4 replies to this topic

[sean1827]

Ok, when the salary cap came out in 2005, my biggest issue was with home-grown talent. In my opinion, I don't think drafted players developed in our system should count against the cap like free agents do. I feel your own draft picks should come at a discounted salary cap hit, meaning players like Brodeur, Parise, Zajac, Elias, White, Palmieri, Josefson, etc. would only have a percentage of the average salary through their contracts as hits against the team cap. The reason for the cap is for parity and financial fairness in free agency. So, big market teams that use to and at times still do, are hit with a full salary cap hit for signing free agents that they didn't develop in their own system. So, yes, we would get hit with heavy cap hits from the Kovalchuk, Rolston, Volchenkov, and Tallinder signings; but if you have good scouting and development- you are rewarded with it by having your home-grown talent signed at discounted cap hits. Now, that may bring up another issue (draft lottery) so teams are not loaded with discounted cap hits from high drafts selections for playing horrible consecutive seasons (see Pitt and Chi); but this is another issue for another time. I thought about the home-grown cap discount in 2005 when the cap first came out, but now with the need of signing Parise to a lucrative contract, this issue is at the fore-front for us this summer, since we are always close to the cap limit. What are your thoughts on this idea?

[brickwall30]

This would be a total disaster for the whole parity plan that the NHL is trying to put in place. The whole purpose of the cap is to force teams to make tough personell decisions and to make teams "give up" players that are star calibre to re-distribute the talent around the league. By doing this "homegrown discount" it would allow teams to hold on to all of their skilled players.

As for the hitch you were talking about with teams that tank for years, how exactly could that be remedied without blatently targeting those teams and creating different standards that would get more confusing that the current CBA (which is saying something)? you would have teams like pittsburg being able to sign Crosby, Malkin, Staal, Fleury, etc etc and still not be close to hitting the cap. Then what? They can just go out and buy some really high priced talent on the FA market and they become the super stacked big market team that the NHL is trying to avoid. Even if this could be modified to not include teams that aquire high talent in this manner, how do you think those teams that did it that way would feel about teams like Detroit that got tons of home grown talent but did it later in the draft so they get that discount and are allowed to be the super stacked big market team?

It's a decent thought, but it would completely undermine the premise that the league has been playing on since the first lockout, that the league would be (and is) a much more entertaining product to watch if the talent pool of the league is forced to spread out across all the teams creating these dramatic end of season battles between many teams to get into the playoffs.

[sean1827]

This would be a total disaster for the whole parity plan that the NHL is trying to put in place. The whole purpose of the cap is to force teams to make tough personell decisions and to make teams "give up" players that are star calibre to re-distribute the talent around the league. By doing this "homegrown discount" it would allow teams to hold on to all of their skilled players.

As for the hitch you were talking about with teams that tank for years, how exactly could that be remedied without blatently targeting those teams and creating different standards that would get more confusing that the current CBA (which is saying something)? you would have teams like pittsburg being able to sign Crosby, Malkin, Staal, Fleury, etc etc and still not be close to hitting the cap. Then what? They can just go out and buy some really high priced talent on the FA market and they become the super stacked big market team that the NHL is trying to avoid. Even if this could be modified to not include teams that aquire high talent in this manner, how do you think those teams that did it that way would feel about teams like Detroit that got tons of home grown talent but did it later in the draft so they get that discount and are allowed to be the super stacked big market team?

It's a decent thought, but it would completely undermine the premise that the league has been playing on since the first lockout, that the league would be (and is) a much more entertaining product to watch if the talent pool of the league is forced to spread out across all the teams creating these dramatic end of season battles between many teams to get into the playoffs.

Not arguing with you, but your example of Pitt would be non-existent in this idea, they would not have been able to draft such players if the draft was changed appropriately, if this idea was started in 05 of course. I do understand your argument as a whole though, just wanted to throw the idea out and get some feedback, thanks.

Edited by sean1827, 13 April 2011 - 02:36 PM.

[AEWHistory]

I think an easy solution, or partial solution, is to adopt elements of the NFLs cap system. Where the NFL ha it's greatest problem IMHO is that rookies get paid wads of cash without having proved anything, whereas solid vets are often underpaid if because they were once lower round draft picks... As if that has anything to do with their performance after a couple seasons in a given league. This crap of protecting over 35 players (over the hill players) is bull. It basically allows older players to sign on and then do nothing. You can pride them into performing, but that doesn't always work. Either a player is still competitive not. If the NHL is worried about the contracts being twisted then accelerate then unrecognized portion of the contract when the player retires. So if a player signs a contract for 20mill for one year, and one million for nine more years, then the cap hit is just under three million, but if the player retires after the first year, then the remaining 17 million goes onto the cap the following year. that alone limits the BS that teams can and will pull. There just isn't any need for the fines, penalties, and other crap that the NHL does and what they did to us with the IK contract this past year.

[sundstrom]

the existing cap works pretty well i think actually.

the biggest issue is escrow and I'm not sure what more could really be done there when its supposed to be a percentage of revenue and escrow just guarantees it.