Jump to content


Photo
* - - - - 3 votes

Salary Cap rewards for cup finalists


  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

#21 dropkickshanahans

dropkickshanahans

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,576 posts

Posted 12 June 2010 - 01:26 PM

I don't like the idea. Winning the cup is the main goal, not winning the cup and getting rewarded again for a dumb cap increase. The only cap idea I'd be alright with would be if there was a type of MLE for each team (kinda of like what the NBA has). I don't know what a good MLE amount for the NHL would be though. The NBA's is $5.585, but I think their cap is a little higher, so maybe $2-$3 mil for the NHL would be alright with me.

#22 HockeyTownHouligan

HockeyTownHouligan

    4th Line Grinder

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 235 posts
  • Location:Lansing MI

Posted 12 June 2010 - 01:30 PM

I think the team that gets last place in the league should get extra room for better players

#23 McAwesome

McAwesome

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,573 posts
  • Location:Apopka, FL

Posted 12 June 2010 - 02:17 PM

I think the team that gets last place in the league should get extra room for better players


Then you would have teams really taking it for the #1 draft pick AND the cap space. Does that help or hurt?

Basically, any system that gives individual teams a different salary cap is contrary to the spirit in which the salary cap was implemented, if you keep the actual cap the same but allow for certain situations to count differently against said cap, that is more in line with the competitive balance that the salary cap is trying to maintain.

7yss.jpg

 

Thanks MabusIncarnate


#24 Red Wings 2010

Red Wings 2010

    Top Prospect

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 85 posts

Posted 12 June 2010 - 03:49 PM

Terrible idea. I don't know how some people can come up with this idea, and not think it through before telling it to the world. :scared:

#25 13dangledangle

13dangledangle

    1st Line All-Star

  • Silver Booster
  • 1,797 posts
  • Location:Port Hope, Ont.

Posted 12 June 2010 - 05:04 PM

Pretty sure thats a bad idea, I think that if they have more money to give (keep in mind Bettmans a homo) that it should be completely random and do it and the draft. (or from a marketing stand point perhaps voted on by fans?)
....Ladies and Gentlemen Jimmy "F%$*ing" Howard.

#26 Konnan511

Konnan511

    #FreePulkkinen

  • HoF Booster
  • 10,295 posts
  • Location:Traverse City, Mi

Posted 12 June 2010 - 05:33 PM

The opposite kind of happens. Toews got a fairly large bonus for winning the Smythe and that is counting against the cap next year lol.
The Best Of BC
HankthaTank
- Squirrels, they hate to be thrown. / Why is the magical unicorn named Brian... Jedi - I just downloaded the "kids" book, "Go the F--k to Sleep" as narrated by Samuel L. Jackson on my kindle. I am now ready to be a daddy. / *Checks Router* No, I'm positive I didn't hit the "Wings Defense Sucks" button. Electrophile - I'm just glad the Wings were able to win despite the Curse of Brian. ACallToArms - I think Trey needs to put something about payroll tax and deferred income in his sig... Edicius - I'd rather [have] a soundbite of me saying "I like (man sausage)" rather than "I like Crosby".

#27 cmonster

cmonster

    4th Line Grinder

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 203 posts
  • Location:Marysville, MI

Posted 12 June 2010 - 05:57 PM

The salary cap thing in general bothers me. I would prefer a luxury tax system. If our owner Mike Illitch want's to spend more, let him. Why force teams to play down to a level?

On another note, I like the idea of a franchise tag. Designating one person that does not count against the cap.

As for winning the stanley cup, give the winner a compensatory pick at the end of the draft.

#28 55fan

55fan

    All mine 'til 2-0-1-9

  • HoF Booster
  • 12,897 posts
  • Location:Fargo, ND

Posted 12 June 2010 - 08:54 PM

Give the winners a bonus like, say... a day with the Cup.

Works for me.

If that's not enough, have each team pitch in to a kitty at the beginning of the year and let the winners get the pot.

#29 eva unit zero

eva unit zero

    Save the Princess...Save the World

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,734 posts

Posted 13 June 2010 - 12:12 AM

If we're moving away from the current system, how about this:

Players who are under contract to the first NHL team to own their rights (via draft or free agency), who have not at any time been the property of any other team, count against the cap for only 50% of their average annual salary with a maximum reduction of 7.5% of the cap, or . The cap hit could not sink below the league minimum salary, however.

For example, Datsyuk's cap hit would be $3,350,000. Kindl, however, would have a cap hit of $500k this season and $525k next season.

This would encourage teams to draft and develop their own players rather than try and buy champions. It would result in teams working harder to make sure they properly scout players and drafting. Teams with strong scouting like Detroit would be able to keep good, strong teams together longer. Teams that drafted poorly would have to bring in more outside help and would likely be mediocre for the most part.

"I've never seen a warlock do that without his magic."
"I once devoured a monk's soul. It tasted like chocolate."

#30 newfy

newfy

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,114 posts

Posted 13 June 2010 - 12:21 AM

If we're moving away from the current system, how about this:

Players who are under contract to the first NHL team to own their rights (via draft or free agency), who have not at any time been the property of any other team, count against the cap for only 50% of their average annual salary with a maximum reduction of 7.5% of the cap, or . The cap hit could not sink below the league minimum salary, however.

For example, Datsyuk's cap hit would be $3,350,000. Kindl, however, would have a cap hit of $500k this season and $525k next season.

This would encourage teams to draft and develop their own players rather than try and buy champions. It would result in teams working harder to make sure they properly scout players and drafting. Teams with strong scouting like Detroit would be able to keep good, strong teams together longer. Teams that drafted poorly would have to bring in more outside help and would likely be mediocre for the most part.

I don't know if 50% is too high maybe but the general idea is pretty good. I would like something like this I think. I'm guessing players who started with a team then were traded then went back to their old team wouldn't count for cap relief?

Like Drake in 2008 wouldn't be cut in half because he left Detroit for most of his career.

RIP BOB PROBERT #24


#31 RedStormRising

RedStormRising

    1st Line Sniper

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 780 posts
  • Location:St. Paul

Posted 13 June 2010 - 12:28 AM

Must be a republican who thought of this idea.


No, a Republican idea would be to have no cap! :thumbup: That's how it should be...

#32 mjtm77

mjtm77

    mjtm77

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 962 posts

Posted 13 June 2010 - 01:09 AM

wtf stupid
Posted Image

#33 Drake_Marcus

Drake_Marcus

    Pariah

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,336 posts
  • Location:Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada

Posted 13 June 2010 - 03:39 AM

No, a Republican idea would be to have no cap! :thumbup: That's how it should be...


Is your signature meant to be ironic?
Dedicated to lulz once lost:
Posted Image
Thanks TeeMan!

"We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas
of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage" --H.P. Lovecraft

#34 13dangledangle

13dangledangle

    1st Line All-Star

  • Silver Booster
  • 1,797 posts
  • Location:Port Hope, Ont.

Posted 13 June 2010 - 07:50 AM

Is your signature meant to be ironic?


Posted Image ahahahahahaha. Nice.
....Ladies and Gentlemen Jimmy "F%$*ing" Howard.

#35 Ram

Ram

    Goose

  • Bronze Booster
  • 757 posts
  • Location:Midtown

Posted 13 June 2010 - 07:54 AM

Yeah this won't happen and better not. Totally eliminates the "cap"

"Hey @Datsyuk13 really bro? On my bday...cmonnnn.. Someone fix that ice in the corner.." - @logancouture


#36 Off the Post

Off the Post

    Rookie

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 136 posts

Posted 13 June 2010 - 08:53 AM

I think it should be the other way around, if you came dead last in the League you should be able to get a salary rise to improve your team.

#37 Konnan511

Konnan511

    #FreePulkkinen

  • HoF Booster
  • 10,295 posts
  • Location:Traverse City, Mi

Posted 13 June 2010 - 08:59 AM

[font="Book Antiqua"]If we're moving away from the current system, how about this:

Players who are under contract to the first NHL team to own their rights (via draft or free agency),.....

Good idea, bad implementation of the idea.

It's like how the NBA does it in a way.

I think 50% is wayyyy too high. 20% seems more reasonable, maybe only 15%. The cap is fine, I don't mind it anymore. The Wings are one of the few teams that spend up to the cap anyways, so we still have an advantage in that sense. Even at 15-20%, the Wings would still save millions of cap space.

If you start doing 50%, teams like Pittsburgh and Chicago would develop into 20 year dynasties since they'd only have to pay so little.
The Best Of BC
HankthaTank
- Squirrels, they hate to be thrown. / Why is the magical unicorn named Brian... Jedi - I just downloaded the "kids" book, "Go the F--k to Sleep" as narrated by Samuel L. Jackson on my kindle. I am now ready to be a daddy. / *Checks Router* No, I'm positive I didn't hit the "Wings Defense Sucks" button. Electrophile - I'm just glad the Wings were able to win despite the Curse of Brian. ACallToArms - I think Trey needs to put something about payroll tax and deferred income in his sig... Edicius - I'd rather [have] a soundbite of me saying "I like (man sausage)" rather than "I like Crosby".

#38 HelmerFan

HelmerFan

    Top Prospect

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 68 posts

Posted 13 June 2010 - 05:36 PM

The salary cap thing in general bothers me. I would prefer a luxury tax system. If our owner Mike Illitch want's to spend more, let him. Why force teams to play down to a level?

On another note, I like the idea of a franchise tag. Designating one person that does not count against the cap.

As for winning the stanley cup, give the winner a compensatory pick at the end of the draft.


I like this Idea, Said player should also have to wear the C.

#39 eva unit zero

eva unit zero

    Save the Princess...Save the World

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,734 posts

Posted 13 June 2010 - 10:38 PM

Good idea, bad implementation of the idea.

It's like how the NBA does it in a way.

I think 50% is wayyyy too high. 20% seems more reasonable, maybe only 15%. The cap is fine, I don't mind it anymore. The Wings are one of the few teams that spend up to the cap anyways, so we still have an advantage in that sense. Even at 15-20%, the Wings would still save millions of cap space.

If you start doing 50%, teams like Pittsburgh and Chicago would develop into 20 year dynasties since they'd only have to pay so little.


Chicago next season, for players currently signed who are expected to be on the roster barring trades or waiver activity, would save an astounding $12,256,731 if it were 50%, as they have twice that number committed to homegrown players. This is compared to Detroit saving $18,352,272. Pittsburgh would be saving 16,754,166.

So how exactly are Chicago and Pittsburgh becoming 20-year dynasties? Detroit is saving more in cap space than either of them under this potential rule, AND has the best roster among players currently signed. Pittsburgh would have about $4m more in cap space available than Detroit, while Detroit would have $16m more available than Chicago.

Detroit's "needs" are to add three solid two-way grinding forwards who are willing to fight, and a solid two-way physical defenseman who excels on the PK, blocks shots, throws punishing checks and will stand up for his teammates. With the savings listed above, and the rumored cap of $58.8m, the Wings would have around $18.9m to fill those spots.

Chicago's cap hit would still be $47.25m, and that is needing 4 forwards, 3 defensemen, and 1 goalie. Figure Niemi, Hjalmarsson, Hendry, and Brennan total around $6.75m to sign, so a cap hit of $3.375m. That leaves four forwards to sign with about $8m. Chicago's top two lines are signed, they just need to sign Ladd and three bottom six guys with that $8m. Perhaps it's Ladd, Madden, Eager, and Burish? Maybe Burish is dropped in favor of Jack Skille or Bryan Bickell? Who knows. But the Hawks would be able to put together a decent bottom six as well.

Regardless, this wouldn't lead to 20-year dynasties. It would lead to teams trying to keep their best home grown talent rather than just shuffling players around. It would reduce trading activity, but increase team scouting and the ability for teams to market players as they would be more likely to spend longer periods with the team. How can you market a star player if he's only going to be with the team for three weeks, and then market the new star who replaced him in the summer and is gone at the end of the season?

"I've never seen a warlock do that without his magic."
"I once devoured a monk's soul. It tasted like chocolate."





Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users