Why do we have a salary cap when teams have 4 or 5 superstars on them and others have one or none?

8 Answers

Relevance
  • 9 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Like others have said, the salary cap serves the purpose of creating at least some parity. It certainly beats allowing a number of big market teams to buy the best players every year while not allowing other teams a fair chance. Besides, the owners wanted to control spending on player salaries, thus being another reason why they implemented the salary cap.

  • 9 years ago

    Example: Look back at the Tampa Bay Lightning roster from the 2004 season. Look at all the firepower they had; Brad Richards, Martin St. Louis, Vincent Lecavalier, Cory Stillman, Dave Andreychuk, Dan Boyle, Pavel Kubina, and the best in net, Nikolai Khabibulin.

    Also, look at baseball. Their is no salary cap there, but look how lopsided the teams are. New York Yankees spend about $200 M on all of their players per year, while Kansas City spends about $35 M total.....

    The salary cap was made to even teams out a bit more.

    Hope this helps (:

  • The salary cap is to prevent one team from buying ALL the superstars. If they can squeeze 4 or 5 superstars under the cap, more power to them. If other teams chose poorly, too bad for them.

  • 9 years ago

    Teams with 4 or 5 superstars on them are teams that sucked for a long time and had high draft picks for many years in a row, or they circumvented the CBA and signed players to contracts that were set up to artificially lower the cap. Or in rare circumstance they are set up with team players that thrive in that environment and realize that $5 million on a team that wins and has a chance for a cup is better than $8 million on a team that loses and is always in poor position.

    The teams with no superstars are teams that draft poorly and mismanage their talent, by trading away young players for older players that may be over the hill and no longer the stars they once were. Also whether a player is a superstar or not depends on his environment. Your definition and mine might be different as to who is a superstar.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 9 years ago

    You don't need a superstar to have a good team. You can HAVE multiple superstars because they want to be together. Look at the Penguins, they got their CORE group of Crosby, Malkin, Staal, and Fleury. These players signed at something of a discount to stay together. If players want to work together and be together the salary cap isn't going to totally prevent it, however the NHL can step in if a contract isn't up to snuff(as we've seen). Every team has the chance to compete, it's about if they know how to or not. It's about if the players WANT to compete in a certain city or not.

  • Ever see the film "Moneyball"? In Major League Baseball, teams who can afford it can buy up the talent while teams who can't, well, don't get the high-priced talent.

    A salary cap ensures that there is some parity among the teams and that each team has a chance.

  • 9 years ago

    Its about drafting, signing, and acquiring talent. All on management on your team of favourite. Salary Cap is intended on creating parity just like the NFL. A level playing field so each team has a shot to win it all any year of the season

  • 9 years ago

    Some teams convince players to sign for less than they could get on the open market, using the lure of a well-built team that has a good chance of winning. Some teams throw heaps of money at players who aren't worth that much. Just look at the Islanders.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.