Would a Rolling Salary Cap work?

Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by EricBowser, Mar 24, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. EricBowser

    EricBowser Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2003
    Messages:
    174
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Customer/Technical Support
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Home Page:
    I think a rolling salary cap maxed out at $100 million over two-year periods could, I stress *could*, work if the CBA has some major systemic changes that slant toward the NHL or at least bring a balanced agreement such as arbitration and qualifying offers.

    I think a deal could be made at these levels

    2005-06 & 2006-07: $80 million player costs
    2007-08 & 2008-09: $85 million player costs
    2009-10 & 2010-11: $90 million player costs
    2011-12 & 2012-13: $100 million player costs
     
  2. Icey

    Icey Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Messages:
    591
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wouldn't work because a team could stock pile for one season and have a 55-60M payroll and then the following year have a $15M-20M payroll.

    Now I have always thought that it might not be bad idea to be able to "borrow" from the following or previous years cap, but it would need to be limited to say 10% of the the total cap. This would prevent the large fluctuation in payrolls.
     
  3. Mess

    Mess Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    75,064
    Likes Received:
    812
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Home Page:
    Isn't that exactly what Washington did .. First Sign Jagr, Lang, Gonchar, Kolzig to big contracts one season and then trade them all away and draft Ovechkin the next .. :dunno:
     
  4. Icey

    Icey Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Messages:
    591
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yup but that was not with a cap system. Isn't the point of a cap to make sure there isn't a large difference between the lowest payroll team and the highest?

    The owners would never go for it. Small market teams would still complain that the big market teams would still be able to lure the FA to their teams.
     
  5. sakicisstupid

    sakicisstupid Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,885
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Home Page:
    nope, its meant primarily to limit player salaries. revenue sharing gaps the difference in payrolls. :)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"