50 Mission Cap said:
Nik the Trik said:
CarltonTheBear said:
The guys who are putting pressure on the Leafs cap were drafted 1st, 4th, 8th, 22nd and 202nd. The idea that any league should think there should be a downside to that sort of player development...that needs to get fixed before anything else.
In three sentences you reduced the "pro salary cap" argument to ashes. Well played indeed! Seriously, how does a professional league create a system that punishes you for being too good at prospecting/player development.
While Nik's point makes intuitive sense, the counterargument would be that the 1, 4, and 8 (at least) picks hardly represent player "development" -- you, me, and Joe Blow from Kokomo could have made those choices and then sat back and watch 34, 16, and 29 unroll their natural talents. In seriousness, development from the Leafs, post-draft, played at best a minor role in the blossoming of these guys.
But farther down the draft, Nik is on to something. If you want to address it while not throwing out the cap, how about this idea: pro-rate the salary cap by a player's draft position?
1-10 picks: 100% of salary counts against the cap
11-20: 90%
21-30: 80%
and so on down to
91-100: 10%
101 and below: 0%
Heck, you could even make it so any player drafted 150th or below would increase your team's cap by 5% or something.
This kind of a system would actually reward teams for being successful in developing less-heralded players. And if you begin thinking about the ramifications, they would be fascinating. Teams holding the #10 pick trading down to #11 to get a potential 10% discount on the cap, etc.