Here was commissioner Gary Bettman, taking a victory lap even while seated and stationary during his pre-finals press conference on Monday in Pittsburgh, crowing about the parity within the NHL by proudly reciting data about the absence of a repeat Stanley Cup champion since 1998 and repeat finalists since 2009.

Yep, thanks goodness Gary’s League doesn’t have a Warriors-Cavaliers type of thing going on in the final. Wouldn’t want a super team such as Golden State seeking a repeat championship in a rematch against LeBron James, competing in his sixth straight final round.

Why would the NHL ever want to feature a marquee matchup like that?

Don’t get me wrong. The Penguins and Sharks are very good teams and most certainly have earned the right to compete for the Stanley Cup. Sidney Crosby, the most householdish name in the league, is back in the finals after a seven-year absence. San Jose is a great town. The hockey is good. But there is little of historical marquee value here.

That is the way it is meant to be in this league, which is dedicated to the proposition that all teams must be equal. This is the core belief on Sixth Avenue, where they forever seek ways to genetically engineer parity by cutting off successful teams at the knees. That is the philosophy forever rubber-stamped by a Board of Governors consisting of members who repeatedly vote against the interests of their own teams, and by extension, their own fans who foot the bill.

Here, now, the news:

First, we should tell you that for all of the successes Bettman cited in his press conference, the record attendance and whatnot, revenue is not growing in a commensurate manner. The Canadian currency issue is obviously a factor, but so is the absence of major-market teams in the latter rounds of the playoffs.

Hence, the league once again is dependent upon its players agreeing to take more out of their pockets through the application of greater escrow withholdings in order to avoid a decrease in the salary cap.

According to a source with ties to the Players’ Association, the cap — set at $71.4 million this year — would be reduced to approximately $69.3M for 2016-17 unless the PA triggers the 5 percent escalator. If the union does exercise the bump, then the cap should increase to approximately $72.8M. The union, which debated the issue at meetings at the end of the week, has voted for the increase all but once.

Exercising the trigger will increase escrow to a degree — players probably will wind up forfeiting around 16 percent of their pay when this past season’s numbers finally are reconciled — but a higher cap obviously allows for more available money to sign players on expiring contracts and offers more choices for unrestricted free agents and more protection against cap-necessitated buyouts and waivers.

So the PA is expected to vote to approve the increase and thus prevent the first organic decrease of the cap (not counting the reset following the 2012-13 Owners’ Lockout III) since the system was adopted for 2005-06.

Second, Slap Shots has learned that rules for the 2017 expansion draft that will precede Las Vegas’ anticipated 2017-18 admission to the league as its 31st franchise (“Done deal,” we’re told), will compel teams to protect players with no-move clauses even if they or the contracts themselves expire at the end of 2016-17.

This means if the expansion draft is held, say, on June 21, 2017, teams will be obligated to protect players who, a) would become unrestricted free agents 10 days later; or, b) would be able to be waived or traded 10 days later.

This is, of course, completely illogical … except when applied against Sixth Avenue’s overriding philosophy of punishing teams for following certain regulations within the CBA that for some reasons offend the league. Then it makes perfect sense.

During the last lockout, the league targeted teams that had signed players to previously approved and registered front-loaded contracts. They targeted teams that had waived players on expensive contracts to the AHL. Now, the league is seeking to hobble teams with multiple no-move contracts. Why? Because the league doesn’t “like” no-move contracts.

Teams that grant no-move clauses do so because they believe they must in order to sign or keep players. More often than not, those contracts generally come back to bite teams. Case in point: Well, Rangers fans know. But now the league — with the NHLPA’s assent — is seeking to punish teams that use no-moves as a tool to try and win.

It always can be distilled to this: The NHL is a lowest common-denominator league that uses its power to sanction successful teams that try to win.

What league punishes teams for trying to give their fans the best product possible? The answer is, the NHL.

You bet the Rangers are going to have to find a way to move Dan Girardi (whose no-move becomes a modified no-trade on July 1, 2017) if not Marc Staal, as well, before the expansion draft, or else they stand to lose a player of far greater future value to the team in Las Vegas, which the NHL wants to be an immediate playoff contender.

But it is not only the Rangers at risk here. The Blackhawks — only the NHL’s model franchise — have seven players with no-moves. The Blue Jackets — perennial ne’er do-wells — have five players with no-moves. The Ducks have four. The Lightning will have to find a way to deal Ben Bishop, the goaltender eligible to become a free agent on July 1, 2017, or they will have to expose Andrei Vasilevskiy.

They’re all on the hook … on the hook for using the tools within the CBA — sometimes wisely, sometimes not so wisely — in order to try to win.

Can’t have that.

Don’t want the Warriors and LeBron.