Why can't a cap keep a successful team together?

[Hockey_Nut99]

Everyone says a cap cannot keep a team together. Why not?

-The players keep wanting more and more money and they would rather go to another team for more money. The players care more about the mighty dollar rather than stay on a winning team. This is the only reason a team can't supposidly keep a lot of bigtime players under a cap. I wouldn't see why a good player would want to leave such a good team.

-With less teams offering money to players it should cause less and less players to switch teams I think. Instead of a few stacked teams, the talent of teams will be spread out around the league.

This might sound funny but I always plays Ea Sports NHL and they have no cap. It sucks when you sign players b/c there is no strategy involved. You just sign whoever you want no matter how high your payroll is..

I tried ESPN's version and you have to think so much and strategize becasue there's a cap involved I believe. You have to have better management under a cap.

Click to read more...

 

[Blackjack]

Are you joking? Caps are great for parity, but they pretty much preclude team building, especially hard caps.

Look at the NFL. Yeah, you have the Pats, who are a MAJOR exception, and IMO an aberration. Other than them, the NFL is all about building a team for a couple years of dominance, then blowing it up because of the cap and trying to do it again.

 

[Hockey_Nut99]

Are you joking? Caps are great for parity, but they pretty much preclude team building, especially hard caps.

Look at the NFL. Yeah, you have the Pats, who are a MAJOR exception, and IMO an aberration. Other than them, the NFL is all about building a team for a couple years of dominance, then blowing it up because of the cap and trying to do it again.

And why do they get broken up? Greedy players? A lot of people complain that too many players move around b/c all the big money teams can take the superstars of the smaller market teams. PA backers respond by calling the owners dumb. So if a team can't even stay together with a cap then what is the reason for it? Now that the owners can't dish out money like crazy.

 

[MS]

And why do they get broken up? Greedy players?

Because if you take a really good roster, and pay everyone on it market value, you'll go over the cap. The only way to keep a good team together in that situation is if several players are willing to play for well below market value to be on a contender, and that happens very, very rarely. The recent history of the NBA and NFL shows this pretty clearly.

If a hard cap is in place, the biggest losers are teams like New Jersey, Ottawa, Colorado, and Vancouver, who have spent years building deep quality organizations through good drafting and quality management, and will be forced to firesale talent to get under a cap in all likelihood. The advantage they've gained through good management will be completely wiped out. The biggest winners will be teams like Washington and Chicago, who have spent years running their organizations into the ground, and as a result have no talent and no payroll. They'll be on the other end of the firesales, and instantly climb back to respectability. This is the biggest reason I can't stomach a cap - it rewards crap organizations and punishes quality ones.

 

[SENSible1*]

The Eagles have been to the last 4 NFC championship games and look poised to take the final step.

Teams can build and maintain excellence under a cap. It is harder, but no one said it should be easy.

 

[MarkZackKarl]

No one should think a cap is needed to make it harder (read Impossible) than it already is to build an elite team.

Just screams stupidity. (to implement a cap to just lower the overall product when its not necessary)

 

[GirardIsStupid]

fyi, the NHL is attempting to allow teams to keep a successful team together by abolishing arbitration (which is a deal-breaker for the union). players would subsequently have no leverage during their restricted free agency other than to hold out. however, with the money some european clubs are dishing out (specifically in russia), younger hockey players could be attracted to play elsewhere.

 

[GirardIsStupid]

If a hard cap is in place, the biggest losers are teams like New Jersey, Ottawa, Colorado, and Vancouver, who have spent years building deep quality organizations through good drafting and quality management, and will be forced to firesale talent to get under a cap in all likelihood. The advantage they've gained through good management will be completely wiped out. The biggest winners will be teams like Washington and Chicago, who have spent years running their organizations into the ground, and as a result have no talent and no payroll. They'll be on the other end of the firesales, and instantly climb back to respectability. This is the biggest reason I can't stomach a cap - it rewards crap organizations and punishes quality ones.

 

[Trottier]

If a hard cap is in place, the biggest losers are teams like New Jersey, Ottawa, Colorado, and Vancouver, who have spent years building deep quality organizations through good drafting and quality management, and will be forced to firesale talent to get under a cap in all likelihood. The advantage they've gained through good management will be completely wiped out. The biggest winners will be teams like Washington and Chicago, who have spent years running their organizations into the ground, and as a result have no talent and no payroll. They'll be on the other end of the firesales, and instantly climb back to respectability. This is the biggest reason I can't stomach a cap - it rewards crap organizations and punishes quality ones.

Truer words never spoken. The case against a hardcap cannot be crystalized any better.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Because if you take a really good roster, and pay everyone on it market value, you'll go over the cap. The only way to keep a good team together in that situation is if several players are willing to play for well below market value to be on a contender, and that happens very, very rarely. The recent history of the NBA and NFL shows this pretty clearly.

If a hard cap is in place, the biggest losers are teams like New Jersey, Ottawa, Colorado, and Vancouver, who have spent years building deep quality organizations through good drafting and quality management, and will be forced to firesale talent to get under a cap in all likelihood. The advantage they've gained through good management will be completely wiped out. The biggest winners will be teams like Washington and Chicago, who have spent years running their organizations into the ground, and as a result have no talent and no payroll. They'll be on the other end of the firesales, and instantly climb back to respectability. This is the biggest reason I can't stomach a cap - it rewards crap organizations and punishes quality ones.

 

[SENSible1*]

No one should think a cap is needed to make it harder (read Impossible) than it already is to build an elite team.

Just screams stupidity. (to implement a cap to just lower the overall product when its not necessary)

I don't want it to be harder for the Sens. I want it to be equally hard for ALL teams.

 

[Hoek]

Well nobody goes to watch crappy hockey teams, that's the problem. Parity is the solution. If they are such good organizations and good managers they will find a way to succeed under the cap more than the other teams. It just requires a different strategy (one perhaps the Lightning have mastered already, winning the Cup with a self-imposed cap).

 

[ColinM]

If a hard cap is in place, the biggest losers are teams like New Jersey, Ottawa, Colorado, and Vancouver, who have spent years building deep quality organizations through good drafting and quality management, and will be forced to firesale talent to get under a cap in all likelihood. The advantage they've gained through good management will be completely wiped out. The biggest winners will be teams like Washington and Chicago, who have spent years running their organizations into the ground, and as a result have no talent and no payroll. They'll be on the other end of the firesales, and instantly climb back to respectability. This is the biggest reason I can't stomach a cap - it rewards crap organizations and punishes quality ones.

And I'd just like to add that under the current system any team could be as successful as New Jersey or Colorado if their management is smart enough. These teams might have a reputation for having a large payroll but that is because their success on the ice allows them to generate enough revenue to support their payroll. Their large payrolls are an effect of smart management rather than the cause of their success.

 

[Kaiped Krusader]

The biggest winners will be teams like Washington and Chicago, who have spent years running their organizations into the ground, and as a result have no talent and no payroll. They'll be on the other end of the firesales, and instantly climb back to respectability. This is the biggest reason I can't stomach a cap - it rewards crap organizations and punishes quality ones.

I have to disagree somewhat. There will be somewhat of a leveling effect at first when good teams are forced to trim relatively unneccessary, high-priced players from their roster and weaker teams gobble them up, but over time, the cream will still rise to the top. Teams that draft and develop talent well and make smart trades, like New Jersey, Detroit, Colorado, and Ottawa, will still be at the top of the heap.

As someone pointed out, these teams have high payrolls because they've built well, they're not good teams because they've racked up big payrolls. These teams will still be good - their payrolls will just be the same as other teams.

 

[SENSible1*]

And I'd just like to add that under the current system any team could be as successful as New Jersey or Colorado if their management is smart enough. These teams might have a reputation for having a large payroll but that is because their success on the ice allows them to generate enough revenue to support their payroll. Their large payrolls are an effect of smart management rather than the cause of their success.

Any Sens fan that thinks the Sens would be able to generate a revenue stream sufficient to maintain a Colorado like payroll is kidding themselves.

Any NHL fan that thinks the vast majority of the teams in the league can generate a revenue stream sufficient to maintain a Colorado like payroll is kidding themselves.

Any NHL fan that fails to acknowlege that salary inflation under the former system wouldn't make a bad situation even worse is kidding themselves. Most teams already couldn't generate Colorado-like money and every year set the bar higher and further out of their reach.

A capped system isn't perfect, but at least the challenges and opportunity are equal for all teams.

 

[Morbo]

What the hard cap does is level the playing field, but sets it too low.

Proponents of this strategy stress how even it is, and not the mediocre level of the field. The hard cap discourages the building of superior teams.

Regardless of what system is in place, older/more skilled players make more money than younger/less skilled players. This will also be true under a hard cap. Therefore there will always be salary inflation to some degree, and under a hard cap you know what that means.

Do you guys think the NHLPA is going to be encouraging guys to take hometown discounts en masse to do teams a favour, after having done what they said they'd NEVER do -- accept a HARD CAP? No fricking way. The players will be making the best of what they see as a bad situation, and will be maximizing their opportunity to make the most cash even more than before.

 

[Trottier]

A capped system isn't perfect, but at least the challenges and opportunity are equal for all teams.

No kidding that the challenges and opportunities will be "equal" under the affirmative action-like approach you espouse for the NHL. It's the tradeoff some of us "kidders" choose not to ignore. Namely, as PepnCheese explains perfectly:

"What the hard cap does is level the playing field, but sets it too low.

Proponents of this strategy stress how even it is, and not the mediocre level of the field....."

***

By the way, does equal opportunities "for all teams," mean giving Philadelphia, NYR, St. Louis and Toronto as good a chance as Anaheim, Carolina, Calgary, Buffalo and Tampa Bay to make it to the Finals? (Nassssty little facts. )

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Everyone says a cap cannot keep a team together. Why not?

-The players keep wanting more and more money and they would rather go to another team for more money. The players care more about the mighty dollar rather than stay on a winning team. This is the only reason a team can't supposidly keep a lot of bigtime players under a cap. I wouldn't see why a good player would want to leave such a good team..

Another baseless attack on players so-called greed.
Players want to get paid. Just like owners raise ticket prices whenever demand/supply let's them.
Players will often stay on a winning team for less money than they might get elsewhere.
But some players want to get paid. Some players want to try something new. Some players want to play closer to home. Et cetera. Et cetera. Et cetera.

-With less teams offering money to players it should cause less and less players to switch teams I think. Instead of a few stacked teams, the talent of teams will be spread out around the league...

Well, you're partly right.
Usually, the good teams have several good players.
Take Tampa. Right now they've got 4 players who would be real hot, even in a salary cap market. LaCavalier. Richards. St. Louis. Khabibulan.
These guys are true stars in the NHL. They're gonna get paid and they're gonna get paid franchise player type money.
They're all worthy of being paid pretty much the top rate in the NHL (My guess the top players will still make 6-8 Million.
Good luck keeping those guys around with a 35 Million cap.

This might sound funny but I always plays Ea Sports NHL and they have no cap. It sucks when you sign players b/c there is no strategy involved. You just sign whoever you want no matter how high your payroll is..

I tried ESPN's version and you have to think so much and strategize becasue there's a cap involved I believe. You have to have better management under a cap.

It does sound funny.
ESPN's version doesn't have a cap. They have a budget. And they force you to stick to it.
If you win the Cup or go deep in the playoffs, your budget goes up. If you lose in the first round or finish out of the playoffs, your budget goes down.
And if you look, every team has a different budget.
Detroits is way more than Nashville's.

I'm currently in my fourth season in franchise mode. Having gone to the conference finals or more every season, I can afford way more than most teams.
WHich seems realisitic.
And there are problems, just like in real life. I can't trade anyone with a high salary to some teams because about 80 percent of the teams have no budget room left after free agency.

Oh well. It's a video game.

 

[ceber]

Because if you take a really good roster, and pay everyone on it market value, you'll go over the cap.

The hope is that the cap resets market value, and most teams can maintain their rosters for the most part. What it should prevent is overpaid third and fourth liners and hoarding and misuse of talent.

That's the hope. Whether it works or not, who knows? Making comparisons to other leagues is a smokescreen. The new CBA will surely be different, and the roster management is certainly already different. Anyone who thinks they KNOW what will happen is fooling themselves, because we don't even know what form a cap would take by the time an agreement is finally reached. Nothing wrong with being either an optimist or a pessimist though.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

The hope is that the cap resets market value, and most teams can maintain their rosters for the most part. What it should prevent is overpaid third and fourth liners and hoarding and misuse of talent.

That's the hope. Whether it works or not, who knows? Making comparisons to other leagues is a smokescreen. The new CBA will surely be different, and the roster management is certainly already different. Anyone who thinks they KNOW what will happen is fooling themselves, because we don't even know what form a cap would take by the time an agreement is finally reached. Nothing wrong with being either an optimist or a pessimist though.

It hasn't worked in any sport yet.
The only way it could work, even partly, is if contracts are no longer gauranteed.

Which, of course, will be in the next CBA.
Owners will want to be protected from legal agreements they make.

In other news, if a cap is adopted, you may has well cancel the trades board.
There won't be many.
Trade deadline will be a real snoozer

 

[Cawz]

Usually, the good teams have several good players.
Take Tampa. Right now they've got 4 players who would be real hot, even in a salary cap market. LaCavalier. Richards. St. Louis. Khabibulan.
These guys are true stars in the NHL. They're gonna get paid and they're gonna get paid franchise player type money.
They're all worthy of being paid pretty much the top rate in the NHL (My guess the top players will still make 6-8 Million.
Good luck keeping those guys around with a 35 Million cap.

Good luck keeping those players with the current NHL system as well. How many teams have we seen in the last decade that have been able to develop these caliber of players (Conn Smyth, Art Ross n Hart), keep them and be profitable?

 

[Cawz]

Trade deadline will be a real snoozer

Good. I hate the trade deadline being so late. You open training camp with your team, play all season and then add a bunch of players right before the playoff push? Kind of undermines your team that has been evolving all season.

Thats just one of my pet peeves. I'd like to see the team that plays all season and earns their place in the standings to represent that team in the playoffs, without adding 5 players right before playoffs.

 

[SENSible1*]

Well managed teams, that draft and develop players consistently well, will still rise to the top of the heap.

Teams that get lucky for one or two drafts will be hurt when their system fails to provide suitable replacements.

Teams that only pick up pricey already-developed talent, without developing their own, will still struggle.

Teams that develop a steady stream of talent will be able to maintain their edge.

All teams will face the same difficult decision.

Brains, not bucks will determine the ability to stay on top.

 

[ceber]

The only way it could work, even partly, is if contracts are no longer gauranteed.

Which, of course, will be in the next CBA.

Hey! Quit wasting your time here; get on the phone to Gary and Bob and tell them what the next CBA is so we can start watching the NHL again!

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

If a hard cap is in place, the biggest losers are teams like New Jersey, Ottawa, Colorado, and Vancouver, who have spent years building deep quality organizations through good drafting and quality management, and will be forced to firesale talent to get under a cap in all likelihood. The advantage they've gained through good management will be completely wiped out. The biggest winners will be teams like Washington and Chicago, who have spent years running their organizations into the ground, and as a result have no talent and no payroll. They'll be on the other end of the firesales, and instantly climb back to respectability. This is the biggest reason I can't stomach a cap - it rewards crap organizations and punishes quality ones.

I don't agree with that. Only New Jersey has been a team that tasted success and continued to build. Ottawa and Colorado (Quebec) were bottom feeders for so long it just didn't seem right when they tasted any success (and Ottawa still hasn't tasted any success, not being able to get past Toronto). Both of these teams drafted so many top end talents because they were drafting in the top five for the better part of decade. You can't help but build up a solid base of talent when you have four or five top five draft picks on your team. I have no idea how Vancouver gets lumped in with these teams. They got exceptionally lucky with a couple of trades, picking up players who were considered long shots that worked out for them (Naslund and Bertuzzi). They managed to draft one superstar in Bure and traded him to land dome assets that they were able to work with. The only drafting they did was of the Sedins and they have not turned out to be what they were billed as. Vancouver is not an example of anything but what can happen when you get a couple of late bloomers turn into stars.

I have no idea where this idea that a cap will breed mediocrity. This will not be at all like the NFL, because the NFL is all about who is in the league at the moment. They don't have a minor lague or developmental system for each team so the bidding for players that fill holes can get stupid. If anything the cap will allow organizations a chance to build a team long term IMO. Yes, they will likely have to move certain players, but those that actually do have a solid organization will be able to replace those departing players with others that are more affordable. The superstars will stay where they are for the most part, until their skills do not match up to their salary. The middle of the road players that some consider great, while others wouldn't touch, will switch teams and be replaced on their own squad. I think teams will be the ones cutting players loose for talent reasons more than money reasons. Money will be a factor, but because a youngster will force a vet out of the lineup for that reason. The focus of the NHL will shift to thinking three years a head instead of thinking one year a head IMO. Those teams that draft well and develop players well will have a massive advantage. I'm looking forward to it because the younger players will get more of a chance over the older journeymen who float from team to team milking the system of evey penny there is in it.