Will the NHL ever have Luxury Tax? / Should it have?

[LaCarriere]

Ummmm was saying that as a hockey fan, the Leafs for the last ten years are not worth discussing.

Let's look at the Ottawa Senators for starters. Marshall Johnson drafted incredibly well for them and under the cap was forced to trade players. Not only trade players but trade players at a disadvantage as the other teams knew they needed to be gone.

How was that fair for a team basically built via the draft?

There are just as many teams that have built thru the draft that have been successful though (Chicago, Pittsburgh are the obvious examples). It just means you need to manage your assets well (and have a bit of luck -- which is always the case).

Everyone is playing under the same set of rules, yet somehow there are perennial contenders and cup champions, and perennial failures. Even in a league of parity only 3 teams have won the cup in the last 6 years. That suggests those teams are doing something right while other teams are not.

 

[mouser]

I wouldn't mind if the NHL had some sort of system where teams had a "cap discount" that they could use on players they had drafted and developed. Something where they could offer the same salary as other teams but with a slightly lower cap hit... or something.

No idea how that would actually be implemented, but I like the idea of allowing teams to more easily keep their home-grown talent.

While it might sound like a good idea on the surface, if you sit back and think about the implications: a two tiered system where players that are still on the team that drafted them can be paid more then players that were traded away. The vast majority of those players that were traded away had no control over being traded.

I don't see the Players Union wanting any piece of a system that treats players that unequally.

 

[PucksInDeep]

While it might sound like a good idea on the surface, if you sit back and think about the implications: a two tiered system where players that are still on the team that drafted them can be paid more then players that were traded away. The vast majority of those players that were traded away had no control over being traded.

I don't see the Players Union wanting any piece of a system that treats players that unequally.

I suppose the trick would be to ensure that the players aren't being paid more than they would be otherwise. No idea how that would be implemented or enforced, and I can see why it isn't at all practical.

 

[The Bad Guy]

The cap is doing what it is supposed to do. Sending Brandon Saad to the Blue Jackets. The league needs parity, I remember the crap era that was the Red Wings era. It wasn't good hockey, it was an era that destroyed once successful franchises while pigs like Illitich dominated the league.

11 different teams went to the SCF in the 10 years of the pre-cap Wings era. 14 different teams went to the SCF in the 10 years of the post-cap era. That's an improvement on parity and now that the only way to circumvent the cap is really only with LTIR exploitation, there is going to be even more parity.


Now the Salary floor with the trading of heavy cap inexpensive contracts of basically retired injured players to circumvent it, that is not functioning correctly. The NHLPA should be filing grievances left and right over this.

-An honest Blackhawks fan willing to take one for the League for the greater good.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

The cap is doing what it is supposed to do. Sending Brandon Saad to the Blue Jackets. The league needs parity, I remember the crap era that was the Red Wings era. It wasn't good hockey, it was an era that destroyed once successful franchises while pigs like Illitich dominated the league.

11 different teams went to the SCF in the 10 years of the pre-cap Wings era. 14 different teams went to the SCF in the 10 years of the post-cap era. That's an improvement on parity and now that the only way to circumvent the cap is really only with LTIR exploitation, there is going to be even more parity.


Now the Salary floor with the trading of heavy cap inexpensive contracts of basically retired injured players to circumvent it, that is not functioning correctly. The NHLPA should be filing grievances left and right over this.

-An honest Blackhawks fan willing to take one for the League for the greater good.

So much bitterness in this post. Pigs like Ilitch? It's not his fault the Blackhawks had a crap owner in Dollar Bill.

Yes, the Red Wings era wasn't good hockey. Yzerman, Fedorov, the Russian 5. Who would ever want to sit through that awful Wings-Avs rivalry? Dark days indeed.

But now that the Blackhawks are benefitting from high draft picks after years of sucking, the league is suddenly in a good place.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

Apparently, people prefer watching a muddled mess of middle-ground teams over great teams.

That's the thing, I'm not necessarily in favor of a luxury tax or soft cap, but some people are making the assumption that parity is better financially for the league. I'm not totally convinced that's the case.

You obviously don't want a single team dominating, but when a few franchises win a lot they pick up bandwagon fans outside of their geography. The Wings and Avs picked up a lot of fans in the 90s, like the Blackhawks are now. There's a scenario where a handful of powerhouse teams from big markets could generate as much revenue as the current scenario.

 

[Pyrophorus]

Yes! Please!

 

[Thesensation19*]

The luxury tax is a joke.

Its a pure republican mindset.

The richest teams will continue to go above the cap because they can. They will make their money back from signing big name free agents. Where as middle class or lower class teams WILL NEVER be able to afford it.

You create a system where rich get richer, poor stay poor. HOPEFULLY a super star comes along in the draft and you draft him. And hopefully he stays. Which is unlikely because your a poor team, and all super stars go to bigger cities. So you leave after a few years anyway.

The system in place right now allows for a proper distribution of talent. This is why the last 10 years of the NHL have been the most exciting especially playoff hockey. You cant predict much.

And I had guys tell me, well this will prevent dynasty teams. Well tell Chicago that. Tell LA Kings that. Its even more exciting.

Its the best system and NBA and MLB should take this model

 

[TOGuy14]

No it doesn't work. At least it doesn't in the MLB. Rich teams just eat the tax and move along.

The cap right now is working. There is parity but at the same time the better organizations like the Hawks and Kings still win.

It doesn't work in MLB because the threshold is too high (only 1-2 teams ever pay into it per season).

Personally I would say allow a 10M "luxury" threshold above the current cap. Each dollar spent in the luxury zone is taxed at 100% and distributed to the ten lowest revenue teams equally.

 

[canuckster19]

I'd like some kind of solution though to teams like Chicago basically being punished for being too successful.

You shouldn't have to gut half your roster as a reward for winning a Stanley Cup, and "good management" only works for so long, the players aren't stupid and will want to be paid market/inflated value.

I don't think you should be able to spend over the cap recklessly, but I think maybe say a $5 million cushion above the cap where you incur steep penalties which are then distributed to the lower earning teams would be win-win for everyone.

I wouldn't mind seeing something like this, the cap is at 72 million about this year? So that's the soft cap. 10% above 72 is the hard cap and teams have to pay per dollar to spend there.

 

[AINEC*]

The cap is doing what it is supposed to do. Sending Brandon Saad to the Blue Jackets. The league needs parity, I remember the crap era that was the Red Wings era. It wasn't good hockey, it was an era that destroyed once successful franchises while pigs like Illitich dominated the league.

11 different teams went to the SCF in the 10 years of the pre-cap Wings era. 14 different teams went to the SCF in the 10 years of the post-cap era. That's an improvement on parity and now that the only way to circumvent the cap is really only with LTIR exploitation, there is going to be even more parity.


Now the Salary floor with the trading of heavy cap inexpensive contracts of basically retired injured players to circumvent it, that is not functioning correctly. The NHLPA should be filing grievances left and right over this.

-An honest Blackhawks fan willing to take one for the League for the greater good.

Yeah it really sucked back then when the game was truly entertaining.

 

[jigglysquishy]

It doesn't work in MLB because the threshold is too high (only 1-2 teams ever pay into it per season).

Personally I would say allow a 10M "luxury" threshold above the current cap. Each dollar spent in the luxury zone is taxed at 100% and distributed to the ten lowest revenue teams equally.

I'd be 100% okay with this. I'd rather it be 150% with the extra money going towards minor hockey, but I'd gladly take this.

Maybe $5m is more appropriate, but that's semantics.

 

[CaptainCrunch67]

The only way that it would work in conjunction with a cap is if the luxury tax was incredibly punitive.

Like for every dollar over the cap that you go your luxury tax is 5.00 to prevent teams from using it as a circumvention tool.

so if your team goes $5 million over your luxury tax is $25 million bucks.

Which in a way would be good because you could distribute it to other teams.

But its never going to happen because the NHL wants both cost control and parity, and having teams like the Leafs and Rangers blowing through the cap would be bad for the league as a whole.

 

[Price is Wright]

90s didn't suck because of powerhouse teams. 90s sucked because of the crease rule, jumbo goalie pads, defensive traps, clutch and grab, excessive expansion, superstars being at the end of their careers and the new York islanders drafting Brett Lindros.

I don't care what system is implemented for money. I just don't want a mistake free league. Free agency and trade deadline are my favourite times in hockey. I don't care how well you drafted. Players should be free to chase money after they hit a certain age or years in the league. Teams that whine about drafted players leaving? Sorry not sorry. Draft better. Trade better. Sign better. Then you won't care.

 

[Menzinger]

Leaf fan saying no.

Rich teams shouldn't be able to buy their way out of dumb decisions.

 

[theaub]

It doesn't work in MLB because the threshold is too high (only 1-2 teams ever pay into it per season).

Personally I would say allow a 10M "luxury" threshold above the current cap. Each dollar spent in the luxury zone is taxed at 100% and distributed to the ten lowest revenue teams equally.

Agree with this, except the luxury tax distribution should just go to all teams not paying the tax.

And if you're over the tax in consecutive seasons you pay an additional 100% tax to maximum of 500% per year (ie if you're $1M, $4M, $2M, $10M, $3M and $10M over during a six year period you would pay $1M, $8M, $6M, $40M, $15M and $50M per year in tax respectively)