Textcritic and FreePepsi’s views on those thoughts are though.

[shadowlord]

The question I always have with cap exception proposal is how to fit the proposal with the 50:50 revenue splitting formula between the players and the owners.

That being said, I'd like to throw a proposal of my own:

Players that are re-signed by their own team get a discounted cap-hit.

This makes it less costly for teams to retain their own players that they want to keep. However, it might lead to shorter term deals, as teams want to get to the discounted cap-hit sooner, and the NHLPA might be against that.

[Finger Cookin]

The cap is fine the way it is and the NHL shouldn't worry itself about how state, provincial, and federal governments structure their tax regimes. I'm not into any idea that changes the hard cap that is directly linked to league revenues into a soft one with luxury taxes and what not.

[jayswin]

Are you trying to make "Merican" a thing?

[the_only_turek_fan]

Originally Posted by shadowlord

The question I always have with cap exception proposal is how to fit the proposal with the 50:50 revenue splitting formula between the players and the owners.

That being said, I'd like to throw a proposal of my own:

Players that are re-signed by their own team get a discounted cap-hit.

This makes it less costly for teams to retain their own players that they want to keep. However, it might lead to shorter term deals, as teams want to get to the discounted cap-hit sooner, and the NHLPA might be against that.

Teams should lobby their provincial/state governments to change tax laws like any other business.

And if the liberals are right and the world becomes to hot then everyone is going be lining up to sign with the Oilers and Flames.

[JTech780]

I am fine with the cap system we have in place. The one thing I would change is the max term for contracts. It's still too long. I think it should be 5 years for re-signing your own played and 4 years to sign a UFA. Just look at the stupid contracts that got handed out today, that's all the evidence you need, that that needs to be fixed.

Edit: One thing this team needs to do a better job of is promoting their stars. If we did a better job of that it would make it a bit easier to get players to come here.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by JTech780

I am fine with the cap system we have in place. The one thing I would change is the max term for contracts. It's still too long. I think it should be 5 years for re-signing your own played and 4 years to sign a UFA. Just look at the stupid contracts that got handed out today, that's all the evidence you need, that that needs to be fixed.

Edit: One thing this team needs to do a better job of is promoting their stars. If we did a better job of that it would make it a bit easier to get players to come here.

I agree about the max length contracts. Though I would reduce it 6 years for re-signing your own players and 5 for other players. I would also limit signing bonuses to 20% of the season salary.

[Strange Brew]

^ the players would hate that. Would have to give them something in return I’d imagine.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by JTech780

I am fine with the cap system we have in place. The one thing I would change is the max term for contracts. It's still too long. I think it should be 5 years for re-signing your own played and 4 years to sign a UFA. Just look at the stupid contracts that got handed out today, that's all the evidence you need, that that needs to be fixed.

Edit: One thing this team needs to do a better job of is promoting their stars. If we did a better job of that it would make it a bit easier to get players to come here.

The cap is to ensure stability among franchises. Did any of the contracts handed out today affect the future stability of a franchise?

No

Cap is working as intended.

[Stillman16]

I think the biggest problem, with any of your changes to the salary cap, is the affect it would have on escrow.

The hard cap should keep escrow from being too much, but the players insisted on raising the cap beyond revenue projections; the players hate escrow, but want big money on their individual contracts.

Adding uncertain salary costs would likely increase escrow, unless the max cap (prior to exceptions) was set much lower to accommodate the exceptions.

This years "modest" cap increase has been needed for a long time. I think the recent contracts, and limited horror contracts handed out, show that it is helping to temper expectations (by players) and making GM's more frugal.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

^ the players would hate that. Would have to give them something in return I’d imagine.

They can get the Olympics.

[Rando]

Established players usually sell out the younger ones not yet in the league. Four year entry level contracts might become a thing.

[powderjunkie]

A really punitive luxury tax seems like the best solution to me. There is a way it could help escrow, and helps big market teams be more competitive, which is actually good for the league as a whole.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

A really punitive luxury tax seems like the best solution to me. There is a way it could help escrow, and helps big market teams be more competitive, which is actually good for the league as a whole.

Why do big market teams need help to be competitive though? Unless you meant small market.

The whole escrow thing is overblown IMO. They are sharing in revenues, so yeah there’s no way to know with certainty what they will be at start of year.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Why do big market teams need help to be competitive though? Unless you meant small market.

The whole escrow thing is overblown IMO. They are sharing in revenues, so yeah there’s no way to know with certainty what they will be at start of year.

Escrow complaints are stupid (many players are simply dumb about it...), but structuring the cap based around a "midpoint" that nearly every single team exceeds is also stupid.

Big market teams don't need help (although it seems evident that Canadian teams do need some help) - this would just be another way to enhance revenue sharing. Getting the Rangers/Leafs/Habs to the finals more than once in the next 25 years would certainly be a good thing for the league...

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

^ the players would hate that. Would have to give them something in return I’d imagine.

The stars would hate that, but the middle class might resent going without game cheques during a lockout while the stars sit with their lockout proof signing bonuses. They might sell them out.

I'm for some sort of cap exceptions for players you draft/develop - ie we can pay Johnny $10.5 but he only counts as $9.5. Something like that. You should reward teams who draft and develop well, they should be allowed to keep teams together, to a certain extent.