In the final moments before the 2024 trade deadline, the Vegas Golden Knights authored a bombshell acquisition in Tomas Hertl. This move only furthered the ongoing narrative surrounding teams using LTIR cap space to take advantage of the league’s salary cap rules. As players get paid for regular season games, there is no need to be cap compliant in the playoffs. For more than a decade this has been a contentious issue, but things have only become more heated as the Knights continue to use the CBA to their advantage.
Though other fans from across the league are sour about the perceived circumvention, as though legitimate Mark Stone’s injury history has been convenient for the Knights. Some fans direct the negative energy towards their own teams, frustrated with their team’s inability or unwillingness to be as bold and provocative as the Knights. Alongside there have been many theories of ways to close this loophole. Let’s take a brief look at some of these ideas.
Conditions to the salary cap
To understand the issue we must first go over the parameters in which it exists. The idea of the hard salary cap is to maintain a competitive balance in the league. More cynically, the cap exists to limit the amount of money that the players as a collective can earn. In other words, the cap exists to drive up franchise values while controlling their operating costs.
The cap has become more of a contentious issue over recent years because of the COVID-19 pandemic related stagnation. Without extra space from cap growth each season, as would be the case, cap space has become harder to come by and more valuable as a commodity. Without any kind of luxury tax, and without any significant movements towards implementing such ideas, the cap has been an increasingly oppressive force in the minds of fans.
Issues that have arose
Teams have been forced to make difficult decisions based solely on the cap and players are evaluated by their cost efficiency. This creates an emotional response when the Knights, for example, are able to navigate the cap in uncommon ways.
From a bigger perspective the cap seems to strangle excitement in the on-ice product. Good teams are forced to lose players. Player movement is complicated and less common. Quite simply, the system dampens discussion of the product. This means that the system might be limiting the league’s growth, players and owners leaving money on the table.
Of course, the ruling body, the owners represented by the commissioner, are quite comfortable with this. With franchise values steeply trending upward there is little reason for them to feel a change is needed. It is not impossible that amendments are made, but quite frankly these might come at the expense of the players. The owners will want to make sure that extra money is not given to the players, so whatever changes are considered should take this into account.
For this reason any changes that adjust the amount of money that can be spent on players within a given season are likely non-starters. Many fans are focused on solutions that take into account local taxes. While calculating each team’s cap space based on these tax rates might work in theory, most teams would see significant increases to their budgets. The owners have consistently shown a willingness to die on this hill, but these solutions beget more complex issues as well.
Should more rules be added?
One of the more popular angles in solving this issue is implementing more cap constraints, possibly into the playoffs. Many propose or support these courses of action. Some common thoughts here include requiring teams to dress cap complaint lineups even in the playoffs.
While these types of rule changes would keep teams more evenly matched throughout the postseason, ultimately other issues arise. More rules make for a more convoluted fan experience. Deadline moves would be hindered as teams would lose one of their only cap flexibilities. The playoff product would be hindered by teams not being able to dress their best lineups.
Those who feel cheated by the use of LTIR cap space might be drawn to these solutions. Casual fans might assume that such a rule is already in place. Most might even think such a rule logical, or at least internally consistent. Despite this, such a rule would be a detriment to player movement and the quality of the playoffs, some of the league’s ultimate selling points. Adding scope to the cap’s power only serves to exacerbate the current issues.
Less rules could simplify things
The most elegant solution lies within simplicity. The league already accepts that the cap doesn’t matter past a certain date in the league year, and a great deal of the issues created by the cap can be solved by pushing this date up, from the end of the regular season to the trade deadline. The cap not mattering in the playoffs shows that the league does not care much about teams abiding by it in general, instead the focus is clearly more fixated on keeping the total salary of the players within the parameters of the league’s expenses on a year to year basis.
This proposed rule change has a much greater chance of happening because, in theory, it does not change this equation. Sure, the expenses of individual teams will increase, but ultimately these temporary states are completely circumstantial. Seeing as several owners are already on board with doing so, contenders adding to their payroll is already accepted.
Changing the cap compliance date to the trade deadline would certainly increase the number of moves available to be made. For contending teams they would be able to add more quality players. There would be more buzz and more storylines surrounding elite teams, allowing more star players to be seen in the playoffs. The quality of play and the league itself would command more intrigue.
In some ways this might increase parity from a bigger perspective, allowing retooling or rebuilding teams to more potential negotiating partners, and in turn more assets. For fans of rebuilding teams this means more hope for the years ahead. Each team would be able to commit to their vision more unabashedly, something that benefits the experience of all fans.
As with any rule change there will be unintended and unexpected consequences, but this rule change is not as disruptive compared to other proposed solutions. As the league is already halfway there, and with the owners still with as much control over the players overall earnings it might have a chance at being implemented. In conclusion this might be a simple way to improve fan experience and quality of play without costing the owners extra money.
Photo by Curtis Comeau/Icon Sportswire
