Good idea or bad idea?

Question

I think this has been discussed before BUT would you like to see something written into the next CBA that allows teams to somehow keep their homegrown talent (they drafted them) and still stay under the cap???

Many teams in the future may have to unload some of their talent in an effort to keep under the cap, especially if they have drafted a few good ones-

Boston looking to unload Kessel is a prime example.
Chicago may be in a pinch trying to keep Toews/Kane etc.
Philly might have to eventually unload someone like Carter
Pittsburgh has Crosby/Malkin/Staal locked up but their depth will suffer


Would you like to see something like-

1. A discount on the salary cap hit of a player that your team drafted.....maybe 75% of homegrown players salaries count against the cap?

2. Maybe a situation where you can have ONE "franchise" player who does not count against the cap if the team wants to exercise the option?? An Alex Ovechkin or a Rick Nash could be "franchised" and not be a cap hit??

Or do you think these ideas just make the salary cap useless anyway?

I think it would lead to less player movement and allow teams to keep guys in their uniform for their entire career in some cases and give fans a chance to relate to them better.

Also, I realize that this may be more of a plus for big market teams in some cases but they are big market teams for a reason.

Any other thoughts?

Answer 1

I've always thought that there should be one "exemption" (having to be a player drafted by the team who's played his entire career with the team...say "X" number of years and/or "Y" number of games).



Didn't the NBA have something like this back in the day? When I lived in California I heard something about a "Larry Bird exemption"?



The designation can't float around, and if you trade said player, you don't get those cap dollars back until a player comes up for negotiation. So if, say, Pittsburgh signed a player and then traded said player (using the exemption to sign said player), this isn't a chit that they can pass to someone else. Sort of like buying insurance at the casino...you don't get your money back if the dealer isn't holding blackjack.



By that, you're keeping a team from losing that homegrown talent because they can't fit them under the cap. I'm not sure about grandfathering guys in though...that just seems like a way for teams to sweep problems under the rug.



So for Pittsburgh, it wouldn't be Crosby or Malkin (they're signed to deals), and for Washington it wouldn't be Ovechkin (it'll be nice to not use these two teams as examples of things).



I always laugh about people invoking Mario Lemieux and loyalty. Remember kids...he was the one who started playing footsie with Jim Balsillie (and Bob-thanks for the reminder of Lemieux refusing to put the Pittsburgh sweater on when they drafted him). Great talent, heckuva golfer (and yes, the injuries and the Hodgkins were bad), but spare me the loyalty bit.

Answer 2

In about 2-3 years I would like to see it. Right now, I wish Garth would go forth and pillage other team's cap causalities with the cap space he has. I know, pipe dream.



With Entry Level and RFA contracts, a team already has a way to keep talent they develop. It's not another team's faults they throw 10,000,000 a year at one FA, then can't afford to pay a homegrown talent,is it? It's called fiscal responsibility. The "franchise tag" for one player just circumvents the cap. You can't just take that away from the cap. Maybe a "luxury tax" similar to MLB is also an answer. Make teams pay big money for going over the cap.



I don't think player movement is necessarily a bad thing. Curt Flood didn't ruin his career for nothing! Just my humble opinion.............



***BOB, did you not read my first line...."In about 2-3 years I would like to see that happen." Figured you see I covered Tavares with that one.



You are also referring to another time and place where there where how many teams again? Even if you took the WHA into consideration, which had some players jumping leagues (so there WAS player movement) there was no cable TV money back then( let alone cable TV) to sustain the percentage of team revenue that goes into player salaries today. The games were on free TV , and I know because I watched them. Was the NHL expanding into non-traditional markets then as well? How many of those teams worked out? How many teams today would go under if not for that cable TV money? I can think of at least one...The Islanders.

Answer 3

Good question, it may be too early for me to think this hard.



I like the idea of a drafted player only counts for 75% of the cap hit. As fans we want to see players spend the bulk of their career with one team, and it might be important to do something along those lines or the league risks alienating fans, esp young fans who don't understand the business side and constantly see their heros moving on.



Would the players like the idea? On the one hand it may somewhat restrict their movement but overall salaries should go up as some teams will be spending over the cap.



On the other hand I don't like the idea of circumventing the cap, these front loaded LT deals bug me for that reason.



I don't like the franchise player idea, teams will slap the franchise tag on a guy who is not worthy of it to free up some cap room. After a second tier guy gets the franchise tag and gets overpaid his new contract just drives the price up other second tier guys.



At the end of the day, we needed a salary cap because the teams with money could not control themselves and we needed to save them from themselves. Now we have a cap and they still can't control themselves, signing second line guys to long term deals at first line prices. See Gomez, Dury, Briere et al. If we bring in a 75% rule we will be in the same position 2 yrs from now except we will have teams stuck with guys they really cannot move because that 7.5M cap hit will become 10M on another team.



I guess I don't like the idea, but what can we do to keep young stars with their original team? Push unrestricted free agent ahead until age 30 again? I don't know.



And yes RFA's are getting almost UFA type money with a very short track record established.



It is a problem, hopefully smarter minds than ours are looking at it but somehow I doubt it.

Answer 4

I see where your coming from Bob but like you said this will result in less trade and free agent movement and more 12 year contracts.



I think that the GM's and players have to come to the realization that if you want to stay competitive you can't blow half your cap on 4 players



Bob

Detroit lost Hossa and by the way things are going they might loose Hudler



Pittsburgh has 7 players signed for the start of the 2011/2012 season taking up about $35 Million say the cap stays at $55 Million level and that leave them $20 Million to sign about 15 players



Ottawa has 11 players signed for 2010/2011 season taking up about $45 Million



there are other teams i just cant think of them right now

Answer 5

The NHL General Managers are already taking care of their franchise players. Note the albatross contracts of DiPietro and Ovechkin. 15 years and 13 years respectively. You could argue that this would not be necessary if certain other rules were in place.



Ideally, to get more franchise players, you must do the impossible and change the "sports is just a business" mentality. Or, just have the young player stay with Mario Lemieux! Mario's loyalty to his team and the way he was taken care of as a franchise player to the Pittsburgh Penguins should be matched by all the elite young players today in my opinion. For his loyalty, he is revered in the city as a hero.



Originally, this latest post-lockout CBA was billed and designed to protect stupid GMs from themselves. However, this situation only proves the old adage: When you build a bigger mousetrap, somebody comes around to build a bigger mouse.



I like how the "franchise tag" works in the NFL, should another team sign your "franchise" guy, then it automatically costs a draft pick.

Answer 6

I think that's a bad idea for primarily one reason.

If say Ovechkin's cap space was 75% less then his hit would be around 2.8 or something like that. He's their best home grown talent and would be given a ridiculously low cap hit. Compare that to the home grown talent of a team without a home grown superstar-nashville, minnesota, toronto, montreal, etc.----they would be screwed over because no one has a huge contract that gets a big hit against the cap.

Another reason would be because you wouldnt want ovechkins hit being the same as like knuble's



Hope this Helps!

Answer 7

I actually like the idea, but I think it would tip the balance in favor of big market teams even more.



I'm not opposed to it in that incarnation...



On the other hand if teams could subtract 10% off the top of everyone who played their first NHL game with them who stayed beyond their RFA period for their tenure with the team that might be slightly more fair or at least keep fans more attached since there could be more than one player who was held onto longer.



From football, just look at how much less interest there was in the Patriots after Brady went down last season. They still went 11-5, but who watched?

Answer 8

I totally disagree in the kindest way possible. It somewhat contradicts the entire reason of why poor performing teams obtain the better-ranked draft picks. Here’s the analogy…say you are financially poor in the US and are obtaining welfare. Eventually, you pick yourself up, wipe the dust off, find a job, get a apartment…..and yet you want the government to still subsidize your income, because it is more comfortable for you. That does not make much sense does it? Getting the best performing rookies is a way to help out a losing team. If you are starting to win games, and your 1st rounder is becoming one of your best players, then you need to pay him. There should be no “hand outs” in the NHL. Period.



I can’t really answer your questions, because I am not supportive on the premise.

Answer 9

Ive seen the pitcher in the 6 or 7 spot last year where they were splitting the batting lineup into a two-headed monster. Preferably you want to also try to get a patient guy before your pitcher, maybe a guy will get some walks esspecially when teams want to go after the pitcher, so if the pitcher strikes out and you have a man on base with a good contact hitter coming up, it is worth a roll of the dice.

Answer 10

You bring up VERY good points. The only thing that inclines me to say no is because some team in the future would find a way to jack with the rules. I can see it turning into territorial rights all over again. That's never a good thing. I realize that it's different because the team has drafted these players. But then the rule would go down as "drafters rights". I like the playing field being even. Good question you have though. You have made some valid points in your argument.

Answer 11

I like the idea..

In the NBA they have the "Larry Bird rule"-Free agents who qualify for this exception are called "qualifying veteran free agents" or "Bird Free Agents" in the CBA, and this exception falls under the auspices of the Veteran Free Agent exception. In essence, the Larry Bird exception allows teams to exceed the salary cap to re-sign their own free agents, at an amount up to the maximum salary..



In the NFL they have franchise players-An "exclusive" franchise player -- not free to sign with another club -- is offered a minimum of the average of the top five salaries at the player's position as of April 16, or 120 percent of the player's previous year's salary, whichever is greater.



I like the fact that you won't have to worry that your own draft picks will eventually have to leave because of salary cap issues (Kane & Toews as example)

Answer 12

I really like that.



That would set hockey apart from other sports. That would place a huge importance on development and make better players...



It would help spread the sport because the AHL would be relevant.