When the NHL was starting up after the lockout, with a new salary cap, the Devils were looking like they were going to be over going down to the wire.
When asked what would happen if a team wasn't under the cap by the time their first puck dropped, Bill Daly replied "team doesn't play."
Anyway, it's a lot easier for the Kings to get over the cap than it is for teams to get under it. Worst comes to worse, Glen Murray gets a $9 million, 1 year contract.
When the NHL was starting up after the lockout, with a new salary cap, the Devils were looking like they were going to be over going down to the wire.
When asked what would happen if a team wasn't under the cap by the time their first puck dropped, Bill Daly replied "team doesn't play."
Anyway, it's a lot easier for the Kings to get over the cap than it is for teams to get under it. Worst comes to worse, Glen Murray gets a $9 million, 1 year contract.
I am certainly not questioning your memory of what Daly said but the "doesn't play" penalty makes little sense because it can have a direct and substantially negative impact on other teams. Would the Oilers like to refund their revenue for the home dates with the Fames if they (the Flames) remained over the cap? What about TV commitments.
I agree that there is little danger of teams not raching the cap floor, at least this year. Moreover, in the end it is possible to get under the cap by sending a contract or two to the minors. If the players have to clear waivers so be it. This is not the best cap managment but it would definitley beat the "doesn't play" option.
I am certainly not questioning your memory of what Daly said but the "doesn't play" penalty makes little sense because it can have a direct and substantially negative impact on other teams. Would the Oilers like to refund their revenue for the home dates with the Fames if they (the Flames) remained over the cap? What about TV commitments.
I agree that there is little danger of teams not raching the cap floor, at least this year. Moreover, in the end it is possible to get under the cap by sending a contract or two to the minors. If the players have to clear waivers so be it. This is not the best cap managment but it would definitley beat the "doesn't play" option.
It does seem to be a radical remedy. Who knows it they would actually enforce it? Do you know if the NHL actually has the power to do the solution you suggest?
But forfeits and/or delays aren't exactly unheard of in professional sports. Maybe the radical remedy ensures compliance?
I dunno. Anyway, here's the quote and the original source, from September 2006:
Quote:
It's fine for Glen Sather to express his opinion the Devils should not be able to get LTI relief on Alexander Mogilny, but we bet there are 29 other general managers who don't quite understand why the league cap charges the Rangers only $4.94 million of the $8.36 million Jaromir Jagr earns.
Deputy commissioner Bill Daly, responding by e-mail to a Slap Shots' query of what the league's recourse is if a team is not under the cap by opening night: "Team doesn't play."
It does seem to be a radical remedy. Who knows it they would actually enforce it? Do you know if the NHL actually has the power to do the solution you suggest?
But forfeits and/or delays aren't exactly unheard of in professional sports. Maybe the radical remedy ensures compliance?
I dunno. Anyway, here's the quote and the original source, from September 2006:
Thanks for the link. As I said, I was certianly not questioning your memory with respect to what Daly said.
It appears that the CBA does not address penalties for non-compliance directly. These may well be in the by-laws, but unfortunately the by-laws are not publis so far as I know.
I believe that the league does retain fairly draconian powers in enforcing certain aspects of the CBA. But I doubt they would apply a penalty that would have severe negative consequences to a non-offending team. Perhaps forfeiture of home games would be sufficient. However, unless a team was trying to send a message of protest, they would be idiots to let it go that far when demoting a contract or two to the minors until a trade could be made would bring them in compliance. (To be clear, I was not suggesting that the NHL would force such demotiuons but rather that the team could choose to do so.)
I doubt the over cap is ever going to happen. Step one would be to inform the team that they are reaching a critical date and that if they do not take steps to meet the cap by that date, the league will begin penalising them. The situation could culminate in an orderly fashion with the league arbitrarilly putting players on waivers according to some set of criteria by another date, as well as additional sanctions on the club if the league was forced to go so far. Faced with this, any club would do the sensible thing and choose a player or two to lose on waivers. Any club willing to spend to the cap could be expected to stay on the good side.
The under cap may be trickier. What if a struggling team decides to screw the floor and go with a $20MM salary? They don't get revenue sharing. OK. Draft picks? An owner would have to be near giving up on the venture long before crossing the league like that. I suppose suspension of the franchise would be a final step in this sort of circumstance, but the offending owner would need to be near packing it in anyway, so...
I have a question not directly related, but I thought I'd ask here.
How do FAs work approaching training camp, because UFAs usually are given a formal invitation to a team's TC. Is it the same for RFA? ie: can the Kings, for example, just leave Stoll without a contract until AFTER training camp to see how well he plays there? Would that require them to sign some kind of invitation in the same way as a UFA? Or is that in the basic clauses of an RFA agreement? (ie: you show up to TC regardless of contract as long as you're RFA status)
Not that it matters much, just wondering... We could all use a little more useless info, right? And yes, I know that made no sense...
I have a question not directly related, but I thought I'd ask here.
How do FAs work approaching training camp, because UFAs usually are given a formal invitation to a team's TC. Is it the same for RFA? ie: can the Kings, for example, just leave Stoll without a contract until AFTER training camp to see how well he plays there? Would that require them to sign some kind of invitation in the same way as a UFA? Or is that in the basic clauses of an RFA agreement? (ie: you show up to TC regardless of contract as long as you're RFA status)
Not that it matters much, just wondering... We could all use a little more useless info, right? And yes, I know that made no sense...
I would imagine RFAs would come to camp with some sort of insurance to cover loss of earnings in the event of injury. That might be an issue for Stoll.
I doubt the over cap is ever going to happen. Step one would be to inform the team that they are reaching a critical date and that if they do not take steps to meet the cap by that date, the league will begin penalising them. The situation could culminate in an orderly fashion with the league arbitrarilly putting players on waivers according to some set of criteria by another date, as well as additional sanctions on the club if the league was forced to go so far. Faced with this, any club would do the sensible thing and choose a player or two to lose on waivers. Any club willing to spend to the cap could be expected to stay on the good side.
The under cap may be trickier. What if a struggling team decides to screw the floor and go with a $20MM salary? They don't get revenue sharing. OK. Draft picks? An owner would have to be near giving up on the venture long before crossing the league like that. I suppose suspension of the franchise would be a final step in this sort of circumstance, but the offending owner would need to be near packing it in anyway, so...
Very smartly put. I like your outside-the-box thinking.
