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

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from goodnewsbears. Show goodnewsbears'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):
    In Response to Re: Cap Space Change - Suggestion - Your thoughts (if you're interested) : 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.
    Posted by SanDogBrewin


    the owners wouldn't want this.  it could increase their payroll by 15%.  the players would love it (15% raise).
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from OatesCam. Show OatesCam's posts

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

    I would assume that it would be done in such a way that would keep the revenue share between owners and players the same.  That is, if they allowed you to exceed the cap by 15%, for your own players they would reduce the cap accordingly.  The goal would be to keep players, not spend more money.

    It's similar to what the NBA does, but I don't like it.  I think early free agency and no-trade clauses have reduced the number of fun trades a bit.  The majority of player acquisition seems to come from drafting and free agency.  I would like a few more blockbuster deals.  Giving your own drafted players a cap bonus would discourage moving them.

    For me a better change would be moving UFA status a little later and more importantly banning NTC's a until later in a career.  This would mean that you still get a nice reward for drafting well, but you wouldn't have to keep the player.  You could move them for other assets.

    The 15% cap allowance does have the bonus of helping dynasties.  We saw it in the NBA (Bulls) and as N-A-S pointed out it would be awesome for the current Bruins.  If you like dynasties, and I do, that's a good thing.  But you can also keep a team at the top by making smart trades of expensive players (Kessel) for young talent (Seguin and Hamilton), so I think I like the current system. It makes keeping a team competitive a challenge, and I like that. Building a great team is easy. Just lose a lot (see Oilers). Keeping it on top takes skill (Blackhawks = OK, Bruins = excellent).
     
  3. 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):
    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.
    Posted by Bookboy007


    Good points.  You're probably right that agents would look to take advantage of the 15% spread, but I'm not sure how it would shake it.  Toronto offers Kessel $5.5 million.  The Bruins can decide to match and only take a $4,675,000 hit which leaves some flexibility to sign other players or they can take the picks like today.

    I think it does give the team owning the player a bit more flexibility that they can choose to retrain that player when they become UFA or RFAs.
    Whether they exercise that right is up to them, ultimately.  On the reverse side, it penalizes teams that simply look to pluck players from other teams when they become RFAs or UFAs since they get penalized in cap space as a result.

    After giving this more thought, I think the NHLPA wouldn't go for it, because it could result in less movement for the players.

    Back to the drawing board
     
  4. 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):
    In Response to Re: Cap Space Change - Suggestion - Your thoughts (if you're interested) : After giving this more thought, I think the NHLPA wouldn't go for it, because it could result in less movement for the players. Back to the drawing board
    Posted by LoveRealHockey


    The NHLPA would love it because their guys (themselves) would be making more money. 
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

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

    OatesCam has the finger on the pulse in this argument.  Yet, to this fan a reward of cap space is warranted, the management teams that draft poorly would fall victim to the 15% issue. Although I look at the current Bs who have 1st rounders playing on the third and fourth lines that were drafted by other teams.  So I am inclined to think the system is ok if your management team knows how to assess talent.  Revenue sharing though is an entirely different issue, that needs reassessment!  In other words if the cap system is working, why reward a team who does not fill the stands to exist!
     
  6. 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):
    Owners must surely hear  "cap exemption" as "I pay more money for the same product". Posted by Bookboy007


    Explain to me what you mean by "same product" ? I believe if Rocky "believes in spending money to make money" Wirtz , unlike his dad, were in charge of the Blackhawks when Roenick was coming up on free agency he would have loved to have "Larry Bird Rule". I've already alluded too twice that I wouldn't follow thw NBA rule to a "T" as well.

    The Blue Jackets owner wouldn't like this exemption when Nash's contract comes up ? How about Nashville's owner for Suter ?  Are they the same product you're referring too ? I hope you don't mean the players are on the decline, I have no exemption so lets blow up the team and start over like Edmonton does every year.
     
  7. 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):
    In Response to Re: Cap Space Change - Suggestion - Your thoughts (if you're interested) : Explain to me what you mean by "same product" ?
    Posted by SanDogBrewin


    The B's have $4M in cap space and RFA Lucic to sign.  He takes the $4M or he sits.

    With the 15%, it would be $4.6M.
     
  8. 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):
    In Response to Re: Cap Space Change - Suggestion - Your thoughts (if you're interested) : The B's have $4M in cap space and RFA Lucic to sign.  He takes the $4M or he sits. With the 15%, it would be $4.6M.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot


    I don't think RFA was brought into the equation of the debate. I would only want UFAs, one veteran per year to retain under the rule and I wouldn't be stuck on 15% as the funal number either.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share