It's what they did last time, although the very low end weren't affected.
- bodiva88

Easy wat out, but if you want true fairness each AAV should be reduce by the percentage of the total cap under which it as signed. That would be the fairest for the player, the team and the league.

For example,
A player signed for $8 million under a $64 million dollar cap is worth 12.5% of the teams cap. Threfore if the cap is changed that player should still be 12.5% of the teams cap to be fair to the team and the player. Gets complicated with LTIR and other adjustments, but the point is the same. All contracts aren't equal for the parameters under which they were signed.

The league-wide trend toward locking up the better D-men into long-term extensions looks like it will continue. Canucks to begin talks with Edler on an extension. With Enström having already extended with Winnipeg, there will be no All-Star caliber D on the UFA market next summer, assuming something gets done between Edler and Canucks (and I think it will, ahead of CBA expiration).

http://www.vancouversun.c.../story.html#ixzz23qCTY4eO)

All of better (potential; but they'll probably be extended, too) FA defensemen next summer are RFAs: Alex Pietrangelo, Oliver Ekman-Larsson and Zach Bogosian being at the head of the line, in that order.

In other words, for those of you figuring on the Flyers using Kimmo Timonen's expiring contract as a leg up on a big UFA defenseman signing next year, forget it. It may very well be that Timonen himself ends up being the best UFA defenseman available.
- bmeltzer

Which is why Homer has mentioned resigning/ extending Kimmo's contract. A move I would hope he gets to ASAP.

Love term limits and elimination of signing bonuses unless they're capped.
- jstross

Well that's good and bad. For the overall League, probably a good thing. For my team the Flyers, not a good thing. No longer be able to front load deals and spread out the years to the lower the AAV. The Flyers have a player in Giroux who is due a new deal in a few years. If he continues to be one of the top player in the League, what kind of deal is looking at? He sees players getting these top salaries, he's going to want the same. Even if under the new CBA, the Cap Upper Limit is lower, and max salary is 20%. Let's use an upper limit of 60M. Max salary would be 12M. So if term's are limited to 5 years. Whats Giroux's new deal going to look like? My guess is a 12M Cap hit! It will make it more difficult for teams like the Flyers going forward.

It was a good run that 04 year but couldn't we have just traded big E for him? I guess it's just one of those things, can't get over the sting of that trade after all these years. Tocchet and Brindy are my top two favs. I don't really hold it against the organization for trading Tocchet when they did, because iirc he got pissed about getting booed, hence why I try to urge people to not be so boo happy all the time. I know kind of futile but so is resistance so they say and it never stops me
- JoeRussomanno

When Brind'Amour was traded, he was battling foot injuries and there seemed to be a feeling in the organization that he might be finally breaking down. Primeau was younger and offered that wonderful "Lindros insurance" in case Eric got hurt or decided to force a trade.

There was also a concern about Brind'Amour being able to mesh with Recchi. IIRC, they struggled as linemates when Brind'Amour was healthy.

Well that's good and bad. For the overall League, probably a good thing. For my team the Flyers, not a good thing. No longer be able to front load deals and spread out the years to the lower the AAV. The Flyers have a player in Giroux who is due a new deal in a few years. If he continues to be one of the top player in the League, what kind of deal is looking at? He sees players getting these top salaries, he's going to want the same. Even if under the new CBA, the Cap Upper Limit is lower, and max salary is 20%. Let's use an upper limit of 60M. Max salary would be 12M. So if term's are limited to 5 years. Whats Giroux's new deal going to look like? My guess is a 12M Cap hit! It will make it more difficult for teams like the Flyers going forward.
- MJL

Just my opinion, but with the owners getting a greater share of revenue and maybe even redefining what is considered revenue for salary cap purposes, I don't like the idea of term limits. I'm all for the players maximizing their value after their rookie contract. I don't have a problem with 10+ year contracts if the market can dictate terms, especially if the player makes it to UFA status. The player has certainly assumed quite a bit of risk reaching UFA status, so I would hope an open market would be available for the player to maximize his worth in an already hard cap world.

It seems to me considering the risk of injury, players are willing to sign extensions throughout the league taking away early unrestricted free agency for the security of their money now. I have to give those players credit because of the possible devastating consequences of receiving a concussion.

when I hear people bring up that season from Primeau it cracks me up because Brind'amour had plenty of those. I was kind of annoyed when we did our fav top 10 flyers and there was way too many Primeau's and hardly any Brind'amours, Roddy was twice the player Keith was.
- JoeRussomanno

I wouldn't have Primeau in my top ten, but I'm a little biased towards him with that trade. That 2004 team was beauty, and his playoff run--especially against the Lightning was hands down dominant. If they would have won the Cup that year, I think the trade debate would be null and void.

Just my opinion, but with the owners getting a greater share of revenue and maybe even redefining what is considered revenue for salary cap purposes, I don't like the idea of term limits. I'm all for the players maximizing their value after their rookie contract. I don't have a problem with 10+ year contracts if the market can dictate terms, especially if the player makes it to UFA status. The player has certainly assumed quite a bit of risk reaching UFA status, so I would hope an open market would be available for the player to maximize his worth in an already hard cap world.

It seems to me considering the risk of injury, players are willing to sign extensions throughout the league taking away early unrestricted free agency for the security of their money now. I have to give those players credit because of the possible devastating consequences of receiving a concussion.
- ravishingone

If the owners are simply getting a greater share of revenue, then the problems facing the NHL will continue.

The problem isn't the revenue split with the players, it's revenue sharing between the teams themselves.

There's teams that are at or close to the cap every year, they are healthy and make money and drive the financial success of the NHL. The problem is the weaker teams. The ones that can't retain their star players because they can't afford the salaries, not because they're up against the cap.

The owners are busy selling the idea that a more even HRR split with the players will solve the issue. It will help the poorer teams, but it will not give them financial parity.

Look at the Forbes numbers. Now they're not guaranteed accurate, but the Flyers made $70mm from ticket revenue last season. Nashville made $26mm. How does the players giving up 9% of HRR money bridge that chasm?

If the owners are simply getting a greater share of revenue, then the problems facing the NHL will continue.

The problem isn't the revenue split with the players, it's revenue sharing between the teams themselves.

There's teams that are at or close to the cap every year, they are healthy and make money and drive the financial success of the NHL. The problem is the weaker teams. The ones that can't retain their star players because they can't afford the salaries, not because they're up against the cap.

The owners are busy selling the idea that a more even HRR split with the players will solve the issue. It will help the poorer teams, but it will not give them financial parity.

Look at the Forbes numbers. Now they're not guaranteed accurate, but the Flyers made $70mm from ticket revenue last season. Nashville made $26mm. How does the players giving up 9% of HRR money bridge that chasm?
- Jsaquella

It doesn't, but this isn't the NFL. The gate revenue for teams (even wealthy ones) is vital to their financial stability. Big market teams aren't interested in revenue sharing at a much higher level, that is obvious. NBA and MLB have large and small market teams with an unequal financial footing. The NHL is going down a similiar path. You're just not going to convince the Snyders and Dolans of the NHL to give much more of their revenue to smaller market teams in markets that frankly you can question whether they are viable even in a more level playing financial field.

It doesn't, but this isn't the NFL. The gate revenue for teams (even wealthy ones) is vital to their financial stability. Big market teams aren't interested in revenue sharing at a much higher level, that is obvious. NBA and MLB have large and small market teams with an unequal financial footing. The NHL is going down a similiar path. You're just not going to convince the Snyders and Dolans of the NHL to give much more of their revenue to smaller market teams in markets that frankly you can question whether they are viable even in a more level playing financial field.
- ravishingone

Both the NBA and MLB have better revenue sharing plans than the NHL model, because teams like the Flyers don;t want to share revenues with Nashville