distracted wrote:They didn't have to dump them to upgrade a position, they had to dump them to sign the best available player at that position. And they didn't even have to dump both of them (if you reverse the Richards trade they're still under the cap even including Jagr). And yes, you would see that in other league's systems. Could the raps have gone out and signed Lebron last summer without clearing cap space, negotiating a trade, or renouncing Bosh? Can you sign anyone you want in the NFL if you don't have the cap space?
Compare the quality of players being used to clear space. The Heat dumped Marcus Banks and an expiring Shawn Marion; the Flyers dumped arguably their best player.
In the NHL it's actually easier to go out and get an UFA agent prize than it is in the NBA, because you've removed the necessity of the player's former team trading him to you, and you can bury players in the minors to free up cap space (and get rid of bad contracts).
It
is easier, and that's the point: the hard cap creates an environment where more top talents are available on the market, and that happens because their teams are not in a position to re-sign them.
Again, people like this idea now. They won't like it once most movement happens in free agency, and people remember that
most free agents don't want to come here. All that stuff about how we have to overpay to get players? Magnify it and apply a system where overpaying a guy can leave a team utterly screwed for several years.
Schadenfreude wrote:If anything - Chicago is a case study on how it does work. They have been able to retain all their home grown star talent, and the best player they gave up was Byfuglein, who didn't even become a star until he got moved to a different position. They sent 4 guys to the all-star game last year, had two more guys who played in multiple all star games, and another guy who was good enough to make team Canada.
...but they went from being the second-best team in the regular season to sneaking into the playoffs and getting turfed in the first round, and their adventures with the cap aren't yet over.
Schadenfreude wrote:I personally think it's a lot better than the NBA, where it is extremely hard to acquire talent without the agreement of another team. That may not be by design, but it certainly is by circumstance (with almost every team over the cap).
I
like that system. I like the fact that the majority of talent is acquired through trade or the draft, rather than simply being in the right place at the right time when a capped-out team is forced to lose a good player.
And in the NBA, you're punished for drafting well as soon as their rookie contracts are up (you can no longer go out and sign any free agent you want).
But you can always retain your own talent...in fact, the system is constructed so that you can always trump any bid for your own talent. Imagine a scenario where we draft a top-notch star in 2012, and Davis, Valanciunas and DeRozan blow up. By the time they hit their primes and move off rookie scale, we'd be forced to ditch at least one of them. I'm not fond of the idea that doing too well means that having to purge talent.
Any cap is meant to increase parity, which by design means it has to have a mechanism for preventing a team from getting any free agent they want.[/quote]
We already have a system that prevents teams from getting any free agent they want. It's also worth mentioning that the one time parity was turned on its head through free agency -- the building of the Heat -- could have occurred under a hard cap, as well.
