View Single Post
Old
09-27-2004, 02:31 PM
  #33
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCoyotes
That's the first major dent in my arguement that I've seen, and it is very valid. I've even considered backing off the traded players, and just making a free agent salary cap instead, which backs off my initial proposal considerably. At the same time, the PA probably wouldn't go for it as well.

Part of the problem as I see it, is that many players price themselves out of their markets. So a team like Pittsburgh has to trade Kovalev, Straka, Jagr, etc. because their salaries keep going up. By having traded players count against the cap, a player might negotiate more with the team they are on, to avoid counting against a cap on a traded team.

As an example, Jagr may have attempted to sign a more lucrative contract, at a reduced rate with the Penguins originally knowing that if he was traded to the Capitals that they wouldn't have the money to keep him at that same rate because it would count against the cap.
Another part of the problem as I see it, is that teams put themselves in the market for players that they have no business acquiring (given where they are in the 'franchise life cycle')... The more teams that are in the market for a given player, the more demand for the given player, the higher the bids for the given player, and thus - the higher the salary... By having teams trying to 'skip steps' (by not focussing on developing their own players), IMO, it inflates the market significantly - and unnecessarily...

IMO, if each team naturally let the evolution of their franchise happen (essemble a young, talented core - let them develop and grow together), the market would naturally correct itself under the old CBA...

IMO, teams should be very careful who they are acquiring (in both trades and free agents)... IMO, some teams just shouldn't be in the market for certain players... The Jagr's of the world should be reserved for the 'elite' teams - the teams that can afford him through solid hockey operations... The teams that have success year after year and are looking for a 'special' player to give them a competitive advantage for a cup run... IMO, the NYR (although they can afford it) shouldn't even be in the market for Jagr... The NYR should be re-building (i.e. carefully and slowly developing a 'core' with the plan of being 'elite' within 5 years)...

I assume that the goal of a franchise is to become 'elite' (i.e. year-after-year success; reap the benefits of large profit and peer respectability from being elite; solid chance of getting the Stanley Cup year-after-year; fan excitment; etc.)... I assume the goal of a franchise is not to win a Stanley Cup once and then go back to obscurity (the respect, success, and profits are short-term - the reward is temporary and limited)...

There is only one way to become 'elite' (and history backs me up) and that is to 'home grow' your core... An added bonus is that it is cheaper to 'home grow' your core than to try and buy your 'core' (i.e. payroll and team salary structure is kept in check while the core is developing)... Another added bonus is that it doesn't inflate the market... By having teams trying to 'skip the line' and acquire players that they shouldn't (i.e. a very young and developing mediocre team acquiring an ultra-expensive veteran superstar) - sure, maybe the team might be able to make a stronger push for the playoffs, this year... maybe the team will find some playoff success, this year... But the decision to get this expensive player is ultimately shortsighted, and the success is very often temporary... One hit wonders... If this expensive, veteran superstar was acquired through a trade - with one or two promising young players being traded, IMO, this was ultimately a very dumb move (if the goal of the franchise is to become 'elite')... If acquired through free agency, IMHO, the money spent on the expensive superstar would have best been served to try and keep the developing core together... Sure, acquire a veteran presence to help the kids along - but do NOT disrupt your team salary structure... and do NOT make the decision with only short-term goals in mind...

For year-after-year team success, the whole must be greater than the sum of it's parts... The 'core' has to be stronger then any individual player... If Forsberg goes down with an injury - the properly developed 'core' is able to adapt and still find success... Even without Patrick Roy (and with IMO, a terrible coach), the Avs have been able to find success because of the solid, developed core...

Once 'elite', the team can THEN get the expensive players - to try and give them that 'Stanley Cup advantage' - to try and augment the developed core - to try and replace an aging core so that the 'elite' status can be sustained as long as possible... And the team can support the acquisition because they are profitable due to year-after-year success...

IMO, Lexicon Devil does make a valid argument... But I personally wouldn't back off on the traded players part of the proposal... If considered unfair, I'd personally think about a % of the contract that gets counted towards the cap (so that it is not the whole contract - nor considered as the same circumstance as a free agent signing)... But I personally wouldn't back away from the idea all together...

I in the Eye is offline