The NHL gave it a shot, but it ain’t working. It’s time they ditch the hard salary cap. Now, I’m not advocating ditching the salary cap all together. In fact, I think it has been a benefit for the league but it’s time the NHL model itself after the NBA and its soft cap.
For a brief summary of how the NHL’s hard cap work, here goes: teams are allowed to spend up to the upper limit set by the league each year and must be compliant by the time the new season begins. While the league allows for a cushion over the summer that allows a team to be over the limit, once the season starts they must be compliant. There are rules for carryover bonuses and the such, but quite simply, you can’t spend more than the cap limit. The cap is $69 million? You spend no more than $69 million.
What this has done is paint teams into a corner regarding personnel decisions. Teams that have built a winning roster through drafting, trades, and free agency are often forced to jettison quality players in order to remain compliant and re-sign existing players. Two perfect examples of this occurred a week before the season began when the Chicago Blackhawks and Boston Bruins were salary cap handcuffed and traded Nick Leddy and Johnny Boychuk, respectively, to the New York Islanders for draft picks and prospects that had no shot of making the roster this season. It was great news for the Islanders; not so much for the Blackhawks and Bruins who received a small return on players they had drafted, developed, and won with, and all because they have been successful in building a winning organization.
More from NHL News
- Should the NHL make referees give postgame interviews?
- Why Carolina Hurricanes fans should be excited for the 2023-24 season
- Why any NHL team would be lucky to add Phil Kessel to their roster
- The New Original Six Teams of the PWHL has been revealed
- The Top 5 Centers in the NHL Today Might Not Be Who You Think
So while the league and many fans may scream “parity is great for the game,” (and it is), why should the league essentially punish teams for being successful? The league has transformed into one where a team must “designate” a small handful of core players to build around and the rest of the team becomes nothing more than a revolving door of new faces. Yes, it puts a premium on drafting and developing well, but should the Blackhawks have been hurt because it developed several superstar players like Patrick Kane and Jonathan Toews whose contracts were set to expire? The hard cap has done exactly that. If the goal is to win, why punish those who obtain that goal?
That’s why it’s time for the NHL to transition over to a soft cap (i.e., the NBA’s model.) What is a soft cap? There is still a limit to how much a team can spend. However, teams are allowed to exceed this limit to re-sign its owns players and are provided with several different kinds of “exemptions” that allows them to sign other free agents while over the salary cap (veteran’s exemption, mid-level exemption, etc.). There are luxury tax penalties that are incurred when a certain threshold is exceeded which increase in subsequent years for “repeat offenders.” But the basic premise is that it allows teams to retain their own players even if they are over the salary cap.
(Interestingly enough the NHL did adopt one NBA-type rule from its last lockout which allows for a player’s current club to offer more guaranteed years on a contract than a new club, so don’t think for a second the league’s don’t watch each other and copy if something makes sense.)
I’m trying to think of a reason why this is a bad idea but I just can’t. Yes, it will allow some bigger market clubs (Toronto Maple Leafs, New York Rangers, etc.) to wield their financial strength a bit more. However it would only do so for its own players so if they were to exceed the soft cap they would all but eliminate their chances of dipping into free agency and signing the top talent. Plus if they want to exceed the upper limit and pay a luxury tax, that luxury tax money will be re-distributed to the lower revenue teams in the league. It’s a significant reason why a NBA franchise like the Milwaukee Bucks can be sold for $550 million, a franchise among the league’s worst, and no one bat an eyelash (and of course everyone knows about the Los Angeles Clippers’ sale for $2 billion. That’s BILLION, with a “B.”) More free money for less-successful franchises. More opportunity for teams to build and maintain a successful roster. Everyone gets something.
Going back to the Bruins, do you think they would feel a lot better about their defense if they had a solid veteran like Boychuk to lean on during this time with Zdeno Chara and Torey Krug shelved? Would they have retained Jarome Iginla this past summer and take another run at a Stanley Cup with a roster that has already won a title and been to another Finals’ appearance?
A transition from hard cap to soft cap would also allow for a chance for true dynasty’s to be built. It’s been 17 years since the last back-to-back champions. Who doesn’t want to see that or have the chance to bond with 28 other franchises and root against one common enemy (call it the “Yankee’ effect)?
Now that spending has been curbed and owners have enough protections in place to protect them from themselves, it’s time to move forward and put a system in place that will allow for teams to not only build, but hopefully maitain a dynasty-type roster.