Sorry so 1.75. As for y Lu isn't traded I believe their are a few other factors. The cba is the biggest. The fact that Gillis is asking to much and the fact that other teams wanna send money the other way
I read somewhere today that each % point in revenues translates to $35 million in player salaries.
So doing simple math, say each % means $1 million reduction in the salary cap.
I can't see how this could possibly work without salary rollbacks. No way the owners accept anything above a 50/50 split. - Atomic Wedgie
I think I saw that too .....50/50 would equate to a cap of 63 or 64 million. That would put 6 or 7 teams over the Cap. Maybe a small or graduated roll back with some amnesty buyouts.
Location: The centre of the hockey universe Joined: 07.31.2006
Aug 28 @ 5:01 PM ET
Sorry so 1.75. As for y Lu isn't traded I believe their are a few other factors. The cba is the biggest. The fact that Gillis is asking to much and the fact that other teams wanna send money the other way - Bieksa#3
Sorry so 1.75. As for y Lu isn't traded I believe their are a few other factors. The cba is the biggest. The fact that Gillis is asking to much and the fact that other teams wanna send money the other way - Bieksa#3
Could you honestly say you're surprised by this? The CBA is a big hurdle, because it could make Luongo even LESS valuable if contract lengths get capped. And, at the end of the day, there's a very good chance teams like the Leafs looked at themselves in the mirror, and decided to wait till next offseason to see what's available.
Location: Bobby Ryan + 1st rounder for Clarkson, ON Joined: 08.30.2007
Aug 28 @ 5:52 PM ET
One thing I noticed with him working out with Roberts is that he dropped weight. Down to 183.
I bet he was lazy before and his weight gains in previous seasons were fat. Roberts probably reduced is overall body fat % while gaining muscle.
Unfortunately, 183 is still small for the NHL. I hope he can bulk up to 190-195lbs of lean muscle by the time the seasons starts - ILoveLamp
I don't disagree, except for it has to be a $1 for $1 tax. But the NHL can't say we need the same split as NBA and have a hard cap. - Bieksa#3
I'd be fine with the $1-for-$1 provision as well...even some of the more well-heeled clubs would have to think about how much they would be willing to go over the cap...considering going over even $10 million would cost the team $20 million overall...
I'd be fine with the $1-for-$1 provision as well...even some of the more well-heeled clubs would have to think about how much they would be willing to go over the cap...considering going over even $10 million would cost the team $20 million overall... - p_zub
Location: If the NHL wanted to cut ties Joined: 06.27.2012
Aug 28 @ 6:20 PM ET
I'd be fine with the $1-for-$1 provision as well...even some of the more well-heeled clubs would have to think about how much they would be willing to go over the cap...considering going over even $10 million would cost the team $20 million overall... - p_zub
With the "luxury tax" going directly to revenue sharing.