When all the favourites win it's boring. It's boring seeing the Yankees and Red Sox buying playoff spots every year. It's boring seeing zero upsets in the NBA playoffs.
If the NHL adopted an "MLB style" economic system where only the fashionable teams are rich enough to assemble contending rosters, then I would strongly advocate for a dissolution of the league.
EDIT: And go Panthers! If my team gets knocked out, I'm rooting for you guys.
Last edited by Percy LeSueur: 04-17-2012 at 05:56 PM.
I'm somewhat stunned so many of you are over-looking the obvious negatives of the current situation:
1. Fans of great teams have to watch their team slide down the league rankings instead of building dynasties.
2. Stacked teams have to be disbanded because they cannot afford all their stars under the Cap.
And for people saying teams shouldn't have the ability to " buy the title " go look at MLB, NBA and the early 00s Rangers.
In the end great TEAMS win championships but even great teams will inevitably generate stars that will demand too high of salaries to maintain in a Cap system.
I guess it's an easy fix as killing the Cap. And contraction. Go back to 26 or 28 teams.
For the record this doesn't kill lesser teams chances, before the lockout we had several Cinderella teams like the 98 Caps, 99 Sabres, 02 Canes, 03 Ducks and 04 Flames. The Tampa Bay Lightning won the Cup damnit!
Plus this is at a time where there was no 3 men shootouts...
And if the 'Hawks would've had average vanilla players in Kane and Toews who do not hit their bonuses, they would've been cap compliant. So the cap forces them to hedge. A large market team ALREADY curtailed by a salary-cap which it could easily outspend has to curtail their spending even further, by $4 million, just in case their ELC players hit their bonuses? If that isn't the definition of reigning in success and imposing a limit on success, I don't know what is.
Make no mistake about it. We will never see a team with a Gretzky, Messier, Anderson, Kurri, Coffey, Fuhr ever again. You will be punished for being that good.
I like that the league is not allowing any New York Yankees type of buying a team, but I am opposed to punishing a team for drafting and developing successfully.
How far do you go before it is too far though?
I would agree with giving teams a discount on the cap-hit's of players that have remained with them since being drafted. Say something like 7.5%, using the Penguins as an example would give them an extra $2.75m in cap space. Going any further, or going down the road of the MLS franchising scheme, would be too far IMO.
I'm somewhat stunned so many of you are over-looking the obvious negatives of the current situation:
1. Fans of great teams have to watch their team slide down the league rankings instead of building dynasties.
2. Stacked teams have to be disbanded because they cannot afford all their stars under the Cap.
And for people saying teams shouldn't have the ability to " buy the title " go look at MLB, NBA and the early 00s Rangers.
In the end great TEAMS win championships but even great teams will inevitably generate stars that will demand too high of salaries to maintain in a Cap system.
I guess it's an easy fix as killing the Cap. And contraction. Go back to 26 or 28 teams.
For the record this doesn't kill lesser teams chances, before the lockout we had several Cinderella teams like the 98 Caps, 99 Sabres, 02 Canes, 03 Ducks and 04 Flames. The Tampa Bay Lightning won the Cup damnit!
Plus this is at a time where there was no 3 men shootouts...
Negatives? If a GM isn't smart enough to properly manage his cap, he deserves to have his team slide down the standings.
Teams trying to buy the title but failing? You can't help stuipidity. Put a smart GM in place with the league's highest budget and you will win many championships. With a mediocre or dumb GM you will spend a lot of money and wonder why it failed.
I laugh at Bryan Cashman - GM of the NY Yankees. How the hell can he not win more championships than he does with that payroll? Because he is a dolt. Put a smart GM in there and they will win more often.
A cap free world would lead to a 16 or 18 team league, not 26 or 28 as you suggest.
Negatives? If a GM isn't smart enough to properly manage his cap, he deserves to have his team slide down the standings.
What do you mean properly manage? Say you have three star forwards and two star defense-men. You simply cannot afford to keep all of them, GM's fault?
Quote:
Teams trying to buy the title but failing? You can't help stuipidity. Put a smart GM in place with the league's highest budget and you will win many championships. With a mediocre or dumb GM you will spend a lot of money and wonder why it failed.
Don't forget there's always going to be more than just one rich team. Also don't forget rich teams won't always command dynasties. Houston Rockets won back to back titles in 94 and 95, were they the richest team in the league?
Quote:
I laugh at Bryan Cashman - GM of the NY Yankees. How the hell can he not win more championships than he does with that payroll? Because he is a dolt. Put a smart GM in there and they will win more often.
Florida Marlins say hi. Cause money doesn't equal success, but we shouldn't stop a team from trying.
Quote:
A cap free world would lead to a 16 or 18 team league, not 26 or 28 as you suggest.
Despite the fact the league had 21 teams for over a decade before Bettman expanded to Tampa, Florida, Anaheim, San Jose and Ottawa? And then we didn't get a cap until a dozen years later?
There aren't a dozen teams 3 years away from extinction in today's NHL, and I mean that in a non-cap world.
Last I checked when the lockout occurred there were about 6 teams in financial trouble, not 12.
What do you mean properly manage? Say you have three star forwards and two star defense-men. You simply cannot afford to keep all of them, GM's fault?
Don't forget there's always going to be more than just one rich team. Also don't forget rich teams won't always command dynasties. Houston Rockets won back to back titles in 94 and 95, were they the richest team in the league?
Florida Marlins say hi. Cause money doesn't equal success, but we shouldn't stop a team from trying.
Despite the fact the league had 21 teams for over a decade before Bettman expanded to Tampa, Florida, Anaheim, San Jose and Ottawa? And then we didn't get a cap until a dozen years later?
There aren't a dozen teams 3 years away from extinction in today's NHL, and I mean that in a non-cap world.
Last I checked when the lockout occurred there were about 6 teams in financial trouble, not 12.
The financial stakes are also much higher now than they were at the lockout.
Revenue among the elite teams has risen dramatically and the revenue among the non-elite teams has risen far less dramatically.
The income discrepancy between team 1 and team 30 is larger now than it was at the lockout.
Teams like Phoenix are bankrupt with revenue sharing AND with a salary cap. How would they fair without one?
The parity is awesome for the sport. It rewards good GMs and organizations and makes getting the best players all so important. The league is far from watered down. There's a much bigger pool of quality talent than ever before. Big scorers of the past benefited from exploiting the lack of talent actually. It's a lot harder now for a great player to score than ever before due to the high level of talent playing against him.
The thing is, people would rather see championships earned. Just buying a winner is like a 21 year old kid inheriting $20 million. Hasn't earned anything, it is the complete opposite of what our society is about.
What society do you live in? Hard work is for chumps.
The MLB recognized that people are tired of the Yankees and Red Sox making it every year so they added a wild card spot to do what???...that's right, add parity.
I get your point, but I would argue the wild card in the MLB was instituted to prevent one of Boston or New York missing the playoffs every single year.
Now, they both get in. Problem = solved...unless you suck, like the Red Sox.
Here's the thing though. Even those in favour of parity cannot deny the fact that there hasn't been a team post-lockout that has reached the greatness of the 80s Oilers, early 90s Penguins or even the late 90s or 2002 Red Wings, and under the current rules there may NEVER be a team that can stand side-by-side in history with those great squads of years past.
Hockey is a team game, so why is the NHL depriving us of the chance to see great teams?
Even in the NFL I would rather see less parity. My interest probably peaked in the early 00's when the Patriots were the class of the league.
Also imagine if English football had a salary cup... the league would just be a bunch of Aston Villas and Wigan Athletics. A team like Everton or Newcastle United would win the championship *throws up*.
I'm somewhat stunned so many of you are over-looking the obvious negatives of the current situation:
1. Fans of great teams have to watch their team slide down the league rankings instead of building dynasties.
2. Stacked teams have to be disbanded because they cannot afford all their stars under the Cap.
And for people saying teams shouldn't have the ability to " buy the title " go look at MLB, NBA and the early 00s Rangers.
In the end great TEAMS win championships but even great teams will inevitably generate stars that will demand too high of salaries to maintain in a Cap system.
I guess it's an easy fix as killing the Cap. And contraction. Go back to 26 or 28 teams.
For the record this doesn't kill lesser teams chances, before the lockout we had several Cinderella teams like the 98 Caps, 99 Sabres, 02 Canes, 03 Ducks and 04 Flames. The Tampa Bay Lightning won the Cup damnit!
Plus this is at a time where there was no 3 men shootouts...
As a Wings fan, you were one of the main beneficiaries of the lack of a cap system back in the day.
You have to put yourself in the shoes of the smaller-market teams. For the Oilers, we would develop players and lose our best ones every couple of years. If we were lucky, we'd push hard to the playoffs and then, if we were even luckier, win at most 1 series. It is horribly deflating to lose your fan favourites and best players every few years because your team can't afford to keep them.
Here's the thing though. Even those in favour of parity cannot deny the fact that there hasn't been a team post-lockout that has reached the greatness of the 80s Oilers, early 90s Penguins or even the late 90s or 2002 Red Wings, and under the current rules there may NEVER be a team that can stand side-by-side in history with those great squads of years past.
Hockey is a team game, so why is the NHL depriving us of the chance to see great teams?
Even in the NFL I would rather see less parity. My interest probably peaked in the early 00's when the Patriots were the class of the league.
Also imagine if English football had a salary cup... the league would just be a bunch of Aston Villas and Wigan Athletics. A team like Everton or Newcastle United would win the championship *throws up*.
Because for every dynasty team in a cap-less league, you have teams that will never be competitive for entire generations. Just look at baseball for a North American example of that.
The parity of the NFL is one of the major reasons it is one of the most popular leagues in the world. The cap was introduced in 1994. The Patriots of the early 00's DID operate under the cap. It is entirely possible to win multiple championships and be competitive for over a decade...provided that you have great drafting and great coaching. You just proved my point .
The reason uncapped somewhat works in soccer is because of the interleague play - you're gonna get teams that are spending similar amounts to the top teams in your respective league. With the various championships and cups there's enough competition for the top teams. However, it's starting to fall apart even at the top level because teams like Barcelona and Real Madrid (which negotiate TV rights individually, unlike EPL teams) are becoming powerhouses.
As a Sens fan who saw how much the Cap hurt us (choosing between Redden/Chara, Losing Havlat, Hasek, Hossa all in some sort of cap related problems) parity is one of the best things for the league. I do not want to watch Pittsburgh buy Stamkos, buy Nash, buy OEL. Buy all of these great players to make a super team. That is not fun to watch. Going into any and every game thinking you have a chance to win it all. That is much more exciting. Seeing constant 10-0 blowouts is not exciting. Seeing a hard fought, down to the wire 3-2 game is exciting.
As a Wings fan, you were one of the main beneficiaries of the lack of a cap system back in the day.
You have to put yourself in the shoes of the smaller-market teams. For the Oilers, we would develop players and lose our best ones every couple of years. If we were lucky, we'd push hard to the playoffs and then, if we were even luckier, win at most 1 series. It is horribly deflating to lose your fan favourites and best players every few years because your team can't afford to keep them.
Ok so let's say that there was a cap system back in the day.... like waaay back. The 80's Oilers dynasty would never have existed because they would have had to trade away/lose much the team depth (Jurri, Anderson, Coffey, etc.) after their initial success, despite the fact that these were home-grown players. Gretzky's would have never scored 215 points or 50 goals in 39 games due to a more even distribution of defensive talent across the league. And this would have been better why??
As a Sens fan who saw how much the Cap hurt us (choosing between Redden/Chara, Losing Havlat, Hasek, Hossa all in some sort of cap related problems) parity is one of the best things for the league. I do not want to watch Pittsburgh buy Stamkos, buy Nash, buy OEL. Buy all of these great players to make a super team. That is not fun to watch. Going into any and every game thinking you have a chance to win it all. That is much more exciting. Seeing constant 10-0 blowouts is not exciting. Seeing a hard fought, down to the wire 3-2 game is exciting.
This.
Parity is a major reason why some sports leagues are so successful. Just look at the NFL.
Because for every dynasty team in a cap-less league, you have teams that will never be competitive for entire generations. Just look at baseball for a North American example of that.
The parity of the NFL is one of the major reasons it is one of the most popular leagues in the world. The cap was introduced in 1994. The Patriots of the early 00's DID operate under the cap. It is entirely possible to win multiple championships and be competitive for over a decade...provided that you have great drafting and great coaching. You just proved my point .
The reason uncapped somewhat works in soccer is because of the interleague play - you're gonna get teams that are spending similar amounts to the top teams in your respective league. With the various championships and cups there's enough competition for the top teams. However, it's starting to fall apart even at the top level because teams like Barcelona and Real Madrid (which negotiate TV rights individually, unlike EPL teams) are becoming powerhouses.
Wait... Barca and Real Madrid being global superpowers are bad for the casual fan how?? If those two meet the Champions League final, it will be an epic, star-studded spectacle that will dwarf any possible Stanley Cup Finals matchup.
I'm not necessarily saying there should be NO parity, just saying that right now I think there is too much parity and I wish the NHL system was more like the NBA where teams at least have the option of going over the cap (by then paying luxury tax)
Last edited by Cruiser008: 04-18-2012 at 06:51 PM.
Well done.
.
