|
Kevin: Not every GM sees a problem with how the Kucherov Rule works |
|
|
|
|
|
If you believed there would be fist-pounding-on-the-table anger at the annual NHL general managers meeting over the Kucherov rule, you were mistaken.
According to multiple news reports, GMs talked about the issue for 30 minutes. Some GMs probably did not like that the Tampa Bay Lightning were $18 million over the salary cap ceiling when they won the Cup last summer.
And the Vegas Golden Knights’ manipulation of the cap rules to bring aboard Jack Eichel may have irritated some.
But their concern did not rise to a level where they recommended change. It should be remembered that this is a Collective Bargaining Agreement issue that could only be altered with the Board of Governors and the NHL Players Association in agreement.
“Are there areas that need to be tightened up? Maybe,” Calgary Flames general manager Brad Treliving told Sportsnet.ca. "But the sentiment in the room wasn’t that it’s fundamentally broken.”
However, there was agreement that it should be discussed again at the summer meeting in Montreal.
TSN reported that Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly has already had some talks with the NHL Players Association about the issue.
According to TSN, Commissioner Gary Bettman doesn’t believe it is a significant problem. He believes it is a “perception” issue.
In other words, the LTIR rules haven’t caused many problems, but the issues it did cause are high-profile enough to draw everyone’s attention.
“We all get sometimes focused in on recency bias,” Sportsnet quoted Brad Treliving as saying. “The reality is we’ve had a cap for 17 years and if there has been a grey area of it, it’s been maybe once or twice.
“Now, is there validity to say that we get to the playoffs and we’ve got a cap of $81.5 million and fundamentally that means we should only be able to dress $81.5 million in the playoffs? Sure, that makes sense. I think you’ve gotta go back and study it. I think in areas where you’ve come back and said there’s been abuses of LTI, really, what have those been?
“And the league does a very good job; you can’t just put somebody on LTI and add to your cap without the league going through that with a fine-tooth comb. There’s been legitimate injuries. The way the system’s set up, you can do certain things. I don’t necessary look at it as abusive.
The Sportsnet story on this is worth reading: https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article/nhl-gms-not-eager-to-close-ltir-loophole-despite-perceived-abuses/
NHL officials have also said that the Golden Knights have been transparent with the league about all of their injuries. The league reviews medical reports, especially around the trade deadline when teams use LTIR to create space for more moves.
Whether you think this is a significant problem, or a perception issue, doesn't change the fundamental truth: it's a bad look for the league when teams look like they are beating the system for an advantage.
The salary cap system, in theory, is supposed to create an even playing field for opponents. But is it fair if one team in the Stanley Cup Final can spend $18 million more for talent than its opponent?
Even a casual fan knows an $18 million cap advantage is like having two extra star players and an above-average contributor.
You can argue that both teams have the ability to do that. But should winning ever come down to finding ways to stretch the rules?
It doesn't seem too much to ask for teams to abide by the salary cap in the postseason. In other words, you can bring back an injured player in the postseason but he has to fit under the cap.
In other words, the Lightning could not have brought back Kucherov until they carved out room for him through other players going on IR or moving players off the roster. The Golden Knights could not bring back Mark Stone in the playoffs without having cap space for him. As it stands now, Stone will be back for the playoffs and the Golden Knights don't have to do anything to their roster.
If the salary cap had to be adhered to in the postseason, like the regular-season, the Golden Knights would have had to have a plan for this before the trade deadline.
It's not an unreasonable demand in a salary cap league.
But let's not be naive. Changing the rule won't be easy. You can't just wave a magic wand. The NHLPA has a say. Historically, when owners want a change, players will ask for something in return. That works the other way as well. That's how the system plays out in the world of negotiations.
Whatever it cost, it would probably be worth it because there are a considerable number of fans who perceive that some teams are getting an advantage by beating the system. And sometimes perception matters as much as realty.
Join the Discussion:
»