Competitive balance is something that every sport strives for. Without it, the two or three teams with the most money will dominate each season, riding their roster of all-star players to easy championships. Teams with less money will be stuck sending out inferior rosters made up of either young or cheap players that simply cannot compete. As those teams struggle, their fan bases will wither and the team will eventually fold, leaving them league in a weaker state than before.
In order to counteract this eventual demise, many leagues put artificial measures in place to keep teams on even grounds salary wise. Since the lockout in 2004-2005, the NHL has been using one of the most extreme versions of this in the form of a salary cap and floor.
This means that an NHL franchise may not spend more than a certain amount of money on their roster each year (the cap) and may not spend less than a certain amount either (the floor). For reference, the ceiling was $73 million in 2016-2017 and the floor was $54 million.
In theory, by forcing every team to spend around the same amount on their roster, you will guarantee a certain amount of quality in the finished product. In practice, the NHL is a fairly balanced league during the regular season. Even teams that are having losing seasons are rarely at such a loss, talent-wise, that they are noncompetitive.
In many ways, the NHL salary cap was implemented to counteract the super teams of the ’90s and early ’00s. New Jersey had won three Stanley Cups in nine years from 1995 to 2003. Detroit reached the conference finals four straight years (1995 to 1998) and won three cups from 1997 to 2002. Between 1996 and 2002, Colorado had a string of six conference final appearances in seven years, along with two Cup wins. These teams largely controlled the Stanley Cup, with only Dallas breaking the routine in 1999 and coming two games short of a repeat against the Devils in 2000.
In the years where the salary cap has taken shape, the pattern looks strikingly similar. If the Pittsburgh Penguins win the Cup this year, they will have won three in the last nine years, along with Chicago. Los Angeles has won two and Boston was the one-off winner in 2011. Like the Stars, the Bruins almost won another title, losing in six to the Blackhawks in 2013.
This similarity in championship distribution over the last nine years shows that while you can create balance in the regular season by introducing a salary cap and floor, the best players will always rise to the top when the playoffs start. Teams that draft well, make smart trades and build a solid core will always find perennial success, regardless of their financial limitations.
A decade ago, the Predators were plagued with rumors of relocation to Hamilton, Ont. Nashville’s continued presence in hockey, and in this year’s final as a No. 8 seed, is a credit to the NHL salary cap. (Photo by Bruce Bennett/Getty Images)
It is worth noting, however, that success in the playoffs also does not equal an easy regular season. Chicago was the only team on that list to win it all as the Presidents’ Trophy holder. The Kings were the eighth seed in the Western Conference the first year they won, a feat in its own right.
From 1995 to 2003, whenever there was a Cinderella story from the Eastern or Western Conference, they typically got blown out when they reached the final. During that stretch, only two final series went to Game 7, one of which was a battle of No. 1 seeds between Colorado and New Jersey in 2001. In the same span, there were four straight series sweeps.
In the salary-cap era, eighth-seeded teams have been competitive, or even successful in the final. As mentioned, L.A. won the championship as a No. 8 seed six years after Edmonton lost Game 7 in the first season of the salary cap. Most recently, Nashville has given the Penguins all they can handle this year.
The problem with the salary cap is that there is no concrete way to measure how successful it has been. There will always be great teams and there will always be those that struggle no matter what restrictions are in place. For teams with poor ownership and management, there is no amount of artificial balance the league can implement to keep them relevant.
What the cap does allow, is for these teams to compete and win when the right combination of ownership and management are put in place. Just look at markets like Nashville during the salary-cap era. At the start, they were struggling franchises that had the potential to be moved from their respective cities. But once the right owner and general manager were found, these franchises built successful teams that let them take off in their hometowns, turning traditional football cities into hockey towns.
With no NHL salary cap, these franchises may have never had the opportunity for this sort of comeback. Any foundation they might have built would have been unraveled the minute their top players hit the free-agent market. It is hard to sustaining a successful franchise when you are rotating your recognizable players out on a yearly bases.
This is where the salary cap shines. The past dozen years prove no system will stop dynasties from being assembled, but you can create a system that allows for healthy franchises across the board. Given enough time, healthy franchises will find success on and off the ice.
Leave a Reply