CBA Legislation

[BlueKross]

One thing that I fault the new CBA is that it locks down player movement making it almost impossible to make a trade. Player movement is good for the players and is good for the league and draws alot of fan energy. I thought by now the GM's would have figured this out. But No. I propose that whatever the cap that teams can spend up to the cap less 3M until 2 weeks before the trade deadline. Two weeks before the trade deadline the other 3m is added insuring that every team has cap space to either take on bad debt and prospects or add playoff depth. Everybody wins. All I am suggesting is deferring a small part of cap. Legislate it.

[dlbalr]

This year, player movement is heavily restricted with a ~$6M decrease in the cap. That won't happen again.

The PA wouldn't be in favour of your proposal. More veterans would be left in the FA pool in an effort to save a few hundred grand in favour of players who are not yet PA members while teams would be less willing to avoid the bridge deals with young players (I think this is a good thing myself but they won't).

The big one is though that this would actually lower the amount of money going to the players. If a team wants to sign a player to spend some of that extra money, they're left to choose between the following option - sign a player who is playing overseas and risk losing him on entry waivers or sign a player who has been sitting around and hasn't played a competitive game in 9 months (unless they played in the minors with a wink-wink agreement that they'd sign for big bucks at the 2 week before the deadline mark...but that's cap circumvention). Option C, neither, would be the route teams would take. Yes, trading is allowed and some teams would get to the cap but the actual total dollar value of money going to the players wouldn't change. If the owners went to put something through like this, it's collusion and an antitrust violation and would be overturned in the courts in a heartbeat. It cannot be legislated in after the fact.

[BlueKross]

I guessing your opinion of the players reaction to such a proposal is pretty accurate. I would argue that the current regimen around player movement and the CBA is bitterly restrictive and needs to be adjusted for the betterment of the game.Player movement generates income. I don't believe there is any law saying any team has to spend to the cap.

[dlbalr]

I guessing your opinion of the players reaction to such a proposal is pretty accurate. I would argue that the current regimen around player movement and the CBA is bitterly restrictive and needs to be adjusted for the betterment of the game.Player movement generates income. I don't believe there is any law saying any team has to spend to the cap.

This year, it's restrictive. With an expected $6 M rise in the cap next year (and likely a similar one after that), we're not going to see half the league dipping into LTIR and be right up against the cap at the start of the season. There will be the opportunity for more transactions next year. There's no law saying a team must spend to the cap but there is one that says you can't put a rule in that says you can't until a certain period of time - that's the collusion and illegal part.

[BlueKross]

This year, it's restrictive. With an expected $6 M rise in the cap next year (and likely a similar one after that), we're not going to see half the league dipping into LTIR and be right up against the cap at the start of the season. There will be the opportunity for more transactions next year. There's no law saying a team must spend to the cap but there is one that says you can't put a rule in that says you can't until a certain period of time - that's the collusion and illegal part.

I am going to leave this Brian, but i am sure it will come up again. I have heard countless remarks from gm's and others concerning the difficulty of making deals since they put the cap in. So in reponse to your statement that it is only restictive this year, i would suggest that the Gms are not supporting that notion. I would agree that those restrictions may somewhat be abated in the near future as the cap goes up. I believe strongly in the cap. I still believe that the system could be tweaked enough to allow better flow, without interfering with the integrety of the cap. God knows there should be enough lawyers on the payroll to sort this out.

[dlbalr]

Sure, any time there is a restrictive system, it's going to be harder to move players. My reference to this year is that it is significantly more restrictive this year due to the lowered cap and that beyond this season, transaction levels should return to that of where they were prior to the lockout, perhaps even a bit higher. If some GM's want to make it easier to trade in-season, don't spend too close to the cap. Not every GM wants to make lots of in-season moves and prefers to build their team primarily in the offseason (it's fair to say the Habs are one of these squads). So even on the management side, there will be some dissenters among the proponents to 'cap the cap.'

[Machine of Loving Grace]

This just feels like a bad year for trading.

The only thing the NHL can add left for trades is to allow teams to trade cap space. It'd effectively make the cap soft but it'd allow teams who sit on $10 to $15M of cap space to trade that space away for picks and prospects. You just have to regulate it to only being for one year. Meaning any cap space you gain in 2015-2016 doesn't transfer to 2016-2017 so if you added a big price player that knocks you over your cap, you're scrambling to find a team that will trade you space for it. It opens up for lousy GMs to make lousy moves that cripple their teams but I consider that a good thing. I don't care for trying to make the NHL fool proof.

[BlueKross]

Until the owners and the players own the premise that the current trading enviroment are too restrictive for the good of the league, there will only be road blocks, no solutions. That would be the first step.