Salary Cap Thoughts

[BlackHawkPaul]

I highly doubt Rocky would fight it.

But the thing is you still need someone with the finances to want to build the team in the spot. I read looking at it a few months back there is even some strife currently with the stadium in relation with the AHL team that plays there right now. So situations beyond fanbase are really difficult to fit into the spot right now but if someone has the ducats and desire to keep it at that stadium in Milwaukee it would probably be accepted. Them getting a team wouldn't hurt this Hawks market it's not the situation or fear of competition world Bill imagined he was in.

The Wirtz family is probably fine with Blackhawk red bleeding into Wisconsin.

 

[Ton]

Las Vegas and Quebec City only groups that submitted formal bids. No Seattle, Kansas City, Toronto or Milwaukee. Per TSN.

Las Vegas... This league is going to be a circus if they get a team.

Is this real life?

 

[BlackHawkPaul]

There will be a few dead players in Vegas hotel rooms.

 

[LordKOTL]

You raise the max, and that will inflate player salaries.

As long as there is some dumb GM out there willing to pay a 3rd line player 2nd or 1st line money, then it won't matter where you put the dollar amount. To me, managing the Cap is more about percentages than actual dollar amounts.

Bingo: The more money there is out there the more players on every echelon will demand and thus, drive the price up. Raising it only helps in the short term. it's why like you I only tend to see 1st year cap percentage and not absolute dollars.

To wit: Crawford's 6M 1st year cap was 8.7%. Toews and Kane are 14.7% making 10.5M. Khabi's 6.5M back in 2006 was 16.7%. I believe Seabrook's 5.8M was 9.0%. Thus, absolute value doesn't matter that much, but the percent matters a fuckton. As long as the cap doesn't fall the 1st year of a contract is always going to be the worst (To wit--last year Crawford was 8.7%, this year 8.4%).

The problem arises when people look at absolute cap hits and compare them with numbers from the past. That would only work if the cap was static. Percentage works even if the cap fluctuates.

As for the cap itself...I like it. Yes, us winning so much means the 'hawks are usually on the short end of the stick in losing talent, but because we're winning IMHO it makes it easier to bear. It does neither the league nor the sport any good to have one team head-and-shoulders above every other team with little or no competition.

 

[Sunbiz1]

The Wirtz family is probably fine with Blackhawk red bleeding into Wisconsin.

Would make for a good rivalry, only Milwaukee should be in the eastern conference...along with the Hawks.

Then the other 2 teams down south can move to the west coast, and I would get those earlier playoff start times I've been whining about here for years.

Plus it would revive the old Detroit rivalry.

 

[Shantz My Pants]

Basically, the GMs dictate how teams use the salary cap space. It's not the NHLs fault that Stanbo signed Kane and Toews to 10.5 million dollar cap hits and thus don't have cap room to sign other players of need.

The salary cap gives every team an even playing field for rostering a team salary wise. It also forces teams to try and have to spend wisely, which some teams get and others don't. With no salary cap you would see the teams like the Red Wings and Rangers who have money to wipe their ass with basically buy every caliber talent available while teams like the Yotes or Nashville have to make due with scraps.

Now, I would be in favor of the NHL giving teams a "home grown " clause to spend on say 1 or 2 players that essentially they can pay them whatever they want to a point, and it only has a certain cap hit that comes with it. Say the Hawks signed Kane and Toews for the 10.5 and the league says against the cap, those contracts count as half so a 4.75 each. The only stipulation is the players would have needed to been drafted by said organization.


Sent from my Texas Instrument Calculator

 

[Shantz My Pants]

In regards to Milwaukee getting an expansion team, obviously Wirtz would need to sign off on it (I believe this is why they never got one beforehand) plus, their a winning franchise in the AHL and they only average 5,809 in attendance. They would need to triple that number for an NHL, and that's even bare minimum.

The league doesn't need to add new teams, because all it does is dilute the talent pool even more. Two new NHL teams will require 36 NHL skaters plus 4 goalies. So that means every team is going to lose an already rostered player, if not more. Plus they'll need to fill their farm system, so basically you are looking at each team losing 3 guys. These could be your 3 worst players, but they still are NHL players. Combine that with now 2 more teams selecting in the draft and now you are looking at a more diluted draft pool to pick from, especially if you are in the top 10 of the league.

Much rather see them relocate Phoenix or the Panthers to Quebec and Seattle (fuck Vegas, that's going to be a shit show) then add two teams.


Sent from my Texas Instrument Calculator

 

[Raskolnikov]

Basically, the GMs dictate how teams use the salary cap space. It's not the NHLs fault that Stanbo signed Kane and Toews to 10.5 million dollar cap hits and thus don't have cap room to sign other players of need.

The salary cap gives every team an even playing field for rostering a team salary wise. It also forces teams to try and have to spend wisely, which some teams get and others don't. With no salary cap you would see the teams like the Red Wings and Rangers who have money to wipe their ass with basically buy every caliber talent available while teams like the Yotes or Nashville have to make due with scraps.

Now, I would be in favor of the NHL giving teams a "home grown " clause to spend on say 1 or 2 players that essentially they can pay them whatever they want to a point, and it only has a certain cap hit that comes with it. Say the Hawks signed Kane and Toews for the 10.5 and the league says against the cap, those contracts count as half so a 4.75 each. The only stipulation is the players would have needed to been drafted by said organization.


Sent from my Texas Instrument Calculator

I read this and I was thinking....thats a great idea!! I thought about it for a minute, and nothing deterred me from thinking so for the fans. Actually, I think I've had the thought before, or at least bantered around in my head ways to make it easier for teams to keep players they draft for continuity.

I think the issue is the Players Union would sniff this out these days and there lawyer hound dogs and see it as a threat to their freedoms, or potential incringement and they tend to fight those things head on at first sight nowadays. Anything like being drafted could be a life sentence. But the NBA does have their hometown max, which is surprising.

The NFL is partly stuck with short unguaranteed contracts due to the nature of the game and how 53 players don't fit scheme to scheme. You have these incredible roster turnovers of entire teams in 3 years when you change systems.

 

[Ton]

Thoughts on the hometown cap discount:

50% might be a little drastic, but the premise is good.

 

[Shantz My Pants]

Sure, 50% is high, but even 75% would help teams in general. The guys who would get these deals are typically the guys like Kane or Toews who are your franchise players that teams have been built around. These are the guys who are your fan favorites.

This also allows GMs who developed and groomed their top players to pay them what they deserve. It also allows a team to not have to pay almost 1/3 of their cap space to two single guys and also be competitive and able to hold onto other talent. Hell, if it was 75% the Hawks would save about 5 million in space this season. No reason to lose Saad or Oduya then.

Obviously stipulations would need to be made so teams don't just re-sign a home grown talent one year and then ship him away the next. But I could see this being better for the league than teams like Nashville or New Jersey losing Suter and Parise for nothing to free agency when these guys are in their prime.


Sent from my Texas Instrument Calculator

 

[Ton]

Sure, 50% is high, but even 75% would help teams in general. The guys who would get these deals are typically the guys like Kane or Toews who are your franchise players that teams have been built around. These are the guys who are your fan favorites.

This also allows GMs who developed and groomed their top players to pay them what they deserve. It also allows a team to not have to pay almost 1/3 of their cap space to two single guys and also be competitive and able to hold onto other talent. Hell, if it was 75% the Hawks would save about 5 million in space this season. No reason to lose Saad or Oduya then.

Obviously stipulations would need to be made so teams don't just re-sign a home grown talent one year and then ship him away the next. But I could see this being better for the league than teams like Nashville or New Jersey losing Suter and Parise for nothing to free agency when these guys are in their prime.


Sent from my Texas Instrument Calculator

You also have to consider, what would the cap hit be if these teams decided to trade a player on this type of contract? Would the acquiring team take the whole hit, or would the discount still apply towards their cap?

 

[Shantz My Pants]

You also have to consider, what would the cap hit be if these teams decided to trade a player on this type of contract? Would the acquiring team take the whole hit, or would the discount still apply towards their cap?

Because it's all hypothetical, a discussion should be done hahaha...

I think if you offer that max deal, the player is assumed to be there for the life of the contract, so a team shouldn't even be allowed to trade said contract and it comes with an absolute no trade clause. This way, the player and team are committed to each other and no loop holes can be made.

Maybe you could make it part of "the bridge contract phase" so a guy like Saad gets the deal for 5-6 years making 6-7 million and the cap hit is only 4 million. Then they can cash out in free agency a few years after they are supposed to get it (7 years in the league).

*Hypothetical* So Teuvo becomes an RFA after his 1st contract. He has become the 3rd best player on the Hawks and is looking for a big pay day like Saad got. The Hawks give him the HG contract of 6 years at 6-7million, but only have it on the cap as 4 million. Teuvo gets paid what he probably deserves and the Hawks get 3 million off the hard cap and not have to decide if they can afford that 3 extra million or not. They drafted, developed him, and we're patient with his development. Why should some other team reap the benefits like the BJs are with Saad, or the Flames with Hamilton? After the 6 years, Teuvo is eligible for UFA, but if the Hawks want to keep him (this is to say he's been on the team 9 years) now they have to pony up and give him the money. This also allows them if they do give him the money and have another RFA who is now in the same boat the opportunity to keep them.


Sent from my Texas Instrument Calculator

 

[LordKOTL]

If the idea of the cap is to spread the talent around the league, doing a "home grown discount" negates that. No fan of a winner wants to see their team dismantled and for them to lose key players, and as such it means that GM's have to be savvy with the money they spend as well as looking towards the future.

The league benefits by not having dynasties. If there is one team that can plow through all comers year-in/year out it doesn't grow the game at all. Why would fans flock to and embrace the game if their home team suffers year-in/year-out defeats against a powerhouse (Oilers in the 80's, anyone?). The easiest way to do so is to ensure that all teams have a level playing field when it comes to talent--every team knows how little and how much they can spend--and they have to do so within that paradigm and be successful.

Now, that being said, if the league should do anything to protect "home-grown talent", maybe add some kind of equalization to RFA offersheets--to the extent that if a player is offersheeted to more than 3M AAV the hometown team can match with an extra year at the same overall deal, or over 6M 2 extra years at the same overall deal.

I.E. Hjammer offersheeted for 3.5% 4 years could have matched by the 'hawks for 2.8M@5, or if Saad was offersheeted at 6M for 6 years, the 'hawsk could have had him for 4.5M for 8.

 

[mikita's helmet]

I.E. Hjammer offersheeted for 3.5% 4 years could have matched by the 'hawks for 2.8M@5, or if Saad was offersheeted at 6M for 6 years, the 'hawsk could have had him for 4.5M for 8.

Don't see the NHLPA agreeing to that.

 

[LordKOTL]

Don't see the NHLPA agreeing to that.

Perhaps not, but I seriously doubt that anyone would ever go for a homegrown cap discount.

 

[HawkWriter]

Perhaps not, but I seriously doubt that anyone would ever go for a homegrown cap discount.

Why not? The NHLPA would love it because their "homegrown" players still get paid in full and then there is more money for other players to get paid. A group of owners would like it too because it allows them to go above the "hard" cap in a sense.

I could see something similar happening down the line or being able to pay a luxury tax for going over. The NHL finally introduced being able to eat half the cap hit a few years back so atleast they are improving. I'm sure they are always looking for ways to improve on their cap settings.

 

[mikita's helmet]

Plus it would revive the old Detroit rivalry.

..and all the original six rivalries, too.

 

[LordKOTL]

Why not? The NHLPA would love it because their "homegrown" players still get paid in full and then there is more money for other players to get paid. A group of owners would like it too because it allows them to go above the "hard" cap in a sense.

I could see something similar happening down the line or being able to pay a luxury tax for going over. The NHL finally introduced being able to eat half the cap hit a few years back so atleast they are improving. I'm sure they are always looking for ways to improve on their cap settings.

And if a player peters out like Samsonov? They're unmovable then. Plus, luxury taxes de-level the playing field and tilt the table towards the rich teams, which the cap was intended to prevent in the first place.

I can see the NHL easing the restrictions of buyouts and sending scrubs to siberia before a luxury tax or the like.

 

[mikita's helmet]

And if a player peters out like Samsonov? They're unmovable then. Plus, luxury taxes de-level the playing field and tilt the table towards the rich teams, which the cap was intended to prevent in the first place.

I can see the NHL easing the restrictions of buyouts and sending scrubs to siberia before a luxury tax or the like.

One of the many reasons I stopped following baseball. Luxury tax is a joke.

 

[ClydeLee]

And if a player peters out like Samsonov? They're unmovable then. Plus, luxury taxes de-level the playing field and tilt the table towards the rich teams, which the cap was intended to prevent in the first place.

I can see the NHL easing the restrictions of buyouts and sending scrubs to siberia before a luxury tax or the like.

I don't see the NHL doing that as they've cramped down and made it much harder in this current league setup over the last few years. You can no longer easily save yourself from cap hits by burying guys in the AHL or Europe, can't insanely long term sign a guy, can't structure contracts to a you retire here point, etc. The rules are becoming harsher for making mistakes and risky signings so I don't think they will want to see it lessening.