Would your favourite team have had more, less, or the same amount of on-ice success without a salary cap since the lockout?

[Cloned]

Feel free to post your favourite team in the thread.

Click to read more...

 

[McPoyle]

Oilers are an interesting case. The 2006 cup run roster was largely built out of Lowe taking advantage of the sudden cap environment. But the Katz owed team would benefit from no cap.

 

[JaegerDice]

More or less the same.

The Blackhawks lost a lot of great players due to the salary cap, no doubt.

But a lot of their success during the ‘dynasty’ years came because they navigated the cap better than others.

Id say it evened out in the end.

 

[Rafafouille]

Less, the only teams that would benefit are low tax, good weather teams or the Rangers. Teams where players want to play so they could stack superstar teams. The salary cap makes it so teams like the Canadian teams, the California teams, Colombus, Buffalo can attract the odd big name once in a while by overpaying him. Take out the salary cap and those attractive teams would just overpay everyone.

 

[InfinityIggy]

We've had no success so I chose "the same".

 

[bobholly39]

Habs voted the same.

I figure we had enough money to attract UFA's....but reality we were rarely constrained by cap. Who else would we have landed?

Maybe if you go into RFA's it could change the game, but in terms of UFA very little change.

 

[tabness]

Wings would have way more obviously

 

[Ducks in a row]

Ducks would most likely have less without a salary cap.

 

[Johnny Tomala]

Red Wings, way more.

 

[613Leafer]

1 playoff series win in the cap era for the team with the most $$ - it couldn't possibly be worse without the cap.

 

[norrisnick]

Red Wings, way more.

The Wings needed the forced fat trimming. They immediately bought out Hatcher, Whitney, McCarty with the cap. Then moved on from Lang, Shanahan, Schneider early on which wouldn't have happened otherwise. They were on the path to old, overpaid, and lazy like the pre-cap Rangers.

 

[Soundgarden]

Nashville likely doesn't exist in a world without the cap, so I'mma say less.

 

[NyQuil]

Ottawa got screwed by the salary cap when it was initially implemented but can't exist competitively over the longer term without one.

I guess I'll go with more.

 

[Hockeyholic]

A cap can benefit a big market too.

The Rangers suffered their worst postseason drought during the cap era of 98-04. Yet, they've rarely missed the postseason since the cap was implemented.

A team like Edmonton & Detroit would definitely benefit from no cap.

 

[Ratbath]

Probably same amount for the stars. Texas is a desirable place because of taxes and golf apparently but also Nill has been killing it lately in the cap era so it probably even out.

 

[Three On Zero]

Vancouver - likely the same, desirable market but you’re also competing with the other desirable markets

Vegas - they already play without a cap, so same.

 

[leafsfan5]

Hard to have less success tbh

 

[AKL]

Fans of most teams should be voting "less"

Fans of a select few teams would have more, making it that much harder for fans of the majority of teams

 

[Super Cake]

As a Knights fan, while they don't seem to care about the salary cap, they would have more success if it didn't exist in the first place.