Is the CBA pushing good players out the door?

[Booster313 138]

Dandy's retirement got me thinking, sure he has never been a great defensman, but he's only 34 years old. There are so many fringe players, either by skill or age that are without work this year. If you look at the Wings, if there were no salary cap more than likely we'd still have Lilja, and Maltby, Draper, Miller, and Ritola wouldn't be fighting for one last spot.

Now I know that part of this is progression and a changing of the guard, I love our youth and they certainly deserve a chance to prove themselves, that being said part of what has made the Red Wings great is the loyalty to our players and the cap is making it increasingly harder to do that. Even if you do think Miller is slightly better than Ritola this year, more than likely we'll be forced to keep Ritola on because of the upside in future years or risk losing him.

So here is my two cents for a solution, drafted players should be protected from waivers if their contracts put the team over the salary cap when moving them between the NHL and AHL, or maybe a system where you can Franchise Tag one or two players that don't count against the cap each year?

I am not opposed to the cap, but the system clearly isn't working. Is it distributing talent, yes but in terms of financial stability the small market teams are doing no better and are no more competitive. The floor this year is 43.4 million that's withing a fraction of the salary cap in 2005 and higher than the smaller market teams ever wanted to spend.

Please discuss...

[Barrie 900]

Yes I've heard this argument about the CBA. I too like seeing the young players, but it is sad to see players who can still contribute, and done a lot of good for teams, forced out of the game, or sign two way contracts.

[titanium2 867]

I know the league wants a hard cap and all but I'm telling ya the veteran's minimum policy like they have in the NBA would be awesome.

[Canadian_Yzerman_Fan 7]

Yes, it is.

There are many players without contracts right now that are better than a lot of players being signed. They don't want/deserve to be paid minimum salary, and teams have spent too much on other players and can't fit these guys under the cap.

[Konnan511 1,736]

No. Bad GM moves are the reason why. Look at a lot of the old Ranger signings and Hawks signings.

[Echolalia 2,961]

I would like some sort of discount for home-grown talent, although I think introducing this idea would create quite a bit of problems that aren't so apparent. This type of system would further reward bottom-feeder teams as once they're stocked up on 1st round talent, those players (or a % of those players/ % of their cap, however you want to look at it) are exempt from the Cap, at least partially. That means teams like Pittsburgh and Chicago get to add quite a few top guns in addition to the home-grown talent they have. This polarizes the parity that the league is looking for. All the top names will be gobbled up by 1st generation up-and-coming teams, and the next gen bottom feeders have less to work with.

[T-Ruff 47]

And then people say they shouldn't expand, or worse: that they should contract.

[Buppy 1,720]

One note, the forward situation is about roster space, not cap space.

While the cap is certainly leaving some poeple without an NHL spot, I think a lot of teams are just looking at younger and faster players and a lot of the fringe guys would be out anyway. Overall, I'd say having the cap is better for the league than no cap, but a soft cap would probably work just as well while still allowing high-revenue teams like us to use that advantage.

[cusimano_brothers 1,655]

Ill-advised expansion had both increased the number of jobs and watered down the product just as easily. Keep in mind, six expansion franchises were brought in during the Bettman entrenchment before the arrival of the League's cap. Soon, the average NHL career expectancy will be close to that in the NFL: not very long.

[stevkrause 1,247]

Part of the solution:

http://www.letsgowings.com/forums/index.php/topic/65289-luxury-tax-system

Also, with the increased speed and physicality in today's game, roster sizes should be expanded to at least 24(I would even make an argument for 25), with a minimum roster size being raised to 22... then raise the salary cap ceiling the subsequent 500k, or 1 million or so to accommodate 1 or 2 more league min contracts...

I'm thoroughly convinced this would drastically improve the league...

Edited September 27, 2010 by stevkrause

[Tane 17]

It'd be nice if only 66% of the salary of players that were drafted within the franchise counted against the cap.

[WorkingOvertime 536]

One note, the forward situation is about roster space, not cap space.

While the cap is certainly leaving some poeple without an NHL spot, I think a lot of teams are just looking at younger and faster players and a lot of the fringe guys would be out anyway. Overall, I'd say having the cap is better for the league than no cap, but a soft cap would probably work just as well while still allowing high-revenue teams like us to use that advantage.

I agree that it is more of a space issue. If the Wings had a higher cap, would they have re-singed Lilja? Probably not. Players that continue to contribute are still in the league (with a few exceptions). We'd all love to see the old/veteran players on the ice, but they don't fit in well with most teams' systems. The first two lines are usually skill players (with one or two vets filling in) and the third line tends to be a veteran with a couple youngsters. Further, most teams have a physical fourth line which excludes many 35+ year old players. In summation, there isn't much room for a ~20 points veteran with limited physical presence, especially with the abundance of younger players willing to play for less money.

[Guest Crymson]

Dandy's retirement got me thinking, sure he has never been a great defensman, but he's only 34 years old. There are so many fringe players, either by skill or age that are without work this year. If you look at the Wings, if there were no salary cap more than likely we'd still have Lilja, and Maltby, Draper, Miller, and Ritola wouldn't be fighting for one last spot.

Now I know that part of this is progression and a changing of the guard, I love our youth and they certainly deserve a chance to prove themselves, that being said part of what has made the Red Wings great is the loyalty to our players and the cap is making it increasingly harder to do that. Even if you do think Miller is slightly better than Ritola this year, more than likely we'll be forced to keep Ritola on because of the upside in future years or risk losing him.

So here is my two cents for a solution, drafted players should be protected from waivers if their contracts put the team over the salary cap when moving them between the NHL and AHL, or maybe a system where you can Franchise Tag one or two players that don't count against the cap each year?

I am not opposed to the cap, but the system clearly isn't working. Is it distributing talent, yes but in terms of financial stability the small market teams are doing no better and are no more competitive. The floor this year is 43.4 million that's withing a fraction of the salary cap in 2005 and higher than the smaller market teams ever wanted to spend.

Please discuss...

Dandenault played for a low salary. His lack of a roster spot concerned his failure to win one, not a team's inability to pay for him.

That said, yes, the presence of the salary cap makes it such that not every worthwhile player can be signed to a reasonable contract. It also makes many teams unable to match KHL offers for midrange players. C'est la vie. The NHL is doing well these days, and that's what matters.

Also, note that the issue with Ritola and Miller lies not with the salary cap, but rather with the fact that a team can only carry 23 players on its NHL roster. Right now, Kindl, Miller, Draper and Ritola are fighting for one of the three healthy scratch slots. To be honest, I think the best solution for Draper is simply to retire. He'll still get paid, and it'll save the team the need to make a choice between a young, up-and-coming player and an old, loyal veteran, because Draper might get claimed if he gets put through waivers.

I agree that it is more of a space issue. If the Wings had a higher cap, would they have re-singed Lilja? Probably not. Players that continue to contribute are still in the league (with a few exceptions). We'd all love to see the old/veteran players on the ice, but they don't fit in well with most teams' systems. The first two lines are usually skill players (with one or two vets filling in) and the third line tends to be a veteran with a couple youngsters. Further, most teams have a physical fourth line which excludes many 35+ year old players. In summation, there isn't much room for a ~20 points veteran with limited physical presence, especially with the abundance of younger players willing to play for less money.

Lilja gambled and lost. And in any event, he wanted a top-four spot and a larger role. With Stuart, Rafalski, Kronwall and Lidstrom on the team, and given his absolute lack of offensive prowess, there was no way he was going to get either of those things.

Edited September 28, 2010 by Crymson

[soultrain 43]

It would be awesome to see a cba that 3 forwards and 2 d-men and 1 goalie would be labeled franchise players and their salary wouldn't count against the cap...that way you could keep a great core together...a luxury tax like stevekraus mentioned would be great for the wings too!

[luvmnger 125]

my take on a good fix....

1. the first round pick goes to the first team not to make the playoffs. this ends the "tank" season that teams have been called out on....(you know who you are)this can also weed out bad management.

2. home grown talent cost 50% of actual. 1 mil. player cost 500k cap hit.

3. raise roster to 25. this allows teams to bring kids ready to experience NHL life on the road, bring injured players to game day practice and squeeze in a couple shifts.

expand 4 more teams to the cities that show passion. winnipeg quebec hartford and torontoX2

this will lure more european stars over and allow the upcoming USA players places to find a home. ( the US is showing its training is pay off...we are drafting more american players than ever before.)

imagine this.....zetty, dats, franzen, fil, I-fil, hudler,lids etc. all at half price.

yeah....ok....they ( bettmans cronies) wont let that happen. never mind.

my 2 cents.

[Shady Ultima 40]

1. the first round pick goes to the first team not to make the playoffs. this ends the "tank" season that teams have been called out on....(you know who you are)this can also weed out bad management.

I don't see how that would change things at all. I mean, if Toronto (just an example) stinks for the first few months, they tank the season, and are the first ones who have no possibility of playoff contention.

UNLESS you mean that the first pick goes to the team who was seeded #17 overall, just missing the playoffs. Which would be interesting, as a kind of reward for doing the best the team can. But you know that a decent team will try to JUST miss the playoffs if a 'NEXT GRETZKY' player comes along.

As far as everything else, I like the idea of getting 3 forward, 2 defence and 1 goalie at a discount for being homegrown. Say 75% of their salary affects the cap. We'd probably choose Z, Dats and Franzen, Lids and Kronner, and (this season) Osgood. The amount of money saved would have given us almost enough room to sign Kovalchuk. That's where I see a problem coming in. A lot of teams will get their 6 players with the discount, and then splurge, and still fill the rest of their roster with league minimum players.

[Booster313 138]

even a 10% discount for a starting 5 would be huge, maybe write it in that the savings can't go to one single player it has to be split between at least two.

[55fan 5,133]

It would be awesome to see a cba that 3 forwards and 2 d-men and 1 goalie would be labeled franchise players and their salary wouldn't count against the cap...that way you could keep a great core together...a luxury tax like stevekraus mentioned would be great for the wings too!

Brilliant!

In answer to the original question- I think it is not pushing good players out, but an argument could well be made for an assertion that it is pushing moderate aging players out.

Edited September 28, 2010 by 55fan

[Shaman 713]

my take on a good fix....

1. the first round pick goes to the first team not to make the playoffs. this ends the "tank" season that teams have been called out on....(you know who you are)this can also weed out bad management.

2. home grown talent cost 50% of actual. 1 mil. player cost 500k cap hit.

3. raise roster to 25. this allows teams to bring kids ready to experience NHL life on the road, bring injured players to game day practice and squeeze in a couple shifts.

expand 4 more teams to the cities that show passion. winnipeg quebec hartford and torontoX2

this will lure more european stars over and allow the upcoming USA players places to find a home. ( the US is showing its training is pay off...we are drafting more american players than ever before.)

imagine this.....zetty, dats, franzen, fil, I-fil, hudler,lids etc. all at half price.

yeah....ok....they ( bettmans cronies) wont let that happen. never mind.

my 2 cents.

Do not like. Heres why:

#1 Still would encourage teams to do poorly, it would just make it take half as long to secure that pick then do well the rest of the season, miss the playoffs and reap the benefits. My system would give all teams that missed the playoffs 6 entries in the lottery, first round losers 5, 2nd 4, 3rd 3, SCF losers 2 and the winners 1. All teams should be involved in the lottery, no ifs, ands, or buts. This would lessen the disincentive for doing well and making the playoffs (if youre a borderline team, making the push wouldnt drastically hurt your chances).

#2 While this would help the Wings who draft well outside of the top 5 picks, poorly run teams will become very boom/bust like this, and this will make July 1 pretty boring.

#3 Toronto media having another s***ty team to ***** about? Ya, no thanks.

[stevkrause 1,247]

Dandenault played for a low salary. His lack of a roster spot concerned his failure to win one, not a team's inability to pay for him.

That said, yes, the presence of the salary cap makes it such that not every worthwhile player can be signed to a reasonable contract. It also makes many teams unable to match KHL offers for midrange players. C'est la vie. The NHL is doing well these days, and that's what matters.

Also, note that the issue with Ritola and Miller lies not with the salary cap, but rather with the fact that a team can only carry 23 players on its NHL roster. Right now, Kindl, Miller, Draper and Ritola are fighting for one of the three healthy scratch slots. To be honest, I think the best solution for Draper is simply to retire. He'll still get paid, and it'll save the team the need to make a choice between a young, up-and-coming player and an old, loyal veteran, because Draper might get claimed if he gets put through waivers.

Lilja gambled and lost. And in any event, he wanted a top-four spot and a larger role. With Stuart, Rafalski, Kronwall and Lidstrom on the team, and given his absolute lack of offensive prowess, there was no way he was going to get either of those things.

You had me more or less until the part in bold... this is not an option. period. - if Draper retired, we'd still be responsible for his cap hit (35+ signing) AND we'd be down a roster player, that's lose-lose.

[stevkrause 1,247]

my take on a good fix....

1. the first round pick goes to the first team not to make the playoffs. this ends the "tank" season that teams have been called out on....(you know who you are)this can also weed out bad management.

2. home grown talent cost 50% of actual. 1 mil. player cost 500k cap hit.

3. raise roster to 25. this allows teams to bring kids ready to experience NHL life on the road, bring injured players to game day practice and squeeze in a couple shifts.

expand 4 more teams to the cities that show passion. winnipeg quebec hartford and torontoX2

this will lure more european stars over and allow the upcoming USA players places to find a home. ( the US is showing its training is pay off...we are drafting more american players than ever before.)

imagine this.....zetty, dats, franzen, fil, I-fil, hudler,lids etc. all at half price.

yeah....ok....they ( bettmans cronies) wont let that happen. never mind.

my 2 cents.

1. Unless you are referring to a #17 overall team (barely miss the playoffs) as stated above, this would still equal a tank the season mentality for #1

2. 50% break is WAY too drastic and covers WAY too many players and would still lead to uneven teams and would also further hurt weaker market teams, because, for them, it's not about actual cap number, it's about ACTUAL salary number... also, look at the uneven salaries this would equate to... under this scenario, the Wings would only have an actual salary cap hit of around 41m - That would leave them almost 18 million in cap space... that's a Kovalchuk, a Paul Martin AND another 3m+ player... which now leads to more of our roster players getting cut and back into the pool... this also hurts free agency and essentially locks a player to a team, because he will never be able to make anywhere near the same elsewhere and then some players are stuck in a purgatory of hockey hell, when all they want is a chance to win, without taking dirt to play elsewhere... once again - http://www.letsgowings.com/forums/index.php/topic/65289-luxury-tax-system

3. I agree.

4. That is way too much expansion... again... and would lead to watered down talent. If ANYTHING, you re-locate 2 teams and add 2 (Pho back to Winnipeg, Florida to Quebec, expansion team in KC and expansion team in one of the northern areas west of the great lakes(Wisconsin, North Dakota, etc) - yes, I know North Dakota sounds crazy, but it would be their ONLY major sports franchise and they actually care about hockey there... I think it would prosper, as long as it was built in a high traffic area where surrounding cities would have access as well...

Edited September 28, 2010 by stevkrause

[RedWingsJunkie 0]

Every year at trade deadline time I am reminded just how much the salary cap sucks, if I need a reminder. I realize as a Wings fan and having an organization that is willing to spend money has "spoiled" me, but the only thing that the cap does is punish successful teams. If an owner wants to spend their money to bring in more players then why aren't they allowed to? The cap has changed everything about the game. I don't have any doubt that it is limiting what players stay in the NHL. It is hard to pass up some of the money in Europe if you will be getting more playing time and double the salary.

I know it has been mentioned before but put some kind of soft cap in place. Let teams spend as much as they want and set an upper limit of whatever, $60-$70 million, then tax the team dollar for dollar if they go over the soft cap. Ask the Blackhawks how different their team would look if they had that flexibility. Not that I care about Chicago, but they are the poster child for whats wrong with the cap. They had to tear their team apart to stay under the cap.

[Shady Ultima 40]

You had me more or less until the part in bold... this is not an option. period. - if Draper retired, we'd still be responsible for his cap hit (35+ signing) AND we'd be down a roster player, that's lose-lose.

We have the cap space to have Draper retire. We just don't have the roster space.

I have a feeling, Draper might go on LTIR for a while this season..

[stevkrause 1,247]

We have the cap space to have Draper retire. We just don't have the roster space.

I have a feeling, Draper might go on LTIR for a while this season..

Where are you getting your numbers from? We most certainly do NOT have 1.5 worth of cap space to just eat... let alone to force a player out that can still contribute just as much as Drew Miller can at this stage in his career... we're less that 1m below right now and that's not even factoring the additional salary we would need for the other roster player replacing Draper, plus injury call-ups, etc... please redo your research...

[Shady Ultima 40]

Where are you getting your numbers from? We most certainly do NOT have 1.5 worth of cap space to just eat... let alone to force a player out that can still contribute just as much as Drew Miller can at this stage in his career... we're less that 1m below right now and that's not even factoring the additional salary we would need for the other roster player replacing Draper, plus injury call-ups, etc... please redo your research...

I was pretty sure that our team, with Meech, Kindl, Ritola, Miller and Draper penciled as possibles for 7th D or 13th/14th forward were barely over, and since Meech and one of Ritola/Miller won't be here, we'd be under far enough to have Drapes retire and have Miller or Ritola replace him. I may have made a mistake though.