I've got a neat little, but faulty, theory which may give some insight into how long the NHLPA may stick out this lockout. Currently, the median salary is around 800K, which the NHL intends to halve (you'll know what I mean if you've been reading Spector's soap box). I believe that if the NHLPA would ever accept a salary cap, it would substantially limit its rollback (which the NHL would happily accept if it were to get its hard cap). But, if the NHL were to start today under the system the NHLPA proposed this month and would agree to (and the least plausible scenario the NHL would play under), the median salary would be around 400K. That would mean the average NHLer will have lost 400K this year if the lockout only lasts this season. But if the NHLPA accepted the cap without a rollback in the first year, the players could potentially make up for their losses this season in the first half of the following season of the new CBA (and would make as much money in this season with a cap as two seasons of the NHLPA's proposed system)...a predicament not hard to stomach in the short-term if I was a player. So the theory makes me believe that Goodenow is more than willing to risk waiting one year to see if the owners budge. Worse case scenario, all the potential earnings they lost in two years would be "corrected" in one season. It's unfortunate, however, for me that my theory is contingent on the NHL accepting the hard cap without a substantial rollback. But, if I were a betting man, I would say the NHL would be delighted to have its salary cap w/o an immediate rollback. Further, I may be overestimating the effect of the losses the players could incur in without playing hockey for a year. Some players have already said they're willing to be locked out for 18-24 months. So who knows... This theory also fails to recognize the number of players that may still have contracts, 1 year from now, leftover from the previous system where the median salary is 800K. I believe roughly half the membership would still be under such contracts. It's also interesting to note that the NHLPA's 24% rollback will mean little in 2 seasons from now where only a quarter of the membership will still have contracts. Thus, the rollback would not provide the players with not much leverage in 2 years. What would the NHLPA do then to try an entice the owners to not seek a salary cap when it could make the value of the rich owner's franchises skyrocket!? The NHLPA would be totally at the mercy of the NHL. So, it would make sense to me that if the PA wanted to avoid a hard cap (and try and entice the owners to at least accept a soft cap) and required using their rollback as leverage, it would have to do it before the loss of a second season. In the end, I think the NHLPA can only afford to not play hockey for one year. But it should really start worrying afterwards when the PA begins to lose significant leverage and money. If this lockout lasts two years, the PA is cooked! Am I out to lunch here or what?