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

[Hoek]

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!

True you always need a core. But they would continually plug in any holes with a free agent or big trade. See Hasek, Hull, Joseph, Shananhan, Robataille, Chelios, etc. Teams don't have that lazy kind of luxury now and it's for the better IMO.

 

[WarriorOfGandhi]

I miss the rover position.

I miss it when defensemen were called "coverpoint"

 

[Guardian17]

Parity.

 

[Chips]

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

Standings point system bullshitting points out of thin air; playoff system designed to help teams in shit divisions get further and or make sure legit top teams knock each other out early as possible to possibly ease the path for “lesser” playoff teams; series and score management

 

[McGarnagle]

In the big picture, hockey was better in the 90s when the Red Wings, Avs, and Stars signed everyone and beat the shit out of each other every spring (and the Rangers signed everyone and still missed the playoffs).

That said, my team's owner is a cheap bastard and they never would've been able to have the run they had over the past 13 years or so without the cap system being in place, so on that front I begrudgingly accept the cap.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

There's other sports without hard caps we can look to.
Results are pretty much what you expect.




Hard cap for me. But maybe a few more compliance buyout windows.

 

[OgeeOgelthorpe]

Superteams for sure.

Does the NHL really have true parity? How long were the Oilers a basement team in the cap world? How about Arizona, Ottawa, and Buffalo now? Detroit kept their playoff streak well into the salary cap era, ultimately ending in 2016-17. How about New Jersey and how long they have been bad?

Contract lengths and the cap gymnastics teams have to go through to stay under doesn't create real parity. If anything I would argue that it makes it harder for teams to climb back into contention when they hit rock bottom. Look at Montreal and the problems they are currently having with the cap.

If anything I would like the buyout penalty to be reduced or done away with entirely. Pay the player but that should be enough punishment for the team. I think that would help to improve parity and allow for teams to more easily correct their mistakes. This way teams can get rid of the Lucic/Neal/Clarkson/Abdelkader level mistakes of the league much easier.

 

[WarriorofTime]

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.

Teams being built to such a large extent via the trade deadline would feel a bit hallow (hello 2005-06 Canes though).

 

[MikeyMike01]

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.

It’s not going to happen, of course, but a much better system is a salary cap & non-guaranteed contracts, like the NFL has.

 

[Howboutthempanthers]

You can still keep your core together. You will just lose depth. And you can't add past their prime superstars trying to join a team most likely to win a cup.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Superteams for sure.

Does the NHL really have true parity? How long were the Oilers a basement team in the cap world? How about Arizona, Ottawa, and Buffalo now? Detroit kept their playoff streak well into the salary cap era, ultimately ending in 2016-17. How about New Jersey and how long they have been bad?

Contract lengths and the cap gymnastics teams have to go through to stay under doesn't create real parity. If anything I would argue that it makes it harder for teams to climb back into contention when they hit rock bottom. Look at Montreal and the problems they are currently having with the cap.

If anything I would like the buyout penalty to be reduced or done away with entirely. Pay the player but that should be enough punishment for the team. I think that would help to improve parity and allow for teams to more easily correct their mistakes. This way teams can get rid of the Lucic/Neal/Clarkson/Abdelkader level mistakes of the league much easier.

The NHL is very cyclical, there's no modern-day equivalent of like Real Madrid and Barcelona just running through La Liga for 70 years with the occasional appearance of Atletico here or there when they have a particularly strong side.

 

[OgeeOgelthorpe]

The NHL is very cyclical, there's no modern-day equivalent of like Real Madrid and Barcelona just running through La Liga for 70 years with the occasional appearance of Atletico here or there when they have a particularly strong side.

It was cyclical before the cap. The Canadiens, Islanders, Oilers, Penguins, Wings, Devils and Avs all rose as dynasties or quasi-dynasties pre-cap. It's remained cyclical after the cap. This is true of North American sports in general though because we have the draft for our leagues while many Euro teams have a club development system.

 

[SUX2BU]

Parity

 

[Bevans]

It’s not going to happen, of course, but a much better system is a salary cap & non-guaranteed contracts, like the NFL has.

What would you offer to the nhlpa to agree to non- guaranteed contracts?

Would require a very large carrot/stick

 

[WarriorofTime]

It was cyclical before the cap. The Canadiens, Islanders, Oilers, Penguins, Wings, Devils and Avs all rose as dynasties or quasi-dynasties pre-cap. It's remained cyclical after the cap. This is true of North American sports in general though because we have the draft for our leagues while many Euro teams have a club development system.

Yeah the draft will always keep things somewhat cyclical, but the salary cap makes the windows quite a bit shorter and allows teams with lesser drafted cores to hang around a bit more.

What would you offer to the nhlpa to agree to non- guaranteed contracts?

Would require a very large carrot/stick

NHL players at the Olympics, win/win for fans, lol.

 

[GreenLine]

The cap is more about cost certainty for the owners than it is about parity. Parity was an added bonus, not the initial motivation. But to answer the question, I'm a big fan of the parity of a cap league.

I have no interest in watching a league where the biggest markets use the rest of the league as a farm system.

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.

The loser point keeps as many teams in the playoff race for as long as possible, which is good for business. I don't like the loser point, or at least I'd prefer a 3-2-1 system so every game was equal, but it isn't going to change.

I agree with you about the refs' game management though - it often goes too far, is too blatantly obvious and calls into question the legitimacy of the league.

 

[OgeeOgelthorpe]

What would you offer to the nhlpa to agree to non- guaranteed contracts?

Would require a very large carrot/stick

You can't have non-guaranteed contracts in the NHL because the money is not nearly as high as the NFL for endorsements, merchandise or salaries. The players want that security net incase things go sideways, and I can't blame them.

Increase the percentage of what a player is allowed during a buyout as a lump sum though. From 33% to 40% and limit the number of years on a buyout's term to 3 years instead of dragging it out so long. For instance, Suter's buyout in Minnesota is 8 f***ing years! He'll be fully retired from the league in a season or two and still being paid $833k by Minnesota for 5 more seasons.

And I still argue that the penalty for buyout should be done away with. A team shouldn't have to live with that millstone of a contract after the player is bad, old or broken. Pay them out, move on. It will make the product on the ice better.

 

[MoneyManny]

I very much dislkke the cap era. Too much emphasis is put on the lottery picks these days it's crazy.

With no cap, superstars would get the salary they deserve and teams having superstars could get over the top more easily and we'd get to see more exciting hockey imo.

You can't have non-guaranteed contracts in the NHL because the money is not nearly as high as the NFL for endorsements, merchandise or salaries. The players want that security net incase things go sideways, and I can't blame them.

Increase the percentage of what a player is allowed during a buyout as a lump sum though. From 33% to 40% and limit the number of years on a buyout's term to 3 years instead of dragging it out so long. For instance, Suter's buyout in Minnesota is 8 f***ing years! He'll be fully retired from the league in a season or two and still being paid $833k by Minnesota for 5 more seasons.

And I still argue that the penalty for buyout should be done away with. A team shouldn't have to live with that millstone of a contract after the player is bad, old or broken. Pay them out, move on. It will make the product on the ice better.

I agree. Or maybe meet halfway and allow teams to have 1 contract buyout be penalty free every x amount of years or something. Teams shouldn't have to struggle for a decade because a GM made 1 bad move or a player fell off the map earlier than expected.

 

[El Travo]

Parity is better. Most people I know or those who post here can't even handle the thought of Tampa making it to the Finals again. I can't imagine what it'd be like if a team was going for a 5-peat.

 

[nowhereman]

I don't miss the pre-cap superteams at all. It was basically a handful of teams (mostly with the deepest pockets) loading up on good players and/or never having to let them go, while the rest of the league struggled to match-up. The current system is far better, as the best teams still rise to the top but everyone else is at least competitive.

 

[Voight]

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.

Yup, during that 95-2004 stretch you had those two plus Dallas. One of the 3 would pretty much almost always e in the WCF.

 

[Petrouth]

What parity? We've had 10 unique cup champions in the 16 years since the lockout. Thats the same amount of unique champions as the evil, unwatchable MLB in the same span. What parity are you talking about when conference finals after conference finals were suffocated by the same teams. We had some parity in the years after the cap but since then it might as well be the pre-cap days. At least then we could see some teams swing for the fences and gear up - miss or not. Now its a long, hard slog to mediocrity

 

[Hockeyholic]

Even before the cap, were there truly super teams who won every year?

93: Canadiens
94: Rangers (Won in 7)
95, 00, 03: Devils (Won in 7--03)
97-98, 02: Wings
96 & 01: Avs (Won in 7--01)
99: Stars
04: Lightning (Won in 7)

 

[Bevans]

You can't have non-guaranteed contracts in the NHL because the money is not nearly as high as the NFL for endorsements, merchandise or salaries. The players want that security net incase things go sideways, and I can't blame them.

Increase the percentage of what a player is allowed during a buyout as a lump sum though. From 33% to 40% and limit the number of years on a buyout's term to 3 years instead of dragging it out so long. For instance, Suter's buyout in Minnesota is 8 f***ing years! He'll be fully retired from the league in a season or two and still being paid $833k by Minnesota for 5 more seasons.

And I still argue that the penalty for buyout should be done away with. A team shouldn't have to live with that millstone of a contract after the player is bad, old or broken. Pay them out, move on. It will make the product on the ice better.

The primary problem with buy-outs is that GM's screw themselves by agreeing to buy-out proof their contracts with massive bonuses. One way to mitigate this is to cap the years in which a bonus can be provided.

For example, bonuses can only be paid in the first 2/3 of a contract, rounded up to the nearest year.

In practive this would look like:
6 year contract, no bonuses allowed after year 4.
The players benefit in that they get their money faster by front loading more bonuses into the beginning of the contract. The owners benefit by avoiding bonuses in the period of time when a contract would traditionally be bought out and the player is less productive.

Whren thinking about solutions for collective bargaining its important to think about why each party would object, and more specifically who within that party would do so?

I don't think owners would disagree with any restriction on bonuses, except maybe only the richest teams.

For the players, maxed out superstars, who play for the Leafs or mega rich teams, may not like needing real salary in last 2 or 3 seasons. How much sway would they have in this context? I don't think a ton, especially because they still benefit in that it makes their contracts more tradeable if they want a late career cup run.

I very much dislkke the cap era. Too much emphasis is put on the lottery picks these days it's crazy.

With no cap, superstars would get the salary they deserve and teams having superstars could get over the top more easily and we'd get to see more exciting hockey imo.


I agree. Or maybe meet halfway and allow teams to have 1 contract buyout be penalty free every x amount of years or something. Teams shouldn't have to struggle for a decade because a GM made 1 bad move or a player fell off the map earlier than expected.

Any money outside the system is DOA.

 

[Bevans]

Yeah the draft will always keep things somewhat cyclical, but the salary cap makes the windows quite a bit shorter and allows teams with lesser drafted cores to hang around a bit more.


NHL players at the Olympics, win/win for fans, lol.

You think players would pass up all financial security for a road trip to Socchi in the dead of winter?

I'll trade you a bag of magic beans for your pension.