It doesn't. You simply don't understand it. You have done a whole of talking based on knowing nothing about the system I outlined and being completely wrong about every single thing you have said about it.
I'm glad you think so highly of me, you seem to be a lot better at passive aggressively insulting people then you do at properly articulating your idea, since you seem to reply to everyone with the same tone, while chastising them for not getting it.
This is not what happens at all. It works out the same. You can easily model it.
They wouldn't be. Currently when a player signs an 8 year contract they estimate what the cap is going to be in 8 years and factor that in. So idea under the current system that their cap hit is too high for year one which is tough on the team and then too low in the final year which is good for the team. The middle years (4 and 5 in this case) are where the cap hit is designed to be just right if their future cap projections end up being correct. In the unit system players and teams would be negotiating for that sweet spot to occur across contract length.
Currently if a player signed a contract for 6 years at 6.43M in 2013 then it was 10% of the cap in 2013, but by the time the cap expired in the summer of 2019 that 6.43 was now only 7.9% of the cap. Over the 6 years it averaged 9% of the cap, but while when the player signed that amount of money was 10% of the cap, a player signing the exact same contract in 2019 would be signing for only 7.9% of the cap - a 21% decrease in pay. That is why the cap needs to continually increase with revenue - which it has by 21% in this case - so that it can make up for that shortfall - which in this case is about 1.7M.
Under my system the same player would sign a contract for 6 years at 9% of the cap in 2013. When that contract ends 9% is freed up. It works out exactly the same. In the first case the player signed for 10% of the cap in 2013 and when the contract ended it freed up 7.9% of the cap, which was supplemented by a 21% increase in the cap over those 6 years. They both result in the exact same thing, but with small differences - in the current system the player costs more against the cap early in the contract and less against cap in the final years. In my system they cost the same % against the cap in all years. In the current system the GM needs to hope that the cap goes up as much as projected or else they have over-paid the player based on their expected value. If the cap goes up more than expected then they have under-paid the player based on expected value. In my system whether they over or under pay a player is based solely on the teams' ability to assess the player. In the current system UFAs and RFAs have their pay prospects based largely on how much the cap is raised that summer.
But where is the actual human negotiation coming out in your math? In all of your posts you seem to saying if player signs for "X" in year one under the current method, its this %. But if they sign for Y in my method, it will be this %. Why would they sign for "Y" and not "X" under your method? Simply citing, 8-year forecasting of the cap is not based in reality...the NHL holds large chunks of salary as escrow simply because of how large the forecasting error is year over year related to HRR/team spending, let alone 8 years out. I think you are massively overrating the impact that "estimating" the cap 8 years from now, has on contract values. If an agent came into a GM's office and asked for 21% over market value because the cap historically went up 21%, he would scorned, and rightfully so.
On top of that you're assuming every single player/agent/GM models out the cap the same way to arrive at this magic 9%, which would absolutely not be the case. In hindsight it so happened the AAV% was 9, given that the cap went up 21%, but that is very very far from a guarantee.
Of course a player costs more, it's the time value of money, but it almost never works out to having underpaid the player because player salaries almost always sit above the midpoint. Therefore, even with a cap increase, escrow increases and players pay back money. If you could convince teams to spend 70M instead of 80m, then you would have more of a point.
This is completely irrelevant. Under the current system GMs spend to the cap. Their contracts leaving the system are worth less than they were when they were signed because the cap has gone up. So usually a cap team might have 16% of their cap coming free based on contracts that were worth 20% of the cap at the time they were signed. They make up for that additional 20% through the cap rising over the length of those contracts. Under my system the same cap team would have the 1*% of their cap coming free based on contracts that were worth 18% of the cap at the time they were signed. There is no difference.
The issue with the bold is that you totally ignore the appreciation of the cap as incremental cost savings. The contracts coming off are smaller, but added with the inflation of the cap = larger buying power.
There is a difference, because you are inflating the value of contracts coming off the books, while also inflating contracts staying on the books - the balance of which is almost always pointed toward contracts on the books - therefore, losing net buying power.
Using 2017-2019 numbers:
Cap increase from 75M to 79.5M, assuming a team salary of 95%, with 8m/12% of contracts coming off the books. These contracts are from a 65m cap so were signed for 6.5M under your method. Gave them an extra 1.5m of actual $ value to spot you your idea they factor in future cap. This means when signed they were 12.3% of the cap (8m/65m) and are now coming off as 10.67%, which is less than the 12% under your method (which I still think is not reasonable, and assumes a lot).
Current method
71.25M (95% of cap) - 8M = 63.25M of allocated cap - 79.5M ceiling for next season = 16.25M of room going into next season.
Your method
71.25M - 12% = 62.7M allocated cap value. However the cap is 79.5, and we have 83% of our contracts remaining, so the allocated value = 79.5*0.83% (95%-12%) = 65.985M allocated cap - 79.5M ceiling for next season = 13.515M of room.
So your method accrues a loss of 2.735M of cap room over the current method, as it is taken up by the appreciation of contracts still on the books. This should almost always be true where a team is keeping excess of 75% of it's contracts on the books year over year. Lower contract turnover means that more of the cap appreciation is eaten by contracts the team still has, and will almost always offset the real $ value difference. Unless you are working with some unrealistic/wonky contract values, where X and Y above are significantly far apart, or the team has structured itself to significant amounts of contracts all at once. However, if the team does do that, then it means the prior years they have fewer contracts coming off the books, which goes back to what I was saying about killing the UFA market. Holding 90% of your contracts for four years and then dropping 50% at once, means you have no money to sign anyone during the four years of that situation, which is about to become a TML situation.
That 4.5M of cap that appeared as HRR increased from 2017-18 to 2018-19, is a discretionary spend, it can be spent or not. In your method, whatever contracts are remaining automatically adjust back to 83% of 79.5M, which is the new cap.
Which is ironic considering you posted this earlier:
Again that short fall will be punted to future players.
Simple greed on a massive scale by multi-millionaires screwing over those who are younger.
In this case, the players eat up the cap appreciation and also screw over younger players/UFA. Since the team has less to spend on RFA's etc.
Other than the fact that you are manually adjusting signed contracts based on assumptions about how and why they are structured (which is unsubstantiated), I don't see what I'm missing here. I would side with someone like Mouser on this, who is one of the more knowledgeable cap people on the board, somewhat insulting that you tell him right off he is inventing fantasies.