Cup Winners vs Payroll Rank

[KungFuPenguin]

I know someone else put together a list like this one, but I couldn't find it, so I made a new one. It lists Stanley Cup Winners and finalists since 1990, and their payroll's relative rank within the league.

Year	Stanley Cup Winner	Rank	Runner-up	Rank	# of Teams in League
90	Edmonton		3	Boston		10	21
91	Pittsburgh		7	Minnesota	11	21
92	Pittsburgh		1	Chicago		8	22
93	Montreal			9	Los Angeles	3	24
94	NY Rangers		2	Vancouver	18	26
95	New Jersey		7	Detroit		5	26
96	Colorado			11	Florida		20	26
97	Detroit			4	Philadelphia	7	26
98	Detroit			10	Washington	6	26
99	Dallas			2	Buffalo		20	28
00	New Jersey		15	Dallas		4	28
01	Colorado			3	New Jersey	1	30
02	Detroit			1	Carolina		18	30
03	New Jersey		8	Anaheim		15	30

Data is taken from this table

http://www.econ.uregina.ca/augustin/Readings/Econ 296/NHL team payrolls - 89 to 03.pdf

As you can see, only NJ won the Cup with a bottom-half payroll. Every other Cup winner since then has been in the upper half of the league, payroll-wise. A lot of runner-ups have made it to the finals with a modest payroll, though.

Please look at the source as well. I'm not sure of its accuracy.

Anyway, discuss.

Click to read more...

 

[Sotnos]

Please look at the source as well. I'm not sure of its accuracy.

Anyway, discuss.

Got this message from the link:

Gone
The requested resource
/augustin/Readings/Econ 296/NHL team payrolls - 89 to 03.pdf
is no longer available on this server and there is no forwarding address. Please remove all references to this resource.

I've seen a similar list somewhere else, not sure where though.

 

[me2]

I know someone else put together a list like this one, but I couldn't find it, so I made a new one. It lists Stanley Cup Winners and finalists since 1990, and their payroll's relative rank within the league.

Year	Stanley Cup Winner	Rank	Runner-up	Rank	# of Teams in League

00	New Jersey		15	Dallas		4	28


[url]http://www.econ.uregina.ca/augustin/Readings/Econ%20296/NHL%20team%20payrolls%20-%2089%20to%2003.pdf[/url]

As you can see, only NJ won the Cup with a bottom-half payroll. [/QUOTE]

No they didn't (30 teams in 99-00 IIRC). #15 would make them top as top 1/2 (1-15 & 16-30).

 

[PecaFan]

Nope, you don't "rc". Columbus and Minnesota's first year was 00/01.

 

[me2]

Nope, you don't "rc". Columbus and Minnesota's first year was 00/01.

Indeed I do.

 

[KungFuPenguin]

Got this message from the link:



I've seen a similar list somewhere else, not sure where though.

I still have the pdf, if anyone wants to look at it.

 

[GKJ]

Just to clarify, there was 27 teams in 1998

 

[thinkwild]

Well, this thread is an amazing reveleation. Good teams win the Cup? No kiddin?

Scientists have also proven that people that have the most birthdays tend to live the longest.

 

[PecaFan]

No, it shows that teams that can spend more than most others have good teams, and therefore win the Cup.

 

[I in the Eye]

No, it shows that teams that can spend more than most others have good teams, and therefore win the Cup.

Perhaps there's a correlation between $ and success... But is it (1) teams that can spend more have better success, or (2) teams that have better success are able to spend more?

Which one is the cause, and which one is the effect?

 

[John Flyers Fan]

No, it shows that teams that can spend more than most others have good teams, and therefore win the Cup.

Or it shows that if you draft and build a good team, eventually you have to pay good players what they're worth.

If Ottawa keeps their entire team together in another 3 or 4 years they'd be among the highest payroll teams in the NHL.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Perhaps there's a correlation between $ and success... But is it (1) teams that can spend more have better success, or (2) teams that have better success are able to spend more?

Exactly. Every single team that has enjoyed success started out lousy and got good before they got expensive. What does that tell you? Zero teams have gotten good by getting expensive even though lots of teams have tried to spend their way to success. What does that tell you?

One is the cause, the other the effect. Which is which? There is lots of evidence. Reason it out for me.

Tom

 

[Verbal Kint*]

No they didn't (30 teams in 99-00 IIRC). #15 would make them top as top 1/2 (1-15 & 16-30).

There were 28 teams.

 

[I in the Eye]

Exactly. Every single team that has enjoyed success started out lousy and got good before they got expensive. What does that tell you? Zero teams have gotten good by getting expensive even though lots of teams have tried to spend their way to success. What does that tell you?

One is the cause, the other the effect. Which is which? There is lots of evidence. Reason it out for me.

Tom

My answer is (2) teams that have better success are able to spend more...

I tried to find 'playoff tree results' from 1990 to 2003 - to see how far the successful teams have gone in the playoffs year after year... but I couldn't find it... If anyone has a link or the actual stats, IMO, that would be very insightful...

IMO, try and calculate how much playoff revenue the teams that consistently go far in the playoffs have earned from 1990 to 2003- and then try and calculate the successful team's following year regular season revenue (my theory is that teams that go far in the playoffs generate much more 'next season regular season revenue' than teams that do not)... And then compare the successful team's payroll (from 1990-2003) in relation to how much revenue was made...

Even looking at the first post in this thread, we see that NJ either won the cup or came very close 4 times (i.e. they went far in the playoffs at least 4 times... that = huge revenue gains and advantage over the rest of the teams)... Colorodo did it at least twice... Detroit at least 4 times...

Yes, NJ, Colorodo, and Detroit are able to spend more - but IMO, it is largely because they have more success... I think that the stats will back me up that they were a 'better' team (or on the verge of being a 'better' team) long before they got very expensive... IMO, they got expensive after they could afford more through their success...

IMO, today they can buy $10 million players (if they want to) because of their accomplished pasts...

 

[KungFuPenguin]

I made some quick graphs for your viewing pleasure. Recent "dynasty teams" payroll development since 1990. Also a bigger graph with three other interesting teams thrown in the mix.

I'd welcome a debate on the causality of payroll vs team success. I find it is probably the major sticking point in the player vs. owner debate.

Let's start with a hypothetical question. Assume that the previous CBA is extended for another 10 years. Over this period of time, who will win more post-round-two play-off games: Detroit or Pittsburgh?

 

[quat]

Or it shows that if you draft and build a good team, eventually you have to pay good players what they're worth.

If Ottawa keeps their entire team together in another 3 or 4 years they'd be among the highest payroll teams in the NHL.

And that is exactly the problem that plagues the NHL. In the past, teams could afford to keep the teams they built together. Now, only the wealthy teams can afford to do that, so the playing field it skewed in their favor... to say nothing of trying to support franchises that take years to get to better than average, only to find they must let go their top players because they can no longer afford them.

Spending money foolishly will not win you a cup, but building a good team and then having the cash to keep it together will give you many good chances to win.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

And that is exactly the problem that plagues the NHL. In the past, teams could afford to keep the teams they built together. Now, only the wealthy teams can afford to do that, so the playing field it skewed in their favor... to say nothing of trying to support franchises that take years to get to better than average, only to find they must let go their top players because they can no longer afford them.

Spending money foolishly will not win you a cup, but building a good team and then having the cash to keep it together will give you many good chances to win.

gibberish ... OTT has kept their team together, no ?

what championship calibre team hasnt been able to keep their team together ?

dr

 

[I in the Eye]

I made some quick graphs for your viewing pleasure. Recent "dynasty teams" payroll development since 1990. Also a bigger graph with three other interesting teams thrown in the mix.

Excellent work... My interpretation is that teams that accumulated revenue (through year-after-year playoff success - and consequently, higher 'next season' regular season revenue - 'fan hangover' revenue) are able to spend more of that accumulated revenue during the 'later years' (i.e. they are able to spend more revenue, when compared to the average team, now)... IMO, these teams are trying to hang on to their past success by augmenting/replacing their aging 'core'... IMO, this is their reward for a successful 90's/early millenium...

Time will tell how successful they are... IMO, as the 'core' gets older - their success will diminish (regardless of how much they spend)... IMO, they will spend a lot of money just to be faced with the harsh reality that they have to once again re-build from a young core... It's kind of sad to see that old guy trying to hang on to his past...

I'd welcome a debate on the causality of payroll vs team success. I find it is probably the major sticking point in the player vs. owner debate.

I would too... I'm personally an owner supporter - but I don't support a solution that eliminates or hampers a team's ability to keep their 'home grown' players (i.e. players that were drafted or developed from a young age) together... I support a solution that punishes Detroit for signing Scott Niedermeyer (by paying big $ to teams that are home growing their players) - while not punishing Detroit for re-signing Lidstrom...

Let's start with a hypothetical question. Assume that the previous CBA is extended for another 10 years. Over this period of time, who will win more post-round-two play-off games: Detroit or Pittsburgh?

Assuming all else is equal... If Pittsburgh employs the strategy of keeping and growing their young core, and if Detroit employs the strategy of 'buying veteran players to replace an aging core'... over this period of time (10 years), my money is on Pittsburgh winning many more post-round-two playoff games... My money is on Pttsburgh being 'elite' (with a young core growing together that features Fleury, Malkin, Crosby , and Detroit being, at best, the NYR...

 

[quat]

gibberish ... OTT has kept their team together, no ?

what championship calibre team hasnt been able to keep their team together ?

dr

LOL. I guess you're correct... the league is extremely healthy and we're all watching hockey right now.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Let's start with a hypothetical question. Assume that the previous CBA is extended for another 10 years. Over this period of time, who will win more post-round-two play-off games: Detroit or Pittsburgh?

Detroit would have to start over. It is one of the real downsides to their strategy. They haven't produced enough good players to form a decent young core. If you keep signing free agents, you stop producing players.

I think that is another interesting cause and effect. Do teams sign free agents because they have not produced enough young talent or does signing free agents preclude the development of young talent?

If you give young players a job, they get better. A few of them get a lot better. The Canucks have got an excellent team right now and lots of fans want them to find the final piece of the puzzle. I say, "Screw that. Give Kesler a job. We've become excellent by finding ice time for young players. Let's stay excellent with the same strategy."

Laying out big money for name free agents or good young assets for the likes of Doug Weight before he gets the really big money is a bad strategy. It is bad in the business sense and it is bad in the hockey sense. I'm shocked that so many teams refused to believe it for so long. Buyers at the trade deadline overpaid by a factor of about ten. Team after team hired expensive free agents without getting value for them. Why did it take so long for them to learn?

All that said, I'd bet on Pittsburgh over the next decade absent change to the CBA. At the same time as that, Pittsburgh could very well blow a tire on the rebuild trail, too. It is really hard to build the elite team. The Penguins were absolutely correct on the strategy. They still have to execute. For every team that succeeds, at least three will fail.

Tom

 

[I in the Eye]

The Penguins were absolutely correct on the strategy.

What's frightening to me, is that even though it was absolutely the correct strategy, IMO, the only reason they employed it is because they didn't have the money (likely because of their building lease) to employ that other b******* strategy...

Same with the Canucks...

For this reason, I want the CBA changed... I want to explicitly steer teams to use this strategy...

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

I support a solution that punishes Detroit for signing Scott Niedermeyer (by paying big $ to teams that are home growing their players) - while not punishing Detroit for re-signing Lidstrom...

But why should Detroit be punished for this? They do face a dilemma. A once great team is good enough to win regularly in the regular season, but they probably can't be many playoff teams in a seven game season. They continue to sell out.

What do they do? They can't exactly declare they are rebuilding. If they want to try to squeeze the hope of another run out with Niedermayer, they can fill their boots as far as I am concerned.

I will be happy for Niedermayer. He has been underpaid relative to his quality for years. Now he gets to cash in. I think it will be his hard luck that the market has changed so much, but he deserves the chance to sell his skill to the highest bidder. He's waited a long time for it.

I do think he will be one of the better free agent buys. A team like Tampa would see him as a great fit, but I don't think Detroit is interested. I think Ken Holland and Ilitch planned to unwind it anyway. It is one thing to spend all that money when you play in 150 plus playoff games in a decade. It is another when the team struggles to get out of the first round.

Tom

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

What's frightening to me, is that even though it was absolutely the correct strategy, IMO, the only reason they employed it is because they didn't have the money (likely because of their building lease) to employ that other b******* strategy...

Same with the Canucks...

For this reason, I want the CBA changed... I want to explicitly steer teams to use this strategy...

I don't think that is true at all about the Canucks. I don't know whether you were a Canuck fan when Quinn and Burke first rode into town in 1987. The team had been awful for years and it still needed a complete overhaul. The fanbase had bailed. To get us back Burke went on the radio every night and laid out the philosophy. He explained why the team was trading the likes of Sundstrom and Snepts in terms of getting the team closer to the Cup. It worked. The team got to within a goal of the prize. Then the Orcans came to town, Bure got hurt, and it all went South.

When Burke came back, he did exactly the same thing he and Quinn did in the late 1980's. Instead of explaining the decisions in terms of hockey like he did in the early 1990's, he explained everything in terms of the money the team was losing, the payroll and the Canadian dollar. He actually painted the Canucks as a small market Canadian team!

I forgave him all that because using the same strategy he and Quinn employed way back when, he gave us another excellent team. It is the road to the Stanley Cup and it is the road to financial stability. Small revenues = small payroll = more young players than you can shake a stick at. Keep the young players who grow and replace the ones who don't with more young players. Big revenues = big profits = payroll flexibility.

If some teams don't want to learn this, why should the NHLPA or other teams stop them?

Tom

 

[I in the Eye]

But why should Detroit be punished for this? They do face a dilemma. A once great team is good enough to win regularly in the regular season, but they probably can't be many playoff teams in a seven game season. They continue to sell out.

What do they do? They can't exactly declare they are rebuilding. If they want to try to squeeze the hope of another run out with Niedermayer, they can fill their boots as far as I am concerned.

To make the dilemma a little easier for them to solve (so that they make the correct choice)...

So that they start thinking about turning some of their assets now, in order to get a decent return... So that they trade Lidstrom now for 1 or 2 quality young prospects to grow with Datsyuk (sp?) and Zetterberg... So that they don't hold on to him and get nothing in return a couple years from now... I wouldn't prevent Detroit from acquiring Niedermayer... but I would let it be known (through them having to pay a high tax) that it is frowned upon... The tax money that Detroit spends by acquiring Niedermayer can help pay for Pittsburgh to keep Fleury and Malkin together...

IMO, Detroit should seriously start to think about dismantling their team and acquiring young players and draft picks... Not trying to squeeze a little more out of a prune (by acquiring another player like Nieds)...

It does nothing but inflate the market, render assets worthless, and prolongs the inevitable...

Allow Detroit to get Niedermayer... But send the message thoughout the league that this is not the preferred strategy...

 

[I in the Eye]

If some teams don't want to learn this, why should the NHLPA or other teams stop them?

IMO, 'skipping steps' unnecessarily inflates the salary market... I've got a few posts about my reasoning in a couple of other threads...

I don't think they should be stopped... but I do think they should be punished...

Regardless, IMO, the ones who are doing it properly should be rewarded... and I say let the ones who are doing things the wrong way pay for the reward...

With regards to the Canucks, I hear Burke talking about 'changing the core' after last year's playoff disaster... and that freaks the hell out of me... I want a system that makes him think long and hard before doing it...