David Carty's Homepage

Has the Salary Cap Helped?
by David Carty

On the eve of the Stanley Cup Finals, columnists Jake Duhaime and David Carty take a look at the impact of the NHL's salary cap, and debate whether it's had a positive—or negative—impact on the game...

JD: Well Mr. Carty, the Stanley Cup Final is here! Canada’s Team, the Ottawa Senators and the (Not Mighty) Ducks. I know we’ll be watching, but will those outside of Canada tune in? That is, if NBC decides to even show the games.

DC: Let’s see. We have a warm-weather U.S. team favored to beat a non-original six Canadian team. Buffalo had the fanfare, but at least Ottawa has the star power with guys like Alfredsson, Spezza, Heatley and the vivacious Ray Emery.

But, to be honest Jake, I’m not sure there are any two teams that would have North America enthralled with the Stanley Cup, unless you live in an area where law enforcement wears red and rides around on horses.

JD: I may have to agree with you on this one Dave. Would a best-case scenario, Toronto-Chicago series captivate the casual sports fan? I don’t know. I just don’t think it would have the necessary sex appeal.

Here’s the problem with this series and the league right now. Since the NHL implemented a hard-cap economic system following the lockout, even a team like the Red Wings the Western Conference's top seed, seems rather mediocre, especially when you compare it to the Red Wings teams of five or six years ago.

I know they’re awfully excited for this series up in Ottawa, where tickets sold-out in four minutes on Thursday morning. But elsewhere? I think we’re going to need seven games to see a blip on the ratings screen. The talent pool has become far too diluted under this new system. And with each passing day, I think more and more people will yearn for superstar-based teams, and by that I mean the Gretzky, Orr, Roy, Messier types, winning consistently, as opposed to the team with the best third and fourth line.

DC: I think Hockeytown, USA may take some exception to that….

JD: Well, could we agree that the last two seasons play out a bit differently under the NHL’s old capitalist system, instead of the league’s new found love of communism.

DC: Let me quote the Gipper on this one, "Mr. Duhaime! Tear down this wall!" Has the league really changed that much?

JD: Take the Red Wings and Avalanche, two of the biggest spenders under the old system. Does Detroit go into the 2005-06 Playoffs with the goaltending tandem of Manny Legace and Chris Osgood? Does Brendan Shanahan end up in New York? Peter Forsberg in Philadelphia? Rob Blake in Los Angeles?

I'm not trying to diminish the accomplishments of Carolina and Edmonton, who treated us to one stellar Stanley Cup Final last season. But revisionist history leads me to believe that under the old system, there's a three-way trade deadline bidding war for Dwayne Roloson's services. Chris Pronger doesn't end up in Edmonton. And Doug Weight certainly doesn't end up in Raleigh, but did so because the Hurricanes could absorb his salary at the time.

It wasn’t too long ago, where an owner like Mike Illich or Tom Hicks would open up the vault and grab that aging superstar for a Stanley Cup run. This is how a guy like Brian Leetch can end up in Toronto. And you can't tell me that the league couldn't use another Ray Bourque story to generate interest.

DC: It sounds like parity to me.

Are you telling me that you'd rather have Detroit and Colorado stockpiling these players? I understand the sentiment towards these powerhouse franchises, but this system saved hockey, Under the old system, the Ottawa Senators, by now, would have gone the way of the leisure suit (except on Don Cherry) How many millions of dollars down the drain does it take to convince you that a change needed to be made? The league risked everything, including its niche fan base, to shut down for a year in order to change things for the better.

Now, do I want to see Carolina and Anaheim winning championships? I don't know. Does it help a league trying to expand its fan base? Or does it hurt the loyal fans that already exist? But, this was the correct decision. The National Football League thrives in its salary cap policy and is widely regarded as the most effectively operated league in all of sport.

JD: On the surface, a salary cap seems like the right idea. But the reality is a different story. Hockey, like baseball, has been plagued by labor and visibility problems the last two decades. But unlike the NHL, Major League Baseball has been blessed recently by having successful high-profile markets competing on the sport's biggest stage. New York, Miami, Boston, Houston, San Francisco, Detroit and Chicago have all been home to a World Series team the last five years. In the NHL? Anaheim, Ottawa, Raleigh, Edmonton, Tampa Bay, Calgary, New Jersey and Detroit have made up the last five Stanley Cup Finals. That alone addresses some of the television woes.
Under MLB's current economic system, which uses a competitive balance tax, the New York Yankees can spend a quarter-billion dollars on talent alone. (Not that it's getting them anywhere.) But they must also pay a price to do so. That money goes to small market clubs like Tampa Bay and Pittsburgh so they can invest in their own talent and other free-agents, equaling the playing field… somewhat. This system penalizes teams financially, while still giving them a chance to compete year-in and year-out.

DC: Well, I'm pretty sure that last year's World Series was a collective yawner for all sports fans and your precious TV ratings will prove it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying that giving teams an unfair advantage is a good thing? Why is that?

JD: It’s easy to overlook the financial gap in a league where half its teams make the playoffs.
Your point would hold more validity if the 82 game regular season was of greater importance and only four teams (three division winners and one wild card) make the playoffs. A high payroll certainly helps teams get to the second season (unless we’re talking about the Rangers) but by no means is it a guarantee. Come April, you still have 16 teams in a crap-shoot playoff format in which a hot goaltender or a few lingering injuries can be the difference between Lord Stanley and a first round exit.

DC: Well Jake, under your system those potentially hot goaltenders are going to be making serious money in free agency, so it's more complicated than that. This system better allows a team to find their franchise players and lock them down. I understand what you are saying with players like Forsberg, Shanny, and Pronger changing location, but that was a simple result of the unfair (and unsuccessful) system that was previously in place. It happens in the NFL all the time.

JD: Goaltenders and defenseman have always been paid at a premium. Always have, always will. As for the league’s hard cap and comparing it with the NFL, it doesn’t work because one league has TV money, public interest and team fan bases already well-established and the other doesn’t. One is a simple once-a-week commitment that is television-friendly. The other isn’t. One has plenty of well established superstars who get arrested (The Bengals), call each other out (Terrell Owens), sleep with supermodels (Tom Brady), host Saturday Night Live (Peyton Manning) and host illegal dog fights in the comforts of their own backyard (Michael Vick).
The NFL is part-sport, part-spectacle, with something for everybody. Now I’m not saying that Sidney Crosby should be doing lines of cocaine with Lindsay Lohan or knocking up Britney Spears. But if you need some idea of where the league should start, go look at the Super Bowl, which isn’t a game but an event, where the food, commercials, halftime show, pregame show, parties and the anthems all play a part. I might not have enjoyed watching Cirque du So Lame do its thing before Super Bowl XLI in Miami, but the three women in the room, who only watch the Super Bowl, thought they were fantastic.

DC: Well then why can't the Stanley Cup be a spectacle? I'll give you a hint, it has nothing to do with salary caps, it has to do with the game. It just doesn't appeal to most American fans. And it has nothing to do with longer series either.

The NBA thrives every year on story lines that often involve small market teams. Not Boston, not New York, not Los Angeles, but the San Antonio Spurs have been the most consistent team of the last two decades. Everyone talks about the NBA. Look what happens when Robert Horry throws a hip check on Steve Nash. It is plastered on ESPN for days while other Canadians throw themselves around the ice with reckless disregard. Who makes the news? The NBA and their small market teams. So don't say that small market success can't mean large national draw, because it can and it often does.

JD: The NBA’s interest and TV ratings have dropped off dramatically since Michael Jordan’s second retirement in 1998. And I don’t see many out there too excited over another San Antonio-Detroit NBA Finals. In fact, I think the right word is dread.
I’ll freely admit, I did watch more of the Spurs-Suns series than I did either of the NHL Conference Finals. One, because I believe the winner of that series, San Antonio, will win the NBA title. Two, with the NHL's instigator rule, there might have been more fighting and checking. Three, Steve Nash is Canadian and one can only dream of the passes he'd pull off with a hockey stick.

DC: I'll tell you what would help the most in this salary cap era, a Larry Bird exception. Allowing teams to exceed the salary cap to re-sign franchise players would allow some of those big names to return to their teams. Of course, it would have to be limited. I wouldn't mind seeing the NHL put some kind of exclusion like this in the next CBA. I also wouldn't mind seeing a "franchise" kind of rule like the NFL has to lock down their players. These are just a couple of ideas to try to keep players in their own uniform, but with a salary cap, you have to understand that there will be turnover. It's a part of the agreement and it's a part of parity.

JD: Would it help? It certainly would help out Buffalo who must decide between Briere and Drury in a few weeks. And it would benefit Pittsburgh in a few years, when they’ll be faced with a tough decision to trade a Jordan Staal or Marc-Andre Fleury because they’ll want to keep Crosby and Malkin around.

But even with a Bird exception in place, how do you build a TEAM around two guys cashing a huge paycheck? The Bird rule works in the NBA because two or three superstars is all you need to win an NBA title. But it takes a team of talented players to win the Stanley Cup.
Now I know you’re a huge Celtics fan Mr. Carty. Why was the NBA Draft Lottery so important this year? Because Greg Oden is the next in a line of can’t miss, superstar centers in a league where seven of the last eight teams to win the title have had either Shaquille O’Neal or Tim Duncan.

DC: Why are ping-pong balls so cruel?

JD: I don’t know. But I’ve got to believe those ping-pong balls got some high ratings. Superstars sell. Teams don’t. Unless you’ve got five or six of them on a roster. Which doesn’t happen anymore in the new NHL.