The cap floor

[johnunit]

In theory, sure. The reality is that there are going to be a dozen or so teams that just won't be able to turn a profit by spending to the floor. Personally, I think they should get rid of a "team" cap and simply impose a "player" cap. This way, big market teams can still spend whatever they like without over-inflating individual player salaries, while small market teams don't have to worry about crippling their bank roll.

but in that example you'd still have teams inflating prices because they'd give many players max contracts.


For instance, Toronto could afford to basically give their entire top 2 forward lines a max-salary contract, and would be wise to do so. That would still drastically inflate prices.

 

[Fourier]

I explicitly qualified it as being below the Lower Limit at the beginning of the season - to do so would be a willful prima facie example of circumvention and be subject to all the nasty Article 26 sanctions.

The League has set the precedent that it accepts teams falling below the limit due to unearned bonuses - so it is not likely they would try to apply sanctions in the future.

However, if a team tried to reach the Lower Limit through unrealistic bonuses, the League could reject the SPC and/or pursue Article 26 proceedings and sanctions - that SPC itself would likely fall under the permissible circumstantial evidence - "including without limitation, evidence that an SPC or any provision of an SPC cannot reasonably be explained in the absence of conduct prohibited by this Article 26".

Thanks,

I think we are on the same page.