HockeyBuzz Hotstove: Hotstove: New Clause For New CBA?

HockeyBuzz Hotstove: Hotstove: New Clause For New CBA?
- Travis.Yost

i dont think that is feasable, all that is really doing is "hiding" a cap hit so that the team can carry another large contract whereas the small market teams kinda get screwed out by that

its kinda letting teams that would use that be 10% over the cap so in sense screwing up the cap system


i dont get the sense that there will be a lockout, they know how damaging it would be and there isnt as much "big" stuff this time around

In theory it sounds good but what happened if lets say Columbus dealt Nash for Kreider, Del Zotto and J.T Miller (dunno if that is fair or not but not the point). Then 6 years later 1,2 or all 3 of these players are All-Stars and are consistently in the mix for the Rocket Richard/James Norris. Under your proposed rule the Blue Jackets would not be able to give any of them an exemption clause because they are all Rangers draft picks even though they have spent 95% of their career with Columbus. See what I mean?

In theory it sounds good but what happened if lets say Columbus dealt Nash for Kreider, Del Zotto and J.T Miller (dunno if that is fair or not but not the point). Then 6 years later 1,2 or all 3 of these players are All-Stars and are consistently in the mix for the Rocket Richard/James Norris. Under your proposed rule the Blue Jackets would not be able to give any of them an exemption clause because they are all Rangers draft picks even though they have spent 95% of their career with Columbus. See what I mean?
- sabresfan365

The "homegrown" part is the kicker. It rewards both teams for growing the players themselves and the players for being loyal to their team. It's only a one player restriction, and teams can poop the bed easily. It's a very interesting scenario, that I personally think is a great idea.

i dont think that is feasable, all that is really doing is "hiding" a cap hit so that the team can carry another large contract whereas the small market teams kinda get screwed out by that

its kinda letting teams that would use that be 10% over the cap so in sense screwing up the cap system


i dont get the sense that there will be a lockout, they know how damaging it would be and there isnt as much "big" stuff this time around
- dmarsden2988

Pretty much. Players get "x" amount of the total revenue, this doesn't change much other than allowing teams to hid a real big contract.

The "homegrown" part is the kicker. It rewards both teams for growing the players themselves and the players for being loyal to their team. It's only a one player restriction, and teams can poop the bed easily. It's a very interesting scenario, that I personally think is a great idea.
- _Zippy_

The best example of a team this can affect, is a team like the Lightening, where they choose this exemption for a player like Lecavalier, who by the way was well worth it at the time. There's not way they could have predicted drafting Stamkos years later, but Stamkos' full contract would have had to count. Edmonton will have a major issue with all their young guys in the future with this clause, because I assume the clause would also come with a lower cap ceiling, otherwise what's the point?

The best example of a team this can affect, is a team like the Lightening, where they choose this exemption for a player like Lecavalier, who by the way was well worth it at the time. There's not way they could have predicted drafting Stamkos years later, but Stamkos' full contract would have had to count. Edmonton will have a major issue with all their young guys in the future with this clause, because I assume the clause would also come with a lower cap ceiling, otherwise what's the point?
- p_zub

In the end it would all be even. Just robbing Peter to pay Paul.

The best example of a team this can affect, is a team like the Lightening, where they choose this exemption for a player like Lecavalier, who by the way was well worth it at the time. There's not way they could have predicted drafting Stamkos years later, but Stamkos' full contract would have had to count. Edmonton will have a major issue with all their young guys in the future with this clause, because I assume the clause would also come with a lower cap ceiling, otherwise what's the point?
- p_zub

Yeah, but that's the risk. It doesn't necessarily have to be a long contract, it could be two years, but it could benefit you a lot, or it could wind up screwing you. I like the idea personally, but they may make a three year requirement or a requirement of some length.

Yeah, but that's the risk. It doesn't necessarily have to be a long contract, it could be two years, but it could benefit you a lot, or it could wind up screwing you. I like the idea personally, but they may make a three year requirement or a requirement of some length.
- _Zippy_

Whats the difference if they are homegrown? Doesn't that penalize a small market team like say, Edmonton, if they cant afford to pay that player and he leaves anyway? I could see a hometown $ amount exemption, say if you go over the cap by say $3 Million signing your own player you get an exemption.

How about a "franchise player" exemption that can be tagged in different seasons? One thing we do need is an exemption when players have career ending injuries, so that the team can replace that player regardless of the cap and remain competitive. But the exemption should require that player retire permanently or else the money comes back onto the cap with a penalty,

I've seen this idea lobbed out many times - but few realize the problems that this would create. Here's a few reasons why it's a terrible idea:

1. While some would argue that this ideas is intended to help small-market, low-revenue teams keep the players they develop, they don't have a problem hitting the cap floor; they have a problem affording they players they develop. This plan doesn't fix that problem, and if anything forces a team who elects to use the exemption now and later has issues with revenues and desires to reduce payroll to minimize losses to pay even more to hit a cap floor that they would have otherwise cleared had they not used the exemption [which cannot be revoked once declared] - and that's money they already don't have in the first place.

2. This will inevitably result in the players in aggregate receiving more than the Players Share - which means they'll end up paying back money to the owners via escrow. Put bluntly: there's about 690 members of the NHLPA who will have to fork over a little more for the benefit of no more than 30 guys who just happen to have been lucky enough to never be traded from the team that drafted them and signed them to their most recent contract. I leave it to others to figure out whether 690 guys - many of which, once traded, will never be able to gain this benefit - are going to want to pony up a little more for the benefit of 30 of their brethren.

3. The phrase "whatever they want" will be vigorously fought by small-market teams, who may be compelled to pay more than they can afford to because some large-market team decided to pay $12 million dollar for their own "homegrown" player. Additionally, that phrase indicates that limits on maximum salary that would otherwise apply to every other player will not apply to the select group of 30 players who happen to get tagged as a "homegrown" player. [See above for how this impacts the other 690 members of the NHLPA.] Even if this is changed to "maximum allowable salary" it doesn't fix the fact that only a handful of players will ever be eligible for it.

4. As mentioned above, this only applies to "homegrown" players. If a player is traded to a different team, the exemption no longer applies - and especially for younger players, this is something they have no control over [and thus, once traded, will never be able to realize those benefits]. See points 2 and 3 above.

Many of the arguments above would also apply to any "franchise player" tag - one small group of players will derive benefits at the expense of everyone else, and it does nothing to help affordability issues that low-revenue teams currently face.

One thing we do need is an exemption when players have career ending injuries, so that the team can replace that player regardless of the cap and remain competitive. But the exemption should require that player retire permanently or else the money comes back onto the cap with a penalty,
- edmac812

It's already in existence. It's called Long-Term Injured Reserve; a player who is unable to play because of a career-ending injury can be designated for LTIR if necessary, and the team can replace up to the amount of the injured's player salary [depending on how close they are to the cap at the time LTIR is invoked]. If the player ever comes off LTIR, he comes back on at full value at that point.

HockeyBuzz Hotstove: Hotstove: New Clause For New CBA?
- Travis.Yost

A variation of the Larry Bird clause...

What prevents a team from abusing it. If a team has lots of young guys you give them their huge year early on, then you have an under the table agreement that they'll stick around for peanuts later on. This allows you to have tons of talent locked up and tons of cap space.

Don't think you wouldn't see tons of shady back room deals like in this in NJ or Philly.

What prevents a team from abusing it. If a team has lots of young guys you give them their huge year early on, then you have an under the table agreement that they'll stick around for peanuts later on. This allows you to have tons of talent locked up and tons of cap space.

Don't think you wouldn't see tons of shady back room deals like in this in NJ or Philly.
- tootooisapunk

The proposal says "if you sign the guy to a 9-year deal and tag him for a cap exemption, he's exempt for all 9 years as long as he's on your team." It also says you can only have one (1) player tagged for an exemption at any time. Thus, giving him one (1) big year on a 9-year deal wouldn't do it because you couldn't then exempt anyone else during those 9 years. You'd also have to guard against:

-- a scenario like you allude to above, where the player gets a 1-year deal for something like $12 million followed by another 1-year deal for $1.5 million [or vice versa; you eliminate this by applying the 100% Rule to any new contract with the same team], and
-- a team playing a player huge dollars for small cap dollars, trading him to a different team when the salary drops, then reacquiring him before the contract expires for strategic reasons [you eliminate this by stating that if you trade the player to a different team and then reacquire him before the cap-exempted SPC ends, the exemption no longer applies even to the original team that requested the exemption].

If you try the "under the table" thing and get caught, you'd probably get crucified by the league whether you were the team or the player; the team would probably lose multiple 1st's and have to pay the maximum allowable fine, the player would probably have to pay back a chunk of the cash on the largest year of the deal and be either suspended or barred from signing with the offending team for an extended period of time [or both], and whatever team officials were involved in that decision would likely be suspended for an extended period of time.

It's already in existence. It's called Long-Term Injured Reserve; a player who is unable to play because of a career-ending injury can be designated for LTIR if necessary, and the team can replace up to the amount of the injured's player salary
- Irish Blues[depending on how close they are to the cap at the time LTIR is invoked]. If the player ever comes off LTIR, he comes back on at full value at that point.

In the summer there is no LTIR. All one way contracts count against the cap. Granted teams can spend 10% over the cap in the summer, but at the same time, there's no LTIR exemption for guys like Savard or Pronger, who are probably not going to play

I say get rid of the cap and make it a luxury tax. Put the soft cap at 50 million and then for every million over that you get charged "x" amount of dollars that get distributed around the league.

In the summer there is no LTIR. All one way contracts count against the cap. Granted teams can spend 10% over the cap in the summer, but at the same time, there's no LTIR exemption for guys like Savard or Pronger, who are probably not going to play
- Jsaquella

Teams can also go over the cap by 10% in the summer, and 2-way players only count in proportion to the number of days they were on an NHL roster in the prior year ... so that helps alleviate some of that pressure. If someone were to say "allow LTIR to exist in the summer for those guys who finished the year on LTIR" I don't have a problem with that at all. I just don't have a lot of sympathy for teams who race out on July 1 and wedge themselves against the higher cap, and then have to figure out how they're going to get under the real [10% lower] cap by the start of the regular season while also trying to figure out how to fit any players they still have unsigned under the cap.

It's going to be even worse this year, since teams have been told they can work with a $70.3 million cap when everyone paying attention knows that the '12-13 cap in the next CBA isn't going to be anything close to that ... which is going to make it very interesting to see how the league lets a team [or teams] fit under a much lower cap while transitioning to the next CBA.

Whats the difference if they are homegrown? Doesn't that penalize a small market team like say, Edmonton, if they cant afford to pay that player and he leaves anyway? I could see a hometown $ amount exemption, say if you go over the cap by say $3 Million signing your own player you get an exemption.

How about a "franchise player" exemption that can be tagged in different seasons? One thing we do need is an exemption when players have career ending injuries, so that the team can replace that player regardless of the cap and remain competitive. But the exemption should require that player retire permanently or else the money comes back onto the cap with a penalty,
- edmac812

They do have that provision right now as far as retiring players having their cap hits removed. It just doesn't apply to players who sign contracts at the age of 35 or higher, and there's good reason for that. It's designed to discourage teams from signing players for contracts longer than they had intended to play for, factoring in you're more likely to be injured the older you and the more years you play. Really, players 35+ shouldn't be signing deals longer than 1 or 2 years.

HockeyBuzz Hotstove: Hotstove: New Clause For New CBA?
- Travis.Yost

Because those all-stars who make 8 million a year really hinder thier teams from being competitive...

This should be called the "we drafted in the top 3 a bunch of times in a row and now cant afford to keep all of our star players" clause.

What prevents a team from abusing it. If a team has lots of young guys you give them their huge year early on, then you have an under the table agreement that they'll stick around for peanuts later on. This allows you to have tons of talent locked up and tons of cap space.

Don't think you wouldn't see tons of shady back room deals like in this in NJ or Philly.
- tootooisapunk

What's to stop a player/agent from saying "sure I'll sign for cheap on the next contract" and then changing their mind? That's a HUGE risk for a team to engage in something like that.

It's already in existence. It's called Long-Term Injured Reserve; a player who is unable to play because of a career-ending injury can be designated for LTIR if necessary, and the team can replace up to the amount of the injured's player salary
- Irish Blues[depending on how close they are to the cap at the time LTIR is invoked]. If the player ever comes off LTIR, he comes back on at full value at that point.

Still effects the cap in the off season since LTIR starts day one of the season. If its a career ending injury like Pronger for example his cap is still there all offf season so really they can't use his 4.9 mill to replace him. Off season is when they would like to use that 4.9 mill.

Still effects the cap in the off season since LTIR starts day one of the season. If its a career ending injury like Pronger for example his cap is still there all offf season so really they can't use his 4.9 mill to replace him. Off season is when they would like to use that 4.9 mill.
- PhillyFran

An injury is "career-ending" if the player actually has to quit because of it - but if it's a career-ending injury and it's hockey-related the player still gets to collect his salary. If he gets to collect his salary though he can't ever play again, his cap hit still applies - though LTIR is available if needed. By simply saying "if you have a career-ending injury, you no longer count," (A) absent an official declaration from the player that he's retiring due to injury, you're asking for a subjective call about whether an injury is career-ending [which can/would be abused by teams], and (B) you take that cap hit off the books for all teams - and small-revenue teams may want that cap hit on their books to help hit the floor [absent any changes to the current cap system and/or revenue sharing system ... and I suspect there will be changes to both].

You're arguing more for the ability to use LTIR in the offseason, and I don't have a problem with that at all. However, under the current CBA, from July 1 to September 15 of this year LTIR isn't available in the offseason - and the cap for 2012-13 under the next CBA is certain not to be as high as $70.3 million. My suggestion between now and then is for teams to not try and figure out how quickly they can spend to $77.3 million; that way, they don't have to worry about wishing players who have career-ending injuries didn't count so they could spend even more.

lol. No. No reason for owners to sign it... they want to spend less on salary. No reason for players to sign it... it only benefits a few of them.

The teams who had the pure dumb luck to draft Crosby, Ovechkin, and Stamkos already have the (huge) benefits of having home grown talent in the current CBA: they get 7 years of the players service, the first three at a low cost; and the only way they lose the player in those 7 years is if they agree it would be more beneficial to have something another team is offering them.

This only helps to make the competition level of the league even closer than it already is. Teams that get the early picks are getting added bonuses or teams that have huge name/huge money contracts (Crosby) an even bigger edge. This benefit could also be directly linked to the quality of each years draft class. Are they trying so desperately to save struggling teams that they give them this extra edge. Teams that have done consistently well and haven't got great picks don't seem to get as much.

I don't like this idea. It punishes teams who do well and don't draft high.