Formal negotiations over a new collective agreement between the NHL and the NHLPA that would take effect next season are set to begin tomorrow. As a start the two side agreed on next season's cap - $70.2 million. But let's be real that will not likely be the cap when a new CBA is signed - whenever that might be.
So every GM has lots of cap space to resign players and throw at free agents. But there is an element of risk involved when you don't know the impact of new contracts under an agreement that doesn't exist yet. Mind you, that was just as much the case for long-term contracts signed the last couple of years. It just becomes more obvious this summer.
Would you have anticipated the cap going up 80% over 7 years? Not me. If not for recession in 2008-09 the cap would be even higher. I guess many people consider the cap to be a failure because of its steady rise and the ongoing unprofitability of many franchises. It depends on what you expected the cap to accomplish.
There were team payrolls back in 2003 at the existing cap level so you can't tell me that the cap hasn't suppressed salaries. At the time Mats Sundin was earning $9 million per season. Today the highest paid Leaf is Dion Phaneuf at $6.5 million. What the cap has done is allowed the wealthy teams to become wealthier. Salaries are only going up by about 10% per year but if you can increase revenue at a higher rate then more profits for you.
The cap also keeps the differential between salaries of small and large market teams at a reasonable amount which helps establish more parity. You don't have the MLB problem where some teams have payrolls that are more that $100 million higher than other teams.
But what we have learned is that if you can't enough generate revenue, if you lease or operating costs are too high or your sucks then no salary cap will help you.
No comments:
Post a Comment