Bill Meltzer: Meltzer's Musings: 4 non-essential but needed NHL changes; Phantoms on TV

PHANTOMS GAMES ON TSN!?

Oh... TCN...

Bill Meltzer: Meltzer's Musings: 4 non-essential but needed NHL changes; Phantoms on TV
- bmeltzer

thanks again Bill.. you always give us great stuff..

As far as the Over 35 rule and a player should be able to retire due to inury and not have it count against the Cap. I agree basically. But the problem is that the NHL sees that money as money going to the players. And if it's off the Cap, but still being paid to the player. It is money outside of the system. I think the LTIR injury rule is fine except for one part of it. And that is an injured player who isn't expected to play again, counting on the off season Cap. I know there is the 10% off season exemption to cover that. But I think that is too prohibitive in combination with all the other off season cap accounting rules.

Bill, great write up...

As far as the Over 35 rule and a player should be able to retire due to inury and not have it count against the Cap. I agree basically. But the problem is that the NHL sees that money as money going to the players. And if it's off the Cap, but still being paid to the player. It is money outside of the system. I think the LTIR injury rule is fine except for one part of it. And that is an injured player who isn't expected to play again, counting on the off season Cap. I know there is the 10% off season exemption to cover that. But I think that is too prohibitive in combination with all the other off season cap accounting rules.
- MJL

I wonder if its a form of age discrimination.. honestly

So if a guy signs a contract that takes effect at 34- a 5 year deal- and retires at year 2 the club doesnt take the hit. But watch out.. 35 and the club is stuck. Makes no sense to me.

Ok after that good long blog Bill, take a deep breath and put your hands and wrists on ice

So there is now 15 days left until the NHL pulls the plug on the entire season if no deal is made. Bill what where would you put Ek's infamous optimism meter currently?

I wonder if its a form of age discrimination.. honestly

So if a guy signs a contract that takes effect at 34- a 5 year deal- and retires at year 2 the club doesnt take the hit. But watch out.. 35 and the club is stuck. Makes no sense to me.
- jak521

Think about why the rule is there in the first place. To prevent Cap circumvention. Pay a player big money up front in year 1 and 2. Then add more years that the player never intends to play with low salary on the back end. And artificially lower the Cap hit. The player then retires early. The player gets his money and the team gets the lower Cap hit. It would only be age discrimination if the reason why the rule is in place is to not want to sign players to multi year deals because they're too old. That's not the reason the rule is there.

Ok after that good long blog Bill, take a deep breath and put your hands and wrists on ice

So there is now 15 days left until the NHL pulls the plug on the entire season if no deal is made. Bill what where would you put Ek's infamous optimism meter currently?
- Buzzo

I think there might be more then 15 days left. Bettman basically set the deadline when he said he can't envision a Season of less then 48 games. So wherever that point is, is the deadline.

As far as the Over 35 rule and a player should be able to retire due to inury and not have it count against the Cap. I agree basically. But the problem is that the NHL sees that money as money going to the players. And if it's off the Cap, but still being paid to the player. It is money outside of the system. I think the LTIR injury rule is fine except for one part of it. And that is an injured player who isn't expected to play again, counting on the off season Cap. I know there is the 10% off season exemption to cover that. But I think that is too prohibitive in combination with all the other off season cap accounting rules.
- MJL

Beat me to it, this stood out.

Think about why the rule is there in the first place. To prevent Cap circumvention. Pay a player big money up front in year 1 and 2. Then add more years that the player never intends to play with low salary on the back end. And artificially lower the Cap hit. The player then retires early. The player gets his money and the team gets the lower Cap hit. It would only be age discrimination if the reason why the rule is in place is to not want to sign players to multi year deals because they're too old. That's not the reason the rule is there.
- MJL

I understand it fully. Im not saying it doesnt have a purpose.. I just think its not the greatest way of handling it. Pronger is a perfect example... freak injury and he is done for good. Now because he is 35 it is different than a 25 year old? Thats BS. They need to figure out another way of preventing cap circumvention.

If they had played under the new alignment last season, would the Devils have even made the playoffs?

I understand it fully. Im not saying it doesnt have a purpose.. I just think its not the greatest way of handling it. Pronger is a perfect example... freak injury and he is done for good. Now because he is 35 it is different than a 25 year old? Thats BS. They need to figure out another way of preventing cap circumvention.
- jak521

You have somewhat of a point with the way teams were signing players well under 35 to long term deals into thier 40's. Butwith the l CBA, the NHL obviously didn't see that happening and didn't account for it.

You have somewhat of a point with the way teams were signing players well under 35 to long term deals into thier 40's. Butwith the l CBA, the NHL obviously didn't see that happening and didn't account for it.
- MJL

It seems simple enough to me that they could add a provision that takes in to account certain injuries that are obviously not related to age.

A guy that has a history of hip problems who has to retire to due to hip problems is obviously different from a guy who takes a stick to the eye and has to retire.

This all or nothing facet of the rule seems dumb. And could be modified quite easily in my opinion.

Wouldn't it be simpler to have actual contract dollars be the cap hit instead of averaging the value?

Wouldn't it be simpler to have actual contract dollars be the cap hit instead of averaging the value?
- twotoekenn

It would also be a great way to circumvent the cap by having front loaded contracts.

It would also be a great way to circumvent the cap by having front loaded contracts.
- MBFlyerfan

How is that circumventing the cap?

It would also be a great way to circumvent the cap by having front loaded contracts.
- MBFlyerfan

Would it? The team ends up liable for every dollar under the cap that they pay the player, frontloading would actually result in hefty cap burdens if I'm not mistaken.

EDIT: Really, this touches on a thought I've had for a while. What exactly is the advantage of the AAV based cap hit? It seems to me like using AAV is asking for frontloading/cap circumvention. There must be some aspect of it I'm not realizing.

1. Opinions on realignment are like opinions on how to run the country: everyone has one, and no two are the same. Personally, I'd say leave things at 6 5-team divisions, and then just figure out how you're going to fill them - and then, the argument breaks down over "natural" location and time zones, and so on. To avoid that, I'd say "screw everyone, throw names into a hat and draw randomly" but in lieu of that, I'd say "scatter the teams evenly so that each division has teams across all time zones - that way, everyone has to travel."

For the playofffs, I'd say drop intra-conference pairings through the Finals and go with 1E vs. 8W, 2W vs. 7E, 3E vs. 6W, 4W vs. 5E, 4E vs. 5W, 3W vs. 6E, 2E vs. 7W, and 1W vs. 8E ... and then follow the brackets through to the Finals (can re-seed or not, I don't care). Advantages: (1) Lack of familiarity in the 1st round puts everyone on the same page (this is also a disadvantage, as you've basically played few games against the other conference but now have that 1st round result hanging on it). (2) If you really do have a conference that's stronger one year, it shows up quickly. (3) Now, if you don't have to travel much it's due to fortunate matchups and not "we're in the Eastern Conference." (4) Chance of two teams from the same conference going to the Finals. Disadvantages: (1) See #1 above. (2) If one conference wipes out another early, chance of a swath of the fan base tuning out from there on. (3) Possibility of "non-traditional" series (though isn't that where some rivalries get born - in the playoffs?)

But again, that's my idea - and I know there are people who would argue strongly against it.

2. Agreed that there shouldn't be any special rules to distinguish between 35+ contracts and non-35+ contracts. When you put things like that in place, it gives teams an incentive to game the system (unless you're Paul Holmgren and forget to actually read that part of the CBA). I'm not in favor of dropping LTIR exceptions for any class of players - especially because a player being eligible for LTIR is (except in extremely rare circumstances) something not controllable by the team.

3. Agreed here. The current rule for CHL players, the current rule for NCAA players (with a couple of tweaks to close holes there), and then change the rights period for European players to either 4 years or age 22 (whichever happens first).

4. This is largely dependent on a satisfactory transfer agreement between the NHL and CHL; not sure how much the NHLPA will get a voice in that. If under-20 players can go to the AHL, contract slides would (should) work the same way. (BTW, ELC's start ticking at 10 games played in a season - not 11.) The bigger change here is if you extend the rights period for European players; slides will have to go a bit longer for them to adjust. Not difficult to do, but it shouldn't be overlooked.

1. Opinions on realignment are like opinions on how to run the country: everyone has one, and no two are the same. Personally, I'd say leave things at 6 5-team divisions, and then just figure out how you're going to fill them - and then, the argument breaks down over "natural" location and time zones, and so on. To avoid that, I'd say "screw everyone, throw names into a hat and draw randomly" but in lieu of that, I'd say "scatter the teams evenly so that each division has teams across all time zones - that way, everyone has to travel."

- Irish Blues

From a budgetary perspective that's not a good plan. Minimizing travel expenses is the way to go. If that means separatinig natural/historical rivalries, so be it.

For the playofffs, I'd say drop intra-conference pairings through the Finals and go with 1E vs. 8W, 2W vs. 7E, 3E vs. 6W, 4W vs. 5E, 4E vs. 5W, 3W vs. 6E, 2E vs. 7W, and 1W vs. 8E ... and then follow the brackets through to the Finals (can re-seed or not, I don't care). Advantages: (1) Lack of familiarity in the 1st round puts everyone on the same page (this is also a disadvantage, as you've basically played few games against the other conference but now have that 1st round result hanging on it). (2) If you really do have a conference that's stronger one year, it shows up quickly. (3) Now, if you don't have to travel much it's due to fortunate matchups and not "we're in the Eastern Conference." (4) Chance of two teams from the same conference going to the Finals. Disadvantages: (1) See #1 above. (2) If one conference wipes out another early, chance of a swath of the fan base tuning out from there on. (3) Possibility of "non-traditional" series (though isn't that where some rivalries get born - in the playoffs?)

I'd be fine with that but I'd go with the old school way of ranking the playoff teams top to bottom and let 'em go at it. 1v16, 2v15, etc. East/West? Who cares? It's the playoffs now, baby!

EDIT: Really, this touches on a thought I've had for a while. What exactly is the advantage of the AAV based cap hit? It seems to me like using AAV is asking for frontloading/cap circumvention. There must be some aspect of it I'm not realizing.
- BulliesPhan87

The idea behind AAV is that it provides flexibility for teams in structuring contracts, which allows some teams to spend more than the actual cap and others to spend less than the actual floor - but over the life of all contracts, "$ paid to the player while playing in the NHL" = "$ incurred against the cap" and so there's no net gain or loss by averaging. The problem is that there's no requirement that $ paid = $ incurred, and so teams have an incentive to structure contracts in such a way that it suits their needs (i.e., high-revenue teams front-load contracts and offer ultra-long deals to reduce the AAV applying to the cap now, and if the player isn't in the NHL later there's no cost to the team).

Setting AAV = salary makes the cap system harder, as it absolutely constrains spending for both high-revenue and low-revenue teams. There may be perfectly legitimate business or operational reasons why a team may want to spend more than the cap ceiling / less than the cap floor in real dollars, and AAV = salary prevents that from happening.

Yes, AAV sets up the scenario where teams have an incentive to front-load and circumvent the cap ... if, as pointed out above, there's no requirement that $ paid = $ incurred over the life of the contract. If that's in place, teams instantly realize there's no free lunch and they're going to have to pay those dollars back later on. That problem still hasn't been fixed by either side's suggestions (if anything, they go the other way and ensure that $ incurred > $ paid, which works against the players - and, has other unintended consequences which they'll figure out in a few years if it gets put into place) and has largely been ignored by most people.

As far as the Over 35 rule and a player should be able to retire due to inury and not have it count against the Cap. I agree basically. But the problem is that the NHL sees that money as money going to the players. And if it's off the Cap, but still being paid to the player. It is money outside of the system. I think the LTIR injury rule is fine except for one part of it. And that is an injured player who isn't expected to play again, counting on the off season Cap. I know there is the 10% off season exemption to cover that. But I think that is too prohibitive in combination with all the other off season cap accounting rules.
- MJL

Marc Savard is money outside the system though no? He can retire and all his money comes off the cap without the LTIR song and dance every year. For injured guys, I don't think there should be any distinction. Maybe keep it around for retiring players for the reasons mentioned, but as Bill said, if the NHL gets a low salary variance number it sorts itself out without the age restrictions

Edit: Actually, if Savard retires, is he entitled to his remaining contract years, or is he still doing the LTIR thing to keep being paid? I guess I forget the actual nuances or some of these rules. Maybe he's never going to retire and isn't really any different than Pronger is to the Flyers right now. I do agree that also eliminating the effect on the offseason cap essentially solves all problems anyone has

I'd be fine with that but I'd go with the old school way of ranking the playoff teams top to bottom and let 'em go at it. 1v16, 2v15, etc. East/West? Who cares? It's the playoffs now, baby!
- Scoob

Everyone talks about the 1/16, 2/15, ... playoff system as being "old school" and "traditional" while ignoring that (A) it was only used for two (2) years, (B) it was used in a period of time where there were 21 teams playing 80 games - which allowed for a perfectly balanced schedule where everyone played everyone else 4 times (2H, 2A), and (C) it was replaced by the divisional format that everyone also remembers and loves.

On the travel issue: I readily admit that's a problem, and I totally get wanting to minimize that - but, for all the complaining about "we have to travel all across the country, they can take bus rides to most of the games" and "____ is closer to ________, they should be together" and all that other stuff, ... well, keep a few of the longstanding rivalries (MTL-BOS, PIT-PHI, NYR-NYI/NJ, DET-CHI, etc.) and scatter the rest of the teams, and then you don't have to argue over whether Columbus should be in the SE with Carolina or the NE with Pittsburgh or the Central as they are, Detroit doesn't have to complain about being in the West, and so on. Plus, then if teams move you don't have to try and adjust divisions to match geographically - they simply move physically and stay put in the same division.

Marc Savard is money outside the system though no? He can retire and all his money comes off the cap without the LTIR song and dance every year. For injured guys, I don't think there should be any distinction. Maybe keep it around for retiring players for the reasons mentioned, but as Bill said, if the NHL gets a low salary variance number it sorts itself out without the age restrictions
- eayost

Point: he does not "come off the cap." He and every other injured player, LTIR or not, continues to count against the cap. The Bruins simply get to replace substantially all of his cap hit (depending on how close they are to the cap ceiling when they invoke LTIR on him); if they're $75K short of the ceiling, they get to replace his cap hit less $75K.

Point: he does not "come off the cap." He and every other injured player, LTIR or not, continues to count against the cap. The Bruins simply get to replace substantially all of his cap hit (depending on how close they are to the cap ceiling when they invoke LTIR on him); if they're $75K short of the ceiling, they get to replace his cap hit less $75K.
- Irish Blues

I thought if you officially retire you come off the cap. But now that I've posted without thinking through all the way, I think he's no longer entitled to his contract if he does that, so it's not in his interest to do so (unless he was on one of those big front loaded contracts).

Edit: And if retirement removes any entitlement to the rest of the contract, there'd be no money outside the system in that case. I think the money involved here though is such a small portion of HRR that, in the case of injured players, the NHL should just eat it and move on rather than needing to put a guy on LTIR every year