Kukla's Korner

Kukla's Korner Hockey

Pittsburgh, the logical choice for Parise and Suter?

If Pittsburgh wasn’t already doing a hard sell on Zach Parise and Ryan Suter’s agents, Yahoo Sports’ Nicholas J. Cotsonika just penned one for ‘em, imagining what Cotsonika called a dynasty-in-the-making team truly evolving into just that with this summer’s marquee free agents choosing what he seems to believe is the only logical place for either to play:

If you’re Zach Parise or Ryan Suter, is there anywhere you’d rather play than Pittsburgh? The Penguins can take a run at the top two UFAs on the market, Zach Parise and Ryan Suter. (Getty)Let’s see. You could be paid well. If you’re Parise, you could be the long-awaited winger for Sidney Crosby, who just so happens to be your buddy. If you’re Suter, you could bolster the defense of a talented team that includes Crosby, Evgeni Malkin, James Neal, Kris Letang and Marc-Andre Fleury. In either case, you could work for good-guy coach Dan Bylsma. You could have a great chance to win the Stanley Cup year in and year out.

Oh, and you could do it all in a U.S. market where hockey matters but doesn’t matter too much – important for low-key American stars like Parise, from Minnesota, and Suter, from Wisconsin.

Parise and Suter didn’t seem like realistic options for Pittsburgh a couple of days ago. But now that general manager Ray Shero has cleared salary-cap space by swinging deals at the NHL draft at Consol Energy Center, the Penguins can make a push for at least one of the top unrestricted free agents July 1. Especially if Shero can clear some more space – by, say, moving defenseman Paul Martin and his $5 million hit – they might even be able to make a push for both.

But what about other teams, like Detroit or Minnesota?

Both could go to Detroit or Minnesota. The Red Wings have the cap space to make a splash, and their savvy management has been able to reload for years without high draft picks. They especially need Suter after the departures of Nicklas Lidstrom and Brad Stuart. The Wild has cap space and Midwestern allure. Minneapolis is Parise’s hometown team and close to Suter’s home state. But some of the Wings’ key pieces are older. How long can they defy gravity? And is the Wild close enough to winning? Does anyone know if the Wild can win long-term?

Both should have other options. Parise could go to, say, Los Angeles. The Kings have cap space and a hole at left wing. They just beat the Devils to win the Cup, and they have a young core. The beach ain’t bad, either. But is he a West Coast guy? Suter could go to, say, Chicago, if the Blackhawks can clear cap space by trading Niklas Hjalmarsson and his $3.5 million hit.

No doubt others will be in the mix, or will want to be, and Pittsburgh isn’t necessarily perfect. Some teams might be willing to pay more money or do a front-loaded deal – perhaps especially Detroit, with owner Mike Ilitch aggressively trying to keep the Wings among the elite. Parise or Suter – or both – might have to take less to fit into the Penguins’ salary structure, and the Pens won’t do front-loaded deals, even with a potential lockout looming.

He goes on at some length, and it’s written like a love letter.

Filed in: | KK Hockey | Permalink
 

Comments

« Previous        < 1 2 3 4 >       Next »

Avatar

Hossa took less to go to the wings for a year, then he took less to sign long term with the Hawks

Ah, so in your world a $63M contract in which he earns $7.9M per year for the first is “taking less”?  Good to know.

If players don’t want to go to Edmonton they won’t go if you pay them 2 cents or 50 million ala Pronger.

Good one, using the time the Oilers DID overpay him and then he requested a trade because of personal reasons.  Well done.

What about all the other guys over the past few years that have gone to Edmonton only because of the money.

Top guys may never go to Edmonton, no matter the money, but Dustin Penner and Sheldon Souray sure jumped at the chance to go to Edmonton and be overpaid.  Is Shawn Horcoff worth $5.5M?

You guys are basically saying the NHL should go back to how it was.

Nobody is saying that.  AGAIN, please stop infering.

“How it was” before was NO floor and NO ceiling.  We are all saying that there should be both a floor and a ceiling.  The problem is that NOBODY foresaw the NHL being as profitable as they have been.  The ceiling has gone up EVERY year and it is now nearly double what it was only a handful of seasons ago.  Anyone who can’t see that this is an issue, and that the issue is that the poor teams, who were the ones that were going to be helped by the cap, are now being forced to spend as if they are “haves”, has real problems.

They already tried to to punish the haves and it has turned out punishing the have nots.  Lowering the floor allows both the haves and the have nots to do benefit.

Posted by Garth on 06/24/12 at 03:10 AM ET

Oz_Santwyk's avatar

JJ sorry if you don’t understand economics, can’t help you there bub, but telling me I don’t know how a salary cap works or how a CBA works is like telling a fireman he doesn’t know how to a roll a hose. You are under the assumption that I think the current situation is working, if you had been following my comments you’d know I think the league is broken. What I have been saying is lowering the cap will not fix the overpaying of players. Yes GMs overpay to reach the floor now, but when the floor is lowered and the ceiling is raised as you guys suggest then all the top talent will play for the top teams because they can now afford more of them and the only guys left available to the lesser teams will be even more mediocre players. The mediocre players that the rich teams used to fill out their roster with, would then be released and their spots will be taken by the poor teams’s stars. So in essence all the mediocre players will be on the poor teams and all the stars would be on the rich teams, thus more mediocre players will be overpaid by the poor teams because for them a top mediocre player will be a star compared to what they have. I hope that makes sense as I’m rambling and tired, but I know what i’m trying to say lol

Posted by Oz_Santwyk from Perth Australia on 06/24/12 at 03:14 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

The simplest way to work the cap and this will never happen, but would be to use a median number for the top 15 revenues and for the 15 bottom and then set those as the cap ceiling and floor. Increase revenue sharing if the median for the floor gets too out of wack from the ceiling, say the ceiling can never be higher 40% higher than the floor.

Or, you continue to set the cap at a fixed amount above the calculated median players’ share and also make sure that the floor is a percentage.  Basically, we agree that the floor should be a percentage… I guarantee you if they did that, the floor would be lower… JUST LIKE I’VE BEEN SAYING IT SHOULD BE.

Obviously, the teams would love this, but the players would never allow it because it would severely restrict their earning potential

No it wouldn’t because the cap is still figured based on a players’ share of revenues.  The players are entitled to the same amount of money as a whole regardless of whether team payrolls are $70M a piece or $10M apiece.  That’s why they have escrow.  If all the teams WAY overspend for all of the players and build up to $70M payrolls, then the system corrects when the players pay back their escrow.  If all the teams WAY underspend and the payrolls are $10M per team, then the NHL owes the players money which they split amongst themselves (like what happened in 2006 and 2007.

Donald Fehr’s job is to make sure the players are aware that their cut of NHL dollars is set regardless of how much their collective contracts cost.  If the players are too costly, they all pay to make it right. If the players are too cheap, then they all get paid bonuses.

The rich owners would love it because they would be able to pocket more profit and the poor ones could attract fans to make more profit on their end.

This is hilarious because your idea is actually my idea. Keep the big teams from spending too much and they’ll love it. Don’t force the small teams to spend too much and they’ll love it.  Such a great concept.  As long as there are systems in place to prevent extremely large or small spending, you maintain a decent level of parity without choking off the small teams. Win/win for teams and players.  It’s just that in the upcoming CBA negotiations, the big teams are simply going to ask the players to take a smaller cut because why the hell wouldn’t they?  If the players accept, then they get to keep even MORE of their own money while keeping the status quo as-is which prevents those small-market teams from climbing into competitiveness for any length of time.

The slight difference is that the big teams actually don’t want parity. They want to make sure that every team has an equal chance, but they are more equal than others.  This is why you get salary cap circumventions like the “retirement contracts”, because big teams would rather find ways to spend more of their money on their players than share it with the little teams.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 06/24/12 at 03:20 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

but telling me I don’t know how a salary cap works or how a CBA works is like telling a fireman he doesn’t know how to a roll a hose.

Hey Smokey,

You don’t know how to roll a hose.

I’m sure you know how collective bargaining works as a process.  I’m equally sure you have no idea how the NHL CBA works.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 06/24/12 at 03:23 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

when the floor is lowered and the ceiling is raised as you guys suggest

Perhaps you should have also gotten an advanced degree in English, because I did not suggest the floor should lower and the ceiling raise indefinitely.  The floor should be lowered now and then index with the cap.

You know, like how a sane person would do it.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 06/24/12 at 03:25 AM ET

Oz_Santwyk's avatar

Wow I should just give up you guys will not get it! As bad as some of the staunch union guys I’ve dealt with

If the floor is so low that the poor teams can afford to make it and nothing is done about the ceiling then basically there is no cap it’s pointless. You might as well do away with it. If there is a 50-60 million gap between bottom and top then what’s the point? You are back to the days of no cap when the Stars were spending 80 million and the Panthers were spending 30. See what I’m saying? Lowering the floor and saying let the cap continue to raise with revenues then you are removing parity and we all wasted years of time effort and a lockout, because parity was the reason for the lockout in the first place. Of course revenues are up, more fans are coming, but do you think they will be the case if we go by your idea? Will they still come if their team is spending 30 and the wings and pens are 80? Not a chance! Come on, this is what caused the first CBA. Revenues are up because the big teams are making more but the little poor ones are staying the same, so yes the overall revenues are going up but the gap between the top and bottom is getting wider. Lowering the floor will only increase the gap. Truth be told only way it’s going to work outside of my ideas, is moving the weak franchises to more stable and hockey hotbeds where attendance and merchandise sales will make the teams successful. Until then we will have a fractured league.

Posted by Oz_Santwyk from Perth Australia on 06/24/12 at 03:29 AM ET

Avatar

when the floor is lowered and the ceiling is raised as you guys suggest

God DAMN IT would you STOP making shit up?

Try to argue THE WORDS WE ARE TYPING, not the moronic inferences you are making, please.

Posted by Garth on 06/24/12 at 03:33 AM ET

Avatar

If the floor is so low that the poor teams can afford to make it and nothing is done about the ceiling then basically there is no cap it’s pointless.

NOBODY.  IS.  SUGGESTING.  THIS.

See what I’m saying?

Yeah, you’re saying that blue is purple and that green is hamburger.

Oh, you’re the only one allowed to make stupid f*cking inferences?  Sorry.

Posted by Garth on 06/24/12 at 03:35 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

The 70/10 example was extreme, but it’s not what I was suggesting.  Of course the floor should be a sane amount indexed to the cap ceiling.  That’s what makes this so dumb:

Lowering the floor and saying let the cap continue to raise with revenues

It’s like you think anybody here is suggesting that the floor should be fixed once and never allowed to rise.  If you can find me anywhere in here that gives you a good reason to infer that’s the recommendation, then please provide that, otherwise please burn this strawman and forget you ever created him.  It’s better for you that way.

parity was the reason for the lockout in the first place.

HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA You believe that.  HAHAAHAHAHHAAAHHHHHAAAAAAHAHAHHAAAH

[breath]

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAAAH

Yep… the Rangers voted for a lockout because they were afraid the league just wasn’t competitive enough.  Come the hell on, man.

Revenues are up because the big teams are making more but the little poor ones are staying the same

Yes, because they’re losing more money. Because they’re forced to spend more money on player salaries than they can afford.

You keep saying you know about collective bargaining. That is great.  I’m sure a theoretical physicist knows about rocking chairs.  If I want one actually BUILT? I’m going to a carpenter.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 06/24/12 at 03:35 AM ET

Avatar

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 06/24/12 at 01:35 AM ET

God damn it, you are an entertaining read, JJ.

Posted by Garth on 06/24/12 at 03:37 AM ET

Oz_Santwyk's avatar

JJ you my friend are a tool and not a very sharp one. The cba was set up with the floor being a 55% of the cap, well if you lower the floor and let the gap increase then that percentage goes down and thus competitive advantage the top teams have increase. Thus parity is diminished and thus the league is weaker as a result. If only certain teams can spend whatever they want , then we become the MLB. There is a cap in the MLB too, is that a competitive league? No? why? No parity! What is happening to that league with no parity? They are drawing less crowds! What does that result in? Less league wide revenues. What does that result in? The gap widening again because the floor has to be lowered because the poor teams are making less then they were before. It’s simple economics. How is that hard to understand?

Posted by Oz_Santwyk from Perth Australia on 06/24/12 at 03:37 AM ET

Avatar

a) NO, the floor was not set at 55% of the cap, it was set as $16M less than the cap.  There’s a difference.  If the floor was set as 55% of the cap then the floor this coming year (with the cap being $70.3M) would be $38.6M, but that’s NOWHERE NEAR what it is going it be.  The floor this year will be $54.3M if the cap is $70.3M.  Do you see the difference?  Is it as clear as day to you as it is to EVERYONE ELSE?

Jesus Christ, nobody is saying you lower the floor and raise the cap.  We’re ALL saying that you keep the floor as a fixed PERCENTAGE of the cap.

Do you get it?

Is that simple enough?

Posted by Garth on 06/24/12 at 03:41 AM ET

Avatar

And there is, of course, no B)

Posted by Garth on 06/24/12 at 03:42 AM ET

Oz_Santwyk's avatar

Ummm you guys are saying lower the floor and leave the ceiling the same. Find me where you guys say otherwise, all I have seen is suggestions to lower the floor nothing else, not inferring anything, just responding to what is being said Garth. You also are pretty dimwitted too apparently, if you can’t get that what you guys are saying is inferring exactly what I’m accusing you of. No you haven’t come out and said we don’t want the cap anymore, but your suggested solutions would result in basically the same thing.

Posted by Oz_Santwyk from Perth Australia on 06/24/12 at 03:42 AM ET

Oz_Santwyk's avatar

Hey bub it was originally set at 55% then changed to 16 million so try again, sunshine. I read the CBA many times over and if you had you would have know the 55% number was the original figure used.

Posted by Oz_Santwyk from Perth Australia on 06/24/12 at 03:44 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

The cba was set up with the floor being a 55% of the cap

No it was NOT.  The CBA was set up with the floor being $16M below the cap.  That’s ACTUALLY IN THE WORDING OF THE CBA.

The fact that it just so happened to be 55% of the cap has no bearing, considering that the projected floor for next year will be 77% of the salary cap (please look that up so we can stop pretending you know how the cap works)

The floor indexes directly to the cap. It is always $16M below the cap.  If the cap hits $100M, the floor (under the current CBA) would be $84M.  Let’s do some math:

84/100=84%

To let the floor go down would actually be to get closer to the original percent accidentally set by the numbers.  This is precisely what I am recommending.  I want the floor to be closer to 55%, not lower than that. I definitely want it to be lower than 77% of the cap.

There is a cap in the MLB too

The MLB’s cap is not a hard cap.  I already explained the luxury tax. You are intentionally refusing to learn because I’m embarrassing you at this point.  I’m starting to feel badly for how ignorant you’re starting to look.

You say you know CBAs, but you think the floor is set as a percentage of the cap.  That is sad.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 06/24/12 at 03:45 AM ET

Avatar

Ummm you guys are saying lower the floor and leave the ceiling the same.

No, dummy, we’re saying that the ceiling is going to be what it is, and that THIS YEAR the floor should be lowered because IT WOULD BE A PERCENTAGE OF THE CAP.  In fact, the SAME percentage of the cap that it was when the cap was introduced.

Jesus.

Do you honestly think we’re saying that the floor should go down every year?  NO. We’ve been talking about THIS YEAR.  Holy shit, you are the owner of the thickest skull in the known universe.

but your suggested solutions would result in basically the same thing.

No they wouldn’t.  And for f*ck’s sake would you STOP INFERRING???!?!!?

Posted by Garth on 06/24/12 at 03:45 AM ET

HockeytownOverhaul's avatar

They are saying the % differential needs to be greater as parity isn’t equalling revenue.  However, it IS affecting the “buy-in” to have a team in the league and some teams are short stacked as it is.  So if they are forced to sign Fleischmanns and Jone’s well above their actual worth relative to the salary structure per their team or comprable or better players in their FA years and take on a starting goalie contract who is all but garaunteed not to play, then clearly your idea of keeping the floor higher isn’t helpng with parity of skill but overpaying players to make the cap floor and alter free-market prices, also effecting salary structures on teams.

It begins to make it more important at what year you became a FA vs. the skills that you possess.

Posted by HockeytownOverhaul on 06/24/12 at 03:47 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Ummm you guys are saying lower the floor and leave the ceiling the same.

So you’re the one saying raise the cap to increase the gap between floor and ceiling.

Not often people so readily admit to creating strawmen, but bravo to you for doing so.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 06/24/12 at 03:48 AM ET

Avatar

Hey bub it was originally set at 55% then changed to 16 million so try again, sunshine.

Then you understand that the difference between cap and ceiling is FIXED AT $16M AND NOT A PERCENTAGE OF THE CAP.  We are advocating that the ceiling be A PERCENTAGE OF THE CAP, NOT A FIXED DOLLAR AMOUNT OF DIFFERENCE.

Posted by Garth on 06/24/12 at 03:48 AM ET

Oz_Santwyk's avatar

Seriously, do actually believe what you post? If the floor gets lowered to accommodate the poor teams. But revenues continue to rise for the rich teams but not the poor, the cap will go up because overall revenues will go up and so will the floor at a fixed percentage would have to go up too, even if the poor teams are still not profitable. So what do you do then? Lower the floor again and move the percentage gap wider still? Nice viscous cycle there.

Posted by Oz_Santwyk from Perth Australia on 06/24/12 at 03:50 AM ET

HockeytownOverhaul's avatar

and for the record, spending doesn’t buy you a cup.  NYR were the highest payroll team for over a decade.. guess how many cups they got?  guess who got them it?  think it has more to do with that than the payroll.

What it does do however is convince investors it will be worth their while to take a risk investing in a new sports market, a small martket for that sport, and still have a chance to build up and play with the big boys without having too big a gap financially to compete for players who will bring people to games, thus make them profitable.

Posted by HockeytownOverhaul on 06/24/12 at 03:52 AM ET

HockeytownOverhaul's avatar

But revenues continue to rise for the rich teams but not the poor, the cap will go up because overall revenues will go up

That’s why they have revenue sharing.. just saying.

Posted by HockeytownOverhaul on 06/24/12 at 03:53 AM ET

Oz_Santwyk's avatar

One time lowering won’t fix the issue as I’ve said previously. Because as the median revenues have increased over the years as the rich and Canadian teams are doing very well and growing, the same cannot be said for the lower teams they are treading water, so for them a one time lowering will do nothing to help them other than for one year.

Posted by Oz_Santwyk from Perth Australia on 06/24/12 at 03:54 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

50.5 (b)

Look it up - Page 199 of the CBA, at the top.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 06/24/12 at 03:54 AM ET

Oz_Santwyk's avatar

Revenue sharing only works if the percentage of sharing makes a dent, which if it did we wouldn’t be talking about a cap going up while in the same breath talking about lowering the floor.

Posted by Oz_Santwyk from Perth Australia on 06/24/12 at 03:56 AM ET

HockeytownOverhaul's avatar

it’s not a one time lowering, it’s a switching of the system from a 16m differential to a % based differential.  The initiating year would thus reduce the floor and would rise at a more manageable rate for unsuccessful and subsidized teams.

You went to college?

Posted by HockeytownOverhaul on 06/24/12 at 03:57 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Seriously, do actually believe what you post? If the floor gets lowered to accommodate the poor teams. But revenues continue to rise for the rich teams but not the poor, the cap will go up because overall revenues will go up and so will the floor at a fixed percentage would have to go up too, even if the poor teams are still not profitable. So what do you do then? Lower the floor again and move the percentage gap wider still? Nice viscous cycle there.

Posted by Oz_Santwyk from Perth Australia on 06/24/12 at 01:50 AM ET

I’m going to translate this statement and feed it back to you in idiot-speak:

IF YOU LOWER THE FLOOR AND THE LEAGUE MAKES MORE MONEY THEY THE LEAGUE WILL HAVE TO SPEND MORE MONEY.

WHAT IF THE SMALL MARKET TEAMS CAN’T MAKE A PROFIT WHILE SPENDING LESS MONEY THAN THEY OTHERWISE WOULD WHILE ALSO BRINGING IN MORE MONEY THAN THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN?

Yes, if the small-market teams cannot survive a fundamental change in the CBA by where you index the floor to the cap, where they ONLY WAY THEY WOULD BE FORCED TO SPEND MORE IS IF THEY ACTUALLY MAKE MORE, then we have a serious problem.

Also, it’s spelled “vicious”, you person-who-claims-to-have-read-the-NHL-CBA-multiple-times-despite-showing-a-clear-lack-of-knowledge-for-how-it-actually-works.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 06/24/12 at 03:58 AM ET

Oz_Santwyk's avatar

Yes I’m aware of article 50.5 just confirms what i said about how it works. Ty for finding it for me.

Posted by Oz_Santwyk from Perth Australia on 06/24/12 at 04:00 AM ET

Avatar

it’s not a one time lowering, it’s a switching of the system from a 16m differential to a % based differential.

Ok, so somebody understands.

Posted by Garth on 06/24/12 at 04:01 AM ET

HockeytownOverhaul's avatar

Does it make sense that failing and financially poor teams should be forced to keep pace salary wise with a team exponentially more profitable?  Even with profit sharing in which the top third in the league pay into the bottom third?

Does that seem like a sustainable business model college boy?  Pay your employees more than you profit each year?

You like ATL, PHO and CBJ situations?  (CBJ is in the top 7 teams in the worst financial shape as reported on our local news, losing an average of 15m per season since their initial season with the exception of 08 I believe.

Posted by HockeytownOverhaul on 06/24/12 at 04:02 AM ET

Oz_Santwyk's avatar

You’ve just proved all my points JJ you dolt. Are you really that blind to see everything I said you just proved for me lol WoW And fyi if you are going to comment on my grammar and spelling at this time of night when I’m not proof reading what i type, then you really have lost the battle and getting petty tom petty

Posted by Oz_Santwyk from Perth Australia on 06/24/12 at 04:02 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Yes I’m aware of article 50.5 just confirms what i said about how it works. Ty for finding it for me.

So the article that does not have “55%” anywhere in it confirms what you said about the floor being set intentionally at 55% of the cap while the part that says the cap is set at $8M above the midpoint and the floor is set at $8M below the midpoint (which actually DOES appear in that section) is disproved?

I honestly have no idea what you’re playing at.  I just actually proved you wrong.  This is the part of the show where you’re supposed to admit that you were actually wrong because it’s proven.

If you’re that knowledgeable, great.  You have two minutes to explain to me how the midpoint is set every year.  The clock starts when I hit “post”.

You get two minutes to prove you haven’t just looked it up, because anybody who has read through the CBA multiple times should know this off the top of his head.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 06/24/12 at 04:03 AM ET

Avatar

the Payroll Range shall be
constructed by adding $8 million to the Adjusted Midpoint to establish the Upper
Limit, and subtracting $8 million from the “Adjusted Midpoint” to establish the
Lower Limit.

So that’s a static, $16M difference between the upper and lower limits.

Posted by Garth on 06/24/12 at 04:04 AM ET

HockeytownOverhaul's avatar

Ok, so somebody understands.

and I went to public school

Posted by HockeytownOverhaul on 06/24/12 at 04:04 AM ET

Oz_Santwyk's avatar

HTO thank you for agreeing with me I’ve spent the last hours saying the system is broken and lowering the cap floor percentile won’t solve it because we have a broken model. But all anyone wants to do is argue with me about stuff that isn’t going to fix a damn thing, I used it earlier and i’ll use it again, lowering the floor is just putting off the inevitable.

Posted by Oz_Santwyk from Perth Australia on 06/24/12 at 04:05 AM ET

Avatar

Posted by Oz_Santwyk from Perth Australia on 06/24/12 at 02:02 AM ET

It’s completely amazing that you think you’ve been proven right.

Posted by Garth on 06/24/12 at 04:05 AM ET

Avatar

Posted by Oz_Santwyk from Perth Australia on 06/24/12 at 02:05 AM ET

Wow, Australians are DUMB.

Posted by Garth on 06/24/12 at 04:06 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

You’ve just proved all my points JJ you dolt. Are you really that blind to see everything I said you just proved for me lol

Hahahaha.

You made an impossible if/then and I pointed that out. I fuching knew I should be careful about aiming logical concepts over your head.  You’ve missed so many of them to this point.  I really am at fault for that.  I should have known you wouldn’t understand.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 06/24/12 at 04:06 AM ET

Oz_Santwyk's avatar

If you need to know more about the history of the NHL cba i suggest you can wikipedia it where you’ll find this little tidbit

The CBA also contains a “Lower Limit of the Payroll Range”, which is the minimum that each team must pay in player salaries. The lower limit was originally set at 55% of the cap, but is now defined to be $16 million below the cap; therefore the 2011–12 minimum is $48.3 million.

Posted by Oz_Santwyk from Perth Australia on 06/24/12 at 04:07 AM ET

« Previous        < 1 2 3 4 >       Next »

Add a Comment

Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.

Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.

Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.

Smileys

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Feed

Most Recent Blog Posts

About Kukla's Korner Hockey

Paul Kukla founded Kukla’s Korner in 2005 and the site has since become the must-read site on the ‘net for all the latest happenings around the NHL.

From breaking news to in-depth stories around the league, KK Hockey is updated with fresh stories all day long and will bring you the latest news as quickly as possible.

Email Paul anytime at pk@kuklaskorner.com

 

image

image

image