Well, I must say it's nice to come back a week later & see that there is some interesting discussion, and not someone just asking why the players would do it (after I explicity said for discussion sake to ignore what most players would think of this).
Couple of things. This salary would not be based on a % the max cap, it would be based on a % a of 'self-imposed' cap ownership chose to use (my example was 10/11th aka $40 of $44 by the Senators). this self-imposed cap might also allow them to make an exception during the season for this kind of trade or injuries (although existing player salaries would stay at the self-imposed cap chosen at the beginning of the season).
As far as what would happen when a player was traded....my response is the player would get paid the same $ figure and current players of that team might have agree to sacrifice a small % of their salary. I can't remember of examples in the NHL, but I know in other pro-sports, athlete re-structure their contracts in order to allow their teams to get better by adding players. Also, teams could trade/waive/etc players in order to fit the salary into their plan. Smart business minds could figure out how to work around trades and make everyone happy.
That is essentially what this idea is about, creating a partnership between the players as well as between players & ownership.
Why would ownership be willing to risk paying a player $x amount because the cap went up by x % the following season? The same reason they'd risk paying a player less if the cap went down.
It's good to see some posts saying it's better for the players, while some say it's better for the owners....which means it might actually be fair. Both sides sacrifice, both sides gain.
It may be unrealistic, difficult, unfair, who knows, but it would be nice to at least force the two sides to think about different ways to do things and form a partnership of some sort.
Thanks for the feedback.
Couple of things. This salary would not be based on a % the max cap, it would be based on a % a of 'self-imposed' cap ownership chose to use (my example was 10/11th aka $40 of $44 by the Senators). this self-imposed cap might also allow them to make an exception during the season for this kind of trade or injuries (although existing player salaries would stay at the self-imposed cap chosen at the beginning of the season).
As far as what would happen when a player was traded....my response is the player would get paid the same $ figure and current players of that team might have agree to sacrifice a small % of their salary. I can't remember of examples in the NHL, but I know in other pro-sports, athlete re-structure their contracts in order to allow their teams to get better by adding players. Also, teams could trade/waive/etc players in order to fit the salary into their plan. Smart business minds could figure out how to work around trades and make everyone happy.
That is essentially what this idea is about, creating a partnership between the players as well as between players & ownership.
Why would ownership be willing to risk paying a player $x amount because the cap went up by x % the following season? The same reason they'd risk paying a player less if the cap went down.
It's good to see some posts saying it's better for the players, while some say it's better for the owners....which means it might actually be fair. Both sides sacrifice, both sides gain.
It may be unrealistic, difficult, unfair, who knows, but it would be nice to at least force the two sides to think about different ways to do things and form a partnership of some sort.
Thanks for the feedback.