HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

A "Home Grown" Idea

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-07-2003, 12:26 PM
  #1
Lil Viking
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Calgary
Posts: 38
vCash: 500
A "Home Grown" Idea

Ok, I won't take credit for this idea, I was just talking on the phone with one of my buddies last night about the CBA, and some of the possible solutions. My buddy fired out and interesting idea, and I was hoping to get some feed back from some of the posters at this site regarding the general idea.

Owners want to stablize player salaries, and the quickest and easiest way to do so is a cap of some sort. So if a Luxary Cap was placed on the teams, somewhere in the $50 million range (just throwing out a number there, that is not a solid figure), with teams the go over it are penalized in some sort of fashion. But, only a percentage (how about something like 60%?) of the salaries for players that are "home grown" talents (a player that is playing for the club he was drafted by, and has never left that club) would count towards the cap.

This would promote player stability from year to year on teams, making it easier for fans to stay conected to a team. I think this would create a closer bond between teams and their fans, and would serve to reduce the unrealistic free-agent contracts that have been awarded in the past few years. If a team can develop their own talent, they are rewarded by being allowed to spend more money on those, or other players, and they are discouraged from offering big dollar contracts to players from other teams.

Lil Viking is offline  
Old
10-07-2003, 01:20 PM
  #2
discostu
Registered User
 
discostu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Nomadville
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,168
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lil Viking
Ok, I won't take credit for this idea, I was just talking on the phone with one of my buddies last night about the CBA, and some of the possible solutions. My buddy fired out and interesting idea, and I was hoping to get some feed back from some of the posters at this site regarding the general idea.

Owners want to stablize player salaries, and the quickest and easiest way to do so is a cap of some sort. So if a Luxary Cap was placed on the teams, somewhere in the $50 million range (just throwing out a number there, that is not a solid figure), with teams the go over it are penalized in some sort of fashion. But, only a percentage (how about something like 60%?) of the salaries for players that are "home grown" talents (a player that is playing for the club he was drafted by, and has never left that club) would count towards the cap.

This would promote player stability from year to year on teams, making it easier for fans to stay conected to a team. I think this would create a closer bond between teams and their fans, and would serve to reduce the unrealistic free-agent contracts that have been awarded in the past few years. If a team can develop their own talent, they are rewarded by being allowed to spend more money on those, or other players, and they are discouraged from offering big dollar contracts to players from other teams.
Interesting idea.

Similar suggestions have been made. The idea stems from the NBA, which has a rule that reduces the amount a player's salary contributes to the cap depending on the years they have played with that team. Degroat is the one that originally brought this to the attention of the board I think, so he probably knows a little more about it. I'm a fan of a luxury tax solution, so I think this could have a lot of merit.

discostu is offline  
Old
10-08-2003, 03:33 AM
  #3
Motown Beatdown
Need a slump buster
 
Motown Beatdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Indianapolis
Country: United States
Posts: 8,553
vCash: 450
I think you would have to limit how many "home grown players" that dont count against the cap or a specific dollar amount.
Some teams could have 30 million dollars exempt because they are home grown players

But i like the idea. I hate the fact that many of the best NFL players are forced to leave their team because of "cap number" The best WR in the history of football was forced to leave because of his "cap number" Thats just wrong.

Motown Beatdown is offline  
Old
10-08-2003, 03:56 AM
  #4
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
Yea... I have suggested this. Here is an idea for the CBA that I posted probably a year ago now....

DISCLAIMER: I know the chances of this idea being accepted by the NHLPA is slim to none... this is simply what I would think it would take to stabalize the league.

SALARY CAP

The overall soft salary cap will be determined by the previous seasonís revenues. The following will be the formula for determining the cap amount:

Soft Cap = (Total Revenue x .50) / 30

Reasoning: In a recent article it was stated that 73% of the total revenue the league generates is spent on salaries. Ideally, youíd like to get that number considerably lower. While 50% is used in the formula, that is not exactly what it will turn out to be with a soft cap where teams are rewarded for retaining their players, it should be acceptable to the owners.

In a recent article, Bettman said the league generates $2B in revenues. Based on that, the cap would be $33,333,333. Obviously he was generalizing and a more exact number would be needed to determine the actual cap.

CAP HIT

The following percentages will determine how much of a players salary will be counted towards the salary cap.

1st year in the organization: 100%
2nd: 98%
3rd: 95%
4th: 90%
5th: 85%
6th: 80%
7th: 75%
8th: 70%
9th: 65%
10+: 60%

A playerís first year within the organization is:
a) The first year following being drafted by an organization.
b) If the player is signed or acquired through trade as a professional, the first NHL/ECHL/AHL season in which a player plays a single game for an organization.
c) For players at the junior level but not drafted by the organization, the playersí first year with the organization is determined by a April 15th cut-off date. (For Example: If a free agent prospect is signed on April 13th of 2003, his first year with the organization is the 2002-03 season.)

REVENUE SHARING

80% of local television contracts will be put into a pool along with 20% of gate revenue and will be divided up evenly among the 30 NHL teams.

Reasoning:
- It is not fair to small market teams that teams in larger markets have more population surrounding their team that results in more viewers and in turn more money from the TV contract.
- I would say 100%, but by allowing teams to keep 20% of their TV contract results in more of an effort by teams to get the most amount possible out of their television contract.
- It is the teamsí responsibility to fill the building. If a team is in a city without the potential to sell out every game, then the team should not be there. The only reason for sharing 20% of ticket revenue is to offset the fact that some cities can charge twice as much as others for the same seats.

PLAYER SALARY MAXIMUMS

The maximum salary of a player will be determined by the playersí ages:
Under 23: $1,000,000
23-25: $2,000,000
26-30: $5,000,000
30+: $10,000,000

Note: Players who are under contract at more than the maximum salary as set by this plan will, as far as determining a cap hit is concerned, only be making the maximum for his age group. Obviously, this only applies to contracts signed prior to the CBA agreement.

Example: Tkachuk is making $11M this season [when this was written last season]. His cap hit would be 95% of the max for his age, $10M.


FREE AGENCY

25 and under*: Restricted Free Agency Type I
- Teams must offer a 1 or 2 year contract with a minimum of a 10% raise. If player is making maximum salary, offer must be equal to the maximum.
- AHL portion of contract must also include 10% increase in salary.
26-29*: Restricted Free Agency Type II
- Once in a player career, a player may be granted unrestricted free agency while a Type II RFA.
- However, if said player is offered the maximum salary ($5M) prior to July 1st by his current team, he may not be granted unrestricted free agency.
- Teams who lose players will be awarded draft picks in the same manner that teams are current awarded for losing unrestricted free agents.
30+*: Unrestricted Free Agency
- Same rules as current unrestricted free agency, only it begins one year earlier.

* age determined by age as of July 1st


NOTE: While a $33M cap seems low, every team would be above it because of the exception built in.

degroat* is offline  
Old
10-08-2003, 08:07 AM
  #5
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
Come on now.. I know there are plenty of you anti-Cap people that have something negative to say.

degroat* is offline  
Old
10-08-2003, 02:22 PM
  #6
Lil Viking
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Calgary
Posts: 38
vCash: 500
Thanks for the post degroat. It looks like there was some serious thought that went into your post. Far more thought than I put into my post.

I just want to see the game continue, and in order to keep the league (as it is now) viable, players salaries have to stablize. Some form of a cap would stablize expendatures for owners, and should do the same for tickets prices, which is good for the fans.

Lil Viking is offline  
Old
10-08-2003, 02:40 PM
  #7
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lil Viking
Some form of a cap would stablize expendatures for owners, and should do the same for tickets prices, which is good for the fans.
Unfortunately, that's not the case. Like everything else ticket prices are set by supply and demand. In fact, a stabalized salary structure could result in more demand in many cities such as Calgary and Pittsburgh whose fans will no longer feal hopeless before the season even starts and that newfound optimism could cause higher ticket prices.

degroat* is offline  
Old
10-08-2003, 10:14 PM
  #8
Burke's Evil Spirit
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Montreal
Posts: 15,317
vCash: 500
degroat, what is with that maximum salary defined for various age groups? I don't see the point (aside from the under-23 bit, as a rookie cap), if a team wishes to overpay a 25-year-old based on the system you have outlined, it will hurt them in other ways.

Burke's Evil Spirit is online now  
Old
10-09-2003, 06:50 AM
  #9
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burke's Evil Spirit
degroat, what is with that maximum salary defined for various age groups? I don't see the point (aside from the under-23 bit, as a rookie cap), if a team wishes to overpay a 25-year-old based on the system you have outlined, it will hurt them in other ways.
To be honest, I donít even remember since itís been so long that I wrote this up. I know one of the reasons was to grandfather in some of the larger contracts and decrease their cap hits until those contracts run out. As far as I remember it was just another way to keep salaries down and help teams keep their teams in tact (unlike the NFL). But, I do see what you mean about it being pointless and there does need to be some responsibility on the team and the GM.

degroat* is offline  
Old
10-09-2003, 08:03 AM
  #10
Big Cat Davo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Medicine Hat, Albert
Posts: 81
vCash: 500
Caps

The biggest reason that I see the home grown talent having merrit is that it does not penalize teams for developing and using a good minor league and scouting system. It could of course be a little more liberal, like if the player has played less then 100 games for another franchise then he qualifies for the home grown player thing . . . what this could do is allow for team like the Edmonton Oilers or the Vancouver Canucks to retain their high end talent without penalty . . . When the Rangers go and sign Bobby Holik to a 9 mill a year contract pushing them well over the cap, the teams that are in the cap get a portion of the Cap penalty. This re-alocated wealth allows the Pengiuns, Preds, Habs, and Oilers to sign the Mike Comrie's and David Legwands without encrouching on the cap.

Dave

Big Cat Davo is offline  
Old
10-09-2003, 08:34 AM
  #11
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Cat Davo
The biggest reason that I see the home grown talent having merrit is that it does not penalize teams for developing and using a good minor league and scouting system. It could of course be a little more liberal, like if the player has played less then 100 games for another franchise then he qualifies for the home grown player thing . . . what this could do is allow for team like the Edmonton Oilers or the Vancouver Canucks to retain their high end talent without penalty . . . When the Rangers go and sign Bobby Holik to a 9 mill a year contract pushing them well over the cap, the teams that are in the cap get a portion of the Cap penalty. This re-alocated wealth allows the Pengiuns, Preds, Habs, and Oilers to sign the Mike Comrie's and David Legwands without encrouching on the cap.

Dave
Charging a 'cap penalty' is simply a luxury tax... which I have been very vocal against because I feel it gives the Rangers more power.

Let's assume we have a $40M limit in place and any $ above that would be taxed 100%. We'll also assume the Wings can be profitable with a $60M payroll while the Rangers can be profitable with a $80M payroll.

With that luxury tax system, the Rangers can still have a $60M payroll and the Wings could only afford a $50M payroll. Many other teams wouldn't even consider going over it because it's not worth it. The point is that it simply gives the richer teams more power because they are the only ones that can afford to go over the cap.

degroat* is offline  
Old
10-09-2003, 09:09 AM
  #12
Big Cat Davo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Medicine Hat, Albert
Posts: 81
vCash: 500
Up the cost

So . . . in order to force financial responsibility you penalize the team by taking draft choices from them . . . with the round of the choice based on the # of dollars over. The seized choices would be dolled out to teams under the cap in a lottery style format.

Dave

Big Cat Davo is offline  
Old
10-09-2003, 10:10 AM
  #13
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Cat Davo
So . . . in order to force financial responsibility you penalize the team by taking draft choices from them . . . with the round of the choice based on the # of dollars over. The seized choices would be dolled out to teams under the cap in a lottery style format.

Dave
I believe draft choices is how the NFL does it, but the penalty is so severe that no one ever goes over it.

degroat* is offline  
Old
10-09-2003, 10:46 AM
  #14
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Why is it necessary? What problem is this crazy apples system supposed to solve? Please be specific.

The NHL is losing money? Who cares? That is an owner problem. The league needs to be more competitive? As if.

Define the problem.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
10-09-2003, 12:14 PM
  #15
Big Cat Davo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Medicine Hat, Albert
Posts: 81
vCash: 500
Hrm

Essentially, I think the bottom line is, if we wish the NHL to continue in relative prosperity, the Owners need a CBA that will protect them from themsevles. Most see a salary cap as a way of cutting of player earnings, I see it as a way of limiting owners spending. If the owners spending is restricted with penalty of draft picks or cash to be distributed to the teams that are obeying the rules . . . what this crazy apples system might prove to accomplish is limit owner spending, which makes them happy, and with the home grown clause, allows players to make the big bucks they think they deserve, but doing it by staying with the team the got them there . . . it was just ramblings, but I think it has merrit, of course there could be nothing wrong with the current CBA and the small market teams, where real hockey fans are might as well join the WHA.

Dave

Big Cat Davo is offline  
Old
10-09-2003, 01:14 PM
  #16
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
The NHL is losing money? Who cares? That is an owner problem.
When you include a comment like this, why should I even waste my time responding? Itís clear that you are 100% for the players making money and donít care at all if the owners make money. What would be responding accomplish?

Nothing.

degroat* is offline  
Old
10-09-2003, 01:37 PM
  #17
Lil Viking
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Calgary
Posts: 38
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
The NHL is losing money? Who cares? That is an owner problem. The league needs to be more competitive? As if.
Well, there are a lot of fans of the NHL that are concerned that their teams are losing money. I am one. Here in Calgary there are many people that are concerned that this fanchise is still on the brink of trying thier luck somewhere else. An owner problem becomes a fan problem. Plus there are only so many cities out there that are capable of supporting an NHL franchise, so sooner or later it becomes a player problem. Less teams, less jobs available for players on the bubble.

Lil Viking is offline  
Old
10-13-2003, 08:16 PM
  #18
Yammer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Republic of East Van
Posts: 2,242
vCash: 500
I thought that "home grown" somehow referred to pot.

I envisioned a system whereby the Canadian teams, unable to compete on a straight-up dollar system, bait free agents by facilitating their marijuana usage. When you're making that kind of dough, the advantage of legal herb shouldn't be underrated.

Yammer is offline  
Old
10-14-2003, 07:33 AM
  #19
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,245
vCash: 500
I love the idea of the home grown cap.

Here's my take on it. There is no cap for home grown talent, and then there is the $31 million cap for players not home grown. A team like the Rangers, and others like Colorado, Toronto, Dallas, and others would still have to adjust.

I think it still needs work though, but it's a very fresh idea.

Guest is offline  
Old
10-14-2003, 12:23 PM
  #20
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,245
vCash: 500
Based on my above quota of being able to protect players you broke into the league from your cap, this is how the league would look now. The major violators are no shock.
Code:
team	non	home grown
NYR	$60.1	$17.3
TOR	$58.3	$9.3
PHI	$56.1	$9.1
STL	$51.4	$11.2
DET	$50.3	$25.6
DAL	$45.9	$21.6
LAK	$40.7	$12.0
ANA	$39.1	$16.0
NYI	$35.4	$7.3
------------------------
PHO	$30.3	$7.5
BOS	$30.3	$19.5
VAN	$26.6	$11.7
CAR	$26.0	$12.3
COL	$25.5	$35.9
FLA	$25.0	$9.2
WAS	$24.5	$25.9
CBJ	$23.8	$8.7
CHI	$23.4	$12.8
MTL	$20.5	$26.8
EDM	$19.9	$10.9
CGY	$19.1	$17.4
TBL	$18.9	$14.7
MIN	$18.2	$6.1
ATL	$16.9	$10.8
NJD	$16.7	$31.3
OTT	$13.9	$24.2
SJS	$13.7	$21.1
PIT	$12.0	$14.6
BUF	$11.5	$22.5
NSH	$11.5	$11.9

Guest is offline  
Old
10-14-2003, 01:49 PM
  #21
Lil Viking
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Calgary
Posts: 38
vCash: 500
Thanks for the numbers GoCoyotes, they definately helped me to see what could be accomplished with such a system.

Lil Viking is offline  
Old
10-14-2003, 02:25 PM
  #22
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,245
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lil Viking
Thanks for the numbers GoCoyotes, they definately helped me to see what could be accomplished with such a system.
What you'd see in such a system is when players get to be the age of free agents, their original teams will have a better chance of retaining that player as it won't be counted against a cap, and will have some advantage to other teams who have the cap to consider. Of course that doesn't mean that all free agents will resign, but it will even out the playing field amongst teams as teams like the Rangers couldn't as easily outbid everyone every season to get the UFA's. It'd also be a win for the NHLPA because it would not see a hard cap come down on player salaries, as the salaries of home grown talent could grow at any rate. You'd likely see a more modest approach to UFA's, conservative, and maybe paying players more for their loyalty to their teams.

If there was a luxury tax for the teams that violate the cap, it could only help the clubs hurting the most. Perhaps there would be some form of compensation to a team who lost a home grown talent to another team who ended up over the cap. Equal justice.

Guest is offline  
Old
10-14-2003, 02:51 PM
  #23
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
Sorry, but that is a completely unrealistic system. It puts WAY to much of an emphasis and drafting and development and punishes teams that utilize free agency and trades to improve their teams. If you want to put that much of an emphasis on drafting, then why not just propose a plan that abolishes free agency and trades? It would be just as realistic.

degroat* is offline  
Old
10-15-2003, 05:50 AM
  #24
HFNHL PIT GM
OlliMacBjugStrome
 
HFNHL PIT GM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,637
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by degroat
Come on now.. I know there are plenty of you anti-Cap people that have something negative to say.
as an anti cap member, id say your proprosal is a fair starting point. i can argue some numbers, but the model is well thought out.

good work.

dr

HFNHL PIT GM is offline  
Old
10-15-2003, 07:30 AM
  #25
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,245
vCash: 500
I don't see that Degroat, it allows a payroll of $31 million, the proposed salary cap for ALL PLAYERS, not just home non-home-grown players. It encourages teams to develop their teams themselves, but allows more than enough for teams to build and better themselves through free agency. It'd cause teams like the Rangers to not just buy themselves out of the sellar, but build through free agency AND youth.

Look at it again, and give me a real critique of the system and where the faults are. Look at the numbers and see what teams would have the problems, and look at why they would have the problems. Sure it's not the answer tomorrow, but no one has the answer tomorrow.

Guest is offline  
Closed Thread

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 04:31 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.