View Single Post
09-15-2004, 02:21 PM
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,398
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
The argument I seem to get from people in favor of a cap is that it lets the small payroll\market teams hang onto the players they draft, while the current system doesn't. I've already discussed at length why I beleive a cap would punish a team that drafts well, but I have more question:

How do you get around signing bounses? Signing bonuses are not salary. It seems to me that the large market teams would have even more of an advantage becuase they could pay huge signing bonuses. For example, Niklas Lidstrom signed a one year deal in April for $10 million. What if he signed a $2 million deal under a cap, but with a $8 million signing bonus? How is the playing field leveled? Lets say both the Rangers and Flames had the same cap room, and Iginla was a free agent. They both offer him a $4 million salary, but New York offers a bonus of $5 million. Can Calgary match that? I highly doubt it.

Bottom line, the large revenue teams will still be able to "set the market", and the poor small revenue teams can't match what those teams can offer. I don't see how anything changes.
Bonuses count against the salary cap. They just get prorated.

So if the Lidstrom signed a 3 year deal for $24 million, but got paid like this:

Bonus - $12 million
Year 1 - $4 million
Year 2 - $4 million
Year 3 - $4 million

He would still count as $8 million against the cap all 4 years.

John Flyers Fan is offline