Stats are funny in that you can make them say almost anything you want to, but according to a recent article on Forbes.com, the Carolina Hurricanes were the fourth most "cost efficient" team in the NHL last season.
The following chart shows the cost efficiency of teams based upon a "cost per win" basis. In other words, the author divided each team's total salary by the number of points earned, then multiplied that number by 2, to come up with the ratio. The Canes came up fourth best in the league.
Most "Cost-Efficient" NHL Teams (2010-11 Regular Season) | ||||
Rank | Team | Cost/Win | Efficiency Ratio | Playoffs |
1 | St Louis | $967,540 | 72% | No |
2 | Phoenix | $1,047,455 | 78% | Yes |
3 | Dallas | $1,164,842 | 87% | No |
4 | Carolina | $1,188,637 | 88% | No |
5 | Nashville | $1,190,343 | 88% | Yes |
The least cost effective teams follow:
Least "Cost-Efficient" NHL Teams (2010-11 Regular Season) | ||||
Rank | Team | Cost/Win | Efficiency Ratio | Playoffs |
1 | Edmonton | $1,903,148 | 141% | No |
2 | NY Rangers | $1,666,043 | 124% | Yes |
3 | New Jersey | $1,632,543 | 121% | No |
4 | Ottawa | $1,607,162 | 119% | No |
5 | Chicago | $1,574,082 | 117% | Yes |
This news certainly does not soothe the pain of not making it to the playoffs, but it does show that, in this particular respect, the coaching staff got more wins out of the money they had to work with, than most other teams.
From a fan's perspective, this isn't necessarily a positive thing. But if I was Paul Maurice's agent, I would definitely show that article to Jim Rutherford during the coach's end of season review.
See more at the following link: Most and Least Cost Efficient Teams