CarlRacki
Registered User
- Feb 9, 2004
- 1,442
- 2
nyr7andcounting said: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.
Again, where in that link does Bettman say they will not accept an NBA-style cap? He states they don't believe a luxury tax will solve their problems, but says nothing regarding an NBA-type system. Sorry, keep trying. If there are several places where Bettman says otherwise, as you claim, it shouldn't be that hard for you to find it. Best of luck.
As for the luxurty tax, you're ignoring simple economic principle. I won't completely rehash the explanation I've already given because no one has proven it wrong, but I'll make a couple simple points:
1. If a luxury tax system is established to give tax revenue to smaller-market teams so that they can spend more on payroll, it is inherently inflationary. It's not ******, it's Economics 101. It will put money into the player compensation pool that otherwise would not exist, thus driving up salaries. There won't be more players in the league, but there will be more money for player salaries, hence larger salaries. Can't you see that? It's akin to the U.S. Treasury printing more money.
2. The luxury tax does not stop teams from spending out of control. It merely discourages it. A cap is the only thing that would stop it. A luxury tax is a speed bump. A cap is a gate.
3. How would a $70 million cap would prevent big-spending teams from setting the market too high? Only two teams in the league spend that much now and the market is already too high.