stevkrause 1,247 Report post Posted July 9, 2009 It's such a win-win scenario - teams with more money can spend over and keep players they developed and teams that make less get money from the luxury tax the teams choose to pay to spend over... I don't know why they didn't put one in there... I blame Bettman. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Opie 308 Report post Posted July 9, 2009 mainly because Basketball put it in and all that did was circumvent the cap. The Celtics for example have 0 cap space, but are signing players left and right because the fee is right. For instance if they sign a guy for 2 mil over the cap it is 2 mil to the player and 2 more to the PA. For an org with as much money as the C's that means nothing. Especially when you throw in the rules with Veteran minimum offers that count differently. Anything the NBA does the NHL should stay away from, like the lottery! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NeverForgetMac25 483 Report post Posted July 9, 2009 If you institute a luxury tax system the NHL will end up in the same position it did in 2004-2005. Don't get me wrong, I wish the Wings could spend freely but I understand the economics behind why they can't. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Echolalia 2,961 Report post Posted July 9, 2009 I wouldn't mind a 25% discount on home-grown talent Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Opie 308 Report post Posted July 9, 2009 I wouldn't mind a 25% discount on home-grown talent To me this is an avenue the league should explore, if you draft a guy you should get a discount to keep him. This would put them ahead of the curve as even the Capologists in the NFL haven't come up with this yet. Good press for the NHL as they are ahead of the curve on something, why do that? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NeverForgetMac25 483 Report post Posted July 9, 2009 I wouldn't mind a 25% discount on home-grown talent This I could get on board with. It's not so bold as to ignore the cap while it helps teams keep their own talent. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stevkrause 1,247 Report post Posted July 9, 2009 mainly because Basketball put it in and all that did was circumvent the cap. The Celtics for example have 0 cap space, but are signing players left and right because the fee is right. For instance if they sign a guy for 2 mil over the cap it is 2 mil to the player and 2 more to the PA. For an org with as much money as the C's that means nothing. Especially when you throw in the rules with Veteran minimum offers that count differently. Anything the NBA does the NHL should stay away from, like the lottery! I hate, HATE the lottery... they didn't have to do the same luxury tax as the NBA though, they could have forged their own... for example, say they put something in place, that if you drafted a player, or he has already been with your organization for at least 3 years, you can re-sign him and only his initial contract can count against the cap and any increase against a luxury if a team so desires (up to 50% of the contract) but you can NOT use the luxury tax to sign FA's... for example, say we could re-sign Ericsson in 2 years for something crazy like 3.5, since his initial contract was only 900k, but less that 50% of his new contract, the Wings could chose to defer 1.75 of the contract to the luxury and only 1.75 of it would count towards the cap, but say you had a guy signed at 2m a year who was a FA and you re-up him after 3 years for 2.8, you could defer .8, but the 2 would still count... that way, teams wouldn't have to lose home grown talent, or guys that you basically brought in and made them who they are (ie. Cleary), but the richer teams couldn't just go out and buy up all the talent... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stevkrause 1,247 Report post Posted July 9, 2009 I wouldn't mind a 25% discount on home-grown talent I was typing a rely in the same vein when you posted this... mine is structured a little different, but same idea... give it a read Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Opie 308 Report post Posted July 9, 2009 that too is a good idea but luxury tax is pretty much set in stone, it is like the word hockey, hockey is hockey. Luxury tax is being taxed for going over a set spending limit, what you are talking about is something very similar to what echolia just brought up, which I am behind both of those ideas. But luxury tax is just that a tax for going over the cap. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stevkrause 1,247 Report post Posted July 9, 2009 that too is a good idea but luxury tax is pretty much set in stone, it is like the word hockey, hockey is hockey. Luxury tax is being taxed for going over a set spending limit, what you are talking about is something very similar to what echolia just brought up, which I am behind both of those ideas. But luxury tax is just that a tax for going over the cap. exactly... but it also puts more revenue into the struggling teams, while allowing players to stay within an organization longer and therefore, allows fans more time to connect with players and market them, thus marketing the league... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Opie 308 Report post Posted July 9, 2009 I like that idea, and the one Echolia stated. They both get the official Opie Stamp of Approval, which probably means nothing in the grand scheme of things! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stevkrause 1,247 Report post Posted July 9, 2009 I like that idea, and the one Echolia stated. They both get the official Opie Stamp of Approval, which probably means nothing in the grand scheme of things! haha, just put the LGW posters on a board of directors and turn it over to us... it'd be an upgrade from Bettman! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StevieY9802 6 Report post Posted July 9, 2009 I don't like the idea of a luxuary tax at all. A cap is a cap for a reason. I was actually looking forward to the cap after the lockout. The Wings started spending money stupidly instead of on what they needed. They had too much talent, if that makes sense. I wish they had a little more cap space but that's life. They still have enough talent. As for the discount to home grown players how do you enforce that or monitor that? Hank took a discount, all though it took a 12 year contract to do it. Krauses example makes sense but that would never happen, sadly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eva unit zero 271 Report post Posted July 9, 2009 A good luxury tax system: Teams can re-sign players that they drafted and/or have been within their organization for five-plus complete seasons who are under the age of 28, and the player's entire raise, up to 50%, can count as luxury tax if the team exceeds the salary cap. Players acquired by trade or free agency and signed to a contract with less than that tenure, and all players over 28, would count 100% against the cap. Teams would pay 100% of the salary they exceeded the cap by, and it would be divided evenly amongst bottom-half revenue teams who were also in the bottom half of payroll. The cap floor would be lowered to be $15m below the cap rather than $10m below the cap. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stevkrause 1,247 Report post Posted July 10, 2009 A good luxury tax system: Teams can re-sign players that they drafted and/or have been within their organization for five-plus complete seasons who are under the age of 28, and the player's entire raise, up to 50%, can count as luxury tax if the team exceeds the salary cap. Players acquired by trade or free agency and signed to a contract with less than that tenure, and all players over 28, would count 100% against the cap. Teams would pay 100% of the salary they exceeded the cap by, and it would be divided evenly amongst bottom-half revenue teams who were also in the bottom half of payroll. The cap floor would be lowered to be $15m below the cap rather than $10m below the cap. kinda in the same vein as my thought just a little more strict - I can get on board with this too... I just really want some way to keep home grown guys and not have to lose them because you developed them too well, to where they deserve more money... doesn't seem right, basically punishing a team for doing things the right way, especially a team like ours where most guys are late round picks... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VM1138 1,921 Report post Posted July 10, 2009 It's such a win-win scenario - teams with more money can spend over and keep players they developed and teams that make less get money from the luxury tax the teams choose to pay to spend over... I don't know why they didn't put one in there... I blame Bettman. Maybe because it makes the cap irrelevant? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RedFX 48 Report post Posted July 10, 2009 (edited) Keep in mind the NBA cap system is different than the NHL cap system. The NBA has a soft cap, which does give teams limited flexibility to move around while over the cap. The NHL has a hard cap, which means nobody can cross the cap, regardless of the situation. The hard cap basically makes the need for a luxury tax irrelevant. Come to think of it, weren't the players wanting a luxury tax during the lockout? Edited July 10, 2009 by RedFX Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stevkrause 1,247 Report post Posted July 10, 2009 Maybe because it makes the cap irrelevant? it doesn't if it's structured right. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
19Hockeytown5 0 Report post Posted July 10, 2009 I thought the entire fight was largely over keeping player salaries in check and giving the owners cost certainty. A hard cap is nessasary to acheive this. Even when teams overpay for players, they are punished by having to fill out the roster with less talented players(keeping overall costs in line). What you are suggesting would change everything that they fought for. Player salaries would sky rocket and the owners would no longer have cost certainty. Sure it sucks for us wings fans, because of what we have been accustomed to, but it's best for the league. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NeverForgetMac25 483 Report post Posted July 10, 2009 Probably so, but what makes me wonder is how much an owner is willing to go over the set "soft cap" if the money he's being penalised is going into the pockets of his rivals?...That alone just might keep some owners in check. I doubt it. The fact of the matter is that we're very lucky to have an owner that's all about winning and will pay whatever it takes to always have a competitive team. Unfortunately, there are owners that simply won't pay more than they want for a team regardless of performance. If those owners pull a profit they're comfortable with, extra luxury tax cash in their pocket won't change their philosophy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stevkrause 1,247 Report post Posted July 10, 2009 I thought the entire fight was largely over keeping player salaries in check and giving the owners cost certainty. A hard cap is nessasary to acheive this. Even when teams overpay for players, they are punished by having to fill out the roster with less talented players(keeping overall costs in line). What you are suggesting would change everything that they fought for. Player salaries would sky rocket and the owners would no longer have cost certainty. Sure it sucks for us wings fans, because of what we have been accustomed to, but it's best for the league. not. if. it's. structured. right. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stevkrause 1,247 Report post Posted July 10, 2009 I doubt it. The fact of the matter is that we're very lucky to have an owner that's all about winning and will pay whatever it takes to always have a competitive team. Unfortunately, there are owners that simply won't pay more than they want for a team regardless of performance. If those owners pull a profit they're comfortable with, extra luxury tax cash in their pocket won't change their philosophy. why is everyone just reading the initial post? if you read through the thread, you will see solutions offered - I don't think anyone is suggesting a wide open luxury tax, there would be stipulations and rules... the main point would be to not punish teams for drafting and developing right and thus being able to keep THEIR players... not to go out and drop money on the problem via FA Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stevkrause 1,247 Report post Posted July 10, 2009 I thought the entire fight was largely over keeping player salaries in check and giving the owners cost certainty. A hard cap is nessasary to acheive this. Even when teams overpay for players, they are punished by having to fill out the roster with less talented players(keeping overall costs in line). What you are suggesting would change everything that they fought for. Player salaries would sky rocket and the owners would no longer have cost certainty. Sure it sucks for us wings fans, because of what we have been accustomed to, but it's best for the league. please read the whole thread again... we are not suggesting a wide open luxury tax, just something that allows teams to keep their own guys - you would still have a maximum salary, a minimum salary, etc... they could also add rules about number of maximum salaries to like 2, regardless of the player being "home grown"... once again, structure right and it would not cause this in the slightest Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dteowner 20 Report post Posted July 10, 2009 It would probably be an easier sell for owners and players both to just introduce the "home grown talent" discount rather than introducing a luxury tax system. Keep the hard cap (cost certainty for the owners) but guys staying where they are can get more money (players can "get paid" without having to move their families all over North America) without trashing a team's cap. For that matter, if you only allow 1 contract per player to fall under the discount, it encourages long term contracts (stability for owners and players) and produces a pool of older vets with mobility for playoff rentals or for guys wanting to chase a cup. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wingseroo 0 Report post Posted July 10, 2009 I wouldn't mind a 25% discount on home-grown talent I like this for RFA's... And maybe something like 2 designated franchise players... Also the NFL veterans deal where you can pay guys with over 10 years exp at almost double the cap hit with it only counting for league min. I think it behooves the NHL to work out a system that helps keep players within the same organization... Keeping young talent and old fan favorites only helps build fan loyalty... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
