View Single Post
12-16-2012, 10:22 PM
Kriss E
Registered User
Join Date: May 2007
Location: hong kong
Posts: 34,796
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
A good question is whether or not teams would spend more or less without a salary cap and salary floor.

If we go to, we see that 10 out of 30 teams had under 2 million in cap space last year, whereas 7 of 30 teams had over 10 million in cap space.

Thus, we can conclude that more teams are limited by the cap ceiling than the cap floor, and that total spending would increase.
It's just not that simple.
First, cap would disappear. Salaries would become the measuring point. Length of contracts would probably diminish. Players won't look to make 60M over 9years to fit under a cap, they'll likely make that 60M over 5-6years. Something along those lines.
Not only does that make a difference for how owners distribute cash, but it will also make players available to other teams more frequently. Because the players get locked up for so long and for cheaper under the expired CBA, you get less and less interesting free agents, making it tough to even reach the cap ceiling. There's only 6 teams that have less than 5M in free space.

With no cap, no necessity to work around it with front loaded long term deals, who knows what the difference will be in the money being thrown out from most to least. In 99, Fedorov was making 14M. In 2000, the Predators spent 16M (4 teams spent under 18M), Rangers spent just under 60M.

There's no way to know which teams would spend how much. All we can pretty much assume is that the difference between the most/least spending will be much bigger than what we have today.

You also do not get any guaranteed contracts. That hurts every player.

Kriss E is online now