Take me out and shoot me if I'm wrong, but...

[Masao]

Let's say you have a team with a lot of money.

That team has really good management and scouting staff and is always the best at the draft and they always developp their prospects really well.

Soon, they turn into one of the top teams in the league. No free agents - all home-grown talent.

Then, eventually, as the players get better and their contracts expire, they have to sign all of them again, many of them to salaries over 5 millions.

But... because of a salary cap, they're going to have to trade away half of their stars, even if they have the money to pay them?

In a situation like this, how could we ever hope to see teams like the 80's Oilers or the 70's Habs ever again?

Click to read more...

 

[Shane]

Let's say you have a team with a lot of money.

That team has really good management and scouting staff and is always the best at the draft and they always developp their prospects really well.

Soon, they turn into one of the top teams in the league. No free agents - all home-grown talent.

Then, eventually, as the players get better and their contracts expire, they have to sign all of them again, many of them to salaries over 5 millions.

But... because of a salary cap, they're going to have to trade away half of their stars, even if they have the money to pay them?

In a situation like this, how could we ever hope to see teams like the 80's Oilers or the 70's Habs ever again?

Simple answer: With a salary cap, there will be very few, if any salaries over five million. Player values will drop significantly. Most teams would likely be at our near the cap, so if a primadonna superstar wants five million, and every team is at their limit, he's going to have to drop his asking price or go find a league that will pay him.

 

[rekrul]

Let's say you have a team with a lot of money.

That team has really good management and scouting staff and is always the best at the draft and they always developp their prospects really well.

Soon, they turn into one of the top teams in the league. No free agents - all home-grown talent.

Then, eventually, as the players get better and their contracts expire, they have to sign all of them again, many of them to salaries over 5 millions.

But... because of a salary cap, they're going to have to trade away half of their stars, even if they have the money to pay them?

In a situation like this, how could we ever hope to see teams like the 80's Oilers or the 70's Habs ever again?

doesn't the NBA lary bird thingy take care of this, has Brett Farve left because the NY giants are the only team that can afford his salary?

 

[FLYLine27*]

In a situation like this, how could we ever hope to see teams like the 80's Oilers or the 70's Habs ever again?

With a CAP you dont have to worry about ever seeing a Dynasty again or heck even a powerhouse team for more then a few years in a row. It wont happen because of LEVEL PLAYING FIELD.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

Simple answer: With a salary cap, there will be very few, if any salaries over five million. Player values will drop significantly. Most teams would likely be at our near the cap, so if a primadonna superstar wants five million, and every team is at their limit, he's going to have to drop his asking price or go find a league that will pay him.

You couldn't be more wrong, take the NFL where the star players get the bulk of the money under the salary cap. So when a team has 3 or 4 star players they wont be able to afford all of them. It's either that or you have you 4 star players making 5 million each and the other 19 guys spilting 15 million dollars in cap space.

 

[rekrul]

With a CAP you dont have to worry about ever seeing a Dynasty again or heck even a powerhouse team for more then a few years in a row. It wont happen because of LEVEL PLAYING FIELD.

Right now the New England has a pretty good run in the NFL, Brady+Bilichek=4 rings easy there is your Dynasty...

 

[Shane]

You couldn't be more wrong, take the NFL where the star players get the bulk of the money under the salary cap. So when a team has 3 or 4 star players they wont be able to afford all of them. It's either that or you have you 4 star players making 5 million each and the other 19 guys spilting 15 million dollars in cap space.

How should I know? I don't follow the NFL.

 

[SENSible1*]

Let's say you have a team with a lot of money.

That team has really good management and scouting staff and is always the best at the draft and they always developp their prospects really well.

Soon, they turn into one of the top teams in the league. No free agents - all home-grown talent.

Then, eventually, as the players get better and their contracts expire, they have to sign all of them again, many of them to salaries over 5 millions.

But... because of a salary cap, they're going to have to trade away half of their stars, even if they have the money to pay them?

In a situation like this, how could we ever hope to see teams like the 80's Oilers or the 70's Habs ever again?

Other than a select few big markets that is the exact same situation that is facing the vast majority of teams in the league right now.

At least with a cap ALL teams would be facing the same tough decisions and the ones that made the smartest moves would be rewarded.

 

[FLYLine27*]

Right now the New England has a pretty good run in the NFL, Brady+Bilichek=4 rings easy there is your Dynasty...

2 outta 3 years aint a Dynasty. Sorry.Give New E. a few years..they will be back at the bottom....just what a CAP can do.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Let's say you have a team with a lot of money.

That team has really good management and scouting staff and is always the best at the draft and they always developp their prospects really well.

Soon, they turn into one of the top teams in the league. No free agents - all home-grown talent.

Then, eventually, as the players get better and their contracts expire, they have to sign all of them again, many of them to salaries over 5 millions.

But... because of a salary cap, they're going to have to trade away half of their stars, even if they have the money to pay them?

In a situation like this, how could we ever hope to see teams like the 80's Oilers or the 70's Habs ever again?

You won't.

 

[Kaiped Krusader]

Just out of curiosity, what is everyone's fascination with a dynasty? That's one of the biggest complaints I hear about salary caps.

Is having dynasties more important than having, oh, I don't know, a league at all? If the owners cave and take the players' proposal, you'll get your dynasty alright because by the end of the CBA there'll only be a few teams playing and the odds of one of them becoming a dynasty will be much greater.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Just out of curiosity, what is everyone's fascination with a dynasty? That's one of the biggest complaints I hear about salary caps.

I don't think it's that people are asking for a dynasty (and in todays 30 team NHL, it will be extremely difficult to ever win 3 or 4 Cups in a row). It's that people don't think that teams should be penalized for building a strong group talented players ala Ottawa.

 

[SENSible1*]

I don't think it's that people are asking for a dynasty (and in todays 30 team NHL, it will be extremely difficult to ever win 3 or 4 Cups in a row). It's that people don't think that teams should be penalized for building a strong group talented players ala Ottawa.

I'm a Sens fan and 2 things need to be kept firmly in mind.

1) The Sens would be forced to move talent under either system. I'd like to see the same pressure apply to all teams.

2) The Sens have already mastered the art of developing an outstanding team under a tight budget. I have no fear whatesoever of their ability to dominate when all teams are playing under the same rules.

 

[FLYLine27*]

2) The Sens have already mastered the art of developing an outstanding team under a tight budget. I have no fear whatesoever of their ability to dominate when all teams are playing under the same rules.

Wow..cocky of your team arent you? Just because they have been successful in the past doesnt mean that they are certain to be successful in the future.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Is having dynasties more important than having, oh, I don't know, a league at all? If the owners cave and take the players' proposal, you'll get your dynasty alright because by the end of the CBA there'll only be a few teams playing and the odds of one of them becoming a dynasty will be much greater.

And if the league gets its way at impasse and the players decertify, won't it be even worse?

 

[rekrul]

2 outta 3 years aint a Dynasty. Sorry.Give New E. a few years..they will be back at the bottom....just what a CAP can do.

my prediction was 4 titles in a short period, Patriots got smart in drafting and spending money and luck of course ( Brady who knew? ) then this year GOT Dilon through Free Agency. They work the cap and look solid for at least the next few years.

In the NFL you can build winners like phily then add the right Free Agent, or you can be stupid like the redskins and try to free agent spend yourself into the bottom of the standings, Notice the Cowboys also lost out tring to spend their way out of the talent pool. Cincy proves also that mearly commiting to winning rather than just wanting to make $$ ( which what their ownership was dreadfully doing before the new stadium ) San Diego proves desent cap management can even get you out of a probable headache ( two high paid QBs ) I think the NFL got hurt from the system early on by GMs not quite understanding how to handle the personel, now we see at least the AFC produce some very good quality teams for the next few years. Compare to MLB where if your not brilliant ( Mil,pit,KC ) you stink for ever and any good player you lose like Beltran or if you are Brilliant like oak or Min you still lose every desent player to the few teams with big payrolls.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Let's say you have a team with a lot of money.

That team has really good management and scouting staff and is always the best at the draft and they always developp their prospects really well.

Soon, they turn into one of the top teams in the league. No free agents - all home-grown talent.

Then, eventually, as the players get better and their contracts expire, they have to sign all of them again, many of them to salaries over 5 millions.

But... because of a salary cap, they're going to have to trade away half of their stars, even if they have the money to pay them?

In a situation like this, how could we ever hope to see teams like the 80's Oilers or the 70's Habs ever again?

you're 100% right.

 

[Masao]

Could a "divided" salary cap work?

Let's throw some random numbers for fun...

- no salary cap for home grown players (drafted, or signed out of minor leagues without having been owned by any other NHL team before)
- 10 million salary cap for players acquired through free agency (who's rights were owned by another NHL team)
- 15 million salary cap for players acquired through trades between teams


This way teams could be free to grow home talent all they want without fear of passing the cap, but they'd have a limit for players acquired from other teams...

I think something like this would push teams to have a better scouting staff and encourage them to work with their young players instead of bulking up in the free agent market ala Rangers. However, it won't prevent teams from acquiring two or three big name players from free agents while still keeping the core intact.

What do you guys think?

 

[txomisc]

home grown players have to count against a cap. perhaps not 100% but they cant be fully free of it. Then we'd have a situation where someone could say "hey so and so's team used the fact that he was home grown talent to give him 9 million a year...I'm home grown talent, I want that much"

Could a "divided" salary cap work?

Let's throw some random numbers for fun...

- no salary cap for home grown players (drafted, or signed out of minor leagues without having been owned by any other NHL team before)
- 10 million salary cap for players acquired through free agency (who's rights were owned by another NHL team)
- 15 million salary cap for players acquired through trades between teams


This way teams could be free to grow home talent all they want without fear of passing the cap, but they'd have a limit for players acquired from other teams...

I think something like this would push teams to have a better scouting staff and encourage them to work with their young players instead of bulking up in the free agent market ala Rangers. However, it won't prevent teams from acquiring two or three big name players from free agents while still keeping the core intact.

What do you guys think?

 

[HckyFght*]

This is why it's imperative that ownership doesn't cave in on free agency, the higher the age of unrestricted free agency, the better. Teams need to be rewarded for developing players, and fans deserve to see their favorite players stay with the team.
-HckyFght!

 

[John Flyers Fan]

This is why it's imperative that ownership doesn't cave in on free agency, the higher the age of unrestricted free agency, the better. Teams need to be rewarded for developing players, and fans deserve to see their favorite players stay with the team.
-HckyFght!

Agreed, but if they want an NFL style cap, drastically lowering the UFA age is the only real concession they can make to entice the players.

NFL players become RFA's after just 3 seasons and UFA's after 5 years.

 

[Masao]

home grown players have to count against a cap. perhaps not 100% but they cant be fully free of it. Then we'd have a situation where someone could say "hey so and so's team used the fact that he was home grown talent to give him 9 million a year...I'm home grown talent, I want that much"

You're right, but if there's a cap for home grown players it should at least be several times higher, like in my example maybe something like 50 to 70 million or something?

Also, something like that would probably be chaos right now since most players are not playing for the team that drafted them... but we could just say that every players right now would be "presumed" home grown and the caps would apply for new acquisitions...

I don' know, I'm just talking outta my hat here

 

[CarlRacki]

With a CAP you dont have to worry about ever seeing a Dynasty again or heck even a powerhouse team for more then a few years in a row. It wont happen because of LEVEL PLAYING FIELD.

Didn't the Chicago Bulls win six championships in eight years under a capped system? Or does that not count as a dynasty?
Granted, that was under a soft cap, but I suspect the owners would accept such a system with a few added restrictions (elimination of sign-and-trades, for starters).

 

[CarlRacki]

You're right, but if there's a cap for home grown players it should at least be several times higher, like in my example maybe something like 50 to 70 million or something?

Also, something like that would probably be chaos right now since most players are not playing for the team that drafted them... but we could just say that every players right now would be "presumed" home grown and the caps would apply for new acquisitions...

I don' know, I'm just talking outta my hat here

A reasonable Larry Bird-type exemption would work for the NHL, presuming the league, like the NBA, would also enact a maximum salary and matching rights for the teams. Obviously the max salary in the NHL would have to be lower than that of the NBA. This would allow teams to keep the best of their home-grown talent at a reasonable price.
One change I think the NHL would have to enact is a restriction on sign-and-trades, which is the most obvious way NBA teams get around the salary cap.

 

[417]

It'll just put the emphasis where it's supposed to be, good scouting and drafting, and making good decisions regarding your own free agents and others on the market, and with caps, there's always loopholes to keeping your good players, like in the NBA, when a rookie contract is about to expire, and let's say that rookie has developped into one of the better young players and you want to avoid him being offered maximum money by other teams, you sign him to a mid level exception, it's like a 4 or 5 year deal at an above average salary, but not a maximum one, dynasties can be built when a cap is in place, the Lakers, Patriots, Spurs, there's countless teams in the NBA and NFL who year after year go deep in the playoffs or win the whole thing, you just have to make sure you have a creative GM (NBA-Joe Dumars) as opposed to a GM who just wants big name players (NBA-Isaiah Thomas)