HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   Value of: $5,000,000 cap space (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1251549)

palindrom 08-26-2012 12:57 AM

$5,000,000 cap space
 
The lastest NHLPA proposal suggested a way for teams to be able to trade cap space between them. An idea some GM like Brian Burke has suggested time to time.

So just for fun, lets speculate how much a one year 5 000 000$ cap space would worth.

Let say a team like NYI was trading it to the highest bidder.

So Flyers, Rangers, Vancouver, Boston, Calgary, Minnesota, Toronto, Chicago & Tampa fans, or fans from any other team who might need cap space, how much would you offer?
For the purpose of this thread, We can imagine the space you are getting could be used to get Shane Doan.

Take note that it make less sense to offer player with a NHL contract for cap space. In doing that you need to add this player contract you are freeing to the cap space you are getting. My guess is most trade for cap space would be for Pick & prospect.

Leafs For Life* 08-26-2012 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by palindrom (Post 53864147)
The lastest NHLPA proposal suggested a way for teams to be able to trade cap space between them. An idea some GM like Brian Burke has suggested time to time.

So just for fun, lets speculate how much a 5 000 000$ cap space would worth.

Let say a team like NYI was trading it to the highest bidder.

So Flyers, Rangers, Vancouver, Boston, Calgary, Minnesota, Toronto, Chicago & Tampa fans, or fans from any other team who might need cap space, how much would you offer?

5 million dollars?:D Wouldn't trade a 1st ever though, not worth it for a rental that won't do much.

senorchang 08-26-2012 01:02 AM

Trading cap space? Not sure how I feel about this. The purpose of a cap is to equal the playing field so trading cap seems wrong.

VerySuperFamous 08-26-2012 01:02 AM

that would be good in nhl 13

Cool Hand Goof* 08-26-2012 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leaffan16 (Post 53864153)
5 million dollars?:D Wouldn't trade a 1st ever though, not worth it for a rental that won't do much.

of course you wouldnt , the leafs/ playoffs / needing players to win a cup never seem to collide

i hate it tho , as much as it would help my team , would it carry over to the next season?
then theres no doubt most stanley cup winning teams would be dismantled even if it was there trade deadline players they had to let go

Leafs For Life* 08-26-2012 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King goof (Post 53864213)
of course you wouldnt , the leafs/ playoffs / needing players to win a cup never seem to collide

i hate it tho , as much as it would help my team , would it carry over to the next season?
then theres no doubt most stanley cup winning teams would be dismantled

Well, it's not like the other team is going to lose 5M cap space forever..

Cool Hand Goof* 08-26-2012 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leaffan16 (Post 53864235)
Well, it's not like the other team is going to lose 5M cap space forever..

lol true , either way its pretty corny

you can do better burke

InfinityIggy 08-26-2012 01:17 AM

Well, I would say its only as valuable as the player(s), that you sign with said cap space.

palindrom 08-26-2012 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by InfinityIggy (Post 53864321)
Well, I would say its only as valuable as the player(s), that you sign with said cap space.

Shane Doan then ?

Minimalist* 08-26-2012 01:24 AM

Ballard

HatTricK09 08-26-2012 01:25 AM

I dont like this idea.
Cap space is supposed to stop richer teams from getting stacked too much, with this, poorer teams would be trading cap space every year and this will be abused.

palindrom 08-26-2012 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HatTricK09 (Post 53864387)
I dont like this idea.
Cap space is supposed to stop richer teams from getting stacked too much, with this, poorer teams would be trading cap space every year and this will be abused.

This is kinda the point of the thread to speculate if the compensation for the cap space would be interesting enough :)

Halpysback 08-26-2012 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HatTricK09 (Post 53864387)
I dont like this idea.
Cap space is supposed to stop richer teams from getting stacked too much, with this, poorer teams would be trading cap space every year and this will be abused.

It balances out if the UFA age is pushed back/ELCs are made longer since the teams giving up the cap space will be able to retain the young players/picks going back for a longer period of time under market value.

Socratic Method Man 08-26-2012 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HatTricK09 (Post 53864387)
I dont like this idea.
Cap space is supposed to stop richer teams from getting stacked too much, with this, poorer teams would be trading cap space every year and this will be abused.

Yup. the Rangers would just buy everyone. And give them all ludicrous contracts.



Oh wait... they already do that... they just hide them in the AHL... so I guess it doesn't make much difference :dunno:

Calad 08-26-2012 01:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Socratic Method Man (Post 53864489)
Yup. the Rangers would just buy everyone. And give them all ludicrous contracts.



Oh wait... they already do that... they just hide them in the AHL... so I guess it doesn't make much difference :dunno:

Wade Redden = All the contracts!

Socratic Method Man 08-26-2012 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calad (Post 53864501)
Wade Redden = All the contracts!

Also Gomez, but you pawned him off... Is that really it? I thought there were others. There are other huge contracts the team gave out that they didn't put in the AHL, maybe that's what I'm thinking of.


Anyways, I wasn't trying to offend anyone, just pointing out that teams can already hide their mistakes in the AHL, so this 'cap trading' might not make too much of a difference. And I was using New York as the example because it's kind of a running joke how rich the team/owner is and how willing to spend they are. That's not a bad thing either, in my eyes.


Edit: yeah actually, I originally said they give all the players ludicrous contracts, not that they hide all their contract in the AHL - so you could include Brad Richards, Gaborik and Gomez there too. But anyways it was obviously said jokingly.

CREW99AW 08-26-2012 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by palindrom (Post 53864147)
The lastest NHLPA proposal suggested a way for teams to be able to trade cap space between them. An idea some GM like Brian Burke has suggested time to time.

So just for fun, lets speculate how much a one year 5 000 000$ cap space would worth.

Let say a team like NYI was trading it to the highest bidder.

So Flyers, Rangers, Vancouver, Boston, Calgary, Minnesota, Toronto, Chicago & Tampa fans, or fans from any other team who might need cap space, how much would you offer?
For the purpose of this thread, We can imagine the space you are getting could be used to get Shane Doan.

Take note that it make less sense to offer player with a NHL contract for cap space. In doing that you need to add this player contract you are freeing to the cap space you are getting. My guess is most trade for cap space would be for Pick & prospect.


I'm opposed to selling cap space.
It gives deep pocketed teams such a big edge, when the point of the cap is to level the playing field.

I'm also against selling draft prospects/ draft picks.

CREW99AW 08-26-2012 02:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halpysback (Post 53864471)
It balances out if the UFA age is pushed back/ELCs are made longer since the teams giving up the cap space will be able to retain the young players/picks going back for a longer period of time under market value.

Keep the ELC's at 3 yrs.

The 5 yr vs. 3 yr debate over ELC's, is nothing compared to buying cap space.

Gardebut30 08-26-2012 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by InfinityIggy (Post 53864321)
Well, I would say its only as valuable as the player(s), that you sign with said cap space.

Or the players you get to keep. Chicago would have paid a pretty good price for cap space, were it an option, in the summer of 2010. They would've loved to have been able to keep 2 or more of Ladd, Buff, Versteeg, and Niemi.

Petes2424 08-26-2012 07:54 AM

it's a ridiculous bush league idea, only the NHL would come up with. And people wonder why others laugh at our sport.

Giroux tha Damaja 08-26-2012 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HatTricK09 (Post 53864387)
I dont like this idea.
Cap space is supposed to stop richer teams from getting stacked too much, with this, poorer teams would be trading cap space every year and this will be abused.

I think this is a good point, but there are some ways that this could be mitigated.

First of all, it's on the poorer teams to trade wisely. I think cap space would be a pretty highly valued commodity, so they'd definitely be in the driver's seat as far as negotiations went. The system is the system, and the smart guys will always find ways to game the system.

Some markets will never be money makers, regardless of the quality of the product on the ice. For the other 24 or so teams, winning effects the bottom line. So if you're a poor team, trade for picks and futures. These are cost controlled assets that are going to make you better for a while before they cost you money. This can help you win. Winning makes money. Further winning on the cheap enables poorer teams to stay competitive, even if they never do start making lots of money.

Second, you could place a limit to the amount of cap a team could trade for. Maybe limit the amount they can have extra in a three year window. With the league taking all sorts of measures to ensure parity, the cyclical nature of success is pretty much guaranteed. By that I mean, you suck, you draft high, your players get good, you win a bit, and then start losing none-core guys to free agency. If you were to allow buying of cap space, teams that draft well could then probably use some of that money they were making before everyone needed contracts to extend their window by acquiring cap space. Another idea is if you sold space at one point, that could then be added to the amount you're allowed to purchase in the rest of the three year window after that. This could exacerbate the cyclical nature of success though, which is likely not what the league wants.

zeus3007* 08-26-2012 08:45 AM

I'm surprised this one was put out by the PA and not the owners. It would basically make having a cap useless in my opinion. How many times can a team trade their cap space? I'm looking your way when I ask that question Phoenix.

CanadienKid25 08-26-2012 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HatTricK09 (Post 53864387)
I dont like this idea.
Cap space is supposed to stop richer teams from getting stacked too much, with this, poorer teams would be trading cap space every year and this will be abused.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giroux tha Damaja (Post 53865735)
I think this is a good point, but there are some ways that this could be mitigated.

First of all, it's on the poorer teams to trade wisely. I think cap space would be a pretty highly valued commodity, so they'd definitely be in the driver's seat as far as negotiations went. The system is the system, and the smart guys will always find ways to game the system.

Some markets will never be money makers, regardless of the quality of the product on the ice. For the other 24 or so teams, winning effects the bottom line. So if you're a poor team, trade for picks and futures. These are cost controlled assets that are going to make you better for a while before they cost you money. This can help you win. Winning makes money. Further winning on the cheap enables poorer teams to stay competitive, even if they never do start making lots of money.

Second, you could place a limit to the amount of cap a team could trade for. Maybe limit the amount they can have extra in a three year window. With the league taking all sorts of measures to ensure parity, the cyclical nature of success is pretty much guaranteed. By that I mean, you suck, you draft high, your players get good, you win a bit, and then start losing none-core guys to free agency. If you were to allow buying of cap space, teams that draft well could then probably use some of that money they were making before everyone needed contracts to extend their window by acquiring cap space. Another idea is if you sold space at one point, that could then be added to the amount you're allowed to purchase in the rest of the three year window after that. This could exacerbate the cyclical nature of success though, which is likely not what the league wants.

To the OP : maybe a 2nd rounder? In my opinion, you can't really give up assets that you would otherwise need to trade for rentals. In this situation, it seems to me that the teams with an over abundance of assets would be the ones trading for cap space.

To the others: I agree that the nature of the rule allows poor teams to stay poor and that wont work. I do like the idea of limiting the rule. My conditions would be:

1. Trading cap space is a one time offer to teams over the life of the new CBA
2. You can only trade cap space in the current year
3. It can be a maximum of $5,000,000

How this helps: It allows bottom feeders (NYI, EDM, CBJ, etc.) the one time chance to pick up an extra draft pick/prospect in a year that they will not be making the playoffs anyways. How and when they choose to use this opportunity is left up to the teams in order to maximize their returns, as always. Thoughts?

CREW99AW 08-26-2012 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeus3007 (Post 53866045)
I'm surprised this one was put out by the PA and not the owners. It would basically make having a cap useless in my opinion. How many times can a team trade their cap space? I'm looking your way when I ask that question Phoenix.

Players and their leaders care less about a level playing field, then they do with the owners being able to spend to the absolute maximum.

Wang had an actual payroll of just above $36m this season.

Watching him sell $16m-$20m in cap space, while icing a barely cap floor team would be a real kick in the teeth.:rant:

CREW99AW 08-26-2012 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CanadienKid25 (Post 53866105)
To the OP : maybe a 2nd rounder? In my opinion, you can't really give up assets that you would otherwise need to trade for rentals. In this situation, it seems to me that the teams with an over abundance of assets would be the ones trading for cap space.

To the others: I agree that the nature of the rule allows poor teams to stay poor and that wont work. I do like the idea of limiting the rule. My conditions would be:

1. Trading cap space is a one time offer to teams over the life of the new CBA
2. You can only trade cap space in the current year
3. It can be a maximum of $5,000,000

How this helps: It allows bottom feeders (NYI, EDM, CBJ, etc.) the one time chance to pick up an extra draft pick/prospect in a year that they will not be making the playoffs anyways. How and when they choose to use this opportunity is left up to the teams in order to maximize their returns, as always. Thoughts?

NYI and EDM have strong prospect pools. I can't speak for Oiler fans, but I have ZERO interest seeing Wang with his cap floor tricks, picking up an extra pick/prospect while pocketing $5m.

Woohoo :sarcasm:

There's a cap in place. Let deep pocketed teams spend wisely. Then they won't need to buy cap space.:amazed:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:21 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.