It's time to institute a luxury tax

[mouser]

100%. Also, funny how the NFL gets by just fine & doesn’t have a luxury tax. It’s a non-starter for the NHL.

The NFL even collects all of the playoff gate receipts. The home playoff teams only get the ancillary revenue like concessions and parking, plus a small amount from the NFL to cover operating staff salaries for the playoff game.

 

[Melrose Munch]

Pushing a false narrative doesn’t make it true. Plus, dont act like Chicago always sold out either. They were lousy before 2010

But Pittsburgh was even worse. That's the point.

The cap is not for parity. Look it up.

 

[edog37]

But Pittsburgh was even worse. That's the point.

The cap is not for parity. Look it up.

Define “worse”. We only went 17 years between titles. Chicago went 49 years. You guys had “Dollar Bill” Wirtz as an owner who wouldn’t even televise home games.

I never said the cap was for parity, it was for economic certainty.

 

[Melrose Munch]

Define “worse”. We only went 17 years between titles. Chicago went 49 years. You guys had “Dollar Bill” Wirtz as an owner who wouldn’t even televise home games.

I never said the cap was for parity, it was for economic certainty.

Attendance wise. Pittsburgh almost moved twice. I will admit without a cap Pittsburgh would have moved, but does everything even need to be "fair" for you to watch? The league went 80 years without a cap before they expanded in a panic...

 

[KevFu]

What hockey fans don't understand is that the Luxury Tax would benefit the smallest market teams. You take the money the Leafs will overspend, a franchise that couldn't win the Cup anyways when they could spend a Billion a year on salaries before the Cap; and divide that money among the have-nots.

You don't actually BELIEVE that, you're just trying to write a justification for letting the Leafs spend whatever they want, so you can have a better team to watch and have more success, right?

Let's break this down:
- 6 to 10 "small teams" with $70m payroll can't win the Cup vs $85m payroll teams.
- Leafs spend $100m on payroll, paying $15m to $20m in tax for being over.
- Small teams split the tax money, so the small teams get $2m to $4m more.
- Now small teams can afford a $74m payroll

That's your argument?
- The small teams are now $26m behind in soft cap instead of $15m behind the hard cap. That's worse, not better.
- Who's players are the Leafs spending that extra payroll on? Someone else's players. Aka the teams that can't afford to keep their guys. (Your captain is a free agent who left a team that was then what? 27th in revenue?).
- So now being further behind more teams (since it's not like the Leafs are the elite club winning Cups), and losing their best player.... what happens to attendance and fan interest? It goes down and they bring in less revenue. So really, they'd stay at about a $70m payroll.


So you're gonna put them $30m behind and take their best players, ruin fan interest in the team, and have the audacity to say that you're "helping" them?

 

[Leafsfan74]

You don't actually BELIEVE that, you're just trying to write a justification for letting the Leafs spend whatever they want, so you can have a better team to watch and have more success, right?

Let's break this down:
- 6 to 10 "small teams" with $70m payroll can't win the Cup vs $85m payroll teams.
- Leafs spend $100m on payroll, paying $15m to $20m in tax for being over.
- Small teams split the tax money, so the small teams get $2m to $4m more.
- Now small teams can afford a $74m payroll

That's your argument?
- The small teams are now $26m behind in soft cap instead of $15m behind the hard cap. That's worse, not better.
- Who's players are the Leafs spending that extra payroll on? Someone else's players. Aka the teams that can't afford to keep their guys. (Your captain is a free agent who left a team that was then what? 27th in revenue?).
- So now being further behind more teams (since it's not like the Leafs are the elite club winning Cups), and losing their best player.... what happens to attendance and fan interest? It goes down and they bring in less revenue. So really, they'd stay at about a $70m payroll.


So you're gonna put them $30m behind and take their best players, ruin fan interest in the team, and have the audacity to say that you're "helping" them?

Yes, that's my argument.

You forgot about the other wealthy clubs who can do the same, add their extra revenue to the small town teams, be it the Rangers, Habs, Kings, Blackhwaks etc.

In fact, I recall in the late 1990s early 2000s how much more the Rangers inflated salaries with massive contracts for Lindros, Fleury et al when they were well beyond their prime. It will happen again that some teams will overpay but not win Cups.

This benefits greatly the small market teams.

 

[Golden_Jet]

I searched the forums and couldn't find anything recent where there was a discussion of this topic but I know it's been raised before. I think the NHL needs to institute a luxury tax on top of it's current salary cap system. I know already some will say that it shouldn't be done because it would "Hurt parity" but let's look at it like this:

Since the implementation of the cap, 12 different teams have won the Stanley Cup. Of those 12, 5 of them have won it multiple times. Markets like Vegas, Tampa Bay, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh and Detroit have been the most successful and apart from LA, these were not the first time those teams touched the Cup. 11 teams have participated in a cup final without winning, so out of 32 teams, 25 of them have made it to the Cup final at least once. 2 teams have won back to back cups that being the Penguins and the Lightning.

There have been 18 seasons since the Cap was installed (this is currently the 19th underway). And in the 18 seasons prior, there are been 10 teams that won the cup. 11 different teams made the finals without winning at least once, so out of 30 teams (which was the number as of the year 2000) there had been 21 teams that have made it to the cup finals at least once. In those 18 years the NHL expanded from 21 to 30 teams. 2 teams won back to back cups in those 18 seasons the Penguins and the Red Wings.

The sport of hockey is not one that lends itself to Super team dominance given the number of team and the fact that chemistry plays a big part of it. If it were all about who spends the most money, we'd expect to see teams like Montreal, Toronto and New York win championship after championship, yet the last time that happened was in 1994, 30 years ago. If the problem was just big markets outspending the smaller ones, we'd be seeing a lot more of the same teams in the finals and winning championships. yet the numbers are very similar.

The idea of the cap (apart from controlling escalating salaries) was that it would allow more parity because teams wouldn't be able to sign their big stars and hence you'd see more superstars emerge in non-traditional markets, helping the game grow. However, what's actually happened is that because teams prioritize retaining their stars above all, it's lower level free agents that are hitting the market. Guys who are good players but not necessarily game changers on the levels of a McDavid, Matthews, Crosby and many others. If you didn't draft a superstar or can't swing a trade for one, you have to overpay to get these guys and so this inflates salaries all around the league. The cap isn't rising fast enough to meet demand and so you end up with some of the greatest players in the NHL not being able to reach the finals, much less touch Lord Stanley himself. This is a problem. Wouldn't it be great for the NHL if Connor McDavid could go on ESPN with the Stanley Cup? Or Auston Matthews?

I think the NHL should add a luxury tax on top of the salary cap. The idea would be that teams can go over the cap but pay a penalty equivalent to how much more they spend:

For the first 10% over the cap ceiling, it'd be a 100% equivalent penalty. Meaning if you are $4M over the cap, you must pay an extra $4M to the other teams in the league who didn't go over the cap. 10-25% would be 150%, 25-50% would be 200% and if you go over 50%, it's 500%+forfeiting your 2 next available 2 first round picks. The money would have to come out of ownership's profits, not Hockey related revenues. This is therefore extra money owners would have to pay.

This would allow big markets to retain their players IMO. It wouldn't hurt smaller markets because there's really only so much you can spend and as I've pointed out, spending more money doesn't mean you will win championships. It'd be a way to give the teams that have more money a bit more flexibility in building their rosters, possibly allow them to make the playoffs more often or stay in them a little longer. As for smaller market teams that can't go over the cap would get a way to be more competitive. It wouldn't hurt parity because there's many factors that go into a player choosing to sign with a team such as location, ice time, teammates, the organization and more.

I look at a team like the Leafs and they have 4 of the best offensive talents in the league but can't get out of the first round because their depth sucks. Leafs games in the playoffs bring in money not just in Toronto but everywhere as Toronto fans will travel to see the team. That means more revenue in the league pie and the cap can rise thus making the Luxury tax a bonus.

I think the current system hasn't really worked in making the overall game better. Given that there's only so much top talent and so much ice time, there will always be parity. How about just giving your biggest markets a little shot in the arm given they already have to finance other teams?

Connor McDavid can go on ESPN with cup, if Edmonton wins against a team from the east this year.

 

[Golden_Jet]

In fact, I recall in the late 1990s early 2000s how much more the Rangers inflated salaries with massive contracts for Lindros, Fleury et al when they were well beyond their prime. It will happen again that some teams will overpay but not win Cups.

This benefits greatly the small market teams.

Ya Toronto tried that already, when there was no cap, didn’t work.

Yes, that's my argument.

You forgot about the other wealthy clubs who can do the same, add their extra revenue to the small town teams, be it the Rangers, Habs, Kings, Blackhwaks etc.

In fact, I recall in the late 1990s early 2000s how much more the Rangers inflated salaries with massive contracts for Lindros, Fleury et al when they were well beyond their prime. It will happen again that some teams will overpay but not win Cups.

This benefits greatly the small market teams.

The luxury tax would need to be about triple.
1 million over, costs you 3 million in tax, for a total of 4 million (to the team).

Tax breakdown
1 million for players (for 50/50 split)
1 million for NHL for 50/50 split)
1 million for your sharing to poorer teams (basically additional revenue sharing).

Would have to be a maximum likely.

 

[edog37]

Attendance wise. Pittsburgh almost moved twice. I will admit without a cap Pittsburgh would have moved, but does everything even need to be "fair" for you to watch? The league went 80 years without a cap before they expanded in a panic...

I really don’t know where you’re getting this about me. I never said it was about fairness, I said cost certainty. The league needed a cap to ensure its survival. The ‘67 expansion was also necessary for the same reason. Without either, there would be no NHL today. Free agency in pro sports made it so. The NHL of old did not have free agency, so a cap was meaningless.

 

[KevFu]

The luxury tax would need to be about triple.
1 million over, costs you 3 million in tax, for a total of 4 million (to the team).

Tax breakdown
1 million for players (for 50/50 split)
1 million for NHL for 50/50 split)
1 million for your sharing to poorer teams (basically additional revenue sharing).

Would have to be a maximum likely.

Well, that doesn't make sense.
#1 - The players get the million FROM THE SALARY, why should they get another million from the tax?

#2 - "The NHL" getting the tax money for the 50/50 split... the money the team is spending on the tax is already "revenue" they got from fans/TV etc. They're going over a 50/50 split by spending more on payroll.

And "the NHL" is just the owners combined, so that million would be shared among all 32 teams, (does the team paying the tax get 1/32nd of it back?)

#3 - If ONE rich team is spending more, then we're all $1m "poorer," by being behind them in terms of our spending.

And it's the last one which is why this concept is a disaster.

If the richest 5 teams are spending an extra $1m more on players, the 27 other teams need to spend a $1m more on players just to keep up. So you'd need $27m in taxes on $5m in players.

That a 540% tax rate to maintain the same economic balance (which already isn't good enough)

And that's BEFORE factoring in that the extra spending would inflate salaries so what everyone spends would just get less;

AND the fact that the players the rich teams are adding to their rosters... are probably coming from the other teams. So now we have to spend more money to get players to replace the guy we lost, to the team that gave us not enough money to keep up or replace them.


You'd have an easier time convincing me that the NHL should adopt a "you sign their player as a UFA, you give them your first round pick" rule instead of a luxury tax.

 

[Leafsfan74]

Well, that doesn't make sense.
#1 - The players get the million FROM THE SALARY, why should they get another million from the tax?

#2 - "The NHL" getting the tax money for the 50/50 split... the money the team is spending on the tax is already "revenue" they got from fans/TV etc. They're going over a 50/50 split by spending more on payroll.

And "the NHL" is just the owners combined, so that million would be shared among all 32 teams, (does the team paying the tax get 1/32nd of it back?)

#3 - If ONE rich team is spending more, then we're all $1m "poorer," by being behind them in terms of our spending.

And it's the last one which is why this concept is a disaster.

If the richest 5 teams are spending an extra $1m more on players, the 27 other teams need to spend a $1m more on players just to keep up. So you'd need $27m in taxes on $5m in players.

That a 540% tax rate to maintain the same economic balance (which already isn't good enough)

And that's BEFORE factoring in that the extra spending would inflate salaries so what everyone spends would just get less;

AND the fact that the players the rich teams are adding to their rosters... are probably coming from the other teams. So now we have to spend more money to get players to replace the guy we lost, to the team that gave us not enough money to keep up or replace them.


You'd have an easier time convincing me that the NHL should adopt a "you sign their player as a UFA, you give them your first round pick" rule instead of a luxury tax.

You equate equal value of salary to skill/success. What it would do is inflate salaries for SOME teams, they would have to overpay as it will be baked into the cake.

You disregard the cost value of that extra income. Sure, you may not get THAT particular player, but you can use that money for another player. No team can ice 50 players on the bench.

This will help stave off movement for many teams and pass on their costs to corporate sponsors of big hockey towns.

 

[KevFu]

You equate equal value of salary to skill/success. What it would do is inflate salaries for SOME teams, they would have to overpay as it will be baked into the cake.

This statement is 100% the problem right there. If that were true, it could only be true because:
It would only inflate salaries for "SOME teams" (aka the teams who could be in bidding wars).
The salaries of all the other teams' players wouldn't go up... because they CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY MORE?

You disregard the cost value of that extra income. Sure, you may not get THAT particular player, but you can use that money for another player. No team can ice 50 players on the bench.

I disregard the "value of extra income" because your entire premise is that you can give everyone else enough tax money to be BETTER OFF financially... while simultaneously making them further behind in spending, and losing their best players via free agent bidding wars they can't win.

Why is everyone pissed about Mark Stone scoring in the playoffs? Because Vegas has $95m worth of players! That gives them an advantage. For everyone else to catch up, we all have to buy more talent. But there's a finite amount of talent, so we're going to compete for it.

This will help stave off movement for many teams and pass on their costs to corporate sponsors of big hockey towns.

I don't even know what this means.


Just tell me what you'd want the Leafs to do to build a Cup winning roster if they're allowed to increase their spending and if they pay a tax. What's your new Leafs payroll? Which new players are you adding to the roster?

Give me that info and I can try to break down how this screws over about a dozen or more other teams.

 

[Leafsfan74]

This statement is 100% the problem right there. If that were true, it could only be true because:
It would only inflate salaries for "SOME teams" (aka the teams who could be in bidding wars).
The salaries of all the other teams' players wouldn't go up... because they CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY MORE?




I disregard the "value of extra income" because your entire premise is that you can give everyone else enough tax money to be BETTER OFF financially... while simultaneously making them further behind in spending, and losing their best players via free agent bidding wars they can't win.

Why is everyone pissed about Mark Stone scoring in the playoffs? Because Vegas has $95m worth of players! That gives them an advantage. For everyone else to catch up, we all have to buy more talent. But there's a finite amount of talent, so we're going to compete for it.




I don't even know what this means.


Just tell me what you'd want the Leafs to do to build a Cup winning roster if they're allowed to increase their spending and if they pay a tax. What's your new Leafs payroll? Which new players are you adding to the roster?

Give me that info and I can try to break down how this screws over about a dozen or more other teams.

Leafs had decades before the cap and failed even when they overpaid every deadline. Instead of other teams getting tax revenue the Leafs and Rangers etc just boosted salaries.

I am talking about teams like Arizona having millions more each year. They can make a big difference in keeping them in a city.

 

[KevFu]

Leafs had decades before the cap and failed even when they overpaid every deadline. Instead of other teams getting tax revenue the Leafs and Rangers etc just boosted salaries.

I am talking about teams like Arizona having millions more each year. They can make a big difference in keeping them in a city.

Yeah, and the Leafs spending made other teams spend more, like the Canadiens (Cup 1993), Rangers (1994), Red Wings (1997, 1998, 2002), etc, etc. Which caused salaries to go out of control, threaten the existence of places like Winnipeg and Quebec and cause the NHL to miss an entire season to gain cost certainty so 60% of the league didn't have interest in the sport completely neutered.

You wanna give Arizona an extra few million, DO IT. I'm all aboard that train for more Revenue Sharing. We need that.

Just don't lie to everyone that you want to "prop up" the small teams via a luxury tax, because (a) you're just saying that to sound better than "I'm sick of losing and want to buy more players so we can actually win." And (b) your plan won't actually do that, it will absolutely make everything worse.

It's a very simple explanation: There's Seven of you, and 25 of the them.

The top 7 in the league are $433m above league average revenue.
The bottom 25 in the league are $433 below league average revenue.

If you spend $10m more on players, they are another $250m behind.

I'll stop arguing with you now. Good plan. Go for it. You can add $10m in payroll if you pay $683m in taxes. Per season.

 

[CTHabsfan]

What hockey fans don't understand is that the Luxury Tax would benefit the smallest market teams. You take the money the Leafs will overspend, a franchise that couldn't win the Cup anyways when they could spend a Billion a year on salaries before the Cap; and divide that money among the have-nots. Maybe a team such as Arizona or even Buffalo could benefit from this.

The small-market team would not benefit, the owner of the small-market team would benefit from getting their share of tax money (see MLB).

 

[Steamy Ray Vaughn]

Yeah, and the Leafs spending made other teams spend more, like the Canadiens (Cup 1993), Rangers (1994), Red Wings (1997, 1998, 2002), etc, etc. Which caused salaries to go out of control, threaten the existence of places like Winnipeg and Quebec and cause the NHL to miss an entire season to gain cost certainty so 60% of the league didn't have interest in the sport completely neutered.

The 1993 Canadiens were not a team full of superstars. They had Patrick Roy and played a very strong defensive game. They were a true Cinderella team. Their best scores were Vincent Damphousse and Kirk Muller. The highest paid player that season was Lindros with $3.5M (which would be around $7.6M in today's dollars). No player on the Canadiens was in the top 5. The 5th highest paid player that season was Pat Lafontaine with $1.775M ($3,9M in today's money).

No one is saying scrap the salary cap, and there's enough data to suggest that spending more money does not equal more championships. As others have pointed out in this thread, superstar hockey players will play a lot less per game than sports like basketball, football and baseball and as such, filling you team with stars won't be a guarantee for success. In fact, it's more likely to be the opposite.

A luxury tax may allow some teams to retain those 2nd line guys or those top 9 guys that are currently hitting the UFA market. Of course some will still do but it will give teams a chance to retain their secondary players and put a better team on the ice overall. The extra money they spend would be redistributed to lower market, putting more money in the revenue sharing pool which would counteract any negative effects. Stars aren't moving through UFA, they're all locked up to giant money deals anyways.

 

[KevFu]

No one is saying scrap the salary cap, and there's enough data to suggest that spending more money does not equal more championships.

This is totally true, but I don't think anyone's saying money automatically means championships.


You win championships with max roster efficiency, the most bang for your buck. It's the teams with a really good CHEAP young core of guys who are the most underpaid in the sport (i.e. superstars on ELCs), so they can buy the right role pieces with their salary cap and not have those players reach the point where they're overpaid yet.

But lack of money usually means you're just not as deep and not going to win.

And more money is not only the ability to spend more on good players, but also the ability to buy better scouts, better executives, better tech, more total employees, broader operations and more amenities that lure free agents, and thousands of other microadvantages. And most importantly, being able to buy-out your mistakes.

Divide the league into thirds: 10 Rich, 12 Middle, 10 Poor (VGK/SEA can be 11 and 12 in the middle group). At best it's a 9-6-3 split for Cups since the cap. And historically, it's like 69-25-3 all-time since the NHL took over the Cup.

No one's saying it's automatic, but anyone who thinks it's NOT better to be in the rich group is insane.

 

[Steamy Ray Vaughn]

This is totally true, but I don't think anyone's saying money automatically means championships.


You win championships with max roster efficiency, the most bang for your buck. It's the teams with a really good CHEAP young core of guys who are the most underpaid in the sport (i.e. superstars on ELCs), so they can buy the right role pieces with their salary cap and not have those players reach the point where they're overpaid yet.

But lack of money usually means you're just not as deep and not going to win.

And more money is not only the ability to spend more on good players, but also the ability to buy better scouts, better executives, better tech, more total employees, broader operations and more amenities that lure free agents, and thousands of other microadvantages. And most importantly, being able to buy-out your mistakes.

Divide the league into thirds: 10 Rich, 12 Middle, 10 Poor (VGK/SEA can be 11 and 12 in the middle group). At best it's a 9-6-3 split for Cups since the cap. And historically, it's like 69-25-3 all-time since the NHL took over the Cup.

No one's saying it's automatic, but anyone who thinks it's NOT better to be in the rich group is insane.

The rich teams already have those advantages as you mentioned. It's also an ownership situation. The Panthers aren't a rich team by any means, yet their owner is willing to spend money when necessary.

I do also think the NHL's strategy of going into non-hockey markets and trying to grow the game of hockey is a crap shoot. If you can find a great local owner and have the facilities in place already, then sure. But often times (like what happened in Arizona and Atlanta), these non-traditional markets will have trouble getting good stable ownership which means the product on the ice suffers and then the fanbase, which is already smaller, isn't as forgiving as a place like Montreal who, despite being in a rebuild, are still selling a ton of tickets.

If you want to test out a potential market, get an AHL team there first and work with USA Hockey to get a junior program going, but don't just drop one of your franchises with the hopes that you can grow the game. And if it doesn't work, be willing to move. But this is not an easy thing to accomplish in the short-term. If you're asking your money makers to financially support your struggling franchises in the hopes that hockey catches on in the market, then I think it's not too much to give them a tool that they can use to make their teams better. ELCs are only 3 years, that's a very short period of time in which to hope to get everything to click. And I don't want to see players being stuck with a cap for a second contract, that's not fair to them

 

[Fish on The Sand]

I searched the forums and couldn't find anything recent where there was a discussion of this topic but I know it's been raised before. I think the NHL needs to institute a luxury tax on top of it's current salary cap system. I know already some will say that it shouldn't be done because it would "Hurt parity" but let's look at it like this:

Since the implementation of the cap, 12 different teams have won the Stanley Cup. Of those 12, 5 of them have won it multiple times. Markets like Vegas, Tampa Bay, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh and Detroit have been the most successful and apart from LA, these were not the first time those teams touched the Cup. 11 teams have participated in a cup final without winning, so out of 32 teams, 25 of them have made it to the Cup final at least once. 2 teams have won back to back cups that being the Penguins and the Lightning.

There have been 18 seasons since the Cap was installed (this is currently the 19th underway). And in the 18 seasons prior, there are been 10 teams that won the cup. 11 different teams made the finals without winning at least once, so out of 30 teams (which was the number as of the year 2000) there had been 21 teams that have made it to the cup finals at least once. In those 18 years the NHL expanded from 21 to 30 teams. 2 teams won back to back cups in those 18 seasons the Penguins and the Red Wings.

The sport of hockey is not one that lends itself to Super team dominance given the number of team and the fact that chemistry plays a big part of it. If it were all about who spends the most money, we'd expect to see teams like Montreal, Toronto and New York win championship after championship, yet the last time that happened was in 1994, 30 years ago. If the problem was just big markets outspending the smaller ones, we'd be seeing a lot more of the same teams in the finals and winning championships. yet the numbers are very similar.

The idea of the cap (apart from controlling escalating salaries) was that it would allow more parity because teams wouldn't be able to sign their big stars and hence you'd see more superstars emerge in non-traditional markets, helping the game grow. However, what's actually happened is that because teams prioritize retaining their stars above all, it's lower level free agents that are hitting the market. Guys who are good players but not necessarily game changers on the levels of a McDavid, Matthews, Crosby and many others. If you didn't draft a superstar or can't swing a trade for one, you have to overpay to get these guys and so this inflates salaries all around the league. The cap isn't rising fast enough to meet demand and so you end up with some of the greatest players in the NHL not being able to reach the finals, much less touch Lord Stanley himself. This is a problem. Wouldn't it be great for the NHL if Connor McDavid could go on ESPN with the Stanley Cup? Or Auston Matthews?

I think the NHL should add a luxury tax on top of the salary cap. The idea would be that teams can go over the cap but pay a penalty equivalent to how much more they spend:

For the first 10% over the cap ceiling, it'd be a 100% equivalent penalty. Meaning if you are $4M over the cap, you must pay an extra $4M to the other teams in the league who didn't go over the cap. 10-25% would be 150%, 25-50% would be 200% and if you go over 50%, it's 500%+forfeiting your 2 next available 2 first round picks. The money would have to come out of ownership's profits, not Hockey related revenues. This is therefore extra money owners would have to pay.

This would allow big markets to retain their players IMO. It wouldn't hurt smaller markets because there's really only so much you can spend and as I've pointed out, spending more money doesn't mean you will win championships. It'd be a way to give the teams that have more money a bit more flexibility in building their rosters, possibly allow them to make the playoffs more often or stay in them a little longer. As for smaller market teams that can't go over the cap would get a way to be more competitive. It wouldn't hurt parity because there's many factors that go into a player choosing to sign with a team such as location, ice time, teammates, the organization and more.

I look at a team like the Leafs and they have 4 of the best offensive talents in the league but can't get out of the first round because their depth sucks. Leafs games in the playoffs bring in money not just in Toronto but everywhere as Toronto fans will travel to see the team. That means more revenue in the league pie and the cap can rise thus making the Luxury tax a bonus.

I think the current system hasn't really worked in making the overall game better. Given that there's only so much top talent and so much ice time, there will always be parity. How about just giving your biggest markets a little shot in the arm given they already have to finance other teams?

That was a lot of words to say you wish the Leafs could simply buy their way out of cap trouble.

 

[Steamy Ray Vaughn]

That was a lot of words to say you wish the Leafs could simply buy their way out of cap trouble.

That's because it's not about the Leafs. They're just one of the best example of the way the salary cap has impacted the game. The idea was to spread the top stars all around the league and force "parity" but it hasn't been the case at all. The top stars still get paid, stay with their teams and it's the secondary players who benefit the most, which in turn causes star players' salaries to go up in a vicious circle.

I am in favour of players getting paid well, and owners are always going to do everything to retain their top draws, So why not just make it a little more interesting?

 

[Guttersniped]

Yes, that's my argument.

You forgot about the other wealthy clubs who can do the same, add their extra revenue to the small town teams, be it the Rangers, Habs, Kings, Blackhwaks etc.

In fact, I recall in the late 1990s early 2000s how much more the Rangers inflated salaries with massive contracts for Lindros, Fleury et al when they were well beyond their prime. It will happen again that some teams will overpay but not win Cups.

This benefits greatly the small market teams.

Here’s a chart of estimated payrolls off the pre-Salary Cap years.



Do the Rangers spend a lot? Sure, but look at other teams that are spending big when star salaries exploded.

Detroit, Dallas, Philly, St Louis, Toronto…

And those were most of the teams consistently winning 1999-2004.


Even New Jersey was spending more then, Ottawa is the biggest outlier here.

Owners really like the hard cap, they fought for it for years so this is a fun thought exercise but no one who matters is pushing for a soft cap for the NHL.

It wasn’t like players in general benefited in the pre-Cap era, the explosion of payrolls was due to the massive salaries top stars were getting. There wasn’t much trickling down.

2000-01 was a good time to be a NHL star.

That's because it's not about the Leafs. They're just one of the best example of the way the salary cap has impacted the game. The idea was to spread the top stars all around the league and force "parity" but it hasn't been the case at all. The top stars still get paid, stay with their teams and it's the secondary players who benefit the most, which in turn causes star players' salaries to go up in a vicious circle.

I am in favour of players getting paid well, and owners are always going to do everything to retain their top draws, So why not just make it a little more interesting?

Take a look at what guys made in 2000-01, top stars lose the most under a hard cap.

 

[Steamy Ray Vaughn]

Take a look at what guys made in 2000-01, top stars lose the most under a hard cap.

I don't see how that's relating to my point? The top stars are earning less now than they were back then adjusted for inflation but that's not the point I'm making. I'm talking about getting to put a more well-rounded team on the ice for the teams that have those big superstars.

Remember the back diving 12-14 year deals that aren't allowed anymore? Owners did that to themselves to try and game the system. Most owners want to win because winning means more money overall. That's why the payrolls for teams like NY, Philly, Colorado, Dallas and Detroit were so huge in the last year before the cap was instituted, they wanted to win.

Yet, who made the finals? The Flames and the Lightning, two of the teams with the lowest total payrolls in the league.

 

[Guttersniped]

I don't see how that's relating to my point? The top stars are earning less now than they were back then adjusted for inflation but that's not the point I'm making. I'm talking about getting to put a more well-rounded team on the ice for the teams that have those big superstars.

Remember the back diving 12-14 year deals that aren't allowed anymore? Owners did that to themselves to try and game the system. Most owners want to win because winning means more money overall. That's why the payrolls for teams like NY, Philly, Colorado, Dallas and Detroit were so huge in the last year before the cap was instituted, they wanted to win.

Yet, who made the finals? The Flames and the Lightning, two of the teams with the lowest total payrolls in the league.

My point you would only get a soft cap w/ luxury tax if the owners or the NHLPA want it because those are the people negotiating the NHL CBA.

It doesn’t matter what fans think of your arguments.

 

[Steamy Ray Vaughn]

My point you would only get a soft cap w/ luxury tax if the owners or the NHLPA want it because those are the people negotiating the NHL CBA.

It doesn’t matter what fans think of your arguments.

The players would 10000% be in favor of it. The owners? My guess is the big market ones would be and they'd be able to push Bettman to rule in their favor. But the push would be best coming from the players. Given all the concessions they've given the NHL, it's about time they get one back.

 

[WaveRaven]

I love these threads. Every single friggin time this is discussed it is ALWAYS and I mean 100% large market teams fans who want this. I wonder why ? They're probably just thinking of the small market teams.