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.

Hey Goodenow! Lots of parity we have eh?-Cup winners last 10 years

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-16-2004, 02:29 AM
  #1
Hockey_Nut99
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Hey Goodenow! Lots of parity we have eh?-Cup winners last 10 years

Cup winners last 10 years:

95-NJ
96-Col
97-Det
98-Det
99-Dallas
00-NJ
01-Col
02-Det
03-NJ
04-Tampa

Oh my god I was in idiot to think the NHL has parity and that any team can win without a high payroll(besides Tampa)....

 
Old
12-16-2004, 02:41 AM
  #2
mudcrutch79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: The Big Smoke
Posts: 3,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey_Nut99
Cup winners last 10 years:

95-NJ
96-Col
97-Det
98-Det
99-Dallas
00-NJ
01-Col
02-Det
03-NJ
04-Tampa

Oh my god I was in idiot to think the NHL has parity and that any team can win without a high payroll(besides Tampa)....
Did every team on your list draft well?

mudcrutch79 is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 02:42 AM
  #3
Epsilon
#TeamHolland
 
Epsilon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Florence, SC
Posts: 35,560
vCash: 500
Cup winners in the 15 years before that:

New York Rangers
Montreal Canadiens
Pittsburgh Penguins
Pittsburgh Penguins
Edmonton Oilers
Calgary Flames
Edmonton Oilers
Edmonton Oilers
Montreal Canadiens
Edmonton Oilers
Edmonton Oilers
New York Islanders
New York Islanders
New York Islanders
New York Islanders

Yup lots of parity there...

Epsilon is online now  
Old
12-16-2004, 02:59 AM
  #4
Charge_Seven
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,631
vCash: 500
The NHL has always been a league where teams tend to be good for a while. Hence winning a few Cups in the span of a few years. Most of those teams were outstanding at the draft, and have high payrolls simply to pay for what they produced.

Is the complaint here simply that the low payroll teams could not afford to sign away the higher payroll teams drafted players?

Charge_Seven is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 02:59 AM
  #5
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey_Nut99
Cup winners last 10 years:

95-NJ
96-Col
97-Det
98-Det
99-Dallas
00-NJ
01-Col
02-Det
03-NJ
04-Tampa

Oh my god I was in idiot to think the NHL has parity and that any team can win without a high payroll(besides Tampa)....
From 1992, 70% of the cup winners have been in the top5 in size of payroll. 70%....Think about it...

Pepper is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 03:02 AM
  #6
Charge_Seven
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,631
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper
From 1992, 70% of the cup winners have been in the top5 in size of payroll. 70%....Think about it...
So what you're saying is:

You get what you pay for.

Charge_Seven is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 03:09 AM
  #7
mudcrutch79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: The Big Smoke
Posts: 3,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper
From 1992, 70% of the cup winners have been in the top5 in size of payroll. 70%....Think about it...
Show me a team that won the Cup by drafting poorly. I mean, for God's sake, clearly Tampa didn't just go out and purchase the Cup. They drafted well, didn't spend foolishly, and won the thing. I love how the money=Cups crew refuse to deal with Tampa.

mudcrutch79 is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 03:17 AM
  #8
Hockey_Nut99
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper
From 1992, 70% of the cup winners have been in the top5 in size of payroll. 70%....Think about it...
I think that speaks volumes. Tampa did it with drafting and some good trades yes. I don't deny that. Does that eliminate the last 10 years?

Like the guy said above. Since 1992 70% of the cup winners have been in the top 5 payroll. Yeah a lot of teams probably did draft well but your missing the point. Those high payroll teams can easily add players at trading deadlines or choose almost any free agent they want in July. This system doesn't even allow a lot of teams to even retain alot of their own good draft picks or players attained from a good trade, that blossomed.

 
Old
12-16-2004, 03:17 AM
  #9
Charge_Seven
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,631
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mudcrutch79
Show me a team that won the Cup by drafting poorly. I mean, for God's sake, clearly Tampa didn't just go out and purchase the Cup. They drafted well, didn't spend foolishly, and won the thing. I love how the money=Cups crew refuse to deal with Tampa.
I agree with you, however Tampa is also an isolated occurance of this. We all know that money is not a guarantee of a Cup, however we also all know that the $60,000,000 has a better shot than the $30,000,000. You do bring up a good point though, Tampa's drafting was a key element in their win. As was their inteligent roster moves.

I think the best link is that of how ALL of the Cup winners were very well managed in the front office/GM position in those years...maybe good leadership at the business level helped them win?

Charge_Seven is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 03:38 AM
  #10
Coffey77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon
Cup winners in the 15 years before that:

New York Rangers
Montreal Canadiens
Pittsburgh Penguins
Pittsburgh Penguins
Edmonton Oilers
Calgary Flames
Edmonton Oilers
Edmonton Oilers
Montreal Canadiens
Edmonton Oilers
Edmonton Oilers
New York Islanders
New York Islanders
New York Islanders
New York Islanders

Yup lots of parity there...
And it continues like that the further you go back. It seems that a dynasty is followed by another. Heck, if you go back farther 4 years from where you left off it's quite easy to remember who won.

Montreal
Montreal
Montreal
Montreal

I would like a more economic playing field because some teams don't really have any hope of winning based on money. However, people that whine and complain about the same few teams winning the cup every year somehow forget how bad it was before. IMO the NHL has more parity in it now than it has in the 1990's, 1980's, 1970's etc.

Coffey77 is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 03:41 AM
  #11
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mudcrutch79
Show me a team that won the Cup by drafting poorly. I mean, for God's sake, clearly Tampa didn't just go out and purchase the Cup. They drafted well, didn't spend foolishly, and won the thing. I love how the money=Cups crew refuse to deal with Tampa.
Really? Who did they draft? Lecavalier and Richards. And looking over that Cup roster, I don't see anybody else they even drafted (edit: and Kubina). And looking over their complete draft history, I think you'd be hard pressed to call it good.

Your point *has* been dealt with. Tampa's Cup is a one in a million event. It's irreproducible. Tampa got one of the best goalies in the league handed to them for almost nothing, a very rare occurrence. They picked up the best player in the league, the Hart, Pearson, and Art Ross trophy winner for literally nothing, a complete unsigned free agent. Has that *ever* happened before in the history of the NHL? Not that I can think of. They made an extremely risky short term trade for Fedotenko (many would say stupid) that just happened to work out. Even then, Philly still got the best player.

They also got extremely lucky in that they didn't have to face a single one of the recent Cup winning Juggernauts. Normally, most teams get good, then get eliminated by the much more experienced defending Champs or recent Champs in the Conference or Cup Finals. They then often can use this experience to learn what it takes to be a champ themselves, but it can take years. Ottawa ran into Jersey, Detroit ran into Jersey, Jersey ran into the Rangers, Dallas ran into Colorado or Detroit, etc.

Before winning the Cup, Tampa literally missed the playoffs nine out of ten years, and was one of the worst teams in the league *for years*. They made the playoffs to break their long streak of missing, then won the Cup the next year. That's insanely quick, and unheard of.

Essentially, they got ahead of the salary curve, because they just happened to win the Cup so quickly. Normally, they would have become good, St. Louis et al would have demanded big bucks, held out, etc, and they would have been broken up, because that market would not have been able to meet their salaries.

Don't get me wrong. I like Tampa, I was pulling for them. They deserve their Cup, I'm not saying that. But I recognise that *everything* had to go right for them to win that Cup.

As I said, it's a one in a million type thing. No team can sit there and say "Let's follow the Tampa model! We'll miss the playoffs for the next nine years, sign the best player in the league because nobody wants him, then boom! The Cup is So Ours!".

PecaFan is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 03:42 AM
  #12
mudcrutch79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: The Big Smoke
Posts: 3,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coffey77
And it continues like that the further you go back. It seems that a dynasty is followed by another. Heck, if you go back farther 4 years from where you left off it's quite easy to remember who won.

Montreal
Montreal
Montreal
Montreal

I would like a more economic playing field because some teams don't really have any hope of winning based on money. However, people that whine and complain about the same few teams winning the cup every year somehow forget how bad it was before. IMO the NHL has more parity in it now than it has in the 1990's, 1980's, 1970's etc.
The thing is though, it's undeniable that winning teams will bring in a lot more revenue-if you've put together a good young team, they're dirt cheap to pay, and they can be very good. Before you start paying them big, if you've done it properly, you'll win big. If a market can't support a winner, I think you have to wonder if they should be in the league. I'm all for something like increased revenue sharing, but other than that...I don't know that much needs to change.

mudcrutch79 is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 03:50 AM
  #13
mudcrutch79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: The Big Smoke
Posts: 3,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
Really? Who did they draft? Lecavalier and Richards. And looking over that Cup roster, I don't see anybody else they even drafted. And looking over their complete draft history, I think you'd be hard pressed to call it good.
Kubina as well, but don't let that distract you. They also turned a lot of their draft picks into players who've been very useful for them. Fedotenko, Sydor, Khabiulin...all acquired this way. Regardless of whether it's drafts or trades, the point is you can build a competitive team cheaply.

Quote:
Your point *has* been dealt with. Tampa's Cup is a one in a million event. It's irreproducible. Tampa got one of the best goalies in the league handed to them for almost nothing, a very rare occurrence. They picked up the best player in the league, the Hart, Pearson, and Art Ross trophy winner for literally nothing, a complete unsigned free agent. Has that *ever* happened before in the history of the NHL? Not that I can think of. They made an extremely risky short term trade for Fedotenko (many would say stupid) that just happened to work out. Even then, Philly still got the best player.
Many might say it was stupid, but it seems to have worked. We'll see if Philly got the best player-it's still early on that one. Tampa got a guy who fit into their window of opportunity, so at worst it's a win-win deal. Sure, they found an Art Ross winner on the street, which doesn't happen every day, but every team that wins the Cup experiences similar runs of luck. The Oilers had an absurd draft in the early 80's. Detroit got Lidstrom, the best dman in the NHL, with a third round pick-there's luck involved in all of this. It's pretty tough to luck your way to the Cup.

As for Paul Mara being "almost nothing"-you're nuts. I'd seriously consider doing a deal for him for Brewer straight up. He's a solid defenceman.

Quote:
They also got extremely lucky in that they didn't have to face a single one of the recent Cup winning Juggernauts. Normally, most teams get good, then get eliminated by the much more experienced defending Champs or recent Champs in the Conference or Cup Finals. They then often can use this experience to learn what it takes to be a champ themselves, but it can take years. Ottawa ran into Jersey, Detroit ran into Jersey, Jersey ran into the Rangers, Dallas ran into Colorado or Detroit, etc.
Meh, they beat the teams that beat those juggernauts. Philly was a damn good team, who were well coached. They handled them.

Quote:
Before winning the Cup, Tampa literally missed the playoffs nine out of ten years, and was one of the worst teams in the league *for years*. They made the playoffs to break their long streak of missing, then won the Cup the next year. That's insanely quick, and unheard of.
The league is a different place now than it used to be. For one, there's much more competitive balance, so it's easier for a team to rise if they put together a nuclues of talent.

Quote:
Essentially, they got ahead of the salary curve, because they just happened to win the Cup so quickly. Normally, they would have become good, St. Louis et al would have demanded big bucks, held out, etc, and they would have been broken up, because that market would not have been able to meet their salaries.
Show me a team that this has happened too.

mudcrutch79 is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 04:00 AM
  #14
Coffey77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mudcrutch79
The thing is though, it's undeniable that winning teams will bring in a lot more revenue-if you've put together a good young team, they're dirt cheap to pay, and they can be very good. Before you start paying them big, if you've done it properly, you'll win big. If a market can't support a winner, I think you have to wonder if they should be in the league. I'm all for something like increased revenue sharing, but other than that...I don't know that much needs to change.
I think some changes need to be made but I see your point. Even the big market teams that did win, usually drafted well. Plus most of the big expensive guys were home grown. I wish the proposals (NHL and NHLPA) included some clause where players that have stayed with a team longer wouldn't have their entire contract counted towards a cap or tax system. A team like Tampa should be allowed to keep Lecavalier and Richards.

As for revenue sharing. I'm not sure the teams would want to do that. Especially the teams that make money like say Toronto. I feel that the NHL expanded into too many markets and since the product for some reason isn't exciting enough for the American people some teams will die off. But with a potential lost season that may happen anyway.

Coffey77 is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 04:43 AM
  #15
mudcrutch79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: The Big Smoke
Posts: 3,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coffey77
I think some changes need to be made but I see your point. Even the big market teams that did win, usually drafted well. Plus most of the big expensive guys were home grown. I wish the proposals (NHL and NHLPA) included some clause where players that have stayed with a team longer wouldn't have their entire contract counted towards a cap or tax system. A team like Tampa should be allowed to keep Lecavalier and Richards.
I agree with what you're saying-it's one of the things I'm concerned about under a new system. I can see a situation evolve where the Oilers could afford to keep a guy like Smyth, but be barred from it because there isn't cap room. You guys in Detroit know what it's like to have someone play their entire career in one place-I'd hate to see that lost, it's rare enough.

Quote:
As for revenue sharing. I'm not sure the teams would want to do that. Especially the teams that make money like say Toronto. I feel that the NHL expanded into too many markets and since the product for some reason isn't exciting enough for the American people some teams will die off. But with a potential lost season that may happen anyway.
Yeah, but the thing is, MLSE and Illitch were perfectly happy to cash the expansion cheques. I can sympathize with the objections that the players have-why should their salaries be constrained by what the worst market can bear?

mudcrutch79 is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 04:55 AM
  #16
Gwyddbwyll
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 10,530
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mudcrutch79
As for Paul Mara being "almost nothing"-you're nuts. I'd seriously consider doing a deal for him for Brewer straight up. He's a solid defenceman.

...

Show me a team that this has happened too.
Paul Mara then, wasnt as good as he is now. The Khabibulin trade *was* pretty unusual.. goalies like him dont get traded.

A team this has happened to? Dont you wonder what the Oilers (your team?) would look like if they still had Weight, Guerin, Carter, Comrie, Marchant and Grier alongside Smyth ? A contender that's what they would look like..

I understand your concerns but I tend to agree with PecaFan that it was a real case of everything coming together for Tampa. His last paragraph about trying to follow the "Tampa model" illustrates it perfectly.

Gwyddbwyll is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 04:59 AM
  #17
Epsilon
#TeamHolland
 
Epsilon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Florence, SC
Posts: 35,560
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevex
A team this has happened to? Dont you wonder what the Oilers (your team?) would look like if they still had Weight, Guerin, Carter, Comrie, Marchant and Grier alongside Smyth ? A contender that's what they would look like.
Man, I'd say the Oilers are better WITHOUT Guerin, Carter, and Marchant. Lazy bums...

Epsilon is online now  
Old
12-16-2004, 05:05 AM
  #18
mudcrutch79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: The Big Smoke
Posts: 3,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevex
Paul Mara then, wasnt as good as he is now. The Khabibulin trade *was* pretty unusual.. goalies like him dont get traded.

A team this has happened to? Dont you wonder what the Oilers (your team?) would look like if they still had Weight, Guerin, Carter, Comrie, Marchant and Grier alongside Smyth ? A contender that's what they would look like..
Well, they couldn't have both Guerin and Carter, considering that Guerin was traded for Carter. Weight is on the downslope of his career-ask St. Louis if they're glad to be paying him 9mil a year when he's so brittle. Comrie didn't leave for financial reasons-he ended up signing for less than what EDM was offering I believe.

Marchant and Grier? Readily replaceable third line forwards. The Oilers haven't skipped a beat from losing them.

As for Mara not being Mara when he was traded. You're right, he wasn't. Look at the return MTL got for the greatest goalie of all time though, and ask if that was fair. Usually when goalies of a high calibre in the prime of their career get traded, it's impossible to get fair value, because they're on the market due to having a gun to the GM's head. Nothing to do with money, everything to do with guys wanting a change.

mudcrutch79 is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 09:01 AM
  #19
Loki
PK Specialist
 
Loki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 584
vCash: 500
Who cares about parity?

I would rather see a team that drafts well and keeps its players, instead of a system that forces small market teams to sell their successful draft picks to big market teams.

If greater parity comes out of the new system so be it, but it really doesn't matter as long as teams are building through the draft, instead of bullying themselves to the cup through the free agent system.

Loki is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 09:03 AM
  #20
Loki
PK Specialist
 
Loki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 584
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon
Man, I'd say the Oilers are better WITHOUT Guerin, Carter, and Marchant. Lazy bums...
I wouldn't, I would love to see a Smyth, Weight, Guerin line again. That was a solid line.

And Marchant was excellent at what his job was, Carter though.. the jury is definitely out on him (alright he is a lazy bum)

Loki is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 10:03 AM
  #21
NYIsles1*
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 9,539
vCash: 500
When the Islanders were champions they had the highest payroll in hockey. They had to spend more to keep the team together and they made the revenue to sustain it. When Edmonton could no longer pay for their players and they reached their late 20's they broke up the team starting with Gretzky for fifteen million then Messier for eight million.

The difference is the teams in the seventies and eighties did not go out and purchase four or five free agents to put them over the top. Rangers, Colorado, Dallas, Detroit did. The Devils had to go well over 50 million to keep the key players.

NYIsles1* is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 10:06 AM
  #22
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,345
vCash: 500
Hmmmm lets go back in time before big money ruined the NHL's competitive balance.

Did you prefer it before the mid 90's, when most teams had the same or at least very similar payrolls ???

Take a look at competitive balance from 1971 to 1990.

The NHL was DOMINATED by the Bruins, Habs, Flyers, Isles and Oilers.

Sarting with the 1970-71 season:

Cup Wins
Montreal - 7
Edmonton - 5
New York Isles - 4
Philadelphia - 2
Calgary - 1
Boston - 1

Finals Appearances
Montreal - 8
Boston - 6
Philadelphia - 6
Edmonton - 6
New York Isles - 5
Chicago - 2
Calgary - 2
New York Rangers - 2
Buffalo - 1
Minnesota - 1
Vancouver - 1


Semi-finals
Montreal - 11
Philadelphia - 10
Chicago - 9
New York Isles - 9
Boston - 9
New York Rangers - 7
Edmonton - 6
Minnesota - 4
Calgary/Atlanta - 3
St. Louis - 2
Buffalo - 2
Quebec - 2
Detroit - 2
Toronto - 1
New Jersey/Colorado - 1
Washington - 1
Vancouver - 1


Teams that never made a Semi-Final appearance - Kings, Jets, Penguins and Whalers.

That's 12 of 21 teams that made 2 or less semi-finals appearances over a 20 year period (Not all teams were there for all 20 years, but all for at least 10).

The "Big 5" made up 77.5% of the Stanley Cup Finalists, and Edmonton and the Isles didn't even exist the entire 20 years.



==============================================

Bottom line is that this lockout has absolutely nothing to do with "competitive balance". It's about money and only about money.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 10:11 AM
  #23
jcpenny
Registered User
 
jcpenny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Montréal
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,878
vCash: 500
For the tampa bay comment, yeah we have to give it up to them but its very unlikely to happen every year. Drafting is most of the time a crap shoot. Wait till Lecavalier , Richards and St louis go in the negociation table and then you'll see their payroll go up.

jcpenny is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 10:12 AM
  #24
Slewfoot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South Amboy NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan

Bottom line is that this lockout has absolutely nothing to do with "competitive balance". It's about money and only about money.
Completely agree.

Slewfoot is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 10:17 AM
  #25
Vlad The Impaler
Registered User
 
Vlad The Impaler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Montreal
Posts: 11,726
vCash: 500
I don't think money allows you to "buy cups".

You can build an organization a lot of different ways. However, I want teams to have the means to secure their players in an equal playing field. Right now, some teams just cannot do that.

People can bring Tampa all they want but they remain a statistical anomaly to anyone who is sane.

Each team in this league should have a chance to control its destiny in a partnership that works equitably. That's the bottom line for me.

Vlad The Impaler 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 10:41 AM.

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.