This entire article kind of stunk like common sense, and I actually really didn't enjoy it. Usually I find Dom's work to be interesting, but in the first couple write ups that I read through it felt like all he was accomplishing was stating blatantly obvious information. I got the impression that the results were showing: the best players in hockey generally carry the most value and are easier to justify contracts. It's super evident when you look at the Wings. The only contracts that carry positive value were Larkin, AA, Mantha, and Bertuzzi, who are largely the only impact players from a scoring perspective.
If you have the assumption that the best teams have the best players, and the best players generally have the most "valuable" contracts, then you can reasonably assume that the best teams have the best contracts.
You can pull this together yourself. All I did was pull the final standings off the NHL website in 2019, and manually entered the "contract efficiency" rank from Dom's article and put together a chart in Excel. I had a scatter chart plotted initially (like some other charts you've undoubtedly seen) with a trend line; the plot could have been split into quadrants to show "overachievers", "underachievers", and both the bad teams with bad contracts and good teams with good contracts. The pitfall was the data labels were pretty impossible to show without making it painful to view, so I changed it to a column chart so you can see the team names associated. The X-Axis is sorted from last place to first place (from left to right) and the rankings are represented by the bars. I still included the trend line which kind of confirms what I'm getting at when I mentioned the good teams have good players with "good" contracts.