Trolfoli
Registered User
- May 30, 2013
- 4,640
- 0
The percentage of the cap increase was minimal. The cap increase of $1.6M equates to a paltry 2.25%.
http://www.secondcityhockey.com/201...y-cap-2016-free-agency-escalator-clause-nhlpa
Actually, Daly was wrong. The 2016-17 salary cap came in at $73M, and had the escalator clause not been invoked by the NHLPA, the salary cap would have decreased. There are numerous articles out there providing rationale as to why invoking the escalator clause has a negative impact on the actual salary of the rank and file NHL player. Thus it is very difficult to understand why the NHLPA agreed to invoke the escalator clause last off season.
I don't expect you to do any homework or actually understand any of this.
Despite doing all your homework you still got it wrong.
It's really hard to figure out that they'd vote for more money, despite that it may not actually help them? Really? It takes a while for a large group to reach a conclusion like that. Until a majority of the group figures it out, they will probably vote for more money. Just basic psychology.
I do love that you have all this information, and articles, proving that you would have been right if you weren't wrong. It's all a waste of time. You look at the things that will have the biggest effect on a number, then you flat out ignore the minimal effects because they don't matter. That's a hard concept to grasp and I've seen plenty of PHD's with varying degrees of OCD not be able to deal with looking past small errors that don't matter.
Here's a good starting point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty