Hard Caps prevent dynasties?

[ACC1224]

I'd take him over Gannon (who's currently dead...or at least dying), and Collins, on my Raiders no problem, however in the case of your Steelers, I don't know that I'd take Brady over Roethlisberger (although it's entirely possible it's just because I hate Brady and the Patriots to the core, far more than I hate the Habs or the Sens). Roethlisberger was absolutely fantastic this season, and although was not too great in the playoffs, he needs more poise, that's it. He's a big guy, and he's reasonably mobile. He will be a top 5 in the league within another 2 seasons.

yeah the future looks good with Ben, I was thinking back to the Stewart/O'Donnel days.

 

[Jester]

You can argue the Eagles have not been able to push themselves to a Super Bowl win becasue they lack the cap room to do so, can you not?

No... you can't. The Eagles have consistently had lots of room UNDER the cap to use if they wanted to.

The Pats and Eagles have operated pretty much the same way, it has just worked out a little bit better for the Pats, but lets be honest it isn't as if the string of success for the Eagles is something to scoff at. They are proof with the Pats that good teams don't necessarily need to be broken up if they manage the cap effectively and allow themselves multiple chances at getting to and winning a SB.

I happen to be a Redskins fan, who are a classic example of what NOT to do in a hard cap world... as you screw yourself. We continue to find new and exciting methods to achieve cap death.

 

[Charge_Seven]

No... you can't. The Eagles have consistently had lots of room UNDER the cap to use if they wanted to.

The Pats and Eagles have operated pretty much the same way, it has just worked out a little bit better for the Pats, but lets be honest it isn't as if the string of success for the Eagles is something to scoff at. They are proof with the Pats that good teams don't necessarily need to be broken up if they manage the cap effectively and allow themselves multiple chances at getting to and winning a SB.

I happen to be a Redskins fan, who are a classic example of what NOT to do in a hard cap world... as you screw yourself. We continue to find new and exciting methods to achieve cap death.

But the Patriots have lost tons of players because they cannot afford them. Yes, they've been able to replace them, but be fair, the Patriots of four years ago are not the same Patriots as now.

You guys screw yourself on the Cap? Did we trade you Warren Sapp?

 

[AM]

Well I agree...

for a different reason though.

Mainly, who cares about the best team!

Dynastys can easily happen, even in a capped world. Why? Because players want to win, and they play for less to do so.

Whats the incentive for a player to play on the bottom team?

MAN, I get tired of these stilted arguements.

 

[Mess]

To credit all of the Pats success to a "system" is just wrong. They have quality at almost every position and stars at many positions.

No more then any other team and a lot less then some ..

PS .. Ty Law is also a bad example because he is a home grown draft pick .. A hard cap which this topic is about verses Dynasty .. If Crosby ended up in Atlanta and with all the other high draft picks Kov, Heat and Lehtonen etc .. If they matured and grew into a Dyanasty which could be possible it would be completely off topic here ..

A Hard Cap is all about UFA movement and keeping a team together.. The NHL promotes near Slavery in that it drafts a kid at 18 and owns him until 31 .. and pays him inbetween, nothing close to the NFL model ..

Should that team win a few Stanley Cups in a row that would not be what this thread is about ..

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

but be fair, the Patriots of four years ago are not the same Patriots as now.

That is a poor argument. If you look at almost ANY NHL franchise you will find that the team today differs greatly from the team four years ago. Players come and go. It's the key players that franchise focus on keeping and make their efforts to retain and develop continuity in a winning run, even a dynasty.

 

[Charge_Seven]

That is a poor argument. If you look at almost ANY NHL franchise you will find that the team today differs greatly from the team four years ago. Players come and go. It's the key players that franchise focus on keeping and make their efforts to retain and develop continuity in a winning run, even a dynasty.

The Patriots have let go key players due to monetary restraints. It's not a poor argument. The patriots have been lucky enough to be able to sign players of equal value for less money because they've been winning, without that ability they would not have won 3 in 4 years.

 

[Jester]

But the Patriots have lost tons of players because they cannot afford them. Yes, they've been able to replace them, but be fair, the Patriots of four years ago are not the same Patriots as now.

You guys screw yourself on the Cap? Did we trade you Warren Sapp?

Coles is a 9 million dollar hit against the cap this year to play for the Jets. beat that.

the Pats have NOT lost players because they couldn't pay them, nor have the Eagles. they both have "lost" players because the players felt they were worth more than the team did. thus the cost evaluation that the teams operated by meant that it was time for them to let the players go if they weren't going to take a pay cut (note Trotter and Hugh Douglas with the Eagles... both came back for cheaper after the clubs that signed them cut them).

the formula that both teams have adopted, and is wise under a hard cap system, is to keep the average age of the team as low as possible... and the older players that you have are at a cost level that fits within the cap model you've built. the benefit is obvious, younger players are more likely to produce and increase production and are at the same time cheaper. if you cycle your team so that you are constantly re-signing young high value players with more potential while letting declining players go and fill their spot with draft picks and high level UFA (who are also younger) you maintain a high level of team production.

 

[Hunter74]

it all depends on the situation ...

What happens to the Thrashers 3-4 years from now when they have to make a decision on who to give the big bucks to .

Kovalchuk,Heatly,Lehtonen are 3 franchise type guys who will want their coin one way or the other during their careers .Do all three take less than market value so they can try to win a cup or two ? Do the Thrashers trade one of them for more all round depth at half the price ?

it sure will be interesting to see some gm's who have havent really had to follow a budget build a team

I dont think this is entirely accurate.

Under a cap system I would imagine that the amount of money that Franchise players make will drop somewhat and the same for all other types of players. Especially since the clubs will retain the players rights untill they are 30. Since GM's know exactly what they are allowed to pay out they will really be tryign to make sure they can pack as much talent into the roster as possible without going over the salary limite and possibly leaving room in the budget so they can make trades or recall players incase of injury. If DW has a 30mil payrole to work with maybe he will leave 15mil to be split up between his 3 better players? The going rate for franchise players might not be around $5mil under a new economic system. That might make it possible for teams to keep there better players.

I dont think Calgary is gonna be handing Iginla more than $6mil when the NHL starts back up under a cap system. Otherwise they will always be a 1 player team. In order to keep the club competitive there gonna have to lean harder on the franchise players so that they can field a more competitive supporting cast. They will also have to do a better job in determining the length of contracts. So that when a younger players contract comes up and asks for a raise a older players contract will be expiring and he either becomes a free agent or has to take a pay cut. If a club says we have 26 mil spend on player salaries already so all we can afford to pay you is $4mil to top it up all a player can do is hold out or ask for a trade. Hopefully there is another club out there who has more than 4mil left in there budget or the player is gonna be forced to either sit out the entire year or accept the $4mil. Makes negotiatiing alot harder on players as they dont have as much leverage on there side anymore. Especially since they wont have New York, Philly, Detriot, Colorado with those unlimited bank roles to give them what they feel they deserve. They are gonna want to feild teh best tema possible under there cap most likly wont have bundles of cash sitting on the side hoping they can pick up a greedyplayer to help propell them into the success.

Under a cap players values are gonna drop in accordance to what teams can afford. They are not gonna stay at the level they are b/c what team can afford a decent team with Star players demanding $5-10mil a season and the minimum salry coming up to $300thousand per season. Also take into consideration that there will most likly be a cap between $20-40mil (who know what they will settle on) and most likely some payrole purposly not spent so they can make trades or deadline acquisitions or recal players incase of injury.

 

[Hunter74]

That is a poor argument. If you look at almost ANY NHL franchise you will find that the team today differs greatly from the team four years ago. Players come and go. It's the key players that franchise focus on keeping and make their efforts to retain and develop continuity in a winning run, even a dynasty.

Dont most teams have an 80% turnover over a 5 year span already? I seen this somewhere I forget were. I beleive it though b/c teams nowadays make so many trades, new coaches, new GM's and there are so many free agents now that even fans complain about how players just jump from one team to another with no loyalty to any club making it difficult to get attached to a player. So if a cap just makes this more official then whats the big deal it happens now anyways

 

[futurcorerock]

Did somebody say, Threadjacked?

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

The Patriots have let go key players due to monetary restraints. It's not a poor argument. The patriots have been lucky enough to be able to sign players of equal value for less money because they've been winning, without that ability they would not have won 3 in 4 years.

Then obviously they were not key players. Success does not continue when you shed key components to your accomplishment. What YOU might perceive as a key player may not indeed be a key player for the team, and is proved by the continued success of the team itself.

For example, I was never a believer that Wayne Gretzky wa the straw that stirred the Edmonton Oilers. He was the go to scorer on the team, but he was not the guy who made the team go. I felt that player was Mark Messier, and there was evidence to support that when the Oilers won a Stanley Cup without Whiner and with Messier playing the role of world beater. The Oilers also took the largest hit to their team when Messier left for New York. The franchise changed dramatically at that point and had lost its soul. Wayne Gretzky will always be the greatest scorer in NHL history, but I think the greatest Oiler in team history is Mark Messier. He was the heart of that team and he made it tick.

A present day example is the Avalanche. That is why I think the Avs will continue to be dangerous, even without Forsberg. For as good a player as he is/was, he was not the heart and soul of the Avalanche IMO. Joe Sakic is the man in Colorado and is the guy that makes that franchise what it is. The Avs will survive without Forsberg, but as soon as Sakic leaves town the team is headed for a big down fall.

Key players may not be the guy you think they are. Some times the biggest star may not be half as important to the team as a second liner or a role player who leads on and off the ice.

 

[Trottier]

Speaking of tiresome, clicheed and meaningless mantras....

Any other examples other than the Patriots? One exception doesn't prove anything.

Thank you. Not to mention his pejorative "PA mouthpeices on this board".

Translation: "You disagree with me, so I will assassinate your character, and openly question the sincerity/motivation of your point of view, rather than respectably debate your opinion."

Classy.

It's why some of us left this particular board months ago. Demogagues talking to themselves.

Besides, better to be a "mouthpiece" than spewing commentary out one's backside.

 

[I in the Eye]

Then obviously they were not key players. Success does not continue when you shed key components to your accomplishment. What YOU might perceive as a key player may not indeed be a key player for the team, and is proved by the continued success of the team itself.

For example, I was never a believer that Wayne Gretzky wa the straw that stirred the Edmonton Oilers. He was the go to scorer on the team, but he was not the guy who made the team go. I felt that player was Mark Messier, and there was evidence to support that when the Oilers won a Stanley Cup without Whiner and with Messier playing the role of world beater. The Oilers also took the largest hit to their team when Messier left for New York. The franchise changed dramatically at that point and had lost its soul. Wayne Gretzky will always be the greatest scorer in NHL history, but I think the greatest Oiler in team history is Mark Messier. He was the heart of that team and he made it tick.

A present day example is the Avalanche. That is why I think the Avs will continue to be dangerous, even without Forsberg. For as good a player as he is/was, he was not the heart and soul of the Avalanche IMO. Joe Sakic is the man in Colorado and is the guy that makes that franchise what it is. The Avs will survive without Forsberg, but as soon as Sakic leaves town the team is headed for a big down fall.

Key players may not be the guy you think they are. Some times the biggest star may not be half as important to the team as a second liner or a role player who leads on and off the ice.

I tend to agree... But I think that chemistry amongst the players as a whole is more important than any individual player for team success... There are key players that if taken off a team, negatively affect the overall team chemistry - in addition to taking out of the lineup that individual's role and production... But it's the chemistry amongst the players that's most important, IMO... and that's why I think that dynasties can still happen in a Hard Cap environment... Actually, I think that dynasties can happen in practically any environment...

 

[nyrmessier011]

We've all heard this mantra repeated by the PA mouthpeices on this board. According to their theory under a hard cap:
-Top teams won't be able to add top free agents.
-Top teams won't be able to maintain their corps.
-Therefore a hard cap means mediocrity for all and that dynasties are a thing of the past.

Just thought they'd like to comment on the Patriot's resiging of Corey Dillon. (You remember him; the free agent star they added the year before who helped lead them to their 3rd Superbowl in the last 4 years.)

Looks like well managed teams can find and maintain success under a hard cap system.

Reward brains, not bucks.

I'm not sure what your trying to prove here...that they re-signed a star, or that they are a dynasty, because you contradict yourself a bit unless I'm reading it wrong

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Besides, better to be a "mouthpiece" than spewing commentary out one's backside.

Which for some with a Don Knotts fetish may be one and the same?

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Dallas and San Francisco are two teams that come immediately to mind who have formed Dynasties under a Cap environment. Prospered without winning the Super Bowl, which as has been stated is legitimately a counter to the 'universal mediocrity' theory have been quite a few. Philly for one. Steelers. Buffalo in the past has had a long run. There probably are others.

The fact that Philly and Dallas have had it rough of late is a good thing I think. It tells everyone that they can have runs, but that even the best come down to earth eventually. So too will the Pats. How is that bad again? I am missing the logic.

 

[Morbo]

Meaningless???...perhaps to the fan of a team with far more money than brains.

...and said team has beaten your allegedly "brainy" team several consecutive times in the playoffs. With a badly-injured lineup, on a couple of occasions. So yes, meaningless.

Hmmm....who did the Pats play in this years superbowl?

Oh ya, that NFC franchise that has been consistently excellent over the last 5 years.

The Eagles are not a dynasty, unless you want to call choking repeatedly a dynasty. Your thread topic is about dynasties.

Now, having said that, you have given me a grand total of 2 NFL teams that are consistently successful year in and year out. I am generously giving you 2 teams instead of just the Patriots, even though the Eagles have not won a title.

I'm not sure what this may prove, but it sure isn't what you're trying to prove.

 

[Jester]

The Eagles are not a dynasty, unless you want to call choking repeatedly a dynasty. Your thread topic is about dynasties.

note: skins fan in philly....

personally i think the Eagles get a raw deal when it comes to the "choking" claim...

nfc championship 1: played very well, but st. louis was better.

nfc championship 2: possibly a choke, but tampa did go smoke oakland following this.

nfc championship 3: mcnabb getting his rib cage split pretty much ended any chance in the 2nd quarter.

super bowl: is losing to the pats really a choke? i mean they could have won that game yes, but a lot of teams lose to the pats and feel that way.

 

[CGG]

Just thought they'd like to comment on the Patriot's resiging of Corey Dillon. (You remember him; the free agent star they added the year before who helped lead them to their 3rd Superbowl in the last 4 years.)

Looks like well managed teams can find and maintain success under a hard cap system.

Reward brains, not bucks.

What's the point of this thread?

I could start one saying

"Money doesn't give teams an advantage, look at the New York Rangers"

OR

"Salary cap doesn't help small market teams, look at New Orleans Hornets. There's a salary cap, they're a small market, and they suck."

You can still build a dynasty with a salary cap, just like you can still win a Stanley Cup with a small market team and no salary cap. Whoop de doo.

 

[kdb209]

The NBA is a capped world...granted its a softer cap, but the same eams seem to be there every year there too

San Antonio, LA (until this year), New Jersey

Hockey is much more of a team sport.

No single player, not even a Roy or Brodeur, will have the same effect as a Tim Duncan, Shaq, or Jason Kidd.

 

[PecaFan]

The Eagles are not a dynasty, and if you believe so I think it's time you move to the kids board.

Of course they're not. It's impossible for more than one dynasty to exist at the same time. I'm sure even the folks on the kids board would understand that simple fact.

They are however, yet another example of a team that has managed sustained excellence year after year in a cap system, something the "cap is evil" brigade insists cannot happen.

 

[kdb209]

Dallas and San Francisco are two teams that come immediately to mind who have formed Dynasties under a Cap environment. Prospered without winning the Super Bowl, which as has been stated is legitimately a counter to the 'universal mediocrity' theory have been quite a few. Philly for one. Steelers. Buffalo in the past has had a long run. There probably are others.

The fact that Philly and Dallas have had it rough of late is a good thing I think. It tells everyone that they can have runs, but that even the best come down to earth eventually. So too will the Pats. How is that bad again? I am missing the logic.

Dallas and especially the Niners are great cautionary tales about dynasties under a cap. The Niners overspent trying to win one last championship and did everything they could to get around the cap - deferred salaries, long contracts that both team and player knew would never be fulfilled, but that allowed the signing bonus to be spread out over more years for cap accounting, etc. The net result - they fell short and their dead space under the cap for players no longer even with the team absolutely killed them for years.

 

[Morbo]

They are however, yet another example of a team that has managed sustained excellence year after year in a cap system, something the "cap is evil" brigade insists cannot happen.

"Yet another"?

 

[mr gib]

We've all heard this mantra repeated by the PA mouthpeices on this board. According to their theory under a hard cap:
-Top teams won't be able to add top free agents.
-Top teams won't be able to maintain their corps.
-Therefore a hard cap means mediocrity for all and that dynasties are a thing of the past.

Just thought they'd like to comment on the Patriot's resiging of Corey Dillon. (You remember him; the free agent star they added the year before who helped lead them to their 3rd Superbowl in the last 4 years.)

Looks like well managed teams can find and maintain success under a hard cap system.

Reward brains, not bucks.

you have to remember though the players have to buy in to the what the team is all about - there are some guys with the pats - tom brady - who willingly take a lot less money to stay with the team - not too common -