CarlRacki said:
It will deflate the labor market, making quality players more affordable for smaller market teams. It's simple economics, really.
So Jarome Iginla can make the same money in Calgary as he can in New York. He'll choose Calgary? Ed Jovanovski can make the same money in Florida as he can in Vancouver. He'll choose Vancouver? Vincent Lecavalier can make the same money in Tampa as he can in Montreal. He'll choose the Lightning?
If money is the same, other factors become much more important. Those other factors will occasionally favour a small market, but mostly they favour the big ones. Eric Lindros wanted to become Eric Lindros, Inc so he refused to go to Quebec City. Mark Messier wanted to become Mark Messier, Inc. so he moved to New York. Gretzky, of course, became Wayne Gretzky, Inc. in LA.
Under the old CBA, big markets were expected to spend, so they did. In a real sense they were disadvantaged, forced by the market to spend on rapidly depreciating assets. If they don't spend, the market turns off as it has in Boston and Chicago. If they do spend, they don't improve. They get worse.
If you assume - just for a second - that that is the problem the NHL really sees, how would they behave to change it? I'd submit that they would behave precisely as they have behaved, and they would demand precisely what they have demanded.
If you do go for free agency at 27 without a cap, you have baseball. That works for the business but the illusion of competitive balance is destroyed.
Tom