Scrolling Marquee with text links

Friday, July 17, 2009

The 66% Rule

This is an expanded explanation and reasoning behind the imposed new rule.  I have changed it from what I said the rule should be before.

If I could make one change to the structure of the NHL salary cap, it would be the 66% rule.

The 66% rule is the following:

Any player that was drafted by the current team he plays for without having switched teams prior (example Glen Murray, he was drafted by Boston, left to Pittsburgh and Los Angeles, and then was later traded to Boston.  Under the rule, he would not be subject to the 66% rule) or has played in fewer than 2 full NHL seasons, or 100 NHL games will have only 2/3 or 66% of their cap hit count against a teams salary cap.  Players who are signed out of college and not drafted are subject to this rule as are as are European players who are not subject to entry level deals and have not played in the NHL for 2 full seasons or 100 NHL games.  Entry level deals are not subject to the 66% rule.  When a player under the 66% rule is traded, his full cap hit is used for the new team unless he is still subject to the rules above.

Examples:
Sidney Crosby, Pittsburgh Penguins, drafted 1st overall by Pittsburgh.  Cap hit: 8,700,00.  Since he was drafted by Pittsburgh and is subject to the 66% rule, his cap hit would be 5,800,000.

Jack Johnson, Los Angeles Kings, drafted 3rd overall by Carolina.  Cap Hit: 1,475,000.  He did not play for Carolina, and was traded to Los Angeles, so he is subject to the 66% rule and his cap hit would be 983,000.

Jeff Finger, Toronto Maple Leafs, drafted 240th overall by Colorado.  Cap hit, 3,500,000.  He played one full season in Colorado before signing with Toronto.  He is subject to the 66% rule and his cap hit would be 2,333,333.

The point of the rule is to put emphasis on retaining your own players, and stop teams from buying players.  It also does not punish and prevent teams for having and keeping their own talent.  It also allows for teams to acquire young talent that has not played a lot for a team and develop them and make them into a star player.  It would also allow players to make more money by staying with their team, sort of like the NBA structure.  It would not prevent players for making more money and it does not restrict their movement, as it is just an incentive for them to stay but teams would have a lot of cap space so they could still move teams.  

In essence, the point of the rule is to allow teams to retain their players while still having the flexibility to sign UFA's.





10 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

haha matt. your an idiot. give it a break. awful ideas. stupid posts like this hurt this site.

2:42 AM  
Anonymous BosBrn77 said...

The idea may not be perfect, but it is far from stupid. It has a decent concept, which would allow players to stay with one team and not offend the NHLPA by taking too low of a salary. Look at Bourque all those years.

What actually hurts this site is the lack of reasoning when replying to a post you do not agree with. Instead of calling names and using "stupid", why not give a reason why you disagree? Not to mention, at least Matt puts his name on his posts so he can be singled out when someone disagrees with him.

I like the concept, Matt. Would be nice seeing players stay with one team. The Sakics, Yzermans and the like are few and far between. Maybe not use the 66%, but something like basketball (Which I hate basketball!). If the player is already with the team, that team can offer the player more and go over the cap. And maybe pay a penalty at years end.

9:36 AM  
Blogger Mook said...

i like the ideas! they're not stupid...i'm sure there have been stupider ideas from the nhl/nhlpa:

glowing puck
fox broadcasts in general
eric lindros as ambassador
the phoenix coyotes
glenn healey
trying to "spice up" the skills competition

personally i dont think the system is broken. the main problem is the teams which don't make money suck the cap down and eat profit.

i would cut 4 teams and realign the divisions by one team each as follows:

Boston
Montreal
Toronto
Rangers

Islanders
Jersey
Pittsburgh
Philly

Ottawa
Carolina
Washington
Chicago

Detroit
Colorado
Columbus
Minnesota

San Jose
Anaheim
Los Angeles
Dallas

Vancouver
Edmonton
Calgary
St. Louis

I admit my US geography is really shit, but you get the idea. Shorten the season to 70 games so the playoffs really become a battle (and hopefully less players are injured with the 12 fewer agmes). hey, leagues in europe treat the regular season as a "formality". the action begins in the playoffs! i don't know about you guys, but if columbus plays detroit in december, it means shit but if it's in april...i'm watching.

10:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the 66% rule imposes a tyrany upon the players

the 66% rule makes it more difficult for players to obtain fair market value for their services and prevents them from playing where they want to play

it is similar to what Obama is doing with health care which is to eliminate personal freedoms and squash free market competition

regardless of what anyone from Montreal or Toronto says, the NHL is an American enterprise and as such should follow the model that led America to greatness: free markets

10:20 AM  
Anonymous psands said...

mook, i really like the idea of cutting four teams and making the season a little bit shorter, thats something i have wanted the nhl to do for a long time now.

and if they cant cut four, i think they should move atleast two more teams to canada(i am an American saying this) and move on team to Seattle (great sports city who just lost a nba team) and move a team to wisconsin. get out of nashville, out of phoniex one team out of florida and then one other team.

the nhl needs to accept that it will never be popular in the south in some of the markets. like miami for example, worst sports town ever, they cant even supports baseball there and thats what they do down there.

5:53 PM  
Anonymous psands said...

.......atlanta is the other team

5:54 PM  
Anonymous BosBrn77 said...

Mook and psands are on to something. Although I would keep Buffalo and either eliminate or relocate the teams in Atlanta, Tampa Bay, Florida, Phoenix, Dallas and seriously consider one or both teams in Southern California. Carolina is a border line one as well. I like the idea of Seattle and Wisconsin (Madison or Green Bay. Also, there has to be a team or two back in Canada. How about Indianapolis or Des Moines Iowa as well?

6:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

bosbrn77, dallas actually has some good loyal fans. the rest dont tho

7:04 PM  
Anonymous BosBrn77 said...

I agree about the fans in Dallas, and because of the Stars, they have added quite a few hockey teams in schools. I just have a hard time with hockey so far South.

Dallas just seems like a football town first, then basketball.

7:33 PM  
Blogger Jefe77 said...

I don't know what's funnier; how good the Bruins would be in 5 years with the 66% rule in place, or energy put into giving Matt a hard time for his posts. Give the guy a fuckin' break. He's at least trying to create some substance here.

5:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Free Website Counter