Proposal: Is the current Salary cap fair?

[Finnish your Czech]

Has it been confirmed that Stamkos would lose 1.19 million dollars a year in an equivalent contract in Toronto? I was always under that players only pay half of their income taxes based on what state they live in because they also play away games in other states.

 

[GojuLeaf]

If state tax was really a factor Edmonton and Calgary would be hotbeds of UFA signings but they aren't.

Maybe we should adjust the cap based on the average temperature of the team's city. Make it fair because who wouldn't want to live in Florida over living in Edmonton or Winnipeg...

Me, living in Florida is basically admitting you are 80.

 

[rdawg1234]

I think its fair.
the nhl is a far more balanced league than other major sports.
We never have any 0-16 or 10-72 teams
even our worst teams tend to get 25 wins.

Yup, I feel like the NBA gets worse and worse for this.

there are maybe 4-5 contending teams and then the rest aren't even close. Almost every year you can predict who is in the finals or at the very least the top 4. Cleveland in the east has next to no competition.

But the nhl, every year it's a new winner, you have strong teams that win frequently(CHI or LA every other year) but usually a new team is challenging in the finals or top 4 every year.

 

[HamiltonNHL]

I think its fair.
the nhl is a far more balanced league than other major sports.
We never have any 0-16 or 10-72 teams
even our worst teams tend to get 25 wins.

That's the nature of hockey as much as the cap.

 

[Menzinger]

It's a factor, but so is nice weather and you can't really do anything to offset that. An original six team may be more attractive than a newer one due to their rich history of tradition. There will always be factors that give some teams an advantage and others a disadvantage.

A

 

[The Bad Seed*]

I like the salary cap. It makes thinks fair for the most part. I was never a fan of teams needing to get to a floor thought. I get that the NHLPA needed the floor in there but it never seemed fair.

What pissed me off was 05. We need a cap we need a cap '' etc, then less than five years later teams are trying to circumvent it to pay more.

I would like to see the floor stay the same but have a tax for the ceiling. So lets say the cap is 70. You can send over however every dollar is matched. Then put a limit on say 25 million over the cap is as far as a team can go. Then that extra money gets dumped back into the league.

It would reward the top spending teams and the top cities but not kill the bottom teams. I get it would be more complicated then that.

To what buddy was saying about the NBA. WAYYYY different sport. Its less about spending and more about talent. Our best player sid or Toews is not a hundred miles better than a third liner etc. Sure he is way better but the third liner can shut him down etc. In the nba a bench player can not shut down Lebron etc. The talent difference is night and day. Elite talent in the NBA dominates average talent. Its non contact. In the nhl if you can stick handle etc , ok on your ass with you. Its a different sport.

 

[yubbers]

Not until they create some sort of tax parody

 

[keon]

The purpose of the cap was to create parity. The tax situations of various jurisdictions seems to create imparity. It should be fixed and it would be easy to fix.

 

[Leaf Army]

There shouldn't be a salary cap in the first place.

 

[madinsomniac]

There shouldn't be a salary cap in the first place.

Then there wouldnt have been an NHL... pre cap the majority of the league was in the red because contracts got insanely inflated... and frankly if everyone but 6 or 7 teams contracted, the NHl would get no TV money at all... the league would lose hundreds of millions overall, which is why they enacted it in the first place. Its not like in the pre cap days only the big market teams won either... it was just an overall drain on everyone...

 

[Anthrax442]

The NHL draft is one of the few major sports that actually works properly. The only thing I'd change with it is make all the ELC bonus' identical for everyone.

The cap should be a cap, but there shouldn't be a floor, and teams should be able to buy out more contract space.

Draft - rewards failure.
Cap- punished success.
2 things that are very unfair.

 

[GojuLeaf]

Draft - rewards failure.
Cap- punished success.
2 things that are very unfair.

cap doesn't punish success.
Cap sets a limit.
Honestly Cap is good for us. We always spent tons of money on Vets who were past their prime because we could. That didn't get us anywhere.

A tax balance for cap would make sense.
But their definately has to be a cap.

I remember in the MLB when you could basically say the Red Sox or Yankees were going to win the AL just because they had the money to buy any FA's they wanted.

 

[hotpaws]

I don't know if there's a bigger group of whiners anywhere else on these boards. It's actually sad how deep the victim mentality has set in to some of our fans.

 

[HoweHullOrr]

I don't know if there's a bigger group of whiners anywhere else on these boards. It's actually sad how deep the victim mentality has set in to some of our fans.

Tend to agree. We always blame our problems on something else. We love to play the victim card, when if fact, we are a wealthy club with deep pocket which gives us some advantage over teams with a self-imposed cap limit.

I wonder if the fans of the other Canadian teams have this thread going? A bad carpenter always blames his tools.

Things are going OK. If we stay away from the big fish and shiny toys this summer (maybe even next summer), it will be confirmation that we finally have a management group that grasps the principle of building (build versus buy). A fool and his money are soon parted - a very appropriate cliche for here.

 

[Daisy Jane]

Tend to agree. We always blame our problems on something else. We love to play the victim card, when if fact, we are wealthy club with deep pocket which gives us some advantage over teams with a self-imposed cap limit.

I wonder if the fans of the other Canadian teams have this thread going? A bad carpenter always blames his tools.

Things are going OK. If we stay away from the big fish and shiny toys this summer (maybe even next summer), it will be confirmation that we finally have a management group that grasps the principle of building (build versus buy).

who is blaming the fact that our taxes is high on something else?


While the OP said this isn't about Stamkos, but used it as an example - to show how the actual cap isn't fair to ALL teams. as it should be. I do think it's a talking point. It's not a "victim mentality." it's not "whinging." it's a legitimate question. There are some teams (regardless if they can attract players or not) - who have to pay obnoxious taxes. There are some states (or towns) that do not. (regardless if they can attract players or not).

Not all Fans in Canadian teams would have to have this thread going. Montreal could I think. So would Vancouver because they have gross taxes. Alberta only has to pay GST (so the 5% or whatever it is). I would expect that heavily taxed states like LA and the New York based teams to quibble about it, if it impacts signings due to the cap.

but I always find it interesting that people are like "all hail salary cap, may it be all for parity, and equality." and then when people flat out point out it's not for a bunch of teams (not just us) it's "Lol, Leaf Fans whinging." "Lol, why are we whinging, victim mentality." then when you point out that the cap was brought in due to a lot of teams whinging about the inability to spend, then it's "well it's different, or it punishes dumb gms."

one easily could say that the poor teams in that instance were blaming their tools too, but no one does.

 

[Pucker77]

The problem for me is that it doesnt even help financially weaker teams. Teams like Arizona who consistently trade for player contracts that the player does not even play just so they can get above the cap floor.

The tax thing is stupid but every player is going to have their reasons as to why the choose one team over another. One player may want more money so he goes to a state with no income tax. Another may want to play for a contender and sacrifice financial gain to play on a stronger team. Some might want to live somewhere that they enjoy better weather. The list goes on.

As long as players have opinions there is no way you can make the entire process "fair."

 

[Daisy Jane]

The problem for me is that it doesnt even help financially weaker teams. Teams like Arizona who consistently trade for player contracts that the player does not even play just so they can get above the cap floor.

The tax thing is stupid but every player is going to have their reasons as to why the choose one team over another. One player may want more money so he goes to a state with no income tax. Another may want to play for a contender and sacrifice financial gain to play on a stronger team. Some might want to live somewhere that they enjoy better weather. The list goes on.

As long as players have opinions there is no way you can make the entire process "fair."

right. which is fair. (teehee). that's why I don't get why this is "whinging" i think the question is simply being asked, if the loss of tax be included in a cap hit.

it's sort of like when people go "the AHL should change their rules and let 19 year olds in" and some people go. LOL this is because of Marner, right? Lol Leaf Fans wanting rule changes." well. No. it's because every year there are a one or two 18 year olds (or 19 year olds) who don't qualify to be in the AHL who would really benefit to be there more than another year of Junior or riding pine in the NHL. i've said it before Marner, will say it after Marner. that's a dumb rule. if they're in the NHL the CHL doesn't benefit from them anyway so it shouldn't matter if they go to the AHL. make it exceptional status or what not.

 

[lifelonghockeyfan]

As you know David....hockey players are incorporated. The tax rate for corporations is 15% in Canada and 35% in the US. Not a great benefit for guys only making let's say 1 million a year, but a lot of difference if a guy can put most of his salary into his low taxation corporation.

So please don't read the crap that the papers write about the tax situation of Canada and Florida...Yes it might be different for most working people but not for professional entertainers.

 

[Leaf Army]

Then there wouldnt have been an NHL... pre cap the majority of the league was in the red because contracts got insanely inflated... and frankly if everyone but 6 or 7 teams contracted, the NHl would get no TV money at all... the league would lose hundreds of millions overall, which is why they enacted it in the first place. Its not like in the pre cap days only the big market teams won either... it was just an overall drain on everyone...

Free markets generate more wealth than cartels.

 

[Leaf Army]

Deleted

 

[HoweHullOrr]

It's not a "victim mentality." it's not "whining."

How many teams have the ability to take on Horton's contract - $5.3m/year for someone who isn't even going to play? Otherwise, we'd still have Clarkson's $5.25 AAV contract on our hands through to the end of the 2019-20 season.

The advantageous position of having a club with deep pockets is like having a get of jail for free card as evidenced by the Horton/Clarkson scenario.

Advantage.

 

[Nithoniniel]

The salary cap will never be completely fair. It's just fairer than the alternative.

No, but I think the taxes thing is a bit overblown.

It didnt stop CHI, PITT, LA, or Boston from winning Cups.

Yeah I agree. I've read numerous reports that cite how things are not so clear cut in this regard, with taxes when the team is on the road, tax agreements, dual residency etc.

 

[lebdafor norris]

But I though the Leafs can circumvent the cap through Canadian Tire endorsements.

 

[Saul Goodman]

If teams like the Leafs are forced to prop up other teams via revenue sharing there should at the very least be a soft cap/luxury tax system in place. Hopefully the Leafs and other big earners like the Rangers and Habs can get together and put enough pressure on the league to get something done.

I don't think teams like Chicago who draft and develop the right way should be punished like they are under the current salary cap system.

 

[LeafFever]

The same way it is "fair" that Toronto can spend to the cap max and Arizona will struggle to reach the floor.

Let's be serious, Toronto is paying part of Arizona's payroll. That is fair. Arizona should not have a hockey team to begin with. The rich teams are keeping them where they are.
If you can't pay the bills after 20 years, get out.