Breaking Sports

Friday, May 27, 2005

nhl- Floating Cap Review

If you are unfamilar with how a floating salary cap may work in the NHL, Dave Molinari of the Pittsburgh Post Gazette gives a good explanation.
Q: Wouldn't the rumored proposal of a floating cap, with player salaries linked to team revenue, just ensure that smaller-market, or for that matter, poor-performing teams would be unable to be competitive? It seems to me that under this system, the teams with the lowest cap would never have the option to bet their future on star players to better their situation, thus mandating the downward spiral with bureaucracy instead of letting it come naturally with greed.
MOLINARI: There seems to be a misunderstanding among some fans about precisely what is meant by a floating salary cap that is tied to team revenues. It doesn't not mean that each team's cap figure will be based on its own revenues; instead, each team will have the same cap range -- say, hypothetically, a $30 million minimum and $40 million maximum -- for a given season.
The "floating" part means that the cap range would be adjusted each year to reflect an increase or decrease in the cumulative revenues of the 30 teams. If those revenues go up, so will the cap range. And if they fall, the cap range will do likewise. Not all 30 teams will spend precisely the same amount on players each year -- having a range gives each club's management some latitude in how much it spends -- but the gap between the floor and ceiling figures to be small enough that teams like the Penguins no longer will have to compete against opponents whose payrolls are two, three or four times the size of their own.