Who are the 5 best and 5 worst franchises in the post-lockout/salary cap era?

[Soundgarden]

Explain.

No star players, no playoffs, no money, no fans. Not necessarily in that order.

 

[Claypool]

No star players, no playoffs, no money, no fans. Not necessarily in that order.

They made the playoffs in 2004. They still don't have any star players. Now they're stuck with a bunch of overpaid guys they can't get rid of because of the salary cap. I'm sure the penny-pinching ownership group loves paying $78 million for a non-playoff team.

 

[Soundgarden]

They made the playoffs in 2004. They still don't have any star players. Now they're stuck with a bunch of overpaid guys they can't get rid of because of the salary cap. I'm sure the penny-pinching ownership group loves paying $78 million for a non-playoff team.

Yes, we made the playoffs in 2004, but without the cap we don't make the playoffs annually, aside from three years, thus our average attendance doesn't go from 13-15K to 17K.

Kariya, Suter, Weber, Rinne, etc. are/were all star players. And our "penny pinching ownership group" can now spend to the cap because of said cap.

Again, without the salary cap we don't have a team. Trust me.

 

[Aliceanna]

Pittsburgh won Cups in the pre-free agency/money as a huge thing era. As did Montreal.

I know Cups are the thing, but I think the Kings are too high on that list. They should be somewhere in there, because they did burn bright for a time, but they also burned out very quickly. Some of the things they did on the way to 2 Cups, no team has ever done, but they also struggled at times during those seasons. They have nothing but the Cups, and it's just the 3 out of 15 years where they were truly part of any conversation. No Presidents trophy. No division title. No big individual trophy winner every year.

That you don't even mention SJ, I think is a slight. They had too many good years, played in too many playoff games, won too many playoff games, to not be at least mentioned. Year to year, top to bottom, best franchises of the cap era? The Sharks are really the Bruins or Caps, just yes, without the Cup.

Really astute comment--especially for a Kings fan! (unless there's a joke here I'm not getting?). The Sharks have been an exceptional organization for years and very much analogous to the Caps (Caps' fans have often called them Caps West, especially before the Cup win).

But the Kings deserve their spot. Winning two Cups in three years is not easy, especially not the way the Kings did it in 2014 (was just discussing this on another Caps' forum tonight, in fact!).

The Sharks should be an HM at least on this list, but when you look at Detroit, Anaheim, and Tampa Bay--all of whom have Cups in this time period--it's hard to make that argument.

 

[ismelofhockey]

Remember when the salary cap was supposed to help teams like Buffalo, Arizona, Florida and Columbus?

The salary cap was never going to guarantee success for any team. That's a mighty big strawman. The salary cap allowed teams like Buffalo, Ottawa, and others to compete. Their failures are more about poor management than poor owners, as it should be.

Before the salary cap, teams like Detroit and the Rangers had payrolls of $80M while teams like the Sens struggled to spend $25M. Think of what would have happened to salaries if that had been left unchecked.

 

[Claypool]

The salary cap was never going to guarantee success for any team. That's a mighty big strawman. The salary cap allowed teams like Buffalo, Ottawa, and others to compete. Their failures are more about poor management than poor owners, as it should be.

Before the salary cap, teams like Detroit and the Rangers had payrolls of $80M while teams like the Sens struggled to spend $25M. Think of what would have happened to salaries if that had been left unchecked.

There are still overpaid players in the league today, just like there were in 2002. What happens now, though, is the "poor" teams stash those bad contracts (Phoenix) on LTIR so they can hit the cap floor without having to pay money. Seems like it's working as intended!

Regardless, the UFA age pre-cap was 31 years old. Now it's 27. Younger players are getting paid way more money than they used to, too, which doesn't benefit small market teams.. Those players can also leave a small market earlier as a UFA. Small market teams have to overpay to keep players, which isn't very helpful with a salary cap. That doesn't even factor in state taxes, which was never a factor pre-cap.

The Senators are still a cheap team.

 

[ismelofhockey]

There are still overpaid players in the league today, just like there were in 2002. What happens now, though, is the "poor" teams stash those bad contracts (Phoenix) on LTIR so they can hit the cap floor without having to pay money. Seems like it's working as intended!

Regardless, the UFA age pre-cap was 31 years old. Now it's 27. Younger players are getting paid way more money than they used to, too, which doesn't benefit small market teams.. Those players can also leave a small market earlier as a UFA. Small market teams have to overpay to keep players, which isn't very helpful with a salary cap. That doesn't even factor in state taxes, which was never a factor pre-cap.

The Senators are still a cheap team.

I don't see how state taxes are more of a factor now than they were before. Player A will still ask for more money from a team with high state taxes. The small market team in a high tax zone would be even more hard-pressed to keep its player, while the small market team in a low-tax zone gets an advantage. The salary cap changes nothing in that dynamic.

As for the lower UFA age, it doesn't matter as much as it used to because small market teams can compete on the UFA market. And salaries have been kept in check. At age 27 Sergei Fedorov had just completed a contract that paid him $4.2M per year. He then signed a 6-year $38M contract which paid him $28M in the first year, equivalent to $8.42M AAV today and $37M in the first year alone. No small market team could afford that. RFAs were not safe.

When was the last time a small market team lost a homegrown star because they couldn't afford him? It used to happen a lot.

 

[Claypool]

I don't see how state taxes are more of a factor now than they were before. Player A will still ask for more money from a team with high state taxes. The small market team in a high tax zone would be even more hard-pressed to keep its player, while the small market team in a low-tax zone gets an advantage. The salary cap changes nothing in that dynamic.

It impacts the total amount of cap space a team needs to use for each player.

As for the lower UFA age, it doesn't matter as much as it used to because small market teams can compete on the UFA market. And salaries have been kept in check. At age 27 Sergei Fedorov had just completed a contract that paid him $4.2M per year. He then signed a 6-year $38M contract which paid him $28M in the first year, equivalent to $8.42M AAV today and $37M in the first year alone. No small market team could afford that. RFAs were not safe.

When was the last time a small market team lost a homegrown star because they couldn't afford him? It used to happen a lot.

You can thank the small market, money-losing Carolina Hurricanes for that contract. Seems like they were willing to pay it.

Pre-cap teams weren't signing their young, core guys to 8-year max deals coming off their entry-levels. Players didn't hit it big until free agency when they were turning 31. Small market teams had way more control over their roster and payroll. Pittsburgh likely can't afford to keep their early 90s Cup-winning teams together in a salary cap world. Same with the Oilers during their dynasty.

 

[ismelofhockey]

It impacts the total amount of cap space a team needs to use for each player.

I know, but the dynamic is the same now. The salary cap has changed nothing. The Tampa Bay Lightning benefit, the Ottawa Senators suffer. It was the same before the cap.

You can thank the small market, money-losing Carolina Hurricanes for that contract. Seems like they were willing to pay it.

Yes. If you have an owner rich enough, it doesn't matter how big your market is. The point remains: salaries were out of control, and RFAs were not safe.

Pre-cap teams weren't signing their young, core guys to 8-year max deals coming off their entry-levels. Players didn't hit it big until free agency when they were turning 31. Small market teams had way more control over their roster and payroll.

You don't think Sergei Fedorov hit it big when he signed that massive contract? What about Alexei Yashin? Alexandre Daigle?

But there is an easier way to solve this: when is the last time a team lost a star because it couldn't afford to pay him?

 

[Claypool]

I know, but the dynamic is the same now. The salary cap has changed nothing. The Tampa Bay Lightning benefit, the Ottawa Senators suffer. It was the same before the cap.

Yes. If you have an owner rich enough, it doesn't matter how big your market is. The point remains: salaries were out of control, and RFAs were not safe.

You don't think Sergei Fedorov hit it big when he signed that massive contract? What about Alexei Yashin? Alexandre Daigle?

But there is an easier way to solve this: when is the last time a team lost a star because it couldn't afford to pay him?

Sure he it it big, but that's because Carolina offer-sheeted him. Fast-forward 20 years and Sebastian Aho went from 800K in his entry-level deal to making $12 million, all because Montreal thought Carolina couldn't afford his front-loaded deal. Same with Philly and Nashville over Weber's offer-sheet. Explain to me how Aho's contract situation is any less insane than Fedorov's was.

Couldn't afford to pay him because there's no cap space? Lost as in walked during free agency? Lost because the team decided to rebuild or was going through ownership changes? You'll have to be more specific.

 

[Daximus]

Remember when the salary cap was supposed to help teams like Buffalo, Arizona, Florida and Columbus?

A couple seasons back I looked at the number if different Cup winners and finalists in the same number of years on either side of the cap era and there were more different teams to have won a Cup and been a finalist before the cap was implemented. Not sure how that's changed over the last few seasons though.

 

[Tage2Tuch]

Remember when the salary cap was supposed to help teams like Buffalo, Arizona, Florida and Columbus?

it did help Buffalo who was competitive for the first 6-7 years after the cap, won pres trophy and made it to two East conference finals, finished top five in scoring the year in 08 despite losing briers and drury, the after that In 08 and made the playoffs in three other seasons after that. Been a rut since though...

and the panthers did eventually get better but they’ve just yet to really stay better, sort of a couple playoff game six/seven runs and so many seasons just barely missing and the jackets had some pretty decent years in the past 5-7 years.

I get your point though

 

[Elvs]

Pittsburgh won cups pre-salary cap. Tampa, too. Nashville was already putting together a strong team, and would have been better off because they would have been able to keep both Suter and Weber.

Pittsburgh was heading towards bankruptcy before the salary cap was implemented. And how do you figure Nashville would have been able to keep both Suter and Weber? In 2003/2004, the Predators had a payroll of $23.2 million. Meanwhile the Rangers and Red Wings had a payroll of $77-78 million. You don't think one of the rich teams could pry one of Suter/Weber from Nashville if there was no salary cap? Or both?

As a Ducks fan, I can say the salary cap has helped us enormously. Before, the only chance of winning was if we had much luck and goaltending out of this world (Giguere in 2003), but there's no way we could be consistantly successful. Now we're one of the most successful franchises of the last 15 years and were able to keep Getzlaf and Perry for a long time. I don't even wanna think about where the franchise would be currently without the salary cap. My guess is no longer in California.

 

[ismelofhockey]

Sure he it it big, but that's because Carolina offer-sheeted him. Fast-forward 20 years and Sebastian Aho went from 800K in his entry-level deal to making $12 million, all because Montreal thought Carolina couldn't afford his front-loaded deal. Same with Philly and Nashville over Weber's offer-sheet. Explain to me how Aho's contract situation is any less insane than Fedorov's was.

Couldn't afford to pay him because there's no cap space? Lost as in walked during free agency? Lost because the team decided to rebuild or was going through ownership changes? You'll have to be more specific.

How is it different? It isn't. That's my point. He got paid $20M over 2 years, while Fedorov got paid $38M in a single year (accounting for the salary cap being 33% higher than in 2005) at a time when you claim small market teams had better control over their young players. Weber got paid even less than Fedorov! What is different however is that the Rangers aren't shooting $25M AAV contracts left and right like they probably would be without the cap.

Lost as in the player asked for more money than the team could afford to give him. Lost like the Rangers threw an ungodly amount of money at said player. Lost like the Oilers lost pretty much every single star player they had between 1988 and 2005. Lost like the Tampa Bay Lightning lost Chris Gratton: not because they were rebuilding. Not because they wanted to make a hockey trade. Not because they felt the need for a change. Because they were bullied by a team with deeper pockets.

You want to see what leagues look like without salary caps? Look at soccer in Europe. Look at the Expos in Montreal.

 

[Claypool]

Pittsburgh was heading towards bankruptcy before the salary cap was implemented. And how do you figure Nashville would have been able to keep both Suter and Weber? In 2003/2004, the Predators had a payroll of $23.2 million. Meanwhile the Rangers and Red Wings had a payroll of $77-78 million. You don't think one of the rich teams could pry one of Suter/Weber from Nashville if there was no salary cap? Or both?

Pittsburgh's situation was due to poor ownership and not wanting to spend money since the team was for sale. And arena issues.

Ryan Suter wouldn't have hit free agency at 27 and Nashville would have been able to pay both him and Weber far less money as RFAs.

How is it different? It isn't. That's my point. He got paid $20M over 2 years, while Fedorov got paid $38M in a single year (accounting for the salary cap being 33% higher than in 2005) at a time when you claim small market teams had better control over their young players. Weber got paid even less than Fedorov! What is different however is that the Rangers aren't shooting $25M AAV contracts left and right like they probably would be without the cap.

Lost as in the player asked for more money than the team could afford to give him. Lost like the Rangers threw an ungodly amount of money at said player. Lost like the Oilers lost pretty much every single star player they had between 1988 and 2005. Lost like the Tampa Bay Lightning lost Chris Gratton: not because they were rebuilding. Not because they wanted to make a hockey trade. Not because they felt the need for a change. Because they were bullied by a team with deeper pockets.

You want to see what leagues look like without salary caps? Look at soccer in Europe. Look at the Expos in Montreal.

The current Oilers owner is worth billions. Explain to me how Daryl Katz wouldn't be able to pay McDavid $30 million a season. I'd argue the cap is hurting the OIlers because they don't have the salary space to surround him with more talent. The Oilers weren't making any money and had poor ownership during the late 80s/early 90s.

Nobody cares about Chris Gratton. Tampa Bay won a cup with no cap.

 

[Daximus]

It sucks being lumped in the with Thrashers but I suppose we have to take the good with the bad. So we get an extra playoff appearance. We haven't done to bad when you consider that all of that was achieved in just 9 years, minus one playoff appearance from Atlanta.

 

[Elvs]

Ryan Suter wouldn't have hit free agency at 27 and Nashville would have been able to pay both him and Weber far less money as RFAs.

If I'm Suter or Weber in that situation, I'm not staying in Nashville a day longer than I have to. Not when there are teams who can offer me twice as much in free agency.

But let's say Nashville would be able to keep both Suter and Weber, how do imagine the rest of their team would look like?

 

[Claypool]

If I'm Suter or Weber in that situation, I'm not staying in Nashville a day longer than I have to. Not when there are teams who can offer me twice as much in free agency.

But let's say Nashville would be able to keep both Suter and Weber, how do imagine the rest of their team would look like?

Ok, but they wouldn't hit free agency for four more years. That's the point. I don't know what the rest of their team would look like, but it would have had Suter and Weber on the blue line.

 

[ismelofhockey]

The current Oilers owner is worth billions. Explain to me how Daryl Katz wouldn't be able to pay McDavid $30 million a season. I'd argue the cap is hurting the OIlers because they don't have the salary space to surround him with more talent. The Oilers weren't making any money and had poor ownership during the late 80s/early 90s.

Nobody cares about Chris Gratton. Tampa Bay won a cup with no cap.

Do you know how much money Daryl Katz is ready to lose on the Oilers every year? Do you even know if Katz would have bought the team had there been no salary cap in place? There is no question that the salary cap has brought in better owners.

You might not care about Gratton, but I guarantee Lightning fans cared. Just like Oilers fans cared they couldn't keep anyone past the age of 3o. Sure UFA comes sooner now, but it doesn't matter because poor teams can still compete on the UFA market. Without a cap, poorer teams become nothing but farm teams for the rich teams. Just like the Expos were.

You still haven't answered my question. When is the last time a poor team lost a player because it couldn't compete with deep-pocketed teams?

 

[Claypool]

Do you know how much money Daryl Katz is ready to lose on the Oilers every year? Do you even know if Katz would have bought the team had there been no salary cap in place? There is no question that the salary cap has brought in better owners.

You might not care about Gratton, but I guarantee Lightning fans cared. Just like Oilers fans cared they couldn't keep anyone past the age of 3o. Sure UFA comes sooner now, but it doesn't matter because poor teams can still compete on the UFA market.

You still haven't answered my question. When is the last time a poor team lost a player because it couldn't compete with deep-pocketed teams?

I don't care how much he's ready to lose. He's allowed to run his business how he wants to. Do the Oilers of the 80s even win two Stanley Cups with a salary cap? Probably not. Same with the 90s Penguins.

In 2001 Detroit lost Martin Lapointe to Boston through free agency. Detroit thought he was too expensive to bring back. The deep-pocketed Bruins out-spend the budget Red Wings.

"Martin decided to go in Boston because of the style of play. They're a young team, and they've got a future," Lupien said. "I phoned (Bruins general manager Mike O'Connell) at about 12:30 last night and said, `You've got Martin Lapointe.' He was very happy."

Lapointe said Monday that the money also was a factor.

"When you go out on the market, you have kind of an idea where you stand moneywise, but when an offer comes in like that, you have to think about it," he said. "I've got a family and kids.

"Detroit was in the picture. They had a budget. I respect that. And they decided to go out in another direction."

ESPN.com - NHL - Lapointe gives Boston 'element of toughness'

 

[ismelofhockey]

I don't care how much he's ready to lose. He's allowed to run his business how he wants to. Do the Oilers of the 80s even win two Stanley Cups with a salary cap? Probably not. Same with the 90s Penguins.

In 2001 Detroit lost Martin Lapointe to Boston through free agency. Detroit thought he was too expensive to bring back. The deep-pocketed Bruins out-spend the budget Red Wings.


ESPN.com - NHL - Lapointe gives Boston 'element of toughness'

So your example of the cap punishing a budget team by forcing it to lose a star player is the $80M payroll Red Wings (highest payroll in the league) losing Martin Lapointe to the Bruins 4 years before the cap came into effect?

As for Katz, he definitely is allowed to run his business as he wants. But you can't claim to know whether or not he's willing to spend $30M on McDavid (plus another $30M on Draisaitl). You can't even claim to know whether or not he would currently be the owner of the Oilers.

Before the cap a number of small market teams were going out of business. We'd lost the Nordiques, the Whalers, and the Jets, the Oilers, Pens, Sens, and many more were struggling to stay alive. Now almost all teams in the league are healthy. You can thank the cap for that.

 

[Elvs]

Ok, but they wouldn't hit free agency for four more years. That's the point. I don't know what the rest of their team would look like, but it would have had Suter and Weber on the blue line.

We were discussing wheter the salary cap is good or bad, not at what age someone should become an UFA. The UFA age was reduced in the same CBA in which the salary cap was implemented, but the two are not nessecarely connected, though it was probably something the league had to give up to make the players agree to a salary cap in the first place.

Without the salary cap, Nashville could have had Weber, Suter and Rinne take up 85% of their internal budget. Not sure how that would have made them any more competitive than what they've accomplished since Suter left for Minnesota.

There's 31 teams in NHL. Not all of them are going to have success even if you even out the playing field. Under the last 15 years, pretty much every team has been good at some point. Yes, even Buffalo, Florida and Columbus. The only teams I'd say have never been particulary good is Arizona.

My main issue with the salary cap is that the league doesn't enforce it hard enough. When rich teams are allowed to dump their crap on Arizona and Columbus, those franchises doesn't have to ice a competitive team to reach the cap floor. If Tampa couldn't take on Gaborik's contract, or if Arizona had to sign good players instead of taking on the likes of Datsyuk and Pronger, we'd see more parity.

 

[jetsforever]

Edmonton should probably be bottom-5, Finals appearance included.
Heck, I'd almost put Carolina down that low even though they technically won a Cup at the beginning.

 

[nbwingsfan]

How is Edmonton not on the bottom 5. Fluking out with McDavid doesn't save them from being the worst managed team in sports for a decade.

They still have a game 7 Cup Finals appearance in that time frame. Teams like Toronto and Florida haven't even ever won a playoff series...

 

[CBJx614]

We were discussing wheter the salary cap is good or bad, not at what age someone should become an UFA. The UFA age was reduced in the same CBA in which the salary cap was implemented, but the two are not nessecarely connected, though it was probably something the league had to give up to make the players agree to a salary cap in the first place.

Without the salary cap, Nashville could have had Weber, Suter and Rinne take up 85% of their internal budget. Not sure how that would have made them any more competitive than what they've accomplished since Suter left for Minnesota.

There's 31 teams in NHL. Not all of them are going to have success even if you even out the playing field. Under the last 15 years, pretty much every team has been good at some point. Yes, even Buffalo, Florida and Columbus. The only teams I'd say have never been particulary good is Arizona.

My main issue with the salary cap is that the league doesn't enforce it hard enough. When rich teams are allowed to dump their crap on Arizona and Columbus, those franchises doesn't have to ice a competitive team to reach the cap floor. If Tampa couldn't take on Gaborik's contract, or if Arizona had to sign good players instead of taking on the likes of Datsyuk and Pronger, we'd see more parity.

When's the last time someone has "dumped their crap" on Columbus? The Clarkson deal happened because of the Horton deal, not as a means to get to the cap floor. Ever since Jarmo has been in control of the team they have been pretty much yearly playoff contenders.

Incompetent management set the franchise back during the first 10 years of it's existence.