Does anyone one else believe the cap has had a positive impact in terms of on ice product?

Question

Not to say that the product for the last 100 years was not of the highest quality but the cap has introduced, in my opinion (and you can certainly disagree), more of a sense of urgency in teams and players. No longer are contracts and players guaranteed to be playing the next season so many games have had the added importance of determining how players will make their livelihood the next season. Also it seems (and no I have done no fact checking, so if I am wrong please correct this) that division positioning and playoff spots have become even more competitive with the advent of the cap, teams now have won or lost their postseason positions right on the last day of the season, which I always found was a rarity in the prelockout NHL where a team would wrap up the season at the 60th game and coast with a bunch of AHLers for the rests of the way (not to say the Wings didn't have a problem this season). I just wanted to get some thoughts if anyone else belived the cap is working a bit.

Answer 1

The cap has levelled the playing field. Teams like New York, Toronto, Montreal, and Detroit can't stockpile players and hoard middle of the road players from the other teams.

With the cap the maximum stipend also keeps many players on less rich teams because they can't be outbid for someone when there is an upper limit on salaries.

A negative effect of the cap is the now obscene lengths of contracts that players are signing. 10 years into the future for a 20 year old player. This "depression minded security" thought gets players signing ridiculous contracts for long periods. Because a player will be locked into a team until he's 26 a twenty year old may be pressured into a long sub valued contract by the threat of under paying for the first 6 years. Thus 12 years at $9MM rather than an open market rate at 26 years of age.

The bigger effect on competitiveness is the opening of the game with the removal of the left wing lock style of play. That and the three point game makes it harder to shut down the opposition and coast to an easy win. A three goal lead is no longer a safe lead.

"Katey bar the door" doesn't work any more.

Answer 2

The cap is a double edged sword, it levels the field in terms of spending, but it doesn't guarantee parity. The downside is that it makes for tough decisions for teams as to who to keep and can leave fans without their favorite players just for economic reasons; also it makes the formation of dynasties and year to year rivalries obsolete.

Answer 3

You make a good point.  What I'd like to see more of though is players taking a home town discount so a team can stay together under the cap.

Answer 4

The cap is doing what it's supposed to do. Would Vancouver even be able to offer a player like Sundin 10 million per season if there was no cap? He would just wait out until the larger market teams slugged it out to see who got him. But they don't have they cap space to pay him that kind of cash.

I think that the cap floor needs to be revisited. I understand it's there to make teams spend money to be competitive, but it also causes teams to overpay for marginally talented players just to reach the minimum because more talented players don't want to sign with those teams, no matter how much $$$ they are offered.  The cap has also brought on these extremely long-term signings and salary extensions.