jamiebez said:
Very true. People are focusing on the big contracts (Pronger, Yashin), but I'd be interested to know the total cost of either option. Specifically, how much would each team have to commit for all existing contracts to be paid in full for 04/05, minus 24% going forward vs. not paying 04/05 and a 0% rollback going forward. If sure there are teams that win in each scenario - the question is: how many? I suspect that there are fewer teams in trouble without the rollback than people think.
Also, all this assumes the NHL won't negotiate back on the matter. Perhaps they increase the salary cap by $1M in exchange for a 5-10% rollback? Or they propose a "staggered" rollback again (where the high value contracts are cut by a higher percentage)? Just as examples...
Example: Lightning
1 - had 20 players under contract for 04-05 for a total of approx $41 Mil (only major contributor not signed was St. Louis) $41 Mil - 24% = $31,160,000
2 - has only 8 players under contract for 05-06 for a total of $20,350,000 (8 players are Sydor, Kubina, Modin, Richards, Prospal, Sarich, Grahame, Dingman)
The team would be missing major contributors Khabibulin (UFA), St. Louis, Lecavalier, Fedotenko, Boyle, Lukowich, and other fringe players too.
EDIT: Also if UFA age goes to 30 with new CBA, St. Louis turns 30 this month.
Based on the above scenerios, I know what how Lightning management would vote. The Lightning followed the NHL edict to control costs, and based on that Lightning management was RESPONSIBLE in their management of resources and signing of UFA's. If the 2nd scenerio is put in place our team gets screwed for being RESPONSIBLE.