I think this may be a good compromise although I don't know if the money distributed to the poorer teams will be enough.
Also, I think the NHLPA may look at this as a deterent for big market teams to spend $$ and may then not agree with it.
My opinion is that if a team has enough cash to spend say $15M over the "cap" of $40M, they probably have $15M to distribute to teams like Edm, Cgy, Nsh, Minny, etc. I like the concept of team like Edm having to spend $30M on their own.
I like the concept of team like Edm having to spend $30M on their own.
The NBA has a similar rule (team has to spend minimum of $30M). Ask the LA Clippers how this works. Bad management in their case isn't corrected by minimum spending rules.
I hope that there is no salary cap. The cap has ruined the NFL by making it impossible to build and maintain a team. The NFL is more competitive now but your home team is only viable for a couple of years and then you have to rebuild.
The part that got me thinking it might be pie in the sky rather than something he'd heard rumours about was this:
"A governor has suggested the NHL try to get the percentage cut so that teams can keep players who may not deserve raises.
It could benefit the players because teams then might not be so quick to walk away from contracts."
Pardon? I don't recall a lot of teams walking away from contracts, but perhaps my memory is poor on this subject. I think generally speaking, RFAs have been tendered qualifying offers, and that's that. There've been a few arbitration walk-aways, but even those are rare - Boston twice and Washington once, isn't it?
I kind of like the idea, but is it the best solution?
I also agree with the NFLs cap system - it is brutal. It's almost like a bunch of junior teams where you're good for two years, bad for two years, etc. I would like to see a VERY VERY VERY VERY hard luxury tax - that would see teams pay dollar for dollar what they spend over 40. Then teams that are decided to be small market teams would recieve that amount. BUT I think the most important thing is to find a way that equalizes canadian teams dollar to the Americans - I mean we've all talked alot about how much of a difference the 7-9 cents that our dollar has gained on that of the States will make. Well imagine if they had an equaliztion plan!! Pretend that all of a sudden Alberta used american currency (pray that that day never comes!) and we were on par with the currency! We'd be making millions - which would in turn allow us to spend closer to what the other teams spend.
I've always been against a straight-up cap. Especially at $31 mil. The $40 mil proposal is alot better, allows teams to continue to build, distributes income, and assures teams have to spend a certain amount. I'd also like currency equalization, but I can't see that happening. The luxury tax format rewards good management, in that you can keep your up and coming stars, unlike the NFL where players have to be released and so on every year for nothing.
- a soft cap with luxury tax that allows you to keep your players but really punishes teams that make mistakes with big contracts. Bad contracts limit your ability to sign free agents (if you are above the soft cap) and this really punishes bad management along with the luxury tax.
- a reasonable profit sharing arrangement that treats players as partners. NBA players even have to give money back to the owners if their share of revenues exceeds the agreed level.