WTG
December 5th
I did a little write-up in the GDT and management thread but decided to dive a little deeper and look at all the North Division teams and look at their bottom 6. How many points do they have, how many games, and how much their cap hit was. Then calculate how much money they are spending on each point.
The way I figured out the lineups by using dailyfaceoff.com. Then calculating the cap, I used CapFriendly. Then used HockeyDB for games/points. For the Canucks I looked at what Eriksson in the lineup would cost as a substitute for Motte and what he would be like outside of the lineup in the taxi squad with Motte playing.
We can see that the Canucks spend the most per point on their bottom 6. This stat is a little misleading because they have played more games. Therefore, I leveled the playing field and by using the pts/game to calculate if the bottom 6 of all team if they had 100 GP. It is a little confusing, but the "million per point (100 GP)" is the most accurate representation of how much is being spent per point. Keep in mind, the GP is the collective GP by the bottom 6 players on the team. Some players have played less than others. But for the sake of this post, this is the collective pts/game from all the collective players.
If there are 2 players and they have each played 5 games and one has 1 point and the other has 4 their collective pts/game would be .5
I hope I explained it a bit. My writing isn't the greatest. Plus, I had this all written out with even more stats like goals and assists, but I managed to close the page, and all that progress I made (30 minutes) was lost. I'm still salty.
CANUCKS
22 pts/100gp
.22 pts/game
Cap Hit 14.805 (w/o Eriksson cap hit (taxi squad))
0.67 million per point (100 GP)
Cap Hit 19.73 (w Eriksson cap hit (reduced because of waivers))
0.90 million per point (100 GP)
FLAMES
27 pts 73 GP
.37pts/game
Cap Hit - 15.353
0.57 million per point
0.41 million per point (100 GP)
EDMONTON
23 pts 73 gp
.32 pts/game
Cap Hit 8.2 mil (w/o Neal)
0.36 million per point
0.26 million per point (100 GP)
MONTREAL
22 pts 76 gp
.29 pts/game
Cap Hit 12.225 (w/o Byron)
0.56 million per point
0.42 million per point (100 GP)
WINNIPEG
30 pts 77gp
.39 pts/game
Cap Hit 10.311
0.34 million per point
0.26 million per point (100 GP)
OTTAWA
32 pts 87 gp
.37 pts/game
Cap Hit 17.712 (w/o Coburn)
0.55 million per point
0.48 million per point (100 GP)
LEAFS
30 pts 78 gp
.39 pts/game
Cap Hit 8.695
0.29 million per point
0.22 million per point (100 GP)
In conclusion, the Canucks are spending the most per point out of the bottom 6 in the North Division. They are spending 37% more per point than the next team in the division (Montreal). Meanwhile, the Leafs are spending the least per point in the division, followed closely by Edmonton and Winnipeg. All this accounts for Eriksson being out of the lineup and into the taxi squad with Motte taking his place. If we are using the current Canucks bottom 6 lineup with Eriksson, they pay 53% more than the next closest team per point. All this goes to underscore how poorly Benning has mismanaged the team and how badly he has mismanaged the cap.
Also, for all the harping Dubas gets from Canucks fans. He has done the best, getting the most offense from the bottom 6. In contrast, Benning has floundered almost every FA signing. Thanks for reading despite my bad writing. I should be studying for my exam tomorrow.
The way I figured out the lineups by using dailyfaceoff.com. Then calculating the cap, I used CapFriendly. Then used HockeyDB for games/points. For the Canucks I looked at what Eriksson in the lineup would cost as a substitute for Motte and what he would be like outside of the lineup in the taxi squad with Motte playing.
We can see that the Canucks spend the most per point on their bottom 6. This stat is a little misleading because they have played more games. Therefore, I leveled the playing field and by using the pts/game to calculate if the bottom 6 of all team if they had 100 GP. It is a little confusing, but the "million per point (100 GP)" is the most accurate representation of how much is being spent per point. Keep in mind, the GP is the collective GP by the bottom 6 players on the team. Some players have played less than others. But for the sake of this post, this is the collective pts/game from all the collective players.
If there are 2 players and they have each played 5 games and one has 1 point and the other has 4 their collective pts/game would be .5
I hope I explained it a bit. My writing isn't the greatest. Plus, I had this all written out with even more stats like goals and assists, but I managed to close the page, and all that progress I made (30 minutes) was lost. I'm still salty.
CANUCKS
22 pts/100gp
.22 pts/game
Cap Hit 14.805 (w/o Eriksson cap hit (taxi squad))
0.67 million per point (100 GP)
Cap Hit 19.73 (w Eriksson cap hit (reduced because of waivers))
0.90 million per point (100 GP)
FLAMES
27 pts 73 GP
.37pts/game
Cap Hit - 15.353
0.57 million per point
0.41 million per point (100 GP)
EDMONTON
23 pts 73 gp
.32 pts/game
Cap Hit 8.2 mil (w/o Neal)
0.36 million per point
0.26 million per point (100 GP)
MONTREAL
22 pts 76 gp
.29 pts/game
Cap Hit 12.225 (w/o Byron)
0.56 million per point
0.42 million per point (100 GP)
WINNIPEG
30 pts 77gp
.39 pts/game
Cap Hit 10.311
0.34 million per point
0.26 million per point (100 GP)
OTTAWA
32 pts 87 gp
.37 pts/game
Cap Hit 17.712 (w/o Coburn)
0.55 million per point
0.48 million per point (100 GP)
LEAFS
30 pts 78 gp
.39 pts/game
Cap Hit 8.695
0.29 million per point
0.22 million per point (100 GP)
In conclusion, the Canucks are spending the most per point out of the bottom 6 in the North Division. They are spending 37% more per point than the next team in the division (Montreal). Meanwhile, the Leafs are spending the least per point in the division, followed closely by Edmonton and Winnipeg. All this accounts for Eriksson being out of the lineup and into the taxi squad with Motte taking his place. If we are using the current Canucks bottom 6 lineup with Eriksson, they pay 53% more than the next closest team per point. All this goes to underscore how poorly Benning has mismanaged the team and how badly he has mismanaged the cap.
Also, for all the harping Dubas gets from Canucks fans. He has done the best, getting the most offense from the bottom 6. In contrast, Benning has floundered almost every FA signing. Thanks for reading despite my bad writing. I should be studying for my exam tomorrow.
Last edited:
