Reading your post, it's apparent that our opposing points of view are not nearly as far apart as rhetoric might suggest. For example...
I think there needs to be a few restrictions on place but nothing like what the owners are proposing, and as long as they continue to do so, I don't think a cap will be taken. I think an indivual player cap is dumb. If a team wants to pay Pronger or Forsberg 10 million, let them. See how much of a team they can put behind them with almost 1/3 of cap room in one player.
Agreed.
I would also like to see the teams be allowed to take a player to arbitration from time to time, in case of production drop offs and for nothing more than that.
How about each team having the right to call for one arbitration hearing per off-season. Likewise, do not limit the number of arbitration decisions per season that a team can "walk away" from. Currently, they are limited to one "walk away" I believe. Thoughts?
I would also be ok at qualifying offers at 100%, that player could be taken to arbitration at a later date, to determine his real value. This way it keeps it somewhat fair for the players, so they cannot be qualified at 75% and basically forced into signing for less than fair value.
Agree again! But from a player's standpoint, I believe they should be willing to give on this point (say 90% minimum qualifying offer) in exchange for a more liberal ("realistic") hard cap.
I'm also in favour of some form of restricting salaries and bonuses for rookies. I'm fine with what has been offered in previous proposals, give or take.
Agreed. Make players prove their NHL "worth". Nothing wrong there, IMO.
The cap is the main thing, and it will take care of most of the inflationary aspects in itself by causing owners to really think before they put the ink on the paper. Teams will not be allowed to dump salary, because everyone within a certain payroll range, there just isn't enough room for teams to accept big contracts. Overall the owners will be alot more careful and if not they will pay the price with their teams performance.
But at what numbers? And are you willing to implement a two-tiered cap, i.e., softcap with a harsh tax starting at X amount of dollars and hardcap at Y amount of dollars? If those caps are tied to league revenue (they should be, IMO; players have to recognize this basis concept), and revisited annually, per the NBA and NFL systems, that seems like the most logical, best-of-both-worlds solution to me. Equally fair, at least in theory, to both "poor" teams, as well as "wealthier" teams. In brief, progress for the "average" NHL team, without unduly "punishing" the players.
I recognize that elsewhere you refer to a luxury tax as a "joke"; talk to the NBA's David Stern about that characterization. It has brought cost certainty to his league, per both Stern and ownership. And besides, the idea being proposed here for the NHL is a softcap/lux tax AND a hardcap.
Not saying either side is agreeable to the above, of course.