Toggle sidebar

Confirmed with Link: Avs re-sign Nichushkin

Balthazar

Balthazar

I haven't talked to the trainers yet
Sponsor
Apr 25, 2006
49,993
53,440
expatriatedtexan said:
I really feel the NHL should just try honesty for change and institute a luxury cap. It's obvious nobody gives a shit about teams spending more money than they should; the real purpose of the salary cap in my mind is the floor, not the ceiling.
Click to expand...
The floor is meaningless if the Leafs and Rangers can buy championships.

Honestly the salary cap and the parity is literally the best thing in the NHL. All they have to do is enforce it more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CobraAcesS, McMetal, expatriatedtexan and 1 other person
expatriatedtexan

expatriatedtexan

Habitual Line Stepper
Aug 17, 2005
17,102
12,892
Balthazar said:
The floor is meaningless if the Leafs and Rangers can buy championships.

Honestly the salary cap and the parity is literally the best thing in the NHL. All they have to do is enforce it more.
Click to expand...
They've achieved "parity" through loser points, not the salary cap.

And to be honest, neither Toronto nor New York were able to purchase a Stanley Cup prior to the salary cap, what makes you think they would be successful now? Cups and Championships are a team effort, that's why depth is do damn important. That's why team defense is so damn important. Until Toronto starts preaching those things. Until their offensive stars buy in and commit to solid team defense the championships are going to be elusive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CobraAcesS
niwotsblessing

niwotsblessing

Registered User
May 1, 2010
6,131
7,590
City of Holy Faith
expatriatedtexan said:
They've achieved "parity" through loser points, not the salary cap.

And to be honest, neither Toronto nor New York were able to purchase a Stanley Cup prior to the salary cap, what makes you think they would be successful now? Cups and Championships are a team effort, that's why depth is do damn important. That's why team defense is so damn important. Until Toronto starts preaching those things. Until their offensive stars buy in and commit to solid team defense the championships are going to be elusive.
Click to expand...
The blue shirts purchased a Cup in the early 90's.

Of course, they were up against the Nuck in the Cup Finals, a team that always loses the finals to teams from the Northeastern US: Islanders, Rangers, Bruins.
 
Colorado Avalanche

Colorado Avalanche

No Babe pictures
Sponsor
Apr 24, 2004
29,262
9,525
Lieto
expatriatedtexan said:
I really feel the NHL should just try honesty for change and institute a luxury cap. It's obvious nobody gives a shit about teams spending more money than they should; the real purpose of the salary cap in my mind is the floor, not the ceiling.

The only other solution that makes sense is to keep the cap in the playoffs but allow it to change to a situation where you are only allowed to dress a team that fits under the cap. A team's roster of available players of course could exceed the cap because of LTIR, but at the end of the day you should ice a team that fits within the cap.
Click to expand...
Colorado would get smoked.

Too much edge for certain teams and also the richest teams would get the stars. It's lame.
 
Muffin

Muffin

Avalanche Flavoured
Aug 14, 2009
17,027
19,623
Edmonton
The salary cap has nothing to do with parity. Any sports economist will tell you a salary cap exist solely to keep the salary of players low, same with the draft. The fact that top players today is making almost the same as Sakic/Forsberg did back in 2000 should tell you it's doing a pretty good job of that.
 
henchman21

henchman21

Mr. Meeseeks
Feb 24, 2012
63,734
48,618
The cap certainly has an impact on parity... though it is less about the average team and more about the extremes. There are ways around it, but it means the gap between top and bottom teams is controlled. The Rangers pre Cap were spending 75+m, Toronto 65m, Avs were 60-63m, Dallas 70m... while some teams were around 20-25m. We're talking about teams spending 3x what the bottom teams spend. So if Arizona was spending 50m today, the Rags may be at 150m. Narrowing that difference certainly creates some parity. Frankly we are feeling that parity today... if the Avs had unlimited funds to spend, Kadri would be here, so would Burkie, Compher would be the 3C, etc etc. The fact that the Avs (and pretty much every good team) has to lose players creates parity.

That's not really why the cap exists though... it is exists for cost certainty. There isn't a realistic way to consistently being competitive with a payroll that is 1/3 the top teams. If you're not competitive, attendance normally suffers to a large degree. Which makes markets quickly fall out of favor. With a cap, teams should be able to mostly create a competitive roster... at least to the point where they get into the playoffs every so often for the extra revenue. They can also budget and plan for costs over a longer term. Instead of having a random huge year. Like the Avs and Sakic... which caused an ownership change... and funny enough without Air Force One, history is far different. Under the cap surprises can happen, but not to that extent and they are more manageable.

The cap has worked quite well for the NHL. Outside a few markets, business is very good. That is not even close to what the case was in 2002 where half the league was on the verge of collapsing. I get that it causes some issues with good teams and having to break up players... but without it, there is likely a bunch of ownership changes, relocation, and likely a much smaller revenue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Murzu, McMetal and cinchronicity
You must log in or register to reply here.

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom