Jeremy Laura: If you could change the CBA, what would you address?

delete

first off, remember this is the world according to me so.....

Plain and simple I would get rid of the salary cap. If you own an asset/business and want to spend money on it, then so be it. As a compromise, I would allow buyouts, but not have them count against a team's salary cap, i.e. players would get their buy-out money, but it would not go against the team's cap. As it is now, players like Couturier and TK are never going to win a cup. No one forced them to sign so maybe they are getting what they deserve/wanted.....

If the first point can't be done, I would reduce the max contract to 5 years and eliminate NTC and NMC

I would also eliminate in season tournaments (and maybe even out of season - if I am paying someone to play hockey for my team then they are only going to play for my team)

first off, remember this is the world according to me so.....

Plain and simple I would get rid of the salary cap. If you own an asset/business and want to spend money on it, then so be it. As a compromise, I would allow buyouts, but not have them count against a team's salary cap, i.e. players would get their buy-out money, but it would not go against the team's cap. As it is now, players like Couturier and TK are never going to win a cup. No one forced them to sign so maybe they are getting what they deserve/wanted.....

If the first point can't be done, I would reduce the max contract to 5 years and eliminate NTC and NMC

I would also eliminate in season tournaments (and maybe even out of season - if I am paying someone to play hockey for my team then they are only going to play for my team)
- mr4tno

I definitely agree on in season tournaments. I think if you remove the cap you have to restructure the revenue sharing. I.E. - a team can’t claim a negative revenue but have a maxed out roster. The cap is an interesting discussion, and I think it would legitimately close some teams down. Toronto, New York, Boston, Montreal and Edmonton could all spend like crazy (if they earn the money, that’s their prerogative). The teams that spend to or near the cap and can’t actually afford it would have to be adjusted. As for buyouts, I think that’s a much trickier endeavor. If teams would pay 100% of the salary owed, maybe. Right now it’s 1/3 paid for younger players and 2/3s for players (I believe over 25). So a player gets a big 2nd deal, like a DeAngelo. His buyout saw him get 1/3 of the salary he signed for. The others get 2/3. To waive the penalty the team should have to pay the full amount owed. I think it was Juan Gonzalez who at one point was making a full salary from 2 or 3 different teams but not playing. *MLB owners threatening a lockout if they can’t get ahold of capping salaries on the next CBA. It’s an interesting discussion and it would definitely change the landscape of the league

Welp, crud. Just came in from mowing to see the news about Augy. I'll say it now, NIL will destroy top-tier player's draft status with the team that drafted them....does that make sense? We're going to lose him. Here's what I'd change: if a team loses a drafted player, the team gets a compensatory draft-pick based on total NIL the player accrued. Add on another draft pick commensurate w/the contract value the player signs for w/the new team. So, Augy's got $5m in NIL, DRW loses draft rights and Augy signs w/Tronno (just 'cause I wanna stir up some crap today....I'm feelin' that way) for $3m x 5, =$15m= Tronno's next 1st pick, no protection.

Gonna have to play hard ball because teams are going to be fleeced by NIL. Maybe penalized the schools as well?

Welp, crud. Just came in from mowing to see the news about Augy. I'll say it now, NIL will destroy top-tier player's draft status with the team that drafted them....does that make sense? We're going to lose him. Here's what I'd change: if a team loses a drafted player, the team gets a compensatory draft-pick based on total NIL the player accrued. Add on another draft pick commensurate w/the contract value the player signs for w/the new team. So, Augy's got $5m in NIL, DRW loses draft rights and Augy signs w/Tronno (just 'cause I wanna stir up some crap today....I'm feelin' that way) for $3m x 5, =$15m= Tronno's next 1st pick, no protection.

Gonna have to play hard ball because teams are going to be fleeced by NIL. Maybe penalized the schools as well?
- mcmastermike1968

Here’s where the NCAA didn’t think this through. To be a pro football or basketball player, you have to leave school to be drafted. NHLers can enter school as drafted prospects. Now, kids that played in the CHL can change to the NCAA DIV I as long as they haven’t signed their ELC. If you go back to that Augustine article, I found 2 NIL opportunities he was part of. One was set up by the school, the other by a new clothing line. Add to this that you can change schools every year, or this past year football players transferred right before playoffs. The “education” means nothing (though some will argue that for some sports it was always iffy). One coach (anonymity) told me the NCAA won’t address the abuses because they can’t afford another federal court loss. That’s what led to NIL and it cost them billions. I don’t know if Augustine is gone or not. He could realistically make more playing in college than in the AHL. CHL players can definitely make more. We’ll see the impact in the fall. The big schools have scouted the WHL, QMJHL, OHL and European leagues. State has a Hobey Baker winner who just shut down Tampa over ELC dispute, Augustine returning, and can afford to stack the roster. U of M the same. Ferris, Northern, Tech, all DIV I, can’t. I do blame Bettman for not addressing this as soon as it was announced. If I understand correctly, teams do get a compensatory pick if a collegiate player waits out their rights but I could be wrong. Regardless, if Augustine becomes the goalie he looks like he will be, that’s small comfort

Excellent read!!

Ending Olympic participation would be short-sighted in my opinion.

It's by far the biggest global tournament/event in the sport. Even just in North America more people watch Olympic hockey games than NHL games. Then factor in how huge the Olympics are overseas. It's no contest.

I get why owners and even some fans gripe about shutting down the league for a couple of weeks and risking some extra injury exposure. The downsides are real and they aren't trivial.

But the Olympics are absolutely the premier promotional event for ice hockey on the global stage. If the goal is to grow the game, grow current and future sources of NHL revenue, inspire more kids to play and strengthen the long-term talent pipeline, the NHL has to participate. Sucking it up for a few weeks every four years seems like a pretty small investment compared to what you get, though it requires NHL decisionmakers to be capable of longer-term thinking.

Ending Olympic participation would be short-sighted in my opinion.

It's by far the biggest global tournament/event in the sport. Even just in North America more people watch Olympic hockey games than NHL games. Then factor in how huge the Olympics are overseas. It's no contest.

I get why owners and even some fans gripe about shutting down the league for a couple of weeks and risking some extra injury exposure. The downsides are real and they aren't trivial.

But the Olympics are absolutely the premier promotional event for ice hockey on the global stage. If the goal is to grow the game, grow current and future sources of NHL revenue, inspire more kids to play and strengthen the long-term talent pipeline, the NHL has to participate. Sucking it up for a few weeks every four years seems like a pretty small investment compared to what you get, though it requires NHL decisionmakers to be capable of longer-term thinking.
- Sven22

The games are losing viewers, and even with pro leagues playing in Basketball and Hockey both sports are declining (except for the WNBA). The IIOC goes through events every year trying to figure out what will bring people to the screen, and we get breakdancing for the summer. A lot of empty stadiums when the games are overseas. I do not think they are effective at any significant level to grow the game. That’s opinion, but the number of people who just don’t care about the games isn’t. The addition of streaming has padded the numbers, but it still sees a general malaise and doesn’t justify the expense or risk.

Excellent read!!
- TrueGrit

Thanks for that!

Ending Olympic participation would be short-sighted in my opinion.

It's by far the biggest global tournament/event in the sport. Even just in North America more people watch Olympic hockey games than NHL games. Then factor in how huge the Olympics are overseas. It's no contest.

I get why owners and even some fans gripe about shutting down the league for a couple of weeks and risking some extra injury exposure. The downsides are real and they aren't trivial.

But the Olympics are absolutely the premier promotional event for ice hockey on the global stage. If the goal is to grow the game, grow current and future sources of NHL revenue, inspire more kids to play and strengthen the long-term talent pipeline, the NHL has to participate. Sucking it up for a few weeks every four years seems like a pretty small investment compared to what you get, though it requires NHL decisionmakers to be capable of longer-term thinking.
- Sven22

There are a couple more issues at play. Shutting it down for a month allow people to cancel service for 1 month if they pay that way, and even with the 4 nations massive final game, early returns from ESPN and TNT show viewership at around 450k for the season. Mlive got to a point of telling viewers how to see the games for free for the last season of the month. So add the shut down of 1 month (fans find other things to do) the possibility of star players being injured, the lethargy of the rest of the league that sat out for that long and you have a massive problem. *the NBA saw 1.5m viewers, is a much easier sport to play and they are panicked about ratings. Sunday Night Football, still 20m just for that night. If NHL fans get lethargic and turn off the games the Olympics can’t recover that

The games are losing viewers, and even with pro leagues playing in Basketball and Hockey both sports are declining (except for the WNBA). The IIOC goes through events every year trying to figure out what will bring people to the screen, and we get breakdancing for the summer. A lot of empty stadiums when the games are overseas. I do not think they are effective at any significant level to grow the game. That’s opinion, but the number of people who just don’t care about the games isn’t. The addition of streaming has padded the numbers, but it still sees a general malaise and doesn’t justify the expense or risk.
- Jeremy Laura

The last time the NHL was at the Olympics was 2014. So I'm not sure the argument "hockey viewership is declining so the Olympics aren't effective at growing the game" holds a lot of water.

The 2022 Olympic men's hockey tournament had about the worst conditions you can imagine for North American viewership. No NHL participation for the second straight Olympics. Games in China (unpopular host country with a huge timezone problem), still dealing with after-effects on the pandemic, and the final was between Germany and a halfheartedly sorta-sanctioned Russia. The game still outdrew the Blues-Predators game the following afternoon. Meanwhile the US-Canada women’s final easily outdrew the NHL that week.

And then last season, Four Nations did huge numbers. I don’t think that’d be viable every year, but I think it’s a pretty good indication of the hunger for best-on-best international hockey, which we hadn’t gotten since 2014 (and arguably didn’t even get in Four Nations).

And again, this is all still a very North American-centric view of international hockey. More than 30% of the NHL’s talent base and plenty of fans come from outside the US and Canada.

There's been a lot of negative press about the Olympics in general recently, particularly in conservative media circles (not trying to start a political argument, not passing judgment on whether it's right or wrong, just stating a fact). I think that has led to a deeply mistaken impression that "nobody" cares about the Olympics. It is as globally popular as it used to be? No. Is it still way, way, waaaaaay bigger than the NHL? Absolutely.

I have three things I'd like to see changed:

1. Get rid of NMC's and the max number of teams on the no trade list is six.

2. I'd like to see a reduced cap hit of players who were drafted by a team and stay with that team. For example, for each year beyond year six, their cap hit drops by 3 to 5% if they are on the team they were drafted by. It's sad that teams have to trade away or lose players they've developed for years, just to stay cap compliant. Any teams that sign those players via FA, get the full cap hit based on their contract.

3. It'll probably be an unpopular opinion but raise the draft to the age 21 year. The reason behind the year 18 draft was because back in the day, almost every player came out of the CHL. They could play a max of 3 more years before they age out, which is why the ELC is three years. Players essentially had 3 years to prove the were pro caliber, when the reality is, most aren't fully developed, physically and mentally until they are around 24.

These kids have so many opportunities now. They can play CHL or similar as teens, move up to playing against adults in the NCAA, SHL, etc., then North American pro. It would be more similar to baseball and players move up levels as they develop. They can develop at their own pace and mature into the pros. I bet each draft would produce more NHL caliber players than it is today, because it's incredibly hard to project how a kid, playing against kids, is going to fare against the best adult players in the world. It would take a lot of pressure off these kids and I'm certain more will pan out if given more opportunities to develop.

The last time the NHL was at the Olympics was 2014. So I'm not sure the argument "hockey viewership is declining so the Olympics aren't effective at growing the game" holds a lot of water.

The 2022 Olympic men's hockey tournament had about the worst conditions you can imagine for North American viewership. No NHL participation for the second straight Olympics. Games in China (unpopular host country with a huge timezone problem), still dealing with after-effects on the pandemic, and the final was between Germany and a halfheartedly sorta-sanctioned Russia. The game still outdrew the Blues-Predators game the following afternoon. Meanwhile the US-Canada women’s final easily outdrew the NHL that week.

And then last season, Four Nations did huge numbers. I don’t think that’d be viable every year, but I think it’s a pretty good indication of the hunger for best-on-best international hockey, which we hadn’t gotten since 2014 (and arguably didn’t even get in Four Nations).

And again, this is all still a very North American-centric view of international hockey. More than 30% of the NHL’s talent base and plenty of fans come from outside the US and Canada.

There's been a lot of negative press about the Olympics in general recently, particularly in conservative media circles (not trying to start a political argument, not passing judgment on whether it's right or wrong, just stating a fact). I think that has led to a deeply mistaken impression that "nobody" cares about the Olympics. It is as globally popular as it used to be? No. Is it still way, way, waaaaaay bigger than the NHL? Absolutely.
- Sven22

Counting the whole of “the Olympics” isn’t an honest comparison if you’re talking about growing the game. How many people are watching hockey in the olympics? The gold medal game will likely have some mix of Canada/Sweden/USA. Countries that already have exposure. This is not moving the needle for countries not involved. The biggest hockey boost of most of our lifetimes from the Olympics came from Lake Placid with Team USA. The USA already had hockey. What these in season tournaments do is shut down the core fan base and at a huge expense. The NHL didn’t add another month to the schedule to make up for the one they’re losing. They just compressed it. What we learned about entertainment of all kinds is that if the fans that pay the bills get lethargic, you’re in trouble. I think you have good intentions but shutting down the core product for that amount of time and the potential for injury with such a compressed schedule as well as the extra tournament should be high on the radar. The Olympics are losing their draw. You can watch highlights later if you want. That’s not a political issue. It’s the malaise toward the tournament.

I have three things I'd like to see changed:

1. Get rid of NMC's and the max number of teams on the no trade list is six.

2. I'd like to see a reduced cap hit of players who were drafted by a team and stay with that team. For example, for each year beyond year six, their cap hit drops by 3 to 5% if they are on the team they were drafted by. It's sad that teams have to trade away or lose players they've developed for years, just to stay cap compliant. Any teams that sign those players via FA, get the full cap hit based on their contract.

3. It'll probably be an unpopular opinion but raise the draft to the age 21 year. The reason behind the year 18 draft was because back in the day, almost every player came out of the CHL. They could play a max of 3 more years before they age out, which is why the ELC is three years. Players essentially had 3 years to prove the were pro caliber, when the reality is, most aren't fully developed, physically and mentally until they are around 24.

These kids have so many opportunities now. They can play CHL or similar as teens, move up to playing against adults in the NCAA, SHL, etc., then North American pro. It would be more similar to baseball and players move up levels as they develop. They can develop at their own pace and mature into the pros. I bet each draft would produce more NHL caliber players than it is today, because it's incredibly hard to project how a kid, playing against kids, is going to fare against the best adult players in the world. It would take a lot of pressure off these kids and I'm certain more will pan out if given more opportunities to develop.
- bluelineenforcer

I actually love the idea of raising the draft age. That alone would take care of most of the NCAA issue. Add that to declare for the draft, just like football, you have to leave school. The youth hockey training and competition is incredible, as you stated. As for the salary cap, and I’m very flexible on this issue, this ceiling and floor along with escrow are keeping teams in markets that don’t support them. There’s a stats guy who covers football and basketball that I talk to a lot. He has a team that collects all the Nielsen data. They still can’t believe that Escrow was actually passed. Players having to give back money if revenues are down. The removal of teams that are annually having to get a boost would free up resources for teams that draw. The % issue is one that’s fairly interesting. Very much in the vein of having a “franchise” player. As for the NMCs, limited trade clauses, I would love to see some of that changed. I think the PA would be a tough sell

I have three things I'd like to see changed:

1. Get rid of NMC's and the max number of teams on the no trade list is six.

2. I'd like to see a reduced cap hit of players who were drafted by a team and stay with that team. For example, for each year beyond year six, their cap hit drops by 3 to 5% if they are on the team they were drafted by. It's sad that teams have to trade away or lose players they've developed for years, just to stay cap compliant. Any teams that sign those players via FA, get the full cap hit based on their contract.

3. It'll probably be an unpopular opinion but raise the draft to the age 21 year. The reason behind the year 18 draft was because back in the day, almost every player came out of the CHL. They could play a max of 3 more years before they age out, which is why the ELC is three years. Players essentially had 3 years to prove the were pro caliber, when the reality is, most aren't fully developed, physically and mentally until they are around 24.

These kids have so many opportunities now. They can play CHL or similar as teens, move up to playing against adults in the NCAA, SHL, etc., then North American pro. It would be more similar to baseball and players move up levels as they develop. They can develop at their own pace and mature into the pros. I bet each draft would produce more NHL caliber players than it is today, because it's incredibly hard to project how a kid, playing against kids, is going to fare against the best adult players in the world. It would take a lot of pressure off these kids and I'm certain more will pan out if given more opportunities to develop.
- bluelineenforcer

I don’t like raising the draft age.

One, lots of players are legitimately good enough to be impact NHLers at 18, 19, or 20 years old. In the last 20 years, every Calder Trophy winner besides Kaprizov and Panarin was 20 or younger at the beginning of their Calder-winning season. And even in Kaprizov’s case it was pretty clear that he would have been just fine in the NHL before 21.

The main benefit of waiting until 21, like you said, is that it reduces the amount of uncertainty for NHL teams. It’s far easier to project a 21-year-old than an 18-year-old. But it comes with some serious drawbacks too:

- Keeps talented 18-20 year olds out of the league, weakening the on-ice product

- Mediocre-to-bad teams would probably have even more incentive to tank than they already do. Less uncertainty about drafted players means fewer draft busts for bad teams, but fewer diamonds in the rough hiding out beyond the top 10. The importance of scouting decreases, and finishing in “mid-pack purgatory” becomes even more of a disadvantage.

- Messes with free agency timelines. Right now players can become UFAs after turning 27 or after 7 years of NHL service. If you can’t even start your NHL career until 21, then players can become UFAs six years after the draft—unless you can convince the players to agree to pushing free agency back, on top of pushing the draft back. Good luck with that.

I have three things I'd like to see changed:

1. Get rid of NMC's and the max number of teams on the no trade list is six.

2. I'd like to see a reduced cap hit of players who were drafted by a team and stay with that team. For example, for each year beyond year six, their cap hit drops by 3 to 5% if they are on the team they were drafted by. It's sad that teams have to trade away or lose players they've developed for years, just to stay cap compliant. Any teams that sign those players via FA, get the full cap hit based on their contract.

3. It'll probably be an unpopular opinion but raise the draft to the age 21 year. The reason behind the year 18 draft was because back in the day, almost every player came out of the CHL. They could play a max of 3 more years before they age out, which is why the ELC is three years. Players essentially had 3 years to prove the were pro caliber, when the reality is, most aren't fully developed, physically and mentally until they are around 24.

These kids have so many opportunities now. They can play CHL or similar as teens, move up to playing against adults in the NCAA, SHL, etc., then North American pro. It would be more similar to baseball and players move up levels as they develop. They can develop at their own pace and mature into the pros. I bet each draft would produce more NHL caliber players than it is today, because it's incredibly hard to project how a kid, playing against kids, is going to fare against the best adult players in the world. It would take a lot of pressure off these kids and I'm certain more will pan out if given more opportunities to develop.
- bluelineenforcer

As an aside, I don’t think reproducing a development system similar to MLB is realistic, or necessary.

The reason that every MLB team needs a ton of minor-league affiliates, and players get promoted from league to league on the way up, is because there’s very little positional flexibility in baseball. Say that, in your minor league organization, you have one veteran shortstop with MLB experience you want ready for an injury callup, plus two shortstop prospects with MLB potential at various stages of development. If you want all three to play every day, you need three entirely different teams to send them to. This isn’t necessary in hockey, because each team needs multiple wingers, centers, and defenders. Instead of getting promoted to a team in a better league, players get promoted to higher spots in the lineup with more ice time and responsibilities.

European pro is also not going to be a viable step on the development ladder for North American prospects either, except in exceptional circumstances (like Auston Matthews). These leagues by and large have strict caps on the number of foreign-born players allowed on a team, in order to protect domestic player development. As a result, Euro teams are heavily incentivized to use their limited import slots on proven veterans (NHL or AHL experience) who can help the team. They are not going to waste those slots on unproven American and Canadian kids.

I actually love the idea of raising the draft age. That alone would take care of most of the NCAA issue. Add that to declare for the draft, just like football, you have to leave school. The youth hockey training and competition is incredible, as you stated. As for the salary cap, and I’m very flexible on this issue, this ceiling and floor along with escrow are keeping teams in markets that don’t support them. There’s a stats guy who covers football and basketball that I talk to a lot. He has a team that collects all the Nielsen data. They still can’t believe that Escrow was actually passed. Players having to give back money if revenues are down. The removal of teams that are annually having to get a boost would free up resources for teams that draw. The % issue is one that’s fairly interesting. Very much in the vein of having a “franchise” player. As for the NMCs, limited trade clauses, I would love to see some of that changed. I think the PA would be a tough sell
- Jeremy Laura

Check your NHL history - it's a legal avenue they don't want to go down again.

Here’s where the NCAA didn’t think this through. To be a pro football or basketball player, you have to leave school to be drafted. NHLers can enter school as drafted prospects. Now, kids that played in the CHL can change to the NCAA DIV I as long as they haven’t signed their ELC. If you go back to that Augustine article, I found 2 NIL opportunities he was part of. One was set up by the school, the other by a new clothing line. Add to this that you can change schools every year, or this past year football players transferred right before playoffs. The “education” means nothing (though some will argue that for some sports it was always iffy). One coach (anonymity) told me the NCAA won’t address the abuses because they can’t afford another federal court loss. That’s what led to NIL and it cost them billions. I don’t know if Augustine is gone or not. He could realistically make more playing in college than in the AHL. CHL players can definitely make more. We’ll see the impact in the fall. The big schools have scouted the WHL, QMJHL, OHL and European leagues. State has a Hobey Baker winner who just shut down Tampa over ELC dispute, Augustine returning, and can afford to stack the roster. U of M the same. Ferris, Northern, Tech, all DIV I, can’t. I do blame Bettman for not addressing this as soon as it was announced. If I understand correctly, teams do get a compensatory pick if a collegiate player waits out their rights but I could be wrong. Regardless, if Augustine becomes the goalie he looks like he will be, that’s small comfort
- Jeremy Laura

With the possible exception of a superstar playing on the London Knights, no CHL player is making more than an AHL player.

Jeremy Laura: If you could change the CBA, what would you address?
- Jeremy Laura

Your thoughts on players staying in the NCAA for NIL money really got me to thinking - it could be a very, very slippery slope.

Say a kid from Toronto is drafted by another team. The kid goes the NCAA route, and really develops.

Could Rogers Telecommunications sponsor him with an NIL deal? What about the Raptors? Pay him until he leaves university as a UFA?

Nothing in the current CBA prevents it.

You have to admit, it would be hilarious.

With the possible exception of a superstar playing on the London Knights, no CHL player is making more than an AHL player.
- Atomic Wedgie

No CHL player makes more than an AHL player, you’re exactly right. But they can now. I’ll address it more in response to your other question, but what I was saying is that an unsigned drafted player in the CHL can now go to the NCAA. Last year it went off the rails in football with a quarterback who had declared for the NFL draft un declaring because Miami is going to pay him 3.2m just for next year. I’m attaching a video link I did on some of these. It got so bad of other schools trying to gear up for the playoffs that players left the week before their team was scheduled for a bowl game/the post season. Marshall was a college that had to drop out of their bowl game because so many players left that they couldn’t field a full team

Your thoughts on players staying in the NCAA for NIL money really got me to thinking - it could be a very, very slippery slope.

Say a kid from Toronto is drafted by another team. The kid goes the NCAA route, and really develops.

Could Rogers Telecommunications sponsor him with an NIL deal? What about the Raptors? Pay him until he leaves university as a UFA?

Nothing in the current CBA prevents it.

You have to admit, it would be hilarious.
- Atomic Wedgie

The Red Wings and Tampa Bay both had players at Michigan State refuse to sign their ELC. The Tampa player will be a UFA after this coming year. The Wing’s goalie has 2 more. I found the NIL store for Augustine and posted the link in his article. I am posting 2 video links that cover how teams can tamper and get drafted prospects to UFA status by using NIL:
https://youtu.be/NVlJnn_eIrY?si=CjoDCtcKG8xRVwLz

https://youtu.be/8xK93gACk6w?si=tW-xI4qonz9GS8ok

first off, remember this is the world according to me so.....

Plain and simple I would get rid of the salary cap. If you own an asset/business and want to spend money on it, then so be it. As a compromise, I would allow buyouts, but not have them count against a team's salary cap, i.e. players would get their buy-out money, but it would not go against the team's cap. As it is now, players like Couturier and TK are never going to win a cup. No one forced them to sign so maybe they are getting what they deserve/wanted.....

If the first point can't be done, I would reduce the max contract to 5 years and eliminate NTC and NMC

I would also eliminate in season tournaments (and maybe even out of season - if I am paying someone to play hockey for my team then they are only going to play for my team)
- mr4tno

My brother has a favourite “I’m three beers in, and I’m throwing this out just to argue” idea:

Keep the salary cap.

Get rid of the draft.

Get rid of ELCs.

Get rid of restricted free agency.

Any player turning 18 is free to sign wherever.

But because of the salary cap, the market will find equilibrium.

And every July 1st would be absolute mayhem, so great for fan interest.

My brother has a favourite “I’m three beers in, and I’m throwing this out just to argue” idea:

Keep the salary cap.

Get rid of the draft.

Get rid of ELCs.

Get rid of restricted free agency.

Any player turning 18 is free to sign wherever.

But because of the salary cap, the market will find equilibrium.

And every July 1st would be absolute mayhem, so great for fan interest.
- Atomic Wedgie

I will give you this, that may be the most creative alternative Ive heard! Im screenshotting this one. Well done