Cap to drop to 58 mil
View Single Post
08-29-2012, 05:42 PM
Join Date: Nov 2010
Originally Posted by
eva unit zero
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.
All rollback, as I understand it, would be an decrease in all salaries counted towards the cap for teams over the cap. The revenue sharing is the amount of league revenue that the players recieve if all teams spend to the cap, and the cap floor guarantees a certain amount of that. Revenue sharing decrease simply lowers the cap, affecting the
money a player can receive. A rollback actually takes money from their pockets. That's how I understand it anyways.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by MarkGio