So if your income is high, you can decide to shop at Whole Foods, and pay their prices, but if your job is such that you can't afford to shop there, then you shop at No Frills, as their prices are within your budget.
Duchene knows he'll get "Whole Food" offers from large Market teams, when he becomes an UFA, and knows that Ottawa can only offer him a "No Frills" extension.
The Offers from a NHL team, reflects the revenues of their market.
I think that is an overly simplistic view. Sure, teams with larger player budgets can spend more on their teams as a whole. But, there is nothing stopping Ottawa from offering what any other team can offer. There is a cap on how much one player can make and it's well below the cap floor.
The decision whether or not to sign any player to any amount therefore is not solely based on budget factors but also a strategic decision on how to build a team.
Is a team with two players making 10 mil and the rest making less able to compete any better/worse than a team with two 8 mil players and the extra 4 mil spread over the rest?
Just for reference, Ottawa's projected cap hit this years is 72 mil. When Chicago won the cup in 2015 they had a cap hit of 71 mil, including Toews and Kane at 10 mil.
Of course it's harder and you have to make less mistakes on all your other players while hitting home runs on your elite players. But it's not impossible, and IMO when your in a small market where revenues are directly tied to player budget, not having stars to draw fans to the games, sell merchandise, etc, if a bad business decision.
Because of the above, and until I see proof otherwise, I am still left to wonder if not signing our stars has nothing to do with team revenue and everything to do with the lack of financial stability of the franchise because it does not have enough operating capital to cover short-term loses even though the long-term revenues will cover the short-term overages. (year-year loses, lockout bonus, front-loaded contracts, etc). I would love to be wrong, but it cannot be ruled out as a possibility until I see the team take on risk that could result in these types of loses. ie: ownership does not have enough cashflow to float the team through loses until revenues cover the loses, even it is an almost guaranteed that the revenues will cover the loses.