Good stuff Joe, thanks for an interesting read. The Bruins have really focused on building a team of people who have great character both on and off the ice and who support each other through thick and thin. You can tell that a lot of the guys are genuine friends with each other, beyond what is required just to get along as teammates, and they really enjoy going to work and being around the team. People who want to play hockey primarily for the sake of their team, their friends and their culture/brand, rather than for the money. The rewards of this policy have been evident as you’ve described.
I just have a couple of thoughts to add. As you say Toronto has taken a very different path and while it’s not one I like, it does have to be acknowledged that in the end the recent difference in performance between the two is tiny – sure in the last couple of years the Bs have got over them in the playoffs, but it’s been a very close run thing. However exactly they keep the bottom half of their roster reasonably happy with the relative pittance they’re paid and the big egos hanging around them it works well enough, although of course the real test will be to see how they fare if they ever actually achieve a deep postseason run. I guess my point is that there are different ways to skin a cat and while I much prefer the Bs character/team-driven method, building a team around a few big well-paid stars can get the job done too, at least to a point.
That said it’s actually interesting when you start to look at how different teams go about meeting the cap requirements – Calgary pays 32.72% of its cap to their top 4 players, St Louis 32.95%, Boston 34.59%, Washington 39.21%, Tampa 41.36%, Toronto 42.68% and San Jose 44.07%. Extend it out to the top 10 players and its 68.43% of their total cap for Calgary, St Louis 68.89%, Toronto 69.45%, Boston 69.84%, Washington 74.66%, San Jose 75.54% and Tampa 79.61%. So Toronto, Tampa, San Jose and to an extent Washington really load up their stars, and Boston, the Blues and the Flames are much more egalitarian. Looking at the top 10 and the Leafs pay their next 6 less than the rest, actually bringing them into line with the Bruins, Blues and Flames with under 70% going to their 10 best, while the Caps, Sharks and especially Tampa really do focus a lot of their resources on their best guys.
I think it’s interesting and perhaps instructive that it was the ‘spread the wealth’ model of the Bruins and the Blues that carried them furthest when it really mattered last season, while the star-focused Lightning, Caps and Leafs all bowed out early. It doesn’t always work out that way though – as the more even Flames suffered a shock exit while the Sharks got very close to making the Finals with a more top-heavy approach, and in 2018 the Caps triumphed and Tampa got much closer, so it’s hard to know how much to really read into this.
One could probably take this analysis further and look at which teams are getting the most value from all of their top-10-paid players, which have the most cheap over-achievers, and how they prioritise paying forwards verses defenders (e.g. for the Bs only Backes is over-paid and the other 9 are worth every cent, Chara, Gryz, Kuraly, Wagner, DeBrusk and maybe a couple of others over-deliver and money-wise we slightly prioritise attack over defence, even allowing that the forwards generally attract more coin), but that’s a start.