Gary Bettman-No team by team caps

[Chelios]

Just as we've grown used to the ignorant brainwashed rantings of the pro-owner yahoos. Listening to those lemmings read off their NHL cue cards has never been entertaining at any stage, however. See, I can generalize too. Fun stuff!

This is what I get a kick of coming from pro-NHLPA people. That we people who side more with the owners are "brainwashed". I find it amazing that magically Gary Bettman and those brilliant owners managed to "brainwash" the vast majority of the public. Could it be that instead of being "brainwashed" we began at the start of this conflict by looking at this situation from a neutral standpoint and decided that the owners had every right to demand the changes they were seeking. I don`t know about the other people that side with the owners, but I didn`t grow up with "Wirtz" on the back of my Blackhawks jersey. I have absolutely no attachment whatsoever to the owners side, but, again from a neutral standpoint at the beginning of this lockout, I decided that they were right in looking for major changes. And lord knows the path the PA took since the beginning of this conflict has only further solidified my initial view.

So I ask you pro-PA people to take a step back, look at everything that has happend and answer this question: Have those pro-NHL people, the vast majority of the public, been magically brainwashed by Bettman and the owners, or did I come into this lockout with my mind made up and never really looked at this situation from a neutral standpoint?

Again I don`t know why there is this small pocket of extremely loyal pro-PA posters, but I have a hunch that it has nothing to do with the facts. I would venture a guess that it has more to do with a hatred of Bettman, a love for the Players, a mistrust towards the owners or a combination of all three.

 

[Pepper]

I suspect that most of these pro-PA shills are blinded by their holy hatred of Bettman and thus everything that he says & does are automatically 'wrong'.

 

[Ronald Pagan]

Again I don`t know why there is this small pocket of extremely loyal pro-PA posters, but I have a hunch that it has nothing to do with the facts. I would venture a guess that it has more to do with a hatred of Bettman, a love for the Players, a mistrust towards the owners or a combination of all three.

I would venture to guess that most of the pro-PA sycophants take this position due to blind selfish homerism. They are mostly fans of large market teams who are angry at seeing their competitive edge eroded away for the good of the entire league and game. It's sad and disgusting really.

 

[Chelios]

I suspect that most of these pro-PA shills are blinded by their holy hatred of Bettman and thus everything that he says & does are automatically 'wrong'.

I honestly think this is a big part of it. Listen, I can`t stand Bettman, probably for the same reasons that pro-PA people hate him: he seems like a little weasel to me, he is not a hockey guy, he is a basketball guy etc... I also hate guys like Wirtz, I mean look at what he has put us Hawks fans through. But having said all that, it doesn`t mean that they are wrong. I simply cannot comprehend how someone looking at this situation from a neutral standpoint can honestly say that the owners are in the wrong.

 

[Pepper]

Hey, I hate Bettman about as much as anyone but I can't let that hate blind my judgement when it comes to these economical issues.

Nothing would make me happier than to see Bettman get the boot after the CBA is signed and Gretzky brought in as the new commish.

 

[Mess]

So I ask you pro-PA people to take a step back, look at everything that has happend and answer this question: Have those pro-NHL people, the vast majority of the public, been magically brainwashed by Bettman and the owners, or did I come into this lockout with my mind made up and never really looked at this situation from a neutral standpoint?

If you came into this with and open mind then you should be open to a discussion ..

The Levitt report showed that player cost where at 75% ..Correct ??

"I am satisfied," said Levitt, "after more than 2000 hours of analysis, interviews, club visits and benchmarking verifications that the present business model of the National Hockey League is not economically viable.

Player costs of 75% of revenue clearly diminish any possibility of restoring a feasible business model."

http://www.nhlcbanews.com/levitt_release021204.html

The NHLPA acknowledged that Wages were to high, and that in this very first meaningful proposal Dec 9th agreed to give the owners 24% off of existing guaranteed contracts ?? Correct ..

No one forced them to do that .. The NHLPA offered it Correct ??

The NHL has wanted 54% and say that is all they can afford .. Correct ??

Well if you take old CBA = 75% minus 24% discount = 51 % ..Correct ??

or if you prefer you could take the 76% (100% -24% discount) and muliply it by 75% old costs and that leave you 57%, and the starting amount for negotiations ..

So by making that offer the NHLPA gave the owners back more then they are asking for today ?? (The 51% was said was due to the fact that some players still need to be signed and once they where then then expected about 54-55 % player costs).

So at this point NO ONE could say if you looked at it (this moment in time) that the issue of profitibility for the teams was not longer and issue ..

So where is the NHLPA the bad guys in this so far ??

Now from that point forward was the issue and the goal was to keep costs at that range and not let them get out of control again ..

So what are the things that make salaries go up ??

1) Entry level Contracts

The NHLPA offered 850k max base (down from 1.25 base old CBA) plus reduced bonuses .. The NHL accepted the base however wanted further restrictions on bonuses. History has taught us that these young players are the first be throw under the bus, so this would not have been a problem ..

2) UFA signings

(totally in the Owners control as to who they sign and offer a contract to and for how much)

3) Qualifying offers for RFA

From the NHLPA Dec 9th proposal

110% for players earning $660,000 or less
105% for players earning between $660,000 and $1 million
100% for players earning more than $1 million

http://nhlcbanews.com/news/comparison.html

So as you can see by the NHLPA offer they proposed other then the players making under $1 million (which are not the problem in any system) . The players making over 1 million would get 100% for the team to get to keep a players rights.

Well you don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that if you reset salaries by the 24% and then if you have to qualify your players at 100% (which means SAME AS THE MADE ) that salaries can not go up as a result .. The player can certainly ask for more, but again the owner is not obligated to give it to him by the CBA rules.. The player can hold out if not happy, but that is nothing the Owner can control either ..

The NHL offered 75% qualifying .. So is it fair that every single RFA starts off their contract negotiations with an 25% pay cut regardless of performance.. Is that Fair ??

4) Arbitration

This was the biggest problem in the old system, and a 3rd part person would hear the case of both sides and then make a ruling often handing out big rewards which raised salaries for everyone in comparison in the future.. Correct ..

So the NHLPA offered various solutions for this ..
1) Limiting the increase to a set % max by the arbitrator

2) Offer an option that the arbitrator can just pick any number but either the players number or the owners number .. whoever proved their case better.

3) Walk away rights for the owners .. If they lost the case they could say too much and walk away making the player an UFA or accept it and then trade him is it didn't fit their budget.

4) It offered that the Owners could take players to arbitration 2 / year max for anyone with a valid contract that they thought was under performing .. A team like the Isles could take Yashin to arbitration and then based on his numbers the arbitrator could reset his contract lower ..

All attempts to put a strain on the salaries rising and metods to reset them if need be ..

This was only their first and original proposal and where certainly open to discussion .. and the NHL returned with ..

No salary arbitration -- it produces 46-85% increases in salary and is inflationary
http://nhlcbanews.com/news/comparison.html

Well if any RFA player gets a 25% paycut by qualifying offer at 75% and no means for anyone to hear his case, or any option to review it .. Then he is screwed plain and simple and the team owns his rights from 18 -30 and throughout those 12 years a team can take off 25% after each contract and nothing a player can do but sit out and not get paid. Well Zero pay in not better the even the 75% off deal.

Now again to be open minded the NHLPA offer was more reasonable then what the NHL offered and this was their "FINAL OFFER" take it or leave it or the season is cancelled ..

The only thing left to do was come up with a Hard Cap that would stop the big market teams from free spending .. Had they picked a number like 45.0 Mil and said no team goes above that .. then it would have leveled the playing surface as the average team salary was $33-35 in the old CBA, and with profit sharing would have been easy to achieve again .. Its really not diiferent then the 34-36 mil rumoured now .. and the parity difference on the ice would have been $10 mil for most teams max.

So other then fighting against a Hard Cap, which they may have come around to now what did the NHLPA do so wrong ??

If you are keeping an open mind ...

IMO had the NHL come out and worked from the players proposal as they are rumoured to be doing now who is to know what the outcome would be ??

 

[Pepper]

The NHL has wanted 54% and say that is all they can afford .. Correct ??

Well if you take old CBA = 75% minus 24% discount = 51 % ..Correct ??

So by making that offer the NHLPA gave the owners back more then they are asking for today ?? (The 51% was said was due to the fact that some players still need to be signed and once they where then then expected about 54-55 % player costs).

So at this point NO ONE could say if you looked at it (this moment in time) that the issue of profitibility for the teams was not longer and issue ..

So where is the NHLPA the bad guys in this so far ??

Errr I suggest you brush up your math skills...The rollback offer was 24% of existing contracts, even if we assume that it affected all contracts it would have still been 75 x 0.76 = 57% of the total revenues.

That was one-off deal and wouldn't have affected new deals directly as it alone did nothing to the inflationary issues, that 24% would have been eaten back in 2-3 years.

So again you have all your facts wrong.

 

[Mess]

Errr I suggest you brush up your math skills...The rollback offer was 24% of existing contracts, even if we assume that it affected all contracts it would have still been 75 x 0.76 = 57% of the total revenues.

That was one-off deal and wouldn't have affected new deals directly as it alone did nothing to the inflationary issues, that 24% would have been eaten back in 2-3 years.

So again you have all your facts wrong.

Did you read the rest of my post ??

I tried to explain the issues that raise salaries ..

Even if you want to make it 57% for argument sake .. that still is in the ball park of Salary correction ..

You are quoting the same old NHL propaganda without looking at the facts .. If you fix the things that cause salaries to increase then you have addressed the problem ..

You give me any evidence that shows that salaries would have gone back up in 2-3 years .. What would have raised them ??

 

[Crazy_Ike]

Further reinforcement of my theory that Messenger is, in fact, Al Strachan. He and Strach are, after all, the only two people left on the planet who think the players' Dec proposal was the one that should have been adopted.

 

[mytor4*]

Did you read the rest of my post ??

I tried to explain the issues that raise salaries ..

Even if you want to make it 57% for argument sake .. that still is in the ball park of Salary correction ..

You are quoting the same old NHL propaganda without looking at the facts .. If you fix the things that cause salaries to increase then you have addressed the problem ..

You give me any evidence that shows that salaries would have gone back up in 2-3 years .. What would have raised them ??

who you ask. ah let me see the rangers outbidding other teams for there stars.,leafs offering oldtimmers huge contracts. which leads to total chaos.players wanting equal pay as the other players and bingo we,re there again. messenger you must be a player rep.

 

[Luc Labelle]

So other then fighting against a Hard Cap, which they may have come around to now what did the NHLPA do so wrong ??

If you are keeping an open mind ...

I would like to say I was neutral before the lockout but that is not true. I lost my neutrality when Bob Goodenow repeatedly refused to negotiate with the NHL for the 2 years prior to the lockout. The stick your head in the sand approach only got more and more severe as the lockout went on. I hate Gary Bettman with a passion for destroying the sport over the last 10 years, yet he continued to try and put a positive spin on a clearly negative situation. That being the absence of any entertainment value in the product and the corresponding drop in television ratings.

As far as his stating the economics of the NHL business model were out of wack, this is not spin or brainwashing. I could see that myself when NHL players demand NFL calibre salaries from revenues that are clearly a small fraction of the most profitable league in the world.

IMO had the NHL come out and worked from the players proposal as they are rumoured to be doing now who is to know what the outcome would be ??

The NHL and NHLPA are working on a linked system with some similarities to Goodenow's team-by-team concept. The NHL is not working off of the December 9 proposal but just some of the elements. If you would like to believe they are actually working off of the NHL proposal then I have news for you. They have been working off the NHL proposal since December 16 when they took the 24% rollback and incorporated it in their cap system.

The NHLPA continually shouted out their mantra, that the only thing fair to them was a free market system. They made it clear through the media that they would not even entertain 1 minute of dialog if there was any mention of any type of cost certainty.

The NHL even offered up the February 2 proposal which guaranteed the players 54% of revenues PLUS a 50% split of league profits above a certain negotiated threshold ($110 million is the number I have heard about). This proposal as offered was the most generous of any league out there. This proposal with serious negotiation by the NHLPA would have been even sweeter when all was said and done.

Instead since it was a cost certainty plan, the NHLPA chose to stick there heads back in the sand. They took their heads back out of the sand when they let leak to the mediator that they would consider some sort of cap. This resulted in Saskin and Daly meeting in Niagara Falls. The NHLPA came up with their 52 million dollar cap proposal which was rolled back to $47 million before the cancellation date (but it included the infamous clause 7 which indexed the cap values on the basis of the 2005-2006 season).

The indexed season was definitely going to show a significant decline in revenues. Therefore the reported floor and ceiling range could have shifted to 45 minimum and 76 maximum when the NHL would have returned to 2003-2004 revenue levels. Making the business model even worse than it was at the end of the last CBA.

I shifted even more to the owners after these NHLPA shenanigans:

1) Refusing guaranteed link plus profit sharing was shocking
2) Leaking the acceptance of cost certainty to the mediator yet never making it known to the NHL - ridiculous (deadline Bob's hope of the NHL caving)
3) Finally putting a cap proposal but indexing off a low unknown season instead of the known economics of 2003-2004 which absolutely defies logic.

Then we have the cancellation of the season where Bettman was sincerely apologetic to the fans (7 times he distinctly apologized to the fans). Goodenow comes on in the afternoon and does not even mention the fans until a reporter tells him he should apologize. He spoke 2 full sentences before starting to apoligize to the fans but it turns out when he finished the third sentence it was not an apology. I am paraphrasing (I do have the exact words on tape... I can look them up later and post)... "and speaking for the players and the NHLPA I'd like to say the fans deserve an apology from Gary Bettman." I was shocked and disgusted. Obviously Bob Goodenow did not listen to the NHL press conference just has he was never listening to the NHL in their attempts to negotiate a new CBA over several years.

Way to go Bob! I was always against the players because they refused to sit down and negotiate with the NHL within a framework that was needed for a healthy league.

 

[kdb209]

Originally Posted by Pepper
Read Bob McKenzie's latest article:

http://www.tsn.ca/columnists/bob_mckenzie.asp

Besides, your theory doesn't make any sense. Why would NHL first negotiate about different salary caps for every team and then Bettman suddenly says 'this doesn't work'??

Like McKenzie suspects, G&M misinterpreted the info they got and Bettman corrected it.

Like I said before, when the Globe recants it's original story then is when I will except it as a mis-understanding by the source that told it to the G&M.

Now why would they negotiate this and then Bettman say it's not true, OR in your words 'this doesn't work'?.... Because Bettman does NOT want a cap based on team-by-team revenues, he wants it league-wide which means the strong market team fans will be flipping some of the bill for those weaker market teams to pay their salaries.
To me, that’s BS
So if the G&M source was ultimately correct, seems to me the owners team that is at the table had agreed to it, but F'ed up because Bettman won't except it that way, is what I suspect, contrary to McKenzie's suspects.

But the rest of the G&M details are completely incongruous to the concept of separate team-by-team caps - a narrow $2M range in reported cap numbers ($34M to $36M). The G&M even comes out and admits it doesn't know any of the supposed team-by-team details and points out that the numbers don't fit any straight forward revenue %-age model.

According to a source with ties to both owners and players, and another source close to the owners, there will be a team-by-team salary floor and cap based on a percentage of each team's revenue. The actual percentage is not known, although the league had been demanding 54 per cent.

In the first year of what is thought to be a six-year deal, based on revenue projections by both sides, the salary cap will range from $34-million to $36-million, with the floor from $22-million to $24-million.

What is not clear is how the percentage will be applied to each team, since there is a large disparity in revenue among the NHL's 30 teams, although it is clear the agreement is a complicated one. If a strict percentage were used, then a large-revenue team like the Toronto Maple Leafs would have a salary cap not only much higher than $36-million, but vastly higher than a team like the Phoenix Coyotes, whose financial situation is regarded by insiders as one of the worst in the NHL.

Given a choice between beleiving Bob McKenzie and the G&M, my vote goes to Bob. Like others here, I think the source of confusion is the mention of team-by-team revenues which has been bandied about. What makes the most sense is that rather than come up with a one-size-fits-all revenue model (like the NBA), they instead came up with a set of separate revenue models to reflect the different teams - the cap is still based on league wide revenues, but the league wide revenues are counted differently on a team by team basis. I take GB's explicit denial of different caps as a confirmation of this rather than the nefarious torpedoing of a deal that you seem to see.

Besides if it really were seperate team-by-team caps, I think you would have seen more leaks confirming the details, rather than other reports which have just quoted the G&M story as a source.

 

[Pepper]

I tried to explain the issues that raise salaries ..

Even if you want to make it 57% for argument sake .. that still is in the ball park of Salary correction ..

Even if I *want* to make it 57%?? I just corrected your screwed up math, 57% was the optimal situation and it was far from optimal situation as only what 2/3 of the players had contracts.

I did read the rest of your post but it was so full of empty assumptions, faulty logic and general ignorance that have been shot down so many times over the months that I didn't bother reply to it again. You have this incredible skill to be totally oblivious to the facts which have been shown to you and how they make your arguments are totally invalid.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Errr I suggest you brush up your math skills...The rollback offer was 24% of existing contracts, even if we assume that it affected all contracts it would have still been 75 x 0.76 = 57% of the total revenues.

This is too funny. And Massager has claimed to be an accountant in the big bad thriving hotbed of commerce known as Kelowna.

 

[Pepper]

This is too funny. And Massager has claimed to be an accountant in the big bad thriving hotbed of commerce known as Kelowna.

Get outta here, he really claimed to be an accountant??



I wonder if we're talking about the same guy who did Enron's books...

 

[GSC2k2*]

Get outta here, he really claimed to be an accountant??



I wonder if we're talking about the same guy who did Enron's books...

So I am told ...

 

[kdb209]

Wow, do you have any clue about cause and effect relationships?

Its not 'spend 60 million and you have a good chance at the Cup'... its more like

'If you draft, trade and develop properly over several seasons and establish an elite core that begins to make the playoffs consistently and wins their fair share of playoff games, it is possible with the increased revenues to keep them together which will lead to a higher payroll. Most winning teams (not their first win but consecutive seasons afterwards) will have higher payrolls than average because they have better players.

Winning comes first, then your payroll increases accordingly.

Its actually quite easy and logical to understand, its kinda funny how the vast majority of people cannot grasp such a simple concept.

Nice theory. And it may have actually been true at one point in time, but not any more. Your theory only works if a winning team can afford to keep all their better players.

You would expect that if high payroll were caused by winning, rather than innate market differences, you would see a turnover in which teams were in the top 5 or top 10 in payroll, as teams develop, build, and rebuild over time.

Things have fundamentally changed over the last decade.

During the 5 years from 1989-90 to 1993-94:

13 different teams out of 21 (ignoring new expansion teams) or 62% of the league were in the top 5 in payroll for at least one year:

Buffalo Sabres
Hartford Whalers
Quebec Nordiques
Minnesota North Stars
Detroit Red Wings
Edmonton Oilers
Los-Angeles Kings
Montreal Canadiens
New-York Rangers
Philadelphia Flyers
Winnipeg Jets
Pittsburgh Penguins
St. Louis Blues

The majority of these teams are not what you would describe as big market / big revenue teams. Teams in Buffalo, Hartford, Quebec, Edmonton, Winnipeg, and Pittsburgh could actually afford to be competitive.

During the 5 years from 1999-00 to 2003-04:

Only 7 different teams out of 26 (ignoring new expansion teams) or only 27% were in the top 5 in payroll for at least one year:

Colorado Avalanche
Dallas Stars
Detroit Red Wings
New-York Rangers
Philadelphia Flyers
St. Louis Blues
Toronto Maple Leafs

All of these teams are big market / big revenue teams.

If you look at the top 10 payroll teams, you see a similar change from 19/21 (90%) during 1990-94 to 16/26 (62%) during 2000-04.

 

[gary69]

Things have fundamentally changed over the last decade.

During the 5 years from 1989-90 to 1993-94:

13 different teams out of 21 (ignoring new expansion teams) or 62% of the league were in the top 5 in payroll for at least one year:

Buffalo Sabres
Hartford Whalers
Quebec Nordiques
Minnesota North Stars
Detroit Red Wings
Edmonton Oilers
Los-Angeles Kings
Montreal Canadiens
New-York Rangers
Philadelphia Flyers
Winnipeg Jets
Pittsburgh Penguins
St. Louis Blues

The majority of these teams are not what you would describe as big market / big revenue teams. Teams in Buffalo, Hartford, Quebec, Edmonton, Winnipeg, and Pittsburgh could actually afford to be competitive.

During the 5 years from 1999-00 to 2003-04:

Only 7 different teams out of 26 (ignoring new expansion teams) or only 27% were in the top 5 in payroll for at least one year:

Colorado Avalanche
Dallas Stars
Detroit Red Wings
New-York Rangers
Philadelphia Flyers
St. Louis Blues
Toronto Maple Leafs

All of these teams are big market / big revenue teams.

If you look at the top 10 payroll teams, you see a similar change from 19/21 (90%) during 1990-94 to 16/26 (62%) during 2000-04.

Now, while this is interesting (but really nothing suprising) statistics and worth mentioning, it doesn't really tell much about the reasons behind the stats.

If you would have time, could you do a similar stats for players and their movement between teams (or better yet, various segments of players like every decile) for all the years of the previous CBA. Then compare that to the team stats and winning/losing/success you just compiled, and you might get a better picture.

 

[Spungo*]

Nice theory. And it may have actually been true at one point in time, but not any more. Your theory only works if a winning team can afford to keep all their better players.

You would expect that if high payroll were caused by winning, rather than innate market differences, you would see a turnover in which teams were in the top 5 or top 10 in payroll, as teams develop, build, and rebuild over time.

Things have fundamentally changed over the last decade.

During the 5 years from 1989-90 to 1993-94:

13 different teams out of 21 (ignoring new expansion teams) or 62% of the league were in the top 5 in payroll for at least one year:

Buffalo Sabres
Hartford Whalers
Quebec Nordiques
Minnesota North Stars
Detroit Red Wings
Edmonton Oilers
Los-Angeles Kings
Montreal Canadiens
New-York Rangers
Philadelphia Flyers
Winnipeg Jets
Pittsburgh Penguins
St. Louis Blues

The majority of these teams are not what you would describe as big market / big revenue teams. Teams in Buffalo, Hartford, Quebec, Edmonton, Winnipeg, and Pittsburgh could actually afford to be competitive.

During the 5 years from 1999-00 to 2003-04:

Only 7 different teams out of 26 (ignoring new expansion teams) or only 27% were in the top 5 in payroll for at least one year:

Colorado Avalanche
Dallas Stars
Detroit Red Wings
New-York Rangers
Philadelphia Flyers
St. Louis Blues
Toronto Maple Leafs

All of these teams are big market / big revenue teams.

If you look at the top 10 payroll teams, you see a similar change from 19/21 (90%) during 1990-94 to 16/26 (62%) during 2000-04.

Very well done. Nothing else needs to be said regarding payroll disparity ever again. It surprises me that more people don't have simple, common sense, but everytime somebody acts as if it doesn't matter, we can all just post a link to your post.

 

[kdb209]

Originally Posted by kdb209
Things have fundamentally changed over the last decade.

During the 5 years from 1989-90 to 1993-94:

13 different teams out of 21 (ignoring new expansion teams) or 62% of the league were in the top 5 in payroll for at least one year:

Buffalo Sabres
Hartford Whalers
Quebec Nordiques
Minnesota North Stars
Detroit Red Wings
Edmonton Oilers
Los-Angeles Kings
Montreal Canadiens
New-York Rangers
Philadelphia Flyers
Winnipeg Jets
Pittsburgh Penguins
St. Louis Blues

The majority of these teams are not what you would describe as big market / big revenue teams. Teams in Buffalo, Hartford, Quebec, Edmonton, Winnipeg, and Pittsburgh could actually afford to be competitive.

During the 5 years from 1999-00 to 2003-04:

Only 7 different teams out of 26 (ignoring new expansion teams) or only 27% were in the top 5 in payroll for at least one year:

Colorado Avalanche
Dallas Stars
Detroit Red Wings
New-York Rangers
Philadelphia Flyers
St. Louis Blues
Toronto Maple Leafs

All of these teams are big market / big revenue teams.

If you look at the top 10 payroll teams, you see a similar change from 19/21 (90%) during 1990-94 to 16/26 (62%) during 2000-04.

Now, while this is interesting (but really nothing suprising) statistics and worth mentioning, it doesn't really tell much about the reasons behind the stats.

If you would have time, could you do a similar stats for players and their movement between teams (or better yet, various segments of players like every decile) for all the years of the previous CBA. Then compare that to the team stats and winning/losing/success you just compiled, and you might get a better picture.

Sorry, but looking at individual player movements is beyond the scope of my my time and efforts. I've got the league standings, playoff results, and payrolls ('89-'04) in spreadsheets to play with, but that's about it.

But it is worth noting (w.r.t. player movement) that during the 90-94 period, there really was no free agency - teams dictated player movement. After free agency, players had more control over movement, and surprise, surprise the better (read more expensive) players followed the money to the small number of big market / big revenue teams. During the 2000-04 period, the hight of the free agent frenzy, the top payroll teams were always the usual suspects - again, surprise, surprise.

 

[gary69]

Sorry, but looking at individual player movements is beyond the scope of my my time and efforts. I've got the league standings, playoff results, and payrolls ('89-'04) in spreadsheets to play with, but that's about it.

I have some stuff on 2000/2001 season, but it's not really enough to find correlations or trends.

Well, here's something anyway.

2000-2001 season players devided into deciles based on their salary
Points-salary table (goalies are excluded)

...............................% of points......% of salary
1st decile players.............25............38
2nd decile players............16............18
3rd decile players.............16............11
4rd decile players.............10.............9
5th decile players.............10.............7
6th decile players..............7.............6
7th decile players..............8.............5
8th decile players..............4.............3
9th decile players..............3.............2
10th decile players............1..............1

Total %........................100............100

16 out of 30 teams made playoffs (53.3 %)
Players on teams who made playoffs scored 60.4% of points in the regular season and earned 60.8 % of total salaries.

How teams spent on salaries in % on different deciles in 2000/2001 (incl. goalies)

Team.........1st dec......2nd dec....3rd dec....Other dec. combined

Colorado......21...........0.............10............69..........Stanley Cup winner
New Jersey...23..........10............3.............64..........Stanley Cup finalist
St.Louis.......12..........17............9.............62...........Playoffs Conference final
Pittsburgh......3..........11...........12............74............Playoffs Conference final

Other playoffs teams

San Jose.....25..........7..........14...........54
Dallas.........22.........10...........6...........62
Detroit........18.........29..........11..........42
Washington..17..........9..........15..........59
Carolina.......15..........7...........11.........67
Philadelphia...14.........12..........12........62
Buffalo.........14..........4...........29........53
Los Angeles..13..........19.........7..........61
Toronto.......13...........20.........7.........60
Ottawa.........9..........13..........6..........72
Vancouver.....3..........13.........13...........71
Edmonton......3..........13..........10..........74

Non-Playoffs teams

Rangers.....24..........5..........8...........63
Phoenix......10.........17.........13..........60
Chicago......9..........15..........9...........67
Calgary.......9..........3..........22............66
Boston.......8.........13..........10...........69
Florida........7.........16...........0.............77
Anaheim.......7.........10...........4..........79
Montreal.....7..........5............2...........86
Islanders.....0..........9..........12..........79
Tampa Bay...0.........6...........6...........88
Nashville.....0..........6.........13...........81............3rd year expansion team
Atlanta.......0.........5..........8............76............2nd year expansion team
Columbus....0........11.........6............77............1st year expansion team
Minnesota....0.......0..........3.............97............1st year expansion team