MOST teams will be content paying below the amount of a instituted salary cap so as to not have to fork over extra $$$ to the league. players invariably will be given UFA at a younger age. so a team that had no money constraints and was bent on winning, they could turn themselves from wannabes to contenders in a year or two. point being that if there is a unuasually high amount of top-end players turning over year after year and hardly anyone but the rags willing to be so freespending...is it possible that NY will become the dominant force in hockey that they are at baseball when all is said and done and the dust settles?
Ratty
09-29-2003, 05:22 PM
That is why the league has to insist on a HARD salary cap, a la NFL, not a soft one, a la MLB. This will prevent the Steinbrenner ego trippers from dominating the sport. It will also create an even playing field for all teams.
They'll then have to use their mnagerial skills to build organizations and teams through the draft and player development.
bwunderlich
09-29-2003, 05:58 PM
ratty,
the nfl may look like a hard cap but dallas and the 49er's cheated the cap for the better part of a decade. in addition, the redskins paid $81 million in signing bonuses in addition to the 60-ish million $ cap only 2 years ago. signing bonuses will be the way big market teams will draw the top names because the upfront money will count differently against the cap.
by the way, can't believe you'd group the rags and yanks in the same thread. the yanks have historically been a very solid drafting and development team in all positions except pitching. . . and they currently have more home growns on the roster than the sox. anyway, gunna be a heck of a ALCS. :yo:
the rags are living proof that teams need a (1) strong core of homegrown players (2) aggressive FA signings, and (3) extremely competent mngt to be successful. all the rags have is #2.
MeisterBruinmaker
09-29-2003, 10:37 PM
ratty,
the nfl may look like a hard cap but dallas and the 49er's cheated the cap for the better part of a decade. in addition, the redskins paid $81 million in signing bonuses in addition to the 60-ish million $ cap only 2 years ago. signing bonuses will be the way big market teams will draw the top names because the upfront money will count differently against the cap.
Excellent point. I wholeheartedly agree. This is why I've been suspicious about the belief that "a level playing field" under the veil of "cost certainty" is the answer. In my mind, the winning teams will still be winners because they care enough to put the right people in place to make it happen. I certainly can't put the Bruins in that category not because I love to be pessimistic or negative, but because they've created so many problems for themselves over the past 7 years while seemingly taking it in stride. Stuff like that makes it hard for me to believe they really care. I mean, what kind of organization would roll the dice on Shields & Grahame...or hire a coach like Ftorek who had a burning reputation with his players...or enter the playoffs with 5 immobile defensemen knowing there's so much riding on the team...or acquire second rate UFAs or other players to fill key roles (Stumpel, Shields, Kovalenko, Pronger, etc etc)...or "getting up" for shutting players down in salary negotiations like the way Harry professed. The list goes on. I can't see the winning attitude in that...and I ain't trying to be negative neitha.