• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
eva unit zero

Suggestions for next CBA

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I had these two ideas earlier about how the NHL's CBA could be modified slightly, in what I consider an improvement.

1) Allow teams to trade cash; restricted to the amount of the actual salary remaining for the current season only of the players they are trading away. This would allow teams in poor financial situations which are looking to acquire a veteran presence or a skilled but expensive player could do so by trading with a financially stable team which is doing poorly, etc. A Columbus or Nashville which squeaks into the playoffs could potentially acquire a solid, but expensive, scoring forward who is a free agent at the end of the year and not have to pay his salary. By restricting it to the player's salary, there would be no situations like the Gretzky trade where a player would be traded for a few good players plus enough cash to pay the team for a few seasons.

2) Change the method of calculating a team's used cap space and remaining cap space. Instead of requiring a team to at all times have a roster whose players total up to less than the cap hit, follow one simple rule.

Instead of simply having a range teams must stay within at all times based on the players' yearly cap hits, follow this method: Divide the cap ceiling and floor by the number of games. Divide each player's cap hit by the number of games as well. The difference between the maximum and the team's cap number will be added to the team's cap allowance. So thus, teams would have to stay within the cap for the year, but could have a roster whose yearly hit exceeded it.

Both of these changes would encourage deadline deals that would shift expensive UFAs-to-be towards contending teams, whether or not those teams were big market teams. This would increase the chances for newer teams and small market teams to not only make the playoffs, but also to have success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest CaliWingsNut

I know it won't happen in reality, but I'd love to see a cap tax put in place. Have teams pay 50% of the amount they are over the cap to the players association (therefore lowering the overall player's fees), perhaps a percentage to charity aswell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Detroit's cap, $150 million. Everyone else's, $25 million.

Though, I doubt it'd pass... :lol:

My guess is that the owners are going to push for a limit to length of contracts to avoid the lifetime deals of Z, Franzen, Hossa, et al. And probably eliminate the clause where salary for a retired player doesn't count if the multiyear deal was effective before the player turns 35.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Detroit's cap, $150 million. Everyone else's, $25 million.

Though, I doubt it'd pass... :lol:

My guess is that the owners are going to push for a limit to length of contracts to avoid the lifetime deals of Z, Franzen, Hossa, et al. And probably eliminate the clause where salary for a retired player doesn't count if the multiyear deal was effective before the player turns 35.

Probably won't effect us too much since we have all the core locked up for life it seems. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I had these two ideas earlier about how the NHL's CBA could be modified slightly, in what I consider an improvement.

1) Allow teams to trade cash; restricted to the amount of the actual salary remaining for the current season only of the players they are trading away. This would allow teams in poor financial situations which are looking to acquire a veteran presence or a skilled but expensive player could do so by trading with a financially stable team which is doing poorly, etc. A Columbus or Nashville which squeaks into the playoffs could potentially acquire a solid, but expensive, scoring forward who is a free agent at the end of the year and not have to pay his salary. By restricting it to the player's salary, there would be no situations like the Gretzky trade where a player would be traded for a few good players plus enough cash to pay the team for a few seasons.

2) Change the method of calculating a team's used cap space and remaining cap space. Instead of requiring a team to at all times have a roster whose players total up to less than the cap hit, follow one simple rule.

Instead of simply having a range teams must stay within at all times based on the players' yearly cap hits, follow this method: Divide the cap ceiling and floor by the number of games. Divide each player's cap hit by the number of games as well. The difference between the maximum and the team's cap number will be added to the team's cap allowance. So thus, teams would have to stay within the cap for the year, but could have a roster whose yearly hit exceeded it.

Both of these changes would encourage deadline deals that would shift expensive UFAs-to-be towards contending teams, whether or not those teams were big market teams. This would increase the chances for newer teams and small market teams to not only make the playoffs, but also to have success.

You're gonna need to rephrase this so it makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead of simply having a range teams must stay within at all times based on the players' yearly cap hits, follow this method: Divide the cap ceiling and floor by the number of games. Divide each player's cap hit by the number of games as well. The difference between the maximum and the team's cap number will be added to the team's cap allowance. So thus, teams would have to stay within the cap for the year, but could have a roster whose yearly hit exceeded it.

Since apparently this paragraph was confusing, I'll try and make it make sense.

The cap floor, cap ceiling, and each player's cap hits will be divided into a per-game (or per-day) amount. Each team will be required to remain above the cap floor for each game individually, but the per-game difference between floor and ceiling would add up as "cap credit" as games were played, and teams could use as much of that amount for the active roster on any given day as they wished, so long as it was available based on their current cap credit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the cap confusing enough?

These might be good ideas, but I am too confused to tell.

No offense EUZ

Edited by rage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Probably won't effect us too much since we have all the core locked up for life it seems. :blink:

Yeah, that's what I was meaning. I don't think they'd be able to make it retroactive to current contracts. It would most likely be imposed on any new contracts signed after the new CBA is in effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since apparently this paragraph was confusing, I'll try and make it make sense.

The cap floor, cap ceiling, and each player's cap hits will be divided into a per-game (or per-day) amount. Each team will be required to remain above the cap floor for each game individually, but the per-game difference between floor and ceiling would add up as "cap credit" as games were played, and teams could use as much of that amount for the active roster on any given day as they wished, so long as it was available based on their current cap credit.

For all intents and purposes, that's how it works now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cap is garbage and it penalizes teams successful teams while rewarding less successful teams. Salary caps are a form of price fixing, and people will try to find loopholes around this anyways. I won't get into an economics discussion as to why price fixing is bad, but it's bad economics and endangers the quality of the game. To fix this remedy, I suggest the following:

1. Abolish the cap. The best idea.

2. Institute a luxury tax. This would enable teams to set their own payrolls, but would be taxed if they exceed the set cap number. The proposed luxury tax percentage would vary wildly, and would probably be opposed by the less successful franchises. However, teams that wanted to put a good/better product on the ice would be able to do so. They would just have to pay a little more.

3. Discounted cap hit for your own draft picks. Maybe just a discount for non-first round draft picks, instead of all of them? Something that really angers me is that, for example, the Red Wings have been so successful these last years that they have had minimal first round picks and are forced to draw at a later round. I understand the draft in the sense that less successful teams should have a crack at the top picks, but when a team like Detroit gets lower picks and then draws better players then the first rounders, then has to pick and choose between players when their entry-level contract ends, it bugs me. Take a look at last summers debacle. Z is signed for 6, a great cap hit. The Mule also signs for under 4, another great hit. Both Z and The Mule were selected because of our scouting departments elite skills, not to mention they were drafted in late rounds! Then we have a dedicated guy (say what you want about Hossa but it validates my point more) that wants to stay at Detroit. We are FORCED to choose between the 2 (Hoss and Mule) even though we drafted The Mule and Zetterberg! Something great about discounted draft picks, for example, a rate of 50% cap reduction, is that it would reward good drafting and scouting. So Z's cap hit would have been slightly over 3, and Mules cap hit would be slightly under 2. Then we could have signed Hossa. Say what you want about Hossa, but it would have been great to have him locked up at this time.

By the way, I also find myself thinking what our present-day roster would like like if there was no salary cap in place. Oh the possibilities...

Edited by FunkedUp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The cap is garbage and it penalizes teams successful teams while rewarding less successful teams.

Uh..yeah.. that's kind of the idea. To even the playing field, make the league more competitive and stop teams like the Wings from being at the top year after year.

3. Discounted cap hit for your own draft picks. Maybe also a discount for non-first round draft picks, instead of all of them? Something that really angers me is that, for example, the Red Wings have been so successful these last years that they have had minimal first round picks and are forced to draw at a later round. I understand the draft in the sense that less successful teams should have a crack at the top picks, but when a team like Detroit gets lower picks and then draws better players then the first rounders, then has to pick and choose between players when their entry-level contract ends, it bugs me. Take a look at last summers debacle. Z is signed for 6, a great cap hit. The Mule also signs for under 4, another great hit. Both Z and The Mule were selected because of our scouting departments elite skills, not to mention they were drafted in late rounds! Then we have a dedicated guy (say what you want about Hossa but it validates my point more) that wants to stay at Detroit. We are FORCED to choose between the 2 (Hoss and Mule) even though we drafted The Mule and Zetterberg! Something great about discounted draft picks, for example, a rate of 50% cap reduction, is that it would reward good drafting and scouting. So Z's cap hit would have been slightly over 3, and Mules cap hit would be slightly under 2. Then we could have signed Hossa. Say what you want about Hossa, but it would have been great to have him locked up at this time.

By the way, I also find myself thinking what our present-day roster would like like if there was no salary cap in place. Oh the possibilities...

This would never work. Ovechkin at a less than 5 mil cap hit? It might not be a terrible idea if the cap reduction was like 5% though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uh..yeah.. that's kind of the idea. To even the playing field, make the league more competitive and stop teams like the Wings from being at the top year after year.

This would never work. Ovechkin at a less than 5 mil cap hit? It might not be a terrible idea if the cap reduction was like 5% though.

It could. I also suggested that first round picks be exempt from the reduction. This way, the teams with the top picks wouldn't get off the hook easy by simply drawing a top pick. A reduction of 5% seems a bit trivial, but I still would support it. With that 5% reduction, Datsyuk's current $6,700,000 cap hit would then become $6,365,000 for a savings of $335,000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see some flexibility with the cap - either a luxury tax or some sort of a break for signing drafted players or veterans.

I'm sick of seeing teams get blown up the second they achieve some success.

Restricted free agency should be extended a year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For all intents and purposes, that's how it works now.

It's similar, with one major difference. Currently, your active roster cannot have a yearly cap hit that adds up to more than the total cap, regardless of whether it would actually cause your team 's per-day cap hit to add up to more than the cap over the entire season. For example, if the Wings currently had less than $200k available cap space, and wanted to replace Lebda with Kindl on the roster, they couldn't do it. Under my system, they could do it, but would have to find a solution soon to keep Kindl up if that was the final decision. But instead of not being able to have Kindl up until after finding a solution, they could bring up Kindl and THEN solve the issue within the next couple of games. What you are referring to has to do with trades, where another team has already absorbed the cap hit to a point, and injuries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It could. I also suggested that first round picks be exempt from the reduction. This way, the teams with the top picks wouldn't get off the hook easy by simply drawing a top pick. A reduction of 5% seems a bit trivial, but I still would support it. With that 5% reduction, Datsyuk's current $6,700,000 cap hit would then become $6,365,000 for a savings of $335,000.

Although I understand the Salary Cap was put in place to further create competition and to make it harder for the same teams to stay at the top year after year it does still bother me that succesful franchises are punished for being run properly. There were some very good points about how the Wings have managed to produce players from the draft while rarely, if ever, having a solid to high first round pick.

It does make sense to increase competition in this league but it is unfair to simply punish teams for succeeded and to reward teams for failing (other than high draft picks). Personally, I thoguht from day 1 that if there was a cap that a luxury tax should be introduced. I know a lot of ppl dislike it because the rich teams can stay at the top and so on but at the end of the day if you introduce the luxury tax now that there is paridy in the league it would be more effective. Teams are rewarded financially with long playoff runs where they are able to gross well over a Million dollars per home playoff game. Considering Detroit's economy at the moment a luxury tax wouldn't even necessarily be that advantageous to them so I'm not being biased towards the Wings but it just makes sense. Plus, the league can spread the luxury tax money around the league to the other franchises or pocket it to make up for our weak tv deal. Either way, the league as a whole benefits financially.

Finally, I absolutley like the idea of a drafted player salary reduction. Personally I think 50% is was too high but the idea is solid none the less. What this would also do is encourage players to remain with their drafted team as they would then be able to afford to pay them more than competing teams in the open market. It would encourage players to spend their careers with one team and allow fans to get attached, increasing merchandise sales etc.

I think somewhere in between 5 and 50% would work. For me I'm thinking like 15% or something. The actual number doesnt really matter at this stage but I do like the idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's similar, with one major difference. Currently, your active roster cannot have a yearly cap hit that adds up to more than the total cap, regardless of whether it would actually cause your team 's per-day cap hit to add up to more than the cap over the entire season. For example, if the Wings currently had less than $200k available cap space, and wanted to replace Lebda with Kindl on the roster, they couldn't do it. Under my system, they could do it, but would have to find a solution soon to keep Kindl up if that was the final decision. But instead of not being able to have Kindl up until after finding a solution, they could bring up Kindl and THEN solve the issue within the next couple of games. What you are referring to has to do with trades, where another team has already absorbed the cap hit to a point, and injuries.

No, that's not what I'm talking about. And your reference to injuries tells me you need to gain a better understanding of the current CBA if you think you can make suggestions to improve it. NHLSCAP.com descibes it very well as a bank account:

To understand how each team's cap count is calculated, think of a bank account. For the 2007-08 season, teams got a "deposit" of about $268,984 each day which they can spend on player salaries. (This is $50.3 million divided by 187 days, the length of the ’07-08 season; the season is deemed to have started on October 3, 2007 even though there were two regular-season games played in London.) The difference left over is the "payroll room", the amount that can be used in the future - so each team's cap count can go up or down on a daily basis. The amount of "payroll room" can never fall below zero - so teams can't borrow from the future to pay for today.

So there is a difference to what you're suggesting and if I understand you correctly, it's summed up in the bolded excerpt. But it's both pointless and dangerous to allow teams go exceed their current yearly cap allowance at any point as it only affords GM's the opportunity to get themselves into trouble. Particularly if injuries occur like with Calgary late last season. The perceived positive impact of your suggestion here is too minimal to outweigh its counter-productivity.

You really need to look at the CBA from a businessman's perspective and not a Wings fan's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, that's not what I'm talking about. And your reference to injuries tells me you need to gain a better understanding of the current CBA if you think you can make suggestions to improve it. NHLSCAP.com descibes it very well as a bank account:

So there is a difference to what you're suggesting and if I understand you correctly, it's summed up in the bolded excerpt. But it's both pointless and dangerous to allow teams go exceed their current yearly cap allowance at any point as it only affords GM's the opportunity to get themselves into trouble. Particularly if injuries occur like with Calgary late last season. The perceived positive impact of your suggestion here is too minimal to outweigh its counter-productivity.

You really need to look at the CBA from a businessman's perspective and not a Wings fan's.

I agree that what was suggested is almost exactly like what is done currently:

The Blackhawks are very close to the cap, so in order to save cap space for later in the year they circumvent it. Everyday they send Jack Skille back to their AHL affiliete on non-game days. His salary comes off the books, and he has to drive to Rockford and practice with the minor league team. Then on game-days, he is called up and gets ready to suit up. Really crappy for him since on game days he makes NHL wage, and on non-game days he takes home AHL pay (I think his contract is 2 way). He is young so he does not have to clear waivers.

This will make more room for replacing short term injured players later in the year (avoiding what happened to Calgary last season).

See here for information:

http://www.allbusiness.com/labor-employmen...13238670-1.html

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/hocke...0,2279020.story

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldn...-hawk12.article

Also teams can already borrow from the future, just not for salary. They can pay players a bonus this season and spread out the cap hit over a few seasons. Detroit has done this in the past, and so have many others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also teams can already borrow from the future, just not for salary. They can pay players a bonus this season and spread out the cap hit over a few seasons. Detroit has done this in the past, and so have many others.

Yes, but that is only for the subsequent season and not for the current full roster. If teams were allowed to borrow from the future of their cap year, it could become a complete disaster.

Thanks for the links BTW.

Edited by Doggy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this