Suggestion: Temporary Trade Deadline Cap Increase?

[Jay Seo]

Hey guys,

Sorry for putting this in the main lounge - I tried to create a new thread in the suggestions forum but wasn't able to do so.

I'd like to propose temporarily increasing the VHL's salary cap by 10% prior to the deadline to facilitate more trades and activity around the league. Even if this isn't implemented this season, I think it'd be a good idea for future years, so I'd like to hear your input.

In the NHL, contracts are pro-rated based on the amount remaining in a player's yearly salary; that enables teams like Pittsburgh, for example, to acquire a $7M player like Jarome Iginla at the deadline with only $2M in available cap space.

Our simulator doesn't work that way - since it can't pro-rate contracts, a team with $2M in cap space can only acquire up to $2M worth of salary before going over the cap.

This is a big problem because it restricts the types of trades teams can make in our league, especially in ours where everyone can spend to the cap. It's not theory either - as of right now, the 16 VHL teams that are currently in playoff positions have an average of 2.33M of available cap space, barely enough room to add a 3rd liner. Right now, contending teams can't trade for a big-name rental because they can't afford to add the salary or trade away a high-priced player to make room. Likewise, sellers might not make trades they otherwise would because they have to eat contracts they're not interested in or retain significant amounts of salary.

What I'm suggesting to combat this problem is to temporarily raise the VHL's salary cap by 10% two weeks before the trade deadline to allow for more realistic activity between buyers and sellers in our league. For instance, since this season's cap is 64.3M, increasing the cap by 6.4M would potentially allow buyers near the cap to add a $7M UFA for a playoff run. For sellers, this increase would result in a lot more UFA for pick/prospect trades, since they wouldn't have to match salaries to even out cap space. And since there would still be a cap floor, sellers would still have to choose which players to trade away.

This would only apply two weeks before the deadline - any time before that, the original cap would apply so that teams can't sign free agents anticipating the increase in cap space.

I think making this change would really give teams more flexibility in making trades, correct a flaw in the simulator, and allow teams to buy and sell properly. I can't think of any major downsides.

What do you think? I'd like to hear your thoughts.

[Nashville Predators]

I personally really like this idea. Would love to see it implemented if the sim allows it

[Deleted]

I actually like this idea too.

We can already hold 50% of salary all year, and I think that used to compensate for not having pro-rated salaries. But now, NHL teams can make a deal at the deadline holding 50%, AND it's pro-rated to about 20% of the season.

Increasing the cap by 10% pre-deadline is a simple and effective to replicate that type of trade deadline activity.

I would be happy if we implement this.

[Bryan Hull]

i don't believe this is a good idea. i understand where boston is coming from but teams know there caps before the season starts and have to work around that. if this idea passes pretty soon a cap won't mean a thing. on top of that i really think it makes alot of unnessecary work for the staff. just my two cents is all if your team dosen't have enough with the cap staying the same there is always next year, just like the leafs

[Deleted]

It's not really a scapegoat for cap mismanagement though. In fact it would benefit teams more to plan further ahead, and have cap space in mind for deadline acquisitions.

[Jay Seo]

Mar 14, 2014 12:59:57 GMT -5 @brad said:

It's not really a scapegoat for cap mismanagement though. In fact it would benefit teams more to plan further ahead, and have cap space in mind for deadline acquisitions.

Yup, this wouldn't help teams who mismanage their cap, since you'd have to stay under the original cap for the majority of the season.

Right now, teams who want to add a big-ticket UFA have to choose between one of three possible solutions:

1. Intentionally stay significantly under the cap in order to make room.
Flaw: That team is at a disadvantage for most of the season, since most other teams are spending to the cap. Why do this when you could sign a free agent instead of giving up assets to another team at the deadline?

2. Trade a high-priced player on their team to make room.
Flaw: If a team is a contender, most of their own high-priced players are likely to be productive and valuable, making it unlikely that the team would be willing to trade them in order to make room for a pending UFA.

3. Have the selling team retain salary in order to make room for the buying team.
Flaw: The selling team has no real incentive to do this, and many buying teams can't take on a big-contract UFA even with maximum salary being retained. Likewise, many sellers don't have the cap room to keep lots of salary in a trade like this either.

The temporary cap increase fixes all of these problems and doesn't benefit teams that mismanage their cap because it doesn't take effect until late in the season.

[Corey Scott]

This is definitely a good idea. Something that could be looked into for future seasons (or this season if the staff really like it and were to decide quick). It would open up the trade deadline more then it currently is for sure.

[Toronto Maple Leafs]

I think it's a great idea, I'm in favor. Not sure if I'm a buyer or a seller at this point, but it's good news either way regardless of what side of that fence you are on.

[San Jose Sharks]

SJ agree

[Andre Deblois]

I have posted Boston's suggestion in the staff forum for discussion among the staff.

At first blush, I am impressed with the simplicity and effectiveness of the idea, it artificially creates a greater trade market without opening up opportunities to circumvent the cap. I do anticipate that their maybe some issues as to how to actually implement it, but we will discuss it nonetheless.

I will look into why it did not work on the suggestion board, and, as always, we certainly welcome any suggestions such as this one to try to improve the league.