It's two seasons actually, as what remains of this season would also be done under an artificially inflated cap number which would see many teams able to afford payrolls many more others can't. Perhaps you mean "it's just one more season?"
I must admit, I don't understand your stance here. You're asking why I don't support a wider gap between max and min payrolls and then ask why anyone would support a system that "forced [a team] to ice an inferior product when they have to load up on AHL-level players on the lowest contracts possible." Just to be clear, I believe having a wider gap between min and max. caps achieves exactly that. When you lower the minimum salary cap there are teams who will add more minimum contracts so they can stay closer to the 44 million figure rather then being forced to spend more to reach that 49 million figure. Why would anyone want that? You tell me? Yes, it may only affect 7 teams, but we are only talking about a 30 team league and those 7 teams just happen to be an areas where the sport needs the most help.
And parity is part of a fair playing ground, is it not? You set up the financial fundamentals in such a way that will allow teams like NYR and Toronto to spend 20 million more on payroll then teams like Phoenix and Columbus and you're putting those teams at a disadvantage... no? If you don't believe in a correlation between salary and skill then I can understand the reasoning but I believe the better players get paid more (not something I would have classified as going out on a limb on honestly).
I'll ask my question again. Why do you believe I, as a fan, should care more about the players pocket book then I do the quality of the on ice product? Why do you think I should support a wider gap between max and min payroll spending? Perhaps you can change my mind.
Just for reference, my preferred choices in this case are:
1. Go to 50/50 split sooner rather then later as it allows teams to be competitively payroll wise with each other sooner (read: I care more about on ice product then I do players pocket books).
2. Failing #1, concede on 65 million in year two but keep the minimum cap closer to the 65 mill figure so that teams are forced to be a little bit more competitive payroll wise (read: I care more about on ice product then I do owners pocket books).
3. Failing #2, concede on both the 65 million upper limit and the 44 million lower limit. (I care more about having a hockey season then I do on ice product over the next two seasons).
The problem when introducing parity and fairness into the equation, is it's not realistic and who's back would it rest on anyway?
Up until now there has already been a potential $16M parity gap in place in terms of possible player payrolls between teams. Depending upon the relative capabilities of the GM's, that SHOULD make a huge difference each year.
If you wanted real parity, you'd say "the salary requirement is $50M a year (I just picked a number -- the point is everyone would spend equally) and you owners/gm's must spend to that amount".
Required salary: $50M
Teams as of now: 30
Salary due players; $1.5B
HRR required for 50/50 split: $3B
From there, the owners and players would split the monies above or below (escrow) that $3B figure.
That would make for so called "parity" -- however under that model teams like Toronto and NY would make an "unfair" killing financially.
So, if you wanted to make it "fair", then the Maple Leafs owners for example would then have to say something like "you know without a league we don't have a team, without a team we don't make money, without the Phoenix's we don't have a league -- so let's all share everything, it's only fair --- tv, tickets, merchandising, etc.,etc.,"
You could argue that that would be closer to fair and a system of parity than what's in place now. However, neither of those scenarios I describe will ever happen.
So given that, why should the players be forced to make things sort of fair, or close to parity? Neither is truly in place, nor ever going to be in place.