After reading about Dave Nonis' rant on how the current CBA prohibits teams from staying together for longer than a 2-3 year span I started thinking about solutions that would work within a cap environment that didn't necessarily increase the UFA age (which the PA would never agree to in the first place) I suggest that the NHL implement a "cap credit" system, similar to pollution credit system that regulates emissions in the United States. Under such a system, teams will recieve, let's say 5 'cap credits' at the beginning of the year each worth 1 million dollars in cap space. A team can trade these credits like draft picks, so if they trade one away then they lose a million dollars in cap space and if they acquire one then their cap increases by one million. This gives teams who want to compete, and need more cap space to sign their players a chance to trade away picks and prospects for more cap space. Conversely this allows teams who are in a rebuilding mode to trade away some cap space which they probably wouldn't use for assets like draft picks and prospects. This system also facilitates the trade of big-albatross contracts. Say you have player 'x' on your team, who has a huge contract but for whatever reason isn't performing well. In the current system, such players are near impossible to move but if a Cap Credit system is implemented then those players can be moved if Credits are traded along with their contracts. This prevents GM's (see Clarke) from being handcuffed by large albatross contracts to a small extent. A system like this has some weaknesses, namely it is prone to abuse. Some markets who never spend at the cap may be more willing to trade their space away and other markets (Detroit, NYR) will always want more cap space, thereby destroying the parity the new CBA created. This can be ammended by limiting the ammount of Cap Credits a team can acquire/trade away. That way the salary disparity will be kept to a minimum. I see this move as a 'bone' to throw to the Fans in larger markets who have paid the cost of having their teams basically dismantled to the smaller market teams' benefit. What do you guys think? - Mike C.