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

[Lanny MacDonald*]

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. )

I dunno? Does it also give Philadelphia, St. Louis and Toronto (don't know what is wrong with the Rangers, but I like it) a chance to miss the playoffs the following season, or not make the playoffs for five years at a time? (Nassssty little facts. )

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

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.

And that would be different from your baseless attack on ownership in what way? I can't think of a ticket adjustment that has not been a direct result of a salary structure adjustment on the team. When you have a player double or triple his earnings you have to get the money someplace, and that is from the ticket holders.

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.

Good luck keeping them together right now if you're Tampa. They don't have the money to have four $6-8 million players so look for a couple of them to be dealt away. The nice thing about a cap is that the other mechanisms pay for long term success and not short term success. Whay should Martin St. Louis cash in for his one great season? This is a guy that three years ago was begging for a tryout. No one knows if he'll repeat. Lets see if Lecavalier can have some consistency before dumping $6 million in his lap. Same with Richards. I don't mind seeing these guys get pay increases, but not ones that hoist them into the stratosphere because they had one great season. That's the beauty of a cap. You pay the guys that prove to be your best performers. One year wonders or players that would not have that same impact on other teams don't get the big coin.

 

[misterjaggers]

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...

That isn't always the case. Take the New England Patriots operating in the hard-capped NFL, for example. A number of their players could be playing elsewhere for more money, but would prefer to remain with a classy winning organization.

 

[Trottier]

I dunno? Does it also give Philadelphia, St. Louis and Toronto (don't know what is wrong with the Rangers, but I like it) a chance to miss the playoffs the following season, or not make the playoffs for five years at a time? (Nassssty little facts. )

Let me guess: fan of an also-ran?

The case for a hardcap is undercut by some fan's petty jealousy of teams with resource$.

In this case, it's transparent.

You see, in a world where outcomes are not engineered, it is a good thing when a team like Anaheim, Carolina, etc. can make a "cinderella run," seemingly a new one EVERY YEAR! At the same time, its great that other teams like the Leafs, Sens, Avs, Philly, Devils, etc., are perennial playoff contenders.

Not, unfortunately, among those who wish for intramural results, where - golly gee! - everyone is handed an eqqqqual chance to be winner! Isn't that so niiiice? Everyone can go home happy. Shiny happy mediocre hockey for all!

"Bring 'em down to our size. Stone the wealthy, up with the peasantry!"

 

[Lexicon Devil]

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.

Cool. I like the idea of revenue sharing too.

This has nothing to do with a cap.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Let me guess: fan of an also-ran?

Yup, you found me out. I'm an Islander fan.

I'm not sure why you would be against a system where a team that drafted well was rewarded for its great decision making? Imagine what a powerhouse the Islanders would be if Milbury were encouraged to build something and not cast aside talent they he does? Wow! The Islanders would be a league powerhouse!

Sorry, that's probably a sore spot for you. I guess you should be happy that the Islanders found a rich owner that is willing to waste good money after bad instead. Hey, what ever floats your boat I guess. Personally, I've always liked a fair and even playing field. That's why hockey games are not played on a frozen hill, but on a flat sheet of ice btw.

 

[me2]

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.

This is only true if you bring in a very low UFA age (say 25 or so) or teams do stupid things like paying RFAs the equivalent of UFA wages. If teams build properly than can build dynasties under a hard cap. All comes down to good drafting and good trading, and not spending power.

The dynasties might not last 10+ years, being propped up by aquiring big salaries (which we are seeing with some teams at present) but they can last for 5 or 6. A team like Tampa, under a cap system could be kept together for 6 years in good condition (they've already had 2 years), long enough to win 2 or 3 cups. If a team does a great job getting young talent then they have the ability to step out of the pack and remain unchallenged.

Right now a team like Tampa might step out of the pack but they'll get hauled in because they of financial reasons and cup-buying clubs just upping their spending by another $10m to try to get up to tampa's level. Neither of those are good things (unless you happen to be a fan of the trying to buy the cup).

With the NHLPA draft system + a cap, well get more mini-dynasties than long dynasties. There will be a more natural ebb and flow. Teams will drop out for 4 or 5 years and return for 4 or 5 years. Combine that ebb and flow with a bit of lucky/good drafting and you can push those 5 years out to 7 or more.

A great drafting team like NJ, that has a habit of picking up players without great picks, will have enough new talent to keep ticking along after the 1st generation start being replaced for financial reasons.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

This is only true if you bring in a very low UFA age (say 25 or so) or teams do stupid things like paying RFAs the equivalent of UFA wages. If teams build properly than can build dynasties under a hard cap. All comes down to good drafting and good trading, and not spending power.

If you're going to get a hard cap the owners will have to give the players something significant. The only real chip they'd have would be to drastically reduce the UFA age.

NFL players can become UFA's after 5 years of service.

 

[quat]

Let me guess: fan of an also-ran?

The case for a hardcap is undercut by some fan's petty jealousy of teams with resource$.

In this case, it's transparent.

You see, in a world where outcomes are not engineered, it is a good thing when a team like Anaheim, Carolina, etc. can make a "cinderella run," seemingly a new one EVERY YEAR! At the same time, its great that other teams like the Leafs, Sens, Avs, Philly, Devils, etc., are perennial playoff contenders.

Not, unfortunately, among those who wish for intramural results, where - golly gee! - everyone is handed an eqqqqual chance to be winner! Isn't that so niiiice? Everyone can go home happy. Shiny happy mediocre hockey for all!

"Bring 'em down to our size. Stone the wealthy, up with the peasantry!"

I don't think Iconoclast is being unrealistic with his forcast... and he certainly isn't going over the top, though he is speculating in a pretty positive light.

I think your comparison of a capped NHL to school itramural games is funny but also not very credible.

I agree that initially there may be a fair amount of movement in the league, but if we take the Canucks as an example, and we trust Burkes word on the subject... the Canucks wouldn't be able to keep their players much longer anyway. Their payroll as is ballooned just to keep who they already had, and their revenue streams were at least close to being tapped out. As others have pointed out, the mid-market Canucks can't afford roster costs the size of the big clubs.

One may also want to note that the Canucks also drafted and developed Ohlund, Cooke, Chubarov, Allen, Sopel and Ruutu... they have all had an impact on the team as well.


Once the league settles down, pay raises should still take place, but they needent inflate at such a dramatic rate. Excellence should still be rewarded, and it can be rewarded... it just won't be a limited number of teams that can keep most of the guys they develop.

This idea that players salaries or asking prices will still rise dramatically in a capped league seems doubtful. It will still cost other teams a huge amount in draft picks to grab RFA... if they go with the larger offer route.

 

[me2]

If you're going to get a hard cap the owners will have to give the players something significant. The only real chip they'd have would be to drastically reduce the UFA age.

NFL players can become UFA's after 5 years of service.

If that is what the NHLPA wants the NHL to become under a cap, so be it.