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

[Iggys Dome]

How the f*** do the Rangers only have one cup post WW2 lmao

 

[jigglysquishy]

How the f*** do the Rangers only have one cup post WW2 lmao

They had so many close misses talent wise.

Almost signed Gordie Howe as a teenager but they let it fall apart.

Almost signed Red Kelly but it fell apart.

 

[tucker3434]

Drafting is still most important. The cap has the counterintuitive effect of forcing wealthy teams to rebuild correctly rather than overspending on overpriced UFA’s every year. So, sure Toronto management could put together a scary roster if they could outbid everyone for complementary players around their current core. But their current core doesn’t exist either if that’s how they’d been spending a decade ago.

Mostly I think you’d see more dynasties. Teams like Tampa, Colorado, Vegas, and maybe even Florida would no longer lose anyone off of cup teams. They’d compete for longer.

 

[PettersonHughes]

Rangers, TBL, Vegas, Colorado, Dallas, Florida, Vancouver (besides Vegas, all these teams have drafted well in recent memory and make smart signings so there's few inefficient contracts; their negotiations must be quite effective and they know how to identify quality fits; Vegas, as someone else mentioned, would be ruthless in who they cut or move and can probably keep cycling assets).

 

[GeeoffBrown]

I feel like the cap helps Vegas because they seem to be the only team that doesn't have to follow it

 

[tarheelhockey]

The Canes are the best if we ain’t cappin.

 

[PajamaBoy]

Vegas easy

 

[Bouboumaster]

NYR, Chicago, Toronto and Montréal would just throw money to the players until they accept a deal

 

[MessierII]

The oilers

 

[Three On Zero]

As in right now? With current roster + potential additions?

Tampa, Florida, Boston and Rangers.

Aspiring teams that would make a push but likely still fall short.

Edmonton, Vancouver, Philly, Montreal and Vegas.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

These teams were ass when there was no salary cap what are we even talking about

First of all, the Leafs were actually pretty good in the last 5 or 6 seasons pre-cap.

Something that's actually pretty underrated tough, especially as it pertains to the Rangers, is the lowered UFA age.

Instead of signing the Fleurys and Holiks of the world at the tail end of their primes or on the downswing of their careers, they'd be signing 27 year olds at their peak.

 

[kingsholygrail]

The team with the best GM and an owner willing to give him the checkbook.

 

[JFedol]

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.

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.

 

[The Nuge]

Would love to have seen what the Leafs could have done pre-cap with MLSE Ownership.

Same with Edmonton. Before the salary cap, we had one of the smallest budgets, and then we got bought by a multi billionaire who values winning above profit. If you took the cap away, I’m pretty sure you’d end up with Edmonton/Toronto/NYR/etc spending 150+ million

 

[Maitz]

Yep, I feel like Vegas would spend whatever to win. Would actually be kinda interesting.

And everyone wants to go to VGK

 

[Johnny Rifle]

I don’t think any team would have a huge advantage that they didn’t have already.

The cap wasn’t put in place to make it fair for smaller market teams, although the league probably loves that particular narrative. It was put in place for cost control and cost control alone.

Large traditional market teams have advantages far beyond player salary budget, they can provide better training facilities, better coaching staffs, better endorsement opportunities for players, better everything money can buy. That will still be the same in an uncapped league.

However, the winning formula has always been to build from the draft and supplement from free agency. As long as a team doesn’t get so cash-strapped that they can’t resign their own draft picks at close to market price they should stay relevant.

 

[Silky Johnson]

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.

Agree, the leafs 56 years of ineptitude was a "team effort". Can't hang it on an individual player or the budget.

 

[jetsforever]

In recent years, Tampa

 

[TheFinalWord]

Any team that has good management and ownership that will spend a lot is a good candidate for winning. Pointing out what NYR or TML did years ago, with literally none of the same management, is pointless. If teams draft well, develop and then supplement with the extra money they have, then they can win. Pointing out NJ or DET is irrelevant because they don't have the same teams/management. Strong management with money is what will win. A recent team like Tampa, who wouldn't have to lose those depth pieces, is an example of a team that could have won more.

 

[Derailed75]

The league would end up like MLB there would be a handful of teams that would out spend everyone else (Dodgers, Yankees, ect.) That would always be in the mix. There would be a tier of teams (most of the league) that would sniffing around being in the mix for the cup and blowing their load every few years, then you would have a group of about 10 teams that would have to be very creative with their roster, make shrewd trades to bolster their prospects, and have a top tier developmental program to be competitive. Only 2 or 3 of those would succeed. So you would have about 7 teams you know would almost never have a chance to win a cup.


No thanks to a non capped league. I get the reasoning behind the cap is to cost control the roster for the owners but it does in fact help competitive balance and the only fans who don't like the idea of a cap are fans of teams that would spend out the ass.

 

[Suntouchable13]

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,

O yea, NYR never had to overpay. Bobby Holik at 9M was not an overpay at all. Nope. And I never knew that New York City area has a tropical climate, and low taxes. The more you know.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

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.

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.

Colorado also.

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.

 

[Whalers Fan]

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.

I am not sure that Mike Illitch's kids would be as generous in opening the checkbook as their late father was.

 

[Golden_Jet]

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.

You don’t think Stan Kroenke has money,
Owns the Avs, Nuggets, LA Rams and Arsenal soccer club,

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

You don’t think Stan Kroenke has money,
Owns the Avs, Nuggets, LA Rams and Arsenal soccer club,

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.