Steamy Ray Vaughn
Registered User
- Mar 14, 2022
- 34
- 3
I searched the forums and couldn't find anything recent where there was a discussion of this topic but I know it's been raised before. I think the NHL needs to institute a luxury tax on top of it's current salary cap system. I know already some will say that it shouldn't be done because it would "Hurt parity" but let's look at it like this:
Since the implementation of the cap, 12 different teams have won the Stanley Cup. Of those 12, 5 of them have won it multiple times. Markets like Vegas, Tampa Bay, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh and Detroit have been the most successful and apart from LA, these were not the first time those teams touched the Cup. 11 teams have participated in a cup final without winning, so out of 32 teams, 25 of them have made it to the Cup final at least once. 2 teams have won back to back cups that being the Penguins and the Lightning.
There have been 18 seasons since the Cap was installed (this is currently the 19th underway). And in the 18 seasons prior, there are been 10 teams that won the cup. 11 different teams made the finals without winning at least once, so out of 30 teams (which was the number as of the year 2000) there had been 21 teams that have made it to the cup finals at least once. In those 18 years the NHL expanded from 21 to 30 teams. 2 teams won back to back cups in those 18 seasons the Penguins and the Red Wings.
The sport of hockey is not one that lends itself to Super team dominance given the number of team and the fact that chemistry plays a big part of it. If it were all about who spends the most money, we'd expect to see teams like Montreal, Toronto and New York win championship after championship, yet the last time that happened was in 1994, 30 years ago. If the problem was just big markets outspending the smaller ones, we'd be seeing a lot more of the same teams in the finals and winning championships. yet the numbers are very similar.
The idea of the cap (apart from controlling escalating salaries) was that it would allow more parity because teams wouldn't be able to sign their big stars and hence you'd see more superstars emerge in non-traditional markets, helping the game grow. However, what's actually happened is that because teams prioritize retaining their stars above all, it's lower level free agents that are hitting the market. Guys who are good players but not necessarily game changers on the levels of a McDavid, Matthews, Crosby and many others. If you didn't draft a superstar or can't swing a trade for one, you have to overpay to get these guys and so this inflates salaries all around the league. The cap isn't rising fast enough to meet demand and so you end up with some of the greatest players in the NHL not being able to reach the finals, much less touch Lord Stanley himself. This is a problem. Wouldn't it be great for the NHL if Connor McDavid could go on ESPN with the Stanley Cup? Or Auston Matthews?
I think the NHL should add a luxury tax on top of the salary cap. The idea would be that teams can go over the cap but pay a penalty equivalent to how much more they spend:
For the first 10% over the cap ceiling, it'd be a 100% equivalent penalty. Meaning if you are $4M over the cap, you must pay an extra $4M to the other teams in the league who didn't go over the cap. 10-25% would be 150%, 25-50% would be 200% and if you go over 50%, it's 500%+forfeiting your 2 next available 2 first round picks. The money would have to come out of ownership's profits, not Hockey related revenues. This is therefore extra money owners would have to pay.
This would allow big markets to retain their players IMO. It wouldn't hurt smaller markets because there's really only so much you can spend and as I've pointed out, spending more money doesn't mean you will win championships. It'd be a way to give the teams that have more money a bit more flexibility in building their rosters, possibly allow them to make the playoffs more often or stay in them a little longer. As for smaller market teams that can't go over the cap would get a way to be more competitive. It wouldn't hurt parity because there's many factors that go into a player choosing to sign with a team such as location, ice time, teammates, the organization and more.
I look at a team like the Leafs and they have 4 of the best offensive talents in the league but can't get out of the first round because their depth sucks. Leafs games in the playoffs bring in money not just in Toronto but everywhere as Toronto fans will travel to see the team. That means more revenue in the league pie and the cap can rise thus making the Luxury tax a bonus.
I think the current system hasn't really worked in making the overall game better. Given that there's only so much top talent and so much ice time, there will always be parity. How about just giving your biggest markets a little shot in the arm given they already have to finance other teams?
Since the implementation of the cap, 12 different teams have won the Stanley Cup. Of those 12, 5 of them have won it multiple times. Markets like Vegas, Tampa Bay, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh and Detroit have been the most successful and apart from LA, these were not the first time those teams touched the Cup. 11 teams have participated in a cup final without winning, so out of 32 teams, 25 of them have made it to the Cup final at least once. 2 teams have won back to back cups that being the Penguins and the Lightning.
There have been 18 seasons since the Cap was installed (this is currently the 19th underway). And in the 18 seasons prior, there are been 10 teams that won the cup. 11 different teams made the finals without winning at least once, so out of 30 teams (which was the number as of the year 2000) there had been 21 teams that have made it to the cup finals at least once. In those 18 years the NHL expanded from 21 to 30 teams. 2 teams won back to back cups in those 18 seasons the Penguins and the Red Wings.
The sport of hockey is not one that lends itself to Super team dominance given the number of team and the fact that chemistry plays a big part of it. If it were all about who spends the most money, we'd expect to see teams like Montreal, Toronto and New York win championship after championship, yet the last time that happened was in 1994, 30 years ago. If the problem was just big markets outspending the smaller ones, we'd be seeing a lot more of the same teams in the finals and winning championships. yet the numbers are very similar.
The idea of the cap (apart from controlling escalating salaries) was that it would allow more parity because teams wouldn't be able to sign their big stars and hence you'd see more superstars emerge in non-traditional markets, helping the game grow. However, what's actually happened is that because teams prioritize retaining their stars above all, it's lower level free agents that are hitting the market. Guys who are good players but not necessarily game changers on the levels of a McDavid, Matthews, Crosby and many others. If you didn't draft a superstar or can't swing a trade for one, you have to overpay to get these guys and so this inflates salaries all around the league. The cap isn't rising fast enough to meet demand and so you end up with some of the greatest players in the NHL not being able to reach the finals, much less touch Lord Stanley himself. This is a problem. Wouldn't it be great for the NHL if Connor McDavid could go on ESPN with the Stanley Cup? Or Auston Matthews?
I think the NHL should add a luxury tax on top of the salary cap. The idea would be that teams can go over the cap but pay a penalty equivalent to how much more they spend:
For the first 10% over the cap ceiling, it'd be a 100% equivalent penalty. Meaning if you are $4M over the cap, you must pay an extra $4M to the other teams in the league who didn't go over the cap. 10-25% would be 150%, 25-50% would be 200% and if you go over 50%, it's 500%+forfeiting your 2 next available 2 first round picks. The money would have to come out of ownership's profits, not Hockey related revenues. This is therefore extra money owners would have to pay.
This would allow big markets to retain their players IMO. It wouldn't hurt smaller markets because there's really only so much you can spend and as I've pointed out, spending more money doesn't mean you will win championships. It'd be a way to give the teams that have more money a bit more flexibility in building their rosters, possibly allow them to make the playoffs more often or stay in them a little longer. As for smaller market teams that can't go over the cap would get a way to be more competitive. It wouldn't hurt parity because there's many factors that go into a player choosing to sign with a team such as location, ice time, teammates, the organization and more.
I look at a team like the Leafs and they have 4 of the best offensive talents in the league but can't get out of the first round because their depth sucks. Leafs games in the playoffs bring in money not just in Toronto but everywhere as Toronto fans will travel to see the team. That means more revenue in the league pie and the cap can rise thus making the Luxury tax a bonus.
I think the current system hasn't really worked in making the overall game better. Given that there's only so much top talent and so much ice time, there will always be parity. How about just giving your biggest markets a little shot in the arm given they already have to finance other teams?