2012 Lockout Watch

[Pskov Wings Fan 71]

So, in your opinion, the players need not make any concessions because there are no issues with the league finances right now?

That was not the point of the original post. Owners do not appear to be willing to make any concessions. The league of a whole is profitable but profits go to a small number of teams. So when when owners want to fix non profitable teams strictly at players expense (rather than revenue sharing) I understand why NHLPA would be unwilling to budge.

One interesting issue with the lockout. Profitable teams actually stand to lose money when there are no games (unlike Phoenix for example, or the last time around when everybody cried poor). So I wonder if there would be some push from "rich" teams to have season start on schedule.

This is an old article from The Globe And Mail, but I think it covers issues quite well.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/globe-on-hockey/why-nhl-teams-cry-poor-despite-the-leagues-record-growth/article4429817/

The frustration on the players’ side is that in many instances this is more a revenue problem than a player salary problem – and they have little say in how to correct the vast revenue imbalance in the league.

Relocation is one option – going from Atlanta to Winnipeg alone had to have boosted league revenues $30-million or more – but there really aren’t many places to go beyond perhaps franchises in Toronto, Quebec City and Seattle.

Another is to drop the salary floor and allow teams to simply spend what they can afford, giving up on forced parity when it means forced losses for those on the low end.

More robust revenue sharing could also certainly help – and I expect that’s what union leader Donald Fehr eventually pushes for – but how willing are the Leafs, Habs, Rangers et al to bail out the league’s perennial problem children?

“Not very” has always been the word, and that’s why they currently share only a tiny fraction (rumoured to be roughly 7 per cent) of their share of revenues.

But pushing the players to fix this can only take them so far here. For the rest of the solution, this is a league that needs to look in the mirror at what’s really happening and why some of its teams are losing this much money.

Or give up the ruse that that’s what they’re fighting to correct in the first place.

“I know other leagues have meaningful revenue sharing,” one agent said this week of the NHL’s revenue gap dilemma. “The NHL hopes that the media and fans ignore that fact. Owners would rather try to pound on players than pound on each other.”

Edited September 9, 2012 by Pskov Wings Fan

[cusimano_brothers 1,655]

One avenue explored by the NHLPA hit a dead end; from Toronto Star:

Dalton McGuinty’s government has rejected a plea from the National Hockey League Players’ Association to help prevent a potential lockout this fall.

At an Aug. 22 meeting with the Ministry of Labour and the NHL in Toronto, the players union asked the province to form a so-called conciliation board, a group of government employees who could help mediate the differences between the union and the league.

...

[Nev 1,085]

So, in your opinion, the players need not make any concessions because there are no issues with the league finances right now?

Not at all, thats not what I said.

The problem with Bettman's proposal is that its the players making ALL the concessions. There has to be give and take. So the owners want the players 57% share of revenue cut - OK, offer a 50/50 split but also offer an increase in the minimum salary to say, $600,000. The owners want the length of contracts reduced to 5 years max - OK, but also offer to reduce the age a player reaches UFA by a year. Then you have the basis for a negotiation, rather than the current list of "sign it or we lock you out" demands

[Buppy 1,720]

So, in your opinion, the players need not make any concessions because there are no issues with the league finances right now?

Lets face facts here, the NHL is in trouble. What the owners are proposing won't fix the problem and the NHLPA doesn't want to see the salary floor go down.

So far, the NHLPA just wants to keep everything they have right now and the owners don't want to address the problems that they have with their ownership group and clubs that are not financially secure. Its a dangerous mix, and one where both sides really need to address.

The greed on both sides is going to drive the league to initiate a lockout. Sure, the uninformed and the ignorant people will say the league is at fault for locking out the players. The ones who have looked at the issues that are dogging the league as a whole right now will be able to see greed and stupidity as the biggest problems right now.

The NHL is not in trouble, some teams are in trouble, and most of those wouldn't be if the owners were smarter..

And the players are willing to make concessions. They are willing to lower their share of the revenue. They're reportedly even flexible on the one option year. The players want to increase revenue sharing. They proposed allowing cap space to be traded, which would allow teams struggling to reach the floor to spend less and gain assets for doing so. How are they not trying to address the issues?

The players don't want to accept another salary rollback, and they shouldn't. League revenues will likely be around $3.5 billion, and as of now there's about $1.75B in salary commitments with almost all teams having full rosters. So it seems we're pretty close to a 50/50 split right now. It's not the players fault that the wrong teams are spending money. Buffalo is and has been hemorrhaging money but they have the highest salary payroll in the league. $20M this year for Myers and Ehrhoff. $6M for Leino. Minnesota, San Jose, Tampa Bay are no better. Middle of the pack in revenue but trying to spend at the top while teams that can afford it like the Wings, Leafs, Rangers, Canadiens, and Flyers can't get enough players worth spending anything on.

You want to call people uninformed and ignorant, but it seems you have no idea what the players are proposing and haven't looked at any of the numbers available. I think you just want to blame the players regardless of any facts.

[Dabura 12,207]

Not at all, thats not what I said.

The problem with Bettman's proposal is that its the players making ALL the concessions. There has to be give and take. So the owners want the players 57% share of revenue cut - OK, offer a 50/50 split but also offer an increase in the minimum salary to say, $600,000. The owners want the length of contracts reduced to 5 years max - OK, but also offer to reduce the age a player reaches UFA by a year. Then you have the basis for a negotiation, rather than the current list of "sign it or we lock you out" demands

I like how they tried to pitch 43% --> 46% as a major concession.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

That was not the point of the original post. Owners do not appear to be willing to make any concessions. The league of a whole is profitable but profits go to a small number of teams. So when when owners want to fix non profitable teams strictly at players expense (rather than revenue sharing) I understand why NHLPA would be unwilling to budge.

One interesting issue with the lockout. Profitable teams actually stand to lose money when there are no games (unlike Phoenix for example, or the last time around when everybody cried poor). So I wonder if there would be some push from "rich" teams to have season start on schedule.

This is an old article from The Globe And Mail, but I think it covers issues quite well.

http://www.theglobea...article4429817/

That's the heart of it right there:

“I know other leagues have meaningful revenue sharing,” one agent said this week of the NHL’s revenue gap dilemma. “The NHL hopes that the media and fans ignore that fact. Owners would rather try to pound on players than pound on each other.”

The league is trying the same strategy as last time, but this time it's not true. Player's salaries are not the biggest issue in franchise profitability.

So, in your opinion, the players need not make any concessions because there are no issues with the league finances right now?

Lets face facts here, the NHL is in trouble. What the owners are proposing won't fix the problem and the NHLPA doesn't want to see the salary floor go down.

So far, the NHLPA just wants to keep everything they have right now and the owners don't want to address the problems that they have with their ownership group and clubs that are not financially secure. Its a dangerous mix, and one where both sides really need to address.

The greed on both sides is going to drive the league to initiate a lockout. Sure, the uninformed and the ignorant people will say the league is at fault for locking out the players. The ones who have looked at the issues that are dogging the league as a whole right now will be able to see greed and stupidity as the biggest problems right now.

Sure, the people who kill puppies and punch babies think it's an equal split of responsibility for the looming lockout. The ones who have looked at the issues are incredibly smart and realize like me that the league and Bettman are more responsible.

Did I do it right? I'm still learning how this built-in insult on anyone who disagrees works.

[Nightfall 871]

You want to call people uninformed and ignorant, but it seems you have no idea what the players are proposing and haven't looked at any of the numbers available. I think you just want to blame the players regardless of any facts.

The players proposal calls for a 3 year plan. The first year they decrease their share of the profits to 53%, then it goes up to 55% the next year, and up to 57% in the 3rd year. So, in short, the players proposal calls for no changes to the existing system, and the league would be right back where it started 3 years ago. So, how is that not understanding what the players are proposing? How are you not surprised that the league didn't accept this proposal?

http://www.vancouver...2488/story.html

Once again I will say this, the people who are solely behind the players and blaming the league are uninformed and ignorant. Those people do not understand what the players proposed and the ramifications behind the proposal. The players proposal is not a silver bullet that solves all the issues, contrary to what you believe.

Edited September 9, 2012 by Nightfall

[Nightfall 871]

I agree 100% with Darren Dreger.

http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/darren_dreger/?id=404679

A new system is a requirement. Negotiating that in 6 days is unlikely. The players won't budge on an immediate correction, and the league won't even look at the current system and see how flawed it is. In short, no hockey until November or December.

[Nightfall 871]

Sure, the people who kill puppies and punch babies think it's an equal split of responsibility for the looming lockout. The ones who have looked at the issues are incredibly smart and realize like me that the league and Bettman are more responsible.

Did I do it right? I'm still learning how this built-in insult on anyone who disagrees works.

This is just the issue with people who are in one corner or the other. I think you got it right.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

This is just the issue with people who are in one corner or the other. I think you got it right.

My point was that someone having a different opinion than you doesn't make them ignorant and uninformed.

I think the article Pskov Wings fan quoted got it pretty right on. The league is profitable. The biggest issue is the disparity between the franchises. No matter how they perform on the ice, Nashville will never bring in the money the Leafs do. The question is how you help out smaller market teams without rewarding idiocy by owners. It's a tough question.

What I do know is the answer is not as simple as taking more and more from the players.

That's why I blame Bettman more than the NHLPA. He screwed this up out of the gate by going in with the same game plan as 2004. Cry poor, make extreme demands of the players, wait for the union to cave.

Instead what it needs is a more nuanced approach where the players make concessions on contract length and % of revenue, while the owners also increase revenue sharing, and the league gives up or lowers the cap floor.

Rather than trying to get his owners on board in the long term health of the league, Bettman seems more interested in breaking the union.

[cusimano_brothers 1,655]

For too many of the owners, they have other "hobbies" to fall back on. The players don't have that kind of luxury.

[Buppy 1,720]

The players proposal calls for a 3 year plan. The first year they decrease their share of the profits to 53%, then it goes up to 55% the next year, and up to 57% in the 3rd year. So, in short, the players proposal calls for no changes to the existing system, and the league would be right back where it started 3 years ago. So, how is that not understanding what the players are proposing? How are you not surprised that the league didn't accept this proposal?

http://www.vancouver...2488/story.html

Once again I will say this, the people who are solely behind the players and blaming the league are uninformed and ignorant. Those people do not understand what the players proposed and the ramifications behind the proposal. The players proposal is not a silver bullet that solves all the issues, contrary to what you believe.

Did you even read the link you posted?

The proposal includes delinking the salary cap from hockey-related revenue and setting a fixed rate - increasing by two per cent for the first year, four per cent for the second and six per cent for the third. That would see the salary cap grow to $78.93 million for the 2014-15 season.

Afterwards, the players would hold an option to have the fourth year revert to the current system, where they are entitled to receive 57 per cent of all revenues.

I don't think the cap number they give for 14-15 is accurate, as it appears that is based on the $70.2 cap number already set. If based on last season's cap number, the caps for the next three years would be: $65.6, $68.2, and $72.3. If they continued as is, and the cap increased by the same average it has over the past 7 seasons the caps would be: $70.2, $76.4, and $83.2. If it grew at the average revenue growth rate (reportedly 7.1%) it would be $68.9, $73.8, and $79.

I've also read that the players are flexible on the 4th year. I've seen that the players proposed a luxury tax. I've seen a proposed $69M cap for next year. I've seen that players would revert to 57% if revenue growth was 10% or more, and that it would only be 57% of any growth in excess of 10%... I've seen a lot of info, likely some of it true and some false, but never anything even close to what you say it is. Where exactly did you get that information?

And I never said the players' proposal solves all the issues. The two main issues are failure teams that likely couldn't turn a profit with a $20M floor, and owners that can't control their own spending. No proposal from the players can fix those issues. Nor did I say the players proposal actually solves the revenue split issue. We don't have revenue breakdowns for the most recent season, so I can't say for sure. Nor can you say for sure that the players aren't giving enough. I can say that given the numbers we do have, I'd be surprised if what the players propose wouldn't work. I freely admit that my opinion is based largely on using past growth to estimate revenues now. Yours appears to be based on your desire to place equal blame on players.

You want to just state that the cap floor is a huge problem, and that players don't want it lowered, despite the facts that you don't have a single number to support the claim and that the players are willing to lower the floor immediately (as well as limiting future growth). You want to say the players aren't willing to budge at all when you don't have the first clue as to how much more the players may be willing to concede. But you want to call everyone else uninformed and ignorant.

[Nightfall 871]

You want to just state that the cap floor is a huge problem, and that players don't want it lowered, despite the facts that you don't have a single number to support the claim and that the players are willing to lower the floor immediately (as well as limiting future growth). You want to say the players aren't willing to budge at all when you don't have the first clue as to how much more the players may be willing to concede. But you want to call everyone else uninformed and ignorant.

The cap floor is a huge problem, and by the way that the league is not budging on lowering salaries of the players, it is a problem. A temporary decrease with it rising back up to the levels that they are at today is not a permanent solution. You are right on one thing, I don't have a single shred of evidence that the league wouldn't be open to a lowering of the cap floor. Their initial proposal didn't have that in there, but they could allow that. Just like we don't know how much the players are willing to concede. We also don't know how much the owners are willing to concede. This is because, so far, neither side has conceded anything.

How can you have meaningful negotiations when neither side is willing to concede anything?

First, lets clarify something. Some here think that anyone who disagrees with me is uninformed and ignorant. That isn't the case. I call people who side exclusively with either the league or the players uninformed and ignorant.

There are a lot of people firmly sitting in the players camp and accepting everything they are saying as truth. Same with the owners camp. Take for example the players proposal. Some fans looked at that proposal as the silver bullet, the end of the lockout. The answer to everything, and while it wasn't as bad as the owners proposal, it was still bad. The simple fact of the matter is that the players want to keep everything they have now, and the owners want the world from the players. Neither is going to happen, so we may as well hunker down for a long lockout.

[Nightfall 871]

Instead what it needs is a more nuanced approach where the players make concessions on contract length and % of revenue, while the owners also increase revenue sharing, and the league gives up or lowers the cap floor.

You and I are in complete agreement. Right now though, neither side seems to be willing to give up anything.

What we need right now are more people who are willing to look at both sides and see there are key areas that need to be addressed. Both sides needs to give up something to get something.

Why can't the NHL get entry contracts capped at 4 years while the NHLPA gets to keep arbitration and get expanded revenue sharing along with a luxury tax for up to $5 million above the cap?

Answer: Because neither side is budging.

Work together guys, it isn't that damn difficult.

[chances14 227]

Interesting

If the National Hockey League does lock out the players on Sept. 15, they could be facing a legal challenge in Quebec.

According to the Montreal Gazette, since the NHL Players' Association is not certified by the Quebec Labour Board, the NHLPA believes that the Montreal Canadiens will legally be unable to shut its doors to the players because employers are not allowed to lock out employees unless they are in a Quebec Labour Board Union.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=404929

[Guest Johnz96]

If they give us empty arenas

Let's give them empty arenas when they unlock the doors

#nomorelockouts

#nobettman!

[Pskov Wings Fan 71]

Why can't the NHL get entry contracts capped at 4 years while the NHLPA gets to keep arbitration and get expanded revenue sharing along with a luxury tax for up to $5 million above the cap?

Answer: Because neither side is budging.

Work together guys, it isn't that damn difficult.

Aren't entry level deals already capped?

Arbitration is part of the current deal. Keeping it is not really a concession by the league. In any case I think the removal of arbitration is just a side show in the NHL's proposal meant to draw attention away from parts owners really want and something to potentially "give back".

I would like to see actual financial concessions from the profitable NHL teams.

For example, let say that non-profitable teams are losing $200M in total. Structure a deal where half comes from lowering players share of revenues and half comes from "rich" teams through revenue sharing.

[Buppy 1,720]

The cap floor is a huge problem, and by the way that the league is not budging on lowering salaries of the players, it is a problem. A temporary decrease with it rising back up to the levels that they are at today is not a permanent solution. You are right on one thing, I don't have a single shred of evidence that the league wouldn't be open to a lowering of the cap floor. Their initial proposal didn't have that in there, but they could allow that. Just like we don't know how much the players are willing to concede. We also don't know how much the owners are willing to concede. This is because, so far, neither side has conceded anything.

How can you have meaningful negotiations when neither side is willing to concede anything?

First, lets clarify something. Some here think that anyone who disagrees with me is uninformed and ignorant. That isn't the case. I call people who side exclusively with either the league or the players uninformed and ignorant.

There are a lot of people firmly sitting in the players camp and accepting everything they are saying as truth. Same with the owners camp. Take for example the players proposal. Some fans looked at that proposal as the silver bullet, the end of the lockout. The answer to everything, and while it wasn't as bad as the owners proposal, it was still bad. The simple fact of the matter is that the players want to keep everything they have now, and the owners want the world from the players. Neither is going to happen, so we may as well hunker down for a long lockout.

What evidence do you have that the floor is a problem? How many teams can't afford to spend to the floor? And do you realize that compliance with the floor is based on cap hits, not actual salary, so teams can in fact spend under the floor. Edmonton could end up paying almost $10M less in salary than they have in cap hits. And if you allow trading of cap space, it provides another tool for struggling teams to control spending without just taking money away from the players. (Even better if you let teams trade cap space for cash.)

And what evidence do you have that returning to 57% wouldn't work in the future? Do you know the team by team revenue breakdowns for the '15-16 season? If so, you should pass that along to the league and the PA, it would probably help negotiations. Of course there will be no "permanent" solution with a set-duration CBA. Keep in mind that one year isn't a permanent problem either. Worst case scenario it's one problem year. The world wouldn't end and owners wouldn't go bankrupt.

Both sides, I'm certain, are willing to move from their initial positions. The owners already have, and while the players haven't yet made a second proposal there have been talks of flexibility, including on that option year you seem to think is the devil. However, I don't blame the players for failing to make a second offer when the owners' second offer seems to be still so far from reasonable or justifiable. I'd want to see the owners show they are willing to be serious first. Instead the owners just want to play games. Try to make it look like they're offering a fair split, but redefining revenue in their favor. What's next, offer 54%, but redefine "percent" to mean 0.85 parts in 100.

That's the main reason I'm against the owners. Redefining revenue without any explanation or apparent justification. Doesn't mean I think the owners are 100% to blame, only about 90-95% or so. Until I see some numbers to suggest otherwise, I'll continue to go with what the numbers I do have suggest, which is that the players are far, far closer to being "right" than the owners.

All of us are ignorant to some degree. There's information none of us has access to. I admit I might be wrong, and the financials may be worse than I think; worse than past data suggests they would be. You seem pretty certain of yourself though, despite the fact that you don't have any more information than anyone else. Good to know though that you're not insulting everyone who disagrees with you, and only those who hold opinions that aren't the same. Much better.

[cusimano_brothers 1,655]

Bill Daly, the NHL's deputy commissioner, referred to the matter as a "distraction" that was "not unexpected."

Bill Daly, bringing us a "Peter Griffin moment". Nice.

[Yevgeniy 0]

lol: http://www.montrealgazette.com/sports/Dave+Stubbs+Players+union+looks+labour+laws+block+lockout/7215111/story.html

[cusimano_brothers 1,655]

I've noticed how online sites seem to purposely using the most unflattering photos of Uncle Gary in their stories.

[Nightfall 871]

Both sides, I'm certain, are willing to move from their initial positions. The owners already have, and while the players haven't yet made a second proposal there have been talks of flexibility, including on that option year you seem to think is the devil. However, I don't blame the players for failing to make a second offer when the owners' second offer seems to be still so far from reasonable or justifiable. I'd want to see the owners show they are willing to be serious first. Instead the owners just want to play games. Try to make it look like they're offering a fair split, but redefining revenue in their favor. What's next, offer 54%, but redefine "percent" to mean 0.85 parts in 100.

That's the main reason I'm against the owners. Redefining revenue without any explanation or apparent justification. Doesn't mean I think the owners are 100% to blame, only about 90-95% or so. Until I see some numbers to suggest otherwise, I'll continue to go with what the numbers I do have suggest, which is that the players are far, far closer to being "right" than the owners.

Both sides are going to have to be open to move from their initial positions in order to get a deal done. So far, the movement away from their initial positions have been small to say the least. You mention that the owners already have, but that movement was just a blip on the radar. I find it funny how people who are dead set against the owners in this want to see them make the first major move. As if that would be the olive branch that the players need to make a deal. From what I have seen so far, neither side has it right. Neither side has put forward a proposal that would even come close to fixing the issues that are out there.

What we need are less fans siding with the owners or players and more fans getting angry at both sides and putting pressure on them to make a deal. The people who are siding with one camp or the other are typically blinded by their hatred of the other side so much that they cannot see the real problems. You, for instance, want to see the owners come forward with a meaningful proposal. That is all fine and dandy, but why can't both sides work together to get a deal done? Why does it have to be the owners alone? Why not the players? Oh, thats right, the players are right in your mind, and every proposal they put forward has the pulse of the league in mind right?

As for your questions on how I would know if the 57% would work or not or if the cap floor is a real problem, you are right in that these things could work in certain systems. Even I don't know what will work and what won't work in any given situation. All I do know is that there is a time to take sides and there is a time to stand with other fans and put pressure on both sides to get a deal done. That is where the fans should be sitting right now, not reading NHLPA or NHL propaganda and believing that your side is always in the right while the other one is always in the wrong.

If you cannot see how that approach makes someone ignorant and uninformed, then I cannot help you.

[toby91_ca 620]

What evidence do you have that the floor is a problem? How many teams can't afford to spend to the floor? And do you realize that compliance with the floor is based on cap hits, not actual salary, so teams can in fact spend under the floor. Edmonton could end up paying almost $10M less in salary than they have in cap hits.

I don't have any specific "evidence" that the floor is a problem to a lot of teams other than it being obvious....a lot of teams simply can't afford to pay to the floor. When you say the floor is based on cap hits, not actual salary, well.....the cap is based on actual salary, so it's the same thing. If you suggest Edmonton can end up paying almost $10 million less in salary than they have in cap hits, that just means they pay $10 million more in salary than in cap hits in the future, it's just a timing thing. In the end, total cap hit = total dollars spent, there is no difference.

[esteef 2,679]

The people who are siding with one camp or the other are typically blinded by their hatred of the other side so much that they cannot see the real problems.

You just perfectly described the current political climate in this country. I know, I know mods...Stay On Topic!

esteef

[Buppy 1,720]

Both sides are going to have to be open to move from their initial positions in order to get a deal done. So far, the movement away from their initial positions have been small to say the least. You mention that the owners already have, but that movement was just a blip on the radar. I find it funny how people who are dead set against the owners in this want to see them make the first major move. As if that would be the olive branch that the players need to make a deal. From what I have seen so far, neither side has it right. Neither side has put forward a proposal that would even come close to fixing the issues that are out there.

What we need are less fans siding with the owners or players and more fans getting angry at both sides and putting pressure on them to make a deal. The people who are siding with one camp or the other are typically blinded by their hatred of the other side so much that they cannot see the real problems. You, for instance, want to see the owners come forward with a meaningful proposal. That is all fine and dandy, but why can't both sides work together to get a deal done? Why does it have to be the owners alone? Why not the players? Oh, thats right, the players are right in your mind, and every proposal they put forward has the pulse of the league in mind right?

As for your questions on how I would know if the 57% would work or not or if the cap floor is a real problem, you are right in that these things could work in certain systems. Even I don't know what will work and what won't work in any given situation. All I do know is that there is a time to take sides and there is a time to stand with other fans and put pressure on both sides to get a deal done. That is where the fans should be sitting right now, not reading NHLPA or NHL propaganda and believing that your side is always in the right while the other one is always in the wrong.

If you cannot see how that approach makes someone ignorant and uninformed, then I cannot help you.

If you think Forbes data, attendance reports, other web reports regarding revenue, and math are "propaganda" then we probably should end this debate. I've looked at the numbers available and drew my own conclusion, it just happens to be pretty close to what the players seem to want. You seem to have just made up your mind that both sides are equally "wrong" without any sort of data, evidence, or analysis at all. You say neither side is right, and not even close to fixing the issues but you can't provide any rationale in support of what you think the issues are.

You're right that blindly accepting statements from either side is a poor way to form an opinion, but that doesn't mean both sides are equally wrong, or equally far from right.

I don't have any specific "evidence" that the floor is a problem to a lot of teams other than it being obvious....a lot of teams simply can't afford to pay to the floor. When you say the floor is based on cap hits, not actual salary, well.....the cap is based on actual salary, so it's the same thing. If you suggest Edmonton can end up paying almost $10 million less in salary than they have in cap hits, that just means they pay $10 million more in salary than in cap hits in the future, it's just a timing thing. In the end, total cap hit = total dollars spent, there is no difference.

Not really. Edmonton's situation is mostly the result of bonuses. Any bonus money that can potentially be earned counts against the cap, but if they are never earned they are never paid. Back-loading contracts can also lower the actual dollars spent, and then the player could be traded before the salary rises above the cap hit.

And you can say it's "obvious" that the floor is a problem, but as of the most recent numbers available to us, it wasn't. 26 teams should have been able to afford the floor in '10-11. One of those that couldn't moved, and reportedly did much better last year. The numbers we have suggest that probably 24-28 teams should be able to afford the floor now, and that's not even counting additional revenue sharing, or other methods to reduce spending.