Buying Muckler’s excuse hook line and sinker, Al Strachan argues that the cap means that a few players will get a ton of money and the rest will churn under the new system.
Why? Why does it mean that? If the players were willing to take less, they could stay. Sure, the system should probably be altered so that players who are re-signing with a team only count for, say, 75% of a cap charge, but even without it, they could just, you know, take less.
Martin Brodeur doesn’t even have an agent. He gets paid about half what he might have under the non-cap system. He likes playing for the Devils. If all players were like him, under a $44m cap system there wouldn’t be any need for churn.
P.S. Al — why is it then that some of the teams can stay together? ie those that planned for the cap.