Thats part of the salary cap structure. Dont pick and choose the impact of a Cap at your own convinience.

As a matter of fact, the Cap itself was barely restricting teams from spending like drunken salaries and it constantly went up and up and was at almost 70 million. Almost 20 million more from the original figure.
- systemtool

An unforeseen loophole with term and frontloading caused it. The cap they lput in was flawed, but am I the only one who remembers how unevenly the league was slanted talentwise before? The cap is undoubtedly flawed but it absolutely helped with parity. Youre just mad because the Leafs cant just buy stars players on the verge of retirement anymore lol.

you are so difficult to talk to...

so your answer is anything less than 82 game season would suck?
- LetsGoIsles

It's all relative. I like most am so starved for hockey I'll take a 20 game season but it will still leave a bad taste in my mouth, again like I'm sure most fans would feel.

Hmm my bad. I thought that was floor with the cap at 52. No?

Either way, just proves the point that they fixed (frank) all.
- systemtool

The cap started at 39

It's all relative. I like most am so starved for hockey I'll take a 20 game season but it will still leave a bad taste in my mouth, again like I'm sure most fans would feel.
- Cptmjl

pathetic

An unforeseen loophole with term and frontloading caused it. The cap they lput in was flawed, but am I the only one who remembers how unevenly the league was slanted talentwise before? The cap is undoubtedly flawed but it absolutely helped with parity. Youre just mad because the Leafa cant just buy stars players on the verge of retirement anymore lol.
- sanfordnson

Im not mad, and the fact you bring the Leafs into this to take a jab at me speaks volumes of your maturity and inability to support your end of the arguement.

Lottery would be heavily in favor of teams finishing at the bottom, has to be fair for them.
- Symba007

Phew

pathetic
- sanfordnson

Agreed, I am.

Im not mad, and the fact you bring the Leafs into this to take a jab at me speaks volumes of your maturity and inability to support your end of the arguement.
- systemtool

Oh lighten up and make a Yakupov joke sweetheart.

My point is valid. Lower the cap floor and those teams have no issues. Not the cap itself but one aspect of it. Cant deny that the cap leveled the playing field.

Well I can't say what any court would rule on. And it is certainly not only the League making concessions. I'd say it's the opposite. The League has certainly compromised and moved closer to the players position. But it's the players who are giving the concessions.
- MJL

The owners don't give concessions. The PA does. They are not business partners, business partners do not oppose one another in a CBA. That's what Concession bargaining is referring to. The Union surrendering previously gained improvements in pay and/or benefits/conditions in exchange for some form of job security.

Oh the irony...
- Cptmjl

STILL didnt answer the question....

See for yourself. Incredibly detailed:

http://espn.go.com/blog/n...s-of-nhls-dec-27-proposal

I wasnt trying to be funny.

How was your Christmas? I drank a lot. Came up with a drink where you mix scotch with more scotch.
- sanfordnson

That's awesome, I received 2 bottles of 15 year single malt as gifts!

Oh lighten up and make a Yakupov joke sweetheart.

My point is valid. Lower the cap floor and those teams have no issues. Not the cap itself but one aspect of it. Cant deny that the cap leveled the playing field.
- sanfordnson

In lowering the cap floor, you would then have to lower the cap ceiling too. It could work. Problem with the last CBA, is that the cap was tied to league revenues. When it should have been linked to league profits.

It's all relative. I like most am so starved for hockey I'll take a 20 game season but it will still leave a bad taste in my mouth, again like I'm sure most fans would feel.
- Cptmjl

there it is...

but whats the number that would make it feel legit??

Somewhere in the world, 3 NHL GMs are licking their chops daydreaming how to abuse this to their advantage:

"Creation of Salary Cap exceptions for emergency roster situations / goaltender injuries"

STILL didnt answer the question....
- LetsGoIsles

I post here to get away from you . I answered in the post following that one...

The owners don't give concessions. The PA does. They are not business partners, business partners do not oppose one another in a CBA. That's what Concession bargaining is referring to. The Union surrendering previously gained improvements in pay and/or benefits/conditions in exchange for some form of job security.
- MnGump

I wouldn't pay much attention to him. He actually has no idea what "concession" means.

The players have to take this. For MJL, there ARE things the owners gave players here that are improvements on the last CBA for players. They must take this deal:

http://espn.go.com/blog/n...s-of-nhls-dec-27-proposal

there it is...

but whats the number that would make it feel legit??
- LetsGoIsles

I posted how boring it would be to discuss this and said that's why I avoided the question in the first place which as usual didn't involve you. You then take said conversation and continue it? I think we've seen this movie before?

Oh lighten up and make a Yakupov joke sweetheart.

My point is valid. Lower the cap floor and those teams have no issues. Not the cap itself but one aspect of it. Cant deny that the cap leveled the playing field.
- sanfordnson

If you lower the floor you mess with the system. Changes %

Lottery would be heavily in favor of teams finishing at the bottom, has to be fair for them.
- Symba007

Sure, but it should be a potential assistance not a guaranteed reward.

The owners don't give concessions. The PA does. They are not business partners, business partners do not oppose one another in a CBA. That's what Concession bargaining is referring to. The Union surrendering previously gained improvements in pay and/or benefits/conditions in exchange for some form of job security.
- MnGump

MJL needs to write his own business book, because he's the only one that understands what he is saying. By using concession bargaining definition, make whole is a concession, but MJL conveniently sees it as money owed to the players anyway.

The players have to take this. For MJL, there ARE things the owners gave players here that are improvements on the last CBA for players. They must take this deal:

http://espn.go.com/blog/n...s-of-nhls-dec-27-proposal
- mrhattrick27

Having read that quickly, it certainly sounds like a deal that they should take. I just hope Fehr doesn't cherry pick with a counter offer. Tweak this and accept it and start playing.

See for yourself. Incredibly detailed:

http://espn.go.com/blog/n...s-of-nhls-dec-27-proposal
- Senators2112

Will teams still be able to bury bad contracts in the minors without taking a cap hit?

Oh lighten up and make a Yakupov joke sweetheart.

My point is valid. Lower the cap floor and those teams have no issues. Not the cap itself but one aspect of it. Cant deny that the cap leveled the playing field.
- sanfordnson

Lowering the cap does lower the floor. The floor is the cap less $16M I think.

And you have to be pretty careful about lowering the floor too far without the cap dropping too. the parity aspect of the league has done quite well, I'd say.

More realistically, the floor should have been done as a %, not a $ amount. That would have helped.

That's just one more thing the PA would object to though... a lower floor.