Gee Wally said:
the downfall is having a "stupid" GM....
That is a problem... Since teams just can't throw money at a problem, they must know personnel and prospects much better than they do now.
case in point..The New England Patriots.. arguably a *starless* team depending on who is making the judgement.. but they do seem to be successful.
Having a "stupid" GM has always been the downfall... and more or less $ for the GM to work with doesn't solve this problem...
To achieve success,
implementation of a strategy is
much more important than the strategy itself... If someone ever wondered why so much 'self help' education, research, books, and articles produce so few changes in actual practice - this is why...
Implementation matters most of all... Everybody can easily access information for the
correct strategy to lose weight or stop smoking, but if not
implemented properly, the
correct or best strategy isn't important... Whereas, if I decide the strategy I will use to stop smoking is to cut it down one cigarette a month, and implement this 'incorrect' strategy perfectly (or good enough to achieve success), I'll quit smoking (I did it this way) - even though the educational material said that this is the wrong (or far from optimal) strategy to use... Did I do it the best way? Probably not according to what I've read... Did it work? So far so good... It's been about a year since I've had a cigarette - although I do like to still stand next to people who smoke...
In hockey, the "buy" or "properly build the core" strategy in itself doesn't play the
determining role in team success or failure, but it's how the GM
implements the strategy that does... $ doesn't determine success or failure...
Best Results (i.e. to reach the 'elite' level of a Colorodo or Detroit), can only be achieved by the 'proper team building strategy', and more importantly, have
excellent implementation of this strategy...
But this isn't to say that
good results couldn't be achieved by both the "buy" and "build the core" strategies - as long as the GM has good to great implementation of the strategy... One of the strategies (the buy strategy) may have a negative impact on NHL economics - so for this reason
alone, I'm willing to support a soft salary cap... I don't like what may be needed to get a hard cap implemented - 1+ year of no hockey? break the union? etc.? I also don't like taking current skills
away from the GMs (not as strictly through a hard cap, but I would personally accept it through a soft cap)... IMHO, the gap between the haves and the have nots has more to do with the GM competence gap than the money gap... The money gap, IMO, is largely a by-product of a spectrum of GM competence in the NHL (How do some of these guys get hired? He won a Stanley Cup with the team, and was a fan favourite, so we'll make him GM!)... Lou in NJ may as well be playing chess against a four-year old... It's as challenging to him as operating with some of the other GM's around the league...
IMHO, Edmonton will
still be a mediocre team even with a salary cap (same with the Islanders)... Their GMs have proven to be incompetent, IMO... I also think that Colorodo and NJ will still be one of the best teams in the league... IMO, their GMs have proven
time and again to make
excellent strategy implementation decisions... The strategies that they have at their disposal to build their teams may be different with a cap, but their competent
ability to
implement strategy is the same...