After reading an article in the most recent edition of The Hockey news (I forget who wrote it and the name of it), I finally found an article expressing almost exactly what I have been thinking for a while now, more specifically, since the NHLPA gave their last proposal. In short: What the hell is the NHLPA thinking? Is there anyone out there that can honestly say that they don`t think their will be any type of cap (either a hard cap, soft cap or hard luxury tax) when all is said and done? There is no way the NHL is going to settle for anything less than one of those three, so why doesn`t the NHLPA try to get the best deal possible under the parameters the owner`s will accept, rather than dismiss anything that ties salaries to revenue. From an NHLPA perspective I would be thinking: Fine, we will tie salaries to revenue but we will do it in the form of a Luxury tax, NO HARD CAP. The threshold won`t be at 50 or 55% of revenues, it will be at 60%. UFA age will be lowered to 28. A joint committee will be set up, made up of members from the NHL, NHLPA as well as independent auditors to make sure every penny made and spent by the league is accounted for. Can anybody honestly say that this isn`t a fair deal from the players perspective? There is absolutely no way the players can do better than this by sitting out a season or two. By accepting something similar to this in the near future, the players do four things: a) Make out like bandits compared to their NFL and NBA counterparts, b) Make a great PR move by showing the fans that they do want a season and are willing to make concessions (real concessions, not the crap they have been tryin to pass as concessions so far), c) Avoid the risk of the NHL declaring an impasse and implementing their own CBA and finally d) Salvage the season, and some salary for that matter, to minimize the damage done to the game.