View Single Post
01-05-2013, 12:18 PM
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
haseoke39's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 11,332
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
Do people really not understand why the players AND owners are fighting over $60 and $65M?

It's not about the money made next year.

it's about every single UFA and RFA who will be a free agent this offseason.

If every team has $5M less, that puts a clamp on the market.
That reduces the contracts everyone agrees to.

Now, with escrow, that's all anyone gets NEXT YEAR>

Say you sign a 3-year, $1.2m per year deal instead of a 3 year 1.7M per year deal because of the $5M reduction in the cap.

Year one might be a wash because of escrow. But you lose in year 2 and year 3..

Say you're a superstar.
you're looking for a 6 year, $48M... how huge is the difference between $60M and $65M in your market

If this issue didn't matter, as some people want to pretend, then why is the NHL fighting it?
The players would rather every player sacrifice in escrow and maintain the market for next year's UFAs.. the actual HRR will catch up in 2-3 years.
This is half of a good point. The other half says this:

Take your sample player X who signs for 1.2 instead of 1.7. Year 1, as you say, is a wash because of escrow. But in Year 2 and 3, their cap hit is potentially lower proportional to other players who come on the market, meaning they get less than they would have if they signed a year later.

That's bad for player X. What you didn't mention is that everything player X loses gets recaptured by players Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, Y and Z, who sign deals later on and get the benefit of all the money player X left on the table being added to the bidding war for their services. The cap is still the cap, and so everything else just exists to shift money around between players.

So when you're negotiating for all these people, you see that the average welfare for your whole constituency doesn't change.

I'm not going to assume either side is irrational in fighting over this piece until I understand more. But I have yet to hear the rational argument for either side, either. Assuming that the cap could end up being effectively adjusted up to $70M or down to $50M through the escrow system, it shouldn't seem to matter.

haseoke39 is offline