Here's what I said about the expense cap:
"the good/bad of an expense cap comes down to how valuable the expenses actually are. if the rich teams have been pouring money in w/ less benefit than would be derived from investing in players, it’s to poorer teams’ advantage that they continue to do so."
There are various options for dealing with the impending glut of players on the market. For one, the fact that there are so many (seemingly for every team) will keep prices fairly low if nothing at all is done. But it will mean that everyone will be subject to market prices, so teams that, even after prices are lowered, still need even lower cost players will not do well. I don't know really who this will affect.
Possible solutions include the aforementioned expense cap and cash grants based on revenue. Annual cash grants could prove tricky to implement, as when to stop them after things even out (if they do) would be up for debate. Adding cash into the game prior to 2014 would also lock everybody into the prices set by the game, since so many fewer players would hit FA. It would be difficult to predict how that would play out, since no one really knows what algorithm the computer is using to offer extensions. Figuring out the appropriate cash for each team would also be a chore.
The expense cap is easy, but I'm not sure who it will end up helping.
Presumably, the preference is to have a chance to keep the guys you've developed for your team lo these many years rather than going on a joint, chaotic (but possibly fun) spending spree. Dan Ariely calls this phenomenon "loss aversion" and it won somebody a Nobel Prize. But I also wonder if we shouldn't just accept that this is a new phase of the game, take the lumps and figure out what to do after it becomes clear what the solutions are.