Replace Salary Cap with Luxury Cap?

[txpd]

Yes Leafs will be one of teams benefitting from paying more in salaries, but people need to realize the NHL needs teams like Leafs to support them financially. This would be another way to do it.

All other pro leagues, the big markets definitely bring the league up and help out financially. But seems like in hockey, they view it as a bad thing. If you want league to do better, your cash cow needs to be able to further exploit their earning potentials.

History would suggest that if the league gave big market teams a financial advantage the Leafs still wouldn't win. Just win within in the rules. If St Louis can, Toronto can

 

[T REX]

An old message board mantra...police your own.

 

[Bood12]

Leafs ultimately benefited from the Salary Cap by being bad enough to get Marner and Matthews, had there been no cap in all likely the Leafs are never getting below the "average" line as I am sure they are a team who is always attracting quality Free Agents, so yea I am sure it sucks now as you can pay Marner, Matthews and whoever whatever they want, but as said if there had been no cap you are in all likely not getting those guys.

 

[DudeWhereIsMakar]

I think there should be a tax cap. Which means teams that are located in low-tax areas have lower cap and teams in high-tax areas have higher cap. I like the idea because it's why players sign in places like Nashville, Florida, and now Vegas, soon Seattle. It might also bring slight attraction back to Canada.

 

[Empoleon8771]

People who are more informed on the cap know this better than I do, isn't another big factor of the salary cap to maintain the 50-50 revenue split between owners and players? I feel like people feel like the purpose of the salary cap is to only increase parity, and they think that saying things like "have a soft cap" doesn't impact anything outside of cap teams.

 

[BBB24]

Why do people think it’s appropriate to slander a fanbase of millions based on a post by an account that has less then 50 posts in over a year? Almost all of them inflammatory.

Where did I slander the leaf fan base, their GM yes, but GM, not seeing it.

 

[FissionFire]

Salary cap isn’t NOT about letting small markets compete. It’s about having the owners have a known fixed cost for player salaries annually. A soft cap or luxury tax situation would eliminate that cost certainty which is why he owners have been steadfastly against any form of it. Likewise the players probably wouldn’t be for it since it would just drive up escrow to absorb levels which would hurt the 90% of the league not getting huge contracts far more than help the superstars. I mean under the cap escrow was at 11%. Imagine no upper limit with spending like it was pre-cap. You think players will enjoy seeing 20-25% or more of their paycheck go back to owners every year?

 

[Edgelord]

Because you would be tying extremely complex regional policy which is out of the NHL's control to mandate the multi-national business model that governs all NHL teams. Not only do those policies have the potential to change in the middle of a season, but net pay would need to include a lot more than just income tax to make it fair.

Its not that hard, they get their schedules early enough that they can do the math.

 

[McRpro]

I for one am shocked the OP is a Leafs fan. Shocked.

 

[Menzinger]

People who are more informed on the cap know this better than I do, isn't another big factor of the salary cap to maintain the 50-50 revenue split between owners and players? I feel like people feel like the purpose of the salary cap is to only increase parity, and they think that saying things like "have a soft cap" doesn't impact anything outside of cap teams.

Parity is by far the least motivating factor for the gard cap.

Rich teams love it because it makes their profit margins even fatter, poorer teams need it to survive financially and the league as a whole uses it to control the player-team revenue sharing.

 

[The Crypto Guy]

The posters with the poor teams will cry about it. Despite it actually helping the league make more money from the rich teams and spread it out to help the poor teams.

edit - yup.

 

[Edgy]

Dumbest idea since yesterday's thread where a leaf fan proposed that the leafs shouldn't have to stay under the cap.

What?! I missed that thread, can't find it!

 

[jetsforever]

I prefer a hard cap.

 

[412 Others]

"Must be a Leafs fan" is what I said to myself before opening thread.

 

[kaiser matias]

I think there should be a tax cap. Which means teams that are located in low-tax areas have lower cap and teams in high-tax areas have higher cap. I like the idea because it's why players sign in places like Nashville, Florida, and now Vegas, soon Seattle. It might also bring slight attraction back to Canada.

Do you have any examples of players signing in these locations because of the tax advantage?

 

[DudeWhereIsMakar]

Do you have any examples of players signing in these locations because of the tax advantage?

Kucherov is left with $7,289,128. Tyler Seguin is left with $8,113,607. Mark Stone is left with $7,247,317.

With Toronto Austin Matthews makes $7,247,317. But if Matthews was with Vegas he'd make $9,658,042 after taxes. So Nikita Kucherov is making more money than him, technically Tyler Seguin is the highest paid player in the league.

I always found long-term deals somewhat dumb because half-way through those deals the deal looks cheap. If they signed multiple bridge deals then they have the potential to make more money.

 

[ScaredStreit]

You’re a Leaf fan. The Leafs literally just got the biggest ufa last season (and the biggest ufa signinf in a LONG time)...sorry the hard cap is fine.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I think there should be a tax cap. Which means teams that are located in low-tax areas have lower cap and teams in high-tax areas have higher cap. I like the idea because it's why players sign in places like Nashville, Florida, and now Vegas, soon Seattle. It might also bring slight attraction back to Canada.

This is why someone should dig out the thread from this past spring where someone suggested this idea. We can go through and talk about all the things that would have to be factored in under "taxes" and then all the other things that could [should?] potentially be factored in, to try and put all teams on a "common ground" that's "fair" to everyone.

And then, we could discuss just how workable that list is. [Hint: it's a longer list than people think, and the math underlying it gets complex really quick and would have to be constantly monitored for changes so that nothing gets out of whack.]

People who are more informed on the cap know this better than I do, isn't another big factor of the salary cap to maintain the 50-50 revenue split between owners and players? I feel like people feel like the purpose of the salary cap is to only increase parity, and they think that saying things like "have a soft cap" doesn't impact anything outside of cap teams.

"The cap will help with parity" was a selling point. If it happens, it's a side effect but not an intentional one. It's more likely to happen in a capped system because the high-revenue teams can't just buy all the best players, but it's not assured.

The cap system and linkage go hand-in-hand. You could have linkage without a salary cap, but then you'd have vast discrepancies in spending among the teams and escrow projections become more unstable. You could theoretically have a cap system without linkage, but the cap system has to be based on something and it's easier to base that on "percentage of revenues" than to just randomly pick a number and hope it keeps everyone financially viable and is also sufficient for the players not to want to go elsewhere [or even worse, cause a rival league to want to start up that would pay the players more].

 

[Rschmitz]

Its not that hard, they get their schedules early enough that they can do the math.

Ugh, just stop. Player contracts aren't signed year to year. You're whining

 

[OurlordAndSaviorKuch]

Poor Leafs if only you guys didn't overpay almost all of your forwards and took team friendly deals instead of being greedy.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I always found long-term deals somewhat dumb because half-way through those deals the deal looks cheap. If they signed multiple bridge deals then they have the potential to make more money.

Short-term deals can make more money, but provide less security to the player. Longer-term deals provide more security to the player [ignoring buyouts, which still give the player some of the money due on what remains of the contract] and the player accepts less money in exchange for that security.

If you're never going to get hurt / never going to have a down year, great ... take the 1-year deals and rake in the money. If you have an injury that puts you out until the middle of next season, good luck finding anyone willing to offer you a contract until you're totally healthy [and probably have proven you're OK by playing somewhere first].

 

[DudeWhereIsMakar]

Short-term deals can make more money, but provide less security to the player. Longer-term deals provide more security to the player [ignoring buyouts, which still give the player some of the money due on what remains of the contract] and the player accepts less money in exchange for that security.

If you're never going to get hurt / never going to have a down year, great ... take the 1-year deals and rake in the money. If you have an injury that puts you out until the middle of next season, good luck finding anyone willing to offer you a contract until you're totally healthy [and probably have proven you're OK by playing somewhere first].

That is true.

 

[b in vancouver]

Chicago and Boston would've met in The Finals another five times with a luxury tax system. Two big market teams with some of the deepest pockets that had the two best/deepest rosters in the NHL before bleeding talent left and right because of The Cap.

 

[Edgelord]

Ugh, just stop. Player contracts aren't signed year to year. You're whining

I assumed you would deduce the fact that the cap hit would be yearly and not an AAV

 

[b in vancouver]

I think there should be a tax cap. Which means teams that are located in low-tax areas have lower cap and teams in high-tax areas have higher cap. I like the idea because it's why players sign in places like Nashville, Florida, and now Vegas, soon Seattle. It might also bring slight attraction back to Canada.

This just came up in another thread.
How about everything else?
Are you also willing to factor in housing prices and give places like Vancouver and New York some kind of 'Cap Free Bonus'? - because the players will have to spend so much more to live there? Then we can penalize places like Winnipeg and Arizona because the houses are so much cheaper.
How about we factor in public vs. private health care because there's an extra cost for players, especially ones with kids.
How about cost of living and gas prices?
How about we use The Happiness Index? School ratings? Crime rates? Distance to National Parks? Best fishing hole?

This is coming up all the time now because The Leafs are in cap trouble. Lots of teams have dealt with it and soldiered on without complaining about well-established rules.