« Meltdown | Main | D.C. Baseball Update »

Regarding Jason's comment about player movement and the dismantling of teams: there's plenty of that already in the NHL even without a salary cap. Take a look at the Pittsburgh Penguins.

I don't have any figures about this, and it might simply seem that way because I follow the NHL more closely, but it seems like the NHL has an awful lot of player movement even apart from various fire sales. My girlfriend is exhausted by how many former Penguins there are (because I bitterly mention it whenever one of them scores).

Someone might be able to crunch numbers and tell me a salary cap fits the NHL better than a luxury tax would. But since I majored in philosophy and not business, I'm inclined to go with the luxury tax, if for no other reason that it gives teams some incentive to keep costs reasonable while still allowing teams to keep a successful core intact as long as they're willing to shell out extra.

I think this creates parity *in the long term*. Maybe the Penguins would suffer for a few years, but after a while, the bank books would look a little healthier as the luxury-tax money trickles down, and then they can keep the best of their young talent together.

Short-term parity actually hurts on a lot of levels. First, there's the dismantling of your favorite team, as Jason describes. Beyond that, you can have a league like MLS 2004, where the teams are so closely bunched that it's become like a first-week stage in the Tour de France -- eventually, a weak team may drop off the pace, but you're basically just watching the pack whiz through town with no clear leader.

If you find a decent defense from Bettman on why the cap is better than the tax, I'd love to see it. Not holding my breath, of course.

It does not matter whether a cap is better than a luxury tax it only matters that 1) it makes teams immediately profitable and 2) it allows the NHL to control its owners. It was the Sakic contract (the Rangers offered 17m, an increase of almost 500%, and Colorado felt compelled to match it) in '97 that blew the lid off the current CBA. As long as guys like Illitch can offer obscene amounts to players like Federov, circumventing the CBA with creative contracts pumped up by bonuses, small market teams will never be profitable, if you believe the NHL numbers, (but with guys like Wirtz legally distributing funds amongst a number of Chicago subsidiaries, who knows what the real revenues are).

In terms of parity the NHL is as competitively balanced as it has ever been. No longer do fans see the great dynasties; the Leafs in the late Forties, the Red Wings, seven straight Prince of Wales trophies, the Canadiens, five straight cups, the Islanders and the Oilers. Currently, more teams have a chance to win the Cup, and since the playoffs are when teams really make their money, profits are higher. Which for the owners, and for any business for that matter, is what counts.

Here's a take on the luxury tax MLB decided to go with.

There will still be the ultra-rich violators, but with 16 teams making it to the post season, time may curb their excessive spending.

But Charles, a properly implemented luxury tax can also accomplish (1) and (2). So why isn't it on the table?

I wasn't complaining about the current state of NHL parity except in the sense that some teams (Penguins) can't afford to do a thing. And granted, some of them may be beyond repair. I was just saying that the tax system has the advantage of promoting long-term parity over short-term parity.

Thanks for signing in, .

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)