Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
There is no problem, your 'problem' is based on a false premise...
No, you win (or lose) as a team - on the ice.
The cap is what it is, and you acquire as much talent as you can. Players are paid what they're paid.
On the ice, in order to win, you need all your players playing at - or above - their best. Regardless of what they are being paid.
All older players are going to be higher paid. And young guys lower paid.
That doesn't mean there isn't value to the older guys. Look at 2 years ago... two of the guys that played great and helped us beat Vancouver? Stajan and Jones. Did they outperform their contracts? No. Did they play well? Yes.
You can't have 20 guys all outperforming their contracts. Doesn't happen. But on the ice, it doesn't matter who is getting paid what. The only thing that matters is that your players are getting it done.
|
Salary does matter. It can make a player impossible to trade, buy-out, sent down, scratch, or otherwise manage. Moreover, it effects future negotiations with other players. It's hard to ask Kylington, for example, to take less than 5.25 million if he's playing way better than Wideman, who's making way more money and performing far worse.
It also effects a teams ability to fill holes via trades or free agency or even sign players. For example, Treliving wanted to negotiate with Russell during the regular season but traded him because there was only so much dollars they can have on the blue-line. Also, if you can't part with bloated contracts, that might impede your ability to develop players. Would I prefer giving Culkin, Kulak, or Wotherspoon some regular NHL time over Wideman, Engelland and Smid?
This is why good managers manage the cap, as well as the on-ice product.