February proposal vs. current speculated deal - question

  • Thread starter Vomiting Kermit*
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.

GSC2k2*

Guest
Nomad said:
EDIT: Mistake. Verifying

My apologies - $42.5M without considering benefits. However, the alleged cap today is not $32.4M per team. It is $972M across the league, at $1.8B revenues. If 15 teams spend $39M and 15 teams spend $24M, then nothing gets paid back to the league, since overall league spending is at $945M, $27M shy of the 54%.

If it was a cap at $32.4M, then league-wide spending would likely be around $846M, with half the teams spending to the maximum and the other half spending $24M.

You see...just because there is a cap...does not mean that every team will spend to it. In fact, if every team spent to the cap, it would be a testament that the cap is far too low.
I misspoke myself. I stated the "actual league cap per team" was $32.4 million per team. What I meant to say was that average actual spending would be $32.4 million, assuming $1.8 billion in revenues.
 

NYR469

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
5,785
0
Visit site
it impossible to know if the deal is better or worse without knowing the details of all different things within that system.

everyone focuses on the cap because that is the biggest issue but really the difference between a $42 mil cap and a $38 mil cap isn't that big a deal if other factors favor the players...

that upper limit means nothing if players have no way of increasing their salaries...if players don't become free agents till they are 31, have no arbitration, can't hold out and can be forced to sign 75% qualifying offers off of the $850k entry level deal every year till they turn 31 then it doesn't really matter if the team cap is $35 mil or $350 mil, that player has no way of getting his salary to increase other than an owner deciding to pay more than he has to.

so depending on how those things work out and favor the players, it might benefit them to have a lower upper limit if they have additional ways to increase their salary...obviously overall a lower cap means less $$ but for each individual player they can maximize their own salary.

also the $42 mil cap back in feb included additional stuff like insurance, pensions and other non-player salary stuff that goes to the players. the current deal reportedly doesn't count that stuff toward the cap...so while at first glance it looks like it dropped from $42 mil to $36 mil, it really only dropped from about $39 mil to $36 mil.

another non-salary issue that healy mentioned that makes it better for the players is that they are now involved in the rules committee, which healy took as a plus cause now the players can have some control on changes that might increase league revenue which would mean more $$ for the players down the road...

now i'm not saying that this deal will be better, in fact of what has been reported i don't see a single thing in the players favor, they are giving up everything and getting nothing...but my point is that you can't simply look at the cap and say $36 mil is less than $42 mil so its a worse deal, there are lots of other factors.
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
NYR469 said:
also the $42 mil cap back in feb included additional stuff like insurance, pensions and other non-player salary stuff that goes to the players. the current deal reportedly doesn't count that stuff toward the cap...so while at first glance it looks like it dropped from $42 mil to $36 mil, it really only dropped from about $39 mil to $36 mil.
Jeez. Does anyone read any posts other than their own?? Read above:

The $42.5 cap was - read this carefully - EXCLUSIVE OF BENEFITS.

Check your facts next time. Please.

As for the deal, there is onyl one relevant number: 54%.

As I have stated before (uncontradicted), QO's are the biggest red herring around. They have precisely dick to do with salaries in the NHL.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->