Lockout NHL and an idea

see article at: [sports.espn.go.com] == proposed solution to NHL lockout.

Particularly interested in suggested rookie salaries and structure. hummm maybe a slightly greater incentive for good players to leave NCAA early?

No way does the PA agree to that rookie cap. It is way too extreme compared to what was in the last CBA.
In general, the proposal is decent and would be relatively fair for both sides. However, at this point it's a non-starter with the owners as they will not back off the cap. I think it is idiot-proof which is what they are looking for, but again it's a non-starter.

[q]No way does the PA agree to that rookie cap. It is way too extreme compared to what was in the last CBA. [/q]I'm not so sure. As the author says, rookies are usually the first to get thrown under the bus. Current players have minimal incentive to preserve a system that is favorable to incoming players. In fact they may have an incentive to screw rookies, because less money for younger players means more money available to pay the veterans.

Although there are a lot of things I like about it, there are several problems at first blush:

1. Arbitration: giving the teams the right to force a player to arbitration won't help keep salaries down; salary arbitration is what has been driving increased salaries in the NHL and MLB already. In the leagues where there is a salary cap (soft NBA, hard NHL), they don't need salary arbitration. A guy like Gaborik, even if he could be forced to salary arbitration, would be comparable to Sakic and Fedorov in a salary arbitration, which would skyrocket his salary. It might have a dampening effect on big contracts being given to middling players, however, depending on the rules (does the arb pick from the two salaries proposed, or does he/she get to pick his/her number?)

2. Free Agency: opening free agency to more players will just result in the rich getting richer; the equivalents of the Yankees and Red Sox will have access to more stars than they do now and, by retaining 90 percent of broadcast etc. revenue, the resources to spend over the luxury tax level. A larger pool of players would bring down salaries only if there were a harder salary cap or more complete revenue sharing.

3. Revenue Sharing: teams are not going to be willing to share in-arena revenue and, in some cases, local broadcast revenue, because (1) some teams don't get much in the way of in-arena revenue due to their leases and (2) many of the teams that do get substantial in-arena revenue have pledged that money to finance their arena construction or for other things (and so they are not permitted to assign a portion to the league). The same is true for local broadcast moneys. Also, what do you do with teams like the Rangers or the Stars where an affiliate owns the arena in which they play and presumably doesn't pay the Rangers any in-arena moneys?

4. Schedule: owners won't agree to a reduction in games played because it would impact revenues received on many levels (in-arena, tickets, broadcast) that may have been pledged to support various financings.

5. Rookies: while it's true that rookies get thrown under the bus, the PA will look at it as a way in which the league is attempting to limit the base on which future salary increases are figured, thus holding down salaries in the future as those players get older. I'm not saying they won't agree to it, but it will be a factor.