Proposal: Is the current Salary cap fair?

[deletethis]

The salary cap is exactly about making the NHL more competitively "fair" for the lower revenue franchises. Within the box of making the NHL competitively fair, the salary cap isn't 100% fair to lower revenue teams as it actually favours the richer teams like the Leafs with loopholes and schemes to buy their way out of mistakes. In terms of economics, it's totally unfair to the wealthier franchises who are highly restrained from spending on hockey talent to levels they could theoretically handle.

 

[Dayjobdave]

If the salary cap was based on location there would be no trades.

However if you can get Ontario and Canada to lower their tax rates you are on to something.

 

[BoredBrandonPridham]

Not a lot of actual evidence into how taxes *actually* affect NHL players in here.

 

[Daisy Jane]

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.

No we wouldn't.
we would have traded Clarkson to Ottawa or the other unnamed team that was interested in him.

and the amount of times pronger + savard's contract has been shipped around to teams that have to make the cap floor, i'm pretty sure they would have been able to take on the contract too.

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.

me either. and I've always stated that. people want to make it like "Oh i'm complaining because we're rich and we can't get our own financial way." no. there are teams that still have internal budgets and they still have to lose players. Chicago does things "the right way" and they're STILL being "punished" by trying to keep their core together. (and it's not even like they are shipping off the really good pieces, so this argument of "the cap makes it so you can still get good pieces in free agency." BRRZTT not true.

 

[Stand Witness]

I have proposed and thrown around the idea of the league changing the salary cap to be based around a players pay AFTER taxes. It didn't go over so well because people argued that teams like Toronto and New York already have an advantage so teams like Florida and Tampa Bay also need one too.

I would personally love it. Other teams seem to disagree.

In this same system, a player making 5M USD in Tampa Bay would also make 5M USD in Toronto. If they were traded it would stay the same, Toronto would just have to adjust the total pay accordingly to account for taxes and conversion costs of the $.

 

[Daisy Jane]

I have proposed and thrown around the idea of the league changing the salary cap to be based around a players pay AFTER taxes. It didn't go over so well because people argued that teams like Toronto and New York already have an advantage so teams like Florida and Tampa Bay also need one too.

I would personally love it. Other teams seem to disagree.

In this same system, a player making 5M USD in Tampa Bay would also make 5M USD in Toronto. If they were traded it would stay the same, Toronto would just have to adjust the total pay accordingly to account for taxes and conversion costs of the $.

i would like that. I don't see an issue for that. that way ALL the players are being paid the same accross the board. and as people pointed out - teams in cities who are grossely taxed (or generally just have a high living threshold) are on equal footing.

this is just me - i personally feel that the cap should make spending equal.

everything else (ie: Sunbelt states you get to blend in, and golf etc), Bigger markets (you can be more of a rockstar, or feel like in a hockey marke) - being "good" (which = more deals) etc - that's all hockey relations, and should be on your team.

 

[Stand Witness]

i would like that. I don't see an issue for that. that way ALL the players are being paid the same accross the board. and as people pointed out - teams in cities who are grossely taxed (or generally just have a high living threshold) are on equal footing.

this is just me - i personally feel that the cap should make spending equal.

everything else (ie: Sunbelt states you get to blend in, and golf etc), Bigger markets (you can be more of a rockstar, or feel like in a hockey marke) - being "good" (which = more deals) etc - that's all hockey relations, and should be on your team.

Yup I agree. The point of the salary cap is to try and make things fair for all teams. Its okay right now but it could be better. I don't see how what I proposed could possibly be turned down by anyone but some people will always be against the bigger markets.

Like you said, the small market vs big market advantages still exist.