It says here Players talking of $60 million luxury tax threshold
View Single Post
09-04-2004, 09:08 PM
Vote for Teppo!
Join Date: May 2004
What some people don't seem to realize is that the current system makes some teams make hockey decisions because of money and others make hockey decisions because they make sense from a hockey perspective. What a cap would do would make each team balance hockey and money decisions rather than just a few teams. The current system has a number of factors which make salaries escalate which cannot be controled by gm's.
1) Qualifying offers- regardless of if you had a good year, congrats you get a 10% raise.
2) Arbitration- you had a good year, you made 1.5 million dollars last year, but your stats are about the same as player x, (who just happens to be over-payed by the "insert high spending team here") so you now get 3.5 million dollars congratulations. Both of these factors are uncontrolable. Sure a GM can walk away from an arbitration award but how often does that happen, why doesn't it happen, because some team will pay that award and now you just lost a member of your hockey team for nothing. The same for qualifying offers, don't give them one and now you have to replace him with another player who a) isn't as good, b) is more expensive, c) both.
3) Guarenteed contracts- NFL teams can get rid of a player at any time just by ripping up his contract, NHL teams can't. If they release a player, they still have to pay him. All three of the things have helped to drive up players salaries beyond where team can just make hockey decisions. If it was strictly hockey decisions, I don't think that Hasek would have won a Cup with Detroit. Buffalo would have kept Peca and added a couple of pieces to help get them over the top and he would have stayed in Buffalo. Does he win one in Buffalo? I don't know, but I would have liked to see that happen. But because of the above factors, Buffalo was not able to keep all of their pieces and add to them because the team had success and each piece got more expensive and they were forced to make decisions based on money not on what was best for the hockey team.
I don't think that a luxury tax will work unless the threshold is low( no more than 40-45 million) and the penalty is high (100% for the first 5-10 million over and 200% for the rest). The problem is that starts to sound alot like a cap in the players ears.
Either way, what ever happens, I hope that it will force each team to consider not only what is best for the on-ice product but also what is best for the financial ledger as those low budget teams have to do now.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by sabresfan65