Quote:
Originally Posted by Stewie Griffin
The way I think it works is this. Salary cap & escrow are both calculated on the cap amounts, not actual dollars. So in 2013/14 Sidney Crosby's cap hit is $8.7 million but the money actually paid to him is $12 million. His escrow payments, however, are based off the cap hit, so at say 5%, he pays $435,000 (or 3.625% of his actual money paid to him). He might or might not get all/part of that money back. Meanwhile, Jamal Mayers signs a 1 year deal at $600,000. He pays his 5% escrow on that full amount ($30,000) and may or may not get it all back.
Both Crosby & Mayers feed from the same finite bowl, but Crosby potentially benefits more from it than Mayers would - to the tune of a 1.4% "escrow shelter". I shudder to do the math on Parise/Suter contracts.
It's the resulting "accounting gymnastics" from this scenario (and others) why the NHL is seeking to put a cap on contract terms & limit term variance, but what they should be looking at is a TRULY linked system, where the amount of actual dollars paid in a season to players wouldn't exceed the negotiated linked % amount, not a falsely reduced cap hit amount - which is nothing more than voodoo accounting.
|
The league needs to pick between a hard cap(every dollar accounted for...Redden, back dive deals, etc) or no cap. The soft cap that has been in place since 2005 just creates a bunch of problems, and the cap might as well just not exist anyway.
The NHL needs to account for every dollar, or get rid of teams and jobs. Or put 30 teams in Toronto, whatever.