View Single Post
11-11-2012, 09:36 PM
Veni Vidi Toga
thinkwild's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,546
vCash: 500
So they will be retiring for the good of the team? Because the team was hoping that would happen when they signed? No more Brett Favres hanging on their playing days as long as possible, they will be retiring because if they are only getting $1 mil, it wouldnt be worth it to play hockey and they have been so looking forward to retiring like most hockey players who just cant wait for their careers to end?

And some teams would have saved money by doing this. Fixing it will stop that? For how many players do you think this important change of making them pay bigger cap space contracts is being made. 5? 6?

Those teams will still be there and can still be penalized with cap space penalties equal to their ill-begotten gains if they try to pull such a stunt as retiring early from a tailing contract. And if they know beforehand that those penalties will exist and they still wish to take that risk, what consenting adults agree to behind closed doors shouldnt matter.

I can see perhaps 5 yr max if it starts in an rfa year. But ufa's shouldnt need restrictions.

If there is a max variance of 5% and 5 yr max contracts, all top ufas will be getting 5 yr cap max salaries. Leaving less cap space for non star players who will go back to taking a smaller percentage of the pie. Can every team in the league afford 5 year $14 mil/yr contracts for top ufa's?

How can the median not be about the split but about growth? Of course it affects the split, that's the point. It creates a lower cap and makes more teams contribute to revenue sharing a smaller amount.

There will always be a bottom team whether its median or mean team revenues used for calculating the cap. That wont affect growth. If enough low revenue teams improve their situation, there could even quickly come a time when the median is higher than the mean.

thinkwild is offline