sjb3599 said:
Actually, the NHLPA has given the owners a perfect opportunity to exercise cost certainty. There's nothing wrong with the system, just owners paying too much for players. The 24% give-back essentially gives the owners a clean slate to work with and if they want cost certainty it should be up to them to create a budget and work within it.
Personally, I still favor a more stiff luxury tax scheme, but the beauty of the NHLPA's recent proposal is that it places the blame for the current economic state of the league squarely on the owners (which is precisely where it belongs IMO).
Owners paying too much for players is what is wrong with the system (or players as a collective forcing owners to pay too much, if you like to view it from another perspective).
The problem with claiming that "owners could just stop offering so much money" is that the one saying it have failed to understand the dual goals of a NHL club.
Goal 1). To run a business. To make money. To have less expenditure than revenue.
Goal 2) To be competitive. Try to make playoffs. Try to win the Stanley cup.
As far as goal 1 is concerned, a strategy where you just offer players less money and accept it if they will sit out and/or force a trade will work. You would keep salaries down and probably make a profit. The problem is that it would be very hard to satisfy goal 2 at the same time. And seeing how each team has a finite supply of players they have the rights to, it should be obvious why for most teams it is impossible to fulfill both goals these days. The more good players you have to part way with, the less chance of sporting success. We have the Rangers, Leafs etc that due to their market size can afford to go for both. But we also have the Edmontons that are forced to focus more on goal 1 than goal 2. There are some hybrids also. Low cost teams that have great success (Tampa this year for example). They run into the problem that their players start to say "Hey, we are the best. We deserve more money." which usually forces the team to choose between ruined finances or ruined sporting chances eventually. If you have an owner/market like Detroit/Denver you can handle the increased demands of your champion players of course. But most teams can't.
Having some sort of cost certaintly aims to enable most teams in the league being able to pursue both goals. I think that is a pretty good ambition. That is why I support the owners in this conflict.