HockeyTalk: Talking Cap

Nick Kypreos wrote a great article on Sportsnet's website talking about the cap and how it's destroying the chance for teams to grow together and stay competitive as a unit. I couldn't agree more. I've been talking to my friends about this since the lockout ended. When I saw that the cap was based on a team's total salary, I said something along the lines of, "This is going to hurt teams in a few years when they can't afford to keep their draft picks around and keep the team together." Sure enough, this is what's happening.

I'm not necessarily in favor of "dynasties." As someone wrote in the comments on Kypreos' article, a dynasty is only good for the team enjoying it; it can make fans of the other teams indifferent since it becomes a foregone conclusion that the dynasty team will win. That can really hurt the league in the long run, but there is something to be said about a team being able to hold on to their players as they mature and become better.

How many fans are tired of seeing their favorite players leave, going to the team offering them the most money? It got to the point where people would be so reluctant to buy a jersey with a name on the back, since you had no idea if that player would even still be with the team a few years later. (How many Flames fans with Fleury jerseys feel this way?) Players like Sakic, Yzerman, Lidstrom, Modano, and Linden (sure, he got traded, but his heart was always with Vancouver, and he came back) are rare players I really admire: they stay with one team for their entire careers, even taking below market value to stay with the team. I love what's happening now, even though it is a result of the cap, where players are signing these 12-year contracts, making sure they stay with one team for their whole professional playing careers.

What I don't like seeing is players who want to stay with their team being forced out because their clubs can't keep them under the cap. Kypreos's article focuses a lot on the Black Hawks, and rightly so. They've got one of the most exciting teams in the league, but it's only going to last another year or so before they have to break up their core; how is that good for the game? Vancouver might not be able to keep Ryan Kesler on their roster -- even though he's indicated that he'll take below market value to stay in Vancouver -- not because they can't afford his salary, but because they can't keep the rest of their core together and stay under the cap. This can severely cripple a team, and I can't believe for a second this is in the spirit of the salary cap.

Parity, in theory, is a good thing. The NHL boasts that they've achieved parity now and that every team can compete on an even level. That's good, sure, but when you can't identify with the players on your team, I really don't see the advantage. An argument can be made that the team-based cap will keep salaries down overall and that these players should just take cuts if they want to stay on their team, but A, there's no way the PA will buy that argument; and B, these players have earned these raises. Who's to tell them they shouldn't take their market value? Clearly, something needs to be done.

I thought of this last year when I first srtarted paying attention to all the talk about Chicago's potential problems: I think there needs to be a system in place that reduce's a player's cap hit for each year they've been with one team. For the sake of an example, let's make it a 5 percent deduction in the cap hit per full season played. Roberto Luongo is in his fourth season with the Canucks, so this would equal a 20 percent cap-hit deduction. If he makes $6 million a season, his cap hit would now be $4.8 million, which would give the Canucks another $1.2 million to sign their free agents or bring in the missing piece for a plaoff drive. You can find examples of this for every team in the league.

The problem with this is what happens to players who have played 10, 15, or 20 years with the same team? The answer: cap the deduction at 50 percent. In this case, Mike Modano, who has been with the Stars for his entire career, 20 years now, wouldn't get a 100-percent deduction in his cap hit. It would be 50 percent. If Modano was still worth $5 million a season, you could pay him that amount, but his cap hit would only be $2.5 million: He gets his money, the Stars get the cap relief, and the fans get to see Modano finish his career with the team that drafted him.

The point of this is to encourage player development and building through the draft. If you have a potential free agent who's been with your team for five years looking for $5 million a season, and you have the option of another, similar player also looking for $5 million, it makes it a lot better to re-sign your own player at a $3.75 million vs. $5 million cap hit for the same money. This would not only breed loyalty, but it would give the teams the chance they need to keep their teams together and make the smart signings to add the little pieces they need to become contenders. Instead of building through free agency, teams would now be building through the draft, and the emphasis on strong player development would be stronger.

The NHL clearly has a problem with the lifelong contracts creating a cap loophole, and I'm sure it will be one area they will try to address during negotiations for the next CBA. Still, I'm sure teams will want to address the issue of their homegrown players being forced out, and this is one possiblity I'd love to see come to fruition. No one knows what will happen, but I truly believe that this could be a great solution that would make the NHL much, much better overall.