Do you miss the Pre-Cap Superteams or do you prefer parity?

[WarriorofTime]

Before the salary cap, you used to have the ability for teams to not only keep a core together but also add on top of it by spending on free agents, up to whatever amount the owner was willing to stomach. This lead to some ridiculously stacked teams like you saw in Detroit and Colorado in the late 90s/early 2000s which had to some pretty epic playoff matchups. Now when you build a great core, you know a "cap hell" is inevitable where you'll have to make some tough decisions and eventually your depth will be depleted once your players hit their free agency years. This leads to a lot more parity and more teams with a shot to win a Cup each year. But in some ways, the stacked teams in say, soccer, are fun to watch, maybe not when Man City plays a random EPL match against Aston Villa, but in Champion's League when you see multiple superteams face off each year. This isn't to excuse teams like the Leafs that botched their great cores with salary cap mismanagement, but a part of you wonders if it'd be fine to see the Leafs that could spend without cap restrictions against a Tampa team that can do the same, a Colorado team that can do the same, etc. Of course, this can be rather dull for the bottom dwellers or middle-tier teams that have no shot. But they can still draft up their own cores, and then become one of the big spenders once they've bottomed out and built up a bunch of high-end draft picks. The big loser in all of this are the low-spending, small market teams, that even with a good core, won't be able to outspend the Leafs and Rangers of the world.

What do you prefer?

 

[Perfect_Drug]

Parity

 

[HugeInTheShire]

Parity is the only way, I probably wouldn't watch the NHL any more if they went back.

 

[Calad]

Parity is far more effected by the OT loser point than the salary cap

 

[Tufted Titmouse]

I miss the super teams. Peak NHL for me was Detroit vs Colorado super team Cups. Parity is nice for the regular season, but you lose the story lines.

 

[Suntouchable13]

NHL is kind of a joke with their parity. From game management, to the OT “loser” point. Sickens me. They are trying to force it, instead of letting it come naturally. At least, that’s the perception.

 

[Bevans]

This cap=parity myth is about as believable as the flat earth theory.

10 teams have won cups in the past 16 years.

In the last decade there have been two teams that have won only 1 "cap era" cup.

There was only 1 new eastern team in the playoffs this year.

The cap doesn't create parity. It does the opposite. It turns bad contracts into milestones and makes rebuilding very slow.

The league has about as much parity as your post has paragraphs.

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

I miss the non cap days because literally ANYBODY could be traded anywhere at any time and we didn't have to worry about cap space or cap hits or mpney in money out.

2004 was a great deadline Toronto got Leetch and Francis, Boston got Gonchar, Montreal got Kovalev, Edmonton got Nedved, Philadelphia got Amonte and Zhamnov.

That was great and It's not possible now.

 

[Hoek]

I don't miss the super teams that were mostly composed of stacking up all the best free agents like the Wings were doing at one point.

I do think it would be cooler if teams that developed all their talent got to hang on to them though. If the cap could be changed to account for homegrown discounts that could be interesting.

 

[David Bruce Banner]

I miss the super teams because I think our so-called parity is all smoke and mirrors.

That said, luxury taxing the highest spending franchises and enforcing a hard salary basement would probably make the game more competitive.

 

[Crede777]

The fact that the NHL's revenue is primarily gate driven means that parity is pretty much essential because it drives ticket sales.

The ideal situation for the league to maximize revenue would be for every team to be within a point of making the playoffs until the very last game of the season and to have different cup finalists every year.

 

[Sasha Orlov]

Tampa is a super team and also isn’t affected by the cap

 

[kingsholygrail]

I miss the rover position.

 

[Melrose Munch]

Miss the super teams. Not a fan of the cap and parity is overrated. If the NHL had a TV contract covering the majority of revenues things would be different.

 

[TaLoN]

Parity makes the league more fun for everyone and much less predictable.

Super teams are boring.

 

[Mohar Ikram]

Before the salary cap, you used to have the ability for teams to not only keep a core together but also add on top of it by spending on free agents, up to whatever amount the owner was willing to stomach. This lead to some ridiculously stacked teams like you saw in Detroit and Colorado in the late 90s/early 2000s which had to some pretty epic playoff matchups. Now when you build a great core, you know a "cap hell" is inevitable where you'll have to make some tough decisions and eventually your depth will be depleted once your players hit their free agency years. This leads to a lot more parity and more teams with a shot to win a Cup each year. But in some ways, the stacked teams in say, soccer, are fun to watch, maybe not when Man City plays a random EPL match against Aston Villa, but in Champion's League when you see multiple superteams face off each year. This isn't to excuse teams like the Leafs that botched their great cores with salary cap mismanagement, but a part of you wonders if it'd be fine to see the Leafs that could spend without cap restrictions against a Tampa team that can do the same, a Colorado team that can do the same, etc. Of course, this can be rather dull for the bottom dwellers or middle-tier teams that have no shot. But they can still draft up their own cores, and then become one of the big spenders once they've bottomed out and built up a bunch of high-end draft picks. The big loser in all of this are the low-spending, small market teams, that even with a good core, won't be able to outspend the Leafs and Rangers of the world.

What do you prefer?

I prefer super team because I like dominance. Money system are your guys system but for sports you guys prefer the "other system" lol.

If people think only team with crazy money will dominate if no cap, it is definitely a wrong thought since if that's the case, TML and NYR will dominate everyone and every year. (TML never won since 67 and NYR since 94).

The randomness of the hockey playoffs outcome never fails... Cap or no cap.

 

[Accelleratii]

Definitely miss it the cap has absolutely destroyed the Flyers - they've been the most mediocre franchise in all of sports since.

 

[Tufted Titmouse]

Tampa is a super team and also isn’t affected by the cap

Tampa isn't a super team. Look at some of the pre cap teams...nothing better than some of those loaded teams, filled with HOFers, clashing in the finals.

Tampa has been very well managed, probably the best of the cap era. Add in a little draft luck. Very good team with a nice selling point in terms of weather and taxes. The most impressive thing about Tampa is they really haven't signed a terrible contract in my recent memory. Even TJ was fair value for most of his deal.

 

[Vakarte]

I'm surprised this board is favoring pre hard-cap era.

 

[koyvoo]

I miss the era before either of them. When a NYI or EDM could become a dynasty just because.

 

[Masked]

I don't miss the super teams that were mostly composed of stacking up all the best free agents like the Wings were doing at one point.

I do think it would be cooler if teams that developed all their talent got to hang on to them though. If the cap could be changed to account for homegrown discounts that could be interesting.

The top pre-cap teams were exclusively built upon drafted and developing a top core.

Detroit didn't bring in Yzerman, Federov, Lidstrom, etc as free agents. Likewise, Colorado and New Jersey with Niedermayer, Elias, Brodeur, Sakic, Forsberg, Hejduk, Tanguay, Foote, etc as players they didn't bring in as free agents.

The Rangers tried building a winner through free agency and they always failed. Their most recent Cup win was built upon guys like Leetch, Richter, Zubov, Kovalev, which they supplemented with experienced vets like Messier, Larmer and Lowe that they acquired in trades.

Assen na yo!

 

[BrokenFace]

I prefer parity, but I think we can have it both ways. I think that every season, about 2 weeks before the trade deadline, the salary cap should rise 10%. This would give added cap space to the teams who want to go for it. It doesn't hurt parity because the selling teams aren't competing for the cup anyway and virtually all worthwhile free agents would already have contracts. This also wouldn't increase league wide spending because any player traded to a team to fill the new cap space would be reducing the payroll of the team that traded him away, so the owners get to keep their cost certainty. This will allow for "super" teams to be assembled for the playoffs without just letting big market teams outspend everyone else in free agency.

Let the buyers buy and the sellers sell every year without having to navigate the cap by exchanging salary dump contracts. Also, I believe the league already gives teams a 10% salary cap cushion during the off seasons, but I can't find that official rule right now.

 

[GOilers88]

Parity is far more effected by the OT loser point than the salary cap

Absolutely

 

[tfwnogf]

I loved the superteams, but cap makes everything fair and square. It would be cool if a dozen of the top players in the league all went to Arizona and took massive discounts so they could play together. Imagine a superteam destroying everyone playing in front of 5000 (or less) people

 

[Sasha Orlov]

Tampa isn't a super team. Look at some of the pre cap teams...nothing better than some of those loaded teams, filled with HOFers, clashing in the finals.

Tampa has been very well managed, probably the best of the cap era. Add in a little draft luck. Very good team with a nice selling point in terms of weather and taxes. The most impressive thing about Tampa is they really haven't signed a terrible contract in my recent memory. Even TJ was fair value for most of his deal.

Depends on what is meant by super team I guess, but you’re right

Though I’m not sure Tampa couldn’t go head to head against any of those teams