I generally agree with the argument that the point of prospects being relatively costly cap-wise is to force good teams to decide between competing now and investing in the future, so that it wouldn't be possible to have an all-star roster while also having five bluechip prospects in the pipeline. The system has always been set up to work that way btw, this has been the line of thinking behind this since way before the most recent cap changes and it generally makes sense.

However I am wondering if we are taking it a bit too far at this point, if even middle of the pack and weaker teams are not able to hold on to their prospects for that reason. It makes me wonder if we need to give a little more relief in regards to prospect cap-hits or at least push the point where they become a considerable cap-factor back a few seasons, to the point where they actually start contending for roster spots.

This could lead to some interesting decisions down the line. Let's say prospects would only carry a minimal cap-hit of say 1-2M while on their ELC, but then jump up to around 3M or more when they are up for their next contract. This would be exactly the time where most of them start contending for SHL roster spots which I think would be a great time to start spreading the wealth. Prospects would get time to develop without being a detriment to their team in terms of cap-space, but then start to become a cap-factor once they also become a useful on-ice asset for ther SHL-squad.

It would force great teams with minimal cap-space but a bunch of good prospects that are coming off ELC's to decide whether they wanna keep those prospects or hold on to their older players who are high-TPE and maybe in regression already. If they decide to hold on to the prospects, they will be able to expand their contention cycle but will be less dominant in the short term. If they keep their old players and decide to let their young guys walk then they will be able to stay dominant a bit longer, but at the risk of their contention window slamming shut sooner. Both scenarios would be good for league parity though as talent gets spread around more evenly.

This is basically how the cap is supposed to work already, but I think we could make it more targeted and efficient by tying prospects cap-hits to their ELC-status. While on their ELC, they don't carry a big cap hit and teams, be they good or bad, can afford to cultivate and develop them, but as soon as they become useful SHL-assets, their cap-hit needs to become a significant factor right away to accomplish the desired effects of the cap.

Then again expansion is also a good option and definitely the more exciting one so if the numbers are there for it, we should definitely explore that idea as well. Especially since it would help with the current messed up playoff format.