HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Cup Winners vs Payroll Rank

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-30-2004, 03:43 PM
  #1
KungFuPenguin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 923
vCash: 500
Cup Winners vs Payroll Rank

I know someone else put together a list like this one, but I couldn't find it, so I made a new one. It lists Stanley Cup Winners and finalists since 1990, and their payroll's relative rank within the league.

Code:
Year	Stanley Cup Winner	Rank	Runner-up	Rank	# of Teams in League
90	Edmonton		3	Boston		10	21
91	Pittsburgh		7	Minnesota	11	21
92	Pittsburgh		1	Chicago		8	22
93	Montreal			9	Los Angeles	3	24
94	NY Rangers		2	Vancouver	18	26
95	New Jersey		7	Detroit		5	26
96	Colorado			11	Florida		20	26
97	Detroit			4	Philadelphia	7	26
98	Detroit			10	Washington	6	26
99	Dallas			2	Buffalo		20	28
00	New Jersey		15	Dallas		4	28
01	Colorado			3	New Jersey	1	30
02	Detroit			1	Carolina		18	30
03	New Jersey		8	Anaheim		15	30
Data is taken from this table

http://www.econ.uregina.ca/augustin/...%20to%2003.pdf

As you can see, only NJ won the Cup with a bottom-half payroll. Every other Cup winner since then has been in the upper half of the league, payroll-wise. A lot of runner-ups have made it to the finals with a modest payroll, though.

Please look at the source as well. I'm not sure of its accuracy.

Anyway, discuss.

KungFuPenguin is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 06:12 PM
  #2
Sotnos
Registered User
 
Sotnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Not here
Posts: 10,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KungFuPenguin
Please look at the source as well. I'm not sure of its accuracy.

Anyway, discuss.
Got this message from the link:

Quote:
Gone
The requested resource
/augustin/Readings/Econ 296/NHL team payrolls - 89 to 03.pdf
is no longer available on this server and there is no forwarding address. Please remove all references to this resource.


I've seen a similar list somewhere else, not sure where though.

Sotnos is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 10:41 PM
  #3
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 17,324
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by KungFuPenguin
I know someone else put together a list like this one, but I couldn't find it, so I made a new one. It lists Stanley Cup Winners and finalists since 1990, and their payroll's relative rank within the league.

[CODE]
Year Stanley Cup Winner Rank Runner-up Rank # of Teams in League

00 New Jersey 15 Dallas 4 28


http://www.econ.uregina.ca/augustin/...%20to%2003.pdf

As you can see, only NJ won the Cup with a bottom-half payroll.
No they didn't (30 teams in 99-00 IIRC). #15 would make them top as top 1/2 (1-15 & 16-30).

me2 is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 11:43 PM
  #4
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,904
vCash: 500
Nope, you don't "rc". Columbus and Minnesota's first year was 00/01.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
10-01-2004, 12:02 AM
  #5
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 17,324
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
Nope, you don't "rc". Columbus and Minnesota's first year was 00/01.
Indeed I do.

me2 is offline  
Old
10-01-2004, 01:12 AM
  #6
KungFuPenguin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sotnos
Got this message from the link:



I've seen a similar list somewhere else, not sure where though.
I still have the pdf, if anyone wants to look at it.

KungFuPenguin is offline  
Old
10-01-2004, 08:34 AM
  #7
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 109,225
vCash: 5775
Just to clarify, there was 27 teams in 1998

GKJ is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 10:24 AM
  #8
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,266
vCash: 500
Well, this thread is an amazing reveleation. Good teams win the Cup? No kiddin?

Scientists have also proven that people that have the most birthdays tend to live the longest.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 03:45 PM
  #9
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,904
vCash: 500
No, it shows that teams that can spend more than most others have good teams, and therefore win the Cup.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 04:41 PM
  #10
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,174
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
No, it shows that teams that can spend more than most others have good teams, and therefore win the Cup.
Perhaps there's a correlation between $ and success... But is it (1) teams that can spend more have better success, or (2) teams that have better success are able to spend more?

Which one is the cause, and which one is the effect?

I in the Eye is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 05:00 PM
  #11
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,345
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
No, it shows that teams that can spend more than most others have good teams, and therefore win the Cup.
Or it shows that if you draft and build a good team, eventually you have to pay good players what they're worth.

If Ottawa keeps their entire team together in another 3 or 4 years they'd be among the highest payroll teams in the NHL.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 05:43 PM
  #12
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I in the Eye
Perhaps there's a correlation between $ and success... But is it (1) teams that can spend more have better success, or (2) teams that have better success are able to spend more?
Exactly. Every single team that has enjoyed success started out lousy and got good before they got expensive. What does that tell you? Zero teams have gotten good by getting expensive even though lots of teams have tried to spend their way to success. What does that tell you?

One is the cause, the other the effect. Which is which? There is lots of evidence. Reason it out for me.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 05:54 PM
  #13
Verbal Kint*
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Bunny Vatican
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,133
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2
No they didn't (30 teams in 99-00 IIRC). #15 would make them top as top 1/2 (1-15 & 16-30).
There were 28 teams.

Verbal Kint* is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 06:42 PM
  #14
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,174
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
Exactly. Every single team that has enjoyed success started out lousy and got good before they got expensive. What does that tell you? Zero teams have gotten good by getting expensive even though lots of teams have tried to spend their way to success. What does that tell you?

One is the cause, the other the effect. Which is which? There is lots of evidence. Reason it out for me.

Tom
My answer is (2) teams that have better success are able to spend more...

I tried to find 'playoff tree results' from 1990 to 2003 - to see how far the successful teams have gone in the playoffs year after year... but I couldn't find it... If anyone has a link or the actual stats, IMO, that would be very insightful...

IMO, try and calculate how much playoff revenue the teams that consistently go far in the playoffs have earned from 1990 to 2003- and then try and calculate the successful team's following year regular season revenue (my theory is that teams that go far in the playoffs generate much more 'next season regular season revenue' than teams that do not)... And then compare the successful team's payroll (from 1990-2003) in relation to how much revenue was made...

Even looking at the first post in this thread, we see that NJ either won the cup or came very close 4 times (i.e. they went far in the playoffs at least 4 times... that = huge revenue gains and advantage over the rest of the teams)... Colorodo did it at least twice... Detroit at least 4 times...

Yes, NJ, Colorodo, and Detroit are able to spend more - but IMO, it is largely because they have more success... I think that the stats will back me up that they were a 'better' team (or on the verge of being a 'better' team) long before they got very expensive... IMO, they got expensive after they could afford more through their success...

IMO, today they can buy $10 million players (if they want to) because of their accomplished pasts...


Last edited by I in the Eye: 10-02-2004 at 06:59 PM.
I in the Eye is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 07:32 PM
  #15
KungFuPenguin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 923
vCash: 500
I made some quick graphs for your viewing pleasure. Recent "dynasty teams" payroll development since 1990. Also a bigger graph with three other interesting teams thrown in the mix.

I'd welcome a debate on the causality of payroll vs team success. I find it is probably the major sticking point in the player vs. owner debate.

Let's start with a hypothetical question. Assume that the previous CBA is extended for another 10 years. Over this period of time, who will win more post-round-two play-off games: Detroit or Pittsburgh?
Attached Images
File Type: gif col.GIF‎ (19.0 KB, 22 views)
File Type: gif dal.gif‎ (18.8 KB, 16 views)
File Type: gif det.gif‎ (18.8 KB, 19 views)
File Type: gif nj.gif‎ (18.8 KB, 24 views)
File Type: gif big.GIF‎ (88.9 KB, 25 views)

KungFuPenguin is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 07:33 PM
  #16
quat
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 8,918
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to quat
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
Or it shows that if you draft and build a good team, eventually you have to pay good players what they're worth.

If Ottawa keeps their entire team together in another 3 or 4 years they'd be among the highest payroll teams in the NHL.
And that is exactly the problem that plagues the NHL. In the past, teams could afford to keep the teams they built together. Now, only the wealthy teams can afford to do that, so the playing field it skewed in their favor... to say nothing of trying to support franchises that take years to get to better than average, only to find they must let go their top players because they can no longer afford them.

Spending money foolishly will not win you a cup, but building a good team and then having the cash to keep it together will give you many good chances to win.

quat is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 07:37 PM
  #17
HFNHL PIT GM
OlliMacBjugStrome
 
HFNHL PIT GM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,637
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quat
And that is exactly the problem that plagues the NHL. In the past, teams could afford to keep the teams they built together. Now, only the wealthy teams can afford to do that, so the playing field it skewed in their favor... to say nothing of trying to support franchises that take years to get to better than average, only to find they must let go their top players because they can no longer afford them.

Spending money foolishly will not win you a cup, but building a good team and then having the cash to keep it together will give you many good chances to win.
gibberish ... OTT has kept their team together, no ?

what championship calibre team hasnt been able to keep their team together ?

dr

HFNHL PIT GM is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 08:15 PM
  #18
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,174
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KungFuPenguin
I made some quick graphs for your viewing pleasure. Recent "dynasty teams" payroll development since 1990. Also a bigger graph with three other interesting teams thrown in the mix.
Excellent work... My interpretation is that teams that accumulated revenue (through year-after-year playoff success - and consequently, higher 'next season' regular season revenue - 'fan hangover' revenue) are able to spend more of that accumulated revenue during the 'later years' (i.e. they are able to spend more revenue, when compared to the average team, now)... IMO, these teams are trying to hang on to their past success by augmenting/replacing their aging 'core'... IMO, this is their reward for a successful 90's/early millenium...

Time will tell how successful they are... IMO, as the 'core' gets older - their success will diminish (regardless of how much they spend)... IMO, they will spend a lot of money just to be faced with the harsh reality that they have to once again re-build from a young core... It's kind of sad to see that old guy trying to hang on to his past...

Quote:
Originally Posted by KungFuPenguin
I'd welcome a debate on the causality of payroll vs team success. I find it is probably the major sticking point in the player vs. owner debate.
I would too... I'm personally an owner supporter - but I don't support a solution that eliminates or hampers a team's ability to keep their 'home grown' players (i.e. players that were drafted or developed from a young age) together... I support a solution that punishes Detroit for signing Scott Niedermeyer (by paying big $ to teams that are home growing their players) - while not punishing Detroit for re-signing Lidstrom...

Quote:
Originally Posted by KungFuPenguin
Let's start with a hypothetical question. Assume that the previous CBA is extended for another 10 years. Over this period of time, who will win more post-round-two play-off games: Detroit or Pittsburgh?
Assuming all else is equal... If Pittsburgh employs the strategy of keeping and growing their young core, and if Detroit employs the strategy of 'buying veteran players to replace an aging core'... over this period of time (10 years), my money is on Pittsburgh winning many more post-round-two playoff games... My money is on Pttsburgh being 'elite' (with a young core growing together that features Fleury, Malkin, Crosby , and Detroit being, at best, the NYR...


Last edited by I in the Eye: 10-02-2004 at 08:21 PM.
I in the Eye is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 08:17 PM
  #19
quat
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 8,918
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to quat
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
gibberish ... OTT has kept their team together, no ?

what championship calibre team hasnt been able to keep their team together ?

dr
LOL. I guess you're correct... the league is extremely healthy and we're all watching hockey right now.

quat is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 08:24 PM
  #20
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KungFuPenguin
Let's start with a hypothetical question. Assume that the previous CBA is extended for another 10 years. Over this period of time, who will win more post-round-two play-off games: Detroit or Pittsburgh?
Detroit would have to start over. It is one of the real downsides to their strategy. They haven't produced enough good players to form a decent young core. If you keep signing free agents, you stop producing players.

I think that is another interesting cause and effect. Do teams sign free agents because they have not produced enough young talent or does signing free agents preclude the development of young talent?

If you give young players a job, they get better. A few of them get a lot better. The Canucks have got an excellent team right now and lots of fans want them to find the final piece of the puzzle. I say, "Screw that. Give Kesler a job. We've become excellent by finding ice time for young players. Let's stay excellent with the same strategy."

Laying out big money for name free agents or good young assets for the likes of Doug Weight before he gets the really big money is a bad strategy. It is bad in the business sense and it is bad in the hockey sense. I'm shocked that so many teams refused to believe it for so long. Buyers at the trade deadline overpaid by a factor of about ten. Team after team hired expensive free agents without getting value for them. Why did it take so long for them to learn?

All that said, I'd bet on Pittsburgh over the next decade absent change to the CBA. At the same time as that, Pittsburgh could very well blow a tire on the rebuild trail, too. It is really hard to build the elite team. The Penguins were absolutely correct on the strategy. They still have to execute. For every team that succeeds, at least three will fail.

Tom


Last edited by Tom_Benjamin: 10-02-2004 at 08:28 PM.
Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 08:41 PM
  #21
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,174
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
The Penguins were absolutely correct on the strategy.
What's frightening to me, is that even though it was absolutely the correct strategy, IMO, the only reason they employed it is because they didn't have the money (likely because of their building lease) to employ that other b******* strategy...

Same with the Canucks...

For this reason, I want the CBA changed... I want to explicitly steer teams to use this strategy...

I in the Eye is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 08:46 PM
  #22
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I in the Eye
I support a solution that punishes Detroit for signing Scott Niedermeyer (by paying big $ to teams that are home growing their players) - while not punishing Detroit for re-signing Lidstrom...
But why should Detroit be punished for this? They do face a dilemma. A once great team is good enough to win regularly in the regular season, but they probably can't be many playoff teams in a seven game season. They continue to sell out.

What do they do? They can't exactly declare they are rebuilding. If they want to try to squeeze the hope of another run out with Niedermayer, they can fill their boots as far as I am concerned.

I will be happy for Niedermayer. He has been underpaid relative to his quality for years. Now he gets to cash in. I think it will be his hard luck that the market has changed so much, but he deserves the chance to sell his skill to the highest bidder. He's waited a long time for it.

I do think he will be one of the better free agent buys. A team like Tampa would see him as a great fit, but I don't think Detroit is interested. I think Ken Holland and Ilitch planned to unwind it anyway. It is one thing to spend all that money when you play in 150 plus playoff games in a decade. It is another when the team struggles to get out of the first round.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 09:04 PM
  #23
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I in the Eye
What's frightening to me, is that even though it was absolutely the correct strategy, IMO, the only reason they employed it is because they didn't have the money (likely because of their building lease) to employ that other b******* strategy...

Same with the Canucks...

For this reason, I want the CBA changed... I want to explicitly steer teams to use this strategy...
I don't think that is true at all about the Canucks. I don't know whether you were a Canuck fan when Quinn and Burke first rode into town in 1987. The team had been awful for years and it still needed a complete overhaul. The fanbase had bailed. To get us back Burke went on the radio every night and laid out the philosophy. He explained why the team was trading the likes of Sundstrom and Snepts in terms of getting the team closer to the Cup. It worked. The team got to within a goal of the prize. Then the Orcans came to town, Bure got hurt, and it all went South.

When Burke came back, he did exactly the same thing he and Quinn did in the late 1980's. Instead of explaining the decisions in terms of hockey like he did in the early 1990's, he explained everything in terms of the money the team was losing, the payroll and the Canadian dollar. He actually painted the Canucks as a small market Canadian team!

I forgave him all that because using the same strategy he and Quinn employed way back when, he gave us another excellent team. It is the road to the Stanley Cup and it is the road to financial stability. Small revenues = small payroll = more young players than you can shake a stick at. Keep the young players who grow and replace the ones who don't with more young players. Big revenues = big profits = payroll flexibility.

If some teams don't want to learn this, why should the NHLPA or other teams stop them?

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 09:04 PM
  #24
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,174
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
But why should Detroit be punished for this? They do face a dilemma. A once great team is good enough to win regularly in the regular season, but they probably can't be many playoff teams in a seven game season. They continue to sell out.

What do they do? They can't exactly declare they are rebuilding. If they want to try to squeeze the hope of another run out with Niedermayer, they can fill their boots as far as I am concerned.
To make the dilemma a little easier for them to solve (so that they make the correct choice)...

So that they start thinking about turning some of their assets now, in order to get a decent return... So that they trade Lidstrom now for 1 or 2 quality young prospects to grow with Datsyuk (sp?) and Zetterberg... So that they don't hold on to him and get nothing in return a couple years from now... I wouldn't prevent Detroit from acquiring Niedermayer... but I would let it be known (through them having to pay a high tax) that it is frowned upon... The tax money that Detroit spends by acquiring Niedermayer can help pay for Pittsburgh to keep Fleury and Malkin together...

IMO, Detroit should seriously start to think about dismantling their team and acquiring young players and draft picks... Not trying to squeeze a little more out of a prune (by acquiring another player like Nieds)...

It does nothing but inflate the market, render assets worthless, and prolongs the inevitable...

Allow Detroit to get Niedermayer... But send the message thoughout the league that this is not the preferred strategy...


Last edited by I in the Eye: 10-02-2004 at 09:09 PM.
I in the Eye is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 09:18 PM
  #25
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,174
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin

If some teams don't want to learn this, why should the NHLPA or other teams stop them?
IMO, 'skipping steps' unnecessarily inflates the salary market... I've got a few posts about my reasoning in a couple of other threads...

I don't think they should be stopped... but I do think they should be punished...

Regardless, IMO, the ones who are doing it properly should be rewarded... and I say let the ones who are doing things the wrong way pay for the reward...

With regards to the Canucks, I hear Burke talking about 'changing the core' after last year's playoff disaster... and that freaks the hell out of me... I want a system that makes him think long and hard before doing it...

I in the Eye is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:53 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.