CarlRacki said:
Actually, it wouldn't take a lot of numbers crunching at all. Basic economic principle dictates that the labor market will follow the money and what management is willing to pay. If just one owner out there is willing to pay more than the others, that sets the standard for the rest of the market. This is why the argument "all the owners have to do is say no" doesn't work. If Team A gives a 40-goal scorer $8 million a year, then another 40-goal scorer on Team B will demand the same either through free agency or arbitration. If Team B "says no" they eventually lose said 40-goal scorer and struggle to field a competitive team. This is exactly why the NHLPA keeps a complex salary database ... so players and agents know exactly what similarly skilled players are getting and can demand similar contracts.
So, what is the only way a league can ensure that one or two owners don't upset the system for every other team? A cap. A luxury tax can discourage such behavior. It can punish such behavior. It can even lessen it. But it cannot stop it. If an owner is willing or can afford to suffer the punishment, he will.
Second, arguing that the owners won't accept anything but a hard cap because that's all they offered is not logical. It's like arguing that the players won't accept a higher luxury tax because they haven't offered one. So why haven't the owners proposed a soft cap? Quite simply, they don't have to. They have the upper hand in these negotiations. They have a realistic shot at an impasse. And they believe if they can hold out longer than the players they'll do even better with a hard cap. It's up to the PA to recognize the landscape and put on the table the best salary cap (i.e. NBA-style) proposal they can get before they get stuck with a much worse system.
It would take a lot of number crunching because I am saying that a luxury tax would stop spending above a certain level all together. However, in order to actually put forth what kind of luxury tax would work effectively it would take a ton of number crunching.
"A luxury tax can discourage such behavior. It can punish such behavior. It can even lessen it. But it cannot stop it. If an owner is willing or can afford to suffer the punishment, he will."
Well that's what you are looking for in order to solve the problem. A luxury tax will discourage, lessen and punish spending over a certain amount, let's say $38 million. What is wrong with that? The only problem here is the smaller market teams who are losing money and/or don't have enough to sign their own players...a luxury tax will solve both those problems. And don't give me ******** like, 'oh a luxury tax is inflationary', that's what Bettman would tell you and it's wrong. This brings me back to the point about how it would take a ton of number crunching...if the NHL went through all the numbers they could figure out a luxury tax level that would help small market teams without allowing them to spend out of control. If the luxury tax prevents the top team from spending out of control and the amount that gets kicked back is not too much or too little, than it works perfectly. And you know, if an owner is willing to or can afford to spend over the luxury tax, what's wrong with that. What's wrong with putting money into your team? Now I understand the situation with the Yankees is a bad one, because the tax doesn't work because their owner is so willing to spend no matter what...but in order to prevent that type of situation you could put a cap above the luxury tax. A cap simply to prevent big market teams from spending 70 million when the rest of the league is afraid to go above 40. Your situation with Team A signing a player to $8 million would be null because not only would they be paying a tax, but if you put a cap after the tax than you would prevent the biggest teams from setting the whole market too high for half the league.
Start a luxury tax at $38 million and put a hard cap at $48-$50 million. Why not? Small market teams aren't priced completely out of the market as they are now, but owners are also rewarded for making money and can spend a little more than the average team if they want to.
And about a post you made earlier, there are 2 distinct times in which Bettman has said the NHL will not accept a NBA style cap, or presumable a soft cap of any kind.
NHL won't accept a luxury tax:
http://www.nhlcbanews.com/transcripts/bettman_120904.html
Also in that same set of transcipts is where Bettman said the NHL won't accept a deal like the NBA has. I read that yesterday though and don't feel like going back through there and looking for it. Also as another poster said, he has stated they won't accept a system like the NBA on the fan in NY, you can go to their site and they usually have clips of all the major interviews. So there are a couple of places where, yes, Bettman does say they won't accept a NBA-style cap or even a luxury tax.