That being said, is 11 players signed for $35.8 mil on average a “problem”? Even if the cap drops precipitously to $50 mil, that leaves an average of $15 mil in cap space per team. By my account, that still makes my “tens of millions” statemetn correct.

Like i said, if we go into the great depression, we are all screwed, including the NHL. Short of that, the only players who are disadvantaged are those unfortunate enough to be FA’s at this point in history and the few teams who are well into the 40′s.

Kel, this is true, but not a good answer to the problem. The teams still have to pay out the money and it hurts the product.

However, it is also true that nearly all teams have ample opportunity to begin every off-season with a substantial amount (tens of millions)of cap space. Most, if not all teams have salary commitments in the twenties of millions for 2010-11 as of now.

If this was even remotely correct there would be no problem. So far teams have signed fewer than half the players they will need for 2010-2011 and committed more than a billion dollars. The average team has 11 players signed and $35.8 MM committed.

Not even close to the truth. 6 teams have salary cap commitments below 30 million for 2010/2011 as of now. Only Anaheim, Atlanta, Colorado, Dallas, the Islanders and St. Louis meet that criteria, and that’s before NY signs Tavares. There are 9 teams with salary cap numbers for 10/11 already over 40 million. In other words, 80% of teams are already in for 30 million or more.

You are right that there is a myth in general, Dennis. However, it is also true that nearly all teams have ample opportunity to begin every off-season with a substantial amount (tens of millions)of cap space. Most, if not all teams have salary commitments in the twenties of millions for 2010-11 as of now.

There seems to be this myth that countless teams are well below the cap, and I’m just not sure how accurate that is. Last year, there were only four teams who ended the year with significant cap space, i.e. $10 million – $12 million — Coyotes, Kings, Predators and Islanders. That’s it. There were then a group of teams with about $5 million or so in space, which strikes me as prudent, and a whole bunch of others snug up against the cap. (Calgary ended the year with $6,000 in cap room, enough to pay a minimum wage player for one game.) Heck, even the Oilers had less than $2 million in cap space, a team whom you might expect would have a lot.

And even then, teams still have the option to bury some contracts in the minors. Furthermore, teams wanting to reach the floor without spending the money may be willing to take on some big front-loaded contracts with cheap remaining years.

I didn’t mean to imply that you did, although i can see where you would have thought that.

for me, it depends on whether one considers hearing something from one’s media peers to be from “a source”. I DO believe that one has been done (“a source with knowledge of the matter”).

The big problem will be next year if revenues are a disaster. There may not be enough liquidity to sign free agents and fill out rosters if the cap falls too far. Escrow doesn’t solve that problem. Gary’s CBA doesn’t work very well if revenues fall.

I know we went around the horn on this in February, but I don’t see the same problem as you do, short of the cap space falling so catastrophically low that it could not even accommodate minimum level salaries.

Who did? The only stock I put in what Brooks says is that I believe him when he says several GMs are telling him that something has to be done about next year. I don’t have any respect at all for hockey writers, but I have not reached the point where I believe they pretend they have sources.

He does mix up two issues in the three paragraphs I quote. I have no idea what is going to happen with the next CBA. It is still likely to be two years away and a lot of water will flow under that bridge between now and then.

And if Bettman really wants to keep pretending that his CBA was about helping small markets (rather than what it was) then his number one priority should be to close this long term contract loophole.

The big problem will be next year if revenues are a disaster. There may not be enough liquidity to sign free agents and fill out rosters if the cap falls too far. Escrow doesn’t solve that problem. Gary’s CBA doesn’t work very well if revenues fall.

Rollbacks are already institutionalized in the CBA in the form of the escrow mechanism. Why would anybody want to die on that hill, from either side?

I would imagine that every GM who is well under the cap would scream at the top of their lungs in protestation of “amnesty buyouts” as well. I doubt that one would even make it out of the NHL boardroom.

If anything, the next CBA discussions will primarily revolve around percentages, as well as some proposed tweaks to deal with various issues (perhaps even the long-term contracts). I imagine the NHLPA will take out the “input into relocation” and “relocation fees as part of HRR” concepts for a test drive as well. The idea of trading cap space and perhaps some type of borrowing from previous cap underspending for teams who have spent under the cap might get discussed. I highly doubt it will be ALL that contentious, to be frank (at least by previous standards). The union is not strong enough yet, and the league (and the PA, for that matter) will be cautious to avoid another stoppage with the recession fresh in everyone’s mind.