WordsOfWisdom

Hey HJ. Would you support a higher salary cap?

What's in it for the owners is... greater payroll flexibility ease of player movement / ability to make trades again ability to keep championship teams together longer Even a "poor" NHL franchise can afford to go over-budget for a few years if it means winning some Stanley Cups. You suffer through the lean years with a reduced payroll so that you can spend when the opportunity presents itself. The Leafs are punished because fans in Toronto pay much higher ticket prices. It would be like paying for a "platinum" seat and then being forced to sit up in the nosebleeds. If you pay more for something, you deserve better. Just get on board. My movement needs support! It starts with a forum thread and then hopefully a Hot Stove discussion on CBC's HNIC. (And then hopefully a massive wave of support which forces a change.)

Plus, I don't see why other markets would be opposed to it. If you keep the floor where it is, nobody else is harmed by raising the cap. How many teams actually operate at the salary floor (Arizona) and how many of those teams are always at the salary floor because they can't afford to spend more money anyway? It doesn't matter where you set the cap if some teams are always at the minimum anyway.

Well let's look at the figures: NHL salary cap set at $79.5 million for 2018-19 season - Sportsnet.ca [Hidden Content] Jun 21, 2018 - The NHL salary cap will be $79.5 million with a salary floor of $58.8 million for the 2018-19 season the league announced on Thursday. That's a difference of 79.5 - 58.8 = 20.7 million between the TOP and the BOTTOM. Also, if you consider that teams leave room (don't spend to the cap) in order to possibly add to their roster at the deadline, the gap is even less than that. Just how much is $20.7 million dollars in hockey terms and what does that buy you? Well, it's a difference of two good players basically. A difference of only TWO players on a roster of 20... between TOP (#1) and BOTTOM (#31). The gap is so narrow you can't slide a sheet of paper through it. Would it break the NHL to have a salary cap of $100 million dollars? Would the players object to being paid more? Would owners object to being able to sustain a championship calibre team for more than two years and cash in on more playoff revenue? I think it's different in Toronto. Toronto is in a unique situation. They're the Chicago Cubs of the NHL... before the Cubs recent World Series win. What kind of roster did the Cubs have recently? Were they neutered, or could they spend money? Telling Toronto fans that after 50 years of futility and 50 years of having the highest ticket prices in the NHL that there won't be any payoff now that the team is good is the kind of thing that brings people with torches and pitchforks to the NHL head office. I remember when the Rangers won in 1994.... ending the (then) longest drought going. They were a STACKED team. They had it all. They made sure it was going to be a victory in 1994. Ditto for Detroit in 1997 and 1998. They were "un-neutered". I think Toronto fans want to see the same thing. Now that it's "our turn" (potentially) we want to be the 120 point team in the NHL that blows everyone else out of the water. We want to be the team that is three lines deep with superstar power everywhere. The team that everyone else fears. I really hate the fact that Toronto is in a similar position to the Rangers in 1994 or the Red Wings of 1997/98 and now we can't put ourselves over the top in the same way that those teams did because of artificial limitations on spending. This is the ONE time where it actually makes sense for the Leafs to spend more and now they can't. :(

I think (when it happens to Toronto) this may finally open the conversation about the NHL's current economic system and how it can be "tweaked" to allow rich teams to spend more money. There has to be some angry NHL owners out there. They can't possibly be united on this issue. It doesn't need to be anything radical. Just widen the GAP between the ceiling and the floor. If the NHL were a house, it would be built for Hobbits. Let's create some room so that teams can stop "bumping their head" on the low ceiling. I know I know.... I'll zip it.

It's sad to say but the "window" is indeed closing rapidly on Toronto. If they can't keep the current group together moving forward, then they won't be a legitimate contender. It's not enough to have Matthews and Marner under contract. They need everybody they have now and they (arguably) need to flip one of their forwards for defensive help to put them over the top. They're still in the building phase in terms of winning a Cup and we're already looking at the possibility of the team being torn apart. With two more teams in the NHL now (Las Vegas and Seattle), every NHL team gets weaker -- losing a player off their roster to each of the expansion teams. It's almost to the point now where the only way you can build a Stanley Cup winner is to luck out on entry level contracts to players who become superstars early (trapping them into long term, low paying contracts) and then luck your way into a few Cup wins before the contracts come due and you have to blow the whole thing up. If every player gets paid what they're worth according to market value, then all 32 teams in the NHL will be completely even in strength and every season will come down to luck on who wins because top players will be scattered evenly across all NHL teams.

True, but given their history, why chance it? Teams that are frequently out-shot don't keep winning hockey games for very long. I'd be happy if they could add one more piece to the blue-line and perhaps a Selke type forward who can play a strong defensive game. A couple moves like that and the Leafs will be #1.

NHL rules should come with a warning label that reads: "DANGER: Rules may change without warning."

I'm looking for an excuse to try out the new forum emojis. Was that the season Brett Hull won the Stanley Cup for Dallas on the toe-in-the-crease goal? So yeah, Buffalo beat Toronto that year.... but it would have meant something if they actually went on to win the Stanley Cup. Nobody remembers who defeated who for teams that didn't win anything because it doesn't matter. Leafs weren't going to beat that Dallas team anyway because the Leafs had no defence and Dallas was the #1 team in the league defensively that year. Leafs were a better team than Buffalo on paper that year except for Hasek. Sabres had the game's greatest goalie and that was the difference in the series. I think EVERY team in the league has a better head to head record against the Leafs. It's not an accomplishment. I wasn't alive.... so as far as I'm concerned the Leafs have won ZERO Stanley Cups. Until I see one happen, the count is zero.

Looking forward to the next match-up against Buffalo. Teams like Toronto need to have a few good sparring partners that can push them.

Who is this Eichel chap that you speak of? Never heard of him.

If you like pretty goals, check out the highlights.

Was that the game the Leafs were out-shot by a 2:1 margin? They're scoring goals and winning games, so nobody besides me is really complaining, but they're going to run into a team that plays a strong defensive game in the playoffs (like the Bruins historically do) and they'll be toast ..... unless they can clamp down and limit the chances they're giving up. Of the last four teams that the Leafs have had which made the final four (conference finals), only the 1992-93 team and maybe the 1993-94 team was a strong defensive team. The teams that went out against Buffalo and Carolina were built EXACTLY like the Leafs are today. Loaded up front, great goalie, but soft defensively.

Leafs flex their muscle with a big win over Buffalo. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

A beautiful OT win vs the red hot Sabres. Do the Leafs now possess the NHL's best forward?