HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
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
05-31-2004, 08:44 PM
  #101
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,513
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CH
I understand. Its only a salary dump when it helps your argument.

Gotcha
LOL... What's a salary dump? It's when you dump salary (shed salary, etc). When you don't, it's not a salary dump. Edmonton didn't spend money when acquiring Nedved.

It's just a plain crappy example you made.

SuperUnknown is offline  
Old
05-31-2004, 08:48 PM
  #102
CH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 606
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smail
LOL... What's a salary dump? It's when you dump salary (shed salary, etc). When you don't, it's not a salary dump. Edmonton didn't spend money when acquiring Nedved.

It's just a plain crappy example you made.

If a small market team trades a guy just before he is a UFA (by the logic I have been given in this thread) it is a salary dump because they cannot afford to resign him.

But when the Rangers dump the player to Edmonton it is not.

CH is offline  
Old
05-31-2004, 09:16 PM
  #103
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,513
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CH
If a small market team trades a guy just before he is a UFA (by the logic I have been given in this thread) it is a salary dump because they cannot afford to resign him.

But when the Rangers dump the player to Edmonton it is not.
Who tells you the Rangers won't sign him again? In this case, it's not because the Rangers can't sign him again, it's because they need a remodelling (and I think you know why). Quite simply, this ain't in any way related to a team that's been trying to resign a player but just can't because it would blow their budget...

Crappy example, especially since NY didn't even shed salary from the trading deadline up to the end of the season.

SuperUnknown is offline  
Old
05-31-2004, 09:31 PM
  #104
Other Dave
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New and improved in TO
Posts: 2,025
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
What you don't seem to get is that there are a lot of teams that are still developing that are forced to trade players rather than being able to continue the teams development.
First of all, how many teams would you consider 'a lot', and which players and teams are in this position?

Hell, I'll even start you off: Ottawa was forced to trade MacEachern, Yashin, and Pitlick for salary reasons. Are they better or worse off?

Other Dave is offline  
Old
05-31-2004, 09:36 PM
  #105
CH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 606
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smail
Who tells you the Rangers won't sign him again? In this case, it's not because the Rangers can't sign him again, it's because they need a remodelling (and I think you know why). Quite simply, this ain't in any way related to a team that's been trying to resign a player but just can't because it would blow their budget...

If any other team makes the same move as the Rangers did its a salary dump. Its proof that there is a payroll inequity in the NHL. Its proof small markets cannot compete.

Using the example we had before, if Buffalo had traded a player equivalent to Petr Nedved it would prove a payroll inequity - but strangely the New York Rangers are doing exactly the same thing.

To follow this line a bit further, if any team rebuilds that is not a "big market" however you define big market, it proves that team cannot afford to keep the players they traded to rebuild. But a "big market" team does the same thing and it does not show the same thing. Both are happening in the NHL right now.

CH is offline  
Old
05-31-2004, 09:37 PM
  #106
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by neogeo69
oh really? How long has Edmonton been in a "rebuilding" phase? 10 years? The point is that every time Edmonton is on the verge of completing the rebuild, they've had to give up solid veterans because THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY THEM.
How can Edmonton be on the verge of completing their rebuild when the only way they've been able to get young players is to trade their veterans for them?

In the 90's who did the Oilers draft that turned out to be a player? Ryan Smyth, Jason Arnott, Tom Poti and?

You can't rebuild by drafting only three above average NHLers in ten years.

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
05-31-2004, 09:49 PM
  #107
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,513
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CH
If any other team makes the same move as the Rangers did its a salary dump. Its proof that there is a payroll inequity in the NHL. Its proof small markets cannot compete.

Using the example we had before, if Buffalo had traded a player equivalent to Petr Nedved it would prove a payroll inequity - but strangely the New York Rangers are doing exactly the same thing.

To follow this line a bit further, if any team rebuilds that is not a "big market" however you define big market, it proves that team cannot afford to keep the players they traded to rebuild. But a "big market" team does the same thing and it does not show the same thing. Both are happening in the NHL right now.
I never said that. Some teams do have to trade their players due to a lack of money. Others just prefer to go with other players (ufas or else). Your posts spew of bad faith. You seem to hang on anything you can to "prove" your right.

I just pointed out that in the Nedved instance, it was not a salary dump. I never argued for anything else, you did...

SuperUnknown is offline  
Old
05-31-2004, 09:52 PM
  #108
Other Dave
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New and improved in TO
Posts: 2,025
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smail
I never said that. Some teams do have to trade their players due to a lack of money.
Funny that this is almost always a wise hockey decision as well.

Other Dave is offline  
Old
05-31-2004, 09:57 PM
  #109
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Other Dave
First of all, how many teams would you consider 'a lot', and which players and teams are in this position?

Hell, I'll even start you off: Ottawa was forced to trade MacEachern, Yashin, and Pitlick for salary reasons. Are they better or worse off?
About twenty teams are losing money this season... take a look at what they are going to be doing if there is no salary cap...

Just to get you started, if you didn't read the rest of the thread, Buffalo has the youngest team in the league. They have only three players making over $3M: Satan $4.75M, Zhitnik $3.75, Drury $3.45M. After them, Biron is the highest at $2.2M. We lost about $10M on a $34M budget. The mandatory 10% increase will push the payroll to ~$38M if everyone accepts their qualifying offers.

The Sabres will need to trade at least one of the above players to continue losing the same amount of money. In order to prevent losing more money, the Sabres need players with low salaries in return (read: prospects...). Will trading one of these players for prospects make us better or worse? Only time will tell...

Oh, and the trade of Curtis Brown for Jillson was to cut salary also, luckily it did address a need for a defenceman...

djhn579 is offline  
Old
05-31-2004, 10:03 PM
  #110
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
About twenty teams are losing money this season... take a look at what they are going to be doing if there is no salary cap...
And you'd better be a good boy this year or Santa Claus won't pay you a visit.

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
05-31-2004, 10:05 PM
  #111
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,513
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Other Dave
Funny that this is almost always a wise hockey decision as well.
I don't agree... What would the Avs done if they decided to trade Sakic, Blake or Roy, which they all resigned as FAs?

What you do with your players is situational. There's not only one model that works. There are several models that work to build a hockey team, and they do not always work.

Now I'm not saying that sometimes it's not a wise decision to trade or to let go some players. For example, I think that the Rags after running several years with the same players/type of players, did the right thing by trying to clean house. That decision is a hockey decision, not a decision based on $$$.

Also, since there are now many teams stripped for cash and that there's no revenue growth in sight for the foreseeable future, players traded or let go for the necessity of cash are worth considerably less than a few years ago.

SuperUnknown is offline  
Old
05-31-2004, 10:05 PM
  #112
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
And you'd better be a good boy this year or Santa Claus won't pay you a visit.
That's nice... A very good responce that shows the depth of your understanding of the topic being discussed and your general hockey knowledge...

I'll have to remember that for the next time I can't come up with a reasonable responce....

djhn579 is offline  
Old
05-31-2004, 10:27 PM
  #113
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
Does anyone else find it interesting that CH has chosen to ignore my post that shows that there is a strong correlation? :lol

degroat* is offline  
Old
05-31-2004, 10:35 PM
  #114
PeaceNLove
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 249
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stich
Does anyone else find it interesting that CH has chosen to ignore my post that shows that there is a strong correlation? :lol
He also ignored my post, in which I repeated your result and tried to explain that one correlation didn't mean anything...

PeaceNLove is offline  
Old
05-31-2004, 10:50 PM
  #115
CH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 606
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stich
Does anyone else find it interesting that CH has chosen to ignore my post that shows that there is a strong correlation? :lol
I responded. It is post number 40.

CH is offline  
Old
05-31-2004, 11:13 PM
  #116
porknbeans
Registered User
 
porknbeans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,727
vCash: 500
.

Thank God there's some logic on these boards. I applaud thinkwild, OtherDave, BRG and CH among others, (DR) .

Oh, Im in no position to judge, Im sorry. Just a fan of the Big market Senators. Damn them for winning the Presidents Trophy last year. And scoring the most goals in the league (2nd most the last 6) this year.

I really hope a new CBA helps out the smaller markets in Washington, Chicago, New York and LA. I mean, they just cant compete.

And besides, the NHL owners are losing money! I want to guarantee them a profit !!! PROFIT SHOULD ALWAYS BE GUARANTEED IN BUSINESS NO MATTER HOW POORLY IT IS RUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I hope they worsen the game for the fans, decrease competitive balance, eliminate dynastic teams.... Just pray. I just want the owners to make money.

I hope the Sens lose Chara, Havlat, Spezza Hossa Redden Volchenkov and Fisher over they ears cause they cant afford em. Damn them for developing these guys! Give em to the Caps!!! They need to have the same ability to win as any other team in the league. Its only natural.

porknbeans is offline  
Old
05-31-2004, 11:38 PM
  #117
PeaceNLove
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 249
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by scaredsensfan
Oh, Im in no position to judge, Im sorry. Just a fan of the Big market Senators. Damn them for winning the Presidents Trophy last year. And scoring the most goals in the league (2nd most the last 6) this year.
And didn't make it far in the series either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scaredsensfan
And besides, the NHL owners are losing money! I want to guarantee them a profit !!! PROFIT SHOULD ALWAYS BE GUARANTEED IN BUSINESS NO MATTER HOW POORLY IT IS RUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't know many industries in which most of the compagnies are loosing money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scaredsensfan
I hope the Sens lose Chara, Havlat, Spezza Hossa Redden Volchenkov and Fisher over they ears cause they cant afford em. Damn them for developing these guys! Give em to the Caps!!! They need to have the same ability to win as any other team in the league. Its only natural.
Yes, the team did a good job and they have good results... but they didn't even come close to winning a cup. A team can get good results in the regular season, with a reasonnable payroll, but not make it far in the playoffs and ending up loosing money. And with the exception of this year (and I explained a bit how it happened earlier), the more money you have, the more chances you have to reach the 3rd and 4th rounds.

PeaceNLove is offline  
Old
05-31-2004, 11:57 PM
  #118
PeaceNLove
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 249
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CH
I responded. It is post number 40.
Yes, that is the post in which you brought the market argument, but then in post #78, you said:

Quote:
In a non-expansion season, the correlation between payroll and success is VERY low. A cheap team can win. Just look at the playoffs this year. Its obvious that one will.
So I understand that you basically ignored the correlation argument from Stich. You are entitled to do so; but I wouldn't say you responded.

This year will be the first one in the last 10 years that a team with a below average payroll will win the cup. (I won't explain again why since I already did it.) You point out an exception to explain a correlation that didn't take the playoffs into account in the first place.

PeaceNLove is offline  
Old
06-01-2004, 12:24 AM
  #119
Rob Paxon
Z E M G U S
 
Rob Paxon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: corfu, ny
Country: United States
Posts: 16,583
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Rob Paxon
I didn't read this entire thread, just the first few posts, so forgive me if someone echoed my sentiments.

First of all, kudos to CH on an informative post.

Secondly, if you increase the sample size, my guess is things wouldn't change too drastically.

Finally, if they did change drastically, take this into account. When a team has success it (generally) leads to more money, thus allowing a team to be able to pay more.

It is all very simple: any team can succeed in this league. Any team can have a good season and build on that, slightly increasing their payroll to bring in some better players.

The "problem" in the league is not about competitiveness, but profits. Some teams are losing money. Frankly, it is because they spend more than they can afford to, and knowingly at that. If they invested their money properly, they wouldn't have that problem.

All leagues throughout history have had teams with financial troubles. They either fix their troubles, fold, or are sold.

Not that it is the same, but all markets have their businesses that make money and those that don't. The ones that don't generally give a poor product, charge too much for it, or both. They also tend to handle their money none-too-wise.

No cap is going to heavily limit the salaries of high-end players. There will always be a team willing to pay a Jagr more than he is worth. The team that had such a player would have to get rid of him either because he will not fit in their cap or they can't even afford to spend up to the cap amount.

There are teams that are losing money now spending $30 million on salaries. Is that not a similar number to what they'd be paying in a cap?

If the league improves its on-ice product as a whole or somehow gains more interest in the U.S., all teams will be in a much better financial position.

If the league implements a hard cap, teams will still lose money.

Teams will be competitive regardless of salary in either case. Yes, teams will still have varying payrolls under a cap.

I really don't see a hard cap as helping the league. In fact, I can see it hurting the league, ESPECIALLY when you consider the sacrifices it will take to get one.

I can see the league doing just fine under a similar CBA to the current one.

I can also see the league doing alright with a revenue sharing/luxury tax of sorts, although I don't think it is necessary. It'd certainly help some of the poorer teams. However, there is only so much money in the NHL to go around. Teams simply need to stop paying more than they can afford. If they don't, they get no tears for me when they fall into the red.

If the NHL is going to focus on anything, it should be on making more money. Trying to limit spending should be secondary and left to each individual team (owner). The NHL's job is to make the game as it should be: exciting and (relatively) safe. The owners' job is to make individual profit and field a competitive team at the same time. History has shown that has always been possible.

Rob Paxon is online now  
Old
06-01-2004, 12:34 AM
  #120
Vlad The Impaler
Registered User
 
Vlad The Impaler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Montreal
Posts: 11,726
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CH
I do understand that if you disagree with the result, you must find something to complain about instead of considering the fact that your preconceived ideas may be incorrect.
You method is flawed, and that's the bottom line. No matter what preconceived ideas they may have, anybody with a brain will realize so quickly.

Vlad The Impaler is offline  
Old
06-01-2004, 07:25 AM
  #121
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CH
I responded. It is post number 40.
My bad.

I remember that post now... the one where you completely changed the subject and tried to change the correlation from payroll & winning to market size & winning.

No matter which way you spin it, over a period of time, payroll and winning have a strong correlation.

degroat* is offline  
Old
06-01-2004, 07:51 AM
  #122
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
That's nice... A very good responce that shows the depth of your understanding of the topic being discussed and your general hockey knowledge...
The only thing it shows is how gullible you are.

If you'll believe the owners cries of poverty, surely you'll believe that Santa Claus comes to all good little boys and girls.

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
06-01-2004, 08:13 AM
  #123
CH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 606
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeaceNLove
Yes, that is the post in which you brought the market argument, but then in post #78, you said:


So I understand that you basically ignored the correlation argument from Stich. You are entitled to do so; but I wouldn't say you responded.

You do not understand. I'll try to explain again.

In any given season the correlation between payroll and success is very weak. There may be a few exceptions to this rule - the only one we have identified so far is expansion (the expansion teams are cheap and unsuccessful). There will always be enough "outliers" expensive old bad teams and cheap young successful teams to keep the correlation low (at least under the current CBA).

Presumably, most (all?) expensive bad teams will rebuild and become cheap in the future.

Presumably, young successful teams will have large increases in revenue which will allow them to pay for a larger payroll in the future.

Any market in the NHL can do either one. Some of the markets that have had explosions in revenue and become "big market" teams include such unlikely places as Dallas, Texas, Denver, Colorado and East Rutherford, New Jersey. These unlikely markets have been able to (after establishing an exceptional young core of players) have continuously very good teams with the very good revenues and larger than average payrolls that come with it. If they can do it why cant anyone else? At least anyone smart enough to draft well and produce a young talented core.

That is what is important in a fair league. Equality of opportunity (or as close to equality as possible).

Its rediculous to expect that over a long period of time the continuosly successful teams will not have higher payrolls then the continuosly unsuccessful ones on average. There are many reasons why a league like this is completely stupid and pointing at the fact that it doesn't exist is inane.

In the first place, the continuosly bad teams will usually rebuild. When rebuilding they will be cheap. Continuosly good teams do not rebuild.

Continuosly good teams are continuosly good because they have good players. Good players deserve larger salaries then not so good ones. In order to not have a long term correlation between payroll and success, you are asking for good players to either not get paid what they are worth (ie more then not so good ones) or you are asking that when a player proves he is good and deserves a large contract he must get sent to a bad team that cannot produce good players on its own because only they can afford to pay him. These scenarios are rediculous. Its crazy to think the NHL is broken unless they exist - if fact the NHL is broken *IF* they exist.

Of course over the long term a successful team will pay more in salary then a less successful team on average. Of course over the long term a successful team will have higher revenue then a less successful team on average. These points are trivial.

Any market can become a successful team for a large period of years. It is a hard thing to accomplish, but any team can do it. If one establishes a good young core of players you will be a successful team as long as you keep those players together and as long as they do not get too old. This will allow this market a long period at or near the top of the NHL. How long has Joe Sakic been a top player in the NHL? How long has Peter Forsberg been a tp player in the NHL? If the same team has both of them for that period of time of course they will be a top team for a long time. Eventually it will end. Eventually, they will decline. Maybe Forsberg will go back to Europe. Then Colorado will fall in success and revenue. Colorado will no longer look like a "big market" team. Colorado will look like another rebuilding club. That is unless Colorado has such elite scouts that they can continue to produce Sakics and Forsbergs despite having later picks in the draft. Can they do it? Alex Tanguay and Milan Hejduk are examples that suggest that maybe they can. Other "large markets" like Dallas Texas have been less successful. After their stars like Mike Modano begin to decline, they have not produced stars of the future. Their reign as a "big market" successful team will likely soon end (if it hasn't already).

As far as I can tell, these posters (like you) point at the talented cores of players in middle sized NHL markets and their salaries and imagine that it is a big market that had some kind of unfair advantage. The only unfair advantage was better scouting and better drafting (and thats not unfair IMO). There is nothing intrinsic to the current crop of "big market" teams that makes their market big. Its merely the revenue explosion that accompanies success. When success ends so will the revenue explosion. If your market has success, their revenues will explode also.

In conclusion, in any given season there is little correlation between payroll and success. Over the long term any team that drafts well can become very successful. Of course there will be a correlation between their payroll and success. But correlation is not causation. Its not the payroll that caused the success as much as its the success that caused the payroll. If this long term trend did not exist, the NHL would be broken. Good players would either not be paid better then not so good ones or good players would be forced to leave the team that developed them to go to a bad team for their payday. Both of these are rediculous situations. If one existsed the NHL would be "broken".

CH is offline  
Old
06-01-2004, 08:48 AM
  #124
PeaceNLove
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 249
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CH
In any given season the correlation between payroll and success is very weak. There may be a few exceptions to this rule - the only one we have identified so far is expansion (the expansion teams are cheap and unsuccessful). There will always be enough "outliers" expensive old bad teams and cheap young successful teams to keep the correlation low (at least under the current CBA).".
No, it isn't. Stich took out the expansion teams out and the 2-3 teams that were exceptions and the correlation was high. And that doesn't include the playoffs. The playoffs are important because the players are not paid; many teams have to reach the third round or so to make any profit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CH
Presumably, most (all?) expensive bad teams will rebuild and become cheap in the future.

Presumably, young successful teams will have large increases in revenue which will allow them to pay for a larger payroll in the future.".
Well, I'm really not convince of that. At least for my team (Montréal), this isn't true. The attendance couldn't be higher. The TV revenues either. You may say that the team then spends too much in salaries, but they are average. The team made it to the 2nd round this year, but will loose money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CH
Any market in the NHL can do either one. Some of the markets that have had explosions in revenue and become "big market" teams include such unlikely places as Dallas, Texas, Denver, Colorado and East Rutherford, New Jersey. These unlikely markets have been able to (after establishing an exceptional young core of players) have continuously very good teams with the very good revenues and larger than average payrolls that come with it. If they can do it why cant anyone else? At least anyone smart enough to draft well and produce a young talented core.".
Why can't anyone else? Let's say you are right about those markets. Not all 30 teams can be at the top at the same time. If you cut too much on the payroll, well, look at Pittsburgh and the attendance they have... Now of course if you do not believe in the first place that most owners loose money, we'll never agree on this. That said, they don't make me crying since it's their own fault. I'm more $/%$"$"/4 over the fact that they just don't care about the fans, but business is business, I guess... But they do need some kind of system because if just one owner doesn't follow the word, just to maintain an average team, the payroll will have to be quite high. If the team is too bad, the attendance, which is still important in this league, and the revenues and profit (if there is one) will go down.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CH
That is what is important in a fair league. Equality of opportunity (or as close to equality as possible)."
Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CH
Its rediculous to expect that over a long period of time the continuosly successful teams will not have higher payrolls then the continuosly unsuccessful ones on average. There are many reasons why a league like this is completely stupid and pointing at the fact that it doesn't exist is inane.

In the first place, the continuosly bad teams will usually rebuild. When rebuilding they will be cheap. Continuosly good teams do not rebuild.

Continuosly good teams are continuosly good because they have good players. Good players deserve larger salaries then not so good ones. In order to not have a long term correlation between payroll and success, you are asking for good players to either not get paid what they are worth (ie more then not so good ones) or you are asking that when a player proves he is good and deserves a large contract he must get sent to a bad team that cannot produce good players on its own because only they can afford to pay him. These scenarios are rediculous. Its crazy to think the NHL is broken unless they exist - if fact the NHL is broken *IF* they exist.

Of course over the long term a successful team will pay more in salary then a less successful team on average. Of course over the long term a successful team will have higher revenue then a less successful team on average. These points are trivial.)."
So you are saying that successful teams have higher revenues because they are winning. But I believe they are winning because their revenues were higher - because their market had more opportunities - in the first place, not the opposite. If the Nordiques had stayed in Québec, they wouldn't have been able to keep their players, even after winning a cup in Québec in 1996. Why do you think they went to Colorado? The market was very small so they were the first team to face the problem, but now many teams are facing the same problems too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CH
Any market can become a successful team for a large period of years. It is a hard thing to accomplish, but any team can do it. If one establishes a good young core of players you will be a successful team as long as you keep those players together and as long as they do not get too old. This will allow this market a long period at or near the top of the NHL. How long has Joe Sakic been a top player in the NHL? How long has Peter Forsberg been a tp player in the NHL? If the same team has both of them for that period of time of course they will be a top team for a long time. Eventually it will end. Eventually, they will decline. Maybe Forsberg will go back to Europe. Then Colorado will fall in success and revenue. Colorado will no longer look like a "big market" team. Colorado will look like another rebuilding club. That is unless Colorado has such elite scouts that they can continue to produce Sakics and Forsbergs despite having later picks in the draft. Can they do it? Alex Tanguay and Milan Hejduk are examples that suggest that maybe they can. Other "large markets" like Dallas Texas have been less successful. After their stars like Mike Modano begin to decline, they have not produced stars of the future. Their reign as a "big market" successful team will likely soon end (if it hasn't already).

As far as I can tell, these posters (like you) point at the talented cores of players in middle sized NHL markets and their salaries and imagine that it is a big market that had some kind of unfair advantage. The only unfair advantage was better scouting and better drafting (and thats not unfair IMO). There is nothing intrinsic to the current crop of "big market" teams that makes their market big. Its merely the revenue explosion that accompanies success. When success ends so will the revenue explosion. If your market has success, their revenues will explode also.)."
Do you really believe that the revenues in Edmonton, Calgary or Minnesota will explode so much they'll reach the level of Detroit, New York and Colorado? I don't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CH
In conclusion, in any given season there is little correlation between payroll and success. Over the long term any team that drafts well can become very successful. Of course there will be a correlation between their payroll and success. But correlation is not causation. Its not the payroll that caused the success as much as its the success that caused the payroll. If this long term trend did not exist, the NHL would be broken. Good players would either not be paid better then not so good ones or good players would be forced to leave the team that developed them to go to a bad team for their payday. Both of these are rediculous situations. If one existsed the NHL would be "broken".
But to agree with your conclusion, I'd have to agree with your premises, and I don't. Your theory is interesting and I'd like to believe it, but I still think it left out too many factors and that there is not enough evidence for me to buy it.


Last edited by PeaceNLove: 06-01-2004 at 08:49 AM. Reason: Minor spelling corrections
PeaceNLove is offline  
Old
06-01-2004, 09:02 AM
  #125
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,513
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CH
In any given season the correlation between payroll and success is very weak. There may be a few exceptions to this rule - the only one we have identified so far is expansion (the expansion teams are cheap and unsuccessful). There will always be enough "outliers" expensive old bad teams and cheap young successful teams to keep the correlation low (at least under the current CBA).

Presumably, most (all?) expensive bad teams will rebuild and become cheap in the future.

Presumably, young successful teams will have large increases in revenue which will allow them to pay for a larger payroll in the future.

Any market in the NHL can do either one. Some of the markets that have had explosions in revenue and become "big market" teams include such unlikely places as Dallas, Texas, Denver, Colorado and East Rutherford, New Jersey. These unlikely markets have been able to (after establishing an exceptional young core of players) have continuously very good teams with the very good revenues and larger than average payrolls that come with it. If they can do it why cant anyone else? At least anyone smart enough to draft well and produce a young talented core.
First of all, the "correlation" you speak of is flawed, simply because it can be easily counter argumented. Do a "making the playoffs" and payroll correlation. I bet it's very high. Do a "winning the cup" and payroll correlation. It's very high. Your argumentation lies on an unproven theory...

I guess you're really an entertainment dollar and market research specialist, since you don't seem to have a clue as to why Dallas, Colorado or New Jersey could have higher revenues than say, Montreal. Also, the "as your team gets better the revenues rise" is just as unproven. Take Montreal, they sell out every game, they're in the top 10 league revenue wise and they make a loss with a $45M payroll (and they're what, #15ish in the payroll numbers?). As a business decision, the best decision in Montreal would be to shutdown the Montreal Canadiens and then to just present other events year long in the Bell Center. The owner would make more money that way than currently. Anyway, tell me how revenues will rise suddenly up to Colorado's or Dallas's if Montreal ice a cup contender? How will revenues rise in Calgary for the next few years? I just don't see it.

You don't have a comparison model, you lack methodology, which makes the correlation useless. What would be a too high correlation? Who knows? Also, in your "correlation", you don't take into account the massive jumps in payroll and the relative indifference in payroll between many teams. You use a linear model (with payroll position, instead of payroll #), which the NHL is not.

Adding salary is a not a linear function. Especially in sports, since there's a big random part. Just like the economy growth isn't determined by one factor, but multiple factors, the NHL success is not determined by one factor either.

It would be ludicrous to think that salary alone can put you at the top. Management quality, team composition, locker room cohesion, and so on plays a big part. However, so does payroll.

In the past 10 years, salaries have grown exponencially. Anyone that pretends to be able to draw a model based on the past 10 years is seriously mistaken. The NHL has changed so much since then that it's impossible to draw conclusions.

SuperUnknown 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 02:00 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.