THE OFFICIAL BUYOUT THREAD: Bourque or Kaberle?
View Single Post
01-09-2013, 01:08 AM
Talks to Goalposts
Join Date: Apr 2011
Originally Posted by
aside from making a bold move in-season to bolster a cup contending team (and even then...), a well-run team is ALWAYS cap efficient.
It is precisely the lack of ability in managing the cap efficiently that has relegated us to sustained mediocrity the past 5-6 years despite being one of the top-spending teams year-in year-out.
Hopefully, the new management team appreciates this and will manouevre the new CBA and the inevitable roster-juggling that it will mandate over the next 1-2 years in a way that shows the kind of long-term strategic planning the previous leadership so clearly lacked.
In a very weird way, our best bet is in having Gomez, Bourque & Kaberle (and you could arguably add Gionta to that list) playing big roles this year and "succeeding" (at this stage, it's highly improbable that any of them play "up to" their respective cap % hits, but we only need them to play well enough to entice another organization to be willing to part with assets to acquire them).
Bottom line is that our organization is better off with a pure subtraction of Gomez/Bourque/Kaberle, given their cap ramifications and the fact that far cheaper players are easily & readily available who can provide what they are likely to contribute.
Since buy-outs don't come into play until next summer, and we have a short-term 70M$ (pro-rated) cap to work with, might as well get them on the ice, and cross our fingers that they do enough to be tradeable...
imo, MB & MT will really show their astuteness if they were to aggressively use all 3 in the most flattering of roles possible (lots of PP time, heavy Offensive zone starts, skilled linemates).
if we could translate those 3 into a 2nd round pick & no bad contracts coming back... that would be a BIG win!
Cap efficent is a relative thing though, it not a linear in value. If you manage to maximize cap efficency you'll end up with a terrible team and a lot of dead cap space. And dead cap space that is not being used is worthless.
In the latter part of the first cap CBA, being cap efficent everywhere didn't help. The endlessly rising cap and liberal contract rules meant that in general, impact players were much more valuable than cap space because teams rarely had to give up on a player they really wanted for cap reasons, which resulted in a heavily inflated UFA market due to lack of supply to meat the ample demand. Especially since the rising cap meant that an overpayment in year 1 of a long term deal could easily be fair market value by year 3 or 4. Teams like Philadelphia built very good teams with a "screw the cap, get the impact player" approach. It only blew up in their face when they went after bridge too far in chasing a goaltender.
In Montreal's case, a combination of cheap goaltending and the absence of veteran elite home-grown talent with the presence of a lot of cheap homegrown depth players gave the team a lot of leeway in spending cap hit on veteran imports. The outside veterans weren't cap efficent, but there wasn't anything cap efficient to use that money on anyway. The only other use for it would be to either sign another UFA or to trade for an player with a big contract another team was trying to get rid of. Otherwise the space lies fallow and useless.
E.G. Hamrlik wasn't cap efficient at 5.5 million, but if you got rid of him for free then its unlikely you'd have anything drastically more efficient to spend that 5.5 million on anyway so it was better to have a solid 2nd defenseman than 5.5 million in new cap space as he filled a need.
It will be interesting to see how the new CBA works out. The new rules and declining revenue growth might make capspace a valuable commodity again. Or we could have a couple years of forced restraint by the scaled back cap ceilling and no rollback followed to a reversion to pre-lockout 2.0 status quo.
This isn't to say that cap inefficency is a virtue, far from it. But its not the highest virtue when looking at value. The cap is like the draft, a resource to be exploiting help create a better team not a virtue in of its self.
Now if the previous regime was a lot stronger on asset management in general, of which cap management is a component but not the entirety, they'd be much better off. In the most cases it was squandered player assets rather than squandered cap that hurt. The only time a team got assets in trade for cap space was the Chicago post Cup fire-sale. And only one team out of 30 benefited there.
As far as the new regime goes, I don't think the guy who signed Prust to a 2.5M contract is heavily concerned with cap efficiency.
Last edited by Talks to Goalposts: 01-09-2013 at
Talks to Goalposts
View Public Profile
Talks to Goalposts's albums
Find More Posts by Talks to Goalposts