View Single Post
Old
08-13-2012, 04:15 PM
  #49
Blueshirt Believer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 6,378
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrjimmyg89 View Post
Luxury tax is terrible. The NBA had that in place and there was NO parity. The best thing to ever happen to the Rangers is the hard cap that is currently in place. We'd still be watching overpriced old players if they didn't change that. I'm all for limiting spending. It promotes that teams need to build from youth and make smart decisions on signing players. It also would kill the market if someone drastically overpays for someone. Players who are around the same type of production would ask for the same money. Smaller market teams will shrivel up in that type of system.

8 teams in the NBA produced a profit in the luxury tax time. IF 8 teams in the NHL did that, the league would die. Luxury tax is a terrible idea. Keep the hard cap, promote more revenue sharing and go from their. Lowering the cap should also happen, but not at the expense of rollbacks that are drastic. I'd say something like a 10% rollback (which is over 50% less than what the owners want) and going to the cap used last season of 64.3 for two seasons and adjusting after that. That 10% rollback and 64.3 number would have maybe 1 or 2 teams over the cap and barely over, where one roster move, either trade or waiver/send down would put them back under.
Well said.

I'm totally against a luxury tax. The hard salary cap has saved the Rangers from themselves. The Rangers took that money and invested in better facilities and better scouting. With the Luxury tax, you would be tempting the Rangers(as well as other big market clubs)to have an "arms race" to buy championships. That almost never works in Hockey. But teams will try it anyways.

I think its going to be a combination of player salary reductions(probably between 6-10 percent)and increased revenue sharing.

Blueshirt Believer is offline