It's time to institute a luxury tax

[Tawnos]

I don't get the 5 extra games thing. The Leafs in their current state make a lot of money despite spending a lot. Heck they even give their star players massive signing bonuses upfront. I found a site that estimated last year's Leafs revenues at $281M. Clearly player salaries are not the only expense and that's gross revenue not net. Would they be making less profit by spending more? OF course, but I think the extra playoff games would more than compensate. It's not just the ticket sales that would go up. Sportsnet ratings would be better (and given that Rogers owns both the network and the team, that means more ad revenue), merchandise sales would go up as well so in the end, I think they would end up ahead in terms of generating extra revenue to offset the money spent on a luxury tax.

On the 5 extra games thing. Basically, I'm talking about the difference in quality between the team that spends to the cap and the team that spends over the cap.

If the current Leafs team spends to the Cap and is just good enough to make the playoffs and lose in 7 games, the Leafs get 3 home games out of this playoffs. If they were to spend 10% over the cap in order to put out a better quality roster, that would cost the team $16.7m. 50% of the $7m in revenue per home playoff game is $3.5m. $16.7m / $3.5m per game = 4.77 games. In other words, 4 games doesn't make up for the luxury tax spending, but 5 puts them just over. To get 5 more home playoff games, the team would not only have to beat the Bruins, but also beat the winner of Florida/Tampa (playing Florida could get them 3, playing Tampa could get them 4). It's only after playing that 5th game that the team will see any profit. That would have to be an ECF appearance.

Granted, that is an assumption based on a number from 4 years ago. Ticket prices have probably gone up, so maybe it's 4 extra games and not 5. That's still a situation where they couldn't get there against the Panthers, but could against the Lightning if the series went 7.

Can the Leafs afford that? Of course they can. That isn't the point. The point is that it has significant potential to mean less profit than they're making now. I don't see why would they consider it. And that's just talking about one of the richest teams in the league. Keep in mind that other teams would try to do the same thing, which mitigates the advantage and increases the risk.

 

[Steamy Ray Vaughn]

On the 5 extra games thing. Basically, I'm talking about the difference in quality between the team that spends to the cap and the team that spends over the cap.

If the current Leafs team spends to the Cap and is just good enough to make the playoffs and lose in 7 games, the Leafs get 3 home games out of this playoffs. If they were to spend 10% over the cap in order to put out a better quality roster, that would cost the team $16.7m. 50% of the $7m in revenue per home playoff game is $3.5m. $16.7m / $3.5m per game = 4.77 games. In other words, 4 games doesn't make up for the luxury tax spending, but 5 puts them just over. To get 5 more home playoff games, the team would not only have to beat the Bruins, but also beat the winner of Florida/Tampa (playing Florida could get them 3, playing Tampa could get them 4). It's only after playing that 5th game that the team will see any profit. That would have to be an ECF appearance.

Granted, that is an assumption based on a number from 4 years ago. Ticket prices have probably gone up, so maybe it's 4 extra games and not 5. That's still a situation where they couldn't get there against the Panthers, but could against the Lightning if the series went 7.

Can the Leafs afford that? Of course they can. That isn't the point. The point is that it has significant potential to mean less profit than they're making now. I don't see why would they consider it. And that's just talking about one of the richest teams in the league. Keep in mind that other teams would try to do the same thing, which mitigates the advantage and increases the risk.

That's only ticket sales though, as I mentioned that's just one of the potential revenue streams. And there's always the hope to go farther. If they make it all the way to the SCF, that would mean a lot more revenue. It's not a guarantee but when a big market with a super passionate fanbase goes far in the playoffs, the potential revenues can be immense. You're not guaranteed anything but I think they would be fools not to try if it were a possibility.

 

[mouser]

You're really overestimating how much profit they'd stand to make from playoff revenue in this scenario. First of all, 50% of that playoff revenue is going to the players in the first place. I think it was estimated around Covid that the Leafs were generating $7m per playoff game (in other words, that's how much they were standing to lose from the shutdown). $3.5m of that is going to the players.

If the Leafs max out the first tier of luxury tax spending in your proposal, that means they're spending an extra $17.5 million in salary. That means they're going to have to get an extra 5 home playoff games just to break even.

Also, the NHL collects 35% of gate revenue from each playoff game to fund revenue sharing.

 

[BLNY]

I searched the forums and couldn't find anything recent where there was a discussion of this topic but I know it's been raised before. I think the NHL needs to institute a luxury tax on top of it's current salary cap system. I know already some will say that it shouldn't be done because it would "Hurt parity" but let's look at it like this:

Since the implementation of the cap, 12 different teams have won the Stanley Cup. Of those 12, 5 of them have won it multiple times. Markets like Vegas, Tampa Bay, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh and Detroit have been the most successful and apart from LA, these were not the first time those teams touched the Cup. 11 teams have participated in a cup final without winning, so out of 32 teams, 25 of them have made it to the Cup final at least once. 2 teams have won back to back cups that being the Penguins and the Lightning.

There have been 18 seasons since the Cap was installed (this is currently the 19th underway). And in the 18 seasons prior, there are been 10 teams that won the cup. 11 different teams made the finals without winning at least once, so out of 30 teams (which was the number as of the year 2000) there had been 21 teams that have made it to the cup finals at least once. In those 18 years the NHL expanded from 21 to 30 teams. 2 teams won back to back cups in those 18 seasons the Penguins and the Red Wings.

The sport of hockey is not one that lends itself to Super team dominance given the number of team and the fact that chemistry plays a big part of it. If it were all about who spends the most money, we'd expect to see teams like Montreal, Toronto and New York win championship after championship, yet the last time that happened was in 1994, 30 years ago. If the problem was just big markets outspending the smaller ones, we'd be seeing a lot more of the same teams in the finals and winning championships. yet the numbers are very similar.

The idea of the cap (apart from controlling escalating salaries) was that it would allow more parity because teams wouldn't be able to sign their big stars and hence you'd see more superstars emerge in non-traditional markets, helping the game grow. However, what's actually happened is that because teams prioritize retaining their stars above all, it's lower level free agents that are hitting the market. Guys who are good players but not necessarily game changers on the levels of a McDavid, Matthews, Crosby and many others. If you didn't draft a superstar or can't swing a trade for one, you have to overpay to get these guys and so this inflates salaries all around the league. The cap isn't rising fast enough to meet demand and so you end up with some of the greatest players in the NHL not being able to reach the finals, much less touch Lord Stanley himself. This is a problem. Wouldn't it be great for the NHL if Connor McDavid could go on ESPN with the Stanley Cup? Or Auston Matthews?

I think the NHL should add a luxury tax on top of the salary cap. The idea would be that teams can go over the cap but pay a penalty equivalent to how much more they spend:

For the first 10% over the cap ceiling, it'd be a 100% equivalent penalty. Meaning if you are $4M over the cap, you must pay an extra $4M to the other teams in the league who didn't go over the cap. 10-25% would be 150%, 25-50% would be 200% and if you go over 50%, it's 500%+forfeiting your 2 next available 2 first round picks. The money would have to come out of ownership's profits, not Hockey related revenues. This is therefore extra money owners would have to pay.

This would allow big markets to retain their players IMO. It wouldn't hurt smaller markets because there's really only so much you can spend and as I've pointed out, spending more money doesn't mean you will win championships. It'd be a way to give the teams that have more money a bit more flexibility in building their rosters, possibly allow them to make the playoffs more often or stay in them a little longer. As for smaller market teams that can't go over the cap would get a way to be more competitive. It wouldn't hurt parity because there's many factors that go into a player choosing to sign with a team such as location, ice time, teammates, the organization and more.

I look at a team like the Leafs and they have 4 of the best offensive talents in the league but can't get out of the first round because their depth sucks. Leafs games in the playoffs bring in money not just in Toronto but everywhere as Toronto fans will travel to see the team. That means more revenue in the league pie and the cap can rise thus making the Luxury tax a bonus.

I think the current system hasn't really worked in making the overall game better. Given that there's only so much top talent and so much ice time, there will always be parity. How about just giving your biggest markets a little shot in the arm given they already have to finance other teams?

There were "super teams" before the cap era that had success. The 70s Canadiens, 80s Oilers and Islanders, early 90s Pens, 90s Wings - none of those teams likely exist as constructed in a cap era.

The luxury tax, as employed in MLB and NBA, does nothing to deter rich teams from spending small teams out of competition.

Geography and weather aside, the best way to balance things as much as possible is to maintain a cap system and base the cap on net earnings instead of gross. A player take-home cap will level the playing field for markets that have to compete with those with no state income tax. Players are all make a point of being concerned about take-home, so remove gross from the equation. You're never going to fix the weather and anonymity that players who want warmer climates get, but a Canadian team is suddenly on the level with a team in Florida when it comes to money.

 

[Tawnos]

That's only ticket sales though, as I mentioned that's just one of the potential revenue streams. And there's always the hope to go farther. If they make it all the way to the SCF, that would mean a lot more revenue. It's not a guarantee but when a big market with a super passionate fanbase goes far in the playoffs, the potential revenues can be immense. You're not guaranteed anything but I think they would be fools not to try if it were a possibility.

You're getting too caught up in what the exact numbers would tell you. It doesn't matter if it's 1 extra game or 5 extra games. I'm trying to illustrate for you the reason why even big teams wouldn't want this. A luxury tax setup like you laid out just doesn't provide enough of an incentive for the owners to want to change from the current system. Of course they'd go for the risk if your system was in place, but that's not the important point here. The question is "why would the owners want to change to that setup?"

And the answer is that they wouldn't.

Also, the NHL collects 35% of gate revenue from each playoff game to fund revenue sharing.

I didn't want to complicate this any further

 

[tucker3434]

They're not terrible. They're just very expensive and take up a lot of room. 16% of the cap is a lot for one player when you need 20 to dress a full team. And then you need extra players to put in the lineup when another player gets injured.

You either pay the player that money or risk alienating him and then he will eventually walk or demand a trade.

When that player is McDavid, you deal with it. Despite the actual number being high, he’s still one of the best contract values in the league.

Those teams haven’t failed in the past because they’re overpaying the RFA guys that win Rocket, Hart, Norris trophies. It’s the other dudes in the middle that they aren’t getting sufficient value from. Nurse and Campbell combine to make more than McDavid. Those are UFA deals. That’s been their general issue and not really one deserving of a bailout.

 

[Yukon Joe]

For the first 10% over the cap ceiling, it'd be a 100% equivalent penalty. Meaning if you are $4M over the cap, you must pay an extra $4M to the other teams in the league who didn't go over the cap. 10-25% would be 150%, 25-50% would be 200% and if you go over 50%, it's 500%+forfeiting your 2 next available 2 first round picks. The money would have to come out of ownership's profits, not Hockey related revenues. This is therefore extra money owners would have to pay.

This is why this will never happen.

Team owners like the cost certainty far more than anything else. Sure, occasionally a team manager might wish they could spend a little bit more to get an extra player or two, but the owner likes it even more that they can go to their spar player and say "Look, we'll pay you whatever you want, but remember every dollar we pay you is one less dollar we can spend for players to play beside you".

 

[LPHabsFan]

And as you talk about a luxury cap system, looks like the EPL will be introducing a cap.

Luxury tax systems don't work big picture.

 

[Steamy Ray Vaughn]

There were "super teams" before the cap era that had success. The 70s Canadiens, 80s Oilers and Islanders, early 90s Pens, 90s Wings - none of those teams likely exist as constructed in a cap era.

The luxury tax, as employed in MLB and NBA, does nothing to deter rich teams from spending small teams out of competition.

Geography and weather aside, the best way to balance things as much as possible is to maintain a cap system and base the cap on net earnings instead of gross. A player take-home cap will level the playing field for markets that have to compete with those with no state income tax. Players are all make a point of being concerned about take-home, so remove gross from the equation. You're never going to fix the weather and anonymity that players who want warmer climates get, but a Canadian team is suddenly on the level with a team in Florida when it comes to money.

As the NHL has kept expanding, you see less and less dynasties. The last time a team won more than 2 championships in a row was the Islanders with their last cup coming in 1983. The game has evolved, especially the defense and goaltending positions. Even in the Red Wings and Penguins in the 90's didn't just blow everyone away year after year.

The Wings made the finals 3 times and won 2 cups. The Penguins made the finals twice and won both times. That's not that different from Tampa Bay making the finals 3 years in a row and winning 2 cups, or the Blackhawks and Kings winning 2 cups. Spending money on players is not a guarantee for success. Vegas made the cup finals twice, winning once. The Penguins made the finals 4 times since the cap era and have won the cup 3 times.

The idea that the salary cap is what has influenced parity in the NHL isn't supported by the reality. It's not like the NBA where Golden State and Cleveland met in the finals 4 years in a row. A luxury tax also doesn't mean you can spend unlimited money, at least not in the example I provided. You're still putting a lid on salaries and spending, but you're giving your bigger markets, which are the ones making the most money, a little boost given they have to prop up the smaller ones.

 

[Steamy Ray Vaughn]

And as you talk about a luxury cap system, looks like the EPL will be introducing a cap.

Luxury tax systems don't work big picture.

I don't know enough about soccer to comment on this, I can only compare apples to apples as looking at the league pre-salary cap and post-salary cap to compare championships. The NHL Playoffs are unpredictable, have been for a while. You can't buy a Stanley Cup outright, you're at the mercy of the hockey gods.

This is why this will never happen.

Team owners like the cost certainty far more than anything else. Sure, occasionally a team manager might wish they could spend a little bit more to get an extra player or two, but the owner likes it even more that they can go to their spar player and say "Look, we'll pay you whatever you want, but remember every dollar we pay you is one less dollar we can spend for players to play beside you".

I'm not saying it will happen, I'm talking about it should happen. And this was just my idea of how to implement such a system. It doesn't need to be exactly that, but the fact is that the cap isn't rising fast enough and it hasn't led to the massive shifts that the NHL predicted.

 

[DaBadGuy7]

I’ll say that luxury tax might be a way to end the LTIR issue imo. I will also say a luxury tax would have to a lot stronger than the ones imposed in MLB and NBA. I say the limit should be $15-$20 million over the cap with overage penalties that escalate each year. Doubt even the big markets would do that every year.

 

[BLNY]

As the NHL has kept expanding, you see less and less dynasties. The last time a team won more than 2 championships in a row was the Islanders with their last cup coming in 1983. The game has evolved, especially the defense and goaltending positions. Even in the Red Wings and Penguins in the 90's didn't just blow everyone away year after year.

The Wings made the finals 3 times and won 2 cups. The Penguins made the finals twice and won both times. That's not that different from Tampa Bay making the finals 3 years in a row and winning 2 cups, or the Blackhawks and Kings winning 2 cups. Spending money on players is not a guarantee for success. Vegas made the cup finals twice, winning once. The Penguins made the finals 4 times since the cap era and have won the cup 3 times.

The idea that the salary cap is what has influenced parity in the NHL isn't supported by the reality. It's not like the NBA where Golden State and Cleveland met in the finals 4 years in a row. A luxury tax also doesn't mean you can spend unlimited money, at least not in the example I provided. You're still putting a lid on salaries and spending, but you're giving your bigger markets, which are the ones making the most money, a little boost given they have to prop up the smaller ones.

Ask the Dodgers and Yankees if they care about luxury taxes lol.

Revenue increasing is how players get more money. More revenue. Higher cap. The only way the league will be okay with removing the cap is if the players take non-guaranteed contracts. That isn't going to happen.

 

[Steamy Ray Vaughn]

When that player is McDavid, you deal with it. Despite the actual number being high, he’s still one of the best contract values in the league.

Those teams haven’t failed in the past because they’re overpaying the RFA guys that win Rocket, Hart, Norris trophies. It’s the other dudes in the middle that they aren’t getting sufficient value from. Nurse and Campbell combine to make more than McDavid. Those are UFA deals. That’s been their general issue and not really one deserving of a bailout.

If you don't "overpay" those guys you may end up losing them. If an RFA isn't happy with a contract and wants more money, you do have the right to not agree but then you'll end up alienating the player and hurting your team.

And while offer sheets aren't really that big of a threat, if McDavid had been allowed to go to RFA, I am certain that someone would have been willing to try and sign him. 4 1st round picks for a generational talent of that caliber is not that much.

 

[Steamy Ray Vaughn]

Ask the Dodgers and Yankees if they care about luxury taxes lol.

Revenue increasing is how players get more money. More revenue. Higher cap. The only way the league will be okay with removing the cap is if the players take non-guaranteed contracts. That isn't going to happen.

That's baseball though. Not hockey. There's a reason we don't see dynasties since the Oilers. The game has evolved and even the 4th liners now are better than they were 20 years ago. Athletes are faster, stronger and smarter. There's also only so many spots and so much ice time available. Baseball has no such problem. You have 9 batters, 1 pitcher and 1 catcher. No passing, no goalie and no skating. You got 3 outs per inning and 9 innings, so you will have at least 3 at bats per player per game but no maximum as long as you keep getting on base.

 

[KevFu]

Sigh. I'm not sure how we can look at the list of teams winning Cups in the cap era and think relaxing the financials to benefit the richer teams is a good idea.

The lack of Toronto, NY Rangers, Montreal, Vancouver and Philadelphia on the Cup doesn't mean the cap is some kind of wonder drug for "small market teams."

NON-FINANCIAL POWERS have won just TWO Cups: Carolina and St. Louis.

You're going to say "Vegas is a small market" but no one looks at Las Vegas and says "there's just no money in that city."

The top half of the league financially have basically won 15 of 18 at minimum. Then you look at the best performing teams by regular season points who don't have a Cup, and it's like "The rest" of the financial powers (NYR, DAL, SJ, TOR).


Any assessment of "performance vs money" is going to give faulty results because you're making a linear assessment of something that works on a curve.

That curve is the cost of talent based on age. Young superstars performing on the cheap is how you get a team that's LOADED and winning the Cup. Like Chicago, Colorado, Tampa, Pittsburgh... until those young guys need to get PAID on their second contracts.

Toronto, NY Rangers, Montreal, Vancouver and Philadelphia don't win Cups because they don't have the patience for a full rebuild to have lots of young superstars on the cheap at once.


The small/poor teams aren't competing. And it's because free agents don't want to go there, and because the salary FLOOR means they have to pinch pennies on things like draft scouting, player development, trade scouting, marketing, coaches, etc. So they're locked into being the Buffalo Sabres or Columbus Blue Jackets forever (or the Arizona Coyotes until they relocate).

If you have SMART PEOPLE in small markets, or PATIENCE in huge markets it's possible to transcend that (Tampa has changed our view of their franchise from a "poor" to a "rich" with their intelligence and performance).

 

[Steamy Ray Vaughn]

Sigh. I'm not sure how we can look at the list of teams winning Cups in the cap era and think relaxing the financials to benefit the richer teams is a good idea.

The lack of Toronto, NY Rangers, Montreal, Vancouver and Philadelphia on the Cup doesn't mean the cap is some kind of wonder drug for "small market teams."

NON-FINANCIAL POWERS have won just TWO Cups: Carolina and St. Louis.

You're going to say "Vegas is a small market" but no one looks at Las Vegas and says "there's just no money in that city."

The top half of the league financially have basically won 15 of 18 at minimum. Then you look at the best performing teams by regular season points who don't have a Cup, and it's like "The rest" of the financial powers (NYR, DAL, SJ, TOR).


Any assessment of "performance vs money" is going to give faulty results because you're making a linear assessment of something that works on a curve.

That curve is the cost of talent based on age. Young superstars performing on the cheap is how you get a team that's LOADED and winning the Cup. Like Chicago, Colorado, Tampa, Pittsburgh... until those young guys need to get PAID on their second contracts.

Toronto, NY Rangers, Montreal, Vancouver and Philadelphia don't win Cups because they don't have the patience for a full rebuild to have lots of young superstars on the cheap at once.


The small/poor teams aren't competing. And it's because free agents don't want to go there, and because the salary FLOOR means they have to pinch pennies on things like draft scouting, player development, trade scouting, marketing, coaches, etc. So they're locked into being the Buffalo Sabres or Columbus Blue Jackets forever (or the Arizona Coyotes until they relocate).

If you have SMART PEOPLE in small markets, or PATIENCE in huge markets it's possible to transcend that (Tampa has changed our view of their franchise from a "poor" to a "rich" with their intelligence and performance).

You're not wrong but basically I was comparing the teams who made the finals in the 18 seasons since the cap was implemented against the teams that made it in the 18 prior seasons since that's the ultimate goal of every team, to be the last 2 and hopefully win the cup.

The RFA system's only advantage is that it allows team more time to negotiate with their free agents and they have the matching rights should someone try to offer them a contract. They can't however force the player to sign a deal they don't like. I mean they can technically let them sit home but that is a sure fire way to alienate a great player. You can trade them but it's a risky move.

Players also can now technically become UFAs as young as 25 years old and with the proliferation of no trade and no move clauses, that gives them the potential for full control over where they go, further restricting your options.

You have to hope that you can build a team with young talent that's good but doesn't reach their prime too fast so you have time. When you have a generational player, unless you get lucky and land a Sidney Crosby who has taken multiple hometown discounts, the "window" opens and shuts pretty fast given how much salaries are rising to the cap.

The only other option (which would be unfair to the players) would be to cap RFA contracts but I don't like that and I doubt the NHLPA would either.

 

[Yukon Joe]

I'm not saying it will happen, I'm talking about it should happen. And this was just my idea of how to implement such a system. It doesn't need to be exactly that, but the fact is that the cap isn't rising fast enough and it hasn't led to the massive shifts that the NHL predicted.

That's fine. It's a free country (or countries), you can discuss what you'd like.

I just, personally, am not super interested in conversations about fantastical topics that will never happen.

 

[Steamy Ray Vaughn]

That's fine. It's a free country (or countries), you can discuss what you'd like.

I just, personally, am not super interested in conversations about fantastical topics that will never happen.

Do you think the current cap system is a success? Has it really brought more parity to the league? Or has it just contributed to making sure Gary Bettman can continue trying to do USA Hockey's job for them?

 

[Yukon Joe]

Do you think the current cap system is a success? Has it really brought more parity to the league? Or has it just contributed to making sure Gary Bettman can continue trying to do USA Hockey's job for them?

Yes it's a success. Yes it has brought more parity to the league. Do you really not remember pre-2004 hockey?

 

[Tawnos]

Do you think the current cap system is a success? Has it really brought more parity to the league? Or has it just contributed to making sure Gary Bettman can continue trying to do USA Hockey's job for them?

Woah. Talk about an asymmetrical question.

The cap has been wildly successful at its intended purpose... which is not parity.

 

[Steamy Ray Vaughn]

Yes it's a success. Yes it has brought more parity to the league. Do you really not remember pre-2004 hockey?

Can't we find a middle ground?

Woah. Talk about an asymmetrical question.

The cap has been wildly successful at its intended purpose... which is not parity.

I get that. That's fine, if you want to make the argument that the cap's job is not to ensure parity, we at least agree on that. I just think that this is preventing the NHL from reaching more success.

 

[Yukon Joe]

Woah. Talk about an asymmetrical question.

The cap has been wildly successful at its intended purpose... which is not parity.

It's brought more parity then before.

I mean there are still all kinds of obstacles to perfect parity. You can talk about climate, tax rates, winning history, size of the media market (and thus endorsement opportunities) - all kinds of other factors.

But still, compared to pre-2004, it's nice that some markets aren't just used as farm teams for others.

 

[Tawnos]

Can't we find a middle ground?



I get that. That's fine, if you want to make the argument that the cap's job is not to ensure parity, we at least agree on that. I just think that this is preventing the NHL from reaching more success.

It's really stabilized the smaller markets in the league, especially the ones in Canada. And it's not my argument. The league's priority was cost certainty. They said it themselves. If parity came along with it, so be it. That's a nice side benefit. There's no doubt that they used the parity argument to justify the lockouts to fans, but that was PR.

I seriously doubt that anything about a league's payroll system helps or hurts the level of success that league attains.

It's brought more parity then before.

I mean there are still all kinds of obstacles to perfect parity. You can talk about climate, tax rates, winning history, size of the media market (and thus endorsement opportunities) - all kinds of other factors.

But still, compared to pre-2004, it's nice that some markets aren't just used as farm teams for others.

I agree that it did bring more parity into the league, but like I said, the league sees that as a side benefit.

 

[Steamy Ray Vaughn]

It's brought more parity then before.

I mean there are still all kinds of obstacles to perfect parity. You can talk about climate, tax rates, winning history, size of the media market (and thus endorsement opportunities) - all kinds of other factors.

But still, compared to pre-2004, it's nice that some markets aren't just used as farm teams for others.

I'm not advocating for a return to 2004. There's nothing you can do about external factors like climate, tax rates and media market, that's up to individual players. Parity is impossible because there's too many X factors. What if we capped the tax at a fixed percentage? Like say 15%? Meaning there's the cap, you can go up to 15% over but you have to pay a penalty and if you're 15% over you can't play (like now)

Or maybe a franchise tag? Where you can designate one player as "franchise" and their salary doesn't count against the cap at all for the duration of that contract? Meaning if you tag a guy with the franchise label for 8 years, you can't use it on anyone else for 8 years and if you trade him, the tag is just lost until that period expires?

 

[Yukon Joe]

I'm not advocating for a return to 2004. There's nothing you can do about external factors like climate, tax rates and media market, that's up to individual players. Parity is impossible because there's too many X factors. What if we capped the tax at a fixed percentage? Like say 15%? Meaning there's the cap, you can go up to 15% over but you have to pay a penalty and if you're 15% over you can't play (like now)

Or maybe a franchise tag? Where you can designate one player as "franchise" and their salary doesn't count against the cap at all for the duration of that contract? Meaning if you tag a guy with the franchise label for 8 years, you can't use it on anyone else for 8 years and if you trade him, the tag is just lost until that period expires?

This is where it's fantasy though. Owners LIKE that salary is capped at 50% of HRR. They have zero interest in allowing themselves to spend more.