Can You Buy A Stanley Cup?

by hurricanefever on Jan 6, 2012 4:41 PM EST

This was just a spit in the dark; having a little fun exercise on my part. The results were interesting enough to share. This does not attempt to jump headlong into the significant number of variables associated with determining the value of an NHL dollar spent. I refuse to do regression analysis. I have said I am more concerned with how payroll is spent, not necessarily how much. But when I thought about my statement I realized I could not answer the question "How much is enough?" if someone asked. I still do not know the answer but it appears other NHL GM's don't either. But to be fair, there is a lot of time left in the season and of course these rankings will change. And......I am not entirely sure this measurement is appropriate anyway.....but that is OK until I find some better measure.

I vaguely remembered there was a study on this many years ago but I have not been able to locate it. So…..just for kicks here is a simple look at the results of a comparison exactly at the halfway point of this season only. It attempts to show how all NHL teams have approached that same question and if their answers are yielding something positive.

Statistics are funny and sometime can be used to prove anything you want to prove. However, it you look closely at this list you will find some surprises.

Quick primer……the comparison number is expressed as a plus minus in the last column. The larger the plus number the less a team spends relative to their current NHL standings rank with all 30 teams. The larger the minus number will express how far below their ranking stands relative to their spending. A large plus is good and a large minus is bad or theoretically anyway. The team with the lowest spending level and the highest ranking just says that team is the most efficient spender of all other NHL teams when ONLY spending and standings are considered. That team can be easily spotted below. This is a simple view and not meant to praise or condemn any team. However, it does give you a relative look at what is happening. Call this a snapshot if you will. Can you buy a Stanley Cup???? Maybe you can....or maybe not.....or just maybe you don't really have to…….

Top five teams for positive spending verses rank: Nashville, Ottawa, St. Louis, Detroit, 3 tied for fifth

Top five teams for worse minus spending verses rank: Buffalo, Columbus, Montreal, Washington, and Calgary

Can't seem to line up the first line in the chart.....but that first line is all Washington

Team Spending

Cap Space

LTI Room

NHL Standings Rank

Plus/Minus

1. Washington Capitals »

$65,952,886

$509,742

-17

2. Buffalo Sabres

$66,692,114

$1,371,699

-21

3. Philadelphia Flyers

$65,956,968

$1,852,440

-4

4. Toronto Maple Leafs

$64,946,978

$1,877,393

-11

5. Vancouver Canucks

$64,141,580

$342,771

$650,676

6. Calgary Flames

$63,944,514

$345,486

—

-16

7. Montreal Canadiens

$63,718,171

$525,435

$3,415,976

-18

8. Pittsburgh Penguins

$64,010,577

$528,604

$2,577,117

-5

9. Los Angeles Kings

$63,514,510

$785,490

—

-3

10. San Jose Sharks

$62,699,851

$1,055,149

—

11. New York Rangers

$62,669,345

$1,185,391

—

12. Columbus Blue Jackets

$61,961,185

$2,371,844

—

-18

13. Tampa Bay Lightning

$61,501,556

$2,798,444

—

-11

14. Boston Bruins

$60,211,787

$2,958,213

—

15. Edmonton Oilers

$61,261,585

$3,038,415

—

-11

16. New Jersey Devils

$60,724,874

$3,175,126

—

-3

17. Chicago Blackhawks

$59,325,495

$4,799,505

—

18. Anaheim Ducks

$59,433,476

$4,866,524

—

-11

19. Detroit Red Wings

$58,757,730

$5,092,270

—

20. Minnesota Wild

$55,825,269

$8,474,731

—

21. St. Louis Blues

$55,147,994

$9,152,006

—

22. Florida Panthers

$55,075,311

$9,224,689

—

23. Phoenix Coyotes

$54,832,534

$9,467,466

—

24. Winnipeg Jets

$53,342,944

$10,957,056

—

25. Carolina Hurricanes

$51,257,968

$13,042,032

—

-3

26. Ottawa Senators

$51,009,847

$13,290,153

—

27. New York Islanders

$50,712,065

$13,587,935

—

even

28. Colorado Avalanche

$50,366,652

$13,933,348

—

29. Dallas Stars

$50,289,595

$14,010,405

—

30. Nashville Predators

$49,997,279

$14,302,721

—

Note: Capgeek.com figures 1/6/2012

Plus/Minus Difference Standings verses spending

NHL Rank Games thru 1/05/2012

Tweet Comment 6 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

See if you can pull together these numbers from 2002

Detroit definitely bought that cap – their salary was close to 2x the runnerup that year. Canes played the HHOF in the finals, and if it weren’t for ^#&#&$# Brett Hull scoring in the last minute of game 3, the series could have gone in the Canes favor…

by jbwhite99 on Jan 6, 2012 10:10 PM EST reply actions

Might be possible but no time. I did plan to update the numbers at the end of the regular season for kicks…….

Couple of things about what these numbers mean or do not mean.

These numbers do not make legitimate statements if taken on face value. Example: the NYI are even but what that says is their spending appears to match their NHL standings rank. Efficient but their standing is 27th so one argument for NYI is they do get what they pay for. The other argument is their expectations are likely much higher than 27th so that should be considered a negative somehow. True……but these numbers will not get us to that place. Only teams can answer that part.

Another cut of these numbers could involve looking at what past Cup Winners have achieved and what payroll they had. This might provide a benchmark but the big downside to that is inflation, non cap world issues, cap changes, US vs Canadian dollar fluctuation and a whole host of other financial variables. That will be difficult for anyone to do and I am not him.

You can make somewhat valid inference if you focus on the extreme results……highest positives and lowest minuses……..these do single out teams that are noteworthy. Those teams payroll investments are highly efficient or highly ineffective as it relates to their current NHL standing and do stand out but again this does not carry this to a measurement involving standings vs payroll vs expectations.

One final thought and this is where is gets even more interesting. Everyone has heard the saying “Make it to the playoffs……then anything can happen”. Our 2005-2006 cup run and even our opponent, Edmonton, proved that with both teams not expected to make it that far and generally lower payrolls compared to the other teams in that season. In a great many ways the investment in player salaries should be looked at in 4 different ways; (1) invest and build a team that can get wins enough to make the playoffs; (2) also invest in players who can help the team go deep in the playoffs; (3) have a contingency set aside to buy needed team role players for unexpected barriers that crop up along the way; and, (4) do the first 3 as efficiently money wise as you can. It would not surprise me if GM’s private “strategy” contains some if not all of these elements.

When able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.
Sun Tzu circa 4th Century BC

by hurricanefever on Jan 7, 2012 2:06 PM EST up reply actions

Imo you have to spend enough on players in a “bang for buck” type of situation ,and not just spend to the max ,and think it’s automatic.The team has to be good enough talent wise ,but you have to have the right players in the locker room ,veteran players that have won a cup ,veterans who want to win a cup ,and young hungry players that are trying to keep there spot in the lineup ,or move up in TOI with your top 6 30+g scorers with the 3rd line being 20g scorers ,and a 4th line like the Adams family line capable of giving the team checking/PK ,and giving the team some offense as well ,and give the team 12:00 or better TOI ,if needed night to night.

The TB lightning and the Sabres this year have figured out you just can’t throw cash at any UFA add water and stir ,and win a cup it just don’t work that way without chemistry work ethic ,and having a complete team with the RIGHT player’s for all the grocery’s to make a dinner and not just spoil in the fridge , mix in the right cooks(coach/staff/GM) and then you have a shot ,but that same dinner has to be capable of being perfectly cooked 16 out of 28 times before the “drinks are served” ,because this is why the Stanley cup is the most coveted in all of major sports…It’s the hardest to win just ask Rod Brind’amour /Ray Borque/Lanny MacDonald or Dave Andreychuk…Oh wait you don’t have to ask just look at there face when the hoist the cup for the first time after chasing it there whole career.

by hellfish on Jan 7, 2012 4:29 PM EST reply actions

The gaps from team to team are so small that I’m not sure how much the individual rankings show. The one big gap, about $3M, is between 19 and 20. So what are the average rankings of the bottom 11 compared with the top 19? 16.09 vs. 15.05. For the top 11 the average is 13.27. If we only take bottom 10 and top 10, it’s 16.7 vs. 14.5.

Not so much at this point, interesting to see what the totals for the year will be.

by LewPuls1 on Jan 8, 2012 9:10 AM EST reply actions

Yes….these two measures…….standings verses spending can be cut in a number of ways. The whole thing is crux to the notion or demand that JR spend more to make the team better.

Trying to answer the question of how much is enough is difficult…..if you believe that higher spending yields winning then the Canes only have to spend about $3.8mm more than the current level to match the team who is currently 4th in the Eastern Conference, Florida. But we know that is not really true because of who we spend it on……….

by hurricanefever on Jan 8, 2012 1:56 PM EST up reply actions