HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must use the RUMOR prefix in thread title. Proposals must contain the PROPOSAL prefix in the thread title.

$5,000,000 cap space

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-26-2012, 09:07 AM
  #26
struckbyaparkedcar
Zemgus Da Gawd
 
struckbyaparkedcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Upstate NY
Country: Cote DIvoire
Posts: 11,562
vCash: 500
Teams should be able to pay up to 2.5-3 million per year (depending on rollbacks and all) on a contract they ship out.

That way, small market teams, who don't care about the cap ceiling in the first place, can improve themselves without taking on more significant financial expenses while larger markets can more easily shed cap space.

struckbyaparkedcar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 09:13 AM
  #27
MalcontentCapsFan
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 298
vCash: 500
Its supposed to be used as a tool to help player trades go through not to be traded separately. So if a team wanted to acquire an expensive player for picks and prospects they could also acquire the cap space needed for the trade to go through.

So a $6m player and $4m in salary cap space goes to another team for a pair of draft picks since the team acquiring the player only had $2m in space available.

Very similar to when the Capitals paid a portion of Jagr's salary to get the trade to go through with the Rangers.

MalcontentCapsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 09:14 AM
  #28
Petes2424
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,185
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HatTricK09 View Post
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.
There will always be some of the "richer teams" getting stacked in whatever system we have. They'll find ways around in any deal.

A couple things I've seen mentioned in this thread which I dont care for. First, the idea of extending the ELC to 5 years. Now, to be fair, Im a creature of habit. Having said that, you will see less signings of 4th to 7th round draft picks. Teams wont be willing to take chances on guys they normally would.

Secondly, the whole idea of trading cap space is just stupid. Yesterday we were led into sportscenter with the Dodgers/RedSox deal. A huge trade with very large implications for both teams. I can see it now. A bit of a slow day in sports next February where the lead story is, the NYR are set to trade their 1st round pick in 2019 and 2020 for the rights to add $15 million to the payroll.

How bean counter and IRS like is that? Put a hard cap on. Dont limit contract length but make it absolute that there is no reprieve for contracts. No hiding the money in the AHL. I have no problem with LTIR. Also, if the owners really want the players to eat another 7-8% of revenue, that's fine. Drop the draft down to 3 rounds.

Petes2424 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 09:20 AM
  #29
Flukeshot
Hextall Activate!
 
Flukeshot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Milton, Ont
Country: Orkney Islands
Posts: 2,126
vCash: 1100
I don't think the cap space would be too valuable, as there'd be a most 10 teams interested and another 10 teams that knew they could easily do without the $5m in cap space. The lower down you go to the cap floor, the cheaper the perceived value your spare cap space is.

Also, because of how cap space is accrued during the season in comparison to a player's actual contract, cap space should only be tradeable in the offseason.

I've put very little thought behind this, but what if the Cap space could only be traded for Cash? It'd be a direct payment form of a luxury tax and profit sharing.

Flyers want $5m in cap space, they give $5m in cash to Nashville to get it. Nashville benefits as a form of profit sharing and the Flyers are paying a $1 for $1 tax assuming they then fill that extra $5m in cap space with a contract.

Flukeshot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 09:22 AM
  #30
CREW99AW
Registered User
 
CREW99AW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 30,734
vCash: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by MalcontentCapsFan View Post
Its supposed to be used as a tool to help player trades go through not to be traded separately. So if a team wanted to acquire an expensive player for picks and prospects they could also acquire the cap space needed for the trade to go through.

So a $6m player and $4m in salary cap space goes to another team for a pair of draft picks since the team acquiring the player only had $2m in space available.

Very similar to when the Capitals paid a portion of Jagr's salary to get the trade to go through with the Rangers.
I'd rather see the team acquiring the player, be forced to move $4m in salary from their roster, make cap space in a separate deal.

CREW99AW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 09:31 AM
  #31
HABitual Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 471
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeus3007 View Post
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.
In reality the space being traded is money teams have between the cap floor and the cap ceiling that they will not spend. So what would the NHLPA want more to see, this money spent on salaries for their members, or sit unused by teams never intending to use it under any circumstances? More money available to spend, means higher salaries for players all the way down the line.

HABitual Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 09:32 AM
  #32
medhatcanuck
Registered User
 
medhatcanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Inside JayZ's Belly
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,321
vCash: 500
Depends how many people are buying and how many selling. I don't think there are > 10 teams who are willing to give away 5 million, whereas I believe there are at least 10 teams who could use 5 million. So I think itll be relatively expensive:

High Range: 1st rounder - 1st rounder + low pick

Low Range: 3rd Rounder

I don't see a reason to trade the cap space for any less than a 3rd rounder.

I for one love the idea it is win win situation.

medhatcanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 09:34 AM
  #33
Samkow
Global Moderator
Rookie User
 
Samkow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Detroit
Country: United States
Posts: 14,913
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to Samkow
I don't like the idea, but as long as a team couldn't use acquired cap space to reach the salary floor, I can live with it.

__________________
Truth should never get in the way of a good persecution complex.
Samkow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 09:37 AM
  #34
Frank Drebin
Registered User
 
Frank Drebin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,547
vCash: 50
They would have to have it as not one for one value wise so it would be a major decision to buy or sell cap space.


Example the Islanders would sell 5 million but the Rangers would only acquire 2.5mil ofusuable space.

Frank Drebin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 09:37 AM
  #35
Kershaw
 
Kershaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country:
Posts: 25,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socratic Method Man View Post
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.
Ludicrous is Keith Ballard and David Booth.

Kershaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 09:39 AM
  #36
Phion Keneuf
Bang Bang
 
Phion Keneuf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vaughan, Ontario
Country: Italy
Posts: 29,261
vCash: 500
so if a team like Pittsburgh gives up a 1st for 5 mil cap, a 2nd for 2.5 mll cap, a 3rd for 1.5 mill cap, and a 4th for 1 mil cap (hypothetically)

they would have an extra 10 Mil cap that year? that would definitely not be fair IMO

Phion Keneuf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 10:00 AM
  #37
supert
Registered User
 
supert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,249
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phion Keneuf View Post
so if a team like Pittsburgh gives up a 1st for 5 mil cap, a 2nd for 2.5 mll cap, a 3rd for 1.5 mill cap, and a 4th for 1 mil cap (hypothetically)

they would have an extra 10 Mil cap that year? that would definitely not be fair IMO

I take it your a leaf fan . How is it not fair . TML makes so much money they could buy cap space . In this case outbid Pittsburgh . THe TML first has more value then the Pens

Also i am only replying to the above this does not mean i agree with selling cap space . I would do the cap space Ideal if and only if it is dollar for dollar value . So if the NYR wanted to buy 5,000,000.00 from team B they have to pay them 5,000,000.00 a year for that cap space . So it would be costing them 10,000,000.00 in real money , because they would also be paying the player or players they signed with the extra cap. So just for this matter lets same team A makes 20,000,000.00 profit per year team B loses 15,000,000.00 a year . So maybe team A buys 10,000,000.00 , team B now has a lower lost and team A would break even and hope for a Cup run to increase gates and sell more team jersey,s and such . Also maybe team B sell another 10,000,000.00 to another team , now they are making money and can bank that money until the have enough Talent to contend . ONCE A TEAM HAS LONG PLAY OFF RUNS FOR A FEW YEAS THE FAN BASE WILL GROW .


Last edited by supert: 08-26-2012 at 10:17 AM.
supert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 10:04 AM
  #38
HABitual Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 471
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phion Keneuf View Post
so if a team like Pittsburgh gives up a 1st for 5 mil cap, a 2nd for 2.5 mll cap, a 3rd for 1.5 mill cap, and a 4th for 1 mil cap (hypothetically)

they would have an extra 10 Mil cap that year? that would definitely not be fair IMO
You are correct, it would not be fair. The only way i see it working according to your example is to change a component of the calculation of the cap. I would increase the value of drafting, by having homegrown players cap hit count at a 20% discount, whereas players signed as UFA's or acquired via trade would carry a 20% surcharge on their cap hit. This allows the lower spending teams a chance to retain their players, and force as in your example a higher spending team to pay a penalty for not drafting and developing their own players instead of seekng them on the open market. The overall salary pool remains the same, but allows teams with a low budget the chance to retain their drafted players for longer and trade their unused cap room to bring in even more of these type of players for the future. It also forces the richer teams to compensate those teams both financially and in their talent pool for the luxury of being able to spend more.

HABitual Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 10:15 AM
  #39
dan1el
Registered User
 
dan1el's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Country: Sweden
Posts: 2,738
vCash: 500
I don't think it's fair, but it could benefit my team this year. I would gladly trade 10 million dollars in Ottawa's cap space for a team's picks in the first four rounds (going by Phion Keneuf's model of 1st=5mil, 2nd=2.5mil, 3rd=1.5mil and 4th=1mil).

Also, to a team that has traded cap space, I think the floor should also be lowered for that team.

dan1el is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 10:24 AM
  #40
SteenMachine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Fenton, MO
Country: United States
Posts: 4,330
vCash: 500
The only way I could see this end up in a CBA is if they set up values ahead of time like RFA offer sheets, otherwise you're taking an intangible like cap space and trying to create abstract value based on what a team would do after they had that cap space. Which means if they load up on cap space at the trade deadline they still have to find a team willing to sell them a player that fits inside that new ceiling. In the offseason you'd simply see teams avoid selling cap space until the market thinned itself out; because why eliminate yourself from a key UFA just to add futures or salary dump roster fillers?

I kind of like the idea of a rebuilding team being able to double down at the draft by selling cap space they wouldn't use that year to a team that assumed their picks wouldn't improve the team as much as having cap flexibility, it'd also force teams that bought cap space to make more "hockey" trades and offer up tangible assets and not just potential for win-now pieces from teams in a firesale.


Last edited by SteenMachine: 08-26-2012 at 10:31 AM.
SteenMachine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 10:41 AM
  #41
King Woodballs
**** HFJets
 
King Woodballs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Your Mind
Posts: 34,160
vCash: 375
Whats really the point of having a cap if you can trade cap space?

King Woodballs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 10:52 AM
  #42
saskganesh
Registered User
 
saskganesh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the Annex
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,204
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petes2424 View Post
it's a ridiculous bush league idea, only the NHL would come up with. And people wonder why others laugh at our sport.
No, it's because the game is played on ice, not on grass. It's just very different.

Most people don't even think about payroll/salary cap formulations. The average person could not tell you the difference between the 4 largest leagues.

saskganesh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 10:52 AM
  #43
saskganesh
Registered User
 
saskganesh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the Annex
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,204
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Woodballs View Post
Whats really the point of having a cap if you can trade cap space?
Profit!

saskganesh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 10:55 AM
  #44
SteenMachine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Fenton, MO
Country: United States
Posts: 4,330
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Woodballs View Post
Whats really the point of having a cap if you can trade cap space?
It gives teams that don't having buying power in the UFA market an extra asset to sell at key points in the season to reinforce their prospect pool / development.

SteenMachine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 11:06 AM
  #45
Grant
LL Genius
 
Grant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,506
vCash: 95
I don't know why people don't like this idea, I thought it was good and a win-win for everybody.

Big market teams and those teams that are looking to strongly compete in a given year can trade for 5m extra cap space, about 7% more cap (assuming the cap is 70m) space so not a whole lot to help their team if they so choose to do it. The teams on a really tight budget/rebuilding teams can sell some cap space to help accelerate the rebuild/get younger cheaper players.

Grant is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 11:21 AM
  #46
King Woodballs
**** HFJets
 
King Woodballs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Your Mind
Posts: 34,160
vCash: 375
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteenMachine View Post
It gives teams that don't having buying power in the UFA market an extra asset to sell at key points in the season to reinforce their prospect pool / development.
So when the prospects are ready the teams with extra cap space can essentially poach them?

Just like what Philly tried to do to Nashville.

King Woodballs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 11:21 AM
  #47
Slatsmsg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Airdrie
Posts: 557
vCash: 500
Anything that takes away from one of the primary purposes of the the salary cap, i.e. Competitive balance/league parity I am completely against.

Slatsmsg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 11:28 AM
  #48
CREW99AW
Registered User
 
CREW99AW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 30,734
vCash: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grant View Post
I don't know why people don't like this idea, I thought it was good and a win-win for everybody.

Big market teams and those teams that are looking to strongly compete in a given year can trade for 5m extra cap space, about 7% more cap (assuming the cap is 70m) space so not a whole lot to help their team if they so choose to do it. The teams on a really tight budget/rebuilding teams can sell some cap space to help accelerate the rebuild/get younger cheaper players.
Why is keeping the playing field as level as possible, so hard to understand ?

If gm A wants to add a $6m player and only has $4m in cap space, then make 2 trades. The first to free up the needed $2m in a cap dump. The 2nd trade to add the $6m player.

I read the complaints from some media members and from fans, that the cap makes it tougher to pull off trades. Spend wiser.

CREW99AW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 11:31 AM
  #49
CREW99AW
Registered User
 
CREW99AW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 30,734
vCash: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Woodballs View Post
So when the prospects are ready the teams with extra cap space can essentially poach them?

Just like what Philly tried to do to Nashville.
Great point.

Some Philly fans still can't seem to grasp, WHY Nashville balked at receiving 3-4 solid pieces instead of 1-2 bluechip pieces, for the Preds franchise defenseman.

CREW99AW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 11:42 AM
  #50
medhatcanuck
Registered User
 
medhatcanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Inside JayZ's Belly
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,321
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slatsmsg View Post
Anything that takes away from one of the primary purposes of the the salary cap, i.e. Competitive balance/league parity I am completely against.
It counter acts parity in the short run. But once the New York Islanders sell of their 5 mil for 5 years, they'll be the ones laughing with an extra 5 1st round draft picks, which would be significant for any organization.

I support the motion because, let's face it, the teams willing to trade off their 5 million aren't going to be a championship team anyways. Why not make a profit on the cap you don't use and will just sit there. This puts more money in the players pocket and allows for teams in their performance window, to be even more competitive.

Since these teams that r selling off 5 million are rebuilding and need revenues. Why not get 1st round draft picks???

The only downside I see is short term parity, but we know one extra player doesn't put an entire team to a Stanley cup.

medhatcanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:33 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.