Dynasties

[Hank Kingsley]

Well, we'd have to kill Bettman first (or wait for him to leave office). Trouble is, Daly would likely be his replacement and he's not going to get rid of the cap either.

I'd still like to see it nuked.

It just protects GMs from themselves.

 

[DragonfromTO]

Put that is what my point is; good GM'ing is the way to a dynasty. I agree. With expansion has come the diluted talent pool, and in addition bad GM'ing; just look at the Rangers for example. Some GM's are absolutely horrible around the league; or aren't half bad but along the way make some really head scratching moves. For example, Sather goes out for YEARS throwing big $ at every sexy (not productive) FA on the market and it lead to nothing. Suddenly he delves into this area of the market where he low balls guys and offers one year deals and tacks them on as additions; and suddenly its a stroke of luck and he thinks he's a genius. But prior to that, how many bad draft picks; bad FA signings and complete busts have come through before reaching the Cup finals?

Yeah but even a good GM can have a trade go wrong. It seems a lot less risky to build a good team and then let it run while occasionally tweaking it than to build a good team and then constantly have to churn through trades every year to try and keep it that way.

I mean, look at what happened with Dave Bolland this offseason on the strength of a Cup winning goal. How do you keep Bob Nystrom through 4 Stanley Cups nowadays while having to pay Bossy, Potvin, Trottier and Smith their market value? How do you fit 5 point per game players (Gretzky, Messier, Coffey, Anderson, Kurri) all born within a year of each other under the salary cap nowadays? You can't do it, and so you have to make some trades. But when you "have to" make a trade you're rarely in an advantageous position, and you rarely get exactly what you want even if you make a good one. Using the Bolland example again, the Hawks got some salary relief and made a "good" trade considering the circumstances. But they got back draft picks, and nothing that will help them now.

 

[dare2be]

I'd still like to see it nuked.

It just protects GMs from themselves.

I think it does the opposite. It exposes the bad GMs. Can't hide behind a bloated payroll or fire sale.

 

[Abe Vigoda]

Yeah but even a good GM can have a trade go wrong. It seems a lot less risky to build a good team and then let it run while occasionally tweaking it than to build a good team and then constantly have to churn through trades every year to try and keep it that way.

I mean, look at what happened with Dave Bolland this offseason on the strength of a Cup winning goal. How do you keep Bob Nystrom through 4 Stanley Cups nowadays while having to pay Bossy, Potvin, Trottier and Smith their market value? How do you fit 5 point per game players (Gretzky, Messier, Coffey, Anderson, Kurri) all born within a year of each other under the salary cap nowadays? You can't do it, and so you have to make some trades. But when you "have to" make a trade you're rarely in an advantageous position, and you rarely get exactly what you want even if you make a good one. Using the Bolland example again, the Hawks got some salary relief and made a "good" trade considering the circumstances. But they got back draft picks, and nothing that will help them now.

Too bad we cant find team salaries from back in that day to see the team salary. Deadmonton was an expansion WHA team that got absorbed so I believe the formative years there may have been on the cheap.

 

[Hank Kingsley]

I think it does the opposite. It exposes the bad GMs. Can't hide behind a bloated payroll or fire sale.

Maybe but it also protects them from doing the run up the salary to where the team goes tits up thing.

Which is what I'd like to see.

Downsize the league by 5 or 6 teams.

 

[DragonfromTO]

Too bad we cant find team salaries from back in that day to see the team salary. Deadmonton was an expansion WHA team that got absorbed so I believe the formative years there may have been on the cheap.

WHA salaries certainly weren't small though, and the first Stanley Cup winning team in '84 had only two players on it that came over from the WHA with the Oilers anyway (Gretzky and Semenko).

 

[DragonfromTO]

WHA salaries certainly weren't small though, and the first Stanley Cup winning team in '84 had only two players on it that came over from the WHA with the Oilers anyway (Gretzky and Semenko).

Plus the important question isn't even really whether or not those formative years were done "on the cheap", but whether or not a team would be able to do something similar on the cheap now. They wouldn't.