Forums/Toronto Maple Leafs

New cap is set

4 jui à 14 h 48
#26
Rejoint: jun 2019
Messages: 3,591
Mentions "j'aime": 2,256
Quoting: leaflet
Kudos for the optimism. But if confirmed, this is bad news for Leafs management.

The generous contracts Leafs gave made sense if anticipating a steep cap increase and inflation in salaries. Now, teams that signed their young stars on bridge deals instead, as I always said Dubas should have done, will have the upper hand in contract negotiations. Bad economy, COVID, stagnant cap, most GMs stuck with no room to overbid: not a good context for agents to ask extravagant salaries.


The only reason those teams will have the upper hand is because of COVID and no one could have predicted that at the time of the signings. Would we have gotten them cheaper if we bridged them, yes but if this didn't happen it would have cost us more as they're growing and getting better. Dubas made the right decision.
Trickster, oneX et tomato43 a aimé ceci.
4 jui à 14 h 52
#27
Rejoint: jun 2019
Messages: 3,591
Mentions "j'aime": 2,256
Quoting: Trickster
The NHL cant keep give 1 year projections to teams as teams have to peject for the future and now at the same time.

This is safe bet by the league, how it goes... let's see.


Exactly and if the league somehow makes more money than they're anticipating over the next 3 years and things go back to normal they can inflate the cap more substantially after that.
Trickster et oneX a aimé ceci.
4 jui à 14 h 54
#28
LongtimeLeafsufferer
Rejoint: jui 2015
Messages: 32,938
Mentions "j'aime": 8,641
Quoting: Sign_em_up000000
Good points, but what if the league handed out CBO's and teams that chose not to use them could instead increase their spending/cap ceiling by a certain %. Just a thought that I realize the league wouldn't do but it would be a lot cooler if they did lol.


You're getting in what the "the League" wants. The league is just an administrator of the rules set out by different parties. First the majority of owners would have to agree to CBOs as it their money not the league . The league has no money as such. It's a non profit entity. CBOs in effect raise the amount of $$$$ the players get instead of the current negotiated 50%. I don't think the players would object to CBOs but the majority of owners might.
Sign_em_up000000, Trickster et oneX a aimé ceci.
4 jui à 15 h 04
#29
Rejoint: jun 2019
Messages: 3,591
Mentions "j'aime": 2,256
Quoting: palhal
You're getting in what the "the League" wants. The league is just an administrator of the rules set out by different parties. First the majority of owners would have to agree to CBOs as it their money not the league . The league has no money as such. It's a non profit entity. CBOs in effect raise the amount of $$$$ the players get instead of the current negotiated 50%. I don't think the players would object to CBOs but the majority of owners might.


I get it I was just throwing out an idea that would be based on the premise the league hands out CBO's not stating they will but if they did and teams didn't want to or didn't need to use them it could help create a balance for teams like Toronto who could then spend more. Also, did you pick up on the Dazed and confused reference? Lol
Trickster et oneX a aimé ceci.
4 jui à 16 h 49
#30
Rejoint: mar 2019
Messages: 1,847
Mentions "j'aime": 1,872
Quoting: Sign_em_up000000
I get it I was just throwing out an idea that would be based on the premise the league hands out CBO's not stating they will but if they did and teams didn't want to or didn't need to use them it could help create a balance for teams like Toronto who could then spend more. Also, did you pick up on the Dazed and confused reference? Lol


Essentially, you are asking for a luxury tax system here. I don't mind that but it will make the league full of haves and have nots.

I feel that CBOs are a wet dream in the players' favor and don't do anything for the owners. Players would have to give something up to get CBOs. I'm not sure that would be worth it for the players.
4 jui à 17 h 50
#31
Rejoint: jun 2019
Messages: 3,591
Mentions "j'aime": 2,256
Quoting: oneX
Essentially, you are asking for a luxury tax system here. I don't mind that but it will make the league full of haves and have nots.

I feel that CBOs are a wet dream in the players' favor and don't do anything for the owners. Players would have to give something up to get CBOs. I'm not sure that would be worth it for the players.


Personally, I like the luxury tax system over a cap but my comment was in reference to someone else who was talking about CBO's. It doesn't matter to me if the league gives them out, it was just a thought I had if they do for teams who don't need them but even a team like Arizona it wouldn't make a difference too. You're right if a team got to spend more and won the cup it would be a media hay day about how team x won because they were able to spend more. I think CBO's benefit both sides but you're right the players benefit 100% whereas only some owners benefit from them. It was a bad idea this is why I like bouncing ideas off of you and @Trickster you're always straight forward with me! I appreciate the feedback buddy.
Trickster, oneX et tomato43 a aimé ceci.
4 jui à 20 h 58
#32
Rejoint: mai 2017
Messages: 863
Mentions "j'aime": 216
Quoting: Sign_em_up000000
The only reason those teams will have the upper hand is because of COVID and no one could have predicted that at the time of the signings. Would we have gotten them cheaper if we bridged them, yes but if this didn't happen it would have cost us more as they're growing and getting better. Dubas made the right decision.


I disagree on this, i.e. the idea that with a bridge deal, we would have had to pay even more (without COVID).

The Marner contract was 13.5% of the cap, which is way above most wingers, historically and now. Even in a normal world (no COVID), assuming he got a bridge deal and with a normal cap increase, the next contract would have been 11M at most, in any case. (With COVID, it would probably have been difficult for the player to get above 9M.) Saving 2 or 3M on the cap during the bridge contract gives room to build a more competitive team.

I know, who am I to argue anyway. I'm not saying I would have done better than Dubas myself - I wouldn't want to be in his shoes. Yet, I don't think it helps anyone to say "this was a good contract negotiation" if it wasn't the case.
4 jui à 21 h 12
#33
Rejoint: mai 2017
Messages: 863
Mentions "j'aime": 216
I should qualify my previous statement, to avoid sounding like I'm critical of the player, his skills, or anything. If there were no cap system, I would be 100% supportive of the player. There's a difference between actual value, and what's a fair salary under that rigid cap system.

That's why the league, GMs and NHLPA should perhaps impose that all contract negotiations be discussed in percentage of the cap, so that everyone realizes it's a zero-sum game.
5 jui à 18 h 18
#34
Rejoint: fév 2019
Messages: 1,123
Mentions "j'aime": 246
They're fine. It just eliminates the ability to get a meaningful RHD without subtracting from the roster.
 
Répondre
To create a post please Login or S'inscrire
Question:
Options:
Ajouter une option
Supprimer une option
Soumettre le sondage