Salary cap blues

[Mont Royale]

Here's an article about the cap that I found interesting, particular the impact on young player's development. And it features words of wisdom from our leader, Mr. Bob Gainey.

:hlogo:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...BNStory/Sports/

[les_glorieux]

fixed link: http://tinyurl.com/cajrl

[PMAC]

Anaheim's fans must have a really bad case of salary cap blues. I would if the Habs had to trade a top-but aging talent for the metaphorical bag of pucks to dump salary.

Speaking of which, wonder what the Devils are going to do when Elias comes back? I wonder if there was any way we could get Colin White?

[Mont Royale]

After reading the article, I'm left confused as to why either the NHLPA or NHL would have agreed to this situation where players have to clear waivers on the way up.

From the PA's point of view, this is apparently preventing some of the better AHL-ers (who presumably have the best chance of making more money) from getting the callup, because the team is afraid they might lose them on waivers. From the league's perspective, they can't call up their best player, they have to settle for someone no one else wants (or who isn't covered by these rules).

This rule seems to be a disincentive to providing the best possible hockey. It also could cause a good potential NHL player to be 'trapped' in the AHL indefinitely. Would the next possible opportunity to get that player to the NHL without worrying about waivers be at the beginning of the following year??

If anyone could explain the logic of this rule, I would appreciate it!

[simonus]

mont royale, i generally agree. Here is the only thing i can come up with:

the league wanted the rule to make it more difficult for teams to be near the cap or carry too many waiver-suseptible players.

Even though the league is imposing a hard-cap, they would love for the average salary to be well below the cap (escrow will help at least a bit). If a team knows it will be difficult to shuffle a player through waivers, they will be hesitant to start playing games, overbuying and then moving people around.

In effect, this enourages teams to have more discipline during the free-agency period (when undisciplined owners can screw up the pricing scale for other owners).

[PMAC]

I believe that the NHLPA's thinking was that eventually teams will get desperate enough to call these guys up and their chances of getting picked up by another team is better since the acquiring team doesnt pay the full salary.... alas for AHL'ers it is having a freezing effect on call-ups

I for one hate the rule because I would like to see Hainsey get another shot in MTL this year

BTW whats the rule about keeping a guy who you've picked up on waivers?

[Rooster]

Originally posted by PMAC

I believe that the NHLPA's thinking was that eventually teams will get desperate enough to call these guys up and their chances of getting picked up by another team is better since the acquiring team doesnt pay the full salary.... alas for AHL'ers it is having a freezing effect on call-ups

I for one hate the rule because I would like to see Hainsey get another shot in MTL this year

BTW whats the rule about keeping a guy who you've picked up on waivers?

I remember having had a long argument on this point with Beckham way back when. I too do not see how the NHLPA asked or allowed (whatever it might be) this clause to be in the CBA. It essentially forces teams to make a year long call on applicable player at the end of training camp. Lots of NHL ready players are loosing out on mid season chances to prove their worth.

[Mont Royale]

Originally posted by PMAC

I believe that the NHLPA's thinking was that eventually teams will get desperate enough to call these guys up and their chances of getting picked up by another team is better since the acquiring team doesnt pay the full salary.... alas for AHL'ers it is having a freezing effect on call-ups

I for one hate the rule because I would like to see Hainsey get another shot in MTL this year

BTW whats the rule about keeping a guy who you've picked up on waivers?

If the player is on his way up, I would think the NHLPA would be indifferent about which team he plays for. Why would the PA want him on a different team, since he's going up to the NHL anyway? With this rule, the player just ends up staying in the minors, if the club feels they'll lose him. You're right - Hainsey may not see the NHL this year because of this rule (whether he would've made it up anyway is anybody's guess).

Good question about a guy who you picked up on waivers - no idea. Maybe if he's sent down, and comes back up, a team could get him for a quarter of the salary! (that seems highly unlikely, but you never know).

[Mont Royale]

Originally posted by simonus

mont royale, i generally agree. Here is the only thing i can come up with:

the league wanted the rule to make it more difficult for teams to be near the cap or carry too many waiver-suseptible players.

Even though the league is imposing a hard-cap, they would love for the average salary to be well below the cap (escrow will help at least a bit). If a team knows it will be difficult to shuffle a player through waivers, they will be hesitant to start playing games, overbuying and then moving people around.

In effect, this enourages teams to have more discipline during the free-agency period (when undisciplined owners can screw up the pricing scale for other owners).

Well, if I was an owner, my attitude toward the league would be: thanks for the cap, now let me manage it (and the league will do what most of the owners want). So, it still seems strange. But, your explanation has some logic... and is better than anything I've come up with so far (to date: nothing).

[RobRock]

That rule may change. The AHL players union does not like the recall waiver rule at all, and since most of the players affected by it are not NHLPA members and were not consulted on it, they feel it should be changed, and are apparently willing to fight it in court. They argue that because it affects players making more than $75,000 in the AHL, then players who are currently making more than that will never get recalled to the parent club for fear of another team claiming them. And in future, players AHL salaries will be under that $75,000 level to avoid the recall waiver rule, which would send a lot of AHL veterans overseas to Europe. Right now, all sides are in the discussion stage, but if it goes on too long, it could end up in front of an arbitrator or a judge.

[Mont Royale]

Originally posted by RobRock

That rule may change. The AHL players union does not like the recall waiver rule at all, and since most of the players affected by it are not NHLPA members and were not consulted on it, they feel it should be changed, and are apparently willing to fight it in court. They argue that because it affects players making more than $75,000 in the AHL, then players who are currently making more than that will never get recalled to the parent club for fear of another team claiming them. And in future, players AHL salaries will be under that $75,000 level to avoid the recall waiver rule, which would send a lot of AHL veterans overseas to Europe. Right now, all sides are in the discussion stage, but if it goes on too long, it could end up in front of an arbitrator or a judge.

Thanks, RobRock. I was wondering if the NHL/NHLPA would reconsider it anyway, since the rule doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. I hadn't considered it from the standpoint of the AHL union (and, I didn't know they had one).