certainly are varying ways of interpreting "cap efficiency"... but I think one factor not to ignore is that each individual season does not exist in a bubble.
"dead" cap space not used in one season is "worthless" in the sense that it does not contribute to the teams performance that year, but filling up that "dead" space just because its there with contracts that take away from available space in future seasons is/can be more harmful than simply standing pat.
Kaberle's addition is a perfect example of that. While its pretty clear that he wasn't a negative addition (as frustrating as his soft play was, he did still contribute in some areas better than what our exisiting alternatives did/would have), and we did have the cap space to fit him in, we are now stuck with a player counting towards far more of the cap than his play warrants.
that kind of lack of foresight kills teams, and was a hallmark of the way previous management ran the team.
right, but the difference is that they did so in a much more effective manner...
of their big money trade/UFA aquisitions in recent years, only Bryzgalov really stands out as a poor return on investment.
Cammy, Gomez, Bourque, Kaberle... all major flops.
Nothing wrong with being aggressive in spending to the cap, but there is a big difference between teams that manage that well and teams that don't.
Philly's move last year, which many panned, worked out quite well (even as richards/carter found themselves reunited in winning a cup for LA), and showed that with the right kind of approach, you can even re-stock young (cheaper) talent while being a cap spending team.
that's not to say anyone does it perfectly/flawlessly (see Bryz), but wether you spend to the cap or not, doing so with the right mix of short/long term focus is key. We haven't seen that around here for some time.
disagree. In the summer of 09, when Gainey screwed things up royally with his rush to overspend on a glut of veterans who underwhelmed hurt the team in a major way.
Our cap & roster situation at that time was ideal for a strategic 2-3 year phase of buidling a contender. We had lot's of expiring contracts, a veteran core that could have easily been retained at far less cost (both in assets -McD/Higgins- & in $$) while giving us very similar production.
Doing so would have allowed us to be a player when those rare high-end established talents did become available in trade or UFA (pronger, kovalchuk, hossa, heatley -granted he has regressed-, nash, richards, richards, Carter, Byfuglien, Burns, Parise, Suter, Gaborik)...
that's a pretty big list of elite talent that have changed teams in the past 3-4 seasons, and we really haven't been in the running for any of them primarily because we simply didn't have the cap flexibility to make a serious push (be it in contract offer, or in viable trade ability).
while many pinned for it, it's understandable that the organization/management didn't feel justified in burying Gomez's 7M$ hit in the minors, as the Rangers did with their 6M$ mistake, but failing that, it wasn't realistic for us to be chasing/courting another 6-7M$ player while having Gomez/Cammy on the roster.
replace those two with Koivu/Kovalev in 09, and obviously we could have been at the front of the line with offers for some of that elite talent that was on the move in recent years.
can't do that when you have a happy trigger finger and treat the cap like something that must be used up every year, regardless of future implications & without a viable roster building strategy (i mean really, at this stage is there anyone who can intelligently support the "smurf" approach Gainey took???)
i think you have to look at the whole cap efficiency thing from a broader perspective, as opposed to by a player/player basis.
Every team will carry some veteran players who are "overpaid", and in many cases getting the right player need-wise is worth the 1-2M$ premium he might cost over what he's actually 'worth' (which is subjective anyhow).
even Gomez, as a stand alone move, as absolutely terrible as it was, wouldn't have been as handicapping were he not then paired with the 6M$ cammalleri & 5M$ gionta. 7M$ of the cap on a player giving you 3rd line quality or worse is problematic... 18M$ on 3 players, none of which give you above average top-line play (except for Cammy's brief heroic playoff run) leads you to dead last in the conference.
the "virtue" is efficient management... at all levels. Cap, draft, player development... getting the most out of the assets you have, finding ways to extract as much value as you can, is what successful organizations in any industry do.
The NFL offers great examples of that imo. Some organizations have such a better approach to managing their operations efficiently, that they remain successful consistently (pats, steelers, giants, packers), whereas others are so inept that despite a league set up that almost forces each team to get better, they consistently end up starting over (Bills, Jags, Lions).
NHL isn't quite as cut/dry, because league parity & team spending is a much less rigid, but our organization, as a "big spender" has been a great example of how NOT to efficiently manage your assets.
agree with the first part, not the second... several trades over the past few years have had cap/salary implications. The chicago one was the most lopsided due largely to the mistake that forced them into a quick turnaround... blood in the water is blood in the water.
several of the players i listed above moved at least in part b/c of financial considerations. and then looking at 2nd tier players, a ton of guys have moved b/c their existing team either needed to re-allocate their cap spending or were cutting salary.
we just weren't in a good position to benefit because we had so much big money tied up at the top of our cap structure.
disagree again... cap efficiency is not simply "buying low". It's having a clear model of what you want the roster to look like, and allocating money effectively at each level (from the high end earners to the low end earners) to get the value, on-ice, you require at each level.
If MB thinks Prust can give the team quality bottom-6 minutes, quality PK minutes, and the protective "stick up for skill players" element we've so sorely lacked the past several years, 2.5M$ could be a bargain...
if he's wrong, and Prust goes the route of Gainey's attempt to toughen up the roster (BGL), then it's a mistake, but one that is far easier to clean up then a mistake in the top-tier of earners.
I like that move, in particular
