Toggle sidebar

Replace Salary Cap with Luxury Cap?

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
The biggest impediment to an NBA style cap (soft cap with luxury tax) is the owners wanting cost certainty.

They didn't put in the hard cap because the players are such good negotiators, they did it to prevent themselves from going broke because they were stupid. Sure the Leafs, Habs, etc. can afford to spend a dumb amount of money and not go broke, but most teams can't so there's limited support among the owners to lose the hard cap.

It may help the smallest teams that get luxury tax dollars, but it wouldn't help the teams in the 5-15 range of league income who would face pressure to spend like the richest teams, but wouldn't receive luxury tax dollars to make up for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wintersej
Machinehead said:
Does it?

The NFL has virtually no competition. It's turning into the Bundesliga.
Click to expand...

That's because of the QB's, and all the rules that are put in place to protect them. It's almost like the NBA in terms of star players.

Are you talking about the luxury system working well in baseball for parity? Leagues don't really care about parity. They talk about that because nobody wants to hear about the problems billionaires have with millionaires, and vice versa. If it happens, it's a nice little byproduct of the economic reasons leagues have their various economic systems.
 
KingsFan7824 said:
That's because of the QB's, and all the rules that are put in place to protect them. It's almost like the NBA in terms of star players.

Are you talking about the luxury system working well in baseball for parity? Leagues don't really care about parity. They talk about that because nobody wants to hear about the problems billionaires have with millionaires, and vice versa. If it happens, it's a nice little byproduct of the economic reasons leagues have their various economic systems.
Click to expand...

You have a point that the leagues probably really don't care, but when fans discuss it, I feel like the main objective is competitive balance. What else would it be? It's not like we see any of this money.

LeHab said:
Red Sox have a payroll 3.5 times higher than Rays.
Click to expand...
And the Rays are ahead of them in the standings.
 
Machinehead said:
And the Rays are ahead of them in the standings.
Click to expand...

Yes they are doing very well so far but this an exception and are still looking for a first WS.

Luxury cap has worked very well for players.
 
Last edited:
LeHab said:
Yes they are doing very well so far but this an exception and are still looking for a first WS.

Luxury cap has worked very well for players.
Click to expand...
The Royals won a World Series a few years ago. And the Astros weren't a high payroll team at all when they won it. (Headed in that direction now but I think it's a positive to see teams able to keep their cores).
 
Machinehead said:
The Royals won a World Series a few years ago. And the Astros weren't a high payroll team at all when they won it. (Headed in that direction now but I think it's a positive to see teams able to keep their cores).
Click to expand...

ok....and the Yankees and Red Sox are monsters every year year after year. Sorry. I am not interested in the same 2 teams being the teams to beat EVERY year
 
txpd said:
ok....and the Yankees and Red Sox are monsters every year year after year. Sorry. I am not interested in the same 2 teams being the teams to beat EVERY year
Click to expand...
"But the Yankees always win!!!" is the classic "I know nothing about baseball but will talk about it anyway" comment.

They've been to the World Series twice in SIXTEEN years. Muh dominance.
 
Teams should maybe not hand out big contracts like candy and require a bailout for stupidity. I like that better.
 
Machinehead said:
The Royals won a World Series a few years ago. And the Astros weren't a high payroll team at all when they won it. (Headed in that direction now but I think it's a positive to see teams able to keep their cores).
Click to expand...

It is not impossible (Marlins are two for two!) but once competitive window of opportunity is small as players become too expensive to retain. The big budget teams are often competitive year after year.
 
Last edited:
The TV local cable deals are treated differently in each league. NFL has little to none local TV except for exhibition games. Baseball makes all teams give up 30% of local TV revenue into the national TV sharing along with the network deals. NBA have no idea. Pens have a really good local cable deal and it is a difference maker. But I have zero idea if any local TV revenue is shared into a general fund. In any event add up all the revenue and share at 50/50 seems like the best way to go.
 
I wouldn't mind seeing a soft cap and a hard cap, but I wouldn't want to see a large difference. Maybe you could only exceed the cap by 5-7%, with the penalty of having to pay 5-7% of the cap to a local charity selected by the team and approved by the NHL. Rich teams get a small reward for carrying a bunch of dead weight, they don't get a massive competitive advantage, and some charities benefit as well.

This will never happen =D
 
LeafFan said:
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.
Click to expand...
To your last point, the other leagues do not rely as heavily on the gate receipts. A luxury tax makes it easier to buy championships. When it starts becoming a foregone conclusion your team cannot compete without spending the same money attendance drops and then once again the league ends up on shaky ground with several franchises.
 
Theodoriph said:
I wouldn't mind seeing a soft cap and a hard cap, but I wouldn't want to see a large difference. Maybe you could only exceed the cap by 5-7%, with the penalty of having to pay 5-7% of the cap to a local charity selected by the team and approved by the NHL. Rich teams get a small reward for carrying a bunch of dead weight, they don't get a massive competitive advantage, and some charities benefit as well.

This will never happen =D
Click to expand...
If you want to get rid of the deadweight you raise the salary floor. You do not tempt fate by raising the limits.
 
Mud the ACAS said:
Nitpick: Ovechkin signed his contract years ago when the cap was significantly lower; he would have certainly made more [and be making more] had he not signed for 13 years. Crosby clearly took less than he could have fetched on the open market to help the team and make his cap number symbolic. If he wanted to maximize dollars, he wouldn't have signed for 12 years.

2nd nitpick: Vegas signed all these players "cheap at long-term" and then had to move guys to create cap space because they didn't have room for them all. [There's a comment I want to make about the difference between claiming to have knowledge of the cap and managing it smartly, but I'm going to let it sit quietly.]
Click to expand...
Precisely
 
A salary cap is fine, but teams should be allowed to waive players and eliminate their salary from their cap
 
No, time and time again they are proven to benefit only the rich teams who have the capacity to spend to stay competitive. It also ruins parity.

Awhile ago I knew the economics math, but, I’ve misplaced the textbook.

Literally took an entire Uni course on this.

Pass, not in my league.
 
gizmo12688 said:
Here's your million dollar idea right here:

You have a soft cap at say 82 mil and a "hard" cap at 88 or 90mil.

You are allowed to exceed the soft cap, however doing so will cost you your first round pick for the year. This will remove the pick entirely from the draft, so if 5 teams go over the cap then there's only 26 picks in the first round. This will benefit teams that stay under the cap, as now late first players become early seconds.

Exceeding the soft cap 3 years in a row will cost you your 1st and 2nd round picks.

NHL saved. Boom.
Click to expand...

Those are high stakes and big consequences.

If I'm a GM, I'm not sure I ever exceed under any circumstances.
 
I think the better idea is that teams can spend 25% more on players they drafted. Teams shouldn't be penalized for good drafting.
 
hatterson said:
The biggest impediment to an NBA style cap (soft cap with luxury tax) is the owners wanting cost certainty.

They didn't put in the hard cap because the players are such good negotiators, they did it to prevent themselves from going broke because they were stupid. Sure the Leafs, Habs, etc. can afford to spend a dumb amount of money and not go broke, but most teams can't so there's limited support among the owners to lose the hard cap.

It may help the smallest teams that get luxury tax dollars, but it wouldn't help the teams in the 5-15 range of league income who would face pressure to spend like the richest teams, but wouldn't receive luxury tax dollars to make up for it.
Click to expand...

Sticky this. Only a couple teams would ever want a luxury tax. The only reason a sport like baseball has it is because the union was too strong to get a hard cap. The NHL moving to a luxury tax would be going backwards from an ownership POV.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom