Playoff Performers Voting Record - Canadiens1958

[Canadiens1958]

1946 to 1950 Chicago Blackhawks

One of the most prolific offensive teams during the 06 era. Finished 1,2,1,3,2 in GF, made the playoffs once in 1946. Swept in the semi-finals by the Canadiens in 4 games, outscored 26 - 7. Forwards did not play defensively very well.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/NHL_1946.html

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/NHL_1947.html

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/NHL_1948.html

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/NHL_1949.html

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/NHL_1950.html

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'm just looking at this now.

Was there a screening process for this project? Edit: Reading comments, there was.

This list should have easily been rejected for being biased against modern players. Screeners must have really gotten loose with things to let this one through.

 

[ImporterExporter]

I'm just looking at this now.

Was there a screening process for this project? Edit: Reading comments, there was.

This list should have easily been rejected for being biased against modern players. Screeners must have really gotten loose with things to let this one through.

Glad another veteran is stepping up and saying something.

 

[bobholly39]

To be fair - C58 was one of the most active participants in the discussions and also one of the ones with some of the best/most useful insights. He contributed way more than me and many others for example.

But...in terms of actual voting record... Yeah. I don't agree with it.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Okay

I'm just looking at this now.

Was there a screening process for this project? Edit: Reading comments, there was.

This list should have easily been rejected for being biased against modern players. Screeners must have really gotten loose with things to let this one through.

This underlines the fundemental problem with the projects, posters feeling that they have to shape the lists of others. The purpose is to debate facts and interpretations.

Bias against modern players? Let's look at the list. Over 20 of the 60 listed players participated in the NHL after 1990. Or more than 35% from an era that represents only 25% of the NHL history.

If anything there was a bias against earlier players which saw worthy players like George Armstrong, Lionel Conacher, few others fail to make the list.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Wayne Gretzky and Guy Lafleur are the only post-expansion players on this list where Canadiens1958 wasn't in the ballpark of where another ballot also placed that player.

As a screener, I'll submit that my (our) aim was not to enforce consensus on a survey that was deliberately designed to take in a range of perspectives, but rather to weed out errors and incomplete research. This list doesn't ignore any eras or teams wholesale, and does feature all the players with the most consensus about them (Roy, Gretzky, etc), even if it does rank them very differently from the norm. It's generally consistent with C58's usual thought patterns, and while the lists were anonymous, it wasn't hard to recognize where it likely came from, and that it represented the honest opinions of an informed contributor to the forum.

 

[Johnny Engine]

I'll add: the high-low columns in the first post of each list doesn't even begin to illustrate how little consensus there was between the round one lists. One note I made to QPQ said something like "no player without a top-12 vote has any consensus for his inclusion". Think about that. If we redid the defensemen project, I'd expect nobody would give Dit Clapper a top 12 vote. Or JC Tremblay, Mark Howe, name your guy. But every single list of 80 names would include those guys in their top half, even if we had 50 lists. perhaps we could have mitigated that somewhat with more preliminary discussion (though there was plenty), but I'm not convinced.

 

[Harry Waters]

Bias against modern players? Let's look at the list. Over 20 of the 60 listed players participated in the NHL after 1990. Or more than 35% from an era that represents only 25% of the NHL history.

If anything there was a bias against earlier players which saw worthy players like George Armstrong, Lionel Conacher, few others fail to make the list.

Honestly you are not helping your case with comments like that. When you are counting every player who just played in the NHL after 1990 towards this "era that represents only 25% of the NHL history", you are skewing numbers and you know that. This way you are including the Messiers and Gretzkys (I could go on) in this group and we know that they are not there because of their play in the 90ies. I'm just pointing that out because we already had an argument a while back about the game getting better or worse (a little simplified summary, I know ) and it sure seems that there could be a bias against modern era players. Additionally I'd like to point out that if we are looking at the number of players on your list relative to the number of players in different eras instead of just counting every year the same (like you did in your point cited above) your list would look pretty favorable for older players and you know that, too.

I generally respect that you are arguing intensively and have mostly consistent views, but if you use numbers the way you do above you have to expect that it might make me (and others as well) believe that sometimes you are open to present numbers in a way they fit your argument while they could be presented more objectively (hence why I called it 'skewing' above).

Also I don't think people are complaining about the absolute number of contemporary players, but in your top 20 there are two players (two goalies, not one skater) who played after 1990, and that looks strange to say the least.
What I'd like to know: What happens if you use your approach/metric (sorry, I'm not sure which term applies here) to judge players in the regular season or regular season and playoffs combined? And, which is what I'm getting at: Where would Gretzky rank then? Because I doubt that it would push Gretzky from 22 to top 4 status if you apply this metric/approach to the latter as that would open a gap between Gretzky's regular season performance and playoffs I just don't see.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Assuming......

Honestly you are not helping your case with comments like that. When you are counting every player who just played in the NHL after 1990 towards this "era that represents only 25% of the NHL history", you are skewing numbers and you know that. This way you are including the Messiers and Gretzkys (I could go on) in this group and we know that they are not there because of their play in the 90ies. I'm just pointing that out because we already had an argument a while back about the game getting better or worse (a little simplified summary, I know ) and it sure seems that there could be a bias against modern era players. Additionally I'd like to point out that if we are looking at the number of players on your list relative to the number of players in different eras instead of just counting every year the same (like you did in your point cited above) your list would look pretty favorable for older players and you know that, too.

I generally respect that you are arguing intensively and have mostly consistent views, but if you use numbers the way you do above you have to expect that it might make me (and others as well) believe that sometimes you are open to present numbers in a way they fit your argument while they could be presented more objectively (hence why I called it 'skewing' above).

Also I don't think people are complaining about the absolute number of contemporary players, but in your top 20 there are two players (two goalies, not one skater) who played after 1990, and that looks strange to say the least.
What I'd like to know: What happens if you use your approach/metric (sorry, I'm not sure which term applies here) to judge players in the regular season or regular season and playoffs combined? And, which is what I'm getting at: Where would Gretzky rank then? Because I doubt that it would push Gretzky from 22 to top 4 status if you apply this metric/approach to the latter as that would open a gap between Gretzky's regular season performance and playoffs I just don't see.

Assuming briefly that you might have a point - which seems to be that the elite skaters post 1980 - Messier, Gretzky are one decade players like you imply than two decade goalies like Roy and Brodeur should have more playoff value?

Conversely pre 1980 players, Howe, Beliveau, Henri and Maurice Richard, most of the defencemen and goalies I listed had longer careers with significant playoff contributions late in their career, Example, Beliveau went out captaining an SC Championship Team, as did Maurice Richard. Others were members of finalists or SC champions within the last three seasons of their career. Ray Bourque is the only skater who retired as and SC champion on my list whose career spanned the eighties into the 21st century.

Second bolded - talk about dancing with numbers. Basically triage. Players had to have more talent to get to the NHL and impact in the playoffs. In other words no place for the Justin Williams types on the list. Such players disappeared early before 1980 or 1967.

Third bolded. Short version - so its about Gretzky. Rather transparent. Regular season post 1967, is more or less a counting exercise for individual numbers. Gretzky's strength. First place values in the standings with unbalanced schedules, conferences, divisions, etc or team achievements are not really measurable in any definitive fashion. Playoffs is and has always been about going beyond the regular season result. If qualified, a solid regular season could be enhanced, a disappointing season individually or team, could be salvaged by winning the Stanley Cup or at least going to the final.

The gap between Gretzky and say Jean Beliveau or Henri Richard is found in the contribution to winning. Hart and Art Ross trophies were added long after 1893, when the Stanley Cup became the objective or goal for hockey players, Hart and Ross are by products while the SC is the ultimate goal. Beliveau or Henri Richard while short on Ross and Hart Trophies compared to Wayne Gretzky, dominate his SC Championships. Wayne Gretzky did not win that much in his career compared to other skaters.

That is the major gap that you could drive a semi thru between the RS and playoff Gretzky.

 

[Harry Waters]

Assuming briefly that you might have a point - which seems to be that the elite skaters post 1980 - Messier, Gretzky are one decade players like you imply than two decade goalies like Roy and Brodeur should have more playoff value?

Conversely pre 1980 players, Howe, Beliveau, Henri and Maurice Richard, most of the defencemen and goalies I listed had longer careers with significant playoff contributions late in their career, Example, Beliveau went out captaining an SC Championship Team, as did Maurice Richard. Others were members of finalists or SC champions within the last three seasons of their career. Ray Bourque is the only skater who retired as and SC champion on my list whose career spanned the eighties into the 21st century.

Second bolded - talk about dancing with numbers. Basically triage. Players had to have more talent to get to the NHL and impact in the playoffs. In other words no place for the Justin Williams types on the list. Such players disappeared early before 1980 or 1967.

Third bolded. Short version - so its about Gretzky. Rather transparent. Regular season post 1967, is more or less a counting exercise for individual numbers. Gretzky's strength. First place values in the standings with unbalanced schedules, conferences, divisions, etc or team achievements are not really measurable in any definitive fashion. Playoffs is and has always been about going beyond the regular season result. If qualified, a solid regular season could be enhanced, a disappointing season individually or team, could be salvaged by winning the Stanley Cup or at least going to the final.

The gap between Gretzky and say Jean Beliveau or Henri Richard is found in the contribution to winning. Hart and Art Ross trophies were added long after 1893, when the Stanley Cup became the objective or goal for hockey players, Hart and Ross are by products while the SC is the ultimate goal. Beliveau or Henri Richard while short on Ross and Hart Trophies compared to Wayne Gretzky, dominate his SC Championships. Wayne Gretzky did not win that much in his career compared to other skaters.

That is the major gap that you could drive a semi thru between the RS and playoff Gretzky.

Thanks for your answer.

To the first bolded: I didn't want to imply that, perhaps I worded it poorly as English is not my first language. I'm just confused that no skater who played after 1990 is in your top 20 and I'm not talking about the Justin Williams types. I was just pointing out that you wanted to seem unbiased and did that by counting Gretzky and Messier towards the "after 1990 era" and I think that doesn't work.

To the second bolded: Don't you think that players nowadays (or from 1980 onwards) winning less Stanley Cups compared to former players has something to do with multiple expansions and thus more teams being in the league? Can we at least agree on this? There is the same number of championships to go around, but for more teams, and while I get that not all of them have been competetive (but that was the case in earlier eras as well), enough of them have been and having 20+ opponents doesn't make it easier to win a cup.

And what has the Art Ross and Hart being byproducts of an later era to do with anything? I'm honestly not getting your point. I'm not counting awards here. It doesn't make him better (and earlier players worse) that he received an award for leading the league. He led the league (and his team) by incredible margins which others didn't, that makes him better. That is as big of a personal achievement as you will get and thus minimizing the need for the measurement of team achievements, which seems useful to me when talking about individual players.

First place values in the standings with unbalanced schedules, conferences, divisions, etc or team achievements are not really measurable in any definitive fashion. Playoffs is and has always been about going beyond the regular season result.
[...]
Wayne Gretzky did not win that much in his career compared to other skaters.

It sure seems that sometimes team achievements are at least measurable enough to slide Gretzky and all of modern era players far down the list. It's not that playoffs suddenly make team achievements perfectly measurable (matchups, different roads to Stanley Cup, ...).

I think in general I get your point and you seem very knowledgeable and certainly know more about many eras than I do, but sometimes your reasoning doesn't seem too consistent to me. If I translated our argument into a scientific debate, I would state that I think you are mixing up empirical and theoretical arguments and weigh them differently and inconsitently depending on context and that is why I can't agree with some of them. I fully admit that I'm not always sure I'm understanding your thoughts correctly, but I'm not certain why that is: because of my lack of comprehension skills or because you move the goal posts sometimes.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I See............

Thanks for your answer.

To the first bolded: I didn't want to imply that, perhaps I worded it poorly as English is not my first language. I'm just confused that no skater who played after 1990 is in your top 20 and I'm not talking about the Justin Williams types. I was just pointing out that you wanted to seem unbiased and did that by counting Gretzky and Messier towards the "after 1990 era" and I think that doesn't work.

To the second bolded: Don't you think that players nowadays (or from 1980 onwards) winning less Stanley Cups compared to former players has something to do with multiple expansions and thus more teams being in the league? Can we at least agree on this? There is the same number of championships to go around, but for more teams, and while I get that not all of them have been competetive (but that was the case in earlier eras as well), enough of them have been and having 20+ opponents doesn't make it easier to win a cup.

And what has the Art Ross and Hart being byproducts of an later era to do with anything? I'm honestly not getting your point. I'm not counting awards here. It doesn't make him better (and earlier players worse) that he received an award for leading the league. He led the league (and his team) by incredible margins which others didn't, that makes him better. That is as big of a personal achievement as you will get and thus minimizing the need for the measurement of team achievements, which seems useful to me when talking about individual players.



It sure seems that sometimes team achievements are at least measurable enough to slide Gretzky and all of modern era players far down the list. It's not that playoffs suddenly make team achievements perfectly measurable (matchups, different roads to Stanley Cup, ...).

I think in general I get your point and you seem very knowledgeable and certainly know more about many eras than I do, but sometimes your reasoning doesn't seem too consistent to me. If I translated our argument into a scientific debate, I would state that I think you are mixing up empirical and theoretical arguments and weigh them differently and inconsitently depending on context and that is why I can't agree with some of them. I fully admit that I'm not always sure I'm understanding your thoughts correctly, but I'm not certain why that is: because of my lack of comprehension skills or because you move the goal posts sometimes.

Unless you can show everyone that Messier and Gretzky retired in 1990, it works. You may not like it since it does not fit your narrative but they played much longer.

See the Memorial Cup results. Same sport, younger players, short career with a team. App. double the number of teams since the start of the competition. Shorter path to winning than before the formation of the CHL or the start of the 3 or 4 team tournament format.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Memorial_Cup_champions

The amount of repeating teams does not change. Also the number of teams that have no hope of winning even if they play in a CHL league does not change. Likewise you have global competition for players - USHL, NCAA, European junior leagues. Pool size of eligible teams matters little. Previously showed that the the post consolidation thru O6 era had the same number of had the same number of repeat winners as the last twenty seasons. People simply rely on mathematical odds than looking at the causes of winning - thru the O6 era you had the Jim Norris Sr effect and its residue, financial interest and control over the other three US teams beyond his Detroit Red Wings.So Boston, New York and Chicago were not structured to win and they did not with the exception of Chicago in 1961.


Previous eras, pre 1990, all that mattered was team achievements. Winning the Stanley Cup and how efficiently it was done. Fewest games, not most goals. In the 1980s with the Oilers it started to change - scoring suddenly mattered. Continues to this day.

I tend to blend pre Gretzky standards with present day standards. But
the evaluation of a team or a player is constant. Maybe I should state when I am looking at a player individually and when I am looking at the same player within a team concept. Thought it was obvious, seems that it may not be so. Goal posts do not move, no empirical vs theoretical debate. Just the ability to determine team contributions vs individual achievements.

 

[ImporterExporter]

You can boil winning in the O6 down to %'s and probability.

Considering most of the O6 era, you had 3 teams that fought for supremacy, and 3 which constructed the bottom half, the chances for a Hab/Red Wing/Maple Leaf to win a Cup was 33%.

Even if you want to put all 6 teams on level playing ground (which is not reality, but we'll say it is for argument sake), you had a 17% chance of coming out on top.

Today, you have 30 (31) teams, a salary cap and many restrictions regarding drafting and signing players that simply didn't exists between the early 40's and 1967. Now to be fair, there is still generally speaking, a bottom half, as there was back in the O6 era.

So even if we discredit half the league, you still have 16 teams (current playoff format) that have a chance to win the Cup every year. And as you see, you don't have to be a 1-2 seed to make it all the way (see Nashville last month).

1/16 = 6.25% chance of winning.

06 saw an 8 seed Edmonton make the finals.
07 saw a 2 seed beat a 4 seed.
09 saw a 4 seed beat a 2 seed.
10 saw a 7 seed reach finals
11 saw a 3 seed win Cup over 1 seed
12 saw an 8 seed beat a 6 seed in finals.
14 saw a 6 seed (3rd in division) win the Cup
15 saw 3rd place in Central win Cup
16 saw a 3rd place team in division (6th in west) reach finals
17 saw the 16 seed reach finals

Again, being a 1 or 2 seed doesn't mean much in this era. Yes, the Pens, Hawks and Kings have almost exclusively owned the past decade but if you look at the seedings and other teams reaching the finals, you'll see parity. The 3 teams above were often seeded lower than multiple other teams and still won. You have a much deeper league and it shows given who can/does advance.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Parity

You can boil winning in the O6 down to %'s and probability.

Considering most of the O6 era, you had 3 teams that fought for supremacy, and 3 which constructed the bottom half, the chances for a Hab/Red Wing/Maple Leaf to win a Cup was 33%.

Even if you want to put all 6 teams on level playing ground (which is not reality, but we'll say it is for argument sake), you had a 17% chance of coming out on top.

Today, you have 30 (31) teams, a salary cap and many restrictions regarding drafting and signing players that simply didn't exists between the early 40's and 1967. Now to be fair, there is still generally speaking, a bottom half, as there was back in the O6 era.

So even if we discredit half the league, you still have 16 teams (current playoff format) that have a chance to win the Cup every year. And as you see, you don't have to be a 1-2 seed to make it all the way (see Nashville last month).

1/16 = 6.25% chance of winning.

06 saw an 8 seed Edmonton make the finals.
07 saw a 2 seed beat a 4 seed.
09 saw a 4 seed beat a 2 seed.
10 saw a 7 seed reach finals
11 saw a 3 seed win Cup over 1 seed
12 saw an 8 seed beat a 6 seed in finals.
14 saw a 6 seed (3rd in division) win the Cup
15 saw 3rd place in Central win Cup
16 saw a 3rd place team in division (6th in west) reach finals
17 saw the 16 seed reach finals

Again, being a 1 or 2 seed doesn't mean much in this era. Yes, the Pens, Hawks and Kings have almost exclusively owned the past decade but if you look at the seedings and other teams reaching the finals, you'll see parity. The 3 teams above were often seeded lower than multiple other teams and still won. You have a much deeper league and it shows given who can/does advance.

You have parity of excellence vs parity of mediocrity. Not the same.

Review the James Norris Sr effect on the O6 Era and tell us if there was a level playing field.

Salary cap was first instituted in the NHL for the 1932-33 season. This has been covered. Produced similar results. Tommy Gorman - coach GM won two consecutive SCs because he figured out the nuances quickly and was able to transport Lionel Conacher as a cornerstone defenceman. Gorman then went to the Canadiens where he laid the foundation for Frank Selke Sr while winning the SC in 1944. Jack Adams another Coach/GM followed with the Red Wings winning two consecutive SCs followed by a surprise Chicago win and the Bruins/Rangers alternating over three seasons. Sure you had finalists pop-up from a few teams.

Point is that you are only looking at the raw numbers of teams. You consider players in passing but ignore coaching,management and ownership factors in winning.

 

[ImporterExporter]

I'm comparing the chances of winning in the O6 era to now, not the 30's. I understand and realize there was a salary cap then.

Parity of excellence? You do realize why teams had generally more stacked rosters 60 years ago vs today?

You fail to acknowledge the fact that the 40's, 50's and 60's Habs/Wings/Leafs would have NEVER:

1. Been able to stay constructed as they were with an NHL entry draft based on inverse order of NHL standings.

2. Been able to retain superstar talent en masse with a hard salary cap. In 1954 Chicago had TWO HOF players. The Bruins had THREE. The Habs had TEN. 10.

Also:

14 times from 43 and 67, the 1st seeded team won the SC.

That's better than half at 56%

2 times from 2006 to 2017, the 1st seeded team won the SC.

That's only 16.7%

 

[Canadiens1958]

Hypotheticals

I'm comparing the chances of winning in the O6 era to now, not the 30's. I understand and realize there was a salary cap then.

Parity of excellence? You do realize why teams had generally more stacked rosters 60 years ago vs today?

You fail to acknowledge the fact that the 40's, 50's and 60's Habs/Wings/Leafs would have NEVER:

1. Been able to stay constructed as they were with an NHL entry draft based on inverse order of NHL standings.

2. Been able to retain superstar talent en masse with a hard salary cap. In 1954 Chicago had TWO HOF players. The Bruins had THREE. The Habs had TEN. 10.

Also:

14 times from 43 and 67, the 1st seeded team won the SC.

That's better than half at 56%

2 times from 2006 to 2017, the 1st seeded team won the SC.

That's only 16.7%

You deal in hypotheticals while failing to acknowkedge realities.

The 1968 to 1992 era was defined by SC champions built thru the NHL Entry Draft or equivalent combined with the ability to exploit the inefficiencies of the other league teams.

Your hypotheticals fail to take into account economic realities. In real life the chances of a homeless person winning a lottery -Super Ball, Lotto Max, are identical to that of the richest person. Difference is in the ability to buy the lottery ticket. Spare change for a rich person, weeks food budget for a homeless person. Then you have the ability to manage and grow the winnings. So your numbers are nice but they fail to reflect hockey realities. Namely managing the team, draft picks, finding an appropriate coaching staff to develop the team and picks. These attributes define winning and are more complex then dividing 100 by 31 or the number of teams at any given time.

To appreciate the stranglehold Jim Norris Sr had on the 4 US O6 American teams, observe what happened soon after his death in 1952. Details of his interests in the 4 US teams below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_E._Norris

James D. Norris his son, VP of the Red Wings and part owner of the Hawks eventually left to takeover the Hawks. US anti-trust actions against the IBC - Norris boxing empire in the USA, extending somewhat beyond, eventually freed MSG - the Rangers and the Boston Garden - Bruins giving them autonomy.

Net result, without the NHL Entry Draft or equivalent by the 1960s,

Chicago had found the three best future NHL offensive players - Bobby Hull, Stan Mikita, Phil Esposito.

James D. Norris Jr:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_D._Norris

New York with a larger scouting budget, signed Jean Ratelle and Rod Gilbert, while becoming the most successful team in the newly created NHL Amateur Draft(not a reverse order draft) in 1963, pre expansion selecting the likes of Brad Park, Tim Ecclestone, Syl Apps Jr, Joey Johnston, Don Luce.

Boston did well also - Bobby Orr, Bernie Parent, Derek Sanderson, signed.

The talent gap narrowed as the O6 era progressed, but the coaching and management gaps widened.

Point is that gap in management, coaching and development persisted. Post expansion the four non-Canadiens dynasties(two or more consecutive SC wins) were built thru the NHL Amateur/Entry Draft. NY Islanders(Bill Torrey), Edmonton Oilers(Glen Sather), Pittsburgh Penguins(Craig Patrick), Philadelphia Flyers(Keith Allen).

!991-92 saw a 22 team NHL, while 2016-17 featured 16 teams the difference between 22 and 30 teams is marginal, yet you have not had five dominating teams - adding the Canadiens to the above.

Major difference is that the last 37 or so seasons, NHL teams no longer develop their own coaches and management. Such hires are now made on the open market. Net result instead of a controlled transition from Frank Selke Sr to Sam Pollock, you have a throw out the old and bring in known outsiders approach which impacts stability and performance.

 

[ImporterExporter]

You're trying to over complicate and clutter simple reality.

There is nothing hypothetical with saying more than half the #1 seeds in the O6 era went onto win the SC. It's a fact. Like saying everyone will die one day.

You also gloss over the fact that these rosters with 9, 10, 11, HOF on them at one time, would not be possible with a salary cap. Period. That is fact. You also can't identify a teenage super talent and pay the high fee to retain his services. There are many more factors today that go into spreading the wealth around.

If you do overpay 2-3 players in today's game, you greatly hamstring your franchises chances at competing (see Blackhawks lately and the cap problems they are having after paying Kane and Toews high end deals).

Look at those dominant 50's Habs teams: Take the 56 version.

Harvey
Richard
Beliveau
Plante

Right there are 4 max contract or near max players by today's standards. 4.

Then you have these guys who would command very good 2nd tier money

Moore
Geoffrion
Olmstead
Johnson

There is no way that's possible in today's game. Fact. You couldn't fill out an entire roster and be under the cap with those kind of players taking up almost the entirety of your budget.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Overpaying

You're trying to over complicate and clutter simple reality.

There is nothing hypothetical with saying more than half the #1 seeds in the O6 era went onto win the SC. It's a fact. Like saying everyone will die one day.

You also gloss over the fact that these rosters with 9, 10, 11, HOF on them at one time, would not be possible with a salary cap. Period. That is fact. You also can't identify a teenage super talent and pay the high fee to retain his services. There are many more factors today that go into spreading the wealth around.

If you do overpay 2-3 players in today's game, you greatly hamstring your franchises chances at competing (see Blackhawks lately and the cap problems they are having after paying Kane and Toews high end deals).

Look at those dominant 50's Habs teams: Take the 56 version.

Harvey
Richard
Beliveau
Plante

Right there are 4 max contract or near max players by today's standards. 4.

Then you have these guys who would command very good 2nd tier money

Moore
Geoffrion
Olmstead
Johnson

There is no way that's possible in today's game. Fact. You couldn't fill out an entire roster and be under the cap with those kind of players taking up almost the entirety of your budget.

Overpaying hurts a team when they overpay depth players. Edmonton's problem is not the McDavid contract or the potential Draisaitl contract. It is what they pay Lucic, RNH, Sekera and non-productive $1M plus a year players.

Your 1956 Canadiens salary scale does not reflect the reality of the day. It reflects today knowing that certain players went on to HHOF careers.

Basically from the core team.

Entry level contracts - Jacques Plante(never played 60 games in a season until 1955-56), Henri Richard, Claude Provost, Bob Turner, Jean-Guy Talbot, Don Marshall, Jackie Leclair.

Mid level veterans - Dickie Moore, Tom Johnson, Floyd Curry, Ken Mosdell, Dollard St. Laurent, Bert Olmstead, Butch Bouchard.

Star level. - Maurice Richard, Doug Harvey,Jean Beliveau, Bernie Geoffrion.

As the team progressed thru the dynasty, entry level players always made up a significant part of the game day roster without impacting overall performance.

Phil Goyette, André Pronovost, Albert Langlois, Marcel Bonin, Ralph Backstrom, Ab McDonald, Bill Hicke.

Some of the 1956 team retired, others moved on or up to be replaced by younger players.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Overpaying hurts a team when they overpay depth players. Edmonton's problem is not the McDavid contract or the potential Draisaitl contract. It is what they pay Lucic, RNH, Sekera and non-productive $1M plus a year players.

Your 1956 Canadiens salary scale does not reflect the reality of the day. It reflects today knowing that certain players went on to HHOF careers.

Basically from the core team.

Entry level contracts - Jacques Plante(never played 60 games in a season until 1955-56), Henri Richard, Claude Provost, Bob Turner, Jean-Guy Talbot, Don Marshall, Jackie Leclair.

Mid level veterans - Dickie Moore, Tom Johnson, Floyd Curry, Ken Mosdell, Dollard St. Laurent, Bert Olmstead, Butch Bouchard.

Star level. - Maurice Richard, Doug Harvey,Jean Beliveau, Bernie Geoffrion.

As the team progressed thru the dynasty, entry level players always made up a significant part of the game day roster without impacting overall performance.

Phil Goyette, André Pronovost, Albert Langlois, Marcel Bonin, Ralph Backstrom, Ab McDonald, Bill Hicke.

Some of the 1956 team retired, others moved on or up to be replaced by younger players.

Look at Lucic's contract. It's awful relative to what he brings. RHN? Pretty much the same thing. McDavid is worth what he's making. But you have to factor in Draisaitl will get near 8M per as well. Talbot needs a new contract soon and he'll get a big raise.

In 1956 it doesn't reflect reality? Let's examine why that is absurd.

Plante was coming off a pretty stellar rookie campaign. Given his tremendous 1955-56, he would have commanded a raise after that season or the next at worst. It didn't take him long to establish superstar status and he would have been compensated as such.

Same thing with Beliveau. 55-56 was his first elite season and his 3rd in the league. His cap hit would have been driven up directly after that.

Rocket was already a long established superstar and would have been making one of the 2 or 3 largest sums allowable under a cap system in 1956.

Same with Doug Harvey.

55-56 would have been Geoffrion's 5th full year and given he won an Art Ross the year prior would have been getting a raise to a big amount right around this time.

By today's standards those folks are all making 8M+ per year. A few over 10M per.

Then factor in all the great established depth players and young rising stars Montreal had at that time and there is no way you'd be able to fit them all under a salary cap like today. It's not in any way realistic or possible. Trades would have been necessary. Certain players would have been able to walk in free agency to accommodate other younger players rising up.

There is a reason why you haven't seen one team completely dominate the NHL today, like you saw in the mid to late 50's (Toe Blake's Habs). Or the 70's Habs, 80's Islanders and Oilers.

The sheer size and structure of the league today all but prevents it.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Reality

Look at Lucic's contract. It's awful relative to what he brings. RHN? Pretty much the same thing. McDavid is worth what he's making. But you have to factor in Draisaitl will get near 8M per as well. Talbot needs a new contract soon and he'll get a big raise.

In 1956 it doesn't reflect reality? Let's examine why that is absurd.

Plante was coming off a pretty stellar rookie campaign. Given his tremendous 1955-56, he would have commanded a raise after that season or the next at worst. It didn't take him long to establish superstar status and he would have been compensated as such.

Same thing with Beliveau. 55-56 was his first elite season and his 3rd in the league. His cap hit would have been driven up directly after that.

Rocket was already a long established superstar and would have been making one of the 2 or 3 largest sums allowable under a cap system in 1956.

Same with Doug Harvey.

55-56 would have been Geoffrion's 5th full year and given he won an Art Ross the year prior would have been getting a raise to a big amount right around this time.

By today's standards those folks are all making 8M+ per year. A few over 10M per.

Then factor in all the great established depth players and young rising stars Montreal had at that time and there is no way you'd be able to fit them all under a salary cap like today. It's not in any way realistic or possible. Trades would have been necessary. Certain players would have been able to walk in free agency to accommodate other younger players rising up.

There is a reason why you haven't seen one team completely dominate the NHL today, like you saw in the mid to late 50's (Toe Blake's Habs). Or the 70's Habs, 80's Islanders and Oilers.

The sheer size and structure of the league today all but prevents it.

Reality was that the Canadiens signed Jean Beliveau to a 5 year contract to get him to leave the QSHL. Geoffrion was slow and injury prone, streaky.

Fact of the matter is the team finished second during the 1956-57 RS, so they had not yet matured, nor would their salaries but by then a few mid level salaries would be gone - Bouchard,Mosdell, Olmstead, Curry, replaced by entry level salaries.

In today's NHL you would be looking at a $30-35M total for the top 4 and $40-45M for the remainder, although 18 players is more manageable/cheaper than 23 as a roster. Still 5 low end spots equal $3-5M.

Best comparable is Pittsburgh the last few seasons.

http://stats.nhlnumbers.com/teams/PIT?year=2018

Four top level skaters, cost controlled for the next five seasons - Letang, Crosby, Malkin, Kessel(could be viewed as the Geoffrion equivalent), A young goalie Murray and a cap number app $10M under the ceiling with four sacrificial contracts in Hornqvist and Hagelin, Schultz and Maatta ready to jettison when need be. Excellent coaching - Sullivan, Martin others. Outstanding GM who has established a synergy between drafting, development and the NHL team.

Seems quite doable if GMs do not panic.