Let's take a look (from http://capgeek.com/):
As you can see, Philadelphia, Vancouver, and Washington are very near (or above in some cases) the cap ceiling. Philly is 5th in the league and 5th in the East, Vancouver is 4th in the league and 2nd in the West, Washington is 19th in the league and 8th in the East. So we can assume bluntly; having a high salary cap proves relatively well in the standings.
Then you can noticeably see many teams that are contrary to this: The Colorado Avalanche, with a whopping 15mil cap space remaining but are doing relatively well--9th in the West. The Dallas Stars, with cap space of 14.5mil remaining, but are in 8th in the West. And more noticeable and well-known: The Nashville Predators with 12.7mil cap space--5th in the West, and the St. Louis Blues with 9.4mil cap space--1st in the NHL and 1st in the West.
So what i'm saying is: Seeing as how there is a relation in how much you spend on your roster to make it the best it can be (cap ceiling vs cap floor spending franchise) to how well the team actually does in the league standings--How do the Canucks stand up to other teams in terms of smart spending (good contracts), the level of talent achieved with the said spending, and if the other teams DID spend like the Canucks do (near or above the cap ceiling), would it affect the standings and in turn, our placement in the playoffs/league?
I can't imagine if St. Louis or Nashville spent what they could; essentially St. Louis, with 9.4mil cap space, could add a legitimate top 6 forward and a top 4 defenseman, and Nashville, with 12mil in cap space, could KEEP Weber and Suter, and even add more players to their already strong roster.
Edited by Millennium, 23 March 2012 - 10:49 PM.