wouldn't a luxury tax further competetive imbalance?

[Pepper]

It's actually very simple logic.

Luxury tax (meaningful implementation such as rumouredly proposed by PA next week) *WILL* lower salaries for all players, regardless of the team. Less demand, lower prices, basic microeconomics.

That will allow the smaller teams to get better roster with the same money or field the same roster for lower price. Either way they will be in better situation under the new system.

 

[txpd]

True, as we have seen, the big spenders like NYR, the Leafs, Blues and Stars dominate the league, while smaller market clubs like the 'Canes, Ducks, Flames and Lightning never go deep into the playoffs.

We need more competitive balance = "I want my team to win, so its time to destroy the makup of those franchises that draft well, make shrewd deals, make the financial committment to retain their own players...and win regularly as a result."

Punish success. Elevate mediocrity! And draw exaggerated connections between spending $$$ and winning. It flies in the face of all that we have witnessed over the years, as recently as last spring! (I know, just another pair of "cinderella/fluke" teams. Funny how we hear that EVERY spring! )

This hockey fan wants the best franchises to be able to retain their talent, not have to give some of it away annually to poorer-run teams under some type of socialistic hardcap scheme. Even if my own is not among them.[/I]

use that twist all you want..."the big spenders like NYR, the Leafs, Blues and Stars dominate the league, while smaller market clubs like the 'Canes, Ducks, Flames and Lightning never go deep into the playoffs." its spin...here is the truth.
deep in the playoffs doesnt mean winning the cup. it means winning some series.
of the small market teams you mention and teams like them, only tampa has won the cup in the last 12 years or so...once.

on the other hand you point out that big spenders NYR, Leafs, Blues, & Stars have dominated the leauge. its true..THOSE big spenders have not. However, If you had said, "Big spenders like the Stars, Avalanche, Red Wings, & Devils have dominated the league" you would have been totally accurate. in the last ten years those 4 teams have won 9 stanley cups. That qualifies as dominating...doesnt it?

Looking a little closer i could be off by a season or two, but the Stars, Avalanche, Wings, Devils, Blues, & Leafs have missed the playoffs a combined total of once in the last 10 years. in the last 10 years the Lightning, Flames, Ducks, & Canes missed the playoffs at least 17 times combined that i can count off the top of my head.

 

[txpd]

trottier posts..."This hockey fan wants the best franchises to be able to retain their talent, not have to give some of it away annually to poorer-run teams under some type of socialistic hardcap scheme. Even if my own is not among them"

teams that retain their talent....
colorado's last stanley cup team...most of their best players were acquired thru trades and free agent signings. Roy(trade), Bourque(trade), Blake(trade), Yelle(trade), Forsberg(trade), Reinprecht(trade), Podein(trade).

detroit's last cup...hasek(ufa), Shanahan(trade), Hull(ufa), Robitaille(ufa), Larionov(trade), Chelios(ufa), Draper(trade), Deveraux(trade), Maltby(trade), Duchense(ufa), Alausson(ufa)...is that what you meant??? come on, who are you trying to fool that this is somekind of a home grown team???

 

[me2]

teams that retain their talent....
colorado's last stanley cup team...most of their best players were acquired thru trades and free agent signings. Roy(trade), Bourque(trade), Blake(trade), Yelle(trade), Forsberg(trade), Reinprecht(trade), Podein(trade).

Blake shouldn't count since he was a rental that happened to resign with Colorado (good example of financial power buying a player as a defacto UFA). Borque a little less so. The rest are pretty fair trades.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't a luxury tax hurt the small smarket teams more than levelling the playing field? Say a team really doesn't care if they cross the threshold, lets call this team the Wings. Hypothetically they feel signing Jarome Iginla could push them over the top, so they sign him, going well over the threshold. Now, the Wings are able to take this hit, but the Flames would have absolutly no means of fielding a competetive offer. A luxury tax, if ignored, only furthers competetive imbalance does it not?

Come on people. Think about it. In what possible way will this hurt the small teams.
The absolute worst it could do, for small market teams, is nothing ... which is what we already have.
Since you mentioned the Wings, you should know that the Wings had a good thing going for 15 years. They paid a lot of money to keep their core together over the years. They went out and made trades and signed free agents to keep the team near the top.
But that era is over, as evidenced by the last two pre-seasons.

But even if it weren't. Even if Mike Illitch was willing to lose $20Million a year every year, a luxury tax as proposed by the NHLPA would curb spending and stifle the Wings ability to lure free agents from other teams.
Why? Well, if the flames offer $7 Million, the Wings would probably have to offer close to $8 Million.
Tax that by 75 percent. That's 6 Million to the NHL's poorer clubs.

So in the eyes of Mike Illitch, that $8M contract is now a $14 Million contract.
And that just ain't gonna happen.

Outside of the Rangers, and perhaps Toronto, I don't think there are many teams that could afford to continue big-spending ways. And even those teams will feel the pressure to cut spending when contracts end up costing twice what they're worth.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

i looked at a basic luxury tax model. $40m threshold for having to pay the tax. $30m payroll minimum to get a share of the tax money paid. 6 teams over the threshold averaging a payroll of $60m. each of the 24 under the threshold teams get $5m each.

so...$5m is only half of iginla's salary and nashville is already stretching to spend $30m as it is. i dont see your scenario working. what i see is the teams spending over $60m still getting over on the little guys.

Few Teams are going to spend $60 Million.
Because Today's $60 Million payroll costs you $75 Million in the NHLPA's proposal.

People are failing to see the benefit of the NHLPA's proposal (even though the league would have ed themselves had they received this proposal three years ago)

A 75 percent tax is HUGE.
Once you hit that threshold, you're playing nearly double the face value of the contract.
So the Wings will nearly twice what Calgary offers. That's asking a lot.
Naturally, teams that normally pick up a big salary at the deadline are going to think REAL hard if that guy has more than two months left on his deal.
Naturally, teams are going to think REAL hard before getting in a bidding war for a UFA.

Who are the main culprits for the huge increases in salaries? Let's just say it's the Detroits, NYs, Colorados, Torontos and Phillys of the world.
These are the teams that are going to be the ones that can afford to go over the limit and pay some penalties.
HOWEVER, they are also going to be the teams that pay twice as much for UFAs as everyone else.
So Naturally, higher prices will curb their spending.
And when the big boys start curbing their spending, the little guys won't be under as much pressure to give away the farm when their players become free agents.

This luxury tax will definitely lower NHL salaries.
It's common logic.

 

[thinkwild]

Of course if you penalize spending too much, you are back to breaking up great teams who have earned their success, and earned the right to pay their players from all their playoff winnings. The point of the tax is to raise money for teams systemically struggling, until they get back on their feet and become one of the spenders over time.

Re: Big Market. It was rumoured the NHL was going to make a definition of big market for receiving revenue sharing purposes as one over 2.5 million tvs in its paid territory. A good definition? I think it was to prevent Wirtz from getting revenue sharing.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Blake shouldn't count since he was a rental that happened to resign with Colorado (good example of financial power buying a player as a defacto UFA). Borque a little less so. The rest are pretty fair trades.

I'm with you.
That entire post shouldn't be counted.

It isn't like the Avs went out there and outbid everyone for Forsberg.
In fact, it was Eric Lindros holding a gun to the Nords' head.

Even Detroit, guys like Maltby and Draper ... these guys are essentially homegrown players.
Say what you want about Detroit, but they've built around their own core (Yzerman/Fedorov/Lidstrom) and to a lesser extent (McCarty/Kozlov/Datsyuk/Dandenault/Kocur/Konstantinov/Osgood)

The sole reason for the Wings success can be defined by one Jimmy Devellano policy: Never trade draft picks.

For years, the Wings refused to trade picks. Now, they weren't great drafters, but they kept their young players and developed the team around them.
When it was time to go for the cup, they traded Primeau and Coffey for Shanahan.
So it's not like it was a rent-a-player situation.

And really, look at the Wings since then.
They managed to win a cup a few years ago when they went out and got Hull/Robitaille/Hasek (all guys at the end of a career), but the core is getting old. Who are they building around?
It's hard to tell. And that's why they look more and more like the Rangers.

The bottom line is this: Try as you might, you can't buy the Stanley Cup. You can buy pieces to help you. But it takes time to build a winning franchise.

 

[Trottier]

It is true that teams like Calgary have made a run to the finals in recent years. How much chance does Calgary have of keeping the lineup together.

Now that is a very fair point. However, I disagree with this statement:

This CBA is aimed at giving the Flames, Penguins, and Oilers of the league the same competive chance as the big spenders.

But the "solution" being proposed is making all teams equally incapable of retaining their talent. A hardcap means letting players go to meet some artificial financial barrier...among all teams. More player movement. More roster instability, as in the ridiculous annual roster turnover in the NFL. No thanks.

I can meet you half-way however. Allow all teams to continue to retain (more easily) their own homegrown talent. But don't punish success.

You see, as an NYI fan, for example, I am fully aware that in exchange for the glorious hardcap some misguidely pray for, my team will have to make decisions on guys like Rick Dipietro at age 26 as opposed to 31. And in order to keep a Dipietro AND stay under a hardcap, they will have to let go a Mark Parrish and Adrian Aucoin. All in the name of "fiscal parity" and on-ice mediocrity.

Not directed at you, but I pity the mindset of some who will gladly sell out the league's outstanding level of competition to blandness/mediocrity, and purposely punish successful franchises, just so their hometeam may get a better chance at a watered down Cup.

use that twist all you want..."the big spenders like NYR, the Leafs, Blues and Stars dominate the league, while smaller market clubs like the 'Canes, Ducks, Flames and Lightning never go deep into the playoffs." its spin...here is the truth.

Surely, you are capable of a more substantive reply. My opinion is "spin", your's is "truth". That's how friendly debates quickly end.

teams that retain their talent....
colorado's last stanley cup team...most of their best players were acquired thru trades and free agent signings. Roy(trade), Bourque(trade), Blake(trade), Yelle(trade), Forsberg(trade), Reinprecht(trade), Podein(trade).

I'd like to know who on the colorado Cup team of 2001 was a UFA signing. No one of substance, that's for sure. As for trades...why of course! When you draft and develop talent, you often use it to acquire other talent. Object to that?

detroit's last cup...hasek(ufa), Shanahan(trade), Hull(ufa), Robitaille(ufa), Larionov(trade), Chelios(ufa), Draper(trade), Deveraux(trade), Maltby(trade), Duchense(ufa), Alausson(ufa)...is that what you meant??? come on, who are you trying to fool that this is somekind of a home grown team???

Your point is taken with regard to the 2002 Wings, but they are the exception with regard to significant emphasis on UFA among Cup winners. And again, what do trades have to do with it? If I wish to trade my talent for your's (and vice versa), that's not good? It should be "regulated" by some artificial cap? Say goodbye to trades, for the most part. Don't know of anyone who stays up late awaiting those exciting NBA and NFL trade deadline deals, you know?

 

[txpd]

trottier posts, "Quote:
Originally Posted by txpd
use that twist all you want..."the big spenders like NYR, the Leafs, Blues and Stars dominate the league, while smaller market clubs like the 'Canes, Ducks, Flames and Lightning never go deep into the playoffs." its spin...here is the truth.

Surely, you are capable of a more substantive reply. My opinion is "spin", your's is "truth". That's how friendly debates quickly end"

trotts...i am perfectly capable of a more substantive reply. two paragraphs later there was this quote, "Looking a little closer i could be off by a season or two, but the Stars, Avalanche, Wings, Devils, Blues, & Leafs have missed the playoffs a combined total of once in the last 10 years. in the last 10 years the Lightning, Flames, Ducks, & Canes missed the playoffs at least 17 times combined that i can count off the top of my head."

additionally, the paragraph after the one you quoted destroyed your weak attempt at saying that big spending teams had not dominated championships when it said, "on the other hand you point out that big spenders NYR, Leafs, Blues, & Stars have dominated the leauge. its true..THOSE big spenders have not. However, If you had said, "Big spenders like the Stars, Avalanche, Red Wings, & Devils have dominated the league" you would have been totally accurate. in the last ten years those 4 teams have won 9 stanley cups. That qualifies as dominating...doesnt it?"

are you really trying to impune the points that i made in that post?????

 

[Trottier]

My suggestion that competitiveness in the NHL is strong is not "weak," it is simply different than your POV.

Now, to your last question: you are correct, no one is trying to impugn your point that teams with huge payrolls have been at the top of the league for years. It is equally not debatable, however, that teams with much lesser payrolls have repeatedly demonstrated the ability to compete far into the playoffs, on a regular basis. Not win the Cup as you suggest, but so what? Do we want to engineer the parity to the acute extent that "thriftier" teams hoist the Cup? Or is the fact that the last three seasons have seen three teams who no one considered much of a playoff threat, much less a Cup Finalist, play into June?

All of this considered (and in an effort to reach some type of consensus), I will suggest that, indeed, there is an "economic parity" problem in the game, namely the ability of some (many?) franchises to remain anywhere near "financially viable," i.e., turn a profit. However, I simply do not draw the direct corollation between payroll and the ability to assemble a Cup contender. Now, the ability to maintain a perennial contender is, without doubt as you suggest, a matter of possessing the $$$ to retain/add key players. But those are not subtle differences.

 

[txpd]

My suggestion that competitiveness in the NHL is strong is not "weak," it is simply different than your POV.

Now, to your last question: you are correct, no one is trying to impugn your point that teams with huge payrolls have been at the top of the league for years. It is equally not debatable, however, that teams with much lesser payrolls have repeatedly demonstrated the ability to compete far into the playoffs, on a regular basis. Not win the Cup as you suggest, but so what? Do we want to engineer the parity to the acute extent that "thriftier" teams hoist the Cup? Or is the fact that the last three seasons have seen three teams who no one considered much of a playoff threat, much less a Cup Finalist, play into June?

All of this considered (and in an effort to reach some type of consensus), I will suggest that, indeed, there is an "economic parity" problem in the game, namely the ability of some (many?) franchises to remain anywhere near "financially viable," i.e., turn a profit. However, I simply do not draw the direct corollation between payroll and the ability to assemble a Cup contender. Now, the ability to maintain a perennial contender is, without doubt as you suggest, a matter of possessing the $$$ to retain/add key players. But those are not subtle differences.

competitive balance is about building viability with franchises. viability that can consistantly sell tickets in its own market. viability that can sell tickets on the road and create a tv audience. a big name team against a no name team in the stanley cup finals is bad for the NHL. nobody wants to see the no name team. its good for the NHL when the no name team gets a name for itself and its top players by being consistantly competitive over the next couple or three years. that kind of consistancy i necessary for the franchise to become solvent as well. when Carolina had its cup year the market didnt notice something was up til late in the season. by halfway thru the next season they were already out of playoff contention. two years later there is no evidence that they were ever in the finals. same with the ducks, same with the capitals, same with buffalo. will be the same with calgary and tampa if they fall back out of the playoffs too.

If thats all that ever happens, Cinderella makes a run then turns into a pumpkin, its no good for anyone. cinderella drags down the finals the lack of ability to grow into the league elite drags down the franchise.

the system has got to make it possible for markets outside the top 10 in payroll to be consistant competitors for the championship. to grow its stars into league stars as fast as they grow in big spender markets. that way when tampa and pheonix lineup on tv there is an audience for that game rather than a yawn.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

the system has got to make it possible for markets outside the top 10 in payroll to be consistant competitors for the championship. .

then the have nots (whoever they be) will complain about something else. its always going to be something, some teams will have something others teams havent smart enough or lucky enough to get and they will complain about it.

money isnt why some teams do better than others, even if it seems that way.

dr

 

[txpd]

then the have nots (whoever they be) will complain about something else. its always going to be something, some teams will have something others teams havent smart enough or lucky enough to get and they will complain about it.

money isnt why some teams do better than others, even if it seems that way.

dr

oh yea...now that makes sense. sounds like, "getting punched in the face isn't why your nose is broken, even if it seems that way." I like it.

thats so right on. look. i know what it really is. i haven't seen a fan of a top payroll team on these boards say they favor a hard cap. i understand. you like the league the way it is. why give up your financial advantage? its more fun having it. its easier to have a good team with it. makes perfect sense.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

oh yea...now that makes sense. sounds like, "getting punched in the face isn't why your nose is broken, even if it seems that way." I like it.

thats so right on. look. i know what it really is. i haven't seen a fan of a top payroll team on these boards say they favor a hard cap. i understand. you like the league the way it is. why give up your financial advantage? its more fun having it. its easier to have a good team with it. makes perfect sense.

i live in Calgary and cheer for the Canucks ... whats your point ?

dr

 

[kruezer]

you are also right that this current CBA is much better for the Flames than a luxury tax or hard cap.

in a hard cap or luxury tax enviroment, would COL have given up Regehr for 1 month of Fleury ? nope, even if they wanted to, they wouldnt have fit Fleury into their cap.

would DAL have given up Niuewendyk for Iginla ? nope, again they couldnt have afforded the contract.

So CGY (as an example) is crazy to vote for a cap league, it will hurt them more than help. oh wait, under a cap, the flames could have maybe signed Fleury and Niewendyk instead of being forced to trade them. yup, that will help ! who wouldnt rather have Neiuwendyk and Fleury instead of Iginla and Regehr. Those poor fans in CGY who have to suffer !

DR

Well Iginla and Regehr look nice now, but chances are Calgary wouldn't have salary dumped back in the 90s the team could have stayed competitive, Nieuwy and Fleury were both much better than Iginla and Regehr until the last 2 or 3 years, and yes Calgary fans did have to suffer, have we already forgotten the last 7 years?

 

[Pepper]

then the have nots (whoever they be) will complain about something else. its always going to be something, some teams will have something others teams havent smart enough or lucky enough to get and they will complain about it.

money isnt why some teams do better than others, even if it seems that way.

dr

You keep missing the point, this is all about creating more balanced economic playing field, not about making all teams as competetive. Of course there will be bad teams in the future but they are going to be bad because of bad luck or bad maangement or both. Under the system league is proposing, if you're bad then you have nothing else to blame than yourself.

 

[YellHockey*]

Of course there will be bad teams in the future but they are going to be bad because of bad luck or bad maangement or both. Under the system league is proposing, if you're bad then you have nothing else to blame than yourself.

Isn't that how it was in the previous CBA?

 

[txpd]

whats your point ?

dr

you need a new line. ive seen you post this one too many times.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

you need a new line. ive seen you post this one too many times.

whats your point ? j/k

dr

 

[Pepper]

Isn't that how it was in the previous CBA?

No and if you have to ask a question like that you're not really paying attention at all.

Currently you're a bad team if you have a bad management or not enough money to compete. Oilers have a good management but not enough cash to compete with big teams.

Under the new CBA (with real limits on spending), Oilers could be a well-run team which wouldn't be a bad team because of they would have to trade away all their star players like under the previous CBA.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

No and if you have to ask a question like that you're not really paying attention at all.

Currently you're a bad team if you have a bad management or not enough money to compete. Oilers have a good management but not enough cash to compete with big teams.

Under the new CBA (with real limits on spending), Oilers could be a well-run team which wouldn't be a bad team because of they would have to trade away all their star players like under the previous CBA.

but when the time came that they wanted to deal a Doug Weight, who would trade them anything. so instead of restocking with prospects and not carrying overpaid players, they will just let those overpaid guys go for nothing.

good system.

dr

 

[YellHockey*]

No and if you have to ask a question like that you're not really paying attention at all.

Currently you're a bad team if you have a bad management or not enough money to compete. Oilers have a good management but not enough cash to compete with big teams.

Damn those big teams like Ottawa and Tampa!

Under the new CBA (with real limits on spending), Oilers could be a well-run team which wouldn't be a bad team because of they would have to trade away all their star players like under the previous CBA.

They didn't have to trade away their players. Why couldn't they have resigned them like Ottawa did with Alfredsson?

Why don't you base your assumptions about the CBA on a team that was well run instead of a poorly run team that wouldn't have been able to compete under any realisitic CBA?

 

[SENSible1*]

but when the time came that they wanted to deal a Doug Weight, who would trade them anything. so instead of restocking with prospects and not carrying overpaid players, they will just let those overpaid guys go for nothing.

good system.

dr

Because the most restrictive form of hard cap is the only system available to achieve cost certainty right?

The lengths pro-PAers will go in ignoring reality is quite impressive.

 

[Pepper]

but when the time came that they wanted to deal a Doug Weight, who would trade them anything. so instead of restocking with prospects and not carrying overpaid players, they will just let those overpaid guys go for nothing.

good system.

dr

Wrong again. They didn't want to trade Dough Weight, they HAD to trade him because they couldn't afford his salary. They had no choice but to trade him or lose him for nothing.

Pay attenion.