Thread: Speculation: Cap to drop to 58 mil
View Single Post
08-29-2012, 04:04 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,576
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Calculon View Post
To make it clear, having their portion of the total revenue decrease represents a concession by the NHLPA. They're not about to make a second concession on top of that, in the form of a salary rollback, just so the first concession can work. To get the first concession, the league would have to give up something, like an amnesty buyout period, which would see more money stay with the players.
So what you're saying is:

Reducing the cap from about $70m to about $58m is a reduction of about 1/6.

We currently have 30 teams of 23 players make a maximum of $70m per team, or about $3m per player. If we reduce that to $58m per team for 23 players, the average goes to about $2.5m. But reducing the cap by 1/6 doesn't include a reduction in the players' salaries or cap hits because, you know, they're still making just as much on the average.

Except they aren't. Oops.

How again is that two separate concessions?

How are "Each of 30 teams, having 23 players, can only spend 5/6 of what it would have been able to." and "Each player receives less money." two separate concessions? They seem to be basically the same thing. Even if there aren't rollbacks, what happens to the 16 teams that are over that $58m mark? Others are dangerously close as well with rosters yet to be completed. Do players who have spent years in the NHL get sent to the AHL simply because of the cap? It happened to Wade Redden; he's still a very capable player but Sather doesn't even want him showing up to training camp because they don't bother with trying to trade him or play him; they simply stick him in the AHL and let him rot. Sather traded good assets for McCabe rather than try and call up Redden because Redden at $3m is perfectly reasonable and he would have been snapped up.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote