Quote:
Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed
I checked it several times around the trade deadline at the end of March, it wasn't changed then.
|
It was changed on March 6th:
https://twitter.com/capgeek/status/309422496212475904
I've checked it several times since then and it has always been as it is now. I doubt they would've changed it back and forth several times since then.
Quote:
The problem with that way of thinking is that teams get punished more for recieving less cap benefit. I find it HIGHLY unlikely that it would have been negotiated that way any one of the parties, much less approved in a vote by either side.
The way Capgeek was initially (and I've tried to explain), the math worked out completely, so that the cap hit reductions that were gained by teams would be brought to a net of zero, which makes complete sense, in that it's called a "recapture" clause.
The way it's showing now, and being talked about in this thread, the math doesn't work out to net zero. Also, the heaviest "penalties" would be reserved for teams that received the least benefit.
|
I guess I'm just willing to accept the interpretation of a site with a history of being on top of these matters and who have said they've actually spoken to the NHL on the matter rather than my own personal interpretation. They've clearly had sources on these matters in the past so I'm confident what they're saying is true. The only room for error would be if they misinterpreted what their source said, which is certainly possible, but you'd think that'd be something they'd get straight.
Though even just taking the language at face value, I'm not sure it's totally clear. If the NHL wanted to recapture only the aggregate advantage then why would they have used the phrase "both annually and in the aggregate"?