Hawks Catch a Break How to Make Your Cap Nightmare Worse

Well, obviously winning was great. I’m not even going to get into how dicey it is to pin so much of your hopes on one year, since they pulled it off (dang it, Preds!). To me it’s not “One Cup, or no Cup?” so much as “One cup, or dynasty?” The point of all this is that they probably could have had the championship this year and kept a lot more of their players with just a bit more foresight. And people react to Mirtle’s article by saying the numbers aren’t right and they can’t be true, or it was all completely justified because of the win.

I think what they don’t get is: yes, depth is a good strategy. Managing depth with an eye to the basic realities of the cap is better.

I have a theory, which I have so far kept to myself. Which I will share now. I don’t think winning ONE cup is that big a deal. Look, obviously it’s a big deal, especially for teams with no cups. And it’s a much better outcome than not winning. But my theory goes something like this: parity sucks. A league with 30 exactly equivalent teams is great for YMCA Jr Lakers basketball, age 5-6 division (from which I just returned), but it’s terrible for a pro sport. We need our heroes and villains. We need to hate the Yankees (or the Red Wings, etc.). We need to feel bad for Northwestern and pull for the upset. This is, for me, one of the reasons the shoot-out sucks; because it creates false parity, making bad teams look better and good teams look worse. Now, about those cups:

We all know as soon as the Kings are lucky enough and good enough to win their first cup, everyone will just say so what Anaheim, Carolina and Tampa did it and then proceeded to suck. If winning a cup is no guarantee of future success, then it’s relatively meaningless. Relative to the way it used to be. The Bruins may have won only two cups in the 70s, but they were there every year, losing to PHI, losing to MTL.

Chicago, I believe, is in a better position than Carolina or Tampa or Anaheim, but they have — to put it mildly — not done themselves any favors. If the Kings were to win the cup at the expense of the future, I would be fleetingly happy followed immediately by being depressed and angry, clinging to that one cup like grim death as the Kings flail impotently for the rest of my life.

The Wings, Canadiens, Oilers, Islanders, Flyers, Penguins and Devils all have a claim on lasting greatness, in various eras. More so for the first four, less so for the last four. (I’m only going back to the 67 expansion.) Put Colorado about halfway in there, maybe three-quarters of the way. But they are all a cut above Dallas, Anaheim, Carolina and Tampa, the one-and-done club.

I will be glad for the Kings to win one cup, but one is much closer to zero than it is to two. And two is closer to one than it is to three.

Three cups is the goal, if you ask me. That gives you elite franchise status. Teams hate you because you win too much. People long for your demise. This is what I want.

I have no special dislike for Chicago, other than their style of management is suicidal and I find that offensive on some level.

if the Kings were to throw it all away just to win once, I would be just about ready to root for someone else. This would be like saying, at age 18, I will gladly submit to castration if I can have sex just once with the most beautiful girl in the world. Seems like a good idea before, not so much after.

(also, I am annoyed by the “I want to win a cup I don’t care what team I’m on” gambit; I didn’t mind Hossa going to Detroit, but leaving Detroit and going to Chicago seemed pathetic to me; I was a huge fan of Ray Bourque, but to me it was pathetic and meaningless for him to “win” in Colorado. it’s a team sport. I don’t believe that every great player “deserves” to win the cup. You have to be on a great team. You have to have some luck. Winning a cup is not supposed to be easy. I’m fairly repulsed by the “I’m a winner I want to go play on a winner” attitude — i.e. Rob Blake.)

I accept that my point of view is not shared by many people. But imagine if the Kings were on a cup run and we knew that we were going to lose nine players out of the twenty on the cup-run team. I would be sick.

If luck, or fate, or a stronger team coming out of the East had deprived them of the Cup this year, they’d be left holding a handful of sawdust.

You said it, not me. :-D

I was a Bruins fan the entire 70s (until Orr retired and I left home and didn’t have a TV for 6 years). They won two cups that I didn’t get to see much of because it was pre-cable. Then, starting immediately after the second cup (72), I got to see a lot of them. In that period they lost three times in the finals, three times in the semi-finals, lost to Montreal 5 times (almost always in classic fashion), the Flyers once (when they should have won), the NYIs once, the isles first cup year. It was the best hockey I ever saw and the most exciting and riveting fan experience I ever had. 99% of my experience of that team (by which I mean, getting to watch the games, as opposed to reading the newspaper), was in almost making it. It was horrible and it was great.

When Gretzky came, we had a similar period here in LA. From ‘88 to ’93, the Kings were always almost there, culminating in McSorley’s stick. It was a great era to be a fan. We obviously never won. But it was great and we all still talk about it.

Of course, the Kings have provided two eras ‘94-’98 and ‘03-’08 that were no fun at all. I don’t know if it would have made those times more fun if we had won the cup in ’93. I doubt it. I would have just made me angry.

But then, that’s my preference always. I was just telling my six year old the other day that I would much rather lose every game by one point than win every game in a blow-out. I like being “in the game.”

This is why I’m singularly unimpressed by what the Hawks did. They have done their own franchise a disservice, and I think that will become apparent sooner rather than later. Although, you know, congratulations and all that.

Of the most importance, as they are currently (almost) over the summer cap, they would not be allowed to qualify RFAs, and therefore you could poach them without paying picks.

you would be burying players in the minors who would never clear re-entry waivers anyway, so you may as well trade them and get picks. plus if you waive them and then recall them, you’re on the hook for half the salary.

Plus, I’m not sure “I got greedy and over spent in quest of the cup” counts as “emergency conditions.”

If nothing else, I suspect that, deep in his heart of hearts, Bettman would like to see the Hawks be made an example of. “To encourage the others,” as the old French expression goes.

I think it would be hilarious to watch all of the other GMs get together and play hardball with Young Bowman and refuse to accept trades that didn’t have Chicago taking salary in return, thus forcing them to totally dismantle that team. But embargoes like that are rarely successful in professional sports. Someone generally refuses to hold the line.

But what you don’t understand is, depth won them the Cup. They can’t possibly let these players g—

Oh wait.

As much as the Salary cap era has eliminated the Dynasty of yesteryear, you have to look at teams like Detroit. They may not win every year, but they have been competitive for at least a decade, and as much as I haaaaaaaaaate them, they are what I would hope teams will strive for in terms of long term competitiveness, smart contracts, and shrewd signings.

Hopefully if they can’t get it all sorted out (which I imagine they will, even if they have to hold a bit of a firesale) the actually do get punished for breaking the cap. The worst thing would be if they do end up over, and then only get a slap on the wrist, as then everything is just going to go to hell in a handbasket.

Jones and Ivanans are both UFAs and I would be surprised if any effort went into re-signing them. So if you’re looking forward to next season, there’s no point in having a conniption over either of them.

Clune has the potential to become Sean Avery without being Sean Avery. So it’s worth giving him another season or two to develop.

He has heart, and grit, good attitude, but he was seriously overmatched in the playoffs against the Canucks.
Am I just old school or something thinking that development is what the minor leagues are for, and that the big show is where you show off what you already know?
I just want the Kings to have a solid lineup, with one or maybe two spots filled by guys trying to earn their wings. 19 players, one of them like a Sean O’Donell, and 3 prospects/newbies/whatever you want to call them competing for ice time. Most games you have one guy getting into the lineup and playing like a madman to stay in, and then every 5th game or so the O’Donnell type gets a rest so you have two “temps” in the game. The rest of the roster should be solid guys.

And for DougX, dude, I am not sure if I am over-sensitive to you or what, but I just do not like the sound of “conniption” and it certainly does not fit the tone of what I wrote.