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

[Golden_Jet]

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.

Last time I looked AVS owner was 4th richest, with Winnipeg, by far the richest owner. So ya the Avs can be included as one of the teams with no cap.

 

[Machinehead]

It's hard to say.

We didn't have a cap for a century prior to the lockout and the teams that threw money around weren't necessarily always the best.

Most people who criticize the current cap system don't do so because they want to constantly dip into free agency. It's because their team can't even afford to keep together and improve the roster they have.

 

[Machinehead]

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.

Since the lockout in 2005, 11 teams have won the World Series and 13 teams have won the Stanley Cup. It's not that big of a difference.

The perception of what a different cap system looks like is a bit cartoonish.

Baseball does have a soft cap, and with the exception of the Dodgers who just pay the penalties, it stops teams from really going crazy. The teams littering baseball that have absolutely no chance is due to the absence of a cap floor.

A better example is European soccer which has absolutely no [enforced] rules and basically, every league has one team. For one, nobody wants that. Two, NHL teams really don't have the financial muscle to get to that point. The top teams in soccer are global brands being funded by entire countries.

 

[Jerzey Devil]

Detroit finished the non cap era as the best team imo.

What some newer fans might not get is how hard it was for a team like New Jersey or Dallas to be able to win in a no cap era. He’ll even after the cap was implemented the Devils still weren’t able to spend to the ceiling .

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

Last time I looked AVS owner was 4th richest, with Winnipeg, by far the richest owner. So ya the Avs can be included as one of the teams with no cap.

My point is that there are now plenty of owners who could theoretically spend whatever they want on team payroll. If we're assuming it's wild west time - market size is completely irrelevant and the only limitation is based on how much the owner is willing to lose to maximize their chances to win the Cup. You mentioned WIN, but I know the guys who just bought OTT and AZ are also a multi-billionaires.

In the pre-cap era - there was a much smaller group of owners who had that level of resource availability. I remember reading a story about the Oilers ownership group (pretty sure it was the Oilers) getting a "capital call" where they had to send in a check to help cover payroll. The simpler question is which ownership groups could NOT spend a crazy amount if they wanted?

 

[jigglysquishy]

It's hard to say.

We didn't have a cap for a century prior to the lockout and the teams that threw money around weren't necessarily always the best.

Most people who criticize the current cap system don't do so because they want to constantly dip into free agency. It's because their team can't even afford to keep together and improve the roster they have.

Free agency functionally didn't exist prior to 1972. And was extremely weak pre 1994.

UFA ages have changed drastically too with the 2005 CBA.

There has never been the ability to throw out big cash to superstars in their prime. Using old Lindros or Holik in 2003 isn't the same as 2024 McDavid.

If McDavid was a free agent without a cap, he would easily get $30 million a year. The real question is if the Leafs or Rangers throw $50 million to him.

 

[Derailed75]

Since the lockout in 2005, 11 teams have won the World Series and 13 teams have won the Stanley Cup. It's not that big of a difference.

The perception of what a different cap system looks like is a bit cartoonish.

Baseball does have a soft cap, and with the exception of the Dodgers who just pay the penalties, it stops teams from really going crazy. The teams littering baseball that have absolutely no chance is due to the absence of a cap floor.

A better example is European soccer which has absolutely no [enforced] rules and basically, every league has one team. For one, nobody wants that. Two, NHL teams really don't have the financial muscle to get to that point. The top teams in soccer are global brands being funded by entire countries.

And who won thr leagues championship is not a good indicator of league wide parity either. There are some team (Indians/Guardians for example that have positioned themselves well and are in the playoffs more often than not) then there are teams that can't figure out a way to manage what money they do have ever (Pirates) and then there are teams that set themselves up for a run every few year (KC, Milwaukee). Other then that the bid market teams always have a chance.

That doesn't happen in the NFL and the NHL. Teams like the Ranger and Leafs, Jets and Bears despite being in bigger markets have long stretches on ineptitude.

 

[Three On Zero]

It's hard to say.

We didn't have a cap for a century prior to the lockout and the teams that threw money around weren't necessarily always the best.

Most people who criticize the current cap system don't do so because they want to constantly dip into free agency. It's because their team can't even afford to keep together and improve the roster they have.

No cap doesn’t equal success, you still have to have a good management group and be in a desirable market. You’re fighting with an entire league that still has the same leverage as you.

Seems like a big fallacy that we would suddenly have these “super teams”

 

[PaulD]

Penguins
Aves
Bolts

 

[David Bruce Banner]

IIRC, the Rangers tried buying the league at one point in the Sather era and found that there's only so much ice time and many spots on the power play.
Although maybe their problem was buying 1st liners and expecting them to excel on the 3rd line instead of buying the best 3rd liners.

 

[BlueBaron]

About 10 teams.
It would be a bit different than the 90s because we all been forced to scout better. It would create a 2 tier league. McDavid as a pending UFA joins the East because the Oil cant afford to front load a max contract. The inflation would be scary to.

 

[NYRfan85]

Those of you saying the Rangers clearly did not see how they operated from 1997-2004, which was during a time of no salary cap. The Rangers threw money at anyone and everyone, and did not make the playoffs once during this dark time.

Honestly, the Rangers have done much better WITH the salary cap, because it restricted their foolish spending ways!

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

IIRC, the Rangers tried buying the league at one point in the Sather era and found that there's only so much ice time and many spots on the power play.
Although maybe their problem was buying 1st liners and expecting them to excel on the 3rd line instead of buying the best 3rd liners.

I would say that Holik was an amazing 3rd liner. The problem is the Rangers paid him $9M like an elite 1st line player and then were shocked when he couldn't perform in that role.

Always remember Sather in EDM throwing shade at the Rangers because they "could just buy whatever they wanted". When Sather went to NY his tune changed.

Like someone said - the best management still had the best teams. There were just fewer markets that could sustain consistent success even if they had great management.

 

[Canovin]

As of right now, I'd say the Oilers.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

About 10 teams.
It would be a bit different than the 90s because we all been forced to scout better. It would create a 2 tier league. McDavid as a pending UFA joins the East because the Oil cant afford to front load a max contract. The inflation would be scary to.

BB - can you provide some insight into your 10 teams? Because with no cap it comes down to which billionaire owners are willing to subsidize their team to maximize their chance of success. And there are plenty of multi-billionaire owners in small markets (CAL, OTT, WIN, UTA to name 4 real quick) that traditionally wouldn't/didn't spend. Historically, DET/COL didn't generate that much more revenue than the other teams, they just had owners who were willing to personally foot the bill to give their organization an advantage. Hell, even PITT ownership was willing to spend more than they had, and it ended up costing them the team.

If you're just talking purely which markets which generate more revenue to fund the team, I guess I could see the 10 team "upper tier".

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

IIRC, the Rangers tried buying the league at one point in the Sather era and found that there's only so much ice time and many spots on the power play.
Although maybe their problem was buying 1st liners and expecting them to excel on the 3rd line instead of buying the best 3rd liners.

that and they were buying them a few years beyond their expiration date

 

[Derailed75]

No cap doesn’t equal success, you still have to have a good management group and be in a desirable market. You’re fighting with an entire league that still has the same leverage as you.

Seems like a big fallacy that we would suddenly have these “super teams”

Not super teams and you are correct you still have to have good management but its a complete fallacy to say that in a no cap world some teams (IE big market) do not have a huge advantage over small market teams with restrained spending.

Like I posted above no cap doesn't mean the big spenders are going to win every year but it pretty much ensures they will compete year in year out while small market teams have to get creative to be contenders every few years and basically be an anomaly to consistently be a contender.

 

[wintersej]

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.

I think you might see more UFAs go to market since their options won’t be “my team or some bad team with lots of cap space”.

Like if McDrai had the option of staying together and going to a good team that had extra cash, that would have to be on the table, right? With UFA happening earlier now than pre-cap it would seriously change the dynamic unless that was reverted. As it stands today they could only go to some bad team with 30 million in space.

It's hard to say.

We didn't have a cap for a century prior to the lockout and the teams that threw money around weren't necessarily always the best.

Most people who criticize the current cap system don't do so because they want to constantly dip into free agency. It's because their team can't even afford to keep together and improve the roster they have.

Folks also went to UFA much later in their aging curve.

 

[Dickie Dunn]

Vegas

/thread

 

[Bombshell11]

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,

Last time we had no cap the molsons were going through financial troubles.

MTl is generating second most revenue so if you removed the contributions were doing to the worst teams we would be in a healthy positions to be cotenders every year and we would also have more quebecois playing for us.

This is in a world where the nhl becomes less centralized

 

[Golden_Jet]

About 10 teams.
It would be a bit different than the 90s because we all been forced to scout better. It would create a 2 tier league. McDavid as a pending UFA joins the East because the Oil cant afford to front load a max contract. The inflation would be scary to.

Why can’t they? Here is his signing bonus structure of his current contract. Seems like they definitely can and have done it.

So 86 million of his current contract is signing bonus, up front money, I guess you just made that up, hoping he’d sign with the leafs.

13, 13, 13, 12, 11, 10, 7, 7 million

 

[Kegs]

The one with mcJesus

 

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

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.

The Rangers were mid without a salary cap for years. Same with Toronto.

There's nothing to suggest these teams would succeed other than "they're big markets so they have more money."

 

[BlueBaron]

Why can’t they? Here is his signing bonus structure of his current contract. Seems like they definitely can and have done it.

So 86 million of his current contract is signing bonus, up front money, I guess you just made that up, hoping he’d sign with the leafs.

13, 13, 13, 12, 11, 10, 7, 7 million

I was thinking the Rangers. That doesn't look like a max front loaded deal to me. I'd start with the league max times 7 then compile the max signing bonus on that.....

No need to get to reactionary. He's an example of the hypothetical pressure teams could put on smaller markets, not meant as a sure fire event.

 

[Golden_Jet]

I was thinking the Rangers. That doesn't look like a max front loaded deal to me. I'd start with the league max times 7 then compile the max signing bonus on that.....

No need to get to reactionary. He's an example of the hypothetical pressure teams could put on smaller markets, not meant as a sure fire event.

I showed you the signing bonus numbers, add salary on top of those.
Ok here is his salary breakdown, on current contract. signing bonus is included in those numbers, which I already gave you.
15, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 10

variance on contracts from year to year to no more than 35% and no year can be less than 50% of the highest year.

It appears you don’t understand how the cap works, or what’s allowed, unless I don’t understand what you’re proposing.

Signing bonus , has to be included within the cap/yearly salary.

If you give the player max league salary, there is zero signing bonuses on top of that.

Ie. if league max was 15 million.
Then $14 million in signing bonus and 1 million in salary.

What would be you’re NYR breakdown of yearly salary (including SB breakdown)