View Single Post
10-01-2003, 04:36 AM
Join Date: Nov 2002
Originally Posted by
But there is also one factor. Teams who recieve that money just cant pocket it. They have to put the majority (75%) back into their teams. This will hopefully help the small market teams to keep their stars.
How would you measure that? Would it be based on previous year's spending? Doesn't it make it very difficult for a smaller market team to lower their payroll because of market factors. Take a team with a payroll of $35 million, which has remained at the same level for a number of years, how has been receiving a $5 million dollar payment from the luxury tax in each of these three years. Let's say that the team's players start declining because of age, and that they want to re-build, and that their local economy has taken a hit, so that rebuilding process will require a $4 million reduction in payroll as they get younger. The team has every intention bringing payroll back up once their younger players develop.
Under your system, they would not be allowed to lower their payroll, even though it's the smart hockey decision. This team would continue to maintain a $35 million dollar payroll even though it's not money well spent
Personally, I'm not a fan of mandating spending by the smaller market teams. We've seen quite a few teams manage to achieve success with small payrolls, and I think that it many situations, teams that would have to spend money wouldn't necesarrily improve their teams.
My preference is that teams that receive money are forced into achieving certain performance requirements. In order to receive the money you must, for example, have reached the playoffs at least once in the last 3 years, or won a playoff round at least once in the last 5.
This lets each team decide on what the optimal payroll should be for their team, while still ensuring that they remain competitive.
Just my 2 cents.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by discostu