The Salary Cap

[Kin]

So now that the Leafs are caught up in the hard/ugly side of the cap instead of the "Yeah, we'll take bad contracts for picks" side they'd been in for years I'm wondering if the general view of the cap has changed around here. I don't think I was quite alone in thinking the cap was a bad idea during the lockouts but it definitely didn't feel like a popular opinion. Either way, the absurdity of the Leafs not being able to "afford" a player like Jake Gardiner feels like it should be winning some converts my way.

So what say you, TMLfans? Still backing the necessity of a hard cap to keep the Phoenixes and Carolinas afloat? Wanting to see some increased flexibility? Or are you, like me, as firmly as ever in the "Caps are bad" school?

 

[Deebo]

I went with no cap, while being fully aware that it will never happen. I can't even see a soft cap being implemented any time in the foreseeable future, definitely not in the next round of CBA negotiations.

An interesting question is, would the owners give up a cap in exchange for non-guaranteed contracts?

 

[Guru Tugginmypuddah]

A hard cap system that is for the greater good of all seems very, well....... communist.

 

[caver]

i think the markets that generate the most revenue should be able to spend more on their teams if they wish to...so a luxury tax might work...

 

[CarltonTheBear]

An interesting question is, would the owners give up a cap in exchange for non-guaranteed contracts?

I doubt either side would like that trade-off. Especially the players though.

 

[princedpw]

So now that the Leafs are caught up in the hard/ugly side of the cap instead of the "Yeah, we'll take bad contracts for picks" side they'd been in for years I'm wondering if the general view of the cap has changed around here. I don't think I was quite alone in thinking the cap was a bad idea during the lockouts but it definitely didn't feel like a popular opinion. Either way, the absurdity of the Leafs not being able to "afford" a player like Jake Gardiner feels like it should be winning some converts my way.

So what say you, TMLfans? Still backing the necessity of a hard cap to keep the Phoenixes and Carolinas afloat? Wanting to see some increased flexibility? Or are you, like me, as firmly as ever in the "Caps are bad" school?

Is there any true leaf fan who thinks the cap is beneficial for the leafs?

 

[princedpw]

I went with no cap, while being fully aware that it will never happen. I can't even see a soft cap being implemented any time in the foreseeable future, definitely not in the next round of CBA negotiations.

An interesting question is, would the owners give up a cap in exchange for non-guaranteed contracts?

It is hard for me to imagine any circumstances that would cause a change from the current hard cap.  So this poll isn't about what we think will happen, just what we would prefer.

 

[Bullfrog]

What's the Coles Notes version of the NBA system?

 

[Deebo]

What's the Coles Notes version of the NBA system?

There is a cap, but they allow you to exceed to keep your own players (and some other situations).

If you go too high though, you pay a luxury tax. I believe the tax rate increases if you goes if you exceed it in consecutive years.

 

[Hobbes]

I think perhaps a NBA-style soft cap would be an improvement without turning half the league's teams into perennial non-viable laughing stocks. Let the wealthy teams pay a luxury tax that scales up somewhat exponentially to discourage too much disparity but at least reward the big market teams to some degree.

 

[Kin]

What's the Coles Notes version of the NBA system?

Basically there's no upper limit to what a team can spend on their own players although there's a luxury tax system that gets gradually more and more punitive the further above the threshold a team goes.

In order to sign free agents from another team then you need to be under the "cap"(with some exceptions for low-tier free agents for teams that are over the cap).

 

[Kin]

An interesting question is, would the owners give up a cap in exchange for non-guaranteed contracts?

I doubt either side would like that trade-off. Especially the players though.

While you're probably right, I always wonder there about something like the NFL where contracts aren't necessarily guaranteed(although teams can guarantee as much of a contract as they want or make the triggers for bonuses as hard/easy as they want) but they aren't guaranteed either way. So, like, a lot of people think of David Clarkson as they kind of guy who gets hurt by non-guaranteed deals but what about Naz Kadri being able to tear up his deal?

 

[Peter D.]

I prefer no cap, although I know that'll never happen now at this point.  I don't mind a soft cap -- teams go over a certain threshold, and they pay a luxury tax which can be distributed amongst the poorer teams.  But doesn't restrict rich teams from spending what they are willing to spend. 

The hard cap is bogus as it caters to the league's weaklings.  The league should not be about keeping Phoenix, Florida, Carolina and Ottawa afloat at the expense of Toronto, New York, Philadelphia.  Whether any of the rich teams spend $81.5 million of $125 million, those poor teams will still be pinching pennies with a $40 million payroll.  If anything, the floor should be more punitive (higher) forcing these teams to spend more.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

While you're probably right, I always wonder there about something like the NFL where contracts aren't necessarily guaranteed(although teams can guarantee as much of a contract as they want or make the triggers for bonuses as hard/easy as they want) but they aren't guaranteed either way. So, like, a lot of people think of David Clarkson as they kind of guy who gets hurt by non-guaranteed deals but what about Naz Kadri being able to tear up his deal?

I guess I threw that term out without really knowing enough about that. Non-guaranteed contracts in the NFL work both ways? Players can back out of them as well?

 

[dappleganger]

While you're probably right, I always wonder there about something like the NFL where contracts aren't necessarily guaranteed(although teams can guarantee as much of a contract as they want or make the triggers for bonuses as hard/easy as they want) but they aren't guaranteed either way. So, like, a lot of people think of David Clarkson as they kind of guy who gets hurt by non-guaranteed deals but what about Naz Kadri being able to tear up his deal?

I guess I threw that term out without really knowing enough about that. Non-guaranteed contracts in the NFL work both ways? Players can back out of them as well?

No, I don't think that's true, hence the Le'veon Bell situation with Pittsburgh last year.

 

[dappleganger]

A hard cap system that is for the greater good of all seems very, well....... communist.

Communist would be if the players owned the league and every player was paid the same. 

 

[Kin]

I guess I threw that term out without really knowing enough about that. Non-guaranteed contracts in the NFL work both ways? Players can back out of them as well?

Not technically, no. But you do have players on team-friendly deals who hold-out and either don't play or only play after teams agree to renegotiate.

But just in general I think it's something to think about when we talk about non-guaranteed deals. We always think of them as one way situations.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Not technically, no. But you do have players on team-friendly deals who hold-out and either don't play or only play after teams agree to renegotiate.

But just in general I think it's something to think about when we talk about non-guaranteed deals. We always think of them as one way situations.

Ah ok, I understand then. Non-guaranteed deals would certainly allow GMs to get a little more creative in their deals, which I think is really what's missing in the current CBA set-up. I'd imagine the players would need a minimum guarantee of like 50% for everyone (plus like you said allowing players/teams to negotiate a higher number in some instances) for them to be interested.

 

[L K]

Soft lower and upper end cap.

If you go below the cap you lose equalization payments.  If you go over the cap you pay a graduated luxury tax:  1:1 then 2:1 then 3:1 with an eventual hard cap.

I'm also a fan of only allowing teams to go above the cap for player retention rather than free agency.

 

[hockeyfan1]

I, too, prefer no cap, but if I had to choose then it?d be the NBA model which has some hard cap provisions built in.  In addition to the luxury tax, there is also this:

2. Certain components of the NBA's system function as a hard cap under specific circumstances.

20. Further restrictions kick-in once a team crosses a point known as the Apron. In 2017-18 the Apron is the point $6 million above the tax threshold. In subsequent seasons the Apron rises or falls by one-half the percentage that the salary cap rises or falls.

Here are the tax and Apron amounts in each season:

Season Tax Level Apron
2017-18 $119,266,000 $125,266,000
2018-19 $123,733,000 $129,817,000

In other words, when a team is below the Apron and uses its Bi-Annual exception, receives a player who is signed-and-traded, or uses its Mid-Level exception to sign a player to a contract larger than allowed by the Taxpayer Mid-Level exception, the team becomes hard-capped at the Apron for the remainder of that season. This eliminates any potential loophole where a team could first use one of these exceptions and subsequently add salary to go above the Apron, since the reverse -- adding salary first and then using the exception -- would be illegal.

If a team is hard-capped, it cannot exceed the Apron under any circumstance. If the team subsequently needs to sign a player (for example, to replace injured players) it must first create room under the Apron by waiving player(s) with non-guaranteed salary, waiving player(s) with guaranteed salary and utilizing the stretch provision, trading downward in salary, etc. A team that is hard-capped can sign players to non-guaranteed contracts for training camp or the regular season, but must rid themselves of such players before their salary would take the team above the Apron.
A team subject to the hard cap can also sign players to Rest-of-Season contracts during the season, as long as the salary pro-ration keeps the team below the Apron.

25.  Exceptions explained


http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm