NYIsles1 said:Maybe I'm reading this wrong but it's either a ten percent increase three times which approaches 70 million and changes nothing or it's a 57 million as a ceiling which they can only reach three times, which either way does not make a lot of sense because at some point those teams must increase and decrease. Three times in six years is three times in six years.
This is still way too big a disparity which corporate owners willing to spend and lose will continue to exploit for advantages. The game needs a hard-cap between 45-50 million with a real revenue sharing formula considering the financial trouble the sport is in even in the so-called large markets.
The frame work should be there for that kind of agreement.
Absolute max is $57.2 million, there's no compound 10% raise each year. Not sure where you got that from.
If you are at $52 million, you are already dishing out an extra $6 million in luxury taxes, so you're paying $58 million. If you really want to sign a player for $5.2 million to get you to the over-cap, you will have to pay $13 million total. I would say that's a huge pay cheque for a $5 million player, and a pretty good detriment. Only a few teams, if that, would be able and willing to pay that. On top of that, you only have three years, so eventually this grossly over-spending big market team will have to go into cut-salary mode, which takes them right out of any type of free agent bidding mode.
The PA knows that without revenue sharing, a bunch of teams will be spending at or near the lower limit. So they have to allow some teams to go up to (and possibly over) the $52 million in order to balance out the average salary. More revenue sharing would allow a lower cap.