Tuesday, March 31, 2009
ast week I wrote an entry on the issue of a falling salary cap number in the NHL. The falling cap means some teams will have less room than they'd like to fill out their roster. I suggested teams pay a salary that is a percentage of the cap instead of a flat amount. I sent the following question to the Toronto Star hockey reporter:
Q: If an NHL team is worried about a falling cap number and committing dollars to a free agrent which squeezes room for other players, why not sign contracts where the salary is a percentage of the cap number and not a flat amount. It probably makes sense to assign all players a percentage of the cap and you don't have to worry about being squeezed. (Provided the GM isn't Max Bialystock and his assistant isn't Leo Bloom.)
A: Yes, if it were only so that we knew those who have run the Leafs for the past 40 years were simply channeling The Producers. It would all make so much more sense.
Basically, what you’re suggesting is an interesting idea, but not legal under the current collective bargaining agreement. Each player must have defined salary and number for cap purposes. The only way in which a percentage of the cap can be used is to generate the maximum salary allowable, which can be no more than 20 per cent of the maximum cap figure for any individual.
I would someone at the NHL was thinking when put the CBA together.
Posted 2009/03/31 at 18h28ET in Hockey.