HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Correlation between payroll and regualr season standing 2003/2004

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-28-2004, 04:23 PM
  #26
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CH
It is important for them to notice that this problem is fixing itself with no CBA change.
You tell that to the fans of the teams who have to trade players every March because they cannot afford to keep them because they're payroll can't even be as high as $40M.

degroat* is offline  
Old
05-28-2004, 04:43 PM
  #27
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stich
You tell that to the fans of the teams who have to trade players every March because they cannot afford to keep them because they're payroll can't even be as high as $40M.
Well said!

djhn579 is offline  
Old
05-28-2004, 05:08 PM
  #28
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
Since CH didn't want to do any long term results, I went ahead and calculated it up for the six year period beginning with the 98-99 season and ending with this season that is just now ending.

However, I did make one adjustment... because CH claims that expansion is the main cause of all of this, I took NAS, MIN, ATL, and CLB out of the equation.

After doing that, for the entire 6 year period, the Correlation Coefficient comes out to .458 which according to the page he linked us to is a "Moderate correlation".

But, here's where it gets interesting... the data reveals that there are three outliers:
1. New York
2. Ottawa
3. Edmonton

These 3 teams make up 67% of the sum of D^2... most of you dont know what this means, but CH should understand the relevence.

Take out those three teams and the Correlation Coefficient goes all the way up to .773, which is a "Strong, high correlation".

So, unless you're particularly horrible at getting the bang for your buck (NYR) or particularly good at getting good return on the dollar (EDM, OTT), you're pretty much screwed if you have a low payroll.

degroat* is offline  
Old
05-28-2004, 05:18 PM
  #29
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stich
I just told him exactly what to do... can't make it any simpler.
But why should he try and prove something when you can't even provide a well defined hypothesis?

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
05-28-2004, 05:23 PM
  #30
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
But why should he try and prove something when you can't even provide a well defined hypothesis?
Please don't get ignorant because you can't comprehend something that's actually quite simple.

degroat* is offline  
Old
05-28-2004, 05:24 PM
  #31
pittengineer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Country: United States
Posts: 1,275
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stich
Since CH didn't want to do any long term results, I went ahead and calculated it up for the six year period beginning with the 98-99 season and ending with this season that is just now ending.

However, I did make one adjustment... because CH claims that expansion is the main cause of all of this, I took NAS, MIN, ATL, and CLB out of the equation.

After doing that, for the entire 6 year period, the Correlation Coefficient comes out to .458 which according to the page he linked us to is a "Moderate correlation".

But, here's where it gets interesting... the data reveals that there are three outliers:
1. New York
2. Ottawa
3. Edmonton

These 3 teams make up 67% of the sum of D^2... most of you dont know what this means, but CH should understand the relevence.

Take out those three teams and the Correlation Coefficient goes all the way up to .773, which is a "Strong, high correlation".

So, unless you're particularly horrible at getting the bang for your buck (NYR) or particularly good at getting good return on the dollar (EDM, OTT), you're pretty much screwed if you have a low payroll.
.773 shows really high correlation when dealing with the data that was gathered. With the data being used, I would consider .5 to .7 high in this case.

I wonder what other issues could be studied to see what percentage of each category contributes to overall wins. You can run an anova and see which percentages are associated with each tested category.

pittengineer is offline  
Old
05-28-2004, 05:46 PM
  #32
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,920
vCash: 500
Those numbers are much more correlated than the raw analysis appears. They're being massively skewed by the Rangers and Washington, your two prime "idiot spender" teams.

Count the number of top 10 finishes by the top 10 salaries. In those three years, you've got 5,7, then 6. An average of 6. Count the number of top 10 finishes by bottom 10 salaries. You've got 1, 3, then 0, an average of 1.3. Almost a 6 to 1 ratio. That's massively significant.

Note also that any team that was in that bottom group in 02/03 (low salary, high results) *isn't* there the next year. Success breeds salary explosion, and Minny, Ottawa, and Vancouver were not in this group the next year. Also note the direction these three teams took: Vancouver and Ottawa were forced to increase salary, and climbed out of the low salary group, but kept their top 10 results. Minnesota kept the low salary, and fell the other way - out of the high results. We'll see what Tampa is forced to do next year.

And finally, the real correlation: count the Cup winners from the top 10 salaries, and from the middle and bottom 20 salaries in the past 10 years. You'll find that it's pretty much 10 to 0. This year, we're finally going to get a middle salary. But that's the exception.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
05-28-2004, 05:51 PM
  #33
Burke's Evil Spirit
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 15,768
vCash: 500
Furthermore, find the correlation between *long-term* success and payroll. Look at the last 10 seasons, rank the best teams, and see how the big spenders do vs. the cheap markets.

Burke's Evil Spirit is offline  
Old
05-28-2004, 06:02 PM
  #34
V for Voodoo
Registered User
 
V for Voodoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Boom Shaka-Laka.
Country: Nepal
Posts: 5,004
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to V for Voodoo Send a message via MSN to V for Voodoo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burke's Evil Spirit
Furthermore, find the correlation between *long-term* success and payroll. Look at the last 10 seasons, rank the best teams, and see how the big spenders do vs. the cheap markets.
The catch-22 is that if a team has *long-term* success, their payroll inevitably goes UP.
They end up going from one end of the spectrum, a low payroll team with lots of bang per buck, to the other, a high payroll team with less bang per buck, but similar results. Ottawa and Vancouver are prime examples.

Good teams get expensive.

V for Voodoo is offline  
Old
05-28-2004, 06:23 PM
  #35
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,610
vCash: 500
Another possible flaw is that you're not using the payroll figures. For example, if #10-20 are all between 45-50$ million, it kind of messes up the results (since 5$ million is a relatively low figure) since within a small difference in the payroll figures, the standings could change dramatically.

Also, if you look at the initial rankings, in 2003/2004, there were 7 teams out of the 10 highest payroll that made the playoffs (and there was Washington that dumped it's whole team in the teams that didn't make them), while there were only 2 teams out of the 10 lowest payroll that made the playoffs. In the middle range, 7 teams also made the playoffs.

1-10: 7 teams making the playoffs (the ones that didn't make them: NY Rangers (as usual, bad management), Washington (fire sale, next year their payroll won't be anywhere close to what it was this year), Anaheim)
11-20: 7 teams making the playoffs (not making playoffs: LA (injuries), Phoenix, Carolina)
21-30: 2 teams making the playoffs

Average ranking for teams 1-10: 13
Average ranking for teams 11-20: 13
Average ranking for teams 21-30: 20

This seems to indicate that teams that are in the lower third of the payroll definately give their fans less chances of making the playoffs, as well as a worst position in the standings. Also, half the teams that didn't make the playoffs in the top two thirds of the payroll standing had a "reason", the Rangers being terrible management and player atmosphere (for years), Washington being injuries + fire sale that meant fielding an AHL caliber team many times and LA with their high paid players (Deadmarsh, Allison, Palffy) injured. If you take out injured payroll, LA probably falls down to the lower third and then only 1 team from the bottom third makes the playoffs this year (Nashville, seed #16).

Btw, Calgary isn't a particularly small hockey market, they have a $40+ million payroll, they're only a few millions behind Montreal for example.

SuperUnknown is offline  
Old
05-28-2004, 08:12 PM
  #36
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
It's gotten eerily quiet in here since I posted the 6 year ratio...

degroat* is offline  
Old
05-28-2004, 08:19 PM
  #37
pittengineer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Country: United States
Posts: 1,275
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stich
It's gotten eerily quiet in here since I posted the 6 year ratio...
Another interesting thing to check out would be to factor in Team Net Operating Loss/Gain. Some owners can afford losses and treat teams as a hobby, while other teams are budgeted and try to stay to the bottom line of the business.

pittengineer is offline  
Old
05-28-2004, 08:21 PM
  #38
Other Dave
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New and improved in TO
Posts: 2,025
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stich
It's gotten eerily quiet in here since I posted the 6 year ratio...
As has been pointed out, the six-year ratio is skewed by a number of cheap, bad expansion teams. Also as has been pointed out, good teams get expensive, they don't start that way.

Interesting that as the cost to effectiveness correlation drops (that is as league parity supercedes market size), the teams consider the league in crisis.

Other Dave is offline  
Old
05-28-2004, 09:14 PM
  #39
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stich
Please don't get ignorant because you can't comprehend something that's actually quite simple.
You're the one who doesn't appear to be able to define terms you're using.

How do you define sustained success?

Why should he try and prove or disprove your argument, when you can just move the yard stick after he posts his evidence?

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
05-28-2004, 11:03 PM
  #40
CH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 610
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stich
However, I did make one adjustment... because CH claims that expansion is the main cause of all of this, I took NAS, MIN, ATL, and CLB out of the equation.

After doing that, for the entire 6 year period, the Correlation Coefficient comes out to .458 which according to the page he linked us to is a "Moderate correlation".

But, here's where it gets interesting... the data reveals that there are three outliers:
1. New York
2. Ottawa
3. Edmonton

These 3 teams make up 67% of the sum of D^2... most of you dont know what this means, but CH should understand the relevence.

Take out those three teams and the Correlation Coefficient goes all the way up to .773, which is a "Strong, high correlation".

Lets think for a second about what you are asking. You are asking for a league where a team can have sustained success and not have their payroll go up. Fir the sake of argument right now, I will assume that your numbers are correct and not question them (although I will have to check them sometime later).

In a well designed league, players salaries should go up if they are successful. I cannot think of a better way to define being successful then if their team has long term success (ie is a contender year in and year out). The core players in those teams should have their salaries go up. Its only fair.

What would it mean if a team with "sustained success" did not have their payroll go up?

Far as I can see it would mean one of two things.

1) There is no correlation between being a good hockey player and getting a good salary. Is this logical? Is thisa something we should encourage in the NHL? Obviously not. Good hockey players should be paid higher then bad ones. Thats only fair. Any team that has "sustained success" has several good players.

or

2) The good players that gave this team "sustained success" have to be continuously moved to bad teams that pay them more. Yet, somehow this team continuously offloading its core remains a winner. In the first place this is likely impossible. Its hard to imagine any team having "sustained success' while continuously sending all their good players to other teams instead of paying them what they are worth. In the second place it would be a heart breaking league for a fan. Once a player gets good then he is going to be gone to a bad team. You would never get a chance to follow any player for long.

I *NEVER* have manitained that a team that has "sustained success" whatever that is should be able to have a low payroll.

What I have maintained is that in any given season, success does not correlate well with payroll. If your team has a low payroll, they can still win. The correlation between payroll and success is negligible if we ignore expansion where any expansion team is virtually guaranteed to have a low payroll and low success.

So does this mean that only large markets can have "sustained success"? Again no way. Lets look at the last 10 years or so. The teams that I would argue have had the most sustained success are Colorado, Detroit, Dallas and New Jersey. Are these the largest 4 markets in the NHL? Not even close. Its hard to clearly define what is a large or small market, but for example, the 3 teams in the largest cities in the NHL are the New York Rangers, Chicago Blackhawks and Los Angeles Kings. Lets throw in the largest Canadian team the Toronto Maple Leafs as a 4th "large market". This group of teams is arguable the biggest markets in the NHL. And there is no way to claim that any have had recent sustained success.

So how did Colorado, Dallas, Detroit and New Jersey get to be the best teams of the past several years? They all developed a good young core of players. That core became very good very quickly and the team skyrocketed to the top of the standings. As a serious contender, the team's revenue skyrocketed. With the large revenue that comes from success, they were able to afford a very good team.

Ten years ago, if I told you that the 4 best teams (and hence in some people's logic biggest markets) would be Colorado, Dallas, Detroit and New Jersey what would you have said? Colorado? They didn't even have a team yet. The Quebec Nordiques were still around. The city of Denver had failed miserably with the Colorado Rockies a little over 10 years earlier. Denver had grown in the meantime but in no way would I imagine its a large market. Dallas, Texas? Sure the North Stars just moved there but does anyone seriously think hockey will take off in Texas? Dallas- Fort Worth might be big enough to support a team, but in no way are they a large market. Detroit. Detroit is an orignal six market and a very good team. They already have a good young core with Yzerman, Fedorov, Lidstrom etc. Its quite reasonable to believe that this team is a largish market and could have success. But it aint no New York or Toronto. New Jersey? East Rutherford, New Jersey? Nope. Maybe they get a bit of spillover from New York, but they are the number 3 team in the New York area. It wasn't that long ago that Wayne Gretzky called them a Mickey Mouse outfit. Ten years ago if you told me the NHL was going to be dominated by large market teams like Colorado, Dallas and New Jersey I would think you are crazy. They aren't even big markets.

Who is to say that after ten more years we wont decide that the new large market teams are Tampa Bay, Ottawa and Atlanta or something like that? Its about as logical as deciding Dallas, Colorado and New Jersey are big markets today.

This is likely my last post before I go away for the Memorial Day weekend. I hope this thread is still active when I get back. I think we clearly have a lot of room in between our positions which leaves us lots to discuss. This will be a test for the business of hockey board being abolished and put into the NHL board. I think the much larger NHL board will (and has) gobbled up a lot of the business of hockey board. Business of hockey posts get lost in the much busier NHL discussion. I hope this is not an example. We shall see.....

CH is offline  
Old
05-28-2004, 11:49 PM
  #41
Anksun
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Montreal
Posts: 3,569
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Anksun
I have not read all replies, perhaps this have been talks about already.

But when you are picking stats, and it's especially true with correlation, only 2-3 points can "cause a lot of damage to a study".

Simple example is that if you remove 3 teams from your study:
-NY rangers, Tamba Bay and SJ. (could have remove someone else like Ottawa but for a quick example those 3 teams are fined).

Those 3 teams out = 0,57 of correlation between ranking and payroll...
__________________________________________________

I think at least 1 thing would need to be add for those stats to have any value: Age. An emerging team can go up in the rankings at a faster pace than his payroll but on a small window of time, Money will catch up the team on top or the team will go down again.
___________

Some others stats can support that Money do have a big correlation with succes of a team as you need to wait until the 10th team lowest budget before you find a true difference. Nashville is doing well at 30th-16th but in a correlation stats, this would not be enough to bring it down.

Anksun is offline  
Old
05-29-2004, 01:06 AM
  #42
OlliMackBjugStud
Forever Ferkland
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,765
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stich
You tell that to the fans of the teams who have to trade players every March because they cannot afford to keep them because they're payroll can't even be as high as $40M.
name one player who was traded because the team couldnt afford them ?

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is online now  
Old
05-29-2004, 01:14 AM
  #43
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Other Dave
As has been pointed out, the six-year ratio is skewed by a number of cheap, bad expansion teams. Also as has been pointed out, good teams get expensive, they don't start that way.
I specifically said that I did not include expansion teams, so think you for wasting the time that I spent reading your post.

degroat* is offline  
Old
05-29-2004, 01:17 AM
  #44
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CH
So does this mean that only large markets can have "sustained success"? Again no way. Lets look at the last 10 years or so. The teams that I would argue have had the most sustained success are Colorado, Detroit, Dallas and New Jersey. Are these the largest 4 markets in the NHL? Not even close. Its hard to clearly define what is a large or small market, but for example, the 3 teams in the largest cities in the NHL are the New York Rangers, Chicago Blackhawks and Los Angeles Kings. Lets throw in the largest Canadian team the Toronto Maple Leafs as a 4th "large market". This group of teams is arguable the biggest markets in the NHL. And there is no way to claim that any have had recent sustained success.

So how did Colorado, Dallas, Detroit and New Jersey get to be the best teams of the past several years? They all developed a good young core of players. That core became very good very quickly and the team skyrocketed to the top of the standings. As a serious contender, the team's revenue skyrocketed. With the large revenue that comes from success, they were able to afford a very good team.

Ten years ago, if I told you that the 4 best teams (and hence in some people's logic biggest markets) would be Colorado, Dallas, Detroit and New Jersey what would you have said? Colorado? They didn't even have a team yet. The Quebec Nordiques were still around. The city of Denver had failed miserably with the Colorado Rockies a little over 10 years earlier. Denver had grown in the meantime but in no way would I imagine its a large market. Dallas, Texas? Sure the North Stars just moved there but does anyone seriously think hockey will take off in Texas? Dallas- Fort Worth might be big enough to support a team, but in no way are they a large market. Detroit. Detroit is an orignal six market and a very good team. They already have a good young core with Yzerman, Fedorov, Lidstrom etc. Its quite reasonable to believe that this team is a largish market and could have success. But it aint no New York or Toronto. New Jersey? East Rutherford, New Jersey? Nope. Maybe they get a bit of spillover from New York, but they are the number 3 team in the New York area. It wasn't that long ago that Wayne Gretzky called them a Mickey Mouse outfit. Ten years ago if you told me the NHL was going to be dominated by large market teams like Colorado, Dallas and New Jersey I would think you are crazy. They aren't even big markets.

Who is to say that after ten more years we wont decide that the new large market teams are Tampa Bay, Ottawa and Atlanta or something like that? Its about as logical as deciding Dallas, Colorado and New Jersey are big markets today.
Why are you changing the subject?

This thread is about whether or not payroll is related to winning.

Now you're comparing market size to winning.

Why?

My guess is because I trashed your theory with meaningful long term data?

degroat* is offline  
Old
05-29-2004, 01:19 AM
  #45
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
name one player who was traded because the team couldnt afford them ?

dr
Jagr. Weight. Tkachuk. Half of the Chicago Blackhawks. Blake.

degroat* is offline  
Old
05-29-2004, 01:28 AM
  #46
cws
...in the drink
 
cws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 1,629
vCash: 500
I spent way too much time on stats in graduate school. Unfortunately, I still understand them, no matter how much I tried to forget. A useful tool on occasion, an annoying pain in the a** most other times. Found these quotes many years ago, and I couldn't agree more with them.

"Statistics are like a bikini: what they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital."
Aaron Levenstein

"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp posts; for support rather than illumination."
Andrew Lang


Last edited by cw7: 05-31-2004 at 03:00 AM.
cws is offline  
Old
05-29-2004, 01:36 AM
  #47
OlliMackBjugStud
Forever Ferkland
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,765
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stich
Jagr. Weight. Tkachuk. Half of the Chicago Blackhawks. Blake.
Jagr - i wonder if Baldwin instead of pocketing the multi millions during the heyday of PITs mini dynasty, he had built an arena, would PIT be in this mess ? no they wouldnt ! besides, has paying JJ 11m helped any of the other teams ? J should be expected to play for PIT for a half that, why ?

Weight - EDM isnt worse without Weight and STL isnt better by spending the 8m. I feel more sorry for STL fans in this transaction than I do EDM.

TKachuk - That wasnt a good trade for PHX ? Could have fooled me. Again, what has STL gotten for Tkachuks 11m that PHX hasnt gotten from Nagy, Taffe (and Handzus).

CHI - ??? Terrible example, their problems are bad managment, you dont mean to tell me we should feel sorry for "small market" Chicago.

Blake - that wasnt a good trade for LAK ? Deadmarsh is an absolute monster and its not fair to judge the trade on AD's injury. Never mind, Aulin and Miller. Whats the problem ? Besides, if you add up AD and AM' salary its about 6m. Isnt it just better to spend 6m on a healthy AD and AM than 9m on Blake ? i dont see a problem here at all. this was a good hockey trade and since LAK didnt want to pay Blake 9m, why shouldnt he have the right to get it from a different team ? he paid his dues and had UFA status. It didnt hurt "small market" LAK either, so I fail to see any issue there.

anymore examples where a team truly could not "afford" a star player and how that hurt them ?

OlliMackBjugStud is online now  
Old
05-29-2004, 01:45 AM
  #48
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
Whether or not these trades eventually worked out for the teams is completely irrelevent. It's not like these teams decided to shop players because they thought they could improve their team by moving them. These teams had to, against their own wishes and the wishes of their fans, trade players because they could not afford them. When was the last time that Detroit traded a player because they couldn't afford him? How about New York? Colorado?

degroat* is offline  
Old
05-29-2004, 01:50 AM
  #49
OlliMackBjugStud
Forever Ferkland
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,765
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stich
Whether or not these trades eventually worked out for the teams is completely irrelevent. It's not like these teams decided to shop players because they thought they could improve their team by moving them. These teams had to, against their own wishes and the wishes of their fans, trade players because they could not afford them. When was the last time that Detroit traded a player because they couldn't afford him? How about New York? Colorado?
so why should Rob Blake not be allowed to earn $9,000,000 ? Just because LAK didnt want to pay it ?

LAK decided to shop ROb Blake not because they couldnt afford him, but because they didnt want to pay him 9m. I dont have a problem with that, good decision on their part.

However, COL did want him and could afford him and he had the right to go there. LAK chose to get something out of his remaining value.

Why do we feel sorry that *big* market COL decided it wanted to pay Blake what *small* market LA couldnt ?

isnt that absurd. and dont tell me Anshutz doesnt have pockets just as deep as Kronke.

the point being, and another poster mentioned this, good players cost money. how can you expect a system to exist that doesnt reward the best players ? how come you expect a system where a team gets better, but doesnt have to pay more to the players who made it happen ?

DR

OlliMackBjugStud is online now  
Old
05-29-2004, 01:56 AM
  #50
OlliMackBjugStud
Forever Ferkland
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,765
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stich
When was the last time that Detroit traded a player because they couldn't afford him? How about New York? Colorado?
DET and NYR will never be in a position to not afford a player. Nothing will ever change that. However, there are many examples of them moving expensive players on because they didnt want to pay them.

Do I really need to list all the high priced players NYR and DET have let go due to contracts ?

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is online now  
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 01:14 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.