They had so many close misses talent wise.How the f*** do the Rangers only have one cup post WW2 lmao
First of all, the Leafs were actually pretty good in the last 5 or 6 seasons pre-cap.These teams were ass when there was no salary cap what are we even talking about
Tampa and Chicago would've ran an absolute CLINIC on the entire league if the cap didn't play a major factor in screwing them over lol. We most likely see 70+ wins with both teams at their peaks.Honestly I think we'd be watching Tampa and Colorado competing in their fifth finals in a row this year. Those teams were the most talented of recent memory and both had their ability to bring back a deep team significantly hindered by the cap, Tampa especially.
Good drafting and development win the day and that's even more true without a cap, not less. The same way that drafting and developing Lidstrom, Fedorov, Konstantinov, etc set up the Red Wings of the late 90s to win in the pre-cap era, we'd see the same with Tampa and Kucherov, Point etc. Imagine Marchessault, Coleman, Goodrow, Gourde all still on that team. Imagine if they could have kept Sergavhev and Stamkos but still added Guentzel anyway this off-season. Imagine if they hadn't been dumping all of their picks for mediocre players on good contracts just so they can fit under the cap.
The Blackhawks would have been unstoppable around Kane and Toews' prime years had they been able to keep Buff, Saad, Panarin, etc. Players want to win and winning teams make enough money to justify paying those players. Even without a cap, owners are too greedy to let the salaries get too outrageous and so the competetive advantage of wealthy teams is much smaller than the advantage of good ones keeping their players.
The Rangers would manage to buy a cup every once in a while but it would be mostly vets and they'd fail to have sustainability with that model. Besides that, it would just be 2 or 3 dominant teams at any one time depending on who had the luck of the draft 5-10 years years prior. Dynasties in major markets would have a little better staying power I'd imagine, but either way it's mostly an aging core that would end a window regardless.
Would love to have seen what the Leafs could have done pre-cap with MLSE Ownership.
And everyone wants to go to VGKYep, I feel like Vegas would spend whatever to win. Would actually be kinda interesting.
Agree, the leafs 56 years of ineptitude was a "team effort". Can't hang it on an individual player or the budget.None of them hurt the leafs. All were past their primes. If you actually read what i said, I'm simply saying that the leafs couldn't buy themselves a cup.. which is true, so im not sure what youre arguing with me about.
Rangers would benefit far most. Of course, it would mean nothing, if managment would be totally Pejorative Slured, like it was last time when we had no cap, but if managment would be half compenent, they would compete for the cup every single year.
Habs and Leafs fans might be inintially happy, that now they gonna simply buy all the top talent, but less happy when they see how much they'd have to overpay for players to come and play in hostile, high-pressure enviroment with crappy weather and high taxes,
It would still be who has the best management. The Rangers were ass without a cap because they overpaid non-elite talent like Bobby Holik giving him $9M per year, but you needed to get to 31YO to be a UFA. With that said, team building would definitely be different in the current CBA (with no cap) where elite players are UFA eligible at 25-27.In every single thread people are always talking about the taxes and most desirable destinations for free agents and all that. Which city/team you think would be the king if the league was without cap? If you think that teams that have the money, owners with deep pockets, the media pressure, which team would be the place that would spend the money like there was no tomorrow and get and all-star team where players would want to go?
I think Rangers would be the #1, because you know, it's New York. Maple Leafs would be my second take. Vegas would be there of course. And Kings obviously.
Sorry I'm a bit drunk and English isn't my first language, hope you catch my drift.
Colorado was only a "big market team" back in the day because the WalMart heirs owned the team and were willing to spend. Owning a sports team was the logical extension of buying a bigger yacht or more crazy estate in the Hamptons.Colorado also.
Based on history it would be New Jersey and Detroit. It's still about management, coaching, scouting and developing players at the end of the day. Bigger markets should have advantages though.
You don’t think Stan Kroenke has money,Colorado was only a "big market team" back in the day because the WalMart heirs owned the team and were willing to spend. Owning a sports team was the logical extension of buying a bigger yacht or more crazy estate in the Hamptons.
I'm sure he has money, but I'd say that's the situation for the most of the franchises at this point. The league is in a fundamentally different place than it was 30 years ago. The issue now would be who has the biggest ego, because most of the teams are owned by billionaires or corporations.You don’t think Stan Kroenke has money,
Owns the Avs, Nuggets, LA Rams and Arsenal soccer club,