Well I would want signing bonus to count against the cap, and as presently no other bonus' allowed on a contract. Even the ELC should be a flat rate. And I would want the cap around 60 mil.
- Bieksa#3

I still believe that the soft cap and the heavy luxury tax is the best option, like i said the rest could be ironed out from there.

I still believe that the soft cap and the heavy luxury tax is the best option, like i said the rest could be ironed out from there.
- ShootingSemin

Agreed. I'll talk to the player reps and FAX something over to you Mr Bettman

I still believe that the soft cap and the heavy luxury tax is the best option, like i said the rest could be ironed out from there.
- ShootingSemin

One franchise player rule, pay him anything and it's off the cap. The cap drops to 60 mil floor to 40 mil. Contracts have a max of 8 years, salary 10 mil, no circumventing contracts gotta pay them straight no performance bonuses unless they are rookies. Rookie bonuses aren't on the cap, only their 800k salary.

Agreed. I'll talk to the player reps and FAX something over to you Mr Bettman
- Bieksa#3

First we have to work out the ufa status and ELC's.

One franchise player rule, pay him anything and it's off the cap. The cap drops to 60 mil floor to 40 mil. Contracts have a max of 8 years, salary 10 mil, no circumventing contracts gotta pay them straight no performance bonuses unless they are rookies. Rookie bonuses aren't on the cap, only their 800k salary.
- AdamFrench

Don't like that at all.

One franchise player rule, pay him anything and it's off the cap. The cap drops to 60 mil floor to 40 mil. Contracts have a max of 8 years, salary 10 mil, no circumventing contracts gotta pay them straight no performance bonuses unless they are rookies. Rookie bonuses aren't on the cap, only their 800k salary.
- AdamFrench

Like the franchise rule as well, only it would need to be for two players and not just one IMO.

First we have to work out the ufa status and ELC's.
- ShootingSemin

I got over excited

Don't like that at all.
- Bieksa#3

Unless you're willing to kill a bunch of franchises it's one of the few options. The league will never kill any of them.

Don't like that at all.
- Bieksa#3

Yeah choosing between one Sedin or the Pens between Malkin and Crosby would suck.

I got over excited
- Bieksa#3

Yeah me too when trying to work out the ELC's and UFA status thing, but i believe the soft cap and heavy luxury tax could work for both sides and all teams.

Raise the years then? Say 20 % over the cap then. Big market teams want to spend lots while crying poor, the UFA thing can be worked out better no doubt, i do however think the rest would work for all.
- ShootingSemin

Going over by 20% is way too much. If teams could go over by 20% with the cap at 70 million, teams could go as high as 84 million dollars. The distance between 84 million dollars and what teams like the Coyotes can spend is far too great.

Like the franchise rule as well, only it would need to be for two players and not just one IMO.
- ShootingSemin

I hate it. Basically your assuring the 5 best players stay in the 5 best markets or 10 best players in the 5 best markets. If you want at least a chance for the game to grow you have to allow them to keep their 1st overall picks for a crowd draw.

Like the franchise rule as well, only it would need to be for two players and not just one IMO.
- ShootingSemin

I guess that makes sense. Might need two since hockey is getting so skilled teams often have two top-end guys. I think if you limit the flexibility of contracts we won't see moronic moves like Gomez/Drury and such. People would actually think out their moves. They'd have a reason not to just hand the check to an agent sign for 18 years and plan on retiring in 8 after you got 90% of the contract money. It also brings more parody to the league while helping the big spending clubs giving them a chance to spend a lot of cash.

Going over by 20% is way too much. If teams could go over by 20% with the cap at 70 million, teams could go as high as 84 million dollars. The distance between 84 million dollars and what teams like the Coyotes can spend is far too great.
- Two_For_Truth

Very well, 10 % it is.

One franchise player rule, pay him anything and it's off the cap. The cap drops to 60 mil floor to 40 mil. Contracts have a max of 8 years, salary 10 mil, no circumventing contracts gotta pay them straight no performance bonuses unless they are rookies. Rookie bonuses aren't on the cap, only their 800k salary.
- AdamFrench

Would the cap be locked in because if it is, the players won't go for it. If it isn't, it'll continue to rise due to the big market clubs while the small markets bleed money trying to reach the floor.

Unless you're willing to kill a bunch of franchises it's one of the few options. The league will never kill any of them.
- AdamFrench

That franchise rule is horrible.

Yeah choosing between one Sedin or the Pens between Malkin and Crosby would suck.
- ShootingSemin

I hate a franchise rule

Would the cap be locked in because if it is, the players won't go for it. If it isn't, it'll continue to rise due to the big market clubs while the small markets bleed money trying to reach the floor.
- Two_For_Truth

The Isles need to move or get their poop together, They're at the floor only because they're paying Yashin 5+ mil and Dipi 4.5 to sit his ass in the infirmary. It's a joke. At least other teams bleeding money ice competitive teams.

That franchise rule is horrible.
- Bieksa#3

Why? Every team has one already. Just formalize it.

I guess that makes sense. Might need two since hockey is getting so skilled teams often have two top-end guys. I think if you limit the flexibility of contracts we won't see moronic moves like Gomez/Drury and such. People would actually think out their moves. They'd have a reason not to just hand the check to an agent sign for 18 years and plan on retiring in 8 after you got 90% of the contract money. It also brings more parody to the league while helping the big spending clubs giving them a chance to spend a lot of cash.
- AdamFrench

Well it would come down between losing a franchise D or a forward or even a goalie, if you could keep two as franchise stars then if a player like say MacKinnon gets drafted, when his ELC is up they could throw the bank at him for long term if the team wanted. And still keep their remaining established star as well.

The further they go over the more it benifits the teams requiring help from the revenue sharing. Small market teams will have a hard time competing with big ones, but it is no different in the NBA and MLB.
- Bieksa#3

Which is exactly why it's stupid.

- pker2theend

Why? Every team has one already. Just formalize it.
- AdamFrench

Some have two, which is why i would like it to be for two players instead of one.

The Isles need to move or get their poop together, They're at the floor only because they're paying Yashin 5+ mil and Dipi 4.5 to sit his ass in the infirmary. It's a joke. At least other teams bleeding money ice competitive teams.
- AdamFrench

The Islanders have a tremendous history. Losing a team like that would be a crime. What they need is a new place to play.

Point is though, as long as the cap is tied to the revenue, the top teams are going to continue to drive the cap floor to a level that at least 10 teams can't afford.

Some have two, which is why i would like it to be for two players instead of one.
- ShootingSemin

Yes but they have it. Crosby and Malkin get 8. whatever. Franchise contract. OV and Backstrom get their money, Parise, Suter and Koivu get their dough. It just isn't formalized. Every team even the bloody Isles and Yotes have franchise kind of deals. Yandle and Tavares get paid higher than their compatriots.