OK, so we don't need to shed another tear for Scott Gomez, the league and players' association that were stubborn and stupid enough to squander a whole half season, have grasped their rush of common sense to make a very common sense fix to the Gomez problem (and for others like him: Redden).
Instead of having to sit for this season, they have made a scheme whereby a player can be bought out now and released from all the clauses that tie the buyout to health, etc. For the team and the salary cap, the effects are the same. The sole purpose of this new move is to be kinder to players like Gomez.
Showing posts with label salary cap. Show all posts
Showing posts with label salary cap. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Monday, January 14, 2013
What To Make of Gomez
My first reaction to the news of Gomez's early morning meeting with the principal was one of slight disgust.
Told to stay home? This was not the way to treat a player under contract. This was not the team that we tout as being class of all known teams.
Told to stay home? This was not the way to treat a player under contract. This was not the team that we tout as being class of all known teams.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
The Parties In Negotiation
The NHL collective bargaining process is starting to get interesting.
The storyline we are going to live with for the next month (months if we take a cynical view) is Team Owner vs. Team Player.
You know, if it were really that simple, I think this thing would get settled. The complexity of the thing is really much greater.
The storyline we are going to live with for the next month (months if we take a cynical view) is Team Owner vs. Team Player.
You know, if it were really that simple, I think this thing would get settled. The complexity of the thing is really much greater.
Friday, June 24, 2011
Philly's Mess Catches Up With Them
Richards, Carter. Gone, gone.
This good news for the Habs is ostensibly bad news for the Flyers and their fans. Richards and Carter were a big part of the Flyers success and a huge reason the team ever got close to a Stanley Cup without a goalie.
But that's where it all goes wrong isn't it?
Without a goalie.
For most teams, not having a good goalie is a problem. For Philadelphia it's a brain-devouring complex. That's why instead of applying a bit of patience and recognizing what a good thing they may have pulled from thin air in Bobrovsky, they went out and did what they always did and signed, signed, signed.
Bryzgalov is a good goalie, don't get me wrong. I like him, I like his chances in Philly. But you will note that Anaheim let him go, that Phoenix let him go, that Phoenix doesn't have any Cups.
A goalie simply can't do it all. Let me rephrase that, a goalie not named Thomas or Hasek can't do it all. A team needs to put talent at all positions and use their salary allowance wisely to do that.
Philly's real problems
A lot of articles on yesterday's trades say things like "Holmgren managed to unload Carter's long-term contract/Richards salary cap millstone".
I think these comments are way off the mark. Both players were paid in the $5 million range and both performed to the level of their salary, which in the world of guys paid that much means they were bargains.
What's more, the salary cap hasn't been going anywhere but up, even through the worst financial period in modern US/Canadian history. As the proportion that a $5 million salary takes up shrinks, the better a long-term deal for a producing player paid at that level looks.
Saying nothing about intangibles at all, I can firmly say that Richards and Carter were not the salary cap problems in Philadelphia. If anything, they were among the contracts that permitted them to spend with abandon at times.
The real problems in Philly come in at the back end.
The Pronger deal wasn't expensive at the time, but it was a gaffe to sign him long-term past his 35th birthday. This contract is central to their problem.
Timonen is another. If Price/Halak was a luxury, Pronger/Timonen was a bigger one. Both players are paid to be #1 Dmen, but the name implies there can only be one #1 Dman. The other became the most expensive second fiddle in the league.
And it didn't stop there. Rather than fill out a roster like everyone else in the league would with prospects and a couple of cheaper contracts at the back (to defend other teams' fourth lines), Holmgren put $3 million players at every hole.
The Flyers biggest cap problem was their luxury defense, which got them 7th best D in the East with 6 less GA than Florida.
Other than their $22 million defence corps, Philly also took on the dead weight contract of Kris Versteeg. In fact, they repeated their luxury buying attitude up front with a third line that included double millionaires all around.
Fix is temporary
Philly found a temporary fix for immediate cap space, but based on the Bryzgalov signing, it won't be used for prudent and conservative rebuilding. In fact, when the grossly overpaid forward comes in as the replacement for Carter/Richards, fans will most likely be wondering what these deals were for.
Habs news more encouraging
The Habs did better in the last couple of days with their signings and seem less likely to implode their plan and go schizophrenically down the garden path. While I'll always lament Gauthier for not getting in on action like Ville Leino or Andrej Meszaros, I at least admire his commitment to the plan he thought was working last spring. Holmgren on the other hand...
The Flyers moves do also serve the Habs well since this team was a chief rival and those two players were chief nemeses. Some fans will point to the danger of the rebuild for the Habs more distant future, but the contracts at the back, together with the quick trigger of Holmgren seem to provide the insurance that this team won't be a perennial problem.
I guess this whole thing just shows that making a cap mess will catch up with your team at some point. Chicago's mess cost them a lot, but they have a Cup to show for it. Philly, mere games away, just got a mess.
This good news for the Habs is ostensibly bad news for the Flyers and their fans. Richards and Carter were a big part of the Flyers success and a huge reason the team ever got close to a Stanley Cup without a goalie.
But that's where it all goes wrong isn't it?
Without a goalie.
For most teams, not having a good goalie is a problem. For Philadelphia it's a brain-devouring complex. That's why instead of applying a bit of patience and recognizing what a good thing they may have pulled from thin air in Bobrovsky, they went out and did what they always did and signed, signed, signed.
Bryzgalov is a good goalie, don't get me wrong. I like him, I like his chances in Philly. But you will note that Anaheim let him go, that Phoenix let him go, that Phoenix doesn't have any Cups.
A goalie simply can't do it all. Let me rephrase that, a goalie not named Thomas or Hasek can't do it all. A team needs to put talent at all positions and use their salary allowance wisely to do that.
Philly's real problems
A lot of articles on yesterday's trades say things like "Holmgren managed to unload Carter's long-term contract/Richards salary cap millstone".
I think these comments are way off the mark. Both players were paid in the $5 million range and both performed to the level of their salary, which in the world of guys paid that much means they were bargains.
What's more, the salary cap hasn't been going anywhere but up, even through the worst financial period in modern US/Canadian history. As the proportion that a $5 million salary takes up shrinks, the better a long-term deal for a producing player paid at that level looks.
Saying nothing about intangibles at all, I can firmly say that Richards and Carter were not the salary cap problems in Philadelphia. If anything, they were among the contracts that permitted them to spend with abandon at times.
The real problems in Philly come in at the back end.
The Pronger deal wasn't expensive at the time, but it was a gaffe to sign him long-term past his 35th birthday. This contract is central to their problem.
Timonen is another. If Price/Halak was a luxury, Pronger/Timonen was a bigger one. Both players are paid to be #1 Dmen, but the name implies there can only be one #1 Dman. The other became the most expensive second fiddle in the league.
And it didn't stop there. Rather than fill out a roster like everyone else in the league would with prospects and a couple of cheaper contracts at the back (to defend other teams' fourth lines), Holmgren put $3 million players at every hole.
The Flyers biggest cap problem was their luxury defense, which got them 7th best D in the East with 6 less GA than Florida.
Other than their $22 million defence corps, Philly also took on the dead weight contract of Kris Versteeg. In fact, they repeated their luxury buying attitude up front with a third line that included double millionaires all around.
Fix is temporary
Philly found a temporary fix for immediate cap space, but based on the Bryzgalov signing, it won't be used for prudent and conservative rebuilding. In fact, when the grossly overpaid forward comes in as the replacement for Carter/Richards, fans will most likely be wondering what these deals were for.
Habs news more encouraging
The Habs did better in the last couple of days with their signings and seem less likely to implode their plan and go schizophrenically down the garden path. While I'll always lament Gauthier for not getting in on action like Ville Leino or Andrej Meszaros, I at least admire his commitment to the plan he thought was working last spring. Holmgren on the other hand...
The Flyers moves do also serve the Habs well since this team was a chief rival and those two players were chief nemeses. Some fans will point to the danger of the rebuild for the Habs more distant future, but the contracts at the back, together with the quick trigger of Holmgren seem to provide the insurance that this team won't be a perennial problem.
I guess this whole thing just shows that making a cap mess will catch up with your team at some point. Chicago's mess cost them a lot, but they have a Cup to show for it. Philly, mere games away, just got a mess.
Beautiful Decision
Markov Locked Up 3 Years
There's not much more to say than my headline. Markov signed a three-year deal (allegedly at his previous salary).
This is great news for many reasons:
1) He's Markov: you know what we think of him
2) PK will have air to breathe, shoot like he did with less than a minute left in the season
3) $5.75 million from $64.5 million isn't that much to pay for a player of this calibre (the average player on a 23-man roster gets $2.8 million)
4) Emelin transition/staycation
5) There's no free agents to replace this guy, especially with Detroit also throwing money at the Rafalski hole
This is great news for many reasons:
1) He's Markov: you know what we think of him
2) PK will have air to breathe, shoot like he did with less than a minute left in the season
3) $5.75 million from $64.5 million isn't that much to pay for a player of this calibre (the average player on a 23-man roster gets $2.8 million)
4) Emelin transition/staycation
5) There's no free agents to replace this guy, especially with Detroit also throwing money at the Rafalski hole
Monday, June 20, 2011
$20,000,000 Should Do It
Your news for today:
- Cap set to rise to $64 million (floor to $48 million)
- Pacioretty signs for $3.25 million over a couple of seasons
- Markov still unsigned
That together with other non-news like Gomez not traded, Moen still inexplicably employed by the Canadiens, Jagr never to sign in Montreal and Pouliot without a contract gives us the grand sum of news which is this:
The Canadiens have about $20 million to spend on 4 defenders, 5 forwards and a back-up goalie.
Now, we know that one of these defenders is Andrei Markov, and we think his contract is being negotiated now. We don't know what the delay is or has been, but it's conceivable the team and the player have been waiting to see what the salary cap will be for the future of this contract.
Knowing now that the cap is high and $6 million is now a mere 10% of the team budget, the playing field is clearer.
Knowing this ourselves, we feel that there is little reason that Andrei Markov and whatever salary it takes to get him won't fit into the team's new budgetary calculations.
For the sake of argument, let's pull $6 million-ish as his cap number. With Andrei signed, together with the top two lines as they look like they will be going forward, PK Subban and Yannick Weber, Hal Gill and Carey Price, there is also little reason to believe that any of the remaining restricted free agents would be lost against the team's own strategic desires.
A remaining $14 million is more than enough to cover off Josh Gorges, Benoit Pouiot, David Desharnais, Ryan White, Alex Picard and Tom Pyatt. This illustrious list even gives hope that there would be plenty left over should Gauthier want to re-acquaint himself with someone like Roman Hamrlik, Brent Sopel or possibly even James Wisniewski.
A rising salary cap world
Now that the Canadiens have been in a rising salary cap world for 6 years, does anyone else think it's high time they started acting like they are?
Every team that we think is under threat of being dismantled come spring (barring the stacked Blackhawks) always seems to get their reprieve by the bustling budgetary numbers from the revamped league. The Philadelphia Flyers, serial cap violators all of a sudden have all the money they need to sign Ilya Bryzgalov and keep their roster mostly intact. It almost seems like they knew that a cap determined by their budget combined with other teams would get a boost. it almost seems like they read the market and learned that caps usually go up in June.
The Canadiens are doing better. The Plekanec contract for example, looks a lot better today than it did yesterday. Ditto Cammalleri. But the recent Kostitsyn signing (at an NHL median $3.25 million a year) seems like a very conservative bet on a clearly above average player.
In this rising cap world of nice surprises and unexpected cap space, I wouldn't mind seeing the Canadiens get a bit more crafty when their annual May break comes around.
Still, I'll be more than happy at this point with a Google search that turns up news for Andrei Markov before the end of June.
- Cap set to rise to $64 million (floor to $48 million)
- Pacioretty signs for $3.25 million over a couple of seasons
- Markov still unsigned
That together with other non-news like Gomez not traded, Moen still inexplicably employed by the Canadiens, Jagr never to sign in Montreal and Pouliot without a contract gives us the grand sum of news which is this:
The Canadiens have about $20 million to spend on 4 defenders, 5 forwards and a back-up goalie.
Now, we know that one of these defenders is Andrei Markov, and we think his contract is being negotiated now. We don't know what the delay is or has been, but it's conceivable the team and the player have been waiting to see what the salary cap will be for the future of this contract.
Knowing now that the cap is high and $6 million is now a mere 10% of the team budget, the playing field is clearer.
Knowing this ourselves, we feel that there is little reason that Andrei Markov and whatever salary it takes to get him won't fit into the team's new budgetary calculations.
For the sake of argument, let's pull $6 million-ish as his cap number. With Andrei signed, together with the top two lines as they look like they will be going forward, PK Subban and Yannick Weber, Hal Gill and Carey Price, there is also little reason to believe that any of the remaining restricted free agents would be lost against the team's own strategic desires.
A remaining $14 million is more than enough to cover off Josh Gorges, Benoit Pouiot, David Desharnais, Ryan White, Alex Picard and Tom Pyatt. This illustrious list even gives hope that there would be plenty left over should Gauthier want to re-acquaint himself with someone like Roman Hamrlik, Brent Sopel or possibly even James Wisniewski.
A rising salary cap world
Now that the Canadiens have been in a rising salary cap world for 6 years, does anyone else think it's high time they started acting like they are?
Every team that we think is under threat of being dismantled come spring (barring the stacked Blackhawks) always seems to get their reprieve by the bustling budgetary numbers from the revamped league. The Philadelphia Flyers, serial cap violators all of a sudden have all the money they need to sign Ilya Bryzgalov and keep their roster mostly intact. It almost seems like they knew that a cap determined by their budget combined with other teams would get a boost. it almost seems like they read the market and learned that caps usually go up in June.
The Canadiens are doing better. The Plekanec contract for example, looks a lot better today than it did yesterday. Ditto Cammalleri. But the recent Kostitsyn signing (at an NHL median $3.25 million a year) seems like a very conservative bet on a clearly above average player.
In this rising cap world of nice surprises and unexpected cap space, I wouldn't mind seeing the Canadiens get a bit more crafty when their annual May break comes around.
Still, I'll be more than happy at this point with a Google search that turns up news for Andrei Markov before the end of June.
Thursday, May 05, 2011
Getting off Scott-Free
With a long and painful off-season ahead of us and a lot of action before the Cup gets taken anywhere (go... um... 'Nucks, I guess?), many pundits are already weighing in with their well-considered opinions of what Pierre Gauthier needs to do with the team over the summer. And of course, Scott Gomez is the name on everyone's lips.
Unquestionably the goat of the team this season, and for good reason: Gomez gets more than he gives. By that, I mean that his contract is worth more than he's been contributing on the ice. And even if Gainey didn't make the contract originally, he did trade for it in a gamble. A gamble that lost, if you compare his scoring with other players earning that kind of coin. And we fans see a little red, because there's few things we hate like feeling ripped off.
We can talk about everything he does apart from scoring, and it's a lot. Younger players often cite him as a role model and mentor. He carries the puck through neutral ice very well (even if he goes straight to the corner from there). He can be shifty and unpredictable in the offensive zone (even if he often isn't). He understands the concept of back-checking and kills penalties fairly well (when he feels like it).
But we don't want the team paying $7.5M for a depth and character player. That's what Jeff Halpern gets $600k for. For $7.5M, we want the Rick Nashes and Jarome Iginlas of the league, not the... well, not the Scott Gomezes or Chris Druries (thanks, Sather).
So what are the options? Well, frankly some of the proposals are ridiculous, so ridiculous they could only come from the mouths of Habs fanatics. Ted Bird of radio fame suggests that if Gomez was seriously contrite about his worst season ever, he would renegotiate his contract for a lower wage. Mr. Bird laughs this off himself, and I think we can all agree that this will never happen.
The second option would be to trade Gomez. This is just as ridiculous as the above proposal, and must have been made by someone used to negotiating trade deals with their 8-year-old nephew. Gomez is coming off his worst season of all-time, and is therefore at his lowest value of all-time. A good salesman might have been able to trade Gomez for a bag of pucks if he'd scored 65 points this season, but he didn't crack 40. The thought that Gauthier can "just find a way" to trade him implies that NHL GMs are either a) absolute morons, or b) not watching the numbers very closely. And remember Glen Sather already had this guy once. Suffice to say that since neither your Playstation 3's AI nor your 8-year-old nephew are negotiating the deal, we're not going to see him traded any time soon (no matter how hard we wish).
Third on the list: ship him to the Bulldogs, pay the salary, and lose the cap hit. One the one hand, it's been done before. The Rangers shipped Wade Redden to the minors at $6.5M per year (Sather again), and the Oilers did it with Souray at $4.5M. It does have the tremendous advantage of freeing up the cap space to get Brad Richards or... um... well, there's not a whole lot of great UFA first-line, elite centres out there, and that's what the Habs (still) need. As Topham is fond of pointing out: once the cap space is free - assuming Geoff Molson doesn't mind paying $7.5M for a Bulldog - who does Gauthier gun for? If he can't land Brad Richards, then what?
Fourth is to buy out the contract like was done with Georges Laracque, who still costs the Habs a half-million in cap hit next season. The reason this isn't a great option (besides the $17M up-front payout) is that, as pointed out by Elliote Friedman, under the current CBA he'd still be a $4-5M cap hit for the next couple years, declining to $2M in 2016-17. Do we really want to take a $4M cap hit for absolutely nothing? Once we're paying $4M for nothing, the question suddenly becomes "Is Gomez worth $3.5M?" I suspect he is.
Fifth, and most likely: status quo. For all the reasons above, and a new CBA to negotiate next summer, I think the smart money says Gomez will be suiting up in the Bleu-Blanc-Rouge come fall. I'm not thrilled about this past season's performance, but we can hope it might spur him to come back hungry and in top shape. He's not a bad hockey player. Mind you, he's not $7.5M good either.
If Gomez were to be put on waivers and shipped to Hamilton tomorrow, who would you hope to sign this summer? Is Gomez worth $3.5M? How many points next season would Gomez have to score in order for you to be only slightly disappointed with his salary? Let us know in the comments.
Unquestionably the goat of the team this season, and for good reason: Gomez gets more than he gives. By that, I mean that his contract is worth more than he's been contributing on the ice. And even if Gainey didn't make the contract originally, he did trade for it in a gamble. A gamble that lost, if you compare his scoring with other players earning that kind of coin. And we fans see a little red, because there's few things we hate like feeling ripped off.
We can talk about everything he does apart from scoring, and it's a lot. Younger players often cite him as a role model and mentor. He carries the puck through neutral ice very well (even if he goes straight to the corner from there). He can be shifty and unpredictable in the offensive zone (even if he often isn't). He understands the concept of back-checking and kills penalties fairly well (when he feels like it).
But we don't want the team paying $7.5M for a depth and character player. That's what Jeff Halpern gets $600k for. For $7.5M, we want the Rick Nashes and Jarome Iginlas of the league, not the... well, not the Scott Gomezes or Chris Druries (thanks, Sather).
So what are the options? Well, frankly some of the proposals are ridiculous, so ridiculous they could only come from the mouths of Habs fanatics. Ted Bird of radio fame suggests that if Gomez was seriously contrite about his worst season ever, he would renegotiate his contract for a lower wage. Mr. Bird laughs this off himself, and I think we can all agree that this will never happen.
The second option would be to trade Gomez. This is just as ridiculous as the above proposal, and must have been made by someone used to negotiating trade deals with their 8-year-old nephew. Gomez is coming off his worst season of all-time, and is therefore at his lowest value of all-time. A good salesman might have been able to trade Gomez for a bag of pucks if he'd scored 65 points this season, but he didn't crack 40. The thought that Gauthier can "just find a way" to trade him implies that NHL GMs are either a) absolute morons, or b) not watching the numbers very closely. And remember Glen Sather already had this guy once. Suffice to say that since neither your Playstation 3's AI nor your 8-year-old nephew are negotiating the deal, we're not going to see him traded any time soon (no matter how hard we wish).
Third on the list: ship him to the Bulldogs, pay the salary, and lose the cap hit. One the one hand, it's been done before. The Rangers shipped Wade Redden to the minors at $6.5M per year (Sather again), and the Oilers did it with Souray at $4.5M. It does have the tremendous advantage of freeing up the cap space to get Brad Richards or... um... well, there's not a whole lot of great UFA first-line, elite centres out there, and that's what the Habs (still) need. As Topham is fond of pointing out: once the cap space is free - assuming Geoff Molson doesn't mind paying $7.5M for a Bulldog - who does Gauthier gun for? If he can't land Brad Richards, then what?
Fourth is to buy out the contract like was done with Georges Laracque, who still costs the Habs a half-million in cap hit next season. The reason this isn't a great option (besides the $17M up-front payout) is that, as pointed out by Elliote Friedman, under the current CBA he'd still be a $4-5M cap hit for the next couple years, declining to $2M in 2016-17. Do we really want to take a $4M cap hit for absolutely nothing? Once we're paying $4M for nothing, the question suddenly becomes "Is Gomez worth $3.5M?" I suspect he is.
Fifth, and most likely: status quo. For all the reasons above, and a new CBA to negotiate next summer, I think the smart money says Gomez will be suiting up in the Bleu-Blanc-Rouge come fall. I'm not thrilled about this past season's performance, but we can hope it might spur him to come back hungry and in top shape. He's not a bad hockey player. Mind you, he's not $7.5M good either.
If Gomez were to be put on waivers and shipped to Hamilton tomorrow, who would you hope to sign this summer? Is Gomez worth $3.5M? How many points next season would Gomez have to score in order for you to be only slightly disappointed with his salary? Let us know in the comments.
Thursday, October 07, 2010
Foolscap
Contract Rules Not Worth The Paper They're Written On
Yesterday, while everyone was gearing up for the NHL season reading previews and criticising predictions, some NHL teams faced a very important deadline.
The Vancouver Canucks, New Jersey Devils, Boston Bruins and Calgary Flames were all over the salary cap and had until 3 pm EDT to do something about it. The moves that ensued leave me to question my early faith in this salary cap as a levelling device once again, after a summer of cap nonsense.
To start with, let's review the consequences for starting the season over the salary cap: To be honest with you, I'm not sure. And I'm not sure anyone really is certain about what definitive move the league would take. The CBA gives flexibility in the regard ranging from fines to draft picks to forfeit of games. Let's say that it at least the teams at risk of going over believe there would be consequences, unlike those that went over to end the season.
So no clear consequences, but definite fear that the league might make an example of someone led to some tricky moves on the salary cap front yesterday.
Vancouver used Sami Salo's injury as credit to go over the cap, and messed with prospects heads and travel schedules to get to their priority. That wasn't enough though, as they also needed to make some trades, notably Shane O'Brien and Darcy Hordichuk for a player they have no intention of using.
New Jersey were expected to be forced into a trade, but instead delayed their move by taking advantage of a Bryce Salvador concussion and Anssi Salmela's recovery to declare the LTIR and non-roster, respectively.
The Bruins too used injury. They leveraged Marc Savard's and Marco Sturm's injuries into cap space. If they come back, it will be interesting to see if and how they will move.
The Flames have injuries too.
All this, of course, comes after the Blackhawks and Rangers used effective "forced retirement" to get under the cap, a disgraceful tactic that flies in the face of the spirit of competition and level playing field.
So rather than actually getting under the salary cap, teams choose to "circumvent" it by using sometimes less than honest tactics. I don't know what the solution is to all this, but perhaps some proper consequences could help. And, perhaps enforcing the cap into the playoffs (after all isn't the Stanley Cup the only prize being played for?) might help.
Until the NHL does something about all this, I continue to be disappointed with the Habs who seem content to sit idly by as teams perennially contend on the back of wonky rules. The Canadiens, who must have some of the largest purses in the business, seem meanwhile perfectly content to sit idly by and collect their revenue for a less than salary-ceiling payroll again. The extent of the Habs creativity went up in thin air when they pre-emptively traded Jaroslav Halak to make sure they wouldn't have this kind of work to do in the fall. It may seem right, but don't be too surprised when New Jersey, Chicago, Vancouver and maybe even Boston enter March as good-looking contenders and Montrealers have new spring calendar openings.
The NHL salary cap circumvention is shameful, just like holding and obstructing is. But if everyone else is doing it. Well come on.
More black eye
The shiners for the league's image don't end at waiver wires and LTIR lists.
At the other end of the table, the New York Islanders use salary buyouts and choose not to put Mark Streit on LTIR as it would mean they'd need to do something about meeting the salary floor. Larry Brooks thinks its just as significant a mockery. So do I.
The Vancouver Canucks, New Jersey Devils, Boston Bruins and Calgary Flames were all over the salary cap and had until 3 pm EDT to do something about it. The moves that ensued leave me to question my early faith in this salary cap as a levelling device once again, after a summer of cap nonsense.
To start with, let's review the consequences for starting the season over the salary cap: To be honest with you, I'm not sure. And I'm not sure anyone really is certain about what definitive move the league would take. The CBA gives flexibility in the regard ranging from fines to draft picks to forfeit of games. Let's say that it at least the teams at risk of going over believe there would be consequences, unlike those that went over to end the season.
So no clear consequences, but definite fear that the league might make an example of someone led to some tricky moves on the salary cap front yesterday.
Vancouver used Sami Salo's injury as credit to go over the cap, and messed with prospects heads and travel schedules to get to their priority. That wasn't enough though, as they also needed to make some trades, notably Shane O'Brien and Darcy Hordichuk for a player they have no intention of using.
New Jersey were expected to be forced into a trade, but instead delayed their move by taking advantage of a Bryce Salvador concussion and Anssi Salmela's recovery to declare the LTIR and non-roster, respectively.
The Bruins too used injury. They leveraged Marc Savard's and Marco Sturm's injuries into cap space. If they come back, it will be interesting to see if and how they will move.
The Flames have injuries too.
All this, of course, comes after the Blackhawks and Rangers used effective "forced retirement" to get under the cap, a disgraceful tactic that flies in the face of the spirit of competition and level playing field.
So rather than actually getting under the salary cap, teams choose to "circumvent" it by using sometimes less than honest tactics. I don't know what the solution is to all this, but perhaps some proper consequences could help. And, perhaps enforcing the cap into the playoffs (after all isn't the Stanley Cup the only prize being played for?) might help.
Until the NHL does something about all this, I continue to be disappointed with the Habs who seem content to sit idly by as teams perennially contend on the back of wonky rules. The Canadiens, who must have some of the largest purses in the business, seem meanwhile perfectly content to sit idly by and collect their revenue for a less than salary-ceiling payroll again. The extent of the Habs creativity went up in thin air when they pre-emptively traded Jaroslav Halak to make sure they wouldn't have this kind of work to do in the fall. It may seem right, but don't be too surprised when New Jersey, Chicago, Vancouver and maybe even Boston enter March as good-looking contenders and Montrealers have new spring calendar openings.
The NHL salary cap circumvention is shameful, just like holding and obstructing is. But if everyone else is doing it. Well come on.
More black eye
The shiners for the league's image don't end at waiver wires and LTIR lists.
At the other end of the table, the New York Islanders use salary buyouts and choose not to put Mark Streit on LTIR as it would mean they'd need to do something about meeting the salary floor. Larry Brooks thinks its just as significant a mockery. So do I.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
The Kovalchuk Deal:
Still A Win For Devils
Since yesterday, I have read a half dozen articles that showcase the Kovalchuk ruling as a headache for the Devils.
Damien Cox did some wacky math in The Spin the other day:
Today, Pat Hickey seems to echo the line that the deal is mostly negative for the Devils too.
AS usual, i feel some of the commentators have been swept along and are missing the main point. While it's true the deal has been costly this summer (a $3 million fine and a first and 3rd round draft pick), it still is hugely beneficial to the Devils.
First, we have to debunk the fact that the Devils somehow paid
with Niclas Bergfors, Johnny Oduya, Patrice Cormier and a first-round pick for Kovalchuk. That trade (and we're not forgetting Salmela) was made for the pleasure of dressing Kovalchuk in the 2010 close to the season, nothing more. Ilya was always going to be a UFA, and if anything that's why the cost was as low as it was.
The benefit of Kovalchuk
Really though, the true benefit of this deal comes from being able to dress Kovalchuk for this season and the next 14 at the relatively cut-rate price of $6.67 million a season.
That salary for a player like Kovalchuk is a bargain by league standards at the moment. Kovalchuk hasn't scored less than 40 goals a season since his 20th birthday and has been a point-per-gamer with no supporting cast for many years. Hi salary cap mark puts him currently at the 25th highest in the league (not bad for the best goalscorer of the decade) and behind players like Thomas Vanek, Patrick Marleau and Anze Kopitar (not to mention Scott Gomez).
Now here's the best part. If the league doesn't shrink and the salary cap grows (even only to keep up with inflation) Kovalchuk's cap number will likely look better year after year as players surpass him with new contracts.
And penalties aside, there is nothing the league has done or can do to circumvent the original intent that Kovalchuk would retire whenever he wanted to, presumably long before the age of 42.
So instead of tallying Patrice Cormier and a few draft picks, tally the fact the Devils just acquired the only available superstar in the NHL and signed him to a bargain deal for his current numbers. The numbers stand to look better over the years too as salaries and caps are pushed higher or Kovalchuk retires.
There's no guaranteeing a Cup with a move like this one, but let's not paint one of the most creative deals (maybe the last creative deal) as all negative. The Devils are a better team today than they were last year with Oduya and Bergfors and their three draft picks and that's what really matters.
Damien Cox did some wacky math in The Spin the other day:
But you could argue Kovalchuk will, when its all said and done, cost the Devils somewhere between $150 million and $200 million in salary, fines, prospects, draft picks and players.
Today, Pat Hickey seems to echo the line that the deal is mostly negative for the Devils too.
AS usual, i feel some of the commentators have been swept along and are missing the main point. While it's true the deal has been costly this summer (a $3 million fine and a first and 3rd round draft pick), it still is hugely beneficial to the Devils.
First, we have to debunk the fact that the Devils somehow paid
with Niclas Bergfors, Johnny Oduya, Patrice Cormier and a first-round pick for Kovalchuk. That trade (and we're not forgetting Salmela) was made for the pleasure of dressing Kovalchuk in the 2010 close to the season, nothing more. Ilya was always going to be a UFA, and if anything that's why the cost was as low as it was.
The benefit of Kovalchuk
Really though, the true benefit of this deal comes from being able to dress Kovalchuk for this season and the next 14 at the relatively cut-rate price of $6.67 million a season.
That salary for a player like Kovalchuk is a bargain by league standards at the moment. Kovalchuk hasn't scored less than 40 goals a season since his 20th birthday and has been a point-per-gamer with no supporting cast for many years. Hi salary cap mark puts him currently at the 25th highest in the league (not bad for the best goalscorer of the decade) and behind players like Thomas Vanek, Patrick Marleau and Anze Kopitar (not to mention Scott Gomez).
Now here's the best part. If the league doesn't shrink and the salary cap grows (even only to keep up with inflation) Kovalchuk's cap number will likely look better year after year as players surpass him with new contracts.
And penalties aside, there is nothing the league has done or can do to circumvent the original intent that Kovalchuk would retire whenever he wanted to, presumably long before the age of 42.
So instead of tallying Patrice Cormier and a few draft picks, tally the fact the Devils just acquired the only available superstar in the NHL and signed him to a bargain deal for his current numbers. The numbers stand to look better over the years too as salaries and caps are pushed higher or Kovalchuk retires.
There's no guaranteeing a Cup with a move like this one, but let's not paint one of the most creative deals (maybe the last creative deal) as all negative. The Devils are a better team today than they were last year with Oduya and Bergfors and their three draft picks and that's what really matters.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Oh Dear, Not Again NHL
Is the NHL trying to solidify its reputation downin the US as a farce?
This story from Puck Daddy shows how the league can't even keep track of the winners of the 4 team trophies it hands out every year (4 a year...).
Pretty comical, and their cockamamie excuses for the error and for their cover up are just as bad.
I'll chalk it up with inability to make proactive decisions on contracts, lack of agreement (or will to sign an agreement) with the IIHF, ridiculously inconsistent officiating (seaon v.s playoffs) and lack of consequence for going over the salary cap as reasons the league needs to take a seriously look at its operations and the people conducting its business.
This story from Puck Daddy shows how the league can't even keep track of the winners of the 4 team trophies it hands out every year (4 a year...).
Pretty comical, and their cockamamie excuses for the error and for their cover up are just as bad.
I'll chalk it up with inability to make proactive decisions on contracts, lack of agreement (or will to sign an agreement) with the IIHF, ridiculously inconsistent officiating (seaon v.s playoffs) and lack of consequence for going over the salary cap as reasons the league needs to take a seriously look at its operations and the people conducting its business.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Negotiating On Price:
Habs New Arguments
Price and his agent have played their opening gambit (in our imaginations)and the Canadiens have answered (in our imaginations again). I think we can all agree that unless Gauthier comes up with some stats wizardry or another #1 goalie, the Price team is looking good to pull salary towards their notion of fair dues.
The negotiation now turns to Gauthier and his team to argue the negative (or if they're inventive, the positive) so the salary cap burden of Price is more what they had in mind when they thought he would be the much cheaper option.
[Remember that for these mock purposes, we're assuming that Carey Price’s team is for $3 million as per HabsWorld's uncited "report" (1 to 3 years) and that the Habs are coutering with $1.7 million (2 to 4 years).]
Habs arguments
Other stats
Have you met our new numbers man, Ken Morin? He was only officially hired yesterday, but he came with some numbers in hand which we thought would be handy for these discussions.
You mentioned a 0.912 save percentage. We fully acknowledge that number, but would like to say right off the bat that we don’t exclude playoffs from our analyses, so we’ll be going ahead with a 0.910 number, just so you know.
Just a quick look at other stats from this season. You already mentioned Carey’s 0.912 from the season which ranked him 21st in the league. We’d like to just highlight a few stats to add context:
(min 16 GP)
41 GP (33rd)
39 GS (32nd)
13 W (37th)
0.33 W per start (55th)
0.33 W per 60 min (54th)
2.77 GAA (36th)
0 SO (T 48th)
You present Carey as an established starter with top 20 numbers. Based on what we see, we think he is right where he should be, but is still a developing youngster climbing the ranks. We think it would be fair to pay him as such.
Trends
We have addressed a lot so far, but a common element of 2nd contract negotiations has been conspicuously absent from these talks. Usually, we can all look at a player and draw upward trends. We find the talk about pedigree a bit disingenuous when we consider the decline since season one with Carey.
Our analysis reveals that since his 48th game in the NHL (the 7th game in the 2008 Boston series), where Carey was a 2.49, 0.920 goalie, he has but for very brief bumps been declining or standing still. If this were game 92 we were talking about, there wouldn’t be any reason for concern, but this is 106 games later now – 2 entire NHL seasons.
From game 49 to game 108 (last game of 2009) Carey declined to a 2.76, 0.910 goalie. Since that time, he has stemmed the decline but only to maintain that level.
Again, we are not suggesting this is anyway abnormal for a young goalie, but suggest that paying Carey as a seasoned pro, or a near-elite at this stage is off the mark. He is learning, but learning slowly. We also hope and assume there is still learning to be done and that he’ll be working on this into the upcoming season, if not beyond. As such, we don’t think we should be paying the price as he were the finished article.
Save percentage breakdown
M. Morin has been doing some excellent work, he really has. He has showed us a lot about how to look at save percentage. That is, to see how a goalie comes to his 91% of shots saved.
When we look at when goals are scored, we can see a massive gulf in between what goaltender we get at the beginning of a game compared to the end. Whereas, after a goal is allowed, Carey is on par with those you say are his peers (2.53, 0.920), for the start of games, he has an entirely different set of peers (3.30, 0.892).
Again we’re fully on board with the learning and will support Carey as long as it takes. But this is taken from this past season, and is further evidence of the fact that learning is not done. We think this bolsters our suggestion that paying for the finished article at this point is premature.
Support
Throughout his career until now, we have provided Carey with the best support and opportunities ever afforded to a goaltender of his age. We have showed our support by trading Halak and by signing in a veteran back up willing and able to support 60 games from Carey.
We continue to show this support and will do as he continues to learn his trade at this high level. Knowing Carey the way we do, and knowing what he needs from our years together, we think we offer him the best environment there is to thrive at the moment.
Opportunity
Currently Montreal stands as one of two teams (if we assume Huet and Niemi haven’t been settled on) where there is a starting position. Rather than looking on starts as a burden, we think starts are an asset to your client. We don’t think he can get this opportunity anywhere else in the NHL at the present time.
In the balance
Gauthier digs deep here. But is it enough to overcome the fact he chose Price long ago and would rely on Auld and an AHLer if Price were to opt out?
The negotiation now turns to Gauthier and his team to argue the negative (or if they're inventive, the positive) so the salary cap burden of Price is more what they had in mind when they thought he would be the much cheaper option.
[Remember that for these mock purposes, we're assuming that Carey Price’s team is for $3 million as per HabsWorld's uncited "report" (1 to 3 years) and that the Habs are coutering with $1.7 million (2 to 4 years).]
Habs arguments
Other stats
Have you met our new numbers man, Ken Morin? He was only officially hired yesterday, but he came with some numbers in hand which we thought would be handy for these discussions.
You mentioned a 0.912 save percentage. We fully acknowledge that number, but would like to say right off the bat that we don’t exclude playoffs from our analyses, so we’ll be going ahead with a 0.910 number, just so you know.
Just a quick look at other stats from this season. You already mentioned Carey’s 0.912 from the season which ranked him 21st in the league. We’d like to just highlight a few stats to add context:
(min 16 GP)
41 GP (33rd)
39 GS (32nd)
13 W (37th)
0.33 W per start (55th)
0.33 W per 60 min (54th)
2.77 GAA (36th)
0 SO (T 48th)
You present Carey as an established starter with top 20 numbers. Based on what we see, we think he is right where he should be, but is still a developing youngster climbing the ranks. We think it would be fair to pay him as such.
Trends
We have addressed a lot so far, but a common element of 2nd contract negotiations has been conspicuously absent from these talks. Usually, we can all look at a player and draw upward trends. We find the talk about pedigree a bit disingenuous when we consider the decline since season one with Carey.
Our analysis reveals that since his 48th game in the NHL (the 7th game in the 2008 Boston series), where Carey was a 2.49, 0.920 goalie, he has but for very brief bumps been declining or standing still. If this were game 92 we were talking about, there wouldn’t be any reason for concern, but this is 106 games later now – 2 entire NHL seasons.
From game 49 to game 108 (last game of 2009) Carey declined to a 2.76, 0.910 goalie. Since that time, he has stemmed the decline but only to maintain that level.
Again, we are not suggesting this is anyway abnormal for a young goalie, but suggest that paying Carey as a seasoned pro, or a near-elite at this stage is off the mark. He is learning, but learning slowly. We also hope and assume there is still learning to be done and that he’ll be working on this into the upcoming season, if not beyond. As such, we don’t think we should be paying the price as he were the finished article.
Save percentage breakdown
M. Morin has been doing some excellent work, he really has. He has showed us a lot about how to look at save percentage. That is, to see how a goalie comes to his 91% of shots saved.
When we look at when goals are scored, we can see a massive gulf in between what goaltender we get at the beginning of a game compared to the end. Whereas, after a goal is allowed, Carey is on par with those you say are his peers (2.53, 0.920), for the start of games, he has an entirely different set of peers (3.30, 0.892).
Again we’re fully on board with the learning and will support Carey as long as it takes. But this is taken from this past season, and is further evidence of the fact that learning is not done. We think this bolsters our suggestion that paying for the finished article at this point is premature.
Support
Throughout his career until now, we have provided Carey with the best support and opportunities ever afforded to a goaltender of his age. We have showed our support by trading Halak and by signing in a veteran back up willing and able to support 60 games from Carey.
We continue to show this support and will do as he continues to learn his trade at this high level. Knowing Carey the way we do, and knowing what he needs from our years together, we think we offer him the best environment there is to thrive at the moment.
Opportunity
Currently Montreal stands as one of two teams (if we assume Huet and Niemi haven’t been settled on) where there is a starting position. Rather than looking on starts as a burden, we think starts are an asset to your client. We don’t think he can get this opportunity anywhere else in the NHL at the present time.
In the balance
Gauthier digs deep here. But is it enough to overcome the fact he chose Price long ago and would rely on Auld and an AHLer if Price were to opt out?
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Negotiating On Price:
Gauthier Answers
Price and his agent have just given their rationale for a $3 million a year salary to the Canadiens (in our little game).
Now, I play the role of Gauthier and management having just heard the Price stance.
[Remember that for these mock purposes, we're assuming that Carey Price’s team is for $3 million as per HabsWorld's uncited "report" (1 to 3 years) and that the Habs are coutering with $1.7 million (2 to 4 years).]
Carey Price camp opening arguments (Team Price in italics)
Starting goalie money
The average goalie salary (cap hit) in the NHL is $2.51 million
The average among starters is $3.75 million
Removing entry level for starters gives $4.1 million
You want Carey to be a starting goalie in one of the biggest fanbases with some of the biggest revenue in the NHL. He shouldn’t be far below average.
Habs response:
Be reasonable.
First let’s remove the top tier:
The average for starters falls to $2.51 million
Even without entry level, that’s $2.87 million
Some of those guys are long-time NHLers, others have outperformed Carey recently (see Halak, Jaroslav). Removing those, we end with an average of $1.98 million.
Carey would be right in the ballpark of his peers with a salary below $2 million.
Comparables
Carey Price (3 seasons)
Season: 2.77, 0.912
Career: 2.73, 0.912
Jonas Hiller (3 seasons) ¬ $4.5 million
Season: 2.73, 0.918
Jaroslav Halak (2 full seasons) ¬ $3.75 million
Career: 2.62, 0.919
Kari Lehtonen ¬ $3.55 million
Season: 2.81, 0.911
Career: 2.87, 0.912
Pekka Rinne (2 full seasons) ¬ $3.4 million
Season: 2.53, 0.911
Their average salaries going into the next contracts are $3.8 million, so the $3 million we ask for is very reasonable considering Carey’s closest peers.
Habs response:
Closest peers? Sorry, but allow us to fill in your omissions:
Jonas Hiller (3 seasons) ¬ $4.5 million
Season: 2.73, 0.918
Career: 2.49, 0.920
Jaroslav Halak (2 full seasons) ¬ $3.75 million
Season: 2.40, 0.924
Career: 2.62, 0.919
Outplayed Carey on the same team
Kari Lehtonen (6 seasons) ¬ $3.55 million
Season: 2.81, 0.911
Career: 2.87, 0.912
Pekka Rinne (2 full seasons) ¬ $3.4 million
Season: 2.53, 0.911
Career: 2.46, 0.914, with 62W, 32L, 9OTL
Rinne is the only possible peer there, but we find it hard to be tied to what we think is a bad contract for a 3rd year NHLer handed out in Nashville.
We propose a few more peers:
Carey Price (3 seasons)
Season: 2.77, 0.912
Career: 2.73, 0.912
Mike Smith (4 seasons) ¬ $2.2 million
Career: 2.69, 0.907
Jonathan Quick (2 seasons) ¬ $1.8 million
Season: 2.54, 0.907
Career: 2.54, 0.908
Dan Ellis (3 seasons) ¬ $1.5 million
Season: 2.69, 0.909
Career: 2.64, 0.912
Josh Harding (3 seasons) ¬ $1.2 million
Career: 2.56, 0.915
The average here with Carey’s truest peers in terms of experience and performance to date is in line with what we are proposing, about $1.59 million a season.
Team Price responds:
Hang on, you omit as well.
Mike Smith (4 seasons) ¬ $2.2 million
Season: 3.09, 0.900
Career: 2.69, 0.907
Jonathan Quick (2 seasons) ¬ $1.8 million
Season: 2.54, 0.907
Career: 2.54, 0.908
Dan Ellis (3 seasons) ¬ $1.5 million
Season: 2.69, 0.909
Career: 2.64, 0.912
Josh Harding (3 seasons) ¬ $1.2 million
Season: 3.05, 0.905
Career: 2.56, 0.915
Habs again:
We’ll happily omit Mike Smith from the math if you want.
Pedigree
Drafted 5th overall
CHL goaltender of the year
WJC winning goalie and tournament MVP
Calder Cup winning goalie and tournament MVP
NHL All-Rookie team
NHL All-Star Game
Habs response:
Yes, we’re ware of the pedigree. We did draft Carey.
To be fair to us, we have already paid him for this pedigree in the original contract and offered generous bonuses because his potential merited as much. But let’s be honest, the CHL galtender of the year and WJC are as relevant to this negotiation as Kovalchuk’s contract. The AHL championship run has not been replicated in the NHL playoffs yet. We are paying for NHL play and would prefer to base our offer on NHL numbers that we can all understand.
Team Price responds:
Perhaps, but Carey is a 22 year-old. His age peers are negotiating their contracts with 3 year old CV items weighing heavily in their favour. If you want to discount past success, then we must insist on some adjustment of stance on his numbers to take into account Carey’s young age upon compiling these numbers.
Remember that you as managers must still rely on this pedigree to defend this goaltending decision. If you're using pedigree, so are we.
Save percentage
Save percentage is the only number that can be trusted among goalie statistics, as it is the only number that belongs to the goaltending performance alone. 0.912 this season and for his career are excellent at his age. It was a single tenth of a percent behind Roberto Luongo.
Habs response:
0.912 is very respectable and we were pleased with the rate at which Carey made saves, but let’s not lose the big picture. That rate was average for the league this season. 0.912 put Carey in 20th in this statistic.
We also want to look at this statistic in the context of all others, rather than do a cherry pick. But we will address this again later.
Alternatives
Having traded Halak, without Carey you would look to start the season with Alex Auld in goal and Cedrick Desjardins at back up. Carey offers a massive upgrade to that tandem, replacing the completely NHL-naïve Desjardins from the roster and providing a better start option than Auld.
Habs response:
Pensive look. [Though goes through the miind to respond: "Nabokov, Turco and Theodore can offer us the same solution." Gauthier thinks better of it. He's mocked on the internet and in the media, he doesn't need to be mocked at this negotiating table]
In the balance?
As in arbitration, average salaries and comparables can be spun more than one way. Save percentage still falls in Price's favour for the moment without a statistical riposte and pedigree and alternatives hang over the Habs as problems of their own making.
Now, I play the role of Gauthier and management having just heard the Price stance.
[Remember that for these mock purposes, we're assuming that Carey Price’s team is for $3 million as per HabsWorld's uncited "report" (1 to 3 years) and that the Habs are coutering with $1.7 million (2 to 4 years).]
Carey Price camp opening arguments (Team Price in italics)
Starting goalie money
The average goalie salary (cap hit) in the NHL is $2.51 million
The average among starters is $3.75 million
Removing entry level for starters gives $4.1 million
You want Carey to be a starting goalie in one of the biggest fanbases with some of the biggest revenue in the NHL. He shouldn’t be far below average.
Habs response:
Be reasonable.
First let’s remove the top tier:
The average for starters falls to $2.51 million
Even without entry level, that’s $2.87 million
Some of those guys are long-time NHLers, others have outperformed Carey recently (see Halak, Jaroslav). Removing those, we end with an average of $1.98 million.
Carey would be right in the ballpark of his peers with a salary below $2 million.
Comparables
Carey Price (3 seasons)
Season: 2.77, 0.912
Career: 2.73, 0.912
Jonas Hiller (3 seasons) ¬ $4.5 million
Season: 2.73, 0.918
Jaroslav Halak (2 full seasons) ¬ $3.75 million
Career: 2.62, 0.919
Kari Lehtonen ¬ $3.55 million
Season: 2.81, 0.911
Career: 2.87, 0.912
Pekka Rinne (2 full seasons) ¬ $3.4 million
Season: 2.53, 0.911
Their average salaries going into the next contracts are $3.8 million, so the $3 million we ask for is very reasonable considering Carey’s closest peers.
Habs response:
Closest peers? Sorry, but allow us to fill in your omissions:
Jonas Hiller (3 seasons) ¬ $4.5 million
Season: 2.73, 0.918
Career: 2.49, 0.920
Jaroslav Halak (2 full seasons) ¬ $3.75 million
Season: 2.40, 0.924
Career: 2.62, 0.919
Outplayed Carey on the same team
Kari Lehtonen (6 seasons) ¬ $3.55 million
Season: 2.81, 0.911
Career: 2.87, 0.912
Pekka Rinne (2 full seasons) ¬ $3.4 million
Season: 2.53, 0.911
Career: 2.46, 0.914, with 62W, 32L, 9OTL
Rinne is the only possible peer there, but we find it hard to be tied to what we think is a bad contract for a 3rd year NHLer handed out in Nashville.
We propose a few more peers:
Carey Price (3 seasons)
Season: 2.77, 0.912
Career: 2.73, 0.912
Mike Smith (4 seasons) ¬ $2.2 million
Career: 2.69, 0.907
Jonathan Quick (2 seasons) ¬ $1.8 million
Season: 2.54, 0.907
Career: 2.54, 0.908
Dan Ellis (3 seasons) ¬ $1.5 million
Season: 2.69, 0.909
Career: 2.64, 0.912
Josh Harding (3 seasons) ¬ $1.2 million
Career: 2.56, 0.915
The average here with Carey’s truest peers in terms of experience and performance to date is in line with what we are proposing, about $1.59 million a season.
Team Price responds:
Hang on, you omit as well.
Mike Smith (4 seasons) ¬ $2.2 million
Season: 3.09, 0.900
Career: 2.69, 0.907
Jonathan Quick (2 seasons) ¬ $1.8 million
Season: 2.54, 0.907
Career: 2.54, 0.908
Dan Ellis (3 seasons) ¬ $1.5 million
Season: 2.69, 0.909
Career: 2.64, 0.912
Josh Harding (3 seasons) ¬ $1.2 million
Season: 3.05, 0.905
Career: 2.56, 0.915
Habs again:
We’ll happily omit Mike Smith from the math if you want.
Pedigree
Drafted 5th overall
CHL goaltender of the year
WJC winning goalie and tournament MVP
Calder Cup winning goalie and tournament MVP
NHL All-Rookie team
NHL All-Star Game
Habs response:
Yes, we’re ware of the pedigree. We did draft Carey.
To be fair to us, we have already paid him for this pedigree in the original contract and offered generous bonuses because his potential merited as much. But let’s be honest, the CHL galtender of the year and WJC are as relevant to this negotiation as Kovalchuk’s contract. The AHL championship run has not been replicated in the NHL playoffs yet. We are paying for NHL play and would prefer to base our offer on NHL numbers that we can all understand.
Team Price responds:
Perhaps, but Carey is a 22 year-old. His age peers are negotiating their contracts with 3 year old CV items weighing heavily in their favour. If you want to discount past success, then we must insist on some adjustment of stance on his numbers to take into account Carey’s young age upon compiling these numbers.
Remember that you as managers must still rely on this pedigree to defend this goaltending decision. If you're using pedigree, so are we.
Save percentage
Save percentage is the only number that can be trusted among goalie statistics, as it is the only number that belongs to the goaltending performance alone. 0.912 this season and for his career are excellent at his age. It was a single tenth of a percent behind Roberto Luongo.
Habs response:
0.912 is very respectable and we were pleased with the rate at which Carey made saves, but let’s not lose the big picture. That rate was average for the league this season. 0.912 put Carey in 20th in this statistic.
We also want to look at this statistic in the context of all others, rather than do a cherry pick. But we will address this again later.
Alternatives
Having traded Halak, without Carey you would look to start the season with Alex Auld in goal and Cedrick Desjardins at back up. Carey offers a massive upgrade to that tandem, replacing the completely NHL-naïve Desjardins from the roster and providing a better start option than Auld.
Habs response:
Pensive look. [Though goes through the miind to respond: "Nabokov, Turco and Theodore can offer us the same solution." Gauthier thinks better of it. He's mocked on the internet and in the media, he doesn't need to be mocked at this negotiating table]
In the balance?
As in arbitration, average salaries and comparables can be spun more than one way. Save percentage still falls in Price's favour for the moment without a statistical riposte and pedigree and alternatives hang over the Habs as problems of their own making.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Salary Cap Issues In Need Of Change
By now, we're all up on the league's stance on long and unrealistic contracts. A lot of people are praising the league for their stance on this.
But from my point of view, this is only an important stance if solid action is taken in the form of rule changes, changes to the CBA, else interpretation becomes a bit flaky (see Pronger contract). While the league is at it, I think there’s a few other issues that have come to light that they need to address too.
Contract rules
It’s not only the length of a contract that’s important. In fact, it’s not the length at all. Everything hinges on the age at which the player will receive his last payday.
Yesterday, I saw a good suggestion on the matter. A simple and elegant solution that the league could implement tomorrow:
Don’t allow any long-term contracts to extend past a player’s 39th birthday.
Why 39? Well, the number was chosen based on league averages, but the number it self isn’t that important after all, another number (36, 37, 40) would work just as effectively in setting clear boundaries.
In addition to finishing age, it appears there’s also some concern about what a player is paid at the beginning and the end of the contract. This isn’t really an issue if the player plays those years (see Scott Gomez), as the cap treats every year as equal. It is an issue if the player retires,, though, since a false cap number was calculated with the lower salary which might never be paid out.
The Kovalchuk deal was new because it had so many years at league minimum to bring down the cap hit that it seemed disingenuous. I can see the problem with it. After all, if Kovalchuk was intending to play till then, he’d already have signed for $6 million every year until 44 by now.
There might be an easy-ish solution here too. Limits could be set on how much the top salary and bottom salary in a deal could vary (e.g., 50%, 30% or something) and there could be guidelines about how many seasons at less than say 60% of the average pay there could be.
Whatever, the eventual solutions, the point is that they need to be put to paper and made clear to everyone. Until that happens, the league’s whim will be seen as the rule.
Minor league duty
Just as outrageous as Kovalchuk’s contract is the idea that the Blackhawks can simply put Cristobal Huet in the minors in order to free up salary cap space. In the event they do that, the Hawks will erase Huet’s entire salary from their cap tabulation. Other teams will be on this boat too, as Jeff Finger may be helping Brian Burke from another cap overshoot by playing in the minors.
This situation is fraught with issues as well.
For starters, it seems quite unfair to the player. Huet may be in the minors for his sketchy play, but there will be others who suffer the same fate for their big payday alone. For another thing, the player can still play late on in the season when cap spae is clearer and is free as anyone else to play in the playoffs..
It’s an extreme example, but imagine Chicago opts to sign Kovalchuk and Frolov and gets them to commit to the minors. No matter what outlandish salaries they pay them, come playoff time they could insert the two of them and then Huet back into the lineup without consequence.
Clearly this issue needs to be revisited as well, as the loophole unfairly allows irresponsible GMs to correct errors at a players expense. It also creates an uneven playing field for people who play the cap as if it means something.
Salary cap penalty
While we’re on the topic, how about the salary cap penalty?
Because of bonuses, Chicago went way over the salary cap last season. While it’s causing them some headaches now (and Huet an NHL continuance), the penalty is less than a slap on the wrist.
In a way, I can see Chicago’s point of view. They exceeded the cap for playoff bonuses. That’s hard to account for.
But what’s Toronto’s excuse? And why do they get the same free pass? If it’s true that Toronto went over the salary cap last season, it must also be true that they did so in the regular season (there were no playoffs, after all). I think we all have to ask:
a) Why was this allowed to happen?
b) Why haven’t they been punished beyond the penalty on this year’s cap?
As it stands, with regular season cap busters exceeding the cap without consequence, does it not lead to the next logical question: What is there a salary cap for?
Here, I think the league needs to take action for the next time this occurs, or rather before it happens again. Forfeit of games, draft picks and funds are no brainers. Perhaps something more drastic, though, is what it would take.
Arbitration
Did anyone else see that Clarke MacArthur was awarded $2.4 million a season from the league arbiter? Did anyone else see Jamie Langenbrunner is making $2.8 million a season?
Maybe the MacArthur case is a one off, but I get the feeling it isn’t. Because teams are so terrified of arbiter rulings like this one, they avoid arbitration like the plague. And how do they do that? Well, by overpaying, of course.
An unbalanced arbitration system is good for escalating salaries and not much else. Maybe it too needs a re-look.
Lamoriello is taking some heat and mockery now for his attempt to circumvent the salary cap. However, it must be said that he did it because the laws are loose. If the NHL is at all serious about having this cap, it's high time they took the action to see that things like salary rules, minor league demotions and cap penalties are calibrated correctly. The salary cap was meant to level the playing field, not tilt it towards the unrepentant.
But from my point of view, this is only an important stance if solid action is taken in the form of rule changes, changes to the CBA, else interpretation becomes a bit flaky (see Pronger contract). While the league is at it, I think there’s a few other issues that have come to light that they need to address too.
Contract rules
It’s not only the length of a contract that’s important. In fact, it’s not the length at all. Everything hinges on the age at which the player will receive his last payday.
Yesterday, I saw a good suggestion on the matter. A simple and elegant solution that the league could implement tomorrow:
Don’t allow any long-term contracts to extend past a player’s 39th birthday.
Why 39? Well, the number was chosen based on league averages, but the number it self isn’t that important after all, another number (36, 37, 40) would work just as effectively in setting clear boundaries.
In addition to finishing age, it appears there’s also some concern about what a player is paid at the beginning and the end of the contract. This isn’t really an issue if the player plays those years (see Scott Gomez), as the cap treats every year as equal. It is an issue if the player retires,, though, since a false cap number was calculated with the lower salary which might never be paid out.
The Kovalchuk deal was new because it had so many years at league minimum to bring down the cap hit that it seemed disingenuous. I can see the problem with it. After all, if Kovalchuk was intending to play till then, he’d already have signed for $6 million every year until 44 by now.
There might be an easy-ish solution here too. Limits could be set on how much the top salary and bottom salary in a deal could vary (e.g., 50%, 30% or something) and there could be guidelines about how many seasons at less than say 60% of the average pay there could be.
Whatever, the eventual solutions, the point is that they need to be put to paper and made clear to everyone. Until that happens, the league’s whim will be seen as the rule.
Minor league duty
Just as outrageous as Kovalchuk’s contract is the idea that the Blackhawks can simply put Cristobal Huet in the minors in order to free up salary cap space. In the event they do that, the Hawks will erase Huet’s entire salary from their cap tabulation. Other teams will be on this boat too, as Jeff Finger may be helping Brian Burke from another cap overshoot by playing in the minors.
This situation is fraught with issues as well.
For starters, it seems quite unfair to the player. Huet may be in the minors for his sketchy play, but there will be others who suffer the same fate for their big payday alone. For another thing, the player can still play late on in the season when cap spae is clearer and is free as anyone else to play in the playoffs..
It’s an extreme example, but imagine Chicago opts to sign Kovalchuk and Frolov and gets them to commit to the minors. No matter what outlandish salaries they pay them, come playoff time they could insert the two of them and then Huet back into the lineup without consequence.
Clearly this issue needs to be revisited as well, as the loophole unfairly allows irresponsible GMs to correct errors at a players expense. It also creates an uneven playing field for people who play the cap as if it means something.
Salary cap penalty
While we’re on the topic, how about the salary cap penalty?
Because of bonuses, Chicago went way over the salary cap last season. While it’s causing them some headaches now (and Huet an NHL continuance), the penalty is less than a slap on the wrist.
In a way, I can see Chicago’s point of view. They exceeded the cap for playoff bonuses. That’s hard to account for.
But what’s Toronto’s excuse? And why do they get the same free pass? If it’s true that Toronto went over the salary cap last season, it must also be true that they did so in the regular season (there were no playoffs, after all). I think we all have to ask:
a) Why was this allowed to happen?
b) Why haven’t they been punished beyond the penalty on this year’s cap?
As it stands, with regular season cap busters exceeding the cap without consequence, does it not lead to the next logical question: What is there a salary cap for?
Here, I think the league needs to take action for the next time this occurs, or rather before it happens again. Forfeit of games, draft picks and funds are no brainers. Perhaps something more drastic, though, is what it would take.
Arbitration
Did anyone else see that Clarke MacArthur was awarded $2.4 million a season from the league arbiter? Did anyone else see Jamie Langenbrunner is making $2.8 million a season?
Maybe the MacArthur case is a one off, but I get the feeling it isn’t. Because teams are so terrified of arbiter rulings like this one, they avoid arbitration like the plague. And how do they do that? Well, by overpaying, of course.
An unbalanced arbitration system is good for escalating salaries and not much else. Maybe it too needs a re-look.
Lamoriello is taking some heat and mockery now for his attempt to circumvent the salary cap. However, it must be said that he did it because the laws are loose. If the NHL is at all serious about having this cap, it's high time they took the action to see that things like salary rules, minor league demotions and cap penalties are calibrated correctly. The salary cap was meant to level the playing field, not tilt it towards the unrepentant.
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
Free Agent Washout
Is anyone but TSN surprised that July 1st yielded nothing of even mild interest this year from the NHL.
As the Toronto Sycophant Network stewed over its ban from showing any feed from the most noteworthy sporting event of the year, they decided instead to build the threshold of 2010 NHL free agency as an event to be held in high regard. Long before the time the hockeyheads began talking about LeBron James, it had become apparent that the event was to be complete washout.
And why not?
After all, there are two things that make free agency exciting -- involvement of teams of consequence and the availability of players of consequence. In the age of 15 years contracts, it seems that both concerned parties had made other plans.
Last season, you will remember it differently. The Habs through a combination of deliberate conviction and criminal spring inaction ended up at the end of June requiring half a team. As aresult, the week produced some of the most noteworthy trades and signings in recent memory, and all at once. Only the most begrudging could have called it boring.
But why so different this year then? Has the NHL really changed that dramatically?
My feeling is that this has been building now for some time. That the salary cap is catching up with the big spenders.
A look at the current salary cap numbers seems to confirm the same. These 9 teams (including the one we sometimes adore) went over the cap last year and face a reduction in this year's ceiling:
1. Chicago Blackhawks, $4,157,753
2. Boston Bruins, $1,759,795
3. Toronto Maple Leafs, $1,400,000
4. Edmonton Oilers, $354,500
5. San Jose Sharks, $327,500
6. Vancouver Canucks, $90,000
7. Pittsburgh Penguins, $83,979
8. Montreal Canadiens, $68,751
9. Detroit Red Wings, $50,000
Those same teams are up against it again, and also happen to be the teams people might be interested in when it comes to signings.
Only 11 teams in the market have more than $3 million available per opening on their roster. But with the exception of the Oilers tell me if you care what Columbus, Florida, Phoenix , Dallas, Anaheim, Nashville, St. Louis, Colorado, Atlanta and the Islanders will do to plug the remaining roster spots. Tell me if you think any one of them will break from character and spend to anywhere near the cap anyway.
So the spenders have spent. Just as dooming to free agency has been the scarcity of stock.
Just this morning I was reading an article about the best remaining free agents and it listed Carlo Colaiacovo. it gives you an idea. Really, Kovalchuk is the only toy worth spending for, and the teams with space know it. They're neither desperate nor stupid enough to jump the Kovalchuk deal to ink Paul Kariya or Maxim Afinogenov when the moves can wait until September.
As it relates to the evolution salary and the way it flows around the league, the washout of this free agent season is tat least interesting forman academic point of view. It has been a wshout nonetheless. Maybe someone should tell Pierre McGuire, he's still waiting for someone to listen to his shouting.
Pierre Gauthier? Could be worse...
I am not at all impressed with our new GM's dealings to date. If his trades and signings have been feeble, ex-communicating Halak and his agent (and then admitting to as much publicly) was unforgiveable.
But fret not. It could be worse. Did anyone perchance notice on that list above that the Toronto Maple Leafs got a salary cap penalty for overspending last season?
To which the inevitable quesion must be: Really? How?
The worst team in a Leafs decade cost more than every team who made the playoffs? And was only surpassed for playoff bonuses?
Well don't look now, but the Leafs are also the team with the highest cap hit of all NHL outfits at present, thanks to their stunning acquisition of Colby Armstrong whose penchant to hit less than Nik Antropov will surely make Tyler Bozak the scorer Burke's alleged other suitors were apparently gagging over.
They make this mark by paying unproven players like Bozak, Grabovski and Schenn millions more than they should command.
So, next time you're cursing Gauthier for losing another trade, signing a huge lump to sit in front of the net, or jettisoning useful players when he could do otherwise, spare a thought for Leafs fans who should they manage to cobble together a top line this year will face losing their first rounder again and face another cap penalty to cut the legs beneath them for next season's free agency.
As the Toronto Sycophant Network stewed over its ban from showing any feed from the most noteworthy sporting event of the year, they decided instead to build the threshold of 2010 NHL free agency as an event to be held in high regard. Long before the time the hockeyheads began talking about LeBron James, it had become apparent that the event was to be complete washout.
And why not?
After all, there are two things that make free agency exciting -- involvement of teams of consequence and the availability of players of consequence. In the age of 15 years contracts, it seems that both concerned parties had made other plans.
Last season, you will remember it differently. The Habs through a combination of deliberate conviction and criminal spring inaction ended up at the end of June requiring half a team. As aresult, the week produced some of the most noteworthy trades and signings in recent memory, and all at once. Only the most begrudging could have called it boring.
But why so different this year then? Has the NHL really changed that dramatically?
My feeling is that this has been building now for some time. That the salary cap is catching up with the big spenders.
A look at the current salary cap numbers seems to confirm the same. These 9 teams (including the one we sometimes adore) went over the cap last year and face a reduction in this year's ceiling:
1. Chicago Blackhawks, $4,157,753
2. Boston Bruins, $1,759,795
3. Toronto Maple Leafs, $1,400,000
4. Edmonton Oilers, $354,500
5. San Jose Sharks, $327,500
6. Vancouver Canucks, $90,000
7. Pittsburgh Penguins, $83,979
8. Montreal Canadiens, $68,751
9. Detroit Red Wings, $50,000
Those same teams are up against it again, and also happen to be the teams people might be interested in when it comes to signings.
Only 11 teams in the market have more than $3 million available per opening on their roster. But with the exception of the Oilers tell me if you care what Columbus, Florida, Phoenix , Dallas, Anaheim, Nashville, St. Louis, Colorado, Atlanta and the Islanders will do to plug the remaining roster spots. Tell me if you think any one of them will break from character and spend to anywhere near the cap anyway.
So the spenders have spent. Just as dooming to free agency has been the scarcity of stock.
Just this morning I was reading an article about the best remaining free agents and it listed Carlo Colaiacovo. it gives you an idea. Really, Kovalchuk is the only toy worth spending for, and the teams with space know it. They're neither desperate nor stupid enough to jump the Kovalchuk deal to ink Paul Kariya or Maxim Afinogenov when the moves can wait until September.
As it relates to the evolution salary and the way it flows around the league, the washout of this free agent season is tat least interesting forman academic point of view. It has been a wshout nonetheless. Maybe someone should tell Pierre McGuire, he's still waiting for someone to listen to his shouting.
Pierre Gauthier? Could be worse...
I am not at all impressed with our new GM's dealings to date. If his trades and signings have been feeble, ex-communicating Halak and his agent (and then admitting to as much publicly) was unforgiveable.
But fret not. It could be worse. Did anyone perchance notice on that list above that the Toronto Maple Leafs got a salary cap penalty for overspending last season?
To which the inevitable quesion must be: Really? How?
The worst team in a Leafs decade cost more than every team who made the playoffs? And was only surpassed for playoff bonuses?
Well don't look now, but the Leafs are also the team with the highest cap hit of all NHL outfits at present, thanks to their stunning acquisition of Colby Armstrong whose penchant to hit less than Nik Antropov will surely make Tyler Bozak the scorer Burke's alleged other suitors were apparently gagging over.
They make this mark by paying unproven players like Bozak, Grabovski and Schenn millions more than they should command.
So, next time you're cursing Gauthier for losing another trade, signing a huge lump to sit in front of the net, or jettisoning useful players when he could do otherwise, spare a thought for Leafs fans who should they manage to cobble together a top line this year will face losing their first rounder again and face another cap penalty to cut the legs beneath them for next season's free agency.
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
The No Movement Clause
Of Laraque, Nylander And Sykora
Last week, apart from the losing, the disappointment of the week was Georges Laraque's failed transfer to Swedish club AIK. In what was a hopeful story, Georges had said that he'd be willing to play for free in Sweden. The Canadiens on their part jumped at this and instigated an international transfer request.
Alas it was denied by the NHL.
All the details of this story are a bit murky. For instance, we don't know for certain whether the request was instigated, who instigated it and why, if it was begun, it fell down.
The easy speculation on this is that Georges Laraque ran his mouth about playing in Sweden for nothing in typical fashion, but when it came time for action he bottled out. This is indeed the most logical scenario, since the whole transfer hinged on Laraque first waiving his no movement clause. As Georges never turned up on the waiver wire, it is safe to assume he probably didn't.
The timing of the Laraque banishment
Many questioned the timing of showing Laraque the door just after a Haitian catastrophe. Indeed, I was puzzled at first too. However, it didn't take much investigative journalism to work out what was behind the urgency.
Unreported in the whole affair was the closing of the IIHF transfer window, which was due to take place on January 31, 2010. Given Laraque had to be coaxed into waiving an NMC, then possibly clearing waivers, time was not on the Canadiens side. They needed a couple of weeks to get paperwork done (Ryan White knows how efficient they are at that) and finalize the deal. They couldn't in the end.
Transfer window closed
January has turned to February and the IIHF transfer window is now closed. Laraque cannot go to Sweden or Finland, or Switzerland or anywhere. Sorry, but it's true.
It's a shame that Laraque is either so full of it, non-compliant or unrealistic, because this move really would have been possible. The Washington Capitals faced the identical situation (albeit with a bigger salary and a legitimate gripe) in dealing with Michael Nylander. The critical difference with Nylander was that a) he wanted to earn his money and b) he waived his no-movement clause. Way back in November, the Capitals put Nylander and his $5.5 million salary through waivers on his way to Grand Rapids. The fact he is now playing in the Finnish league means that Nylander also followed through on his stated desire to play rather than collect a contract in stagnation.
A couple of lessons can be taken from this. One, know the player you are giving an NMC to, if he's a bit of a selfish self-promoter, probably negotiate a different clause as a cherry on top. Two, transfers take time to arrange. Perhaps leaving it till the 11th hour isn't the way to go.
Laraque can't come off the books now... Or can he?
With no IIHF transfers available, one has to think Laraque is hogging a roster spot and salary until the end of the year.
But then one looks around the league and sees other news coming out of Minnesota. Specifically, the alleged voiding of Petr Sykora's contract – which frees up the roster spot and the cap room for the Wild. One has to wonder whether there's something to be done with Laraque here.
A closer look reveals some pretty critical differences in the contracts, however. First, Sykora doesn't have an NMC. This means the Wild can freely demote him whenever they feel like it, which they did a couple of weeks ago when he appeared on waivers. Second, Sykora's contract is running out at the end of the season. So, while he'll lose plenty of money in voiding that contract, it wouldn't be as much as Laraque would lose from his buyout potential of $1 million and the hundreds of thousand left this season.
Is it possible that in this scenario the Wild and Sykora knew there would be no reporting to Houston and that any demotion would mean Petr not reporting and thereby voiding a contract? Is it possible they colluded to free Petr to pursue mid-season free agency on a lower contract that more teams would likely look at favourably? Could this all be construed as collusion? The commenters on Hockey Wilderness seem to see the same sort of shadiness as I.
It's not very fair is it? That there's a loophole for Sykora, but not for Laraque. But not all's fair in love and CBAs. At the end of the day, Gainey dug this NMC hole himself. And by not alienating Laraque soon enough (a la Nylander) he let the transfer solution become too frantic a rush. It was a mismanagement based on a bit too much hope, and little logic.
Still, I wonder if there is some grounds to show that Laraque hadn't fulfilled his contract, because goodness knows he totally flew in the face of the spirit of his contract. As a fighter who at times flatly refused to fight, he was grossly unethical, in effect holding on to his millions based on a known technicality. He must have known why he was signed, and it wasn't, as he seemed to latterly think, to make tape to opposition tape passes. Is there any chance to show that Laraque did not act in good faith to complete the terms of his contract?
In a land where unions see that players can be paid many millions years after they play a useful minute, I think not. But hope springs yet...
Alas it was denied by the NHL.
All the details of this story are a bit murky. For instance, we don't know for certain whether the request was instigated, who instigated it and why, if it was begun, it fell down.
The easy speculation on this is that Georges Laraque ran his mouth about playing in Sweden for nothing in typical fashion, but when it came time for action he bottled out. This is indeed the most logical scenario, since the whole transfer hinged on Laraque first waiving his no movement clause. As Georges never turned up on the waiver wire, it is safe to assume he probably didn't.
The timing of the Laraque banishment
Many questioned the timing of showing Laraque the door just after a Haitian catastrophe. Indeed, I was puzzled at first too. However, it didn't take much investigative journalism to work out what was behind the urgency.
Unreported in the whole affair was the closing of the IIHF transfer window, which was due to take place on January 31, 2010. Given Laraque had to be coaxed into waiving an NMC, then possibly clearing waivers, time was not on the Canadiens side. They needed a couple of weeks to get paperwork done (Ryan White knows how efficient they are at that) and finalize the deal. They couldn't in the end.
Transfer window closed
January has turned to February and the IIHF transfer window is now closed. Laraque cannot go to Sweden or Finland, or Switzerland or anywhere. Sorry, but it's true.
It's a shame that Laraque is either so full of it, non-compliant or unrealistic, because this move really would have been possible. The Washington Capitals faced the identical situation (albeit with a bigger salary and a legitimate gripe) in dealing with Michael Nylander. The critical difference with Nylander was that a) he wanted to earn his money and b) he waived his no-movement clause. Way back in November, the Capitals put Nylander and his $5.5 million salary through waivers on his way to Grand Rapids. The fact he is now playing in the Finnish league means that Nylander also followed through on his stated desire to play rather than collect a contract in stagnation.
A couple of lessons can be taken from this. One, know the player you are giving an NMC to, if he's a bit of a selfish self-promoter, probably negotiate a different clause as a cherry on top. Two, transfers take time to arrange. Perhaps leaving it till the 11th hour isn't the way to go.
Laraque can't come off the books now... Or can he?
With no IIHF transfers available, one has to think Laraque is hogging a roster spot and salary until the end of the year.
But then one looks around the league and sees other news coming out of Minnesota. Specifically, the alleged voiding of Petr Sykora's contract – which frees up the roster spot and the cap room for the Wild. One has to wonder whether there's something to be done with Laraque here.
A closer look reveals some pretty critical differences in the contracts, however. First, Sykora doesn't have an NMC. This means the Wild can freely demote him whenever they feel like it, which they did a couple of weeks ago when he appeared on waivers. Second, Sykora's contract is running out at the end of the season. So, while he'll lose plenty of money in voiding that contract, it wouldn't be as much as Laraque would lose from his buyout potential of $1 million and the hundreds of thousand left this season.
Is it possible that in this scenario the Wild and Sykora knew there would be no reporting to Houston and that any demotion would mean Petr not reporting and thereby voiding a contract? Is it possible they colluded to free Petr to pursue mid-season free agency on a lower contract that more teams would likely look at favourably? Could this all be construed as collusion? The commenters on Hockey Wilderness seem to see the same sort of shadiness as I.
It's not very fair is it? That there's a loophole for Sykora, but not for Laraque. But not all's fair in love and CBAs. At the end of the day, Gainey dug this NMC hole himself. And by not alienating Laraque soon enough (a la Nylander) he let the transfer solution become too frantic a rush. It was a mismanagement based on a bit too much hope, and little logic.
Still, I wonder if there is some grounds to show that Laraque hadn't fulfilled his contract, because goodness knows he totally flew in the face of the spirit of his contract. As a fighter who at times flatly refused to fight, he was grossly unethical, in effect holding on to his millions based on a known technicality. He must have known why he was signed, and it wasn't, as he seemed to latterly think, to make tape to opposition tape passes. Is there any chance to show that Laraque did not act in good faith to complete the terms of his contract?
In a land where unions see that players can be paid many millions years after they play a useful minute, I think not. But hope springs yet...
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Playing The System
GMs That Are Ahead Of The Curve
Every time you hear that Saku Koivu is gone because he couldn't fit under the cap, think again.
Koivu, by virtue of celebrating his 35th birthday this November and not earlier was eligible to sign one of those brain-bustingly long salaries that could have been averaged out to a minimal cap hit.
You know the ones that Detroit and Scotty Bowman's Blackhawks are handing out?
Now, I fully believe that Gainey wanted the space on the team and not the space in the balance book when he waved goodbye to Saku, but what about some of his other signings? Where was the creativity when he signed up 30-year old Brian Gionta to a financially tying $5 million cap hit for the next 5 years?
It got me thinking about the better GMs in the NHL and what they have been doing to show up their slower peers.
The long contract
This summer has seen the advent of the extended contract beyond the age of 40 years old.
The idea behind the long contract has been a round a while now. The Islanders broke the ice with a 15-year deal to Rick DiPietro back in 2006. The Flyers gave out a few, most notably to Mike Richards.
But it was not until the Red Wings came along and signed Henrik Zetterberg that the manipulation of numbers really came into effect.
The DiPietro deal, you see was the same salary for every year of the contract. At the time, one could argue that it was an overpay for the player, an argument that only seems to take on more credence as time goes by. It was in effect, just a really bad long contract.
Ditto the Mike Richards deal. The Flyers handed out the deal to a 22-year old who'd had one decent year earlier in his breakout season. They ended up paying him a wad more than they could have been for the past year and by virtue of his age, the benefit of retirement is unlikely to help them. It opened the door for a trade later in the contract, but Holmgren just didn't have the same grasp on the possibilities as his sleeker peers. After all, a two-way forward like Mike Richards (if he's all we have to hear is from Flyers fans) will not be an untradeable asset by the age of 34. If he is, who would take on the $5.75 million cap hit anyway? Only teams covering the minimum...
The Zetterberg deal was different. It used term to reduce the average to a superstar player. Henrik will be paid a worthy salary of $7+ million for the next 9 seasons, then when he turns 37, he'll drop to half with 2 seasons at $1 million for the flourish. The drastic drop means the Wings pay the player over $7 million, but at a $6 million cap hit. Should he do the Forsberg and opt for cruising the Stockholm archipelago by his late 30s, the Wings have a minor cap coup and Zetterberg gets most of his money.
Always a team to push limits, the Wings went further with their next extension. Johan Franzen is tied to the team until the age of 39 as well, but at a bargain price just under $4 million a year on the cap. He will of course be paid well over $5 million a season (like Gionta) until his late 30s, but then opens the window to Scandinavian motor-boating with 4 final seasons where he'd only be collecting $7 million in all.
The Red Wings have set a revolution in place in this regard, but leave it to the master (and Holland's teacher) to show everyone that it can be done even better than that. The Marian Hossa contract is that masterpiece. In designing a contract that pays Hossa $3.5 million over the last 4 seasons, they were able to secure a $7.5 million dollar player at 2/3 the cap hit. Not only that, he stole Hossa from under the Wings' very noses.
While heralded in some quarters as madness, the reality is closer to genius. As this Ottawa Citizen article stated a few weeks ago:
Retirement is the key, and right now the possibilities to push this kind of salary are almost limitless. One blogger asks why stop at 12, 15 years; why not 30 years?
And he's right for asking, because although there are limits on contracts offered to players over the age of 35, there's no current limit as to the number of years a player of age 22 (like Carey Price for example) could be signed for. 30 seems ridiculous, but really why stop there?
Loophole will be closed
Upstanding NHL citizen, rarely jealous, spiteful or arrogant, Brian Burke is upset about the lack of fair play. And, he, along with other slowpokes, will probably see the loophole closed so that they can continue to get to grips with 1-year deals.
Funny how some loopholes seem more despicable than others to ole Brian.
Incidentally, as a Habs fan, I want this loophole closed and fast. It hardly seems fair that we be the only team still paying what the cap hit says to players whose performance is far from guaranteed. I think it's only fair that other teams, no matter how good their GMs should also be held to terrible contracts instead of being able to wriggle out, just because they are better at their jobs than their rivals.
"You're not thinking 4th dimensionally"
Gainey it seems is not in the same plane as his mosre successful rivals, at least not as a devious pursuer of vitory at all costs. After all, in addition to adding one of the worst value contracts in the whole league to his roster, he also gave out two of the most questionable deals of the summer to Cammalleri and Gionta.
I think he's failed us in this regard, he's not near the head of the class. And, just as Doc Brown scolded Marty for being such a simpleton (even after 2.5 movies worth of time travelling), I could see better GMs scolding Gainey for his summer:
Bob: "But I don't want Gionta for 22 years, I only want him for 5."
Doc Bowman: "Sign him for 22 years with every year after 40 at current league minimum. If he retires, you don't pay him."
Bob: "Still, that's almost 5 years of Gionta that I don't want."
Doc Bowman: "Bob, you're not thinking 4th dimensionally. Have you ever made a trade? Have you ever thought about how to become the best GM? Cap hits are important. By averaging salary over more time, you can reduce the cap hit for a future suitor. You make an untradeable asset tradeable, even within your ridiculous $5 million per year period..."
The man who tries so hard
Speaking of rivals, it's hard not to chuckle at poor Paul Holmgren who tries his very best to keep up with the Detroits and Chicagos of the world.
It started with Richards, whose contract we deem just expensive and unnecessarily unbalanced. It got even more comical with Briere and then Timonen. But this summer he really took the cake.
Taking his inspiration from Franzen and Hossa, Holmgren promptly signed newly acquired Chris Pronger to a long-term deal, well past the date where he'd be on the team. He even overpaid in a trade for the privilege.
At first glance what he did was OK. He signed a 34-year old defenceman to several years, the final ones (which he hopefully wouldn't play) at league minimum. What Paul didn't grasp was this – Chris Pronger had a contract already. His next contract will come into force next summer (and here's the tragedy) after he turn 35. If there was any doubt, it was cast aside when the league said that's how it would treat the deal.
Oops.
While trying to put together one of the best contracts in history, he has unwittingly added another chapter to the comedy of errors in the Flyers organization post-lockout. If Pronger retires instead of playing for $500 K, Holmgren's successor will be taking a $5 million cap hit for an empty locker – which would probably be up there for worst NHL contract ever. All's not lost though, he could force Pronger to play as he slows down and just have a really slow and ineffective defender for the very same cap hit.
Maybe Gainey missed saving a few million on Gionta, but at least he didn't Holmgren his team into a hole. Oh, it'll be fun to play those 2014-15 Flyers...
Koivu, by virtue of celebrating his 35th birthday this November and not earlier was eligible to sign one of those brain-bustingly long salaries that could have been averaged out to a minimal cap hit.
You know the ones that Detroit and Scotty Bowman's Blackhawks are handing out?
Now, I fully believe that Gainey wanted the space on the team and not the space in the balance book when he waved goodbye to Saku, but what about some of his other signings? Where was the creativity when he signed up 30-year old Brian Gionta to a financially tying $5 million cap hit for the next 5 years?
It got me thinking about the better GMs in the NHL and what they have been doing to show up their slower peers.
The long contract
This summer has seen the advent of the extended contract beyond the age of 40 years old.
The idea behind the long contract has been a round a while now. The Islanders broke the ice with a 15-year deal to Rick DiPietro back in 2006. The Flyers gave out a few, most notably to Mike Richards.
But it was not until the Red Wings came along and signed Henrik Zetterberg that the manipulation of numbers really came into effect.
The DiPietro deal, you see was the same salary for every year of the contract. At the time, one could argue that it was an overpay for the player, an argument that only seems to take on more credence as time goes by. It was in effect, just a really bad long contract.
Ditto the Mike Richards deal. The Flyers handed out the deal to a 22-year old who'd had one decent year earlier in his breakout season. They ended up paying him a wad more than they could have been for the past year and by virtue of his age, the benefit of retirement is unlikely to help them. It opened the door for a trade later in the contract, but Holmgren just didn't have the same grasp on the possibilities as his sleeker peers. After all, a two-way forward like Mike Richards (if he's all we have to hear is from Flyers fans) will not be an untradeable asset by the age of 34. If he is, who would take on the $5.75 million cap hit anyway? Only teams covering the minimum...
The Zetterberg deal was different. It used term to reduce the average to a superstar player. Henrik will be paid a worthy salary of $7+ million for the next 9 seasons, then when he turns 37, he'll drop to half with 2 seasons at $1 million for the flourish. The drastic drop means the Wings pay the player over $7 million, but at a $6 million cap hit. Should he do the Forsberg and opt for cruising the Stockholm archipelago by his late 30s, the Wings have a minor cap coup and Zetterberg gets most of his money.
Always a team to push limits, the Wings went further with their next extension. Johan Franzen is tied to the team until the age of 39 as well, but at a bargain price just under $4 million a year on the cap. He will of course be paid well over $5 million a season (like Gionta) until his late 30s, but then opens the window to Scandinavian motor-boating with 4 final seasons where he'd only be collecting $7 million in all.
The Red Wings have set a revolution in place in this regard, but leave it to the master (and Holland's teacher) to show everyone that it can be done even better than that. The Marian Hossa contract is that masterpiece. In designing a contract that pays Hossa $3.5 million over the last 4 seasons, they were able to secure a $7.5 million dollar player at 2/3 the cap hit. Not only that, he stole Hossa from under the Wings' very noses.
While heralded in some quarters as madness, the reality is closer to genius. As this Ottawa Citizen article stated a few weeks ago:
"The unspoken reality. GMs expect players to retire before those contracts are actually fulfilled -- but that seven- or 12-year term brings the average of the contract down to a very manageable level."
Retirement is the key, and right now the possibilities to push this kind of salary are almost limitless. One blogger asks why stop at 12, 15 years; why not 30 years?
And he's right for asking, because although there are limits on contracts offered to players over the age of 35, there's no current limit as to the number of years a player of age 22 (like Carey Price for example) could be signed for. 30 seems ridiculous, but really why stop there?
Loophole will be closed
Upstanding NHL citizen, rarely jealous, spiteful or arrogant, Brian Burke is upset about the lack of fair play. And, he, along with other slowpokes, will probably see the loophole closed so that they can continue to get to grips with 1-year deals.
Funny how some loopholes seem more despicable than others to ole Brian.
Incidentally, as a Habs fan, I want this loophole closed and fast. It hardly seems fair that we be the only team still paying what the cap hit says to players whose performance is far from guaranteed. I think it's only fair that other teams, no matter how good their GMs should also be held to terrible contracts instead of being able to wriggle out, just because they are better at their jobs than their rivals.
"You're not thinking 4th dimensionally"
Gainey it seems is not in the same plane as his mosre successful rivals, at least not as a devious pursuer of vitory at all costs. After all, in addition to adding one of the worst value contracts in the whole league to his roster, he also gave out two of the most questionable deals of the summer to Cammalleri and Gionta.
I think he's failed us in this regard, he's not near the head of the class. And, just as Doc Brown scolded Marty for being such a simpleton (even after 2.5 movies worth of time travelling), I could see better GMs scolding Gainey for his summer:
Bob: "But I don't want Gionta for 22 years, I only want him for 5."
Doc Bowman: "Sign him for 22 years with every year after 40 at current league minimum. If he retires, you don't pay him."
Bob: "Still, that's almost 5 years of Gionta that I don't want."
Doc Bowman: "Bob, you're not thinking 4th dimensionally. Have you ever made a trade? Have you ever thought about how to become the best GM? Cap hits are important. By averaging salary over more time, you can reduce the cap hit for a future suitor. You make an untradeable asset tradeable, even within your ridiculous $5 million per year period..."
The man who tries so hard
Speaking of rivals, it's hard not to chuckle at poor Paul Holmgren who tries his very best to keep up with the Detroits and Chicagos of the world.
It started with Richards, whose contract we deem just expensive and unnecessarily unbalanced. It got even more comical with Briere and then Timonen. But this summer he really took the cake.
Taking his inspiration from Franzen and Hossa, Holmgren promptly signed newly acquired Chris Pronger to a long-term deal, well past the date where he'd be on the team. He even overpaid in a trade for the privilege.
At first glance what he did was OK. He signed a 34-year old defenceman to several years, the final ones (which he hopefully wouldn't play) at league minimum. What Paul didn't grasp was this – Chris Pronger had a contract already. His next contract will come into force next summer (and here's the tragedy) after he turn 35. If there was any doubt, it was cast aside when the league said that's how it would treat the deal.
Oops.
While trying to put together one of the best contracts in history, he has unwittingly added another chapter to the comedy of errors in the Flyers organization post-lockout. If Pronger retires instead of playing for $500 K, Holmgren's successor will be taking a $5 million cap hit for an empty locker – which would probably be up there for worst NHL contract ever. All's not lost though, he could force Pronger to play as he slows down and just have a really slow and ineffective defender for the very same cap hit.
Maybe Gainey missed saving a few million on Gionta, but at least he didn't Holmgren his team into a hole. Oh, it'll be fun to play those 2014-15 Flyers...
Monday, July 06, 2009
Note To UFAs: Money Gone
I'm not sure I believe that Alex Kovalev used the Canadiens offers as bargaining chips with other teams or not. While it doesn't seem that far-fetched, it seems strange the Kovalev was being offered a raise.
Whatever happened, Alex can't be feeling too good about himself right at this moment in time. For one thing, the big buyers have moved. For another, Brian Gionta has taken his fortune in Montreal.
But this story isn't Kovalev's alone. This is the story of every UFA who waits for lazy GMs to return from their boozy holiday weekends. It is Saku Koivu's story, it is Alex Tanguay's and perhaps to a much greater extent, all those players reaching UFA contract status, while keeping the replaceable tag.
There have been a trough-full of articles these past few days about the cap space available to each NHL team and how they might accommodate the remaining players. But none was so intelligent and insightful as this one by James Mirtle. I say that, because Mirtle's is the only article that treats the critical issue with team budgets in mind. How could you forget team budgets Montreal? They almost got you that guy you've all been salivating over for the past 11 years.
Mirtle does some straightforward calculations using the very fair and realistic estimate that was last season's spending. It's very interesting. And it should interest Montreal fans. That's because even with 3 contract albatrosses, the Habs sit at #5 in the estimated remaining funds to spend to their budget cap.
Montreal still a bigger player
Keeping in mind that this was written on Friday, Montreal had (according to calculations) an estimated $7,964,000 to spend with at least 5 roster openings. The teams ahead of Montreal included the Rangers and Devils with $13m and $11m at the time. But both teams actually have more players to sign than Montreal to ice a team, and so may not be able to compete on the open market. The other two teams, the Islanders and Vancouver represent competition.
While the looming RFAs must be considered too, Montreal really only has Plekanec who can come anywhere close to claiming a raise. New Jersey and New York have issues of their own there too with Zajac and Zherdev heading their respective lists.
Remaining money scarce
Just telling you that Montreal should be one of the big spenders left should tell you a lot. It should tell the remaining free agents something too: their money and their luck may be running out.(Thanks Brian Gionta)
James Mirtle estimates that teams will probably be spending in the neighbourhood of $147 million. It sounds like a lot but spread over 30 teams it's not even room for Tanguay's salary last year. While James alludes to it:
I did some calculations of my own. Simply put, I used a list of UFAs with 2008-09 salaries on it. I then tallied up all the salaries of the people I would consider NHL regulars or potential regulars. I even removed Fedorov, Kozlov and other defectors for good measure.
The story my calculations told is that UFAs alone, if they are all asking for raises will be looking for more than $180 million this summer. Quite right, they'll be fighting for scraps. Particularly since many teams have now turned their focuses to restricted free agents who promise to figure in their plan for much longer.
It's a lesson to future free agents: you'd better be darn sure about your leveraging, because before you know it, Spacek, Gionta and Gaborik will have pinched your change.
Pay reduction
The limited money around will certainly mean that many players have to take a significant paycut (Francis Bouillon is someone who springs immediately to mind here).
And those that are quickest to accept that reality will be the ones with an NHL career after this summer. Those with big salary demands will be left out in the cold as younger players who can do their jobs almost as efficiently will filter through to be paid minimum wages.
Paradoxically, those veterans willing to take massive pay cuts should quickly become the next most valuable group of free agents as teams look to fill holes with affordable pieces. Someone like Bouillon, who looks a disaster at $2.5 million, quickly takes on a shine as his demands creep below $1 million. In fact, it would be an interesting dynamic to have veterans with such low cap hits later in the season when trades are happening left, right and centre to get anyone on board who's played a playoff minute or two.
3 K's: Koivu, Kovalev, KHL
As this affects two of my favourite players, it was of particular interest.
I think Koivu may be the best positioned of all the remaining free agents, because as many people who have been saying, veteran centres who step up their game in the playoffs are useful commodities, no matter their age.
Kovalev, on the other hand may have played himself into a corner here. I think even he'd admit that matching the Habs offer on the market now might be tricky. It seems Kovy may have stickhandled himself into a defender at the blueline again.
As with the marginal millionaires, it may get interesting if Koivu, Kovalev and any other fading stars suddenly drop their asking prices. And, before Gainey says all his adieus, I'd warn him to keep that in mind. Yes Kovalev at $4.5 million now is impossible. But instant PP proficiency for a couple of million should not be sneezed at. Similarly, the chance to start a centre like Koivu in a depth role for a budget – only a bad manager would pass the chance up.
The same of course goes for Tanguay, who must be thinking hard about getting a new agent by now.
Unfortunately for NHL fans, the benefactors of salary slippage in North America could once again be the KHL. While the Russian league doesn't boast the standard of North American play, it does boast the same top salaries. What's more, the league – actively engaged in trying to usurp NHL audience – will be only too willing to sweep up stars left out in the cold by imprudent contracts of the past.
The next few days should be interesting indeed. Perhaps not the frenzy that TSN promises annually on July 1, but in some ways much more definitive for the league as we know it.
Will low budget teams break their own limits?
Will UFAs smell the cash running out?
Will the Russians land their largest sucker punch yet?
Whatever happened, Alex can't be feeling too good about himself right at this moment in time. For one thing, the big buyers have moved. For another, Brian Gionta has taken his fortune in Montreal.
But this story isn't Kovalev's alone. This is the story of every UFA who waits for lazy GMs to return from their boozy holiday weekends. It is Saku Koivu's story, it is Alex Tanguay's and perhaps to a much greater extent, all those players reaching UFA contract status, while keeping the replaceable tag.
There have been a trough-full of articles these past few days about the cap space available to each NHL team and how they might accommodate the remaining players. But none was so intelligent and insightful as this one by James Mirtle. I say that, because Mirtle's is the only article that treats the critical issue with team budgets in mind. How could you forget team budgets Montreal? They almost got you that guy you've all been salivating over for the past 11 years.
Mirtle does some straightforward calculations using the very fair and realistic estimate that was last season's spending. It's very interesting. And it should interest Montreal fans. That's because even with 3 contract albatrosses, the Habs sit at #5 in the estimated remaining funds to spend to their budget cap.
Montreal still a bigger player
Keeping in mind that this was written on Friday, Montreal had (according to calculations) an estimated $7,964,000 to spend with at least 5 roster openings. The teams ahead of Montreal included the Rangers and Devils with $13m and $11m at the time. But both teams actually have more players to sign than Montreal to ice a team, and so may not be able to compete on the open market. The other two teams, the Islanders and Vancouver represent competition.
While the looming RFAs must be considered too, Montreal really only has Plekanec who can come anywhere close to claiming a raise. New Jersey and New York have issues of their own there too with Zajac and Zherdev heading their respective lists.
Remaining money scarce
Just telling you that Montreal should be one of the big spenders left should tell you a lot. It should tell the remaining free agents something too: their money and their luck may be running out.(Thanks Brian Gionta)
James Mirtle estimates that teams will probably be spending in the neighbourhood of $147 million. It sounds like a lot but spread over 30 teams it's not even room for Tanguay's salary last year. While James alludes to it:
"The average NHL club has between three and four free agents to lock up still and about $5-million to do so, so we're likely looking at a lot of smaller moves. None of the players left as UFAs should expect huge paydays, however, as we'll get down to fighting for table scraps rather quickly."
I did some calculations of my own. Simply put, I used a list of UFAs with 2008-09 salaries on it. I then tallied up all the salaries of the people I would consider NHL regulars or potential regulars. I even removed Fedorov, Kozlov and other defectors for good measure.
The story my calculations told is that UFAs alone, if they are all asking for raises will be looking for more than $180 million this summer. Quite right, they'll be fighting for scraps. Particularly since many teams have now turned their focuses to restricted free agents who promise to figure in their plan for much longer.
It's a lesson to future free agents: you'd better be darn sure about your leveraging, because before you know it, Spacek, Gionta and Gaborik will have pinched your change.
Pay reduction
The limited money around will certainly mean that many players have to take a significant paycut (Francis Bouillon is someone who springs immediately to mind here).
And those that are quickest to accept that reality will be the ones with an NHL career after this summer. Those with big salary demands will be left out in the cold as younger players who can do their jobs almost as efficiently will filter through to be paid minimum wages.
Paradoxically, those veterans willing to take massive pay cuts should quickly become the next most valuable group of free agents as teams look to fill holes with affordable pieces. Someone like Bouillon, who looks a disaster at $2.5 million, quickly takes on a shine as his demands creep below $1 million. In fact, it would be an interesting dynamic to have veterans with such low cap hits later in the season when trades are happening left, right and centre to get anyone on board who's played a playoff minute or two.
3 K's: Koivu, Kovalev, KHL
As this affects two of my favourite players, it was of particular interest.
I think Koivu may be the best positioned of all the remaining free agents, because as many people who have been saying, veteran centres who step up their game in the playoffs are useful commodities, no matter their age.
Kovalev, on the other hand may have played himself into a corner here. I think even he'd admit that matching the Habs offer on the market now might be tricky. It seems Kovy may have stickhandled himself into a defender at the blueline again.
As with the marginal millionaires, it may get interesting if Koivu, Kovalev and any other fading stars suddenly drop their asking prices. And, before Gainey says all his adieus, I'd warn him to keep that in mind. Yes Kovalev at $4.5 million now is impossible. But instant PP proficiency for a couple of million should not be sneezed at. Similarly, the chance to start a centre like Koivu in a depth role for a budget – only a bad manager would pass the chance up.
The same of course goes for Tanguay, who must be thinking hard about getting a new agent by now.
Unfortunately for NHL fans, the benefactors of salary slippage in North America could once again be the KHL. While the Russian league doesn't boast the standard of North American play, it does boast the same top salaries. What's more, the league – actively engaged in trying to usurp NHL audience – will be only too willing to sweep up stars left out in the cold by imprudent contracts of the past.
The next few days should be interesting indeed. Perhaps not the frenzy that TSN promises annually on July 1, but in some ways much more definitive for the league as we know it.
Will low budget teams break their own limits?
Will UFAs smell the cash running out?
Will the Russians land their largest sucker punch yet?
Monday, March 16, 2009
The NHL Salary Floor Cheats
The Sorry Case Of The New York Islanders
I know it's a strong headline. The New York Islanders are not cheating, merely taking the piss. They are not breaking the rules, per se; but could not be accused of operating with the true spirit of sportsmanship in mind.
After watching that game the other night, with barely a recognisable name on the gamesheet, I started wondering how it was the Islanders were even meeting the obligation of the salary floor. It turns out they don't, or at least they shouldn't given the way things have gone for them. They squeak it out on loopholes.
Initially, I felt anger towards the Islanders (and I would feel a heck of a lot more if I was an NHL-able body like Mike Johnson, for example), but really they are only playing within the rules set out for them.
I think the responsibility has to lay at the feet of the NHL, who have implemented and policed a salary floor, but can let it turn into the nonsense that the Islanders have been pulling this season.
New York Islanders under the floor
By my rudimentary calculations, if the Islanders had declared all the players that actually did have a long-term injury to actually have a long-term injury (instead of broken leg – day-to-day), then they would be in serious cap floor trouble.
If bonuses are hit, they are looking at $37.75 million. If not, as low as $32.8 million. Pretty low considering the salary floor for the NHL stands at $40.3 million for every other team...
Let's face it, the Islanders have tanked this season, and they did it from the outset. They signed veterans they knew were overpriced to make the floor knowing that they would trade them when the mandated salary obligation was met. They even tossed in bonuses which counted against the cap, but which they must have known would never have to be paid out:
What's more, they never declared certain players to have long-term injury, so they wouldn't have to pay, or as it happens, compete in the NHL.
The worst thing about all this is that instead of being encouraged to do otherwise, the rules will encourage more teams to do the same in the future. The model set forth by the trailblazing New York Islanders of 2008-09 is a blueprint for how to get a top 5 draft pick without having to pay for a full NHL roster.
Ghost players
Remember the punishment of having to pay Jassen Cullimore and Tony Salmelainen for 2 years because we bought out their contracts we never wanted? Bob Gainey should have traded these two to the Islanders or the Kings a couple of years ago – their buyout contracts would be gold dust.
The Islanders, of course, have their own ghost players in Alexei Yashin to the tune of two odd million a year and Shawn Bates at $400,000 annually.
Veteran bonuses
Over the age of 35, player bonuses are to count towards the cap. One can clearly see how this clause may be exploited by the Nashvilles, LAs and NYIs of the league.
"Doug Weight, want your biggest contract in years even though you're in full decline? The condition, of course is that you take it in bonuses, so when you decline even further we don't actually have to pay you."
This loophole, for the floor-pressed team, is even better than the ghost player (who has to be paid) because the bonuses can be set at such levels that they were never attainable anyway. It's money on the cap that will never have to be spent.
Day-to-day injuries
There is a giant loophole for those wishing to comply without complying with the terms of the NHL Collective bargaining agreement, and it is the long-term injury clause. At the moment, long-term injury requires initiative and paperwork from an NHL team to open up. If Komisarek dislocates a shoulder, the Canadiens management must process some forms to put him on long-term injured reserve and obtain the salary cap freedom allowed when players get injured.
While it boggles the mind that some GMs and their teams don't apply for this at every long-term injury (too busy talking to Eklund about trades he can invent, I guess), the more troubling bit of this arrangement is the way it affects the salary floor.
If a team does not apply for long-term injured reserve for say a player who broke his ankle or a goalie who tore his knee, that player remains on the books for the purposes of the salary cap. This in turn allows a team ice a sub-AHL team and get away with it.
Is it fair enough? Maybe so. Even so, it leaves a sour taste in my mouth.
What should the NHL do?
It's not that clear.
The first suggestion I would put forward would be to evaluate why they ever put a salary floor in place at all. It was purported at the time that the floor would be a method to foster competition, by ensuring that small market teams would sign players of star calibre – I think the Islanders have shown that this is contingent on the team's and not the league's or the fans' definition of star (Guerin, Weight, Comrie) and that, even then, there are plenty of ways around it.
Beyond excising the salary floor from the equation altogether, there could be a number of simple tweaks (as I see it) to prevent the Islanders from becoming the model for the other perennial stragglers of the NHL:
a) Count salary buyouts against the cap, but not towards the floor
Counting salary buyouts is meant to be a deterrent to GMs not an incentive. It only makes sense to leave it where it deters and remove it from the equation where it does not.
b) Count veteran bonuses against the cap, but not towards the floor
Similarly, the thinking behind counting veteran bonuses towards the cap was to prevent teams from stocking up on vets and paying them only contingent on their play. It was never intended to make Doug Weight a $4.5 million player even when his paid salary is less than $2 million.
c) Make LTI semi-automatic
It is one thing to allow teams flexibility to declare LTI for the upper level (if they want it). But entirely another to allow Rick DiPietro (out for the season in Jaunary) to count against the cap as if he were playing. The Islanders are not paying his salary (unless they have really bad insurance), so why should they get credit as if they were. Perhaps it could be as simple as an automatic LTI kicking in after 10 games are missed and going forward from there.
One or all of these would make some difference. And, to be honest, merely addressing the situation would be a positive step showing some concern for the competition they touted a few years ago.
I suspect that the Islanders would have something to say about the whole situation too, though. Particularly how injuries have hurt their chances, the attendance and their bottom line. It would be quite a convincing sob story if one ever believed that having Sillinger, Freddy Meyer and Brendan Witt would have turned the whole situation around for them. One point that they may bring up could have a lot of credence though, and that would be revenue sharing.
The current system in place in the NHL disqualifies the Islanders because of their geographic position. It conveniently fails to account for the immediate competition for hockey dollars in the "huge" hockey market. James Mirtle thinks the Islanders may deserve some help, after this whole fiasco, I find it hard not to agree.
After all that, does anyone else come to the conclusion that we really really messed up in losing twice to this team. I mean both teams seem to have had the same goal to drive towards – an Islanders loss at all costs.
After watching that game the other night, with barely a recognisable name on the gamesheet, I started wondering how it was the Islanders were even meeting the obligation of the salary floor. It turns out they don't, or at least they shouldn't given the way things have gone for them. They squeak it out on loopholes.
Initially, I felt anger towards the Islanders (and I would feel a heck of a lot more if I was an NHL-able body like Mike Johnson, for example), but really they are only playing within the rules set out for them.
I think the responsibility has to lay at the feet of the NHL, who have implemented and policed a salary floor, but can let it turn into the nonsense that the Islanders have been pulling this season.
New York Islanders under the floor
By my rudimentary calculations, if the Islanders had declared all the players that actually did have a long-term injury to actually have a long-term injury (instead of broken leg – day-to-day), then they would be in serious cap floor trouble.
If bonuses are hit, they are looking at $37.75 million. If not, as low as $32.8 million. Pretty low considering the salary floor for the NHL stands at $40.3 million for every other team...
Let's face it, the Islanders have tanked this season, and they did it from the outset. They signed veterans they knew were overpriced to make the floor knowing that they would trade them when the mandated salary obligation was met. They even tossed in bonuses which counted against the cap, but which they must have known would never have to be paid out:
The Islanders were happy to give the veteran the incentives for two reasons. For starters, they would be properly rewarding Weight if his offensive statistics rebounded closer to his career averages after a 25-point output in 2007-2008. With 21 points (4-17-21) in his first 21 games this season for the Islanders, the move has paid off for both team and player.
But there was additional strategy behind the Weight incentives package. As a player over age 35 and on a one-year deal, those bonuses counted towards the Islanders’ salary cap number. And Weight’s deal - along with the signing of Mark Streit to a deal averaging $4.1 million - took the Islanders above the salary cap “floor” as mandated by the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
What's more, they never declared certain players to have long-term injury, so they wouldn't have to pay, or as it happens, compete in the NHL.
The worst thing about all this is that instead of being encouraged to do otherwise, the rules will encourage more teams to do the same in the future. The model set forth by the trailblazing New York Islanders of 2008-09 is a blueprint for how to get a top 5 draft pick without having to pay for a full NHL roster.
Ghost players
Remember the punishment of having to pay Jassen Cullimore and Tony Salmelainen for 2 years because we bought out their contracts we never wanted? Bob Gainey should have traded these two to the Islanders or the Kings a couple of years ago – their buyout contracts would be gold dust.
The Islanders, of course, have their own ghost players in Alexei Yashin to the tune of two odd million a year and Shawn Bates at $400,000 annually.
Veteran bonuses
Over the age of 35, player bonuses are to count towards the cap. One can clearly see how this clause may be exploited by the Nashvilles, LAs and NYIs of the league.
"Doug Weight, want your biggest contract in years even though you're in full decline? The condition, of course is that you take it in bonuses, so when you decline even further we don't actually have to pay you."
This loophole, for the floor-pressed team, is even better than the ghost player (who has to be paid) because the bonuses can be set at such levels that they were never attainable anyway. It's money on the cap that will never have to be spent.
Day-to-day injuries
There is a giant loophole for those wishing to comply without complying with the terms of the NHL Collective bargaining agreement, and it is the long-term injury clause. At the moment, long-term injury requires initiative and paperwork from an NHL team to open up. If Komisarek dislocates a shoulder, the Canadiens management must process some forms to put him on long-term injured reserve and obtain the salary cap freedom allowed when players get injured.
While it boggles the mind that some GMs and their teams don't apply for this at every long-term injury (too busy talking to Eklund about trades he can invent, I guess), the more troubling bit of this arrangement is the way it affects the salary floor.
If a team does not apply for long-term injured reserve for say a player who broke his ankle or a goalie who tore his knee, that player remains on the books for the purposes of the salary cap. This in turn allows a team ice a sub-AHL team and get away with it.
Is it fair enough? Maybe so. Even so, it leaves a sour taste in my mouth.
What should the NHL do?
It's not that clear.
The first suggestion I would put forward would be to evaluate why they ever put a salary floor in place at all. It was purported at the time that the floor would be a method to foster competition, by ensuring that small market teams would sign players of star calibre – I think the Islanders have shown that this is contingent on the team's and not the league's or the fans' definition of star (Guerin, Weight, Comrie) and that, even then, there are plenty of ways around it.
Beyond excising the salary floor from the equation altogether, there could be a number of simple tweaks (as I see it) to prevent the Islanders from becoming the model for the other perennial stragglers of the NHL:
a) Count salary buyouts against the cap, but not towards the floor
Counting salary buyouts is meant to be a deterrent to GMs not an incentive. It only makes sense to leave it where it deters and remove it from the equation where it does not.
b) Count veteran bonuses against the cap, but not towards the floor
Similarly, the thinking behind counting veteran bonuses towards the cap was to prevent teams from stocking up on vets and paying them only contingent on their play. It was never intended to make Doug Weight a $4.5 million player even when his paid salary is less than $2 million.
c) Make LTI semi-automatic
It is one thing to allow teams flexibility to declare LTI for the upper level (if they want it). But entirely another to allow Rick DiPietro (out for the season in Jaunary) to count against the cap as if he were playing. The Islanders are not paying his salary (unless they have really bad insurance), so why should they get credit as if they were. Perhaps it could be as simple as an automatic LTI kicking in after 10 games are missed and going forward from there.
One or all of these would make some difference. And, to be honest, merely addressing the situation would be a positive step showing some concern for the competition they touted a few years ago.
I suspect that the Islanders would have something to say about the whole situation too, though. Particularly how injuries have hurt their chances, the attendance and their bottom line. It would be quite a convincing sob story if one ever believed that having Sillinger, Freddy Meyer and Brendan Witt would have turned the whole situation around for them. One point that they may bring up could have a lot of credence though, and that would be revenue sharing.
The current system in place in the NHL disqualifies the Islanders because of their geographic position. It conveniently fails to account for the immediate competition for hockey dollars in the "huge" hockey market. James Mirtle thinks the Islanders may deserve some help, after this whole fiasco, I find it hard not to agree.
After all that, does anyone else come to the conclusion that we really really messed up in losing twice to this team. I mean both teams seem to have had the same goal to drive towards – an Islanders loss at all costs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)