HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

separate Cap for Promoted and UFA Players

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-05-2010, 10:03 AM
  #1
SupersonicMonkey*
DROP THE PUCK
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 15,193
vCash: 500
separate Cap for Promoted and UFA Players

I'm not the most CBA heavy poster here.

But I absolutely detest the way the Salary Cap is constructed.

The league wants parity. Which is fine. Every team SHOULD be able to compete.

The cap was put in place so that larger market teams (such as the Rangers) can not go on a Free Agent shopping spree every summer.

And I'm all for it, because that is one of the things that has always dragged the Rangers down.

However, for the teams that do things the proper way, the way the league had intended by putting the cap in place, by building a team through the draft and schrewed trades, those teams are being punished due to the Cap.

A team that builds through the draft and trades should NOT be penalized by the Cap.

There should be a separate Salary Cap in place for UNRESTRICTED Free Agent signings and offer sheets and a separate Salary Cap for RESTRICTED Free Agents and trades.

This way:

-Still restricts UFA buying spree on July 1.

-Still restricts teams from offer sheeting other teams' RFA.

-Allows teams to retain the players they invested draft picks on and thousands of man hours and money on to develop them.

-Allows teams to make schrewed trades to stay under the RFA/Trade cap.


This is how the league can retain parity, allow teams that are successful to stay together (see:Blackhawks) without being punished, and stop teams from free agent spending.


Again, why should a team that drafts and develops its own and makes a couple fair trades be penalized just as much as a team that buys every player on the market.


For Example:
The team that BUYS Kovalchuk for 100 mil/10 years should be penalized more then the team that DRAFTED Kovalchuk.

SupersonicMonkey* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2010, 10:07 AM
  #2
NYROrtsFan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,931
vCash: 500
This is why the NBA has the best system...

Teams who do a great job drafting get penalized because they great players that they draft are IMPOSSIBLE to keep.

If you have a couple amazing drafts and somehow end up with 4 Hall of Famers, it means much less because you simply cannot keep them.

NYROrtsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2010, 10:08 AM
  #3
Fitzy
All Is Well
 
Fitzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 19,917
vCash: 50
I have had a solution for this all along, and its called raising the UFA age to 29 or 30 years.

Make the arbitration eligibility later, as well.

Fitzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2010, 10:11 AM
  #4
jniklast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: Germany
Posts: 4,713
vCash: 500
Which team exactly has been punished by the salary cap? The Hawks for example did most damage themselves by signing Campbell and Huet to ridiculous contracts. And I don't know any other team that built through draft and couldn't keep their core.

And I don't know whether drafting star players really should be rewarded even more. There are enough people around here complaining about the tanking. I wouldn't want the Pens to not have Crosby and Malkin count against their cap. I would be open to raising the UFA and arbitration age by a year or two though.

jniklast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2010, 10:23 AM
  #5
nyr2417
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,905
vCash: 500
I think that the nhl should look into the nba cap system which allows teams to go over the cap if it means keeping their own players

nyr2417 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2010, 11:01 AM
  #6
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzy Duke of NY View Post
I have had a solution for this all along, and its called raising the UFA age to 29 or 30 years.

Make the arbitration eligibility later, as well.

What they should do is eliminate the salary cap altogether and raise the UFA age further than what it was from 1995 to 2004.

A player becomes a UFA at the age of (based on the last contract before hitting free agency):
  • Bottom third of salaries: 32
  • Middle third: 33
  • Top third: 34

RFA compensation would be as follows (based on the new contract offer):
  • Bottom third: the next 3 first round picks.
  • Middle third: the next 5 first round picks.
  • Top third: the next 5 first AND second round picks.

This would guarantee that if you draft players, you keep them. The RFA's would have very little room to maneuver because the compensation for their services would be greater than what a team would have to give up in a trade. This would give GMs more leverage.

By the time a player becomes unrestricted, he's deep into his decline.

An average (or worse) NHLer is just not going to get big money at the age of 32-33 when his playing career is close to over.

A 34-year-old star would still find it hard to get big money just because he's already so old. Nobody will give you a large multiyear contract at the age of 34 unless you are a Hall of Famer like Messier or Gretzky, and even then it won't be anything enormous like the $10 million Kovalchuk wants.

Late-career free agency would give a player a final chance to cash in once, or to go to his favorite team, or to go to a team with a high probability of winning the Stanley Cup.

Salaries would not be particularly high, and the draft will matter more.

Right now the draft is less important because you can always sign a young free agent, and you can always lose a good player you drafted.

Just keep players restricted until late in their career, then give them one shot to go to whatever team they want.

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2010, 11:10 AM
  #7
free0717
Registered User
 
free0717's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Old Bridge, NJ
Posts: 2,112
vCash: 500
I disagree. The cap is the only way to guarantee cost certainty. Cost Certainty is critical for this league.

Chicagos problem started when they missed the cuttoff date for qualifying offers. Chicago then had to overpay alot of young players to keep them. Now they cant keep them.

If the Rangers get to the point where they have to shed salary due to too many good players, they will have to decide which players go and which players remain part of the core.

That is why successful drafting is imperative every year. At some point the players who are let go will have to be replaced by young players who dont make alot of $$$.

free0717 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2010, 11:16 AM
  #8
WhipNash27
Quattro!!
 
WhipNash27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westchester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 15,519
vCash: 500
make a combination hard/soft cap. For a player a team drafts, a team is allowed to go over the cap and pay a luxury tax.

For UFAs, cap figure is based on prior salary of all pending RFAs + 10%. Teams signing UFAs cannot exceed the hard cap based on those salaries.

For example, the Rangers would have to include Staal, Girardi, etc's prior year cap hit plus 10% in their cap when signing UFA.

Of course this would still put a team at an advantage when players are on entry level contracts. So IDK, there'd have to be a system to prevent teams from signing massive UFA contracts, then resigning all of their own RFAs to huge contracts afterward.

WhipNash27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2010, 11:57 AM
  #9
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,964
vCash: 500
I would just make all drafted players' contracts count towards the cap at something like 80%. Maybe make them count 100% towards the 56% of revenue sharing, but reward teams for drafting well. They should address the 'sign and trade' business though. Allow or don't, but it should be addressed ahead of time so there isn't a sense of somebody beating the system or finding loopholes.

DutchShamrock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2010, 11:59 AM
  #10
WhipNash27
Quattro!!
 
WhipNash27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westchester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 15,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
I would just make all drafted players' contracts count towards the cap at something like 80%. Maybe make them count 100% towards the 56% of revenue sharing, but reward teams for drafting well. They should address the 'sign and trade' business though. Allow or don't, but it should be addressed ahead of time so there isn't a sense of somebody beating the system or finding loopholes.
Not a bad idea. For sign and trade, once a player leaves the organization, their cap hit would bump from 80% (or whatever) to 100%. So I don't see a big deal with that.

WhipNash27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2010, 12:51 PM
  #11
Synergy27
Registered User
 
Synergy27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Country: United States
Posts: 4,552
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzy Duke of NY View Post
I have had a solution for this all along, and its called raising the UFA age to 29 or 30 years.

Make the arbitration eligibility later, as well.
If there's a cap in place, there have to be at least some concessions made to the players. The players would be bent over a barrel in that set-up.

I do agree that the current cap system is flawed though. There really should be a way to allow for keeping a well drafted team together. What about a franchise tag?

Synergy27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2010, 01:07 PM
  #12
pwoz
Registered User
 
pwoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 2,492
vCash: 500
I'm against a salary cap. You can't equate Phoenix with Manhattan. Either abolish the cap (hey, it works for the Yankees) or make a team's cap directly proportional to the cost of living in that market.

pwoz is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2010, 01:09 PM
  #13
NYROrtsFan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,931
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwoz View Post
I'm against a salary cap. You can't equate Phoenix with Manhattan. Either abolish the cap (hey, it works for the Yankees) or make a team's cap directly proportional to the cost of living in that market.
This is something else I completely agree with. Also take into account the taxes that a particular player may pay for being employed in a state like NY. Another disadvantage for the Rangers.

NYROrtsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2010, 01:27 PM
  #14
jniklast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: Germany
Posts: 4,713
vCash: 500
I still don't see any other precedence than the Blackhawks (which is definitely self-inflicted) for a team losing its drafted players because of the cap, and please don't kid yourself into believing the Rangers have a disadvantage because of higher taxes and cost of living. Our disadvantage is Glen Sather and not the cap system.

jniklast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2010, 01:36 PM
  #15
Blueblood 2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 874
vCash: 500
The Cap was just a first step toward a socialized NHL. The next will be designated salaries for all 23 slots on a roster. Really don't know how anyone representing the capitalist players ever agreed to any of this. Before you know it the entire thing will be fantasy style computer generated contests. Why pay for players at all?

Blueblood 2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2010, 02:28 PM
  #16
n8
WAAAAAAA!!!
 
n8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: san francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 7,403
vCash: 500
I think the 7 year rule is dumb. It should be that teams get players for a minimum of 7 years so if you join the NHL at the age of 22, that team retains your rights until the age of 29. Or maybe it's 7 years since you sign your first contract. I'm flabbergasted that Crosby can be a UFA in 3 years at the age of 25. If we had won that lottery that year, I would not be happy losing a player of his calibre so young. I think they also need to make a hard rule that you cannot become a UFA at all unless you are at least 27 or 28 y.o. Why it's not higher at 33+ is because as a player, you aren't gonna get primo-$$$ at that age. 27-28 is when players are generally in their prime so they get full value so it's the best time a player. In combination with a revised 7 year rights rule, it insures teams have a chance to use their assets.

I don't fully get the NBA cap rules but I do like that they are able to go over the official cap number when it comes to retaining players. That is something the NHL should adopt. or something like that. Call it a homegrown deductible.

n8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2010, 04:26 PM
  #17
RangerBlues
Registered User
 
RangerBlues's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: BRONX NYC
Posts: 1,583
vCash: 500
The NHL's whole salary cap system is BRAINDEAD

It punishes teams that want to retain it's own players or players that have been with the organization for a long time.
Pick a number, say 10 years.

Want to create balance. Make the playoffs, cant participate in the FA market.
Eliminate guaranteed contracts for players over 32

Just tossing some ideas out there cause the current system is really bad.

RangerBlues is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2010, 06:48 PM
  #18
SupersonicMonkey*
DROP THE PUCK
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 15,193
vCash: 500
I just feel if well drafted teams were able to stay together long term, we would eventually see more teams in the league that could be considered elite.

Most teams at the top, started at the bottom and drafted well to get to the top.

Also, it would allow for longevity of team identity.

And it really isn't fair to punish teams that drafted well. Not all teams that are well put together had repeated #1 or top 5 picks every year. Some teams just draft well.

Most if not all the teams in the league would be able to be better longer term if they were able to keep their own players.

If teams could keep drafted and promoted (players they aqcuired but made their NHL debut with) players, we would see an even healthier league.

SupersonicMonkey* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2010, 07:06 PM
  #19
DrAStuart
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueblood 2 View Post
The Cap was just a first step toward a socialized NHL. The next will be designated salaries for all 23 slots on a roster. Really don't know how anyone representing the capitalist players ever agreed to any of this. Before you know it the entire thing will be fantasy style computer generated contests. Why pay for players at all?
Since when does professional sports have anything to do with capitalism or free markets? Sports leagues are managed monopolies.

In a free market the point is to succeed to the point where you drive your competitors out of business and then take over their customers.

In a free market there are no barriers to setting up a competing business except your access to the capital to do so.

In a professional sports league the point is to insure that every team is financially stable so that the product can be brought to the customers -- if you drive a team out of business then you damage the product you're selling. If teams relocate or come into the league and exit the league on a regular basis you undercut the key element of the product -- fan loyalty.

In a professional sports league you can't simply set up a competing team to play against an existing team -- your only option is to set up an entire competing league (eg the WHA). The NHL, the NBA, MLB and the NFL all have rules that say where a team can be located and have rules about who can own a team.

Of all the major professional sports leagues in N.America hockey is the one most reliant on ticket sales for revenue and in a thirty team league with a number of teams bordering on bankruptcy the cap is the only way to insure league stability.
There may be problems with the structure of this particular cap, but a cap is essential to keeping the league operating.

And as for socialism and sports...how many of the arenas, stadiums and parks that host professional sports teams are built with taxpayers' dollars or public subsidies?

Sorry, if you're worried about socialized professional sports then that bus left the station a long time ago...

DrAStuart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2010, 07:54 PM
  #20
n8
WAAAAAAA!!!
 
n8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: san francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 7,403
vCash: 500
what leagues allow their teams to simply and outright release players? like in the NFL, don't players simply get waived and released if they don't make the team? I always wondered what happened to players just getting let go. maybe that all changed after the 95 lockout?

n8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2010, 08:36 PM
  #21
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,964
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by n8 View Post
I think the 7 year rule is dumb. It should be that teams get players for a minimum of 7 years so if you join the NHL at the age of 22, that team retains your rights until the age of 29. Or maybe it's 7 years since you sign your first contract. I'm flabbergasted that Crosby can be a UFA in 3 years at the age of 25. If we had won that lottery that year, I would not be happy losing a player of his calibre so young. I think they also need to make a hard rule that you cannot become a UFA at all unless you are at least 27 or 28 y.o. Why it's not higher at 33+ is because as a player, you aren't gonna get primo-$$$ at that age. 27-28 is when players are generally in their prime so they get full value so it's the best time a player. In combination with a revised 7 year rights rule, it insures teams have a chance to use their assets.

I don't fully get the NBA cap rules but I do like that they are able to go over the official cap number when it comes to retaining players. That is something the NHL should adopt. or something like that. Call it a homegrown deductible.
Well it was a higher age, 31, but they had to lower it as a concession to the players for instituting the cap. The league was more than happy to do it actually, they thought they could flood the free agent market with more players and lower prices through the laws of supply and demand. Instead they created a new market for elite players in their prime who can leave. Teams are ponying up during their RFA contract to buy the player's UFA years. They are terrified of losing guys they invested time and money in devoloping. The league can always be counted on finding a way to shoot itself in the foot during CBA negotiations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by n8 View Post
what leagues allow their teams to simply and outright release players? like in the NFL, don't players simply get waived and released if they don't make the team? I always wondered what happened to players just getting let go. maybe that all changed after the 95 lockout?
This will be issue #1 for the players during the next CBA negotiation in the NFL. It will be huge, it will get ugly. The players will want the right to terminate contracts as well or guarenteed contracts. One or the other. This will never take hold in the other pro leagues.

DutchShamrock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2010, 09:08 PM
  #22
free0717
Registered User
 
free0717's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Old Bridge, NJ
Posts: 2,112
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by n8 View Post
I think the 7 year rule is dumb. It should be that teams get players for a minimum of 7 years so if you join the NHL at the age of 22, that team retains your rights until the age of 29. Or maybe it's 7 years since you sign your first contract. I'm flabbergasted that Crosby can be a UFA in 3 years at the age of 25. If we had won that lottery that year, I would not be happy losing a player of his calibre so young. I think they also need to make a hard rule that you cannot become a UFA at all unless you are at least 27 or 28 y.o. Why it's not higher at 33+ is because as a player, you aren't gonna get primo-$$$ at that age. 27-28 is when players are generally in their prime so they get full value so it's the best time a player. In combination with a revised 7 year rights rule, it insures teams have a chance to use their assets.
I disagree entirely. The one thing this league needed was "Cost certainty". A soft cap like the NBA will not give you that. I like the idea of a " hard ceiling and a hard floor". The successful teams will be the teams that draft well and have managers who are deft at managing the CBA.

No way the owners will ever agree to anything other than a hard cap. They would blow this league up before giving into the players and having a soft cap. Geez we lost a season because the owners had to have this hard cap.

In conclusion, the teams that will be successful year after year will
a. Draft well every year
b. Identify the correct core group to keep.
c. Know the CBA and know how to manage the CAP.

In this type of a CBA, mistakes can kill a team for many years ie. Redden, Rozival, Drury, Gomez, Brashear.

I would like to see a better way than buyouts of getting rid of bad contracts.


Last edited by free0717: 07-05-2010 at 09:14 PM.
free0717 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2010, 09:13 PM
  #23
Radek27
Registered User
 
Radek27's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 5,149
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Radek27
I like the idea of raising the UFA age. I don't like this new system where guys get to go UFA so early. Maybe i'm just old school I dunno.

Radek27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2010, 09:16 PM
  #24
free0717
Registered User
 
free0717's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Old Bridge, NJ
Posts: 2,112
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radek27 View Post
I like the idea of raising the UFA age. I don't like this new system where guys get to go UFA so early. Maybe i'm just old school I dunno.
That was the give back by the owners to gain cost certainty.

If the UFA age were raised, the league would have to give something back to the players.

free0717 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2010, 09:17 PM
  #25
WhipNash27
Quattro!!
 
WhipNash27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westchester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 15,519
vCash: 500
For me, the best idea I've seen so far is having a reduced cap hit for a player who signs with the team who drafted him. It would definitely also give teams a better chance of keeping certain players for their whole careers which is something that fans love.

WhipNash27 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 09:44 AM.

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.