Congratulations and my condolences to the Chicago Blackhawks of 2009. After sifting through the Atlanta Thrashers roster and realizing that Rick Dudley has created himself Chicago JR in Atlanta, I thought it would be the optimal time to decide once and for all (in my opinion only) whether or not the salary cap actually works. Before we delve any deeper into the discussion allow me to make a few notes:- I am a huge Maple Leafs fan, and would like to thank the Blackhawks for sending Kris Versteeg our way. You have a potential 30 goal scorer in Viktor Stalberg, but here's hoping Versteeg's skills develop further and that his career of winning rubs off on the Leafs (Tomas Kaberle).
- Kudos to Rick Dudley for acquiring 4 Stanley Cup winners in Byfuglien, Sopel, Eager and Ladd for relatively little return. I think that having people with a history of winning and those willing to sacrifice to get the cup is a very underrated characteristic in the modern day free agent/trade bait. I think Atlanta will surprise a little, maybe not next year, but in 2 years they could be quite dangerous. Remember Evander Kane has just turned 19 years old and already has a full NHL season under his belt.
With that out of the way, lets get into this!
During my deep contemplation over a cheap Magnum of white wine, I had to make the decision as to the best presentation of this argument. Since the Blackhawks are not my team, or even in my consideration of acceptable teams, I felt that presenting both sides of the argument and then making my final verdict would allow this to be the most objective view possible of the monster that is the salary cap.
THE SALARY CAP STINKS!
I found it quite tough to find a lot of reasons why the salary cap does not work, so this section is going to be rather brief. That does not mean that I personally believe it actually works, I just found all of the arguments to be somewhat related.
#1 - Patience Is Not a Virtue
The salary cap has created an odd situation in the NHL where teams can not be built and groomed over time, they now must be built and re-built every few years while maintaining a small core of all-star calibre players. No longer is patiently stock piling #1 picks a viable option, because the NHL salary cap will not alow you to hang on to all of those players over time. A couple of very good picks have to work out, while still under their rookie contracts, and then free agents/trades/mid-level picks must fill out the roster. Patience and the proper foundations of building a team are dead in the NHL today. Ask the Chicago Blackhawks. While a core of Pat Kane, John Toews, Marian Hossa, Patrick Sharp, Duncan Ketith and Brent Seabrook is downright scary....Byfuglien, Versteeg, Barker, Sopel, Ladd, and Niemi...are all HUGE pieces gone.
#2 - Deep Pockets? Spend Away!
One caveat in the current CBA states that teams can send players to the minors...or apparently the Suisse League if you are Cristobal Huet...when you fuck up and sign someone like Jeff Finger for $3.5 million dollars. Oh wait, the Maple Leafs have yet to bury him there to create more cap space and make their team better? Oh righhttt....I follow a team that stinks and doesn't have the balls to do that. Fuck loyalty. When was the last time a Toronto athlete was loyal to us? Sundin? Bosh? Burnett? I say bury every shitty contract in the minors and let them stay there. Toronto can begin to be loyal when athletes start committing to the fans and the city, like the fans and the city committ to them.
I will leave that for another day. The point remains the same, teams such as the Maple Leafs, the Rangers, and the Flyers can afford to make a mistake or two, and simply put the contract somewhere that it no longer counts against the cap. This does not alleviate the expense from their financial statements, but in a hockey sense it resets the decision meter. Small market clubs like the Blue Jackets and the Thrashers (thanks Bettman) can not afford this luxury and must be very careful with who they sign. The NHL has created the ability to still have the big money clubs winning every year, while trying to balance the power within the game.
#3 - Loyalty...is dead.
Every NHL fan has known since the on-set of Free Agency that loyalty from players to an organization is mostly non-existent. For every Steve Yzerman there are a dozen Jagr's or Yashin's who are just looking for that big payday every chance they can get. The NHL salary cap has created a situation where the Teams and Players can both dump each other at various situations through their NHL careers. Loyalty has officially died in the NHL.
Picture this: The year is 1993, the Montreal Canadiens win the Stanley Cup and proceed to trade off Patrick Roy, Kirk Muller, And Patrice Brisebois simply because they won the cup, and these guys were due raises they could no longer afford. Seems somewhat ludicrous, however as we have seen this year with the Hawks, it is a very real reality. For better or worse.
ROCK ON SALARY CAP!
This was easy to write, all you have to remember is The Count's err I mean Gary Bettman's repeptitive statements during the lockout as to why it's better for us NHL die hards to not have the teams we love on the ice for an entire year. On behalf of all fans, if I haven't said it on record already, fuck you NHLPA and the NHL for the most boring Winter of my life. My drinking and promiscuity were dramatically increased during University as a result of it.
#1 Parity > Dynasty
Lets consider for a moment, the 2009 version of the Chicago Blackhawks, without a Salary Cap. They could have kept each and every player that was on the roster and not skipped a beat for upwards of 5 seasons. This was the youngest team in the NHL at the start of the NHL season with an average age of 25.65. That is a team that could repeat, especially considering how dominant they were in the regular season as well. The salary cap has forced the Hawks to focus on which players they think are the most important to the team, and build around them with economically efficient players. Dynasties will be tough to create, however, the Hawks have kept themselves an extremely good group of players that are very capable of winning the Cup again. The Pens erred in my opinion by giving role players like Orpik and Guerin big money.
#2 Parity = Success (Did not plan these math based intros)
One can't deny that having stars spread out across more NHL cities, and having all teams with a shot at making the playoffs each year, would create greater ticket revenues across the board. Balanced rosters will ensure that teams across the league can compete on a nightly basis and that relocation is not needed. The Coyotes had excellent attendance the second half of this season, and kudos to the organization for assembling a roster that was exciting enough to surprise everyone. Gary Bettman and his crack team of advisers have unfortunately put hockey teams in hotbeds such as Sunrise, Florida and Columbus, Ohio (Home of the $9000 family home)...which creates a bit of a Marketing conundrum. How can 2 cities that have no affinity for hockey, no history of hockey, and no desire for a team be viable business opportunities in any ones minds?
Poor business decisions aside, a salary cap allows these small market teams to be competitive despite not having the same ability to sell out every night. Whether it's covering your own ass or not, the average attendance in the NHL has increased from 16,534 pre salary cap to 17,072 after the cap came in. Advantage parity.
I had approximately 5 points supporting this, however I managed to include them all into 2 overall subjects. Time to form a final verdict on whether or not the Salary cap is beneficial or harmful to the NHL.
THE 
VERDICT
VERDICTThis is a difficult verdict to write because it comes with mixed opinions. The salary cap delivers benefits, and is detrimental to the NHL at the same time.
My Verdict is the following: The NHL Salary Cap helps the league as a whole, as a business unit, however it is very detrimental to successful teams. My reasoning for this mixed opinion is:
- It creates a world in which the rich teams can be successful while still making the same bad decisions they had in an uncapped world.
- Being patient, drafting well, and not overpaying for free agents does not pay off because players coming off of rookie contracts can not all be retained. This creates a system of constant building that is exciting for the league as a whole, it creates a tumultuous situation with fan bases in individual cities. Teams can go from the penthouse to the basement in a matter of years. This does not inspire confidence in attendance.
- Parity allows more teams a chance at the cup, and for new fan bases to become enthralled with NHL hockey.
So I guess it's time for me to man up and actually make a decision here...all my points are on the table...and 5/8 of my wine is done. Sounds like decision time to me. My personal feeling is that a salary cap is needed in every league so that situations like the New York Yankees do not occur. I think that parity and having exciting playoff series makes for a successful league. Try and tell me you didn't watch the Oilers vs Stars battles in the 90's and early 2000's...cause I was glued to my TV every time they played. If I was a Blackhawks fan, I would hate the salary cap. Dustin Byfuglien, Andrew Ladd, Eager, and Niemi were all great acquisitions and they should be punished for being successful.
Final Verdict: Cap Works. Hawks are still good. Can't wait for the season to start.
Cheers,
BF6
Follow Away!
www.twitter.com/brandonfinleyy
No comments:
Post a Comment