What do you think is the $M/win value for guys on entry level contracts with bonuses? Much cheaper than RFAs I’m assuming. I’m just wondering what ratio of UFAs, RFAs, and entry level guys is best for a team given a particular salary. With the current Kovalchuk contract negotiations some bloggers are saying it probably won’t be worth it.

Nice work Hawerchuk.

I have a few thoughts:

1. I would be curious to see the AVG $/win for the RFA/UFA split since the lockout. My guess is that RFAs get shorter contracts, but that’s just a guess.

2. Your analysis assumes a linear relationship between $ spent and wins, but not all wins are created equal. For example, if Kovalchuk is traded to LA, and they win a playoff series, then those wins are worth more to LA than if he was traded to Team X that doesn’t make the playoffs. NHL teams make more $ from the playoffs on a per game basis, and since every extra playoff game = win, teams may feel their ROI is better based on the “playoff payoff” (say that three times fast) they may get, thus “overpaying,” but in reality it is a good investment.

3. VUKOTA does take into account “replacement” level, but I am not sure replacement level is the same in baseball (where it originated) as it is in hockey. In hockey, time is just shifted around to other players, it isn’t given to just the replacement. In baseball, ABs can’t be distributed. I am also not sold on VUKOTA as a eval tool, but that’s a discussion for a different day.

4. Players like Ovechkin, Kovalchuk, Crosby, etc. are the extremes which I don’t think lend themselves to this type of analysis. They carry so much more intrinsic value to a team aside from just wins. Kovalchuk is a perfect example: He could very well be the deciding factor in if Atlanta even HAS a team.