Will Hard Cap Break up Winning teams?

[Hunter74]

I am sorry if this was already covered.

I read alot from posters who are against a Hard cap.

Saying that a hard cap will make it impossible for a winning team to be able to keep there roster together.

I was wondering if someone who supported that stance would explain to me in detail why a winning team under a hard cap will not be able to stay together? If you are against the stance that a hard cap breaks up winning teams can you in turn explain how a winning team can stay together under a hard cap?

I have thought this out myself but feel as though I may be missing a couple serious components.

Click to read more...

 

[transplant99]

Let the NFL be your guide.

Yeah because the New England Patriots have been ripped apart since their first Superbowl win 3 years ago.

Oh wait...actually they ADDED to the strength of the roster this year. 31-2 in thier last 33 games.

Yes that winning team must be clamoring for a free market.

 

[Brodeur]

It'll break up expensive teams, but as we've seen in the last 5 years, just because you spend a lot of money doesn't mean you're going to successful.

2000: Devils - I count 10 out of the 23 regulars are still around
2001: Avalanche - 8 are still on Colorado
2002: Red Wings - 13 still on the team today
2003: Devils - 14 still on the roster today

I think there was already a tremendous amount of roster turnover going on anyways. If anything, teams will just have to be smarter about which impending free agents they keep around.

 

[CarlRacki]

Winning teams will likely lose their role players who will be able to make more money and play more significant roles elsewhere. But teams managed properly under a cap will be able to maintain their cores.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

With all the players they must now sign like brady it will blow that cap to hell . By the way the pats are right now 11 million over next years cap.

In the NFL you can make a run and overspend for a couple of years, perhaps even three, but then the bill comes due in all of those deferred salaries, restructured contracts, etc.

As a side note, likely not entirely appropraite for this board, all of those calling Bellicheck a 'genius' let me see him do it once this run (right now only 4 years old) ends and this particular team that he took on the run breaks up. I have seen so called geniuses on similar runs in the past only to fall flat on their face when the team broke up. Does Martz ring any bells? Seifert? I could go on and on. Bellicheck is the same loser to me that he was in Cleveland when my grandmother could beat him, in my humble opinion he merely has a great collection of core players who surprised so thus far come cheap, 6th round pick Brady in Particular. Once those leaves, if he still maintains it, we can talk. I reserve judgment until then.

Now back to the topic. How is an NFL type system bad? You have your chance to add salary when you are positioned for a run, but there is a fairness factor as everyone has an equal monetary opportunity to do the same, make the same choices. I love that system.

 

[Hockey_Nut99]

Where is scaredsensfan? This is his/her favourite topic. He/she always seems to think that a new system will break the sens up rather than the old one. Just becasue they have a billionaire owner, they think he is going to give the players whatever they want to stay there.

 

[john g]

The cap should just allow GM's and organizations that are intelligent to have and keep winning teams, rather than the ones currently with open wallets.

 

[Hunter74]

Let the NFL be your guide.

But everyone says that the NFL and NHL are quite different.

Personally i think that a Hard Cap is pretty much like a teams budget except instead of Calgary and Detriot having completely different budgets they both end up with only $42mil to spend.

I know the Flames have been working on a very strickt budget the past 5 years or so. Yes it has cost us some players b/c our GM (Button) didn't do his player salary budgetting properly so when we reaquired McAmmond from Colorado we had to trade off Neidermayer b/c we did not have room on the books. Alot of posters are saying there is no way around this problem under a hard cap. I think there is. I will use the Flames as an example again as I know there particular situation well.

The Flames made the playoffs last year and went all the way to the finals. The payrole on the team that year was roughly around $36mil. Now b/c Sutter added a few deadline players who were very instrumental to the Flames in makeing it far in the playoffs he had to figure out a way to keep the team together plus give raises to a few key players. Sutter IMO managed to keep the core of the team together hand out a couple salary raises, keep deadline aquisitions and add a couple UFA's in the process. Now I go by the concept that the Flames run themselves on a very tight budget kinda like ther own hard cap at around 36-38mil per season. Personally if Sutter can run the club and improve it like he did this year I dont see why more teams with proper management cant do the same.

I also think that the only teams that are gonna be forced to trim payrole. Wether thats by buying out player contracts or some kind of dispersal draft (which i find reidiculas) are teams that are outrageously above most of the league. Teams like Toronto, Detriot, Dallas, Colorado, Flyers, Avs and the Blues.

If we kept the system we have now the Tampa Bay Lightning, Ottawa Senators, Vancouver Canucks and San Jose Sharks who worked so hard at making there teams very competitive teams will soon be priced out for the talent they have on the club and will have to start a rebuilding process within a year or 2 IMO. This would be such a shame for the fans who stook by ther clubs in ther first rebuilding process only to get an idea of how successful the team could be if they could only afford to keep the team together. As when a team becomes as good as the Wings,Stars, Avs and Leafs the players on the up and coming teams decide they should be paid like a Leaf/Wings/Flyer player is paid and thus only the super rich teams (Leafs,Flyers,Rangers,Stars,Blues,Avs) can only afford to fork out the kind of cash that the really successful teams pay. Thats why there has to be a hard cap so that everyone can afford there best players and not have to trade them off for half of what there worth.

 

[txpd]

Will a team like Tampa Bay that has had Lecavalier, Richards and St Louis mature as allstars at the same time have salary cap problems? Not until they are going for the next contract after this one. In the NFL the Colts had an all star qb, running back and wide receiver develope as all stars at the same time. in the second contracts after that happened they may lose the most replacable of the 3, the running back, to free agency.

i think what you will see less of than a team being broken up, is a team having to find another way to stay on top other than replacing aging and injuried players by way of the big dollar free agent. There will be less of Detroit signing Hatcher and Schneider to add to Lidstrom. Those teams will have to develope more players on their own to plug the gaps left as players age and are moved on.

you will also see less of a team like detroit with a huge payroll being able to land the league's scoring leader at the trade deadline. big contracts wont land in those 5 or 6 markets where they always seem to land anymore.

 

[jcpenny]

Yeah because the New England Patriots have been ripped apart since their first Superbowl win 3 years ago.

Oh wait...actually they ADDED to the strength of the roster this year. 31-2 in thier last 33 games.

Yes that winning team must be clamoring for a free market.

The reason why they are in this position is because the players sign for less money to WIN. Simple.

 

[Hockey_Nut99]

Anybody watch off the record yesterday? Rick Natress was right. He said teams like Edmonton follow their budgets prefectly. They don't overspend and if that means letting a star go then that's how it is. Other teams basically take the players Edmonton developed through trades/drafts/signings/etc...

Edmonton has only survived as a middle of the pack team becasue they usually always stick in a good young kid, and not a flop. They should be a team who thrives in a cap scenerio, but you never know.

I hear some people say that int he last cba if a player is signed away then you should have another guy ready to take his place. Well that's how it will be most of the time in this new era of the NHL. We will see how some of those rich teams can compete when they don't have extra $$ lying around to fix/patch/upgrade their rosters.

 

[transplant99]

With all the players they must now sign like brady it will blow that cap to hell . By the way the pats are right now 11 million over next years cap.

The extension, which the Patriots said is for four years through the 2006 season, is worth $28 million. Brady will receive a two-tiered signing bonus of $10 million -- $4 million now and the $6 million balance next March (in essence an option bonus).

Next.

 

[transplant99]

The reason why they are in this position is because the players sign for less money to WIN. Simple.

What??

New England Patriots

Year Median salary Total Payroll
2003 $ 707,650 $ 82,128,250
2002 $ 540,300 $ 46,194,915

Next.

 

[Winger98]

Let the NFL be your guide.

I fell into this trap before, but the more I've thought about it, the more I think the NHL is a big question mark regarding what will happen with a salary cap. In a perfect world, salaries will all re-adjust and teams will be able to keep their players but for far less money than before. Chances of that actually happening are slim to none, imo.

I think CarlRacki hit on the most likely scenario, where the role players will go elsewhere and earn big bucks, sucking the heart and soul out of the third and fouth lines of championship teams. I know these type of players are often dismissed as "replaceable," but as a Wings fan it would have hurt pretty bad to see Draper/McCarty/Maltby go elsewhere.

One thing that is often over looked with what could happen under a hard cap scenario, is that the NFL relies heavily on rookies coming in and playing a role in their first season, second season usually at the latest. College is their development league and it allows them to restock themselves at necessary positions with relative ease. The NHL doesn't follow the same track record as the majority of drafted players continue to work away in lower leagues before making their NHL debut. Maybe this fact will help stabilize the lower halves of rosters, as players simply wouldn't be available in great supply to bring in a "cheap kid," or maybe we'll see draft strategies drastically alter to choosing older, more fully developed players. Who knows? Could be interesting, though.

 

[Hunter74]

Anybody watch off the record yesterday? Rick Natress was right. He said teams like Edmonton follow their budgets prefectly. They don't overspend and if that means letting a star go then that's how it is. Other teams basically take the players Edmonton developed through trades/drafts/signings/etc...

Edmonton has only survived as a middle of the pack team becasue they usually always stick in a good young kid, and not a flop. They should be a team who thrives in a cap scenerio, but you never know.

I hear some people say that int he last cba if a player is signed away then you should have another guy ready to take his place. Well that's how it will be most of the time in this new era of the NHL. We will see how some of those rich teams can compete when they don't have extra $$ lying around to fix/patch/upgrade their rosters.

Now if every team is working on a the same budget as the Oilers would that in effect create a drag on player salaries especially the Elite Star types which might allow a team like Tampa afford to keep Lecavalier, Richards, St Louis as there individual salaries might not be running the $6-10mil any more but more likely the $4-7mil instead?? Reason i was thining this is b/c not every team is gonna be able to afford 3 $10million dollar players anymore. So what a $10mil player is today will be different in tomorrows NHL as the standards might be risen quite abit. Maybe in tomorrows NHL a player like Pronger wont be getting $10mil b/c of the market adjustment but will be getting $6mil b/c ther isn't a team that can fit a $10mil player in there budget. This might be a side effect of a hard cap...a positive side effect.

 

[jcpenny]

What??

New England Patriots

Year Median salary Total Payroll
2003 $ 707,650 $ 82,128,250
2002 $ 540,300 $ 46,194,915

Next.

I'll be more clear. They sign for less that they could make ELSEWHERE. Ted Johnson confirmed it during the season ( for what its worth)

 

[Brodeur]

Will a team like Tampa Bay that has had Lecavalier, Richards and St Louis mature as allstars at the same time have salary cap problems?

Tampa will definitely be an interesting situation if/once the cap is in place. Lecavalier is not under contract for the 2005-06 season. Here are Tampa's obligations for 2005-06:

Richards: 4.475
Kubina: 3.4
Modin: 2.9
Sydor: 2.8
Prospal: 2.5
Sarich: 1.75
Grahame: 1.53
Dingman: .75
Total: 20.1 million

So they'd have roughly 20 mil to spend on the the other 15 players to fill out its rosters:

RFA: St. Louis*, Lecavalier, Boyle, Fedotenko, Roy, Afanasenkov, Pratt, Cibak
UFA: Khabibulin, Taylor, Andreychuk

Basically the team could only keep two of St. Louis, Lecavalier, and Khabibulin. Given their age, the choice doesn't seem like a tough one. Say St. Louis, Lecavalier, and Boyle account for 13 million, you'd have 7 million to spend on basically role players and maybe a better goalie than John Grahame.

 

[futurcorerock]

No.

 

[missK]

Tampa will definitely be an interesting situation if/once the cap is in place. Lecavalier is not under contract for the 2005-06 season. Here are Tampa's obligations for 2005-06:

Richards: 4.475
Kubina: 3.4
Modin: 2.9
Sydor: 2.8
Prospal: 2.5
Sarich: 1.75
Grahame: 1.53
Dingman: .75
Total: 20.1 million

So they'd have roughly 20 mil to spend on the the other 15 players to fill out its rosters:

RFA: St. Louis*, Lecavalier, Boyle, Fedotenko, Roy, Afanasenkov, Pratt, Cibak
UFA: Khabibulin, Taylor, Andreychuk

Basically the team could only keep two of St. Louis, Lecavalier, and Khabibulin. Given their age, the choice doesn't seem like a tough one. Say St. Louis, Lecavalier, and Boyle account for 13 million, you'd have 7 million to spend on basically role players and maybe a better goalie than John Grahame.

While the numbers you quoted above are correct, you neglected to calculate the 24% rollback in the NHL's proposal which would be a $4,824,000 rollback for a revised total of $15,276,000.

 

[CarlRacki]

I'll be more clear. They sign for less that they could make ELSEWHERE. Ted Johnson confirmed it during the season ( for what its worth)

This is absolutely true and it happens all the time in the NFL. Players will sign for less to stay with a winner. Or they'll do so to stay in what's become their hometown. Heck, some actually do it out of loyalty to their team.

But the question, then, is why would you expect NHL players to do any differently? After all, didn't Paul Kariya sign a contract far below market value for a chance to play in Colorado?
Or are you of he opinion that NHL players are inherently more greedy than their NFL counterparts and will use money as their sole criteria when selecting a team?

 

[Thornton97]

I'll be more clear. They sign for less that they could make ELSEWHERE. Ted Johnson confirmed it during the season ( for what its worth)

Tedy Bruschi's (Pats LB) agent told him to leave the Patriots for more money last off season. He told his agent to shove it--and signed in NE for less money.

And the glory of the NFL is that contracts can continuously be restructered. I believe Brady re-did his contract the past two off seasons. No one can say whether he might do it again. As for being 11 million over the cap next season, Ty Law has a 12 million dollar cap number next season and he most likely will not be around. The Patriots are in fine shape to continue winning (with the exception of their offensive and defensive coordinators).

Not really hockey related, but I felt like these few things had to be pointed out.

 

[Brodeur]

While the numbers you quoted above are correct, you neglected to calculate the 24% rollback in the NHL's proposal which would be a $4,824,000 rollback for a revised total of $15,276,000.

Correct, I was too lazy to add up the rollback

But my point was just that teams would have to learn to say "Thanks for the productive years, but we're headed in a different direction" in choosing which players to resign. Ie, the Lightning would probably have to see Khabibulin go elsewhere........although that's probably the direction they would have gone regardless of the cap.

 

[jcpenny]

This is absolutely true and it happens all the time in the NFL. Players will sign for less to stay with a winner. Or they'll do so to stay in what's become their hometown. Heck, some actually do it out of loyalty to their team.

But the question, then, is why would you expect NHL players to do any differently? After all, didn't Paul Kariya sign a contract far below market value for a chance to play in Colorado?
Or are you of he opinion that NHL players are inherently more greedy than their NFL counterparts and will use money as their sole criteria when selecting a team?

Karyia did it to play on a good team but he didnt fool anybody when we noticed that it was to be unrestricted at the end of the year. The point asnt about this topic though is just wanted to explain why the Patriots were able win all these champisonships.

 

[Hunter74]

I fell into this trap before, but the more I've thought about it, the more I think the NHL is a big question mark regarding what will happen with a salary cap. In a perfect world, salaries will all re-adjust and teams will be able to keep their players but for far less money than before. Chances of that actually happening are slim to none, imo.

I think CarlRacki hit on the most likely scenario, where the role players will go elsewhere and earn big bucks, sucking the heart and soul out of the third and fouth lines of championship teams. I know these type of players are often dismissed as "replaceable," but as a Wings fan it would have hurt pretty bad to see Draper/McCarty/Maltby go elsewhere.

One thing that is often over looked with what could happen under a hard cap scenario, is that the NFL relies heavily on rookies coming in and playing a role in their first season, second season usually at the latest. College is their development league and it allows them to restock themselves at necessary positions with relative ease. The NHL doesn't follow the same track record as the majority of drafted players continue to work away in lower leagues before making their NHL debut. Maybe this fact will help stabilize the lower halves of rosters, as players simply wouldn't be available in great supply to bring in a "cheap kid," or maybe we'll see draft strategies drastically alter to choosing older, more fully developed players. Who knows? Could be interesting, though.

I was thinking that maybe the opposite would happen. Instead of teh Wings replaceing a very good checking line they would instead lose 1 or 2 super stars and field a more lineup with role players incudeing a sprinkling of super stars.

Example:
Instead of this expensive lineup

Zetterberg/Lang/Yzerman
Shannahan/Datsyuk/Hull
Maltby/Draper/McCarty
Whytney/Deveroux/Holmstrom

Lidstrom/Hatcher
Fischer/Dandenault
Schnieder/Chelios

Hasek/Joseph

They would be forced to go with this lineup:

Zetterberg/Lang/Yzerman
Holmstrom/Datsyuk/Grigorenko or McCarty
Maltby/Draper/McCarty or Williams
Kopecky/Mowers/Bootland Or Williams

Lidstrom/Fischer
Dandenault/Kranwall
Woolley/...........

Joseph/Legacy

Yes the second lineup isn't as much of a power house as the 1st one. I am not sure if the Wings woudl be able to afford to get another 3rd or 4th defenseman as well to plug the hole on defense. Or if they could fit Hatcher or Schnieder in there budget, they may only be able to afford the one. Why even consider keeping Chelios at the salary he would be demanding. Anywhich way you look at it that lineup is still a very good lineup that should get the Wings into the playoffs and contend for the cup.

The second lineup is just an example of what they could do to ice a team under the cap withouth tearing it apart completely.Though I think my second lineup is pretty close to the $40mil mark. Thats not to bad imo.

 

[Icey]

Anybody watch off the record yesterday? Rick Natress was right. He said teams like Edmonton follow their budgets prefectly. They don't overspend and if that means letting a star go then that's how it is. Other teams basically take the players Edmonton developed through trades/drafts/signings/etc...

Edmonton has only survived as a middle of the pack team becasue they usually always stick in a good young kid, and not a flop. They should be a team who thrives in a cap scenerio, but you never know.

I hear some people say that int he last cba if a player is signed away then you should have another guy ready to take his place. Well that's how it will be most of the time in this new era of the NHL. We will see how some of those rich teams can compete when they don't have extra $$ lying around to fix/patch/upgrade their rosters.

Then Edmonton had better start to draft better. They have always used the money excuse, wonder what excuse it will be now. The fact is that they draft terrible.

Need an example:

1995 Edmonton has the 6th draft pick. Shane Doan is still out there and who does Edmonton draft? Steve Kelly. Who? He's spent most of his career bouncing from team to team while Shane is now the captain of the Phoenix Coyotes and as we all know scored the winning goal in the World Cup.

Some of those "rich" teams will be just fine, but it won't be just the "rich" teams that will be in that scenario, it will be everyone. Two of the best drafting teams are the NJ Devils and Colorado Avalanche, who also have excellent development. Detroit is also a good drafting team.