The LTIR Loophole

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
36,047
306, row 14
Thought this was worthy of discussion. The NHL GM's meet next week and one of the items on the agenda is the much discussed "LTIR loophole". Essentially the issue is that there is no salary cap in the playoffs. Last season the Lightning stashed Nikita Kucherov on LTIR for the season, used the salary relief gained by his contract being on LTIR to add players, then were able to activate Kucherov for game 1 of the playorrs and ice a roster with a total salary cap hit of $89.5 million, well above the $81.5 million salary cap. Vegas has tried to follow suit, to an even more egregios degree with a fully healthy payroll approaching $95 million this season, but are likely to miss the playoffs. This isn't an entirely new phenomenon, I believe the Blackhawks used a Patrick Kane injury and LTIR to add at a deadline and then activate him for a playoff run that resulted in a Cup.

https://www.dailyfaceoff.com/ice-breakers-gms-to-discuss-potentially-closing-ltir-playoff-loophole/

The GM who is bringing this up is proposing a rather simple solution. The cap hits of the 20 skaters you dress on a playoff game must not exceed the salary cap. So, in the Lightning example, they could play Kucherov but would need to sit other players in order to be cap compliant. Another idea in the article is that a player who finishes the season on LTIR must miss the first round of the playoffs.

We'll see if anything happens. The main reason the current system exists is because the players don't get paid in the playoffs. So they calculate the salary cap during the length of the regular season and in the playoffs there's nothing left to count.

What do folks think?
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
46,775
Hartford, CT
I don’t follow hockey as closely as the regulars in this subforum, but isn’t the most elegant solution to require that teams be at or under the salary cap at all times throughout the season, including playoffs? Whether or not players are entitled to game checks or bonuses during the playoffs doesn’t have to matter, as the salary cap is theoretically an accounting standard not wholly dependent on cash outflows at any given point.

For instance, NFL players don’t receive game checks during bye weeks, but the team nonetheless needs to be at or under the salary cap at all times during the bye week.
 

The Mort Report

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 5, 2007
6,904
Concord
While I get the idea of going off the 20 skaters you dress, it still gives teams big advantages if you've got an overpaid player that you can just not dress to add a better player. I think it has to be something along the lines your end of the season roster is what you go to battle with, and if someone gets hurt, you can't go over replacing them, and that player getting taken off the roster is done for the series
 

IdiotKicker

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
10,785
Somerville, MA
Is there a compelling reason why it isn’t set up like the NFL where even your players on IR count against the cap? I mean, I get that it sucks if you lose a $9M player and can’t replace him easily, but it’s no different in the NFL if a QB or DE with a big cap hit goes down. NFL also has the same salary structure where it goes to a playoff pool once the regular season is done, but maybe there’s something I’m missing in terms of differences. But otherwise, I think the NFL model is where I’d go.
 

The Mort Report

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 5, 2007
6,904
Concord
Is there a compelling reason why it isn’t set up like the NFL where even your players on IR count against the cap? I mean, I get that it sucks if you lose a $9M player and can’t replace him easily, but it’s no different in the NFL if a QB or DE with a big cap hit goes down. NFL also has the same salary structure where it goes to a playoff pool once the regular season is done, but maybe there’s something I’m missing in terms of differences. But otherwise, I think the NFL model is where I’d go.
I think for hockey that might be a little extreme, but I'd be cool with if a player is placed on the LTIR their money comes off the books, but they are also done for the season
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,100
While I get the idea of going off the 20 skaters you dress, it still gives teams big advantages if you've got an overpaid player that you can just not dress to add a better player. I think it has to be something along the lines your end of the season roster is what you go to battle with, and if someone gets hurt, you can't go over replacing them, and that player getting taken off the roster is done for the series
One option is to do similar to what MLB does: playoff roster is set at start of series, and in the case of the NHL that roster must be cap compliant. If a player has to be replaced, he has to miss the rest of the series and the next one. For NHL I would consider adding 1 or 2 as a reserve/taxi squad, but they would count against the cap as well.
 

Dduncan6er

New Member
Apr 16, 2020
335
Springfield, MA
Is there a compelling reason why it isn’t set up like the NFL where even your players on IR count against the cap? I mean, I get that it sucks if you lose a $9M player and can’t replace him easily, but it’s no different in the NFL if a QB or DE with a big cap hit goes down. NFL also has the same salary structure where it goes to a playoff pool once the regular season is done, but maybe there’s something I’m missing in terms of differences. But otherwise, I think the NFL model is where I’d go.
I think the guaranteed contracts in the NHL are the reason for that. Looks at guys like Savard or Pronger who were basically forced into retirement. Having them still on the cap for the duration of their contacts is rough. I think that’s part of the reason for LTIR. Although I suppose those could be treated as exceptions on a case by case basis because they were dragged out over multiple seasons.
 

IdiotKicker

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
10,785
Somerville, MA
I think for hockey that might be a little extreme, but I'd be cool with if a player is placed on the LTIR their money comes off the books, but they are also done for the season
Yeah I could be onboard with that.

I think the guaranteed contracts in the NHL are the reason for that. Looks at guys like Savard or Pronger who were basically forced into retirement. Having them still on the cap for the duration of their contacts is rough. I think that’s part of the reason for LTIR. Although I suppose those could be treated as exceptions on a case by case basis because they were dragged out over multiple seasons.
That makes sense, and I guess it’s in the interest of the NHLPA to not have the cap space tied up. I think the LTIR meaning you’re done for the season, including playoffs makes sense to me.
 

burstnbloom

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
2,761
I think the guaranteed contracts in the NHL are the reason for that. Looks at guys like Savard or Pronger who were basically forced into retirement. Having them still on the cap for the duration of their contacts is rough. I think that’s part of the reason for LTIR. Although I suppose those could be treated as exceptions on a case by case basis because they were dragged out over multiple seasons.
This is the issue. Once a contract is signed, there aren't a lot of ways for them to maneuver money the way they can in the NFL.

Where does this group sit on whether this is actually a problem or not? I waffle on it regularly. Part of me likes that it means incrementally more dollars for the players as a whole. I also think this option is available to any time so I'm not sure it bothers me. I get the consternation but I'm not sure there wouldn't be disastrous unintended consequences if they tried to solve for this.
 

The Mort Report

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 5, 2007
6,904
Concord
This is the issue. Once a contract is signed, there aren't a lot of ways for them to maneuver money the way they can in the NFL.

Where does this group sit on whether this is actually a problem or not? I waffle on it regularly. Part of me likes that it means incrementally more dollars for the players as a whole. I also think this option is available to any time so I'm not sure it bothers me. I get the consternation but I'm not sure there wouldn't be disastrous unintended consequences if they tried to solve for this.
I hate it, I think its bad for the game with how much it can drastically improve a team when it matters the most by taking advantage of a shitty rule. And I don't think it actually puts any more money in players pockets. These teams are LTIRing a guy already signed, then trading for another guy already signed.
 

burstnbloom

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
2,761
I hate it, I think its bad for the game with how much it can drastically improve a team when it matters the most by taking advantage of a shitty rule. And I don't think it actually puts any more money in players pockets. These teams are LTIRing a guy already signed, then trading for another guy already signed.
It ultimately ends up adding an extra roster spot every time they do it. I get hating it. I personally hate the salary cap so we probably just have different perspectives. I can just see the NHL trying to fix it and doing something horrible.
 

The Mort Report

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 5, 2007
6,904
Concord
It ultimately ends up adding an extra roster spot every time they do it. I get hating it. I personally hate the salary cap so we probably just have different perspectives. I can just see the NHL trying to fix it and doing something horrible.
Fair, but those spots that are opened up are on the team trading the player away midseason, so its almost always filled by a minimum level salary. So yes its more money, but I think not enough to make the rule worth it.

Not to derail but why do you hate the cap? I'd imagine if there was none it would give big market teams a bigger advantage than most other sports
 

burstnbloom

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
2,761
Fair, but those spots that are opened up are on the team trading the player away midseason, so its almost always filled by a minimum level salary. So yes its more money, but I think not enough to make the rule worth it.

Not to derail but why do you hate the cap? I'd imagine if there was none it would give big market teams a bigger advantage than most other sports
a hard cap benefits ownership artificially. Other sports have soft caps and it helps players make more. Salaries in hockey arent significantly growing despite revenues growing and I think that is shitty.
 

Mighty Joe Young

The North remembers
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2002
8,401
Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
I think it’s an outrageous loophole and has to be fixed. I really don’t see why they can’t just enforce the cap for playoff rosters. The fact that players aren’t paid seems irrelevant to me. And a I hate the salary cap in the first place.
 

burstnbloom

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
2,761
I think it’s an outrageous loophole and has to be fixed. I really don’t see why they can’t just enforce the cap for playoff rosters. The fact that players aren’t paid seems irrelevant to me. And a I hate the salary cap in the first place.
it’s exists as a function of how they calculate the cap daily. The cap is kind of like an empty bucket on day 1 of the season and every day at 5pm they calculate the daily hit and pour that amount into the bucket until they get to $81.5m at the end of the year. That just doesn’t exist in the post season so it’s not as if they can’t enforce it, it’s that they’d need an entirely new methodology that doesn’t yet exist. It feels like this would need to be collectively bargained.
 

Sandwich Pick

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2017
701
I think the guaranteed contracts in the NHL are the reason for that. Looks at guys like Savard or Pronger who were basically forced into retirement. Having them still on the cap for the duration of their contacts is rough. I think that’s part of the reason for LTIR. Although I suppose those could be treated as exceptions on a case by case basis because they were dragged out over multiple seasons.
Pronger was a 35+ contract. The Flyers couldn't get rid of that cap hit even if Pronger retired and forfeited the money.