dawgbone said:
Except that the rich teams can continue to set salary levels higher than everyone else. It's not the best teams setting the markets, it's the richest teams
This sounds like what would happen, but its not totally accurate when we observe what happened. Rich teams dont set the market for rookies as they are capped.
After the first 3 years of a players mandatory 3 years of 2 way contracts, they have 2 years with no arbitration rights and only qualify for a 10% raise in their qualifying offer, which is a fair amount if the players is progressing as hoped. If he's not, working hard to find a system so you can get him cheaper without putting him on waivers hardly seems valuable.
When players get the right to arbitration after 5 years and until they are a UFA, the big markets may be able to afford higher salaries, but why would they? Toronto could afford to pay Kaberle $4mil, but they fought not to. The fact right now is the current setters of the arbitration eligible salary bars are players from Canadian team: Iginla for forwards, Jovo-Redden for defensemen, Théo for goalies, No ranger or red wings in sight. And the union offered to knock those comparable 5% as an OPENING offer.
Arbitration doesnt always mean big markets set the person who will be the comparable. Small markets can set it first and then the big markets will gladly follow as they are required to.
UFA's, accept whatever they get offered. Sports will have to learn to live with this decision of the courts and not try always for end-runs around it.
One of the owners 6 propsed concepts for a new salary structure was centralized negotiation of salaries. Now obviously this cant be done with UFAs, but a compromise should be able to be made where the RFAs are paid out of a capped revenue shared pot, and negotiations exist between the agent and the league rather the agent and the team. Probably a tough sell for the players but maybe there is room in there to find something.
vanlady said:
a fiscal responsibility clause in the franchise agreement.
Now there's an idea eh. When Ottawa was in bankruptcy protection, the league ran us like this, we still managed to make deadline day transactions.
Im still unsure what I think of the concept of a "strict" luxury cap. I'd think we'd want an "effective" one. If spending disparity is natural for teams to cycle through, then why is the cap needed to restrict spending, isnt the purpose to raise the most money?
copperandblue said:
Essentially, that is exactly what the league is proposing by "cost certainty
Not quite. I'd think the responsibility clause ensures they dont spend more than that. The cost certainty ensures the players play for that.
stitch said:
Just because a salary cap isn't a revenue sharing program within itself doesn't mean that there won't be revenue sharing. Each of the league's 6 proposals included revenue sharing to some extent.
Here is a link to the 6 proposed concepts.
The Owners 6 Proposals