Which team would be the best in a league with no cap

[SirPaste]

I am not super up to speed on every owner's financial prowess but it basically comes down to whoever is willing to spend the most money but also have a good management group in place to spend it wisely. Just throwing the most money at a bunch of players doesn't guarantee success you just have to look at the pre lock out teams to see that, or at the MLB or European soccer. Lots of teams spend boatloads of cash but unless you are doing it in a smart way the team likely isn't going to win anything.

 

[Neil Racki]

Capitals are owned by Qatar so shoot the moon

 

[Craig Ludwig]

Back in 1994 when there essentially wasn't a cap, the Rangers spent the most and were rewarded a cup that year.

 

[Rorschach]

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.

You know when there was a time where there was no salary cap and New York managed to make one Cup run notoriously after having a very long drought and that's before the majority of post-LA Gretzky expansion happened. So in theory they would have a paper advantage. But many times these large market teams have to battle with one hand tied behind their backs.

These teams, and we can continue to see this with teams like Toronto as a clear example, where you (as a big expansion) can't lose enough to rebuild properly and you constantly overspend on subpar players to keep butts in seats and eyes on TV screens. Philly, New York Rangers, Toronto, and even Chicago all had these problems.

The only teams no cap works out for are the teams that can afford to lose for several years, have an extremely solid rebuild and then overpay for a few key free agents after the rebuild is done. At the end of the no cap era and the beginning of the expansion era, two teams really benefited from this and both had drafted/developed extensive cores while adding a lot of expensive players via UFA or trades with cash strapped teams. Detroit and Colorado.

 

[JoVel]

Whichever team some Saudi prince decided to buy for fun.

 

[SeanAveryTheGreatOne]

I'd love to see the cap removed or raised to a high level such that it's difficult to cap out (even though my team did nothing but overpay for retirees without it).

I think teams being able to reinvent themselves and have the potential to go from bottom-feeder to contender in one off-season is fantastic for the sport. Look at the hype the NBA got in 2010 thanks to the Miami Heat's off-season. Yeah, I know the NBA has a cap, but it's spread among much fewer players per team.

The de facto winning formula for hockey under the tight cap is to tank as hard as possible for a few years so you can have another few years with a window wherein you have young superstars on cheap contracts. That's hardly a healthy model.

I also think the greater potential for dynasties is better, too - big winners drive every sport's popularity.

 

[Bank Shot]

The Oilers would be up in the top group for sure.

They were top two in revenue last season, have arguably the two best players, and an owner worth $5 billion dollars that has thrown money at the team with abandon.

Owners Rich List | The Richest Sports Club Owners - OLBG.com

This list has him as the 6th richest owner behind the Kings, Sharks, Ducks, Sabres, and Rangers.

 

[Honour Over Glory]

The teams with the best tax situation.

 

[crazyhawk]

The OP doesn't mention the timeline for the no cap question but if it was always in place as only two posters mentioned in the previous 5 pages the Hawks would have won 5 cups with their core in the 2010 - 2015 window.

 

[The Shrike]

Teams that grew their own prospects, though the draft, were still the best teams. Growing up as a leaf fan, they bought guys like brian Leech, alex moginly, eric lindros, etc. Well, those guys were past their prime looking for big contracts to end their careers. Still need the good young guys. Still need to build and go through the process. Leafs couldn't buy themselves a cup before the salary cup era, so i don't know why you think they'd be a top team. Good management means a lot more than people realise.

The Leafs never even tried to, Ballard was too cheap, and Stavros was too broke. They could have outbid McNall for Gretzky without breaking a sweat, but they chose not to, even though he would have made them a better team.

 

[edog37]

I think it's still best to have a "team" and I will try to rationalize it a bit more.

The NYR did have an insane budget before but when you have a bunch of stars...who is going to do the grunt work? Forecheck? Penalty kill? block shots etc? You still need guys that can perform their role extremely well.

The Leafs in the pre-cap era I felt struggled with a couple of things, their defense just wasn't good enough, probably at least 2 top 4 defenseman short and probably needed another 2 wingers, 1 being a top line guy and another legit top 6.

Centre was a bit thin - Joe Niewendyk was good but older...

I'd love to go back to zero cap or at least have a luxury tax, Texas/Florida/Vegas can spend less because of the net pay situation versus Toronto having to pay a premium because of taxes is frustrating.

Elect different politicians & change your tax code.

 

[joestevens29]

Impossible to say. We had no cap before and there were no guarantees

 

[ZDH]

Ya'll got any more of those Scott Gomez's.

 

[Richard]

The Oilers would be up in the top group for sure.

They were top two in revenue last season, have arguably the two best players, and an owner worth $5 billion dollars that has thrown money at the team with abandon.

Owners Rich List | The Richest Sports Club Owners - OLBG.com

This list has him as the 6th richest owner behind the Kings, Sharks, Ducks, Sabres, and Rangers.

Funny, last time we didn't have a cap I remember teams like the Oilers, Penguins, Sabres, losing their best players and/or having to play a cost effective style.

If there was no salary cap teams like Rangers and Toronto would be good but teams like Dallas, Florida and Nashville would also thrive with the tax considerations.

 

[Bank Shot]

Funny, last time we didn't have a cap I remember teams like the Oilers, Penguins, Sabres, losing their best players and/or having to play a cost effective style.

If there was no salary cap teams like Rangers and Toronto would be good but teams like Dallas, Florida and Nashville would also thrive with the tax considerations.

Oilers weren't owned by one of the richest guys in the league back then.

 

[Three On Zero]

Funny, last time we didn't have a cap I remember teams like the Oilers, Penguins, Sabres, losing their best players and/or having to play a cost effective style.

If there was no salary cap teams like Rangers and Toronto would be good but teams like Dallas, Florida and Nashville would also thrive with the tax considerations.

You still need to be a desirable market to attract the right players. Having a rich owner doesn’t mean players are going to want to play for you. Smaller market teams still have to fight with the big fish and sell players on playing for them.

 

[le_sean]

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,

Yeah things that definitely don’t exist in New York

 

[Richard]

Oilers weren't owned by one of the richest guys in the league back then.

Without a cap they probably wouldn't be owned by one today, either. Richest guys in the league don't buy something that loses truckloads of money.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

The OP doesn't mention the timeline for the no cap question but if it was always in place as only two posters mentioned in the previous 5 pages the Hawks would have won 5 cups with their core in the 2010 - 2015 window.

It's tough to say that because the Hawks were forced to rebuild when the cap hit and they did it right (for a change) after $Bill died. If the cap wasn't in place would the Hawks have kept trying to patch over the problems with the Doug Gilmours in the twilight of their career? You can make a case saying that Rocky changed the approach - but then you'd have to ask if the Hawks could sign a guy like Hossa if there was no cap?

Without a cap they probably wouldn't be owned by one today, either. Richest guys in the league don't buy something that loses truckloads of money.

Strongly disagree with this. There are plenty of example of billionaires treating a sports franchise like the biggest vanity project spending whatever it takes.

 

[crazyhawk]

It's tough to say that because the Hawks were forced to rebuild when the cap hit and they did it right (for a change) after $Bill died. If the cap wasn't in place would the Hawks have kept trying to patch over the problems with the Doug Gilmours in the twilight of their career? You can make a case saying that Rocky changed the approach - but then you'd have to ask if the Hawks could sign a guy like Hossa if there was no cap?

Good points and yes there is no way of truly knowing how it would have gone. Hossa was an integral part of the three cups and so sure it's the butterfly effect with so many permutations possible. Fact remains however if there wasn't a cap the Hawks would have been very strong.
I mean Big Buff was a force and man it would have been awesome if the Hawks were able to keep him.

 

[Richard]

It's tough to say that because the Hawks were forced to rebuild when the cap hit and they did it right (for a change) after $Bill died. If the cap wasn't in place would the Hawks have kept trying to patch over the problems with the Doug Gilmours in the twilight of their career? You can make a case saying that Rocky changed the approach - but then you'd have to ask if the Hawks could sign a guy like Hossa if there was no cap?


Strongly disagree with this. There are plenty of example of billionaires treating a sports franchise like the biggest vanity project spending whatever it takes.

You don't buy a dying asset - I'm sorry. It's easy to lose 50M a year on a soccer team that, value-wise, exponentially grows. Hockey, sans the cap, had roughly a third of its clubs losing value.

Billionaires like to remain billionaires and even Saudi Princes want a return on their investments someday. The Oilers, Flames, Penguins, Sabres etc. weren't exactly healthy.

 

[Henkka]

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.

Think it would be like 2003-04.

DET and NYR spending most.

Detroit wins the President's Trophy and Rangers will fail getting to playoffs.

Rangers would be having a roster full of overpaid big names, all past their prime.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

You don't buy a dying asset - I'm sorry. It's easy to lose 50M a year on a soccer team that, value-wise, exponentially grows. Hockey, sans the cap, had roughly a third of its clubs losing value.

Billionaires like to remain billionaires and even Saudi Princes want a return on their investments someday. The Oilers, Flames, Penguins, Sabres etc. weren't exactly healthy.

Can you explain to me then the Penguins of 1991-92 that essentially spent until the owner was bankrupt, or the pre-Cap Wings and Avs who spent triple on salaries compared to other teams from that time.

 

[Richard]

Can you explain to me then the Penguins of 1991-92 that essentially spent until the owner was bankrupt, or the pre-Cap Wings and Avs who spent triple on salaries compared to other teams from that time.

I mean the Howard Baldwin Pens are not really your best path of argument - he was a scam businessman who purchased the penguins for like 1100 of his own money. He was also spending money he did not have. Not the best example but I'll let you continue your own research on why. Furthermore, understanding that the time value makes a serious impact here, but the Pens led the league in payroll in 92 and 93 coming in at 14.5 and 15.2M (roughly 31.5M and 32M) which are large sums but not the business sports are today meaning Baldwin had an easier time performing financial skullduggery to maintain the illusion of payroll.

The Wings were a large market team, metro population of 4.4 million plus Canadian wing fans. Owned by a passionate billionaire. The Avs are also in Denver which was a rapidly growing population center and was bought by a billionaire in 2000 who promptly spent for four years. From 996-2000 avs were middle range salary team.

When the league began losing franchise value, they shut it down for an entire year. AKA not making any money was a better option than playing.....

As someone who lived through those times, without the TV deals, local rights harvesting, no revenue sharing the league was going to lose teams if they didn't implement a salary cap.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

I mean the Howard Baldwin Pens are not really your best path of argument - he was a scam businessman who purchased the penguins for like 1100 of his own money. He was also spending money he did not have. Not the best example but I'll let you continue your own research on why. Furthermore, understanding that the time value makes a serious impact here, but the Pens led the league in payroll in 92 and 93 coming in at 14.5 and 15.2M (roughly 31.5M and 32M) which are large sums but not the business sports are today meaning Baldwin had an easier time performing financial skullduggery to maintain the illusion of payroll.

The Wings were a large market team, metro population of 4.4 million plus Canadian wing fans. Owned by a passionate billionaire. The Avs are also in Denver which was a rapidly growing population center and was bought by a billionaire in 2000 who promptly spent for four years. From 996-2000 avs were middle range salary team.

When the league began losing franchise value, they shut it down for an entire year. AKA not making any money was a better option than playing.....

As someone who lived through those times, without the TV deals, local rights harvesting, no revenue sharing the league was going to lose teams if they didn't implement a salary cap.

Richard is very appropriate.

My point is that pre-cap owners weren't limited by the doing the "smart" think from a business perspective and not all of them were not solely motivated by profit. I do agree that the cap was primarily put in place to "save the owners from themselves". That being said - it wasn't the "big market" (really big spending) teams that were driving the lock-out, but it was the smaller market teams.