How the NHL's Trade Deadline Could Look If Its Salary Cap Were More Like the NBA's

The NBA’s 2024 trade deadline is happening on Thursday of this week. As is the case with the NHL, many teams are rumored to be active on or before deadline day, making for what’s expected to be a slew of trades – but it's different.

One of the reasons the NBA does have such a robust trade market is because it is regulated by a labor deal that includes a soft salary cap ceiling. It’s a bit convoluted for non-financial wizards, but in essence, the NBA’s salary cap upper limit of $136 million can be exceeded to a certain degree if the teams decide to spend above and beyond the soft ceiling. The NBA’s system also rewards teams that draft and develop their own players, with a rule referred to as the “Larry Bird Rule” that allows teams to exceed the cap in order to re-sign their own players.

As a result, you see numerous marquee-type trades take place in the NBA. It’s true that, since Oct. 31, the NBA has had only eight trades and the NHL has 15 in that span. But most of those NHL trades were not of the blockbuster variety. That’s not true of the NBA, where notable stars, such as Kyle Lowry, OG Anunoby, Pascal Siakam and James Harden, all have been moved in recent months. The potential for more huge trades by Thursday fuels attention toward the NBA product, and that can only be a good thing in the battle for people’s entertainment dollars.

If you gave NHL teams a similar type of cap flexibility, you’d definitely see more teams make big trades for established players or have a better chance of keeping their top players on expiring contracts. 

Here’s how it could work in the NHL: Let’s say the league allowed teams to go over and past the current salary cap upper limit of $83.5 million by about 10 percent – giving all teams the option (and the operative word here is “option”) as long as they pay extra fees to do so, like the NBA's luxury tax. That allows teams to pay a tax to spend another $8.3 million before factoring in LTIR space. Suddenly, you’d be giving a lifeline to clubs currently right up against the hard cap limit and bring in either a few role players or one elite player as teams set themselves up for the post-season.

This is not to suggest that all franchises should be forced to pay that extra money, but if you have motivated ownership and an enthusiastic fan base, what is the harm in allowing teams to add one or two more above-average players with that 10 percent additional cap space?

Or let’s go back and add the wrinkle allowing teams to exceed the cap but only to re-sign the players they’ve drafted and developed. Suddenly, teams that identified and grew talent would be rewarded for it. 

As it stands, the NHL’s cap forces teams to part ways with younger players once the team gets past a particular cap threshold, and it makes for a more beige league. It cuts down the potential for great teams in favor of the potential for the best mediocre or slightly above-average teams. The NBA is a hugely profitable and successful operation with a soft cap, and we’ve yet to hear a convincing reason why the NHL absolutely cannot move to a similar soft cap system.

Under a soft-cap NHL, the Toronto Maple Leafs would be able to add Flames defenseman Chris Tanev with more ease. The Edmonton Oilers, Vancouver Canucks, Colorado Avalanche or other contenders would have enough space to pursue Penguins star winger Jake Guentzel. 

Teams nearing the end of their competitive cycles, such as the Penguins and Tampa Bay Lightning, could even hang onto their pending free agents and go even more all-in. The Boston Bruins would have a much easier time acquiring the No. 1 center they've looked for since Patrice Bergeron retired. The Minnesota Wild would have the option to spend more and remain competitive while they stick it through the next two seasons with more than $14.7 million in buyout penalties – they have 10 players signed through at least the next two years after this one, anyway.

None of these moves would guarantee any club a Stanley Cup, but the excitement at the prospect of such acquisitions would add to the drama and the overall entertainment of hockey fans – you know, the business the NHL is in.

We’re not going to be disingenuous and tell you a soft cap wouldn’t be a significant pressure on teams to push up to whatever the cap limit becomes. The optics and public relations wouldn’t be in a team’s favor if it chose not to spend to a luxury cap upper limit. But some teams might be able to win on a budget payroll – and if a team does its homework and spends that extra cap space on the right players, they can more than make it back by going on a deep (read: lucrative) playoff run. Poorly managed teams will continue to be poorly managed, but if a team can take advantage of a little more cap flexibility to propel them to elite status, that’s not in our mind anything close to cap circumvention.

Rather, a soft cap system would be a recognition of the spirit of competitiveness. The NBA is an excellent example to follow, and the next time the NHL has to renew its collective bargaining agreement with the NHL Players’ Association, the prospect of a soft cap system should be on the negotiating table. It’s not a perfect system, but it would make the trade deadline even more of a must-watch.