Whileee
Registered User
- May 29, 2010
- 46,075
- 33,132
While I agree with your tl;dr conclusion, I don't accept the premise that the Jets budget/cap hasn't hurt the team.
In the last calendar year, we've lost Michael Frolik over a rounding error and traded away our captain because he wanted something close to market value (Remember when we were going to build our team around character players who wanted to be here??) While we may never attract UFAs like Stamkos but we might consider trying to sign the top 6 players who build homes here and publicly declare their desire to stay.
Our 99 point team turned into a 76 point one at least partially because of money. They've also refused to buy out Pavelec or bring in meaningful competition that costs more than league minimum. Even the bankrupt Coyotes have more buyouts than us. So yes, I think you can make a good case to say that not spending has definitely hurt the competitiveness of the team. Cheapman strikes again!
Not signing Ladd and holding the line on Frolik was likely due to a real (NHL) cap. It would have been financially cheaper to buy out Pavs and sign a cheap goalie than to pay out his full contract. It would however have push some cap hit into a later year or two, which might have constrained them.
The Coyotes bought out players to save money. How does not making a move to save money make the Jets cheap?