Salary Cap Projections Update For Next Season Image [https://thehockeynews.com/.image/c_fit,h_600,w_600/MTk0NTExNjAyMDM1MjA1NTA3/usatsi_19576541.jpg] The Los Angeles Kings locked up an important player in winger Trevor Moore this week, signing the 27-year-old [https://thehockeynews.com/news/kings-sign-trevor-moore-to-five-year-deal] winger to a five-year, $21-million contract extension that begins next season and carries a $4.2-million average annual salary cap hit. Moore is the latest in a lengthy line of former Toronto forwards who’ve enjoyed success since leaving the Maple Leafs one way or another; other examples include Oilers winger Zach Hyman, Flames center Nazem Kadri and currently-injured Washington forward Connor Brown. Similarly, the Ottawa Senators may have to surrender some of their young talent when star forward Tim Stutzle’s extension kicks in, and defenseman Jake Sanderson needs a contract extension, let alone Alex DeBrincat's contract expiring this season. The Sens will likely have no choice but to bid farewell to a small group of talents they otherwise would keep around. That brings up an intriguing question: what if the NHL’s collective bargaining agreement allowed teams that draft and/or develop quality players to go above the upper cap limit to keep those players in their organization? It’s something we’ve touched on before, and we’re not expecting it to happen anytime soon, but it’s still good food for thought. The best example of how this labor deal amendment could work is the NBA, which long ago implemented exactly this type of move: Under the guise of what’s often referred to as Larry Bird Rights, the NBA allows teams to go over the cap to retain players who have been with them either from the start of their career or for players who’ve spent three years or more with the same franchise. Bird Rights reward teams that do a great job of identifying and grooming young talent, and that’s something hockey should be doing as well. However, the NHL’s “triple hard cap” arrangement permits no such flexibility. We were a proponent for a cap when it was first implemented – you never want a situation where teams outspend everyone else simply because their owner can – but this notion of full parity isn’t something we endorse, because it’s not the reality and really isn’t possible. As we’ve argued before, in a league that demands every team have the same maximum payroll, states that have extremely low (or are completely without) personal income tax laws will always have an advantage over teams that, by no fault of their own, operate in high-tax provinces and states. Similarly, teams that are fortunate enough to be situated in warm-weather cities will always have an advantage over deep-freeze environments. Both those advantages are unfair, and the weather advantage in particular cannot be legislated against to even things out for every team. So, if we’ve established that the NHL’s current CBA already doesn’t achieve full parity, why is it so wrong to ask that the league allow ownership groups to hold an advantage for being successful at identifying talent? That seems fairer than what the NHL permits now. And remember, it needn’t be big-market teams that would be capable of doing this; for instance, the Carolina Hurricanes have a highly-motivated owner in Tom Dundon whom we suspect would have no problem spending over the cap ceiling to keep the Canes’ young talents within the organization. Even with a Bird Rights CBA amendment to the NHL, solid draft/development teams like the Leafs would still find themselves bidding farewell to at least a few talents. There simply aren’t enough opportunities for players in any given lineup, and at some point, you have to make hard choices. But if the name of the game is being good at hockey, and your team does a better job of figuring out who is good at hockey, it doesn’t seem entirely right that such a team is forced to continuously give up some of those players to teams that stink at identifying good hockey players. The redistribution of talent is inherent in a cap system, but a cap system doesn’t necessarily have to completely prevent teams from investing in their own smart decisions. The NBA doesn’t do that; they have a luxury tax element to their CBA. The MLB doesn’t do that; they also have a luxury tax and their franchise values are never damaged by it. The NFL allows teams to play with their cap space from year-to-year, which manifests into a situation in which they can carry forward unused cap space in seasons to come. Parity can be done much differently than the NHL does it. Indeed, the NHL’s CBA is the harshest system of the big four sports leagues. And it doesn’t have to be this way. The NHL’s franchise values would still rise if they employed a luxury tax. But if this imperfect parity continues, asset-productive teams will be punished for their progress, and low-income-tax and warm-weather franchises will be allowed to continue holding an unfair advantage. That ought to change.
