Cap Space Change - Suggestion - Your thoughts (if you're interested)

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from LoveRealHockey. Show LoveRealHockey's posts

    Cap Space Change - Suggestion - Your thoughts (if you're interested)

    This isn't really tied to any one event or signing, but I've always wondered whether the following rule would be a good thing or not.

    A team that drafts a player (or is the first to sign that player to an NHL contract) i.e. player has not played for any other NHL team only has to expose 85% of that player's salary against the teams cap space.

    Example:  Lucic signs a $5 million contract.  Today that is $5 million against the Bruin cap.  However, if this rule is in place, it would only count $4.25 million against the Bruins cap since he was drafted by them and has not played for any other NHY team.  A team, say the Leafs, pry Lucic away and signs him for the same $5 milion, has to count the entire amount against their cap (slight disadvantage).

    Advantages:
    1. Encourages team to invest more in their own scouting so they can field their team with more 'home grown' talent versus Free agency or trades
    2. Rewards teams that have drafted, developed and promoted players to their NHL roster such that they'd have a bit of an advantage in retaining their players when they get into their prime.
    3. Gives the team that drafted the player an advantage in helping manage their cap space
    4. Penaltizes teams that rely on trades and free agents from other teams

    Overall it would encourage teams to develop from within and reward them, in terms of cap size, and help them retain the players once they become more marketable and in their prime.

    A team, like the Bruins, that continues having success will eventually be faced with having to let some core players go to stay within the cap (similiar to what Chicago did) since the core players will warrant more money.

    I can see one of the downsides being reduced trading activity.

    To anyone that care, what are your thoughts?
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Cap Space Change - Suggestion - Your thoughts (if you're interested)

    In Response to Cap Space Change - Suggestion - Your thoughts (if you're interested):
    [QUOTE]This isn't really tied to any one event or signing, but I've always wondered whether the following rule would be a good thing or not. A team that drafts a player (or is the first to sign that player to an NHL contract) i.e. player has not played for any other NHL team only has to expose 85% of that player's salary against the teams cap space. Example:  Lucic signs a $5 million contract.  Today that is $5 million against the Bruin cap.  However, if this rule is in place, it would only count $4.25 million against the Bruins cap since he was drafted by them and has not played for any other NHY team.  A team, say the Leafs, pry Lucic away and signs him for the same $5 milion, has to count the entire amount against their cap (slight disadvantage). Advantages: 1. Encourages team to invest more in their own scouting so they can field their team with more 'home grown' talent versus Free agency or trades 2. Rewards teams that have drafted, developed and promoted players to their NHL roster such that they'd have a bit of an advantage in retaining their players when they get into their prime. 3. Gives the team that drafted the player an advantage in helping manage their cap space 4. Penaltizes teams that rely on trades and free agents from other teams Overall it would encourage teams to develop from within and reward them, in terms of cap size, and help them retain the players once they become more marketable and in their prime. A team, like the Bruins, that continues having success will eventually be faced with having to let some core players go to stay within the cap (similiar to what Chicago did) since the core players will warrant more money. I can see one of the downsides being reduced trading activity. To anyone that care, what are your thoughts?
    Posted by LoveRealHockey[/QUOTE]
    LRH, that's an interesting idea and I agree with all of your points. The reduced trades would be the biggest downfall but I love the idea of rewarding teams for developing from within.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Cap Space Change - Suggestion - Your thoughts (if you're interested)

    There would need to be some sort of exemption for any expansion team. They're already starting at a disadvantage, this would compound that.

    It would also hammer teams with a poor scouting and development system, like your Leafs. Not that I have a problem with that, just that it could potentially alter the level of parity in the league.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Cap Space Change - Suggestion - Your thoughts (if you're interested)

    In Response to Cap Space Change - Suggestion - Your thoughts (if you're interested):
    [QUOTE]This isn't really tied to any one event or signing, but I've always wondered whether the following rule would be a good thing or not. A team that drafts a player (or is the first to sign that player to an NHL contract) i.e. player has not played for any other NHL team only has to expose 85% of that player's salary against the teams cap space. Example:  Lucic signs a $5 million contract.  Today that is $5 million against the Bruin cap.  However, if this rule is in place, it would only count $4.25 million against the Bruins cap since he was drafted by them and has not played for any other NHY team.  A team, say the Leafs, pry Lucic away and signs him for the same $5 milion, has to count the entire amount against their cap (slight disadvantage). Advantages: 1. Encourages team to invest more in their own scouting so they can field their team with more 'home grown' talent versus Free agency or trades 2. Rewards teams that have drafted, developed and promoted players to their NHL roster such that they'd have a bit of an advantage in retaining their players when they get into their prime. 3. Gives the team that drafted the player an advantage in helping manage their cap space 4. Penaltizes teams that rely on trades and free agents from other teams Overall it would encourage teams to develop from within and reward them, in terms of cap size, and help them retain the players once they become more marketable and in their prime. A team, like the Bruins, that continues having success will eventually be faced with having to let some core players go to stay within the cap (similiar to what Chicago did) since the core players will warrant more money. I can see one of the downsides being reduced trading activity. To anyone that care, what are your thoughts?
    Posted by LoveRealHockey[/QUOTE]

    I suggested this last year, exact thing. I wont report it stolen as long as you give me credit.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from LoveRealHockey. Show LoveRealHockey's posts

    Re: Cap Space Change - Suggestion - Your thoughts (if you're interested)

    In Response to Re: Cap Space Change - Suggestion - Your thoughts (if you're interested):
    [QUOTE]There would need to be some sort of exemption for any expansion team. They're already starting at a disadvantage, this would compound that. It would also hammer teams with a poor scouting and development system, like your Leafs. Not that I have a problem with that, just that it could potentially alter the level of parity in the league.
    Posted by red75[/QUOTE]

    You're right regarding expansion teams, but being at a disadvantage because of poor scouting (which I think is one area Burke has actually improved the Leafs) is one of the reasons I personally like the rule.  Teams would have to change their philosphy.  Perhaps a grace period of 2-3 years before introducing the rule might be something to consider.

    It would be nice when following a team, that the team is actually in a preferred position to retain their star players that they drafted and developed.

    I think another downside would be that you wouldn't see teams trade their high draft picks very often and, by extension, teams wouldn't often look to pry RFA's (like Leafs did with Kessel).

    I'm not sure whether GMs would go for it.  I would think the NHLPA would okay with it because in theory, a team re-signing one of their own players could play up to 15% more then a competitor given the cap size impact.

    food for thought....
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from lambda13. Show lambda13's posts

    Re: Cap Space Change - Suggestion - Your thoughts (if you're interested)

    I like YOUR idea LRH. Just kidding kelvana. Nice idea.

    It wouldn't neceassarily make it impossible for expansion teams, they can continue to draft young talent. You hear an awful lot about younger players making a big difference in this league than some of the older guys. Most expansion teams have been around for at least 10 years now... Their first picks have likely been around for 10 years.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from LoveRealHockey. Show LoveRealHockey's posts

    Re: Cap Space Change - Suggestion - Your thoughts (if you're interested)

    In Response to Re: Cap Space Change - Suggestion - Your thoughts (if you're interested):
    [QUOTE]In Response to Cap Space Change - Suggestion - Your thoughts (if you're interested) : I suggested this last year, exact thing. I wont report it stolen as long as you give me credit.
    Posted by kelvana33[/QUOTE]
    It's all yours Kelvana........LOL

    I'm sure others have thought of similiar changes.  I just don't like seeing teams having to lose some their own developed talent because of cap space issues.  There should be some sort of reward or incentive to help teams retain their own.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from BSXIII. Show BSXIII's posts

    Re: Cap Space Change - Suggestion - Your thoughts (if you're interested)

    I like the idea, although, I think I'd prefer it be extended to any players currently under contract with the team.  Maybe have a certain amount of time before a player would qualify.  Limiting it to players drafted by the team, could result in GMs being more reluctant to make trade.

    I would definitely like to see it easier for GMs to keep a team together though.  Counting 85% of the money against the cap would be a good way to go about this.  Another way I think would work is to have the salary cap that teams have to be under to sign free agents from other teams, but then let teams go over that number by as much as 10% in order to resign their own players.  It would be a bit like the NBA's system, except they have no ceiling and allow for expiring contracts to be replaced with elite free agents.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Cap Space Change - Suggestion - Your thoughts (if you're interested)

    In Response to Re: Cap Space Change - Suggestion - Your thoughts (if you're interested):
    [QUOTE]I like YOUR idea LRH. Just kidding kelvana. Nice idea. It wouldn't neceassarily make it impossible for expansion teams, they can continue to draft young talent. You hear an awful lot about younger players making a big difference in this league than some of the older guys. Most expansion teams have been around for at least 10 years now... Their first picks have likely been around for 10 years.
    Posted by lambda13[/QUOTE]

    I was referring to expansion clubs going forward, not the existing ones. After the league released their unbalanced conferences, it seems pretty obvious they're considering adding two more some time in the future.

    I like the iea, this just seems to be the one hiccup, as they're already starting with cast off talent. They'd be the only teams without a single elligible player under this rule, at least for their first season.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Cap Space Change - Suggestion - Your thoughts (if you're interested)

    In Response to Re: Cap Space Change - Suggestion - Your thoughts (if you're interested):
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Cap Space Change - Suggestion - Your thoughts (if you're interested) : I was referring to expansion clubs going forward, not the existing ones. After the league released their unbalanced conferences, it seems pretty obvious they're considering adding two more some time in the future. I like the iea, this just seems to be the one hiccup, as they're already starting with cast off talent. They'd be the only teams without a single elligible player under this rule, at least for their first season.
    Posted by red75[/QUOTE]
    Well they could consider all of the players on the original expansion roster to fall under this category. That would also give them an early leg up cap wise so they'd have a more realistic chance to add to the cast-offs. Just a thought.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from goodnewsbears. Show goodnewsbears's posts

    Re: Cap Space Change - Suggestion - Your thoughts (if you're interested)

    i love this idea and i don't see fewer trades as a negative thing.  i prefered it when players used to spend their entire careers with 1 or 2 teams.  i know it won't happen, but i'd love to see bergeron, marchand, lucic, krejci and others retire as bruins.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Cap Space Change - Suggestion - Your thoughts (if you're interested)

    There's no really good reason to do this.  It would be inflationary in terms of team spending because any agent worth his salt will say hey, let's talk about how much of that 15% you should give my guy since you have that flexibility.  Then inflated salaary and not cap value would be used for comparables in arbitration.  You'd also have to pay a premium if you wanted to pry a guy from his home team.

    There's also very little proof that it helps a team at the box office to develop from within, and the league shouldn't be in the business of helping teams that favour one team-building strategy over another.  The only version of this that I think has some legs is something like the Larry Bird exemption - if you have a generational player who is the identity of your team (Crosby, say), then the cap should not cause you to lose him because you can't match an offer. So you can exceed the cap to sign your own free agent by an amount equal to the maximum salary of ... 12% of the cap?  It would have to be tweaked because hockey rosters are twice the size of NBA rosters, but there you go.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Cap Space Change - Suggestion - Your thoughts (if you're interested)

    "Example:  Lucic signs a $5 million contract.  Today that is $5 million against the Bruin cap.  However, if this rule is in place, it would only count $4.25 million against the Bruins cap since he was drafted by them and has not played for any other NHY team.  A team, say the Leafs, pry Lucic away and signs him for the same $5 milion, has to count the entire amount against their cap (slight disadvantage)."

    To me in so many words, not exactly to a "T", the ^above^ is the Larry Bird rule. What I'm seeing in Book's point is the agents will whine, moan and complain directly to the NHLPA "But it's more money for UFAs and RFAs if we keep it the old way". Example Wade Arnott using Burke to back PC into a corner a bit. Agents will want this to stay in place.

    Great idea LRH but it will be hard to push past the NHLPA. Owners would like it, agents will plea they'll go broke which is a laugh.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Cap Space Change - Suggestion - Your thoughts (if you're interested)

    Not quite the Larry Bird, SanDog.  With the LB, the Bruins would be allowed to exceed the cap by the whole $5M if necessary to sign Lucic.

    Also, I see no reason for owners to like it.  They still pay the $5M, it's just the cap that doesn't count full value.  In fact, a GM would be able to go as much as 15% over the cap, so they lose some of their revenue protection.  And it would be inflationary because the Leafs would need to figure out how much the Bruins would pay for Lucic, then add 15%, and offer him that much.  Agents would looooooove this.  Players would love this.  Owners and the League would hate it.  GMs would be happy when it helped them, p.o.'ed when it limited their flexibility.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Klaas. Show Klaas's posts

    Re: Cap Space Change - Suggestion - Your thoughts (if you're interested)

    On the flip side (sort of what Bookboy is alluding to), cheap teams (especially those who try to be as close to the cap floor as possible) may want to trade their home grown players, as discount cap hits means higher costs, of which cheap teams are averse to.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Cap Space Change - Suggestion - Your thoughts (if you're interested)

    Keeping popular players in a city where a players jersey sells well and keeps fans happy by keeping them buying tickets and apparel could be worked out very quickly by a bean counter. Every potential GM whom walks across the carpet to give his NHL owner interviewer his finest Power Point presentation of how he is going to keep his best performers in the teams city that loves him. Plus how he'll make that money back on the other end by making sure he has low salaried entry level stud players fighting for positions every season with good drafting.

    EDIT: Revenue lost by popular players jumping ship can hurt a franchise for years not just in merchandise!
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Cap Space Change - Suggestion - Your thoughts (if you're interested)

    In Response to Cap Space Change - Suggestion - Your thoughts (if you're interested):
    [QUOTE]This isn't really tied to any one event or signing, but I've always wondered whether the following rule would be a good thing or not. A team that drafts a player (or is the first to sign that player to an NHL contract) i.e. player has not played for any other NHL team only has to expose 85% of that player's salary against the teams cap space. Example:  Lucic signs a $5 million contract.  Today that is $5 million against the Bruin cap.  However, if this rule is in place, it would only count $4.25 million against the Bruins cap since he was drafted by them and has not played for any other NHY team.  A team, say the Leafs, pry Lucic away and signs him for the same $5 milion, has to count the entire amount against their cap (slight disadvantage). Advantages: 1. Encourages team to invest more in their own scouting so they can field their team with more 'home grown' talent versus Free agency or trades 2. Rewards teams that have drafted, developed and promoted players to their NHL roster such that they'd have a bit of an advantage in retaining their players when they get into their prime. 3. Gives the team that drafted the player an advantage in helping manage their cap space 4. Penaltizes teams that rely on trades and free agents from other teams Overall it would encourage teams to develop from within and reward them, in terms of cap size, and help them retain the players once they become more marketable and in their prime. A team, like the Bruins, that continues having success will eventually be faced with having to let some core players go to stay within the cap (similiar to what Chicago did) since the core players will warrant more money. I can see one of the downsides being reduced trading activity. To anyone that care, what are your thoughts?
    Posted by LoveRealHockey[/QUOTE]

    Considering the state of the current B's roster, I'm all for it.  Overall, however, it seems like (Caution:  Political reference ahead) the successful are being penalized.  It's no secret that poor teams get better draft picks.  Better draft picks are used to select better players.  Better players are then kept at a percentage of their overall cost.   Teams that continually do well are always drafting much lower (outside of trades), and therefore would have to pay more to stay great.  This would eventually lead to the lower teams overtaking the higher teams, almost by default.

    The problem is that it wouldn't be equal.  The great team would lose it's footing, not by mismanagement, but by other teams being given a great opportunity in the salary cap era.


     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Cap Space Change - Suggestion - Your thoughts (if you're interested)

    In Response to Re: Cap Space Change - Suggestion - Your thoughts (if you're interested):
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Cap Space Change - Suggestion - Your thoughts (if you're interested) : Well they could consider all of the players on the original expansion roster to fall under this category. That would also give them an early leg up cap wise so they'd have a more realistic chance to add to the cast-offs. Just a thought.
    Posted by dezaruchi[/QUOTE]

    Perfect counterbalnce, and that would give expansion clubs a better chance to compete more quickly. Great idea.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Cap Space Change - Suggestion - Your thoughts (if you're interested)

    In Response to Re: Cap Space Change - Suggestion - Your thoughts (if you're interested):
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Cap Space Change - Suggestion - Your thoughts (if you're interested) : Perfect counterbalnce, and that would give expansion clubs a better chance to compete more quickly. Great idea.
    Posted by red75[/QUOTE]

    Why should an expansion team get a better chance to compete more quickly?  Tampa didn't get any help.  Ottawa didn't get any help.  San Jose got nothing.  No one has been given any help to gain respectability.  You have to earn it.  Pick good players, don't draft Patrik Stefan, and you're on your way.

    Expansion teams need the same exact rules as everyone else.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from 49-North. Show 49-North's posts

    Re: Cap Space Change - Suggestion - Your thoughts (if you're interested)

    Essentially, this is the "home town discount", but without the player giving up any real dollars. 

    One possible downside is that, once all of the 'discounts' are in place, the market has adjusted to it, and there's really no impact.  Every team has (essentially) the same benefit, and we're back to where we are today.  The "effect" will only last as long as some teams are capitalizing on the 'discount', and others aren't.  Once every team has (say) 10 players using the discount, the effect is cancelled out.  And you'll have to change the discount to kickstart the cycle again. 

    This would also reduce the likelihood of teams using  the trade deadline to fill holes leading up to the playoffs (at least, until the effects are negated over time).  Mainly because if a team is at or close to the cap, then they won't be able to trade a "home town discounted" player unless they get a player with a cap hit 15% lower in return. (or draft picks).

    If the effect is to keep players on their original teams, then it will accompllish that.  However, that's not always what's best for the team.  GMs will always attempt to make deals that improve their team, which may not necessarily involve keeping a certain home-grown player who has been signed using the discount.

    I guess I'd need to do a simulation of this on a spreadsheet, to see if it would actually have the intended effect, and if my forecasted 'balancing out' of the impacts would actually happen.  Since this is kel's idea, I'll let him prepare the simulation. Wink

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Cap Space Change - Suggestion - Your thoughts (if you're interested)

    In Response to Re: Cap Space Change - Suggestion - Your thoughts (if you're interested):
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Cap Space Change - Suggestion - Your thoughts (if you're interested) : Why should an expansion team get a better chance to compete more quickly?  Tampa didn't get any help.  Ottawa didn't get any help.  San Jose got nothing.  No one has been given any help to gain respectability.  You have to earn it.  Pick good players, don't draft Patrik Stefan, and you're on your way. Expansion teams need the same exact rules as everyone else.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]

    I agree they shouldn't be given help, but the system LRH proposed benefits teams who develop their draft choices and players in their system. New expansion teams have no system. It would be an additional hurdle that the Ducks, Lightning, Sharks, Sens, Thrasher/Jets, Wild, Jackets, Preds, Panthers, Canucks, Flames, Sabres, Kings, Penguins, Flyers, Blues, and whoever else never faced. You have to earn respectability, but you shouldn't have to do it in a way no other team has ever done. That would be as unfair as what happened to the Yotes/Jets, Oilers,Nords/ Avs and Whalers/Canes in the WHA meger.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Cap Space Change - Suggestion - Your thoughts (if you're interested)

    SanDog, I think the jersey sales and ticket sales arguments work both ways.  If the Bruins traded for Rick Nash tomorrow, you only have to look at this board to know that there would be a huge up-tick in jersey sales as people who may have already bought a Lucic and a Bergeron decide they need another jersey, this time with Nash on the back.  Teams that have a popular player or two and still aren't selling out need a system that doesn't punish them if they need a trade or a UFA to generate some excitement.  Status quo is great if you're the Bruins - much like NAS's point - but its bloody awful if you're a team that needs to make changes.

    I just don't see a real reason why the NHL would want to put even more emphasis on the draft as THE path to team success.  Any team that wants to put the money into scouting and drafting, and drafting well, is free to do so, and if they're actually that good at it, they can lose players who are good but whose jerseys dont sell and replace them with the next man in line.  And if they can't find a way to keep players now, a 15% cap bonus isn't going to help much.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from RickyHussle. Show RickyHussle's posts

    Re: Cap Space Change - Suggestion - Your thoughts (if you're interested)

    I like the idea.  I think a 5% discount instead of 15% might be better for competitive balance.  It also might alleviate concerns with the trade deadline.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Cap Space Change - Suggestion - Your thoughts (if you're interested)

    In Response to Re: Cap Space Change - Suggestion - Your thoughts (if you're interested):[QUOTE] And if they can't find a way to keep players now, a 15% cap bonus isn't going to help much. Posted by Bookboy007[/QUOTE]

    Yah 15% is allot it would defenitely have to be taken quite a bit because the NBA generates more money in the states. If I were an owner I would want to explore it.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Cap Space Change - Suggestion - Your thoughts (if you're interested)

    Why would you explore it if you're an owner, SanDog?!  Owners must surely hear  "cap exemption" as "I pay more money for the same product".  That's the part I'm not hearing explained.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share