I used to think having a luxury tax system in the NHL would be a significant improvement over the current hard salary cap. But it's tough to have parity when the Los Angeles Dodgers' payroll is over $350 million, the Toronto Blue Jays' is over $250 million, and the average payroll is about $175 million, according to sportrac.com.
Obviously, spending more doesn't automatically lead to success... just ask the New York Mets, or the Carolina Hurricanes, which keep making the conference final despite having more cap space than the rest of the Stanley Cup front-runners. But spending more does help you get an all-star caliber roster more easily.
The NHL has a minimum and maximum salary cap that's about $25 million apart. You'd have to look at a more realistic equivalent range for the MLB, but that would force the bottom dwellers to invest in a more competitive roster and the best squads to make the best roster under a stricter budget. And sure, the NHL's had three teams win back-to-back Cups since 2016, while that hasn't happened in the MLB since the 1998-to-2000 Yankees. But the parity in the NHL leads to some tight action on the ice, in the standings and during the post-season, and seeing teams like Florida and Vegas already taking advantage of lower taxes to develop some stellar teams makes me think replacing a maximum cap limit with a luxury tax could lead to less parity in the NHL.
Just wondering. I could be wrong. But what do you think? Let us know right here in the forum, and make your own posts in The Hockey News community.