Bruwinz20 said:
I am not anti-tax by any stretch. I just think that unless the tax is so restrictive that it is in essence a cap, the owners will reject it. Both sides are at fault with these negotiations. They have barely been negotiating and both are more concerned by winning over popular support rather than getting a deal done. The players proposals are band aids and the owners proposals are too extreme. No mid ground has been explored.
I am not sure why poor teams dont want a revenue share and are intent on a cap. They probably are afraid that the same 3-4 teams will still spend like crazy and little will change. All I am saying is that playing the blame game is a waste of time. The owners are to blame, but the players need to make some more concessions that will establish a system that will ensure long term stability.
Dude, let's say we have a graduated tax.
$35 Million at 50 percent
$40-50 at 75 percent
Over 50 at 100 percent.
With the possible exception of the Rangers, it's really going to bring down salaries a ton.
Do you think Mike Illitch, who lost $16 Million last year, is going to want to increase his payroll by 50 percent? He had a 75 Million payroll. He'd be penalized about $37.5 Million.
Now you're looking at a loss of 53.5 Million.
Illitch can't afford that.
The market for UFAs would dry up in a hurry (as it did, somewhat in the last two years)
The big market teams would probably stay in the low to mid 40s and maybe top 50 when they felt they had a good shot.
What kills me is the hard cap.
Because we know that superstars are going to be in demand. They are the guys who will still collect big money, just like they do in the NBA and NFL.
But what happens to Atlanta, with Heatly, Kovalchuk and Lehtonen in a few years.
I keep thinking of Detroit in the early 90s when Fedorov, Lidstrom and Konstantinov emerged to join Yzerman and form the nucleus of a great team.
The greatest hockey icon in Detroit is Yzerman. And Detroit nearly traded him.
With a salary cap, and with Fedorov, Lidstrom, Konstantinov and Primeau in the Wings, Yzerman would have surely been traded.
Hockey already has too much player movement. A salary cap will mean even more movement.
Now I know small market fans will say "so what, we've been losing our stars for years"
And they have a point.
But I think a salary cap is the wrong answer.
It's the lowest common demoninator. It means that all teams are going to have problems holding onto their stars.
A luxury tax would allow the big markets (and let's be honest, the markets that are MOST important to the NHL) to have the flexibility to keep teams together when they're close.
A luxury tax would also allow the Flames to keep Iginla or the Nucks to keep Naslund, Bert and Jovocop together if they were very close to the cup but bulging over the limit ever so slightly.
The other thing is this: For a salary cap to be effective in terms of roster flexibility, owners must have the ability to tear up contracts.
Call me old fashioned, but a deal is a deal.
People who sign contracts should stick to them. And yes, that goes for Alexi Yashin, too.
Anyway. I'm not sure the PA would agree to the tax.
But I suspect that they are waiting for the owners to budge first.
If the players propose a strong tax and the owners reject it, the season is history.
If the owners budge from the cap and suggest a strong cap, then I think the players will negotiate a number.
What kills me is that the owners are holding the league hostage and demanding radical concessions.
I don't care who you are, if you compare what the players had to what the owners want, it's a radical fix.
And if the players can get the owners 60 to 70 percent there in one deal, Bettman should take it, for the good of the game.
Bettman's strategy is arrogant and reckless. I've got a feeling it's going to cause more harm than good.