View Single Post
Old
11-13-2012, 07:30 PM
  #115
Bourne Endeavor
Moderator
( _)>⌐■-■ (⌐■_■)
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,229
vCash: 5158
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
Yep.

But some GMs do have the "self control" to manage their payroll (regardless of what the rules are). (And/or still in this day and age have a budget from their ownership they work to get the most bang for the $$ out of.)

They often do it (thinking of Sharks as an example) by having planned long term based on current roster (AND prospects on the depth chart) -- 3-5 years (or more) out.

Since the Sharks last missed the playoffs (2003), I think everyone would say that they have not overpaid players (based on $$s/term when contract was signed). (Now, they did have some fall offs -- thinking post double sports hernia injury of Cheechoo -- but they have managed to trade away those pieces -- including Bell, Heatley.) They have never signed a player to a deal more than five seasons.

The Sharks also have some salary benchmarks based on role/experience they try to stay within. IOW, the first post-ELC deal is not a cap-max deal. High flyers have been getting their first post-ELC deal around $4m/year.

But I'd say it comes down to planning (on the organization side) and on the player side a willingness to stay with the organization and accept less than one might get via offer sheet. The latter is earned through respect and growing a reputation as a quality organization.
Aye, some GMs have mandated a self-imposed cap and managed to produce a worthwhile product. What I perceive the overall concern from the league is how consistent that philosophy remains. For every San Jose, there seems to be a Columbus. Slight exaggeration, I admit, but this is how I see the league operating. They are attempting to create a supposed ideal market. Frankly, despite my pro-owner stance. This is among the areas I disagree on. While parity is a somewhat worthwhile endeavor, it is not without its problems.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I agree that it may not be worth the price tag fans are willing to pay. (I know I personally felt this was the case after the last 2-3 years in my team's roster efforts. It was rather boring, grinding kind of hockey, tbh.)
I have to admit, last season was relatively dull. I partly fault the disappointment that lingered for Canuck fans however, the team did adopt a similar grind style that I can hope only will not become the norm. Whether we can blame this on the cap era, parity or something else though, I cannot say.

Bourne Endeavor is offline   Reply With Quote