Charge_Seven
Registered User
- Aug 12, 2003
- 4,631
- 0
Many people have been arguing over whether or not a luxury tax can stop the large market teams, or if anything at all can actually stop them from having an advantage over the little guys.
There's always going to be some advantage. I don't think that's a bad thing, but there needs to be some leveling of the playing field.GregStack said:Many people have been arguing over whether or not a luxury tax can stop the large market teams, or if anything at all can actually stop them from having an advantage over the little guys.
thinkwild said:An advantage in what?
Buying UFA's?
Building and developing an elite team in its prime?
Jaded-Fan said:But as said above, at least it levels the playing field,
GregStack said:Essentially every aspect possible. From filling seats, to signing UFA's, can a Cap really stop the filthy rich teams.
Steve L said:It wont help when it comes for UFAs because where do you think a player will go if he has a choice of going to Colorado, Philadelphia, Detroit and Carolina and they can get the same money from each team.
Big market teams will still be able to attract better players, they just wont have to pay them more money than small market teams.
txpd said:nobody wants to stop the rich teams. most i know just want the none rich teams to have a reasonable chance to compete. the fact is that the league can not grow when there are 20 without marquee players and little if any interest around the league.
thats part of the equation. as it stands right now no one outside of local fans have any interest in watching two have not teams play. you don't see pheonix and nashville on espn. so, its a near disaster on a league wide basis when an odd year comes up and the stanley cup finals are tampa and calgary. if the league were more friendly toward these markets competing both tampa and calgary would have been far more developed as national interests. there is certainly not a lack of world class talent on those teams, just a complete lack of national awareness.
txpd said:I think what you are missing is that the salary cap would greatly restrict the number of ufa signings and salary dump trades a big money team could make.
look at detroit. with a hard salary cap, there is no way they can afford $10m per on Nik Lidstrom and hit the UFA market for $5.5m to sign Derian Hatcher. they would have had to choose between Cujo and Hasek. They would never have been able to carry both. They would not have been able to sign Ray Whitney in the off season, trade for a $5m Robert Lang, then resign Draper, Yzerman, Shanahan and Hull this off season. The Wings would have had to make choices and would not have been able to just load up like they did.
Yes, Detroit might have an advantage over Atlanta if the two are bidding on the same player with the same money figures. but what the salary cap does is restrict a team like Detroit to one acquisition a year. after the other big money teams spend on their one or two players, there will still be elite players on the market. right now a team like Detroit can sign 3 or 4, the Colorado gets 3 and Toronto 5 and when they are done all thats left for middle of the payroll pack teams are players like Curtis Brown. That would change.
With a salary cap, noone could afford Lidstrom at that price. Also, it wasnt their choice to have both goalies.txpd said:I think what you are missing is that the salary cap would greatly restrict the number of ufa signings and salary dump trades a big money team could make.
look at detroit. with a hard salary cap, there is no way they can afford $10m per on Nik Lidstrom and hit the UFA market for $5.5m to sign Derian Hatcher. they would have had to choose between Cujo and Hasek. They would never have been able to carry both. They would not have been able to sign Ray Whitney in the off season, trade for a $5m Robert Lang, then resign Draper, Yzerman, Shanahan and Hull this off season. The Wings would have had to make choices and would not have been able to just load up like they did.
Steve L said:It wont help when it comes for UFAs because where do you think a player will go if he has a choice of going to Colorado, Philadelphia, Detroit and Carolina and they can get the same money from each team.
Big market teams will still be able to attract better players, they just wont have to pay them more money than small market teams.
Jaded-Fan said:at least it levels the playing field
Polydorus said:I think 100 % revenue sharing would do the best job of leveling the playing field. If the total income of the NHL was split evenly all the teams would start with the same income. Besides it would REALLY be interesting to see the owners arrive at what constitutes revenue. <G>
JWI19 said:I do think it will curb spending. Illitch lost around 16 million dollars last year with a 77 million dollar payroll. Using that same payroll and figuring out the luxury tax being proposed he would have to throw down an additional 49 MILLION dollars in luxury tax
40-60 million = 15 million dollar cap hit. (using 75 cent tax)
60-77 million = 34 million dollar cap hit. (using 200% "harsh" penalty)
So thats 49 million dollars on top of a 16 million dollar lost. So for the calander year of 2003-2004 he would lose 65 million dollars. Do you honestly believe he would be willing to lose that much money? Heck the Wings already planned to trim payroll for this calander year because of the money they were losing before a luxury tax.
snafu said:While I understand your point about national exposure perhaps hurting ratings when Tampa and Calgary squared off, I do not think that is the primary problem. It simply comes down to total population size & density (e.g, market size). In New York, you have 15+ million people as a potential market that could tune in if their team makes the playoffs- even 5-10% of this market is greater than 100% of Tampa or Calgary. If national interest levels are similar in local markets, at <2%, would you rather have 2% of NY or Philly or 2% of Tampa? I know what small market fans want, and they love their teams just as much as the established market fans, but the numbers are not on their side.
Steve L said:With a salary cap, noone could afford Lidstrom at that price. Also, it wasnt their choice to have both goalies.
The Flyers are going to buy out LeClair, Amonte and Burke. That frees up a load of salary for FAs who may have to be dumped under a new CBA. The struggling teams dont have that luxury.
My point is that it will level the field but hockey cities will always have the advantage over Anahaim, Carolina, Atlanta etc.
snafu said:Has anyone mentioned grandfathering any of this? As you know, the Wings' have an already precarious position with 'current' commitments, so the losses from a lux tax imposed immediately, plus the losses from a half season of play....
How would we without a CBA?GregStack said:Does anyone know exactly how buyouts work against the cap?