I'm not sure. There is no way for the PA to do it, really. Anyway you slice it, they will take a huge bath in this CBA if they agree. However, if that's what will happen, then that is what will happen. So I'm trying to image a cap scenario that is palatable. 1. Doubtful, but would it be possible to agree to the cap on the condition that Bettman is replaced by the start of next season? Bettman might be finally be able to win a war with the PA. But is record in terms of promoting the sport is abysmal. The players are going to want something close to a guarantee that revenues will increase. Especially tv revenues. And that is an area where Bettman has failed. Might Bettman simply agree to step aside (triumphantly, with this win)? It would soothe the players somewhat if he were canned and replaced with a real hockey man. 2. If the PA agrees to a cap, the PA should demand the following: a) UFA at any age - Why? Why not. If there is a salary cap in place, there is no worry that unrestricted free agency will drive up salaries. b) No limits on entry salaries: A guy like Sidney Crosby should not be limited in his negotiations. With a cap, there is no worry that entry level salaries will raise salary costs, so why limit entry level salaries (unless GMs need even more protection from their own abilities to assess talent, but with a cap, they have all the protection they need. They might get stuck with a bum for a few years, but at least they shouldn't lose much money) c)A salary floor reasonably close to a salary cap d) Since there are no RFAs anymore, there is no need for arbitration. e) Draft picks not signed by the next draft become automatic UFAs. The players would obviously be giving up a ton financially if the owners win the cap. In return, they must win something. Unlimited freedom for those without contract would be the best thing. The new economic structure wouldn't allow it to drive up costs. So owners should have no problems relinquishing these limitations.