Tom_Benjamin said:
I agree. This is the only way in Edmonton, New York and Vancouver. In my opinion it can happen in all 30 markets. Pittsburgh and the Islanders need a new rink. If a team does all three things right (draft and develop players, make astute trades and make prudent free agent choices) they become elite and they can afford to become elite.
I think that all 30 teams have the
potential to become successful under the old system... IF they follow the natural 'cycle to success'... Start young and cheap, steady growth by keeping the young core together and augmenting it through astute trades and 'sensible' free agent choices (i.e. not the high priced stud players), and when the team finally becomes elite (or close to elite), THEN acquire the stud, high priced free agent(s)/players to put you over the edge for a serious cup run...
IMO, this is the natural life cycle of an NHL franchise... then the cycle repeats itself - with various degrees of success based on the GM's and team's
implementation of the strategy...
When teams try to 'skip steps' in the life cycle (i.e. cut corners), IMO, not only does the team suffer (through interupting the natural evolution of the team and disrupting team salary structure) but the rest of the league suffers as well - by driving up costs in the market...
IMO, this is what the strategy
must be for ALL franchises - to ensure a healthy, viable league... If the GM's and teams don't have the sense to do it themselves, then IMO, the league has to try and force teams to use this strategy... Otherwise, as we've seen, costs spiral out of control...
Tom_Benjamin said:
This is exactly the way it should be. The teams that do it right should reap the rewards. If a team doesn't do it right (for whatever reason) they shouldn't.
Look at what you are saying:
1) There is one way to build a good hockey team.
Yes, I am saying this
Tom_Benjamin said:
2) The handful of teams with the best management succeed because they adopt the best strategy and execute it perfectly. These teams are the ones that year in, year out, contend.
Yes, I am saying this... But not 'execute it perfectly'... They execute it 'as perfect as it needs to be to achieve success'... I allow margin for error, but as a whole, because of the great strategy (which isn't a secret) - the errors do not significantly **** up everything the GM and team has done to date... The GM and team is able to adapt without having to 'start from scratch'...
Tom_Benjamin said:
3) This is unfair. We have to make the system idiot proof so that teams with idiots managing also have a chance to win.
No, I am not saying this... What I am saying is that we have to make the system idiot-proof so that all the teams basically follow this 'cycle to success'... For example, the teams starting the cycle (i.e. young, cheap team) have
no business being in the market for free agents (unless it is a young, cheap free agent)... This just disrupts the 'cycle to success' (i.e. IMO, the team actually takes a step back by not developing properly - it takes away playing time from the young, growing players, etc.)... By being in the market, in addition to disrupting the normal growth of the team, it also drives up the cost of free agents for the teams that are further along in the cycle - and should be in the market for free agents... The same with trades... For teams starting the cycle have NO BUSINESS being in the market for very good to great, older, established players (let alone, stars)... They are basically in the market for good to great,
young players with potential... By being in the market for older, established players, the teams in the beginning of the cycle drive the market up for the teams that
are at that point (in the cycle) ready to acquire the pieces to finish the puzzle...
The teams in the middle of the cycle (i.e. mediocre to pretty good team - with a core that grew together and on the right path to being a 'great to elite' team) have
no business being in the market for super stud, high priced free agents... They should be in the market for good to very good (to great) FA's that help 'fill in the gaps'... Same with trades... The team in the middle of the cycle should be looking to acquire the reasonably-priced 'good to very good' (to great) players to help the team make it to the next level of the cycle... By being in the market for the 'super stud' high priced players, they are trying to skip steps - a bandaid solution... while raising the price of these players for the teams who
should be in the market for them...
The teams at the end of the cycle (i.e. elite teams - with a core that grew together and have had success together)
have the business for being in the market for super stud, high priced free agents (and super stud, expensive players through trades)... They are looking and ready for that player to put them 'over the top' (or perhaps to replace an existing 'core' player)...
For example, IMO, Anaheim has
no business being in the market for Scott Niedermeyer (given where they are in the 'cycle to success')... To acquire him, IMO, is a bandaid solution that will NOT bring Anaheim long-term team success (i.e. that makes them elite and reap the rewards for being elite)... If Anaheim is in the market for him (and Scott doesn't sign with Anaheim), it just raises the asking price for those who
should be in the market for him (i.e. Vancouver, Colorodo, Detroit, etc.)...
IMO, we have to make the system idiot-proof so that GM's don't cut corners... The formula for success is the same for
every team (regardless of the money they have to spend)... GM's and teams looking to cut corners by acquiring (or trying to acquire) players they shouldn't (given where they are in the 'cycle to success') just inflates the market - unnecessarily and foolishly...
No way, IMO, should NY have been in the market for Jagr (even though they could afford him)... IMO,
no way should Fedorov be in Anaheim... Those superstar players should be reserved for the 'elite team' market - those that are ready to make a serious push for the stanley cup, and are geared for long playoff success...
Cutting corners DOES NOT work, and it just inflates the market... The GM's and teams don't seem to understand this... Therefore, IMO, the NHL has to control each team's budget... Limit the budget to limit the options teams can employ to try and reach success (as there is really only one option anyways - the cycle - it's no secret)... Elite teams will generate much more money, and thus, will be able to afford 'cap penalties'... Teams in the beginning of the 'cycle' wont (therefore, only in the market for young players who are cheap, with potential)... Teams in the middle of the 'cycle' will think long and hard before deciding what players to be in the market for (i.e. they will focus on and be in the market for 'reasonably-priced players who are good/very good and established - to help them become successful, and elite)...
To summarize, at a basic level, the NHL teams (market) fall in the following categories (sub-markets):
- beginning of 'success cycle' (poor result teams)
- middle of 'success cycle' (middle result teams)
- end of 'success cycle' (elite teams)
The beginning of success cycle teams should mainly be in the market for young, cheap players with potential... so that the young 'core' grows together and helps the team reach the middle of the success cycle... while still being cost conscious...
The middle of success cycle teams should mainly be in the market for good to very good (to great), reasonably-priced established players (to augment the team core that grew up together)... to help them reach the elite level - while still being cost conscious...
The end of success cycle teams (elite teams) should mainly be in the market for superstar players (to replace certain 'core' players who have retired/left as free agents/have been traded... or to augment the team core with a 'special' players to help them reach the cup) - while still being cost conscious...
I support some sort of cap system that does
not severely punish teams from signing/keeping their own players (i.e. players that have been 'home grown'), but makes teams think
long and hard before acquiring other players 'on the market/on other teams'... I support a cap system that hinders (not eliminates, however) the beginning of success cycle teams (and middle of success cycle teams) from being in the market for 'superstars' - or expensive players that they really have no business acquiring or being in the market for (using the 'cycle to success' as the framework)...
By hindering what teams can spend, IMO, teams will less likely attempt to cut corners with high-priced bandaid solutions- which does NO ONE any good...
This 'cycle to success' is NOT A SECRET - everyone knows about it - some teams just choose to ignore it as it requires a lot of work, time, and patience... Even if all the teams followed this model, all the teams won't have success... The astute GM's (and teams) will only find long-term success...
The poor GM's (and teams) won't (poor trades, draft picks, personnel decisions, etc.)... Even if following the 'cycle to success' exactly, some (the majority) of teams will
not move to elite levels...