Thread: Salary Cap: $64.3M Upper Limit for '11-'12
View Single Post
06-28-2012, 01:07 PM
Registered User
GAGLine's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,344
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Ola View Post
...But truth to be told, there really is no good argument against a "small" roll back either.
I'm sure the NHLPA will have plenty of good arguments. They accepted a 24% rollback last time. I doubt they will accept another one.

The only way I could see a rollback happening is if the cap drops significantly (under 60 mil) and the rollback is done in lieu of a bunch of compliance buyouts. The NHLPA might prefer in that case to take a little from everyone rather than having a bunch of people lose their jobs outright. But I don't expect the cap to drop below 62 mil. I don't expect teams to spend more than 65 mil (not counting players who will only be on the summer cap, like Redden). In that scenario, rollbacks shouldn't be necessary.

As an outside observer, I'm sure there are a lot of issues that I don't know about. But to me the biggest things on the table are:

1) Player percentage
2) Revenue sharing
3) 2014 Olympics
4) Realignment

If it were up to me, I'd lower the player percentage to 50, increase revenue sharing significantly and reduce the gap between the salary floor and ceiling.

If the cap drops even as low as 60 mil, but the floor rises to 52 mil, overall the amount spent on players will be about the same. But the owners have to be willing to buy into increased revenue sharing to make it happen. The smaller markets can't keep up with the NHL's growth rate.

One way that has been proposed to promote revenue sharing, and make the cap more flexible, is to allow teams to pay a percentage of player salaries in trades. So the Rangers trade Gaborik, for example, to the islanders. We agree to pay half his salary. The isles takes on his full cap hit. NYI get 3.75 mil closer to the cap floor and the Rangers pay for it. That's a win for both teams.

This would enable teams like the Rangers to trade a player like Redden for actual assets rather than burying him in the AHL. It will also enable teams like the islanders to get to the cap floor without having to bring up their 1st round picks too early just to get their bonuses on the books. Smart GMs in the smaller markets will be able to load up on good players on bad contracts while paying significantly less out of pocket for those players.

The only other thing I would change, and the NHLPA would probably fight this, is to change the way the cap is calculated. I would take the top 5 revenue grossing teams and the bottom 5 revenue grossing teams out of the equation. That would help keep the growth of the cap more in line with the revenue growth of the majority of the teams. If they don't do that, the revenue growth of the NHL as a whole will again outpace the bottom teams and we'll have the same problems come the next CBA.

I imagine that the union voted down reallignment just so they could use it as a bargaining chip to get the NHL's buy in for the olympics. I don't think either of those issues will be sticking points.

GAGLine is offline   Reply With Quote