Skip to content

Report: NHLPA proposal would allow teams to “trade cap space”

Aug 14, 2012, 10:08 PM EDT

To many, the NHLPA’s CBA counter-proposal represents a breath of fresh air – even if the details were initially vague.

More details are emerging with time, yet John Shannon’s latest nugget ranks as one of the most intriguing bits.

Interesting, huh?

Shannon didn’t expand much more regarding exactly how this would work – especially within the framework of a luxury tax – but there was a time when NHL teams could exchange cash in deals.

This idea and a possible “luxury tax” would make for more complicated imaginary trades on message boards and Twitter, too.

(Is that a good thing?)


Craig Adams is pleased with the NHLPA’s proposal

Gary Bettman can tell the players did their homework

Donald Fehr: “We want to make a deal”

More CBA specifics

  1. bcisleman - Aug 14, 2012 at 10:17 PM

    Garth Snow, for one, has always felt that cap space is a commodity and has a value to be considered in any trade.

  2. ucaneverscorenoughgoals - Aug 14, 2012 at 10:20 PM

    On first glance I’m not a fan of this idea.

    The only teams that regularly need cap space are a handful of wealthy teams who regularly sign players to inflated deals because those franchises throw money around in ways that the smaller franchises can not.

    I don’t want to give teams an out for signing players to stupid deals that should have never been negotiated in the first place.

    • missthemexpos - Aug 14, 2012 at 11:22 PM

      Teams have an out at present for signing players to stupid deals, it is known as riding the buses. A good example is Wade Redden, signed by the Rangers for 39 million over six years and currently playing fro the Hartford Wolf Pack of the AHL.

      • ucaneverscorenoughgoals - Aug 15, 2012 at 12:20 AM

        Most players who sign these deals have a no movement and or no trade clause built in. Redden is an anomaly not the norm. You bring up a good point though. A teams ability to shove a player into their minor league affiliate is an issue that still needs to be resolved.

        The idea of teams being able to trade for cap space will ultimately be abused by the top 5 to 10 revenue teams in the league regularly and then parity becomes even tougher to come by.

        I am a salary cap fan without question. I want to force the rich teams to have to operate under the same structure as the poorer teams. If teams can trade cap space it’s no longer an even playing field

  3. esracerx46 - Aug 15, 2012 at 12:21 AM

    So were going to use the wisdom of Garth Snow as a framework for a new cba? These negotiations are screwed…. just not sure for who if were using his ideas.

  4. rushledger - Aug 15, 2012 at 2:14 AM

    Actually bud their the Connecticut Whale now.

  5. greatminnesotasportsmind - Aug 15, 2012 at 2:32 AM

    This idea is straight up ridiculous.

    So now the lower end/cheap teams like the Islanders, Jets, etc. can sell their way to the cap minimum? I can’t wait for Calgary (example) is out of the playoff race at the deadline. Now not only do they trade their UFA’s but now trade or sell cap space? So now Detroit won’t have to give up talent to trade for whatever defenseman they need at the deadline, but now can buy the Calgary left over cap space and not pay a luxery tax? Detroit could have a 98 million dollar payroll, while Calgary is fielding a 27 million dollar payroll?

    Ugh, welcome to the NBA, NHL.

    Might as well fold 25 teams because 5 teams would remain relevant.

    • chizmo - Aug 15, 2012 at 9:01 AM

      I get that the way you put it is ridiculous, but you seem to have missed the part that states “has very limited use”. Very limited use does not indicate that wealthier teams could simply buy all of another teams cap space. Do you think the NHL wants to pass a cba that will cripple most of the league? I don’t. It also doesn’t seem likely that a team would completely sell off all assets after missing playoffs for one season.

      Not sure what the point is to laying out a crazy/impossible trade scenario to prove this isn’t a good idea…

      • tmoore4075 - Aug 15, 2012 at 10:09 AM

        That’s what the interent is about. A place to freak out. Saw it when the NHL put forth their 46% offer and saw it when the luxury tax was put out there. Forget the fact that in the same paragraph, or sentence even, it said the cap was still in place people still freaked out.

        In saying all that it won’t happen unless you can penalize teams and they lose that much off the cap the following season.

  6. comeonnowguys - Aug 15, 2012 at 9:35 AM

    I like that they are trying to come up with new ideas… I’m just not sure I like this particular one.

    • isithockeyseasonyet - Aug 15, 2012 at 10:53 AM

      couldn’t agree more, it’s a great idea but in the effort of creating league wide balance, this would heavily sway the pendulum towards big market teams such as the rangers, flyers, red wings, etc…

      -Fan of a big market team

  7. comeonnowguys - Aug 15, 2012 at 11:36 AM

    Going back through this all again, is there a chance this was meant to be a poison pill that the owners were expected to refuse to swallow, either swinging, or pushing further, the PR edge to the players? If the rest of the offer is supposed to be as good as the reaction makes it to be, why include this as an unvetted minor feature?

    Who knows. At least we’re not saying, “You suck! “No, YOU suck.” it’s a start.

    • comeonnowguys - Aug 15, 2012 at 11:45 AM

      Withdrawn at this point. Obviously more stuff needs to come out.

  8. nyrangersnation - Aug 15, 2012 at 11:38 AM

    I don’t get how you trade cap space. So let’s the Flyers (who have like 3M in cap space from what I’ve read) want Bobby Ryan. The trade that would get the deal done would put them over the cap by about 1M let’s say. Does this mean that the Flyers could just give the Ducks 2M to put themselves 1M under the cap? If that’s the case I like it if it’s THAT limited. I would despise it if let’s say the Red Wings were 2M under the cap and wanted a guy like Gaborik who would put them over the cap by like 5M and they could just give the Rangers 6M to cover that cap space. But then what would happen to the Rangers with that 6M? You couldn’t put that on their payroll. I really don’t get how this would work.

    • mattj2524 - Aug 15, 2012 at 12:38 PM

      Other way around.

      i.e., your Gabby trade scenario: if DRW were 2 mil under and wanted Gabs (7.5 hit), the the DRW could “purchase” the additional 5.5 mil in space that they would need from the NYR in that deal, to allow them to buy Gabs, stay within the cap limitations, and NYR would be @ 5.5 mil less than the cap of all the other teams with their ceiling.

      Sounds pretty iffy – obviously we don’t have the specifics of how it would work, but what little we know doesn’t seem to be ideal for smaller market teams in either deadline deals, or in ever seeing big name UFAs ever hitting the market, as this would allow players to be bought without the restinctions of the necessary cap room.

      At this point, I’d have to be on the “opposed” side of this CBA wrinkle.

Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. P. Kessel (1771)
  2. P. Kane (1305)
  3. P. Datsyuk (1160)
  4. S. Matthias (1121)
  5. M. Giordano (1022)