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

[JianYang]

I would probably qualify Tampa as a super team at least in 2020 and 2021.

Sometimes, super teams are more brand power than anything, but those lighting teams not only had the brand power, but their top guys were all more or less in their prime years. Plus, if their top guys weren't humming, their bottom 6 would overwhelm the other team's lower lines.

You can still build a super team in the cap era, but it will take alot of luck. It's just that no team can stay super for very long because the cap will come back to bite you quickly (if mileage hasn't already taken a bite first).

 

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

There will be parity when a Canadian team wins it all.

Until then, the expansion franchises will continue to win Cups.

 

[Bank Shot]

I would probably qualify Tampa as a super team at least in 2020 and 2021.

Sometimes, super teams are more brand power than anything, but those lighting teams not only had the brand power, but their top guys were all more or less in their prime years. Plus, if their top guys weren't humming, their bottom 6 would overwhelm the other team's lower lines.

You can still build a super team in the cap era, but it will take alot of luck. It's just that no team can stay super for very long because the cap will come back to bite you quickly (if mileage hasn't already taken a bite first).

The Tampa teams of 20/21 are more of a super team than the 03/04 team.

I think when people think of super teams from precap they think of the Red Wings with like 10 Hall of Famers and maybe the 2001 Avalanche.

They had a tonne of big names, but many were past their prime on those teams.

 

[JianYang]

The Tampa teams of 20/21 are more of a super team than the 03/04 team.

I think when people think of super teams from precap they think of the Red Wings with like 10 Hall of Famers and maybe the 2001 Avalanche.

They had a tonne of big names, but many were past their prime on those teams.

The pre cap rangers were famous for this as well.... minus the success for the most part.

 

[JFedol]

Pre-Cap easily. Dynasties will always be needed for storylines, parity doesn't move the needle like some people think.

Some people may cite expansion and yes it did play a part in the huge skill gap, and let's not get it twisted. There definitely were a bunch of superteams that came through that era, but if I'm gonna be honest and I'm not really sure how to explain it. It seemed like almost every game breaking player genuinely had way more raw skill and talent even against elite superstars not because of the skill gap but because they were just THAT GOOD. Game breaking players were obviously generational for a reason but I honestly feel like there's a reason why almost every record was set in the past. The league was just simply so much better back then............ even with the current talent we have now. Way higher scoring era, so many iconic true rivalries, 100x more greater playoff series and just peak hockey at it's finest. Generational aura, distinct and atmospheric arenas, zero overexposure with the internet and social media. Way more barbershop talk and possibly discussions with fans, Prime TSN/Primetime ESPN, Way less worry and issues with the cap, better designed looking jerseys. Peak STAR POWER in almost all positions especially with Roy, Hasek between the pipes. I think they were more underdog cup runs back then as well compared to the cap era, I need to check that though.

Aside from Gretzky's goalscoring record, I'm glad every single huge record was dominated and set before the internet and social media and the cap came along. Orr, Howe, Gretzky, Lemieux and Jagr alone had more talent + IQ in their f***ing pinkies and brains than like 90% of the league and the current era today. And those mfers didn't need IPads on the bench. It was just again, raw f***ing talent. The injuries played a part but all 4 players playing in a tough/rough league + 2 line pass magnified their talent to another level and cements them on a greater level historically. The less, the more kind of defines it IMO.

People will cite parity, and also mention that ridiculous payrolls and contracts that were handed out pre cap, but it's been Hawks, Kings, Penguins, and Tampa for the most part. True parity hasn't really been showcased on a year to year basis and their's still teams like Detroit, Buffalo, Arizona/Utah, Preds, CBJ that haven't done shit respectfully.


Only since 2022 have we actually seen parity and even then it's sort of smoke and mirrors to an extent. Most rich teams high on the payroll like NY before the cap barely did shit respectfully and lots of pre-cap cup winning teams were all built organically or through strategic trades. The cap does it's part and limits teams but we truly are being robbed of some all time great teams and playoff battles. The Dollar 100% sucked the life out of alot of franchises especially within Canada, but the NHL generally was in a good place before the cap came along IMHO.

 

[JianYang]

I like a little from column A and a little from column B. I don't mind if we went through cycles of parity and non-parity.

As one example, I won't believe it if anyone told me that the red wings/avs showdowns from the 90s were not fun.

 

[TruePowerSlave]

Superteam playoff wars are the best there is in hockey

 

[Schennanigans]

The cap is just more fair for all the teams. It would be nice if we lived in a world where everything was fair. Like getting the highest education should be about the smartest or driven people getting a chance to succeed and not just those with money. Most of the world is an unfair place.

 

[Drake1588]

If you were a fan of one of the power teams that had ownership that was willing to spend, such as Colorado, Detroit, NYR, Philadelphia, Toronto, sometimes Los Angeles and Dallas, then it was great because your team was playing with a stacked deck. Some had better management than others, to put it mildly, but elite free agency was the purview of just a few teams. You could correct a lot of mistakes through free agency, and fill any hole that you identified in the summer because there was no limit on your spending. Fans of a fifth of the league's teams loved it. These were also the only teams that ESPN ever covered.

It was pretty miserable to be a fan of the other clubs. Period.

The current system certainly isn't perfect. It creates cost certainty, not parity. Yet it does save owners from their worst impulses as far as buying their way out of a jam. That evens the playing field considerably and gives hope to many more fans in many more cities. One of the reasons enough owners dug in their heels and demanded change is that the pre-salary cap system had extinguished hope in far too many markets.

 

[qcal1427]

The current NHL is in a very good place when it comes to balancing competitiveness with ability for good teams to distinguish themselves. It's in a very good place with the cap system and roster rules, which allow for the right amount of flexibility while still making sure decisions matter long-term and being easy for fans to follow and understand.

The NFL is the NFL and will be fine no matter what. Compared to the MLB and NBA though (add MLS in there too if you want) I really do think that the state of the game in the NHL is crushing the rest of the leagues.

 

[acor]

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

10 teams have won cups in the past 16 years.

You know that "10 teams in 16 years" is a very f***ing lot, right?

Maybe salary cup creates parity, maybe doesn't, but this is a a very, very poor argument, that actually prove opposite of what you wanted to prove.

 

[Elvs]

I don't even think there's that much parity anymore. For example, I would say that the Dallas Stars have six forwards better than the Anaheim Ducks best forward, and arguably another three forwards better or on par with their second best forward. And sure, the Ducks are still bad, but they are no longer a punching bag exactly.

I feel like there was much more parity in the first decade after the lockout, versus the second decade after.

 

[Elvs]

You know that "10 teams in 16 years" is a very f***ing lot, right?

Maybe salary cup creates parity, maybe doesn't, but this is a a very, very poor argument, that actually prove opposite of what you wanted to prove.

Actually, in the last 16 years prior to the salary cap being introduced, there was also ten different winners.

The following teams all won cups between 1989 and 2004:

Tampa Bay
New Jersey
Detroit
Colorado
Dallas
NY Rangers
Montreal
Pittsburgh
Edmonton
Calgary

And this in a league with fewer teams than what we have now.

 

[ozzie]

Yes, it was great for the Wings, Leafs and big markets to be able to attract top talent. Eventually most people want to see Super teams fail and get upset, it's exciting while it lasts though for that fan base. It would be pretty cool to see a team win 4 in a row again.

 

[acor]

I don't even think there's that much parity anymore. For example, I would say that the Dallas Stars have six forwards better than the Anaheim Ducks best forward, and arguably another three forwards better or on par with their second best forward. And sure, the Ducks are still bad, but they are no longer a punching bag exactly.

I feel like there was much more parity in the first decade after the lockout, versus the second decade after.

But in 5, or 10 years situation might reverse and Ducks might have 5-6 better players than Stars best player...

In some leagues that are without parity mechanisms, you are almost guaranteed that you will have excatly same teams on top year in and year out (I know that in 80s and 90s NHL it wasn't excatly like that, and yeah, there was still some parity without salary cap etc., but I don't think you can compare this situations- there were different money in a world of sports back then).

 

[Mad Dog Tannen]

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 the paragraph era over this new super-paragraph era.

 

[a mangy Meowth]

It seemed like almost every game breaking player genuinely had way more raw skill and talent even against elite superstars not because of the skill gap but because they were just THAT GOOD. Game breaking players were obviously generational for a reason but I honestly feel like there's a reason why almost every record was set in the past. The league was just simply so much better back then............ even with the current talent we have now. Way higher scoring era, so many iconic true rivalries, 100x more greater playoff series and just peak hockey at it's finest. Generational aura, distinct and atmospheric arenas, zero overexposure with the internet and social media. Way more barbershop talk and possibly discussions with fans, Prime TSN/Primetime ESPN, Way less worry and issues with the cap, better designed looking jerseys. Peak STAR POWER in almost all positions especially with Roy, Hasek between the pipes. I think they were more underdog cup runs back then as well compared to the cap era, I need to check that though.

Back in my day!

 

[The Hanging Jowl]

I see it as more about the fans. The Leafs have sold out their building for infinity regardless of how badly the team is playing and there's a 30 year wait list to buy season tickets. There should be a reward for that. Instead, they're being punished simply for drafting and trading for 4 of the best forwards in the league. Doesn't seem fair to me.

If the idea is to keep costs down and control salaries, I at least get the argument. If the idea is to subsidize weaker markets then just make it a luxury tax like baseball (I assume they still do that). The best seasons the Leafs had in recent memory were from 1999-2004 and they didn't win jack shit even though they were consistently the second highest spenders in the league so it's not like you can just buy a Cup.

 

[Gerulaitis]

Those Wings vs Avs series of the 90s were a beauty to behold. All time classic.

A conference grand finale that should have been the Cup final.

 

[Ezpz]

We've had more "super teams" post-cap than we did in the 90s. Chicago, Pittsburgh, and Tampa have had more success than the 90s Detroit/Avalanche/Devils teams did.

 

[Tie Domi Esquire]

I see it as more about the fans. The Leafs have sold out their building for infinity regardless of how badly the team is playing and there's a 30 year wait list to buy season tickets. There should be a reward for that. Instead, they're being punished simply for drafting and trading for 4 of the best forwards in the league. Doesn't seem fair to me.

??? Plenty of teams have drafted significantly better than the Leafs have. They signed their players to contracts that actually make sense though. Maybe that's why the Leafs are "being punished". That's without even mentioning the godawful trades that the Leafs have made.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

The irony is the pre cap super teams were drafted not bought.

Islanders, Oilers, Avs, Red Wings, Pens all drafted their elite cores.

 

[The Hanging Jowl]

The irony is the pre cap super teams were drafted not bought.

Islanders, Oilers, Avs, Red Wings, Pens all drafted their elite cores.

Avs literally inherited their core from the Nordiques then were practically gifted Ray Borque and Patrick Roy to put them over the top for their first Cup. So, no. I'd have to put some thought into the other teams.

 

[Hoek]

I see it as more about the fans. The Leafs have sold out their building for infinity regardless of how badly the team is playing and there's a 30 year wait list to buy season tickets. There should be a reward for that.

Why should they be rewarded just for having blindly obsessed fans they did absolutely nothing to earn?

 

[MoneyManny]

4 out of the last 5 cup winners are from no income tax states. Parity in the NHL just isn't a thing either way.