While we are less than a quarter into the 2011-2012 season, one thing already seems apparent: teams with high payrolls are generally more successful than teams with low payrolls – no shock (to argue otherwise would defeat the purpose the salary cap).

Many disgruntled ‘Canes fans want to blame Paul Maurice for our troubles, but, as I attempted to point out last year, the blame should be placed squarely on our organizations failure/inability to spend money.  If you look at the statistics, given the actual payroll (via hockeybuzz.com), the Canes are actually playing better than their budget.  The big losers so far this season are Buffalo, Montreal, and Boston.  The big winners this season are Toronto, Florida, and Ottawa.  (Of course, please take into account that some teams have played more games than others (the season is still very young) and I have only evaluated Eastern Conference teams)

Regardless, many ‘Canes fans want to blame someone for our lackluster start, but lets make sure we blame the right person.

Now that the 2010-2011 regular season is over, it is time to evaluate the payrolls and overall rankings of every NHL team.  I created a spreadsheet, below, that at first glance ranks all NHL teams based upon actual season results.  Following actual ranking, please find a detailed analysis of the correlation between actual payroll and actual rank.  Teams that beat their ranking are ranked higher than those that did not; hence why Vancouver is ranked 16 – they provided the highest actual payroll, and achieved the highest season ranking, thus they received a “0” because they “broke even,” thereby taking into account the money they spent and their overall ranking.

Credit or discredit Vancouver for doing so, but this system is very mathematical and based upon teams “gambling” to do better; for example, Phoenix posted a cap rank of 23 yet ended up 11 in the overall NHL rankings (+12); in my mind, Phoenix deserves a lot more credit than Vancouver.  The exact opposite is NJ, wherein they provided a cap rank of 11 yet ended up 23 in the overall NHL rankings (-12).

Notably, the Hurricanes ended up ranking 7.  Blame Paul Maurice all you want, but given a cap rank of 24, and a final NHL position of 19, the Canes fared very well; kudos to Maurice for achieving well above the line; in fact, the Canes performed in the top 25% when taking into account actual payroll and overall ranking!

On a side note, the worst actual cap rank to make the playoffs goes to Phoenix, $48,762,500.  In a lot of ways, that is very frustrating - every playoff team spends more in actual cap dollars than the Hurricanes!!!!

NOTE:  I used PAYROLL (http://www.hockeybuzz.com/cap-central/index.php) rather than CAP PAYROLL.  My reason for doing so is that I want to compare teams evenly….who is on the ice is who matters the most to me!

First and foremost, I am incredibly irritated that we did not make the playoffs!  Moreover, I would like to know how much our failure to win against TB "mortgaged" our future?

Taking the prior sentence into account, on one end, PK and club stood to achieve a surplus of money by winning and making the playoffs, on the other, PK stood to be estopped from achieving ticket revenue for the rest of this season. 

Is it better that we missed the playoffs given his strict budget, or worse?

Had we made the playoffs, PK may have thought that there was no reason to invest more in the team; for example, he may have thought that “the ‘Canes are successful despite their budget limitations.”  Now that we missed the playoffs, will PK consider the fact that as a low budget team it is time to spend some money to make some money?

I don’t know.

Ultimately, are we better off for missing the playoffs?  Will the 2010-2011 ‘Canes result in PK spending more, or less?

Curious.  But I am interested in how other fans view the impact of management on a NHL team.

Three different categories (just three to keep it basic, I know there are many others) impact a teams ability to succeed:

1) Payroll

2) GM decisions

3) Coaching

I am trying to keep this to a management perspective, so, if you were given 10 points total to assign them weight, based upon importance, how would you apportion them?

Personally, I would place 4.5 points on Payroll, 3.5 points on GM decisions, and  2 points on Coaching.

I know that I have posted way too may fan posts on this topic, and I promise that this is my last one, at least until the end of the season.

As of todays date, only 9 teams have a difference between their budget ranking and NHL ranking of more than 5 spots.  The winners are Detroit, Tampa Bay, Phoenix, LA, and Dallas - they are cracking the barrier by outperforming significantly.  The losers are Calgary, NY Rangers, NJ, and Ottawa - they are lowering the bar by underperforming significantly.

The rest of the NHL, 21 of 30 teams, have a budget ranked within five spots of their actual NHL ranking.  Of these teams, Carolina is a +3 being a budget team at 24 but placed 21.

So while many people blame Maurice for being a poor coach, he is producing results similar to 21 other coaches in the league.  Yes, he is not the best.  No, he is not the worst.  But he is performing comparative to two-thirds of the coaches in the NHL, and with a current  +3, he is actually doing fairly well.

While Peter Laviolette struggled to coach the Canes post 2006, he seems to be doing quite well in Philly, is that a result of his talent, or budget?

If Maurice were fired, I doubt anyone else could do significantly better; so would begin a constant circle of head coaches.

Data is below.

I find it extremely interesting to evaluate the correlation between NHL Rankings and $'s spent on payroll.  Based on my research (this season), more than two-thirds of the teams rank within five spots of their relative salary payroll when compared to their actual NHL ranking.  Only two teams deviate in the top ten, and they are ranked number 8 and 9 respectively.

There is a direct correlation between budget and performance, as I expected, if not, there would be no need for a salary cap.

Please find my research below, should you have any questions, I am more than happy to explain.

PS:  Acceptability is based on a teams ability to stay within five spots of its payroll and team standing, if positive, it is acceptable, otherwise, it is unacceptable.

After reading numerous canescountry threads/articles over the past week, one concern seems to prevail among fans - Mo must Go.

I ask why?

Mo may be a .500 coach (per what I have read on this site from fellow postings, I didn't research it), but, look at the teams he has worked with.  'Canes refuse to spend money, and the Maple Leafs aren't exactly exactly a top spender either.

It is only fair to judge Mo based upon what he has been provided.  He never received the reigns of Washington, Vancouver, San Jose, Philly, Detroit or Pittsburgh (to name a few).  He has never had the opportunity to work with a team spending up to the budget.

So, if you want Mo to Go, who would you recommend to take his place?  Furthermore, do you consider a Stanley Cup winner like Bylsma to be better (even though he was coaching minor leagues that year and inherited Crosby and Malkin)?

Personally, I don't blame Mo.  But, if you want to, thats fine, just respectfully provide me with a coach that could do better under PKs' budget plan.

Please, prove me wrong.

So the 'Canes lost a big game in D.C.  Who do we blame?

Maurice is a tough-nosed hockey coach working within a sub-par organization unwilling to spend money; do we blame him, or PK for failing to open up the wallet at the beginning of the season and/or during free agency?  (Can't really blame JR because he is stuck with what PK gives him, and he does a darn good job (if not the best in hockey) with what little he is given.)

Its easy to blame the coach, but Maurice has NOTHING to work with!  Everyone wants to blame the coach, but cmon....look at our cap!  This is not unexpected!  Its a terrible predicament, but, I don't blame Maurice; he doesn't have the talent to work with like some NHL teams and is therefore forced to improvise and simply hope for the best. 

At what point do we all sit back and realize that PK, as I said numerous times last year, crapped on our team to maximize short term profits?

Although I am severely irritated after the Caps game, which is seething through this comment (especially after what SHOULD have been goal number 2 was called OFF BY A PREMATURE WHISTLE), I find it hard to place blame outside of our ownership.

(I actually like Maurice quite a bit more after "reading his lips" in the what he said to the officials after the goal was called off...for those that didn't watch, it was a four letter word ending with the word "you.")

Sometimes you have to spend some money in order to make some money, and it seems that PK is content where he is...so we must all enjoy mediocrity until he chooses otherwise.

If you want to place blame, start at the top, and if you don't find fault, then follow to the next level.  I personally find no reason to go past the "P"ea"K" in the "blame game."

I apologize if I am ranting and raving, as I find that I am.  I am not only irritated after our loss, but am irritated at the state of our organization.

Agree, hate, or disregard this fanpost; whether I am right or wrong, its just the way that I feel.

Bleh.

Well, its about that time of the year, and we are unfortunately on the cusp of earning a playoff spot (I would rather be a "shoe-in," but, thats not the case.)  Anyway, since we are fighting for a seven or eight seed, I tend to check this website daily to view our "odds"-

 http://www.sportsclubstats.com/NHL/Eastern/Southeast/Hurricanes.html

I am not sure how accurate it is as a predictor, but, it seems to be decent.  If you think it is wrong or find fault in its method, please let me know!

Thanks.

(need to change my name to KensingtonCaniac!  Living  in Craps Country now! LOL)

This "story headline" is the quote I found on msn.com.  The article that follows is http://www.foxsportscarolinas.com/11/10/10/Young-Gun/landing.html?blockID=349471&feedID=3736

Although the 'Canes have played less than a quarter of the season, Skinner is looking fantastic.  I am hesitant to judge this young kid so early, but I am buying into the media, and given what I have seen, I think this kid is pretty special. 

Thanks to JR and crew during the draft, it looks like we may have snagged a real gem in Skinner.  Anyway, I just wanted to share the article for those that may have not seen it, I am not sure how long MSN keeps articles up.

GO 'CANES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This season will probably consist of some unbelievable wins, and some unbelievable losses.  I expect this year to be up and down, it is going to be a “hot and cold” season.  While the ‘Canes are very unlikely to fight for the cup this year, there is one thing for certain, this young team is able to wield a wrecking ball worth of damage to some of the contenders – after all, they are, “young and bold.”

Playoff spots are often decided by 1 or 2 points, sometime, like last year, they can be decided by a shootout.

If you had to place your bet, who will the 2010-2011 ‘Canes hurt the most?

I came across this article today and found it to be quite interesting - http://msn.foxsports.com/nhl/story/Time-for-the-NHL-to-cut-goalie-trapezoid-081710; the article pertains to the “Brodeur Rule.” “After the 2004–05 lockout and before the start of the 2005–06 season, the league instituted a new rule preventing goaltenders from playing the puck behind the goal line, except within a trapezoid-shaped zone located behind the net.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Brodeur Since this rule influenced what I believe to be the greatest NHL season of all time, I am hesitant to ask for change.  However, during the 2009 General Managers’ Meeting this rule was re-evaluated and it was decided that it should remain in place.

Both sides have compelling arguments.  For example, proponents for the rule argue that allowing a goalie to move outside the trapezoid allows them to quickly fling dump-ins out, without forcing players to battle for the puck in front of the net.  Opponents argue that the rule causes more injuries because it forces players to race down the ice at full speed to handle the puck, only to get drilled into the boards. 

What do you think of the rule?

Dear NJ Devils:

I would like to thank you for your recent contract signing of Mr. Kovalchuk. http://msn.foxsports.com/nhl/story/Ilya-Kovalchuk-stays-with-New-Jersey-Devils-071910  Although he will remain on your books until the 2026-2027 season, I am sure that this contract will work out very well for you.  Prior to your recent agreement, Mr. DiPietro was my hero; he played 13 games in the past two seasons (with 3 HUGE wins) and signed a similarly long contract not long ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_DiPietro However, given your blazen ability to create even better contracts in the Northeast, I have decided that Mr. Kovalchuk is now my true hero.  I am sure that he will be awesome well into his forties.  Just because Rod-“the bod”-Brind'Amour, the true hero of NHL physique, the man himself that used to "work out" after games, ride stationary bikes for hours, eventually, somehow, amazingly, slowed down nearing his forties, despite the fact that he probably could still last longer on the ice than a youthful prospect, is not evidence that Mr. Kovalchuk will.  I bet it took so long to sign him because unlike "Rod-The-Bod," Kovalchuk wasn’t on a stationary bike, he was busy biking in the Tour De France.

Best wishes in the future, I am thrilled that your team is in the Eastern Conference.

Yours truly,

Pittsburghcaniac

Some ‘Canes fans (myself included) have been very frustrated given recent events; it began with the 2010-2011 cap max and steam-rolled straight through the draft.  While the prior warrants frustration, the latter should not be a product thereof, and I think that in some cases, it has been.

Regardless, while we can criticize the ‘Canes right now for their “cap control,” we cannot criticize them for their draft picks (as long as the selection wasn’t timely unreasonable), at least not for a few years; and if they are right, those that would like to criticize today would surely keep their “keyboards” shut tomorrow.

I guess what it really comes down to is - hope.

I hope that this cap restriction only lasts for a year; I hope that this team can be great; I hope that this team is great; I hope that the ‘Canes someday win another cup. 

As much as this team has provided for us over the past decade, I guess we can at least buy a little “hope” from them right now – in more ways than not, they deserve it.  Whether that “hope” continues past this year is another matter, but for right now, I hope it all works out.

Wikipedia tends to be factually based - so I find this article to be rather unbiased (give or take others may disagree - and very very rightfully so).  Instead of risking a copyright violation, please take a look at this article explaining how/why PK moved the Hartford Whalers to Carolina:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartford_Whalers#Departure_from_Hartford

He moved them once, will he move them again?  Are we beginning to see the end of the Carolina Hurricanes because PK seeks a more profitable venue?  I don't know; but it surely seems possible given his track record. 

On that note, I am EXTREMELY curious as to PK's contractual obligations with the newly built RBC center; only there will we find the true answer; would he move them today if he wasn't concerned about the financial cost of breaching a contract?

Peter Karmanos wants the ‘Canes organization to work just hard enough to be profitable.

I must admit, I really like thrifty stores such as the Dollar Store, Kmart, Target, and Walmart.  I don't expect great results at those stores; I expect just enough to get by for my bare minimum needs.  Those places know that, they sell it, I know that, and I buy it - our expectations are fairly similar.

The ‘Canes are different – they don’t want us to know that we should expect the bare minimum.  I have read statements on this site such as "transitioning to a spending model which will hopefully show potential investors that the franchise can be profitable, even if they do not make it to the playoffs...likely that more emphasis will be placed upon the club to be a self sufficient entity, if not profitable....”  While they aren’t quotes from the Canes organization, they solidly represent their current “state of mind.”

Profit matters the most to PK, not success, because if you look at the latter, the Canes have been one of the most successful teams in the past decade (three eastern conference finals, two cup finals, and one stanley cup).  But, in the end, their success is fruitless because they cannot maintain a constant year to year profit.  Yes, we all feel bad that PK sported an expensive team that didn’t make any money this year.  Yes, we were all thrilled in 2006 when PK sported a team that made a ton of money winning a cup.  Yes, we feel bad that his co-owner passed away (as people and hockey fans, it is terrible).  Yes, we all understand things may be a little tough.

 Regardless, how bad will we feel when PK begins to sell us a sub-par organization as a result of his personal profit expectations?  Well, we will find out in less than four months.

I love the ‘Canes, and I have really enjoyed watching them play extremely competitive hockey over the past decade.  While there have been a few hiccups here and there, they have been a lot of fun.  Unfortunately, I think this will change, I think that the ‘Canes organization wants to play just well enough to be profitable; when they no longer achieve that, I expect them to move.

Good faith, that is all I ask from PK, and that is what is lacking.  With a salary cap in the mid to low 40s, they may be profitable, but they will not be successful, and I think he could care less.

Thanks for the good times PK, and I wish you the best in selling the team and/or moving it to a more “profitable” place….you are truly a (fill in blanks)

Before you disregard this article, please take a quick look at the history of the Pittsburgh Penguins:

2003 - #1 Draft Pick (through Florida, originally a #3) - Fleury

2004 - #2 Draft Pick - Malkin

2005 - #1 Draft Pick - Crosby

2006 - #2 Draft Pick - J. Staal

The problem with the NHL is quite simple: players take time to develop, and during their developmental stages, they are paid nominal salaries and typically do not influence their team.  One can argue that Fleury, Malkin, Crosby and Staal had an initial impact, however, with the exception of Staal, as proven through the Penguins final draft positions from 2003-2005, that argument is quickly dissolved.  But, over time, top draft picks typically develop into quality NHL players.

The moral of the story, much like the Penguins, is that if you want to win, be bad….be bad for a very long time.  Ultimately, the delayed effect will work in your favor. 

I refuse to congratulate the Pittsburgh Penguins for their recent accomplishments.  I cannot commend a team for results premised upon multiple years of terrible play; the delay in player development has led to their prosperity, it isn’t fair, but it is the way the NHL draft is built.

After receiving multiple high first round draft picks, in harmony with fantastic management, the Penguins went from a team on the verge of relocating, to the "baby" of the NHL.  With Crosby, Malkin, Fleury, J. Staal, and others, all within the scope of Mario Lemieux's employment, Bettman and the NHL have aligned with the Penguins for the true "benefit" of the NHL. 

While many Penguins players have gathered national attention, and deservedly so, when is enough, enough?  When will the NHL stop treating the Penguins as the sellers of 'center ice', and force them to respond for their "ill" actions as other teams are expected to do so?

That hit by Cooke was brutal; his skates shifted toward Savard, his shoulder went down, and he sent him out on a stretcher.  Regardless, the NHL refused to hold Cooke accountable.  But which hit was worse, the one by Cooke, or the one by the NHL when they failed to take action?

Enough is Enough.