View Single Post
05-07-2009, 02:52 PM
Ozymandias's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,439
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
I had heard it was going to drop to 48M in 2years. Hopefully it happens as you're describing.

But I still don't think it's very wise to base a decision on the expectation of the economy picking up and seeing the cap once again rise a lot.

If all goes well, the economy will have re-established itself in 5years but we don't really know.
Pedneault has been wrongfully repeating this fallacy for months now. He should check Bettman's own comments to see how far away from the truth he is. What probably happened is that he listened to some GM connection of his, a GM that happens to work in a weak market where they have a hard time to even be on the cap floor, and took the GM's wishful thinking for money.

This year's revenues will NOT allow any kind of lowering of the cap, so this means they would have to bring the cap down of about 8,6 mil in one single season. This does not make any sense (usual MO for Pedneault), and doesn't match with what Bettman said. Bettman said it would be progressive, not drastic. Cutting 8,6 mil off the cap is highly drastic, as it is close to 15% of the cap. For the same reasons that I said in my last post, it doesn't make sense, especially considering the tools they have other than lowering the cap, like the Escrow accounts which levels out ALL player contracts without circumventing the garanteed contract clause.

I wonder if you heard this from another source, as I only heard Pedneault repeating this (often, in his collumn and 110%), but I don't expect him to even question his sources with a bit of logic and fact-checking, yet I wonder who else said that.

Anyway, I know we aren't arguing any of this, and I also agree on Lecavalier, but I'd really like it if you could point out where did you hear about the 48 mil number? Thanks.

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote