When I was putting together a piece on Jacques Martin, player development is what I had in mind. I have to admit to getting sidetracked by a tangential thought that grew into an article.
I say player development, because if winning against Toronto in the playoffs is what Jacques Martin is worst at, developing players into future stars is perhaps what he is best at. It's good thing too, because there's a fairly broad consensus on those who give report cards to the Canadiens organization that the mark for Gainey and co. should be "Needs improvement" or even "Unsatisfactory".
In fact, if one were to try and pinpoint the key element that has led to Gainey pressing reset on his five-year plan (i.e., the reason his original 5 years were eventually deemed a bust) it could well be player development. After all, 25 goalscorers completely losing confidence is right up there with sudden and inexplicable inability to win in the playoffs as the theme of the half decade. It's not nice to harp on about Carbonneau, but let's just say his name and "player development", though often finding their way into the same sentence were more often than not also accompanied by phrases like "has no aptitude for", "doesn't like" or "would rather go tie shopping".
Can't keep burning through prospects
The Canadiens have done an admirable job of piling up half decent prospects at most positions in the draft without really having to lose the league. But be realistic, they've been a bit lucky – they've avoided the busts that sometimes happen to even the best scouting departments. What this means for the future is probably that they are due a bust or two, and that they can't expect to keep pulling in top talent from later rounds.
When you're drowned in what seems like a wealth of new faces (like autumn 2007-08), ruining one or two careers or alienating a talent doesn't seem like such a big deal.
But it doesn't take long for the tide to turn does it?
A minute ago we had too many offensive minded centres to fit Grabovski into the plans. A few slumps and a few trades later and we're looking at Ben Maxwell to step in as the number two centre if there's an injury. I looked at centre, I could have looked at the wings, where there are even less enticing propositions.
From plenty to pittance in just a season – it's no wonder Gainey decided to say no more. In taking on Jacques Martin (who's more than a French Canadian, as we're discovering by the day), Bob has opted to put a stake in the development of the assets he has left. He has invested in a policy that might turn the career of Sergei Kostitsyn around, that might prevent Matt D'Agostini from descending from 8-goal wonder to on-ice nightmare again and who might even help more established stars push their limits.
It's a good gamble. And based on the past, it may just pay off.
Jacques Martin, the nurturer of offensive egos
The other day, I wrote about how Jacques was able to take the Pitiful 1996 Senators, stabilise their defence and then move to creating an offensive powerhouse. Not only that, he actually nurtured some of the leagues very best offensive talents so that they could fulfill their potential and score goals like they were expected to.
His record on developing goalscorers is very very impressive actually. For symmetry, I looked at two 4-year periods – that since the lockout to see the current goalscoring talent and those 4 years immediately before the lockout, which coincide with Martin's powerhouse Senators teams. What I found is that Jacques' players, those drafted and brought through the Ottawa system rose above the crops from other organizations.
Goalscorers since the lockout
Since the lockout, there have been 89 players to register 30 goal seasons.
5 players have done it 4 times
13 players have done it 3 times
20 players have done it 2 times
Among the 89, there were 4 players who started their careers on Jacques Martin team. But 2 of those (Alfredsson and Hossa) are among the elite 18 who've claimed 3 30-goal marks. One other (Spezza) has done it twice.
When you look at 40 goalscorers (the real elite), Alfredsson and Hossa stand out even more since they account 4 of 54 40-goal seasons across the whole league between them.
Goalscorers before the lockout
In the 4 years before the lockout, there were only 68 players to register 30 goal seasons.
6 players did it 4 times
10 players did it 3 times
18 players did it 2 times
Once again, Jacques' proteges were up there. Hossa, again was truly elite with 4 30-goal campaigns and one 45-goal season. Throw in three more (Yashin, Alfredsson and Demitra) with a couple of 30-goal seasons apiece and Havlat with one in his fourth season in the league and it looks good again for Jacques's fostering.
How did he do it?
I'm not going to suggest that he taught these guys how to score – that would be outlandish. It looks to me like he got a lot of help from the draft. After all, Yashin, Hossa, Spezza and Havlat are all first rounders. But as we should know by now in Montreal, draft talent does not always translate. We look at teams like Ottawa from that era and Detroit now and say "good drafting". But it goes beyond that, we have that. It's actually "good drafting, great development".
What one can say without question is that he didn't hinder their goalscoring instincts, even in a defensive system. And that is a strategy that Guy Carbonneau could never quite work out.
Jacaques Martin, the purveyor of defensive reliability
As he kept an eye on his talented forwards, Martin also kept another guiding hand for the upbringing of defensive prospects.
While I'll gladly concede that a goalscorer has all the skills he needs to score goals at the age of 20, a defenceman needs a tutor, he needs a really good one, too.
Just as we can rattle off 90-point and 40-goal seasons from the Ottawa graduates (that'd be nice to do again here one day – where are you Stephane Richer?), I can also recall a list of defencemen I would have listed as elite from Jacques time down the 417. Chara, Redden, Phillips, Volchenkov, Salo have all at times been decent to excellent defenders.
We're all to familiar with the recent exploits of Zdeno Chara, but does anyone remember what a terribly awkward 23-year old he was with the 2000-01 Islanders? Sure a change of team helped a lot, but from -27 one year to +30 the next has to say something about his own improvement too. I can honestly tell you from seeing the then pylon in orange and blue at the Bell Centre that Chara and Norris trophy were not in the same realm.
Equally, Wade Redden had an exemplary ten-year stint among the sub-Norris elite of the NHL defenders. A single season in the negative (and -1 at that) speaks to how he served a system for the benefit of the team and ultimately his bank account.
The other cast members, whoever they were (and notably Phillips) always made Ottawa a difficult team to play against and a difficult team to keep the puck away from. The coach must get a lot of credit here. You can see what impact he had, because for a while after he left Ottawa still assumed they could fill any hole on defence with the next guy in the depth chart, just as Martin always always did.
I know his years in Florida weren't anything to write home about. But I tell you what, When he went in Jay Bouwmeester was not as mature and dominating as he is now. is that despite Martin? Maybe. But I'd be surprised.
Player development in Montreal
All of this is good news for Montreal, I think. Bringing in a coach at this point who can foster personalities and flair and at the same time shape defencemen into contributors to the cause is something we've longed for.
I mentioned the forwards he could salvage like Sergei Kostitsyn and D'Agostini, but I can't see his influence being a bad thing on Plekanec, Andrei Kostitsyn, Latendresse, Cammalleri and some of the other relatively young guys either. What's more, he may just be able to make a Mike Fisher or two out of all those "defensive forwards" we have waiting in the wings.
What excites me more, though. And what I expect might have been going through Bob Gainey's mind is Jacques' potential to shape all those prospects coming through. It's about Josh Gorges' consistency, Ryan O'Byrne using his size, and Yannick Weber and PK Subban taking the right first steps. If even one of those 4 make significant strides, this signing will have improved our prospects over the defensive-forward trifecta.
Carey Price. What about Carey Price? Well, as for his personal development, I'm not sure. Jacques' record in turning out clutch goaltenders is nearly league worst. But, you never know, a better defence with some offensive conversion – maybe that alone will help Carey Price take the weight of the world off his shoulders enough that he can lift his left arm. We'll see.
A chance at making the playoffs without the customary ruining of 2 young careers. How's that for more reason to be positive about the season?
Showing posts with label Yashin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Yashin. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
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)