hockeytown9321 said:
At the same time, alot of the support here for a cap is because those fans feel it gives their team an advantage.
I know that because I'm a Red Wing fan, everybody assumes I want a system that enabels them to continue to "buy" championships. Ignoring the fact that they haven't for a minute, all I want is a system that allows them to draft as well as they have for the last 15 years, and keep those draft picks when and if they develop into stars, so long as they have the revenue to do that. I happen to think, based on how the NFL's cap has worked, that a hard cap does not allow a team to build itself into a dynasty. I understand that some teams don't have the revenue to do that. I also recognize that some teams are horribly managed and use the "Detroit and New York ruin it for everybody else" excuse to pacify their fans. If the NHL adopted more significant revenue sharing, those teams without enough revenue to keep their players could.
Well, it depends how one defines "dynasty". If by dynasty you mean 4-5 consecutive championships, then yes, a hard cap would likely prevent that. Then again, the NHL hasn't had that kind of dynasty in 2+ decades without a cap.
But if by "dynasty" you mean perennial contender, then a cap will not prevent that. The NE Patriots have won two of the last three Super Bowls and are among the favorites again this year. The Philly Eagles could be headed to their fourth consecutive conference championship. When was the last time an NHL team made three in a row? The St. Louis Rams are in the playoffs for the fifth time in six years. The Packers have missed the playoffs twice in the last 12 years. The Colts have been in the playoffs five of the last six years. The Dallas Cowboys won the Super Bowl two out of the NFL's first three years under a cap. All pretty dynasty-like, if you ask me.
A soft cap makes dynasty-like franchises even more likely (see: Chicago Bulls, LA Lakers)
Moreover, I'm not sure why anyone would clamor for a system that fosters dynasties. As a kid growing up in Chicago, I can tell you that cheering on a very good early 80s Blackhawks team that nonetheless never stood a chance against the Oilers wasn't my idea of a great time. A sports league as a whole is much healthier when 2-3 teams don't dominate the landscape. The NFL has learned that lesson, much to their big, fat wallets' content.
As for keeping drafted players, this is why the players should be fighting to a "soft" cap, a la the NBA. It would give the owners some level of cost certainty - which, they're going to get one way or another - yet allow homegrown players to get paid very well while staying with their original club. It also protects veteran players from being cut out of the league solely because they make too much money. The owners win, the players win and the fans win. The players' refusal to negotiate on this basis only makes it more likely that the owners will eventually impose and even stricter cap more punitive to the players.