If you had $64,000,000, how would you build your NHL Team?

Welcome to the main forum of our site. Anything and everything to do with the Vancouver Canucks is dicussed and debated here.

Moderator: Referees

Re: If you had $64,000,000, how would you build your NHL Tea

Postby The Brown Knight » Sat Oct 26, 2013 8:58 am

Knucklehead wrote:I think the current Canuck lineup would kick the shit out of your ideal lineup, not with physicality but with actual hockey skills.

Once we got back our injured players and it would be no contest, I think you overate the physical side of the game a wee bit!

edit: if you value centers so much where the hell is Crosby or Malkin, or did you just forget about them?


My "final" line up was just an example and a template for what I was talking about. I would try and have a few more kids in the line-up playing wing.

In one of my earlier editions when I created a team, I had Sidney Crosby as my #1 center and David Backes as my #2.

In that last line -up that I posted, I had the 12th overall pick if I recall correctly, and so after weighing age, salary, potential, etc, I chose Anze Kopitar with my first selection, and Jared Staal with my second.

You are probably right that I am overrating the physical side a wee bit. However, with each of those line-ups, speed is definitely not an asset but I don't think it's a liability either. With the exception of Ryan Malone, most of the guys I listed have fairly respectable skating ability.

With that line-up however, it's not just the physical prowess of that team which is solid. The overall defensive savviness of that team ranks quite high as well. In selecting my teams, a player must rank high in BOTH physicality and defensive savviness. The only time I would allow a slight slack in defensive savviness,is if they are off the charts physical (I.e. Chris Neil).
"I post the Brown Way" ~ Connor McHindu"

The Dark Indian Rises
User avatar
The Brown Knight
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1037
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:42 am

Re: If you had $64,000,000, how would you build your NHL Tea

Postby The Brown Knight » Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:17 am

Cookie La Rue wrote:Are you playing EA Sports too much?


In one word, "yes." :D

However, I've spent as much time on 'Be a GM' mode as much as actual game playing.

As another poster alluded to, I probably am overrating the physical side of the game a little too much, but it's just my personal preference when I actually do play the game.


I'll also say one thing:

IF a team or a GM decides to build it's defense with depth as opposed to 1-2 franchise defensemen, followed by second tier defensemen (I.e. 4-5 top four quality defensemen, as opposed to 1-2 franchise defensemen followed by second tier D's between #3 and #7), then your team should have atleast ONE young blue chip defenseman that has a reasonable chance at becoming a superstar defenseman.

The Canucks with Alex Edler, is a good example of this (although I'm not sure if Edler will reach those heights as once was projected).
"I post the Brown Way" ~ Connor McHindu"

The Dark Indian Rises
User avatar
The Brown Knight
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1037
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:42 am

Re: If you had $64,000,000, how would you build your NHL Tea

Postby The_Pauser » Sun Oct 27, 2013 11:49 am

I regret wasting 120 seconds skimming through this thread. :drink:
The_Pauser
CC 2nd Team All-Star
 
Posts: 338
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 10:21 pm
Location: Surrey, BC

Interesting results from my informal research:

Postby The Brown Knight » Fri Nov 01, 2013 9:14 am

Interesting results from my informal research:

So lately, I've been split testing between two contrasting philosophies:

Option A: Spending top coin for the top centers in the league (the "opportunity cost" of which results in less money being allocated towards the 3rd/4th lines.......which most likely results in less overall depth.

Option B: For your top players, focusing more on cost-effective salaries and cap hits even if it means NOT being able to attract the very best player(s) in the league. For instance - instead of selecting a guy like Sidney Crosby, Steve Stamkos, or Shea Weber as your top selection, selecting a guy like David Krejci instead.......which would allow one to hypothetically allocate more $$$$ towards your bottom six.......and hence, likely resulting in greater depth.

My studies indicate that Option B (i.e. taking a 'cost-effective' approach for your top stars......So as a GM, getting players to agree to more long term cap friendly contracts so that more money can be allocate in other areas) is a significantly better approach.

The greater the parity between the highest earning players on a team and the lowest earning players on a team, the more likely this team will have more overall depth and the more likely that this team will be far more successful.

Perhaps the best example illustrating this above principle, was the series between the Boston Bruins and Pitsburgh Penguins last year (I haven't looked at the salary structures for both teams but at the top of my head, I suspect that Pitsburgh had much larger contracts than Boston in terms of specific allocations towards certain players......i.e. Crosby, Malkin).

The Los Angeles Kings are an excellent example of a team that has gotten its top players to "buy in" to more cost-effective contracts so that there can be more depth throughout the line-up. Mike Richards, Jeff Carter, Jonathan Quick, and even Anze Kopitar could be guys that fall under this category (I haven't checked the salaries of Dustin Brown or Drew Doughty as of yet).

Our team, the Vancouver Canucks, have also been excellent at signing its top players to cost effective cap hits (i.e. Sedin twins, Kesler, Luongo). Unfortunately, unlike LA or Boston however - we overallocated our cap towards players who we thought were going to be better than they actually were (i.e. Keith Ballard, David Booth).

Stanley Cup Champions since the 2004 lock-out:

I'd be interested to see the cap structures of the following teams:

-Carolina Hurricanes 2006
-Anaheim Ducks 2007
-Detroit Redwings 2008
-Pitsburgh Penguins 2009
-Chicago Blackhawks 2010
-Boston Bruins 2011
-Los Angeles Kings 2012
-Chicago Blackhawks 2013

My hypothesis is this: NONE of these teams consisted of any players that had a player in the top 3 or even top 5 as far as cap hits went.

My guess is that when the Penguins won their cup, Crosby and Malkin weren't at their current cap hits. Ditto for Anaheim with Perry and Getzlaf (editors note: I know for a fact that they weren't).

Odd conclusion: In conclusion, if someone were to ask me if I would rather have Crosby and Malkin as my top two centers, or perhaps David Krejci and Mike Richards instead, I might actually be inclined to go with the latter........since I'd have FAR more money to play with for depth. However - it all becomes a moot point if you make poor selections for your 2nd-4th line players (i.e. Mike Gillis with David Booth). Assuming a perfect hypothetical situation however, opting to go with top-end players at cost-effective salaries, which can result in stronger allocation towards the rest of the line-up, is the better way to go.
"I post the Brown Way" ~ Connor McHindu"

The Dark Indian Rises
User avatar
The Brown Knight
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1037
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:42 am

Re: If you had $64,000,000, how would you build your NHL Tea

Postby sagebrush » Fri Nov 01, 2013 10:35 am

Somebody has waaay too much time on their hands.
User avatar
sagebrush
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 815
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 12:36 pm

Re: Interesting results from my informal research:

Postby dbr » Fri Nov 01, 2013 11:22 am

The Brown Knight wrote:My studies indicate that Option B (i.e. taking a 'cost-effective' approach for your top stars......So as a GM, getting players to agree to more long term cap friendly contracts so that more money can be allocate in other areas) is a significantly better approach.


Help me out here, is your point that teams should make it a priority to spend a bunch of money on their depth players so as to achieve this parity, or is your point that teams should get good players signed to reasonable contracts?
dbr
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2554
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 5:37 pm

Re: If you had $64,000,000, how would you build your NHL Tea

Postby The Brown Knight » Fri Nov 01, 2013 11:24 am

Very interesting:

http://www.puckreport.com/2013/01/2013- ... it-by.html

2013-2014 NHL Player Cap Hit By Position

Forwards $m Defensemen $m Goalies $m
Ovechkin 9.538 Weber 7.857 Rinne 7.0
Crosby 8.7 Suter 7.538 Rask 7.0
Malkin 8.7 Campbell 7.142 Lundqvist 6.875
Perry 8.625 Doughty 7.0 Price 6.5
E. Staal 8.25 Chara 6.916 Ward 6.3
Getzlaf 8.25 Bouwmeester 6.68 Miller 6.25
Nash 7.8 Boyle 6.666 Lehtonen 5.9
Parise 7.538 Phaneuf 6.5 Kiprusoff 5.833
Heatley 7.5 Karlsson 6.5 Quick 5.8
Gaborik 7.5 Pietrangelo 6.5 Smith 5.666
Stamkos 7.5

The key thing to note here is the peculiarly LOW number of players on this list that belong to Chicago, Boston, and Los Angeles. Chicago has won the cup twice over the past 3 years, and have zero players on the above list! Boston has 2 players, while Los Angeles has 2. However - LA and Boston's 2 player are either goalies or defensemen.

It would appear to me that depth at center is the most important determining factor in terms of building a championship team, but that taking a cost effective approach for your star centers up front is the most effective approach. Boston for instance, don't have a Crosby or a Malkin, but they have guys like Krejci and Bergeron.......and with the freed up budget, allowed them to invest in elite 3rd/4th line centers such as Chris Kelly and Richard Peverly.

Los Angeles Kings had Anze Kopitar, Jeff Carter, Mike Richards, Jarret Stoll, etc. at center. Cost efficiency/depth was really at play here as you can see.

I haven't looked up Chicago and Detroit, but my guess is that they are operating along the same lines.......the same model.
"I post the Brown Way" ~ Connor McHindu"

The Dark Indian Rises
User avatar
The Brown Knight
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1037
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:42 am

Re: Interesting results from my informal research:

Postby The Brown Knight » Fri Nov 01, 2013 11:30 am

dbr wrote:Help me out here, is your point that teams should make it a priority to spend a bunch of money on their depth players so as to achieve this parity, or is your point that teams should get good players signed to reasonable contracts?


Both. :). And yes.

Try and sign top end talent to very cost effective contracts........so that a team will have enough money/budget to invest in players that are probably good enough to play on the 2nd line, but would play on the 3rd line as a result of your depth. 3rd line calibre players would be on your 4th line.

(i.e. simplistic example: A team builds by having a Dave Krejci and Mike Richards at center, so that they have enough budget to acquire someone like Brooks Laich and/or Steve Ott for your 3rd lines.

Greater parity amongst salaries within a team.

Top end players signed at cost-effective salaries, so that one can invest heavier into the depth positions.
"I post the Brown Way" ~ Connor McHindu"

The Dark Indian Rises
User avatar
The Brown Knight
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1037
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:42 am

Re: If you had $64,000,000, how would you build your NHL Tea

Postby dbr » Fri Nov 01, 2013 11:47 am

Hmm, so signing players to contracts and then having them outperform those contracts is the key to being successful in the NHL. Interesting.
dbr
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2554
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 5:37 pm

Re: If you had $64,000,000, how would you build your NHL Tea

Postby BurningBeard » Fri Nov 01, 2013 11:50 am

dbr wrote:Hmm, so signing players to contracts and then having them outperform those contracts is the key to being successful in the NHL. Interesting.

You're selling yourself short burying this revelation on page two. You should start a new thread.
Every time I look out my window, same three dogs looking back at me.
User avatar
BurningBeard
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 929
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 9:02 pm

Re: If you had $64,000,000, how would you build your NHL Tea

Postby The Brown Knight » Fri Nov 01, 2013 12:02 pm

dbr wrote:Hmm, so signing players to contracts and then having them outperform those contracts is the key to being successful in the NHL. Interesting.


Yes and no.

While I don't think that too many people will argue that guys like Crosby and Stamkos are worth every single penny that they're earning (i.e. outperforming their contracts), my point is that depth is key......and that the way you achieve true organizational depth (via signing 2nd line calibre players to play on the 3rd line, 3rd line calibre to 4th, 3rd/4th defensive pairings to play 5th/6th, etc.), is by signing your top end players to cost-effective contracts.

Assume all players on both teams below "out-perform" their contracts:

Team A: Top end talent (i.e. 7-8 million dollar range). Bottom talent (i.e. $450,000-$1,000,000).
Team B: Top end talent (i.e. 5.5.-6.5 million dollar range). Bottom talent (i.e. $2,000,000-$3,500,000)

I believe that Team B will beat Team A on an average of 7/8 times out of 10.

Not a 1:1 analogy, but the Bruins/Pens series from last spring could be an example of what I'm talking about.
"I post the Brown Way" ~ Connor McHindu"

The Dark Indian Rises
User avatar
The Brown Knight
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1037
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:42 am

Re: If you had $64,000,000, how would you build your NHL Tea

Postby dbr » Fri Nov 01, 2013 12:48 pm

The Bruins built their team around an enormous contract they signed Zdeno Chara to (it was 17% of the cap ceiling in the first year or to put it another way it was 85% of the maximum NHL salary that year)... smack dab in the middle of that $7-8m range as a matter of fact.

Of course under your $64,000,000 figure that contract is equivalent to nearly $11m.

So I mean your analogy is just completely broken and once you improve it to the point where there is enough nuance to actually reflect reality there's not much to be taken from it beyond insights like "so signing players to contracts and then having them outperform those contracts is the key to being successful in the NHL."

Interesting.
dbr
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2554
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 5:37 pm

Re: If you had $64,000,000, how would you build your NHL Tea

Postby The Brown Knight » Fri Nov 01, 2013 12:55 pm

dbr wrote:The Bruins built their team around an enormous contract they signed Zdeno Chara to (it was 17% of the cap ceiling in the first year or to put it another way it was 85% of the maximum NHL salary that year)... smack dab in the middle of that $7-8m range as a matter of fact.



"That year" was during the 06/07 season when, if I recall correctly, the Bruins weren't all that good.

In terms of the cap ceiling, what was the percentage of that 7.5 million cap hit in 2010/2011?

http://www.capgeek.com/player/216
"I post the Brown Way" ~ Connor McHindu"

The Dark Indian Rises
User avatar
The Brown Knight
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1037
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:42 am

Re: If you had $64,000,000, how would you build your NHL Tea

Postby The Brown Knight » Fri Nov 01, 2013 12:59 pm

The Brown Knight wrote:
dbr wrote:The Bruins built their team around an enormous contract they signed Zdeno Chara to (it was 17% of the cap ceiling in the first year or to put it another way it was 85% of the maximum NHL salary that year)... smack dab in the middle of that $7-8m range as a matter of fact.



"That year" was during the 06/07 season when, if I recall correctly, the Bruins weren't all that good.

In terms of the cap ceiling, what was the percentage of that 7.5 million cap hit in 2010/2011?

http://www.capgeek.com/player/216


http://proicehockey.about.com/od/learnt ... ry_cap.htm

•Previous NHL Salary caps:
2011-12: $64.3 million
2010-11: $59.4 million
2009-10: $56.8 million
2008-09: $56.7 million
2007-08: $50.3 million
2006-07: $44 million
2005-06: $39 million
"I post the Brown Way" ~ Connor McHindu"

The Dark Indian Rises
User avatar
The Brown Knight
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1037
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:42 am

Re: If you had $64,000,000, how would you build your NHL Tea

Postby dbr » Fri Nov 01, 2013 1:04 pm

Who cares?

The cap was less than $64m so given that $7.5m already falls under that "7-8 million dollar range" it's probably pretty safe to say that it did so (or exceeded it) when prorated from any previous season.
dbr
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2554
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 5:37 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Canucks Corner Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Cookie La Rue, Google [Bot], vic and 5 guests