In 2005, the NHL agreed upon implementing a salary cap to create more parody across the league. But is a salary cap good for the league?
When the NHL and NHLPA decided to go ahead with a salary cap following the 2004-05 lockout, they believed it would level the playing field so to speak. Small market teams could now realistically compete with those of larger markets over the course of an 82 game regular season.
[caption id="attachment_169" align="aligncenter" width="390" caption="NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman was a driving force behind the salary cap inclusion. (Photo by Richard Lam/Canadian Press)"]
[/caption]
Limiting the payroll so that each club was equal eliminated the ability of teams like the Rangers, Red Wings, and Avalanche from restocking their roster through free agency. No one could continue to argue that their market was what’s holding them back. All teams had the same opportunity to succeed or fail.
With these new salary restrictions, more emphasis was placed on building through the draft. While retaining superstars was important, the ability to develop young affordable talent was what separated the contenders from the pretenders. Rookie salaries are obviously much more affordable that what veterans would demand on the free market. The length of these rookie contracts somewhat varies, but usually is at least three years. Signing promising young players to long extensions before breakout years is fundamental in terms of positioning a team for future success.
To get a glimpse of what the NHL would look like now without a salary cap, all you need to do is look at Major League Baseball. While teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, and Phillies have the luxury of signing “hit-or-miss” veterans, they don’t always win every year. Hockey is generally more of a team game than baseball and instant chemistry can’t be found by simply throwing money at the problem. While larger market teams would definitely have the advantage in a cap-less NHL, it wouldn’t mean a guaranteed championship at all.
As a sports fan, I quite simply like watching better teams play. I don’t want to watch teams with two or three good players square off. I want to see teams strive to become dynasties and with a salary cap it is incredibly hard to repeat as Stanley Cup champions. After a championship, players demand higher salaries. For proof just look at each of the winners in the past six seasons. At least one or two notable players leave for free agency or are traded to shed some payroll. Teams are also forced to become buyers or sellers at each deadline. If it isn’t a team’s year, why trade for upcoming free agents or keep veterans with one year remaining on their contract?
One of the larger factors in forming an opinion on the salary cap is where your team fits in. Fans from smaller market teams like Florida and Columbus want to see their team in playoff contention and therefore usually would support the salary cap. Fans from larger market teams like New York probably think differently.
In my opinion the salary cap isn’t good for the league. Maybe I miss the days when the Avalanche could afford to sign Paul Kariya and Teemu Selanne in the same offseason or that survival of the fittest should be the fundamental doctrine in business. Like it or not sports is a business. While it may be good for parody across the league like the NHL executives want, as a fan I have a hard time supporting it.
Back to the Colorado Avalanche Newsfeed