NHL salary cap makeover would be problematic

Regarding Return to Play:

1. There will be two subsections of groups that will benefit if the NHLPA ratifies the renegotiated and extended collective bargaining agreement, which will be presented to the union for ratification as part of a comprehensive return-to-play package that will include hub-city locations and health/safety coronavirus-related protocols for training camp and the Stanley Cup tournament.

And they are: 1) Owners who don’t particularly care if their respective teams win; and, 2) Players on long-term contracts who don’t particularly care if their respective teams win.

2. Because a flat cap at the current $81.5 million for the next two or three years (there is talk of increasing the cap by $1 million in Year 3) will strangle contenders that historically spend to the upper ceiling, and will have to contend with arbitration and pending unrestricted free agents without the luxury of steady, even if modest, increased spending room. To wit: the cap increased from $73 million in 2016-17 to $81.5 million over the next three seasons, a jump of 11.64 percent.

Less cap space not only translates into less room to add players, but also less with which to keep them. Teams will be forced to exercise buyouts. (Sources have told The Post that amnesty buyouts have barely, if at all, been part of the conversation). More players will be dumped onto the free-agent market. Teams will grant fewer long-term deals. As such, there will be more arbitration hearings and more players on the market.

Adopting a flat cap will lower escrow, but the players could have done that any time by narrowing the band and setting the ceiling at, say 5 percent over the midpoint than the current 15 percent. Deferring 10 percent of their salary next season will also ease escrow, with that money to be paid following the NHL’s new media-rights deal(s) also mitigates the burden.

And though a flat cap will benefit guys on long-term deals, players coming up on free agency over the next three seasons constitute a huge majority of the union membership. Indeed, 572 players are currently eligible to hit free agency over the next three offseasons, 335 unrestricted and 144 eligible for arbitration. (I did a count using Capfriendly.com data. If there is a mistake, it is mine and not the website’s.)

ALSO READ  Nigerian lawyer shares photos to show the state of an apartment a landlord in Aguda is renting for 350,000

Thirteen teams spent to the cap (or beyond, using long-term injury exemptions) for 2019-20, with six more coming within $2 million of the limit. With a flat cap, where are all the free agents going to go?

Or are we simply going to see an acceleration into a caste system where rosters will consist of hockey’s one-percenters, entry-level players and minimum-wage laborers?

3. No one has a clue about 2020-21 revenue. So the NHL recognized it would have to violate its principle of linking the cap to revenue, because if that held, next season’s cap could be as low as $63 million with the 2021-22 cap at what, $30 million? Then what? Teams could not construct full-game rosters.

So they have arrived at this split-the-baby choice of maintaining the current cap while capping escrow in order to give the players more time to pay what they owe from this season and to keep them from facing an indescribably onerous situation in two years per the current CBA.

Source: New York Post

Eyewitness? Submit your stories now via WhatsApp: +2348034798719. Email: newsdesk@newzandar.com.

Contact Us          Advertise


Nigerians reacts to the effect of Covid-19 lockdown

Trending Now

Recent Posts

ALSO READ  Anxiety at rudderless EFCC over Magu’s successor

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.