NHL Parity

[Guest Shoreline]

In the midst of another Wings slump which includes two beatdowns, maybe we should also be taking a wider view of things.

Firstly, San Jose has been taking s*** too. They just lost yet another game. Boston has been in a rather large slump. The Devils have been losing to teams at the bottom end of the standings. For all this praise about how unstoppedable Calgary just became, they still got nailed by a team that's just fighting for a playoff spot in Carolina.

Many of us fight amongst ourselves and blame certain players, some blame coaching staff, blaming defense, but clearly people must consider parity and other teams having a better chance of winning these days as a part of the bigger picture.

Last 10 games (via Yahoo):

Boston: 4-5-1 (just lost)

New Jersey: 7-3-0 (got slaughtered last night)

Washington: 5-5-0 (just lost in the SO to the Penguins)

San Jose: 5-4-1 (just lost again last night, 4 straight losses including an OTL, the OTL being after a 3-0 lead)

Detroit: 6-3-1 (obviously hammered by Columbus)

Calgary: 7-2-1 (lost 2 straight to teams not doing well at all, esp. a 6-1 beatdown by the Canes)

If this does not point to parity, and somewhat that teams simply have slumps, I don't know what does.

Edited March 8, 2009 by Shoreline

[MacK_Attack 108]

Just wait until the cap drops and the good teams have send their talent to other teams just to get under the cap. That will take parity to a new level.

[Elshupacabra 0]

"I don't have any opinions anymore. All I know is that no one is better than anyone else, and everyone is the best at everything."

[Guest mindfly]

A bit off-topic perhaps, but nothing is good about the salary cap, absolutely nothing... would be way more nice to have 6-8 rich teams loaded with all stars and always have a few s***ty teams and some mediocre teams, thats the way it is in most other sports especially soccer... but maybe thats just me?

[MacK_Attack 108]

A bit off-topic perhaps, but nothing is good about the salary cap, absolutely nothing... would be way more nice to have 6-8 rich teams loaded with all stars and always have a few s***ty teams and some mediocre teams, thats the way it is in most other sports especially soccer... but maybe thats just me?

For the fans of the rich teams, yes. Ask a fan of the Kansas City Royals how much they like the fact that baseball has no salary cap.

[Guest CaliWingsNut]

For the fans of the rich teams, yes. Ask a fan of the Kansas City Royals how much they like the fact that baseball has no salary cap.

Or asking Phoenix how the cap has helped them?

I personally like a absolutely fair league where a computer using a perfect algorithm just randomly spits out the stanley cup winner... we'd win once every 30 years!

[Shaman 713]

"I don't have any opinions anymore. All I know is that no one is better than anyone else, and everyone is the best at everything."

Simpsons? Principal Skinner, right?

[Ms_Hockey 0]

The only thing I can think of (and I didn't see last night's game due to work) is that the teams that know they're a solid playoff contender are experimenting with their lines to see what kind of chemistry they can come up with. Why? 'Cause they can afford to.

I could be a mile and a half off the mark, but it seems a likely case.

[MacK_Attack 108]

The only thing I can think of (and I didn't see last night's game due to work) is that the teams that know they're a solid playoff contender are experimenting with their lines to see what kind of chemistry they can come up with. Why? 'Cause they can afford to.

I could be a mile and a half off the mark, but it seems a likely case.

Seems to me that a lot of teams who have coasted through the season so far get a little too comfortable and find it hard to get up for games, and the teams that are fighting for playoff spots are all gung-ho and playing with intensity and they catch these top-end teams off guard.

Or, the teams that are out of it are pressure-free and are just having fun and they sneak up and steal games here and there.

It's a dangerous thing to get into....You get into March, you've got a playoff spot all sewn up and you develop bad habits and poor work ethic and then the games matter in April and it's hard to turn it on just like that.

[Barrie 900]

A bit off-topic perhaps, but nothing is good about the salary cap, absolutely nothing... would be way more nice to have 6-8 rich teams loaded with all stars and always have a few s***ty teams and some mediocre teams, thats the way it is in most other sports especially soccer... but maybe thats just me?

I'm with you man. Parity and Salary Caps suck!

[Guest Shoreline]

You're right, Mack.

On the other hand, look at how many single point victories the Wings have had. While I would contribute a small portion of that to poor defense/goaltending or cup hangover, mostly it looks like the bad teams can win too. There's increased parity due to the cap, due to the points structure (OTL/SOL's <-- shootout losses, not s*** outta luck), and basically because of a redistribution of talent for teams who can spend near the cap.

Pre-lockout, at least one or two teams from each conference would be stuck in the bottom spot and some 25-40 points out of the playoffs. Post-lockout, the worst teams have gradually come closer to the last playoff spot, and more than simple statistics than this, which I don't find too meaningful anyways, top tiered teams are having tougher times against teams they should be beating. Colorado and the Islanders have proven that this season.

[RockyMountainWingGal 108]

Just wait until the cap drops and the good teams have send their talent to other teams just to get under the cap. That will take parity to a new level.

That is the day I will stop watching the NHL. I wasn't for the cap - but it wasn't a horrible idea - 3/4 leagues have them now. However, it somewhat favors poor, struggling franchises and allows them to remain in the league at the expense of successful ones.

If teams that have worked hard to sign and retain their top players - often their own draft picks - get punished for that and have to send these guys to teams that have poor management, and have made bad picks, that would be a serious injustice. I wouldn't want to watch that kind of a league.....

[RockyMountainWingGal 108]

In the midst of another Wings slump which includes two beatdowns, maybe we should also be taking a wider view of things.

Firstly, San Jose has been taking s*** too. They just lost yet another game. Boston has been in a rather large slump. The Devils have been losing to teams at the bottom end of the standings. For all this praise about how unstoppedable Calgary just became, they still got nailed by a team that's just fighting for a playoff spot in Carolina.

Many of us fight amongst ourselves and blame certain players, some blame coaching staff, blaming defense, but clearly people must consider parity and other teams having a better chance of winning these days as a part of the bigger picture.

Last 10 games (via Yahoo):

Boston: 4-5-1 (just lost)

New Jersey: 7-3-0 (got slaughtered last night)

Washington: 5-5-0 (just lost in the SO to the Penguins)

San Jose: 5-4-1 (just lost again last night, 4 straight losses including an OTL, the OTL being after a 3-0 lead)

Detroit: 6-3-1 (obviously hammered by Columbus)

Calgary: 7-2-1 (lost 2 straight to teams not doing well at all, esp. a 6-1 beatdown by the Canes)

If this does not point to parity, and somewhat that teams simply have slumps, I don't know what does.

Agree. Parity=we cannot have an expensive defensive core, expensive forward core, AND afford a shut-down goalie. Thus we are a solid team on both ends - sans the defense forgetting to show up about every third game - but do not have great goaltending.

I have also noticed this season alot of lopsided games. It seems like there have been more than normal, but can't say I've looked into it. All the good teams have gotten smoked a few times. I will say that SJ - even though they are on a losing streak - always plays a tight game. Most of their losses are by one goal, or in OT.

On alot of nights, looking at the Wings play, it doesn't seem like we should be at/near the top of the conference. But we are because there are no teams that are flawless, or near flawless in the parity league.

Will be interesting to see how things unfold, although our GT does not give me alot of confidence heading towards the fun season....

[YoungGuns1340 1]

That is the day I will stop watching the NHL. I wasn't for the cap - but it wasn't a horrible idea - 3/4 leagues have them now. However, it somewhat favors poor, struggling franchises and allows them to remain in the league at the expense of successful ones.

If teams that have worked hard to sign and retain their top players - often their own draft picks - get punished for that and have to send these guys to teams that have poor management, and have made bad picks, that would be a serious injustice. I wouldn't want to watch that kind of a league.....

If the Cap drops far enough, then so many big salary players are going to have to be moved that small market teams aren't going to be able to consume all that salary. Even teams like Anaheim and Dallas have internal salary caps and budgets - imagine what kinds of budgets the really small market teams are going to have once the effects or a poor economy are realized.

If revisions aren't made to the Cap in agreeance between the NHL and the NHLPA, then you'll probably see a combination of trades and buy-outs, in which case theres still a fair chance that players with bought-out contracts would be willing to sign with a different big market team. At a reduced price. Maybe we'd have to buy out Rafalski or Hossa (if re-signed) but I'm guessing similar hard-to-move contracts would offer up some decent names faced with the reality of having to sign for a lesser paycheck. Guys like Blake, Redden, Gomez, Drury, Timonen, Campbell, Richards, etc. etc.

[Guest DetroitBoy313]

I have also noticed this season alot of lopsided games. It seems like there have been more than normal, but can't say I've looked into it. All the good teams have gotten smoked a few times. I will say that SJ - even though they are on a losing streak - always plays a tight game. Most of their losses are by one goal, or in OT.

On alot of nights, looking at the Wings play, it doesn't seem like we should be at/near the top of the conference. But we are because there are no teams that are flawless, or near flawless in the parity league.

Maybe it seems there has been a ton of "lopsided" games but there really hasn't been.It just feels that way because of all the goals we've been allowing this year.There is way more parity in the NHL this year and just the central division alone is a great example.Teams are getting better and there is A Blackhawks team that will be making the playoffs for just the 2nd time in about 12 years.The Jackets will probably be making the playoffs for the first time in franchise history.This is what the NHL wanted and they got it,the Wings can't really expect to "run away" with games anymore,they have to fight for points just like every other team does.Well I was bored so I came up with these stats and decided to compare them with the Sharks.

Red Wings losses

1 goal or OT 13

2 goal losses 5

3 or more goal losses 5

Sharks losses

1 goal or OT 12

2 goal losses 3

3 goal or more losses 4

Edited March 9, 2009 by DetroitBoy313

[MacK_Attack 108]

That is the day I will stop watching the NHL. I wasn't for the cap - but it wasn't a horrible idea - 3/4 leagues have them now. However, it somewhat favors poor, struggling franchises and allows them to remain in the league at the expense of successful ones.

If teams that have worked hard to sign and retain their top players - often their own draft picks - get punished for that and have to send these guys to teams that have poor management, and have made bad picks, that would be a serious injustice. I wouldn't want to watch that kind of a league.....

Is it poor management if those teams with cap flexibility heading into the 2010 off-season maintained that flexibility on purpose because they knew it was coming and held off signing long-term contracts because they knew that they could get good players for cheap?

[RockyMountainWingGal 108]

Is it poor management if those teams with cap flexibility heading into the 2010 off-season maintained that flexibility on purpose because they knew it was coming and held off signing long-term contracts because they knew that they could get good players for cheap?

It's poor league management. If the salary cap is dropped, than each existing contract should be dropped a proportionate amount, so teams that have been careful to stay under are not suddenly confronted with "oops sorry we lowered it, your going to have to cut one of the guys you worked so hard to sign". Plus the fact that it is completely ridiculous to drop an already low cap number.

signing UFAs = fair game

making offers for RFAs = fair game

good drafting and good development = fair game

trades= fair game

Taking signed players away from another team is unfair imo. That team should trade for that player if they want him so bad. And yes waiting around to see if the cap drops is poor management imo. What if it doesn't drop and that is all a team was counting on?

Most traditional markets can handle the cap as it is or higher anyways. So what you really have is Bettman trying to keep franchises in non-traditional hockey markets at the expense of the other teams, imo.

[MacK_Attack 108]

It's poor league management. If the salary cap is dropped, than each existing contract should be dropped a proportionate amount, so teams that have been careful to stay under are not suddenly confronted with "oops sorry we lowered it, your going to have to cut one of the guys you worked so hard to sign". Plus the fact that it is completely ridiculous to drop an already low cap number.

signing UFAs = fair game

making offers for RFAs = fair game

good drafting and good development = fair game

trades= fair game

Taking signed players away from another team is unfair imo. That team should trade for that player if they want him so bad. And yes waiting around to see if the cap drops is poor management imo. What if it doesn't drop and that is all a team was counting on?

Most traditional markets can handle the cap as it is or higher anyways. So what you really have is Bettman trying to keep franchises in non-traditional hockey markets at the expense of the other teams, imo.

They're not willingly dropping the cap. They'll have to because the CBA simply says that the players get "x percentage" (54% or whatever it is) of the revenues, and if the revenues aren't there, the cap drops. It's all economics and everything is shot to s*** right now and hockey isn't immune to it.

You're not going to see signed players being "taken" from teams. But, in order for these teams to get under the cap ceiling, some teams are going to have to practically give players away in order to get into compliance. There won't be "hockey" trades as they like to call them, but cap trades. I think you'll see a lot of players end up on re-entry waivers in 2010.

The poor guys that end up as UFA's in 2010 are going to have a tough time getting contracts.

There's been at least a 2-3 year "heads up" that the cap is going to drop a significant amount. If a team is caught off-guard and ill-prepared for it, they have nobody to blame but themselves. It shouldn't come as a surprise in June of 2010 when the cap drops below $45 million.

Edited March 9, 2009 by MacK_Attack

[rage 24]

They're not willingly dropping the cap. They'll have to because the CBA simply says that the players get "x percentage" (54% or whatever it is) of the revenues, and if the revenues aren't there, the cap drops. It's all economics and everything is shot to s*** right now and hockey isn't immune to it.

You're not going to see signed players being "taken" from teams. But, in order for these teams to get under the cap ceiling, some teams are going to have to practically give players away in order to get into compliance. There won't be "hockey" trades as they like to call them, but cap trades. I think you'll see a lot of players end up on re-entry waivers in 2010.

The poor guys that end up as UFA's in 2010 are going to have a tough time getting contracts.

There's been at least a 2-3 year "heads up" that the cap is going to drop a significant amount. If a team is caught off-guard and ill-prepared for it, they have nobody to blame but themselves. It shouldn't come as a surprise in June of 2010 when the cap drops below $45 million.

Teams should still have some protection.

To me, it's not fair that teams should have to possibly stay way under the cap (not by choice, but by fear of the repercussions) because the cap might drop $10 million and they would be screwed if they were at the ceiling and that happened.

So basically, the way I look at it is, we can't keep long-term contracts and be at the cap limit for the next couple of seasons, because if we are then it will severely damage our franchise. But if we are not signing those long-term deals and staying at the top of the Cap Limit , then maybe that is 2 years that we could have won a Stanley Cup, but didn't because of the possibility of the $10 million cap drop.

Teams need protection.

Edited March 9, 2009 by rage

[Chunkylover 26]

In the midst of another Wings slump which includes two beatdowns, maybe we should also be taking a wider view of things.

Many of us fight amongst ourselves and blame certain players, some blame coaching staff, blaming defense, but clearly people must consider parity and other teams having a better chance of winning these days as a part of the bigger picture.

If this does not point to parity, and somewhat that teams simply have slumps, I don't know what does.

It definitely points to parity. It does not absolve poor team defense and sloppy overconfidence. The fact that the Wings weren't able to win despite their poor play made the "competitive balance" more glaringly obvious, and vice versa.

[talex 1]

The cap system sucks period. Getting higher draft picks was supposed to compensate teams that did poorley. The luxury tax is a far better system, the cap punishes big markets while the smaller ones still suffer, sure they may have a big season, but it soon dies back down and they struggle non the less, while the large markets get watered down and to some degree less interest in the product. The luxury tax system on a cap is a good solution which allows both to do better or what they want to do. I understand the theory behind the cap, but in the NHL it seems to prop up failing franchises, sure there is more parity, but it is not saving some of these teams anyways. I hope they go with a luxury tax system the next go round, even if Illitch chooses not to take advantage of it, it will still allow teams that may have a shot to pick up the extra piece to the puzzle, this will make for exciting hockey as well and allow both big and small market teams a chance.

[Vladifan 680]

Seems to me that a lot of teams who have coasted through the season so far get a little too comfortable and find it hard to get up for games, and the teams that are fighting for playoff spots are all gung-ho and playing with intensity and they catch these top-end teams off guard.

Or, the teams that are out of it are pressure-free and are just having fun and they sneak up and steal games here and there.

It's a dangerous thing to get into....You get into March, you've got a playoff spot all sewn up and you develop bad habits and poor work ethic and then the games matter in April and it's hard to turn it on just like that.

I agree with everything you wrote here. I also agree about those teams that have landed a playoff spot...and furthermore, I think a major part of the Wings' problem right now is that they're just not there to play in the first period and so teams that are fighting for playoff berths can and do out-hustle them and beat them. I don't know what it will take to get them where they're askeert enough to shape up either.

[RockyMountainWingGal 108]

Teams should still have some protection.

To me, it's not fair that teams should have to possibly stay way under the cap (not by choice, but by fear of the repercussions) because the cap might drop $10 million and they would be screwed if they were at the ceiling and that happened.

So basically, the way I look at it is, we can't keep long-term contracts and be at the cap limit for the next couple of seasons, because if we are then it will severely damage our franchise. But if we are not signing those long-term deals and staying at the top of the Cap Limit , then maybe that is 2 years that we could have won a Stanley Cup, but didn't because of the possibility of the $10 million cap drop.

Teams need protection.

I agree. If the cap is 56.7 mill now, then teams need to work with that to win this year and next year, and not try to be 10 mill under because it *might* drop in 2 years. Why not amend the CBA? Neither teams nor players want it to go down - neither do fans.

That doesn't mean that teams should not have to bear the brunt of signing long term overpaying contracts - cough cough like Brian Campbell or so. Would teams that want to dump salary be able to just end an undesirable contract because of the lower cap? I doubt it.

I think if the cap drops, than players salaries should drop an equal proportion. Realistically I know that will not fly but it seems the only fair way to do it if the salary cap drops. Or they would have to allow re-negotiating of contracts mid-term. Total mess all the way around.

[The_Cub 0]

The only thing I would like to see is some sort of cap discount towards players resigning with the club that drafted them. A nice way to reward teams that draft well and choose to keep those players.

[dat's sick 1,002]

I love the salary cap and wish they would have something like it in other sports as well..

Look at the English Premier League in soccer. You have the same 4 teams that have been in the top 4 positions every season for god knows how many straight years. It's still fun to see the top teams play and fight amongst eachother for the top position, because they are so stacked with talent, but it'd be fun if there was atleast the possibility of any other team getting involved in the fight.

I'm sure the salary cap has problems, but it has made the NHL so much more interesting than it used to be.

As much as I hate it that the Wings can't bring up the Grand Rapids kids at will and couldn't afford a goalie at the deadline etc., I still think that overall the salary cap does more good than it does bad and it sure has made the NHL more fun to watch.

I mean, who isn't excited about the battle for the playoff spots that is really starting to heat up right about now?