NHL vs. NHLPA

I see that folks in Leaf Nation have begun to get excited at what yesterday's NHLPA proposal could mean to them:

"The fight among owners is about to begin. That you can bet on. There is a deal to be done here: All Bettman has to do is catch his breath, compose himself and find a way.

That's what the Maple Leafs have to be hoping for. This kind of arrangement is more than they could ever have imagined.

Suddenly, Mats Sundin would be a $6.08-million (all terms US) player, down from $9 million of a year ago or the $8 million he was scheduled to earn this season.

Suddenly, Ed Belfour would go from $8 million a year to $6.08 million; Owen Nolan from $6.5 million to $4.94 million a year; Brian Leetch from $6.4 million to $4.86 million; Alexander Mogilny from $5.5 million to $4.18 million.

On five players alone, that amounts to a reduction of $8.3 million in payroll, which on its own is enough to sign two quality free agents in a market flush with them.

Maybe a Glen Murray. Maybe an Alexei Zhitnik. Maybe a Paul Kariya. You get the point."

Granted, Steve Simmons goes on to say that, if the NHL owners were to accept this deal, they would not be addressing the underlying problem which is the cause of all this hullabaloo to begin with: teams would not be able to compete on an even basis against each other.

But in his daydream he pointed out something that is evident if you look a bit beyond the headlines and talking points. This 24% wage rollback is for players who currently have contracts. It doesn't affect any of the much-larger-than-normal number of free agents out there who can still start unrestricted bidding wars for their services, does it? This rollback would only affect a chunk of the players out there, by no means all of them.