Thread: Salary Cap: $64.3M Upper Limit for '11-'12
View Single Post
Old
06-29-2012, 06:13 AM
  #776
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 16,711
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GAGLine View Post
No ****. I know how the cap is calculated. I said that there wouldn't be rollbacks if the cap only goes down a little. You are the one who disagreed. Let me spell it out for you.

If the cap goes down, that means players will get less money. Raising the cap floor would help to offset that because the cap floor teams would have to spend more money.
Sorry dude, but that's just not correct.

I don't get the attitude, why don't you just read what I write (you clearly had misunderstood this)???

The players will get x % of HRR, no matter what the cap floor is or what teams are spending. You could have a cap of 75m - 100m, and all you would get is a gigantic escrow. Raising the floor does not give the players as a group more money.

Quote:
If there is a rollback, players on existing contracts will get less money than they would have otherwise. Gaborik is scheduled to make 7.5 mil next season. If there is a 10% rollback, he will only make 6.75 mil and his cap hit will go from 7.5 to 6.75 as well.
It is true that players on existing contracts will get less if there is a rollback. But the players who signs new contracts will cent for cent receive that money instead.

Quote:
That's exactly what happened after the last CBA. All existing contracts were rolled back 24%. That means that those players made 24% less than they would have without the rollback.

What part of that are you not understanding?
I am sorry again GAGline, but this is absolutely not the case.

If there would have been no roll-back last time, i) teams would have been forced to dump contracts in the AHL (still affecting the HHR, right?), ii) very few teams could have signed RFA's or UFA's in the summer of 05', iii) there would have been a gigantic escrow. I think the escrow after the 05/06 season was 3.5-4.% reveresed (IE, the NHL gave back all escrow paid, and the players got more money back after the season (http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=2596571)). I don't know how much money was on the books, and how much more would have been spent, but we surely would have seen escrow numbers of what, 15-20%, if there wouldn't have been a roll back. Most teams would have been right up against the cap.

The players would not have received one cent more if there wouldn't have been a roll back. The players with existing contracts would definitly not have made 100% on existing contarcts pre-lockout as opposed to 24% less after the roll-back, because they would have been forced to put a big portion of their salaries in escrow and the NHL would have taken that money after the season.

Quote:
I said that there wouldn't be rollbacks if the cap only goes down a little. You are the one who disagreed. Let me spell it out for you.
You are allowed to quote me on this, because I don't remember saying that. I said that I personally think the motives for a roll-back if the cap goes down only a little, is as big as if the cap goes down alot. At the same time, I also pointed out that its a majority decision for the PA and that the majority always stands to gain at not having a roll back. It also depends on how moderate teams are this off-season, and we have no way of knowing how moderate they are as of yet. If the cap only goes down a little, I definitely wouldn't bet on a roll back. I think it would have made sense, but I would not bet on it because they downside for the FA's are so much smaller. Its easier to screw them. We actually agree on this!


Last edited by Ola: 06-29-2012 at 06:47 AM.
Ola is online now   Reply With Quote