You Can Lead A Horse To Water, But You Can't Force It To Drink
Matt Bodenschatz | National Hockey League
Jan 27, 02:07 PM | Hype this story!
When the National Hockey League, headed by commissioner Gary Bettman canceled an entire season, justification was heard around the hockey world.
“A salary cap will create parity and eliminate dynasties.”
Today, The Puck Stops Here has an interesting blog entry on this topic, essentially claiming the fans got screwed.
“The NHL has not delivered on the parity that they have promised (whether it would be a good thing if they did is another question). They have managed to remove the elite teams from the NHL. It is no longer possible to build a team that is as good as the better pre-lockout teams were. That team becomes too expensive as its core reaches their prime and forces teams to get rid of players to stay below the salary cap before the team would have peaked. Fans have lost a chance to see as high quality teams, but they have not received their promised parity. Fans gave up something and got nothing but false promises in return. That is a bad trade-off.”
The question is, what would have been a good trade-off?
Sure, the Stanley Cup Finals have featured the same two teams each of the previous two years.
And, sure, powerhouses remain intact in the NHL.
But the parity to be created from a salary cap was theoritical.
And theories don’t always prove to be true.
In this instance, what we are looking at is a league that has seen 26 of 30 teams earn playoff berths since the 2005 lockout.
That’s not a bad number, considering two of those four non-playoff teams (the Phoenix Coyotes and Los Angles Kings) are on pace to make it this year.
Even so, the NHL continues to feature “haves” and “have-nots.”
But is that the league’s fault or the fault of incompetent ownership and management groups?
As the old adage goes, “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t force it to drink.”
And there may be no better example than the Pittsburgh Penguins, who were at the bottom of the standings for years leading up to the lockout, and even the first year following the lockout.
Then-general manager Craig Patrick thought his post-lockout Penguins would be best served with a veteran-laden, experienced team. His plan failed and his tenure as general manager was over.
Enter Ray Shero, a fresh-faced executive with a new philosophy of how to run a team.
Now, three years later, the Penguins have had three playoff berths, including two trips to the Stanley Cup Finals and one Stanley Cup Championship.
Of course, not every team can be as successful as the Penguins have been under Shero’s command, but his success shows that a forward-thinking executive with a strong supporting staff is more than capable of turning a bottom feeder into a competitive team in a short period of time.
And that has a lot to do with the salary cap system that is in place, keeping players’ salaries at a reasonable price and allowing small market teams to spend as much as big market teams.
Patrick, in essence, was the horse that was lead to water, but failed to drink. Shero, on the other hand, has a had a drink, and it came from the best source of all: Lord Stanley’s Cup.
Comments
DaBich
Jan 27, 02:34 PM
First thing that comes to my mind is this: the lock out was 2005, and this is now 2010. Five years later. Is this enough time to make a final decision on what is and isn’t a success? I don’t think so.
Based on what we’re seeing, I feel it’s definitely working. There are so many teams with star players, and as you say, more teams making it to the playoffs.
One must consider ALL the tangibles as well as the intangibles. Most certainly, team management comes into play, in a big way. (Lightning for example).
What does this person (the one who wrote the article) want? All the best players on his team? How will he pay them under the cap?
I think the system is working just fine. I’m willing to bet in another 5 years, you’ll see even more parity.
I’m sticking around for the ride.
DaBich
Jan 27, 02:56 PM
Another thing to consider, if a team/owner/general manager is stuck in the past, and manages his team that way, then the club won’t thrive.
Craig Patrick had his day, in comes Shero. He’s a bit younger, he’s ready to play the game by the new rules, and he’s doing well. He’s not the only one, I’m just using him as an example. Perhaps, the ones responsible for the article are stuck in the past as well? Time goes on and things change. Look at the 70’s style game, and the way it’s played today. Quite a difference. Look more specifically at the Flyers vs. the Penguins. The Flyers have the talent to be a better team than they are. Change management and see what happens with that club.
Dan
Jan 27, 03:02 PM
TSN’s Bob McKenzie pointed out on his twitter earlier that only 4 teams in the league are more than 5 points out of playoff picture, eleven teams have 54 or 55 points, and in the east 1 point separates 6th from 12th…how is that not parity? Sounds like exciting hockey to me!
Ben Schmidt
Jan 27, 03:23 PM
The Salary Cap hasn’t aided parity? Let’s look at the list of teams that have made it to the playoffs post-lockout:
Eastern Conference:
Bruins, Canadiens, Capitals, Devils, Flyers, Hurricanes**, Islanders, Lightning, Penguins**, Rangers, Sabres, Senators*, Thrashers
Western Conference:
Avalanche, Blackhawks, Blue Jackets, Blues, Canucks, Ducks**, Flames, Oilers*, Predators, Red Wings**, Sharks, Stars, Wild
(* – Reached Stanley Cup Finals, ** – Won the Cup)
That means the only teams that haven’t made the playoffs since the lockout are the following:
Panthers, Maple Leafs, Coyotes and Kings.
It’s worth noting that the Coyotes and the Kings look like they have pretty good chances to make it this season, as well.
How does that not reflect greater parity? Even some of the mismanaged teams have managed to reach the playoffs!
Contrast this with Major League Baseball, where I’m not sure if this is true, but it wouldn’t surprise me if the entire Pirates’ 2010 roster cost the same as a single player on the Yankees… (okay, so the Pirates have been rather badly mismanaged as well, but look what happens with no cap on rookie contracts: bad teams like the Pirates pass them over in the draft because they can’t pay them over $10 million as a rookie).
Matt Bodenschatz
Jan 27, 03:53 PM
Essentially, what I got from the article was that the writer was fine with the parity idea so long as it allowed teams to keep their star players — something that also was touted with the cap.
What we are seeing is that some teams choose not to keep their stars: Atlanta with Hossa and possibly Kovalchuk and Florida with Bouwmeester are a few that come to mind. They have the means to keep them, they just refuse to.
That has little to do with parity and a lot to do with individual teams’ desires.
No system is or will be perfect, but the one in place sure is nice.
Doc Nagel
Jan 27, 04:20 PM
I think parity is not a worthwhile goal. I don’t see anything inherently good about different teams making the playoffs or the finals each year, or anything inherently wrong with the existence of dynasty teams. In my opinion there’s something pretty wonderful about putting together and keeping together a great team.
The problem is when those teams are built through unfair rules. The salary cap is a crude way to set up a fairness rule to allow any team the opportunity to build a great team. But the prevailing market value of the best players (that is, how much GMs are willing to pay them) makes for unbalanced payrolls on some teams, which squeezes the ability of those teams to stay together.
Ben Schmidt
Jan 27, 05:22 PM
@Doc Nagel – Actually, there is something inherently good about different teams making the playoffs: financial stability for the League.
If teams never make the playoffs, those teams end up on shaky ground financially. Ending hope for a team’s fanbase is a sure way to doom a franchise.
If teams fail, that does not help the League in the slightest – quite the opposite, in fact. If every team can start the season with the belief that it is possible for them to make the playoffs, that makes the NHL a much stronger product overall (and why shouldn’t every team feel they have a chance? Look how many people wrote off the Avalanche before the season started, after all!)
Dooming teams to perpetual failure results in teams like the Pirates – who are now working on losing a second generation of fans. I hear that park is one of the best in the country, but it’s practically empty most of the season.
At least, that’s what I hear. I’ve never actually been in PNC Park, myself.
c
Jan 27, 05:53 PM
I think a case could be made that the 3-pt games (i.e., the “loser point”) is what is making the standings closer than they would be otherwise. A few teams each season will squeak into the playoffs ahead of more worthy teams just because of whether or not they lose in regulation vs. OT or SO. The extra point gives the illusion of the parity that the salary cap does not really provide and keeps interest alive in more teams later into the season, which is really what the league wants.
ppirilla
Jan 27, 05:58 PM
I think that the parity is there, right now. Sure it was Wings vs Pens two years running in the SCF, but you have to look more at the bigger picture. I haven’t crunched the numbers, but how many playoff series have gone 6 or 7 games the past few seasons? How many times has the underdog prevailed? Look at the current standings — the difference between 6th and 12th in the East is ONE point!
That’s league-wide parity. Sure, mismanagement can leave the bottom-dwelling teams well towards the bottom, but there’s practically no difference between the middling teams and the ones on top. Nearly every team can come into the season with a legitimate belief that they can win the cup. That’s really what it’s all about.
bag o' pucks
Jan 27, 06:32 PM
@Matt, I don’t think what we’re seeing is that teams choose against keeping their star players. I think teams like Atlanta and Florida dealt those players after they became convinced those players were going to leave via free agency. At that point it’s prudent of them to try and get something for those players rather than lose them for nothing. While it may be a matter of general franchise mismanagement, it isn’t by design that they lose star players. Florida could’ve offered Bouwmeester the same deal as Calgary and Bouw would still be a Flame.
There is little doubt, however, that the league is more competitive, from top to bottom, than it was pre-lockout. Every night the standings change based on the games of the evening. Things are tight. Last year, both top seeds were gone before the conference finals. Teams aren’t very convinced that home ice is such a big deal anymore.
Natty Lite
Jan 27, 06:45 PM
@C,
So a team that is good enough to take a bunch of teams to overtime and loses because said teams’ goalie doesn’t handle Shootouts well shouldn’t make the playoffs because a team below them has fewer regulation losses?
Moq
Jan 27, 07:07 PM
The primary reason for the salary cap was better economic parity, not necessarily parity on the ice. A salary cap doesn’t protect against poor management, whatever its exact structure, so it could never promise that kind of parity. That is helped by the points system, which may seem a bit artificial (and not my favourite). But I can’t remember any controversial playoff teams at the top of my head. All teams are aware of the conditions and free to adjust their tactics accordingly.
c
Jan 27, 07:16 PM
Part of being a good, and complete, goalie in today’s NHL means having to be good in shootouts, for better or worse. And also, the SO, while we tend to think of it as an individual competition, is very much a team event, because no matter how good your goalie is, you probably won’t get that 2nd point unless your shooters can put a puck or 2 behind the other goalie. The best TEAMS win the most games, no matter when the games are decided, in my opinion.
Our Pens win a lot of SO’s because they practice both ends of the SO a lot. (Maybe to the detriment of the power play, but that’s for another discussion!)
Paul
Jan 28, 08:55 AM
Just a quick question, Does the salary cap next year go down 11 million dollars? Scott Paulsen keeps saying that the cap is going down 11 million for next season but I think he is wrong by a long shot.
Moq
Jan 28, 09:20 AM
It’s virtually impossible for the salary cap to decrease by $11 million from one season to the next.
To use an example. If the total revenues were to drop $100 million plus the refusal of players to accept the five percent inflator, then the salary cap ceiling would be approx. $52.6 million. Getting close to a $11 million decline in cap would mean revenue losses of more than $300 million and no five percent inflator.
All that is unlikely. Assuming that the players will accept the inflator and assuming a revenue spectrum from $100 million in losses to a minor increase of $10-30 million, I’m guessing the salary cap range for next season is around $55-57 million. Give or take a few hundred thousand.
Paul
Jan 28, 09:35 AM
I knew he was wrong but for the past 2 days he’s been talking about the cap dropping by 11 million for next season. I don’t listen all the time but I’m in the car and what else is there to listen to? Thanks for clearing that up for me. Someone should call him and grill him on it.
Matt Bodenschatz
Jan 28, 09:55 AM
@Paul, Moq’s answer is dead on. There is no credible source out there willing to give a firm opinion on the issue, but indications are the cap won’t change much.
Moq
Jan 28, 10:03 AM
Well, jusk ask him to read sections 50.4.b (Player’s share) and 50.5.b (Salary cap limits) of the CBA. ;-)
People talking about the salary cap usually speculate freely where they try to guesstimate what a stagnant economy means for the NHL salary cap. They might as well pull numbers from a hat in most cases. The result of the key parameters of the NHL economy are pretty much stagnant (some are down and some are up), which probably means a virtually unchanged salary cap. Of course, right now the odds of a $1-2 million decline are greater than a small increase.
The NHL have issued a similar statement and they seem credible in this case.
Natty Lite
Jan 28, 11:33 AM
@C,
So in your opinion a team with a record of 20-10-0=40pts. should make the playoffs over a team with a record of say 16-5-9=41pts. because they were good enough to win more games in regulation, but also bad enough to lose more games in regulation.
Where as team two wasn’t quite good enough to win as many games in regulation, but was good enough to take more teams the distance and lose in a shootout.
c
Jan 28, 02:57 PM
20-10 > 16-14 to me, but we don’t know how many of either teams’ wins were in regulation or OT or SO or if it matters. And sometimes, a better team does get left out of the playoffs in favor of a team that got an extra point or two through whatever means.
Notice that I never said anything about who should or shouldn’t make the playoffs, my point was that the 3-pt games bunch up the standings more so than the salary cap and therefore give an illusion of parity.
Personally, I’d like to see all games be 3-pt games, i.e., 3 awarded to a team that wins in regulation. Imagine how exciting the last five minutes of a tie game in late March would be between two teams fighting to get into the playoffs. However, this system would also create more separation in the standings, which is bad for the league as a whole, but does reward and identify the better teams.
Commenting is closed for this article.