| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Guest2838
( )
|
 Posted - 06/16/2011 : 14:58:30
|
|
I am all for the cap,don't get me wrong. BUT in the situation of a Stanley Cup winning team the value of the players on that team always seem to soar from all the hype and memories of the great run. The Blackhawks are a prime example of this, here is a team that literally got a facelift after their run and to me it doesn't feel like Boston dethroned them (not taking anything from the Bruins). At this rate their will never be a true team to defend their championship. Should their be a salary cap percentage bonus to cup finalists teams to keep the group somewhat together after free agency if the team chooses to do so at a higher price?
|
|
|
Guest9920
( )
|
Posted - 06/16/2011 : 15:14:19
|
| NO |
 |
|
|
leigh
Moderator
Canada
1755 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2011 : 15:35:39
|
The whole point of the cap is to create parity. If you allow the best teams to go over the cap you will be creating an unfair advantage for them.
The plain and simple answer is NO. |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2011 : 16:29:25
|
quote:
At this rate their will never be a true team to defend their championship.
I don't see any reason why BOS would not expect to be back again next year in the finals. BOS has managed their cap, they will be able to retain everyone that they have and add the few bits that they need - they even have room to bring back Savard should he get healthy. This team will stay largely intact next year.
2010 CHI did not manage their cap situation very well, and after they won they had to shed a pile of salary to get back under the cap. |
Edited by - nuxfan on 06/16/2011 16:29:53 |
|
|
|
Pasty7
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2312 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2011 : 16:40:53
|
so hockey can become like baseball where they actually do have a salary cap but you have a a million ways to get around it and Alex Rodriguez makes more money then the entire Texas Rangers lineup, oh and the Rangers are far from the lowest salary team in the league
"I led the league in "Go get 'em next time." - Bob Uecker
|
|
|
|
Guest9920
( )
|
Posted - 06/16/2011 : 17:03:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
quote:
At this rate their will never be a true team to defend their championship.
I don't see any reason why BOS would not expect to be back again next year in the finals. BOS has managed their cap, they will be able to retain everyone that they have and add the few bits that they need - they even have room to bring back Savard should he get healthy. This team will stay largely intact next year.
2010 CHI did not manage their cap situation very well, and after they won they had to shed a pile of salary to get back under the cap.
you can't say expect to be back in the finals, it's a little presumptuous |
|
|
|
Guest9225
( )
|
Posted - 06/16/2011 : 17:18:53
|
| He can expect whatever the hell he wants. Who are you to tell him what he expects. Whether it realistic or not is another story. |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2011 : 18:29:05
|
whether BOS is back again next year or not, certainly BOS management must be feeling confident that they will have the tools to get back next year - because they have successfully managed their long term cap. CHI was very effective at managing a single year cap, loaded up for that year, with the knowledge that they would have to significantly downsize the following year.
To the OP, why do you feel that a team should be rewarded for bad long term management? |
|
|
|
Guest8149
( )
|
Posted - 06/16/2011 : 18:58:21
|
To answer the question, teams should not be allowed to go over the cap. The rules (CBA agreement) make sense to me. Small market teams are protected against large market teams with almost limitless amounts of money, and sometimes, unlimitless common sense.
I agree with the original posting (Guest2838) that it's too bad a team like the Blackhawks could not keep a number of their cup winning players, but just like Nuxfan pointed out, maybe teams like Boston prove there's a way to manage cap space, and remain a competitive team.
Regardless (and as pointed out), the salary cap leads to league parity, and unless you miss the days of team dynasties (the 80's Oilers were probably the last dynasty), the greatest benefit of the cap system is that every team has an almost equal chance to compete for the Stanley Cup!
For some teams though, it takes years, and for some, their chance will come and go. When you have 30 NHL teams and one cup winner, the average fan can really only hope to see their home team win a cup 2-3 times in their lifetime. Without a cap, you might see 3-4 teams win multiple cups in as many decades, while too many teams (and fans) would go starving for a cup win, waiting a lifetime for it to take place!
|
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2011 : 20:18:28
|
Well I disagree slightly with Leigh, in that I don't think the cap was created to make PARITY, but actually, it was created so that small market/poor teams could be COMPETETIVE.
There is a difference.
Florida, Nashville, Columbus, Phoenix, Carolina, these teams have to find creative ways to be competetive - and some are successful. But it certainly isn't parity. They just don't have the same advantages as the New York Rangers, Leafs, Canadiens, etc. What they do with that advantage or disadvantage is a whole different thing, but the starting point is different - hence, not really parity.
But, it's as close as we can get.
To answer your question, no silly! 
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Should Cup Teams be allowed to go over Cap ????? 
