View Single Post
Old
01-05-2013, 01:48 PM
  #241
Fourier
Registered User
 
Fourier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Waterloo Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,400
vCash: 500
Quote:
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.
Every serious poster here understands why the NHLPA wants this. But the impact is significantly over blown.

Given that the current proposal keeps the floor at $44M in both proposals suggesting that a $65M cap would mean every team might spend $5M more is your first mistake. There are probaly about 8-10 teams that might use a significant amount of this space. Perhaps even less because teams would be wise to be cautious in over spending until they have a sense of what revenues might look like going forward.

It is a pretty good guess that with a $65M cap in 2013-2014 that the cap will actually fall again for 2014-2105. Teams will also be less likely to use the compliance buyouts at $65M vs $60M. This takes away even more from the new money avialable for UFA's and RFA's.

I am just guessing here but it would not surprise me if the total difference in FA spending between the two cap levels was in the $20-25M range. Most of this would go to a small number of FA's. And it is also the case that extra money spent in year 1 also reduces the total available in year 2.

So in the end what are we talking about? Perhaps a $100K for about 150 FA's and the rest in the hands of a very small group of players? Not really worth losing 1/2 a season over.

Of course the one issue you have not mentioned is the impact of the cap drop on some of the vets nearing the end of their careers. The last time we had a flat cap teams turned to younger players and a fair number of older vets did not get resigned (See Radek Bonk et al).

Fourier is offline