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

Than why not try the Franchise rule the NFL put in place. Grabbed this off wikipidia.


"NFL usage
Main article: Franchise tag

The term also has a separate contractual definition within the National Football League. Any NFL team can designate a single player as its franchise player and therefore restrict the player from entering free agency. In return, the team must pay the player a premium salary. The NFL requires that a franchise player be paid at least the average of the top 5 players in the league at his position, or 120% of his previous year's salary, whichever is greater. The franchise player status lasts for only 1 year and can be renewed, but if not renewed the player is granted unrestricted free agency.

In practice, many teams do not utilize the franchise tag; in 2008, only 12 of 32 NFL teams had a tagged franchise player. The tag, or the threat of using the tag, can be used as a negotiating tactic by the team to convince a player to sign a long-term deal with the same team. The player's alternative is to take a single highly-paid year and then free agency. The player's next contract as a free agent will depend on how the player performs in the single year, and some players may decide to take the more certain long-term deal up front."


Then maybe throw in the salary cap amnesty for the Franchise tag year. This way teams get a chance to hold their players for a year, the player plays, and if he want's to leave after that year so be it.

Maybe only allow this tag on "Homegrown" players.

its a great idea - but lets go all the way and get rid of the team by team cap.

just have a league cap. each team could spend whatever they want and the indivual players would get contracts based on an indivicual potential max. then the final amount each team would actually pay would be based on their % of the overall cap.

If the leafs and the Rags wanted to spend $100 million, they could. if the isles want to spend $20 mill, fine. tally up all the contracts and just increase them all (or decrease) by the % everyone is over the entire cap.

or just eliminate the cap entirely...

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

It does the opposite. This only helps teams near the cap. That's playoff teams. Majority of the teams who missed the playoffs, over two-thirds, have plenty of cap space anyways, meaning this isn't really gonna help them. If the league wants parity, they need to make the salary cap more stringent, so teams with tons of talent can't afford to keep it all and it gets spread around.

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

No.

How about realistic clauses:

- No contracts more than 5 years?
- 35+ year old contract count on the books regardless of injury, suspension, etc...
- No more front loading - you sign a 5 year 20 million dollar contract, then it is $4M salary for the duration of each year of the contract. Signing bonuses also fall into this... any bonus total is divided by the number of years and given out on the annual date...

Let's stop this BS games played by Agents and GMs.

No.

How about realistic clauses:

- No contracts more than 5 years?
- 35+ year old contract count on the books regardless of injury, suspension, etc...
- No more front loading - you sign a 5 year 20 million dollar contract, then it is $4M salary for the duration of each year of the contract. Signing bonuses also fall into this... any bonus total is divided by the number of years and given out on the annual date...

Let's stop this BS games played by Agents and GMs.
- JDJ

I'm all for letting teams sign a player for as long as they want, it's their risk to take. And let them front load or back load the contract as much as they want. Just change it so the salary cap hit is equal to the average of the 3 highest paid years for the lifetime of the contract.

No.

How about realistic clauses:

- No contracts more than 5 years?
- JDJ

I agree in large part with Antilles; if a GM wants to sign someone to a 13-year contract, let them. That said, even limiting contracts to 5 years still leaves the door open for cap circumvention. People aren't really upset with the idea of a 13-year deal, they're upset with the idea that a player can retire after the 11th year and the cap hit savings accrued to that point doesn't have to be paid back in the final 2 years.

That said, I expect some kind of flexible limit on contract lengths to be imposed, based on the player's age at the time he signs the contract.

- 35+ year old contract count on the books regardless of injury, suspension, etc...
- JDJ

No; the problem hasn't been "35 and older" contracts, it's been the ultra-long contracts where the player could retire early.

- No more front loading - you sign a 5 year 20 million dollar contract, then it is $4M salary for the duration of each year of the contract. Signing bonuses also fall into this... any bonus total is divided by the number of years and given out on the annual date...
- JDJ

If you eliminate front-loading, you also have to eliminate back-loading. There's perfectly legitimate reasons for wanting to front-load or back-load a contract, both from the team's POV and the player's POV. No way the two sides take that flexibility away.

Here's the better idea: get rid of the "35 and over" clause, and don't worry about "all 1-way contracts count no matter what." Simply say that if a player on a 1-way contract isn't playing in the NHL [i.e., he's assigned to the minors or Europe, suspended, or retired] he counts against the cap at the difference between his cap number and his salary for that year. That step alone eliminates concerns about front-loading, players retiring early, and burying guys in the minors - and it ensures that the dollars paid to the player for playing in the NHL equal the dollars incurred against the cap.

I'm all for letting teams sign a player for as long as they want, it's their risk to take. And let them front load or back load the contract as much as they want. Just change it so the salary cap hit is equal to the average of the 3 highest paid years for the lifetime of the contract.
- Antilles

This guarantees that teams are always incurring more cap dollars than they actually pay out in salary; over time, that means the players are receiving less in revenues than they're supposed to, and so the owners have to cut a check to the players every year.

I'll let you decide if the owners are going to go for that or not.

just have a league cap. each team could spend whatever they want and the indivual players would get contracts based on an indivicual potential max. then the final amount each team would actually pay would be based on their % of the overall cap.
- galahad

You'll have to explain this, because I don't know how you determine the "individual potential max" much less how the team pays "based on their % of the overall cap."

If the leafs and the Rags wanted to spend $100 million, they could. if the isles want to spend $20 mill, fine. tally up all the contracts and just increase them all (or decrease) by the % everyone is over the entire cap.
- galahad

That's largely how escrow works; if the players get paid 60% of the year's revenues, they have to pay 3% back to the owners via escrow. It has nothing to do with cap dollars incurred.

or just eliminate the cap entirely...
- galahad

Since it would take 23 owners to vote to get rid of the cap, and there's at least 15 owners who don't want to go back to the old system, ...

No.

How about realistic clauses:

- No contracts more than 5 years?
- 35+ year old contract count on the books regardless of injury, suspension, etc...
- No more front loading - you sign a 5 year 20 million dollar contract, then it is $4M salary for the duration of each year of the contract. Signing bonuses also fall into this... any bonus total is divided by the number of years and given out on the annual date...

Let's stop this BS games played by Agents and GMs.
- JDJ

For the latter, there should be like a percent limit. The annual salary should be between 125% or 75% of the cap hit.

If a player signs a deal, let's say 6 years 48 million, 8 million dollars a year cap hit. That player can be paid no more than 10 million and no less than 6 million, of course, the percentages can be altered, but it still gives the change in dollars over a contract, but doesn't allow a contract like Kovalchuk's, where he is making 11 million in one year and minimum wage in later years, all with one cap hit of 6.66 million.

For the latter, there should be like a percent limit. The annual salary should be between 125% or 75% of the cap hit.

If a player signs a deal, let's say 6 years 48 million, 8 million dollars a year cap hit. That player can be paid no more than 10 million and no less than 6 million, of course, the percentages can be altered, but it still gives the change in dollars over a contract, but doesn't allow a contract like Kovalchuk's, where he is making 11 million in one year and minimum wage in later years, all with one cap hit of 6.66 million.
- _Zippy_

We are all essentially advocating the same type of fix for the same problem, just different ways to implement it.

Of course, NHL and NHLPA are just gonna sit on all of this until it is too late, lose half the season, and then put together another quickly constructed CBA full of loopholes that GMs of rich teams and agents will take advantage of down the road.

We are all essentially advocating the same type of fix for the same problem, just different ways to implement it.

Of course, NHL and NHLPA are just gonna sit on all of this until it is too late, lose half the season, and then put together another quickly constructed CBA full of loopholes that GMs of rich teams and agents will take advantage of down the road.
- JDJ

Fuk it lets just abandon the salary cap. It will save everyone a lot of headaches.

For the latter, there should be like a percent limit. The annual salary should be between 125% or 75% of the cap hit.

If a player signs a deal, let's say 6 years 48 million, 8 million dollars a year cap hit. That player can be paid no more than 10 million and no less than 6 million, of course, the percentages can be altered, but it still gives the change in dollars over a contract, but doesn't allow a contract like Kovalchuk's, where he is making 11 million in one year and minimum wage in later years, all with one cap hit of 6.66 million.
- _Zippy_

If it was guaranteed that [$ paid to the player while in the NHL] = [$ incurred against the cap] over the life of a contract, there wouldn't be nearly as many calls for limiting lengths of contracts or capping the amount that salary can change over the life of a contract, or "the cap hit applies, no matter what" calls, or "average the highest X years" calls. In this case, the simplest solution is the one that fixes all of those complaints.

-- If the player has a 1-way contract and is playing in the NHL, he counts at his cap hit.
-- If the player has a 1-way contract and is assigned to the minors or Europe, or is suspended, he counts at the difference between his cap hit and his salary for that year.

That's it. Nothing more, nothing less - and no need to worry about GM's doing dumb things when handing out contracts. Many of the solutions offered are designed to save GM's from themselves; I say let them screw up if they want - but hold them accountable when they do it. That said, I can see 3 loopholes in the 2-step approach I mention ... so I'd put in a couple rules to close them - but the above fixes every "problem" contract on the books that's been signed so far.

I always said teams should have 1 or 2 franchise tags to put on players. Which would lessen a cap hit by 25% of the contract.

Teams can move, trade players regardless of franchise tags, it just will allow for teams to keep cores in tact while still allowing for players to be paid in full.

Just allow a team signing a player to an extention to include the old contract with the new contract. It allows teams to keep their own players at a lower cap hit. The players get their money and the team gets a lower cap hit. It's a win/win IMO. Also allow teams to restructure deals with aging players.

I always said teams should have 1 or 2 franchise tags to put on players. Which would lessen a cap hit by 25% of the contract.

Teams can move, trade players regardless of franchise tags, it just will allow for teams to keep cores in tact while still allowing for players to be paid in full.
- DDM-Coga

Only allow for one. It forces teams to choose their franchise players wisely, and furthermore, teams won't necessarily be automatically rewarded for drafting in the top 3 consistently, year after year.

I know this isn't the right thread but....

With all the scuttlebutt saying that Tim Thomas' contract may be moved to a team looking to get to the cap floor (having a 35+ contract on their cap without having to pay him), do you see this as a point of contention b/w the league and PA?

Last year, the NHL (with the support of many GM's) penalized the Devils severely (imo) for the Kovalchuk deal ruling that it was CBA circumvention to artificially lower the team's cap hit.

Should a team trade for Thomas' contract knowing, with reasonable certainty, that he won't play, isn't that cap circumvention as well? A team is taking a contract to artificially increase their cap. Exactly the opposite of the Kovalchuk deal in manipulating the cap.

If the excuse/explanation is "well, we don't know for sure that Thomas won't play," isn't that similar to "well, we don't know that Kovalchuk will retire when he's 42 and getting paid $500,000?"

In any event, should this occur I can see the PA raising holy hell over the issue... and it will not auger well for CBA negotiations.

I know this isn't the right thread but....

With all the scuttlebutt saying that Tim Thomas' contract may be moved to a team looking to get to the cap floor (having a 35+ contract on their cap without having to pay him), do you see this as a point of contention b/w the league and PA?

Last year, the NHL (with the support of many GM's) penalized the Devils severely (imo) for the Kovalchuk deal ruling that it was CBA circumvention to artificially lower the team's cap hit.

Should a team trade for Thomas' contract knowing, with reasonable certainty, that he won't play, isn't that cap circumvention as well? A team is taking a contract to artificially increase their cap. Exactly the opposite of the Kovalchuk deal.

If the excuse/explanation is "well, we don't know for sure that Thomas won't play," isn't that similar to "well, we don't know that Kovalchuk will retire when he's 42 and getting paid $500,000?"

In any event, should this occur I can see the PA raising holy hell over the issue... and it will not auger well for CBA negotiations.
- RealityChecker

I wondered that too. It's conceivable that the league might kibosh a deal like that. It's a little different in that it would be a team trying to overstate their true salaries rather than understate, but it would pretty clearly be a paper only transaction.

I wondered that too. It's conceivable that the league might kibosh a deal like that. It's a little different in that it would be a team trying to overstate their true salaries rather than understate, but it would pretty clearly be a paper only transaction.
- Double_A

that's my point: manipulate contracts to artificially lower your cap and the league gets pissed off; manipulate them upward and the PA will get pissed off.

it's a quagmire that the league quite frankly doesn't need ahead of CBA negotiations.

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

Sounds like some pale imitation of a franchise tag like in football.

I really don't see the Thomas contract getting that much attention on either side. It's certainly different from the Kovalchuk contract in that (A) he signed for 4 years instead of 15, (B) there's a reasonable expectation he'd still be playing at 39 [how many questioned Kovalchuk playing at 42-43?], and (C) the decline from start to end in salary was nothing near as severe as the original Kovalchuk contract idea. Besides, we've seen teams pay more than they've incurred against the cap during a season [or seasons], and no one bats an eye about that. So what if a team pays less than they actually incur against the cap - does that hurt the players more? [Answer: if they're having to shell out via escrow, one team underpaying relative to the cap dollars incurred helps lessen the amount of escrow that has to get withheld.]

I really don't see the Thomas contract getting that much attention on either side. It's certainly different from the Kovalchuk contract in that (A) he signed for 4 years instead of 15, (B) there's a reasonable expectation he'd still be playing at 39
- Irish Blues[how many questioned Kovalchuk playing at 42-43?], and (C) the decline from start to end in salary was nothing near as severe as the original Kovalchuk contract idea. Besides, we've seen teams pay more than they've incurred against the cap during a season [or seasons], and no one bats an eye about that. So what if a team pays less than they actually incur against the cap - does that hurt the players more? [Answer: if they're having to shell out via escrow, one team underpaying relative to the cap dollars incurred helps lessen the amount of escrow that has to get withheld.]

Yes, a team cap only $ to get above the floor is theoretically hurting players. Otherwise the team would have to pay real $ to other PA members to accomplish the same thing. ie Thomas cap hit with no real $ is taking away from other players who otherwise would receive the money.

I really don't see the Thomas contract getting that much attention on either side. It's certainly different from the Kovalchuk contract in that (A) he signed for 4 years instead of 15, (B) there's a reasonable expectation he'd still be playing at 39
- Irish Blues[how many questioned Kovalchuk playing at 42-43?], and (C) the decline from start to end in salary was nothing near as severe as the original Kovalchuk contract idea. Besides, we've seen teams pay more than they've incurred against the cap during a season [or seasons], and no one bats an eye about that. So what if a team pays less than they actually incur against the cap - does that hurt the players more? [Answer: if they're having to shell out via escrow, one team underpaying relative to the cap dollars incurred helps lessen the amount of escrow that has to get withheld.]

that's the equivalent of telling players: take less money and you'll have to pay less escrow.

that's the equivalent of telling players: take less money and you'll have to pay less escrow.
- RealityChecker

"I don't want to make more money, I'll pay more tax!"

Yes, a team cap only $ to get above the floor is theoretically hurting players. Otherwise the team would have to pay real $ to other PA members to accomplish the same thing. ie Thomas cap hit with no real $ is taking away from other players who otherwise would receive the money.
- Double_A

You're looking at a 1-team example. If most of the league was paying the players less than they incurred against the cap, sure - the PA would be out money ... which they'd get back at the end because the owners would have to write a check to ensure that the players get their 57% share of revenues.

Regardless of whether teams overpay or underpay relative to the cap, the players are still only getting a fixed percentage of revenues in aggregate - which makes it a zero-sum game in aggregate. Where it's not zero-sum is at the individual level; when players have to pay to the owners, those on the lower end are hurt more. [Why would the players have to pay to the owners? Hint: it's not because a slew of them are making $1.5 million or less.] When owners pay to the players, those on the lower end benefit more. Either way, the PA as a whole doesn't benefit or get hurt.

If anything, Thomas not getting paid but counting against the cap helps the lower-paid players because they would then receive more than they would have if he was getting paid. If you don't believe me, set up a simple spreadsheet and run numbers with escrow involved and Thomas getting paid, then take Tim's salary out and see whether everyone else is better off or worse off.