How To Pay Subban

You know, working out what one has to pay a player really isn't as complicated as some make it seem. While I''m sure PK Subban may have rolled the dice with comparisons to Karlsson, he and his agent are smart enough to give up that trick early.

But PK knows his range well. It's a range that has clearly been set by the salaries given to players in the current team make up.

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.

Cole Shoulders High Expectations in Montreal

Two somewhat paranormal coincidences to report, one being my comment on Topham's Thursday post about my "dream signing" being Erik Cole; and him being signed hours later. The second is that I apparently agree with Jack Todd, for once. Eerie.

So why Erik Cole?

In my opinion, the biggest need for the Habs up front this off-season was clear: a proven top-6 winger with size. We've all talked before on many occasions about the need for a power forward, preferably a good winger to play with the albatross that is Scott Gomez. Someone who can battle in front of the net, and not have Andrew Leighton simply look over their heads if they set a screen. Someone who can score at least 20 goals a season; the more, the better. Having another RH shot among the forwards would also be a big plus, as only Gionta and Ryan White currently qualify.

Now, we knew we were fooling ourselves if we even dared think about Jaromir Jagr or Brad Richards; and wonder idly if there was ever any talk from head office to, say, the Sharks about Setoguchi or Pavelski when they were moved. The UFA pool was fairly shallow this year, so Montreal didn't have a lot of great choices. Once Philly wrapped up RFA Claude Giroux, the market consisted basically of Cole, Michael Ryder, and Jamie Langenbrunner.

Michael Ryder
We've been here before. Ryder was a Calder-nominated rookie for us back in 2003-04, scoring 25 goals and 38 assists. He had 2 straight 30-goal campaigns after the lockout, but a sub-par 2007-08 season (likely due to personal issues related to his brother) saw him benched by Carbonneau and left to free agency. He rebounded with Boston, scoring 27 goals and over 50 points again, but since has trailed off to 33 points last season and 41 this year despite around 15 minutes of ice-time. He's a proven scorer, and at 6' and 192 lbs is large for a Habs forward. Somehow I don't know that he'd welcome an offer from Montreal, nor that Montreal fans would be happy to have him back; and there's no guarantee he'll ever return to his 30-goal form. Dallas will pay him $3.5M per year for the next two seasons finding out.

Jamie Langenbrunner
The oldest of the trio at 35, Langenbrunner is a proven 2-way forward that's won two Cups (one with Dallas in 1999, and one with New Jersey in 2003). He fit in well with New Jersey's conservative style of play and Jacques Martin would probably love him for it. He's scored 20+ goals 4 times in 16 NHL seasons and twice came within 2 goals of the mark; and has 6 seasons with 50+ points. He's got good size at 6'1" and 205 lbs. Given that he's still unsigned, I'm left wondering why - he would have likely been a decent addition to many squads and his last contract was only worth $2.8M/yr. I am guessing Pierre Gauthier talked to him, but the fact he's still unsigned makes me think there's something a little fishy.

Erik Cole
At 32 years old and beginning his 10th NHL season, Cole has had his problems with injuries with an astonishing 86 games missed since the lockout. However, he's managed to clear 50 points 4 times in that span, and score 20+ three times (with another 18-goal season). However, he doesn't seem to play well with people who aren't Hurricanes: he had a pretty disastrous 27 points in 63 games with the Oilers in 2008-09 before returning to Carolina to put up 15 points in a mere 17 games. Still, he can be productive while playing tough minutes against hard opposition, and was one of only 5 players to score over 25 goals and deliver over 200 hits last season.

I reasoned that we need a big, RH winger that can hit and score. To me, Cole was the best choice. I think he's the biggest offensive threat of the three, he uses his size and at 6'2" and 205 lbs he's far from small. If he can stay healthy, and he did play 82 games last year, I don't think it's unreasonable to think he can put away another 25 goals and help Gomez pull his numbers up to reasonable levels - but I'm expecting a fair amount of line-juggling from Jacques Martin early on and the lines might not be what we're expecting. I was hoping to sign him for a little less than $4.5M for 2-3 years, but he'll be 37 at the contract's end and not exactly ancient. The reality is that we have to pay a premium to get players from the US that would rather not pay Canadian and Quebec taxes.

Maybe less like a "dream signing," and more like a realistic one. I guess I don't dream very big. But if Cole stays healthy, I think he can be the physical 25-goal scorer we could use so badly; and it least it's a dream that has a chance of coming true.

Let us know in the comments who I missed, and who you would have rather seen putting on the Bleu-Blanc-Rouge this past weekend.

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.

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 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:

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.

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?

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.

Negotiating On Price: Opening Parry

The last Canadiens game was played more than 2 months ago now. As the sun set on the Canadiens season, there were questions everywhere, except it seemed in goal. In goal, Jaroslav Halak had been the undisputed star for the Canadiens, if not the league in the playoffs to that point, and Carey Price warmed the bench.

But the offseason has cast a new light on matters. Halak was traded, of course. But even after that lingering negotiations have led to looming questions. For a brief period on July 1, Robert Mayer was the highest ranked goalie on the Montreal payroll. He was to be bumped to NHL back-up in the depth chart by the signing of Alex Auld and later to a more sensible place as Gauthier retained Desjardins and Sanford. As Price’s contract talks drag on, the depth chart of today still has Mayer in Hamilton, with Auld and probably Desjardins in Montreal.

That situation is pure fantasy, though, as Carey Price must be as near a certainty to sign on as there ever was. But Auld, Desjardins, Sanford, Mayer. Some have said it’s not leverage for the goalie and his agent, fans who ponder their upcoming cable package might disagree.

Anyway, we put aside the possibility that Price will not be signed instead looking to the terms of the contract he will eventually sign. For fun, I thought of the negotiation as a mock arbitration setting (probably not that far from the truth) with each side presenting their arguments and counter-arguments.

For mock purposes, let’s assume that Carey Price’s team is indeed asking for the $3 million that HabsWorld comes up with in its uncited "report" (1 to 3 years). The Habs we’ll assume by the hold up are not into that, we’ll say they started at $1.7 million (2 to 4 years).

Carey Price camp opening arguments

1. 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.


2. 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.


3. 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


4. 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.


5. 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.

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.

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...

Free Agency II: Tanguay Finds Fit To Further His Career

After exactly two months in purgatory, bleeding earning power like a Harlequins rugby player with a sack of red dye, Alex Tanguay has signed with the Lightning.

For the Lightning, the deal was a steal. They get a player who has proven he can play with talented guys (which Tampa can provide) and at a price that is very un-2008 free agency for their parts.

For Tanguay, the deal makes a lot of sense too. He could do worse than Stamkos at centre, and he may ride with Lecavalier if he keeps his game up to the right standard. Either way, he'll be wingman to someone who can finish his crafty centering efforts. What's more, he won't be asked to do the labour on the line of carrying the puck, digging it out and other elements of hard work.

The details of the story have emerged with stories of other offers, interest and intrigue. Pierre Lebrun covers it well as he answers the pertinent Alex Tanguay question:
Why did Tanguay choose Bolts over Isles, Wild?


Salary win-back

It's Tanguay's needs being filled here that really answer Lebrun's question most fully. If he's to scale back into the salary zone he covets, he must have a good year. He can't very well risk that on John Tavares or Martin Havlat, for that matter.

If Tanguay signs with the Wild, sure he's a first line player, but he has to cobble out a living with Mikko Koivu and Cal Clutterbuck. He'd be part of a project with a new GM and a team without Lemaire for the very first time. In other words, it could be an adventure.

Ditto for the Islanders. After Tavares, the talent reads remarkably like last year's AHL mirroring squad. Tavares has a lot to gain from playing with a smoothe game reader like Tanguay, but teaching John isn't going to make free agent season in 2010 a bigger bonanza than 2009 was for Tanguay really.

It's interesting to read in Lebrun's piece that Tanguay did indeed take less than he was offered from the two rival bids from the Lightning. Lebrun floats many reasons to suggest the fit: Lecavalier and St. Louis, Rick Tocchet's time as an assistant coach in Colorado, a wealth of linemates. All are plausible. All are likely. But it's Tanguay himself who sums up his reasoning best:

"Last year, I was hurt and didn't perform like I wanted," said Tanguay, who still put up 41 points in 50 games with the Habs. "The year before in Calgary, it wasn't my best year. I'm 29 years old and it's really important for me to have a good year and play at the caliber I know I can play at."

It's really important for him to have a good year. Not put himself in a winning situation. Not give himself a new challenge after riding some pretty hefty coat-tails. No, having a good year.

And make no mistake, he means a good year statistically. He means a year getting back above his average point totals. No mention of Cup, no mention of team having a good year. He's playing 2009-10 as a $2.5 million player in an effort to re-emerge with a $5 million contract.

Were I an agent, a wife, a child, a parent, an advisor I wouldn't blame him. As a fan of his former team, I have a different conclusion.


Gainey did the right thing

Up to this point, I've been pretty ambivalent about Tanguay. From an academic point of view, I knew we lost a very useful piece. His skating is good, his passing is at times sublime. And his timing is uncanny. He has the pieces.

Emotionally, however, it was less painful to see him go, simply because his loss pales compared to Kovalev, Koivu and even Bouillon for me. I never made a connection with the player beyond that academic curiosity, that superficial admiration. He did things proficiently and smoothly, but rarely got me up from my seat.

Reading what I've read from his mouth now, though. All that about having a good year and the importance of it happening this season for him -- it gives me a sense of relief to know he won't be around.


Why?

That does sound crazy doesn't it? Relief to have lost a player that wishes to rebound to new heights, a player that craves success. A player who I fully acknowledge has talent oozing from the pores.

Maybe it is. In fact, it probably is. But let me reason with you.

I think Tanguay has salary very much on the mind. Too much so. Salary, at least for this season may well take precedence to a Cup for the guy.

Oh sure, maybe once he's restored his reputation as a 75-point scorer, he'll turn his thoughts to a championship; but I find that to be too late.

You see, to win a Stanley Cup, I think it takes a burning desire from quite a number of players on the same team. It's not chance that sees Cupless veterans produce the form of their lives when they get their opportunity at a run late. It's not coincidence that teams celebrate scrappy (and unexpected) heroes year on year. The thirst for victory is that added dimension that makes the Saku Koivus of the world find two more notches in elimination games. The lack of that drive is what stifles gold-gilded and salary-bolstered teams when they face an opponent who plays with energy.

For this season at least, I think Tanguay seems to have lost the plot. Sorry, not the plot, rather my plot -- he has found a very different one to mine, and indeed I think to many fans.


Had the Canadiens signed Alex, there'd have been none of this you know. We'd never have known what he'd choose given the chance to select his own destination. He'd have been a very good winger pencilled straight in next to Scott Gomez.

But what might the season have held for Tanguay and the Canadiens? What if Alex and Gomez didn't hit it off? What if Alex looked at the prospect of his third season of decline in succession and thought first of years 30-40 for Tanguay and not games 83-99 for his Canadiens?

That's why I think Gainey did the right thing. After all, Bob may well have known of Tanguay's propensity to look out for #1, given that he'd just coached the player during the stretch of his first potential free agent win fall. What's more, he filled the vacancy he created with similar expertise.

A couple of months and a few interviews later and I'm resolved that the puzzling case of Alex Tanguay has ended the right way for this Habs fan.

Plekanec Gets Fair Deal From Habs, Not From Fans

Tomas Plekanec has avoided the nasty business of arbitration by agreeing to a deal with Bob Gainey and the Canadiens worth an estimated $2.75 million for a single year.

From reading around the topic, I can anticipate that many of you might not agree when I say that this was a very good deal for the Canadiens. I suppose, I'll have to explain myself.

First, I don't think fans have been altogether fair with Plekanec; and I think they have directed some of their overwhelming frustration at a 5-year plan on reload at the Czech.

How, for instance, can one justify saying (Mike Boone, HI/O):

"How badly do you have to suck before it shows up in your salary?"

Or (Habs Fan4, FHF):

More mediocrity for a year...

...Salary: Too high.

Or (Robert L, EOTP):

"For myself, the deal is a little lofty for a player who has regressed. It seems he's being paid for a great season in 2007-08, and not the one he had last season."

The consensus among the opinion makers is that his salary is too high. The commenters fall on either side, but swing to the opinion coming down from the top.

I think it's a little bit unfair when you consider Plekanec's career up to this point. Or how he actually played in games where he didn't score points. Or put it into the context of the other players in the league.


Plekanec's season

From a statistical standpoint on the very last day of the season, yes you can look back and say that Plekanec's season was a bit of a nightmare. But taking into account the erosion of our memories and the fact that statistics tell some, but not always the whole story, it's worth a look back at Plekanec's season.

What I remember about #14's season can be summed up in two themes: slump and consistent high level of play. Now, I don't think it's a paradox to put these two terms together. His slumps were statistical and his play was real. Perhaps he was unlucky, perhaps he had funny timing, but the reason for his lower totals was not really a dramatic fall in the level of his effort or even in the level of his play from the previous season.

Luckily for me the internet is around to cache all that was written about Plekanec over the season. I was particularly interested to show some idea of how he played in games where he didn't score points. In all Pleks made the dome on 24 occasions this season, and a third of those times came in games in which he didn't get recorded in the goal or assist column. On two occasions, he was the star of the game for us at LIW in statistical shutouts. Particularly notable was Game 66, in which he led the Habs to their first win in what then seemed like eons. Here's what we said then:

Pleks was our bet penalty-killer tonight and was very effective during the 5-on-3s. In all he played over 5 minutes of short-handed hockey and was very energetic for most of it. Aside from that he played a solid game which include a team lead in shots (3) and a very respectable 10-7 face-off record.

He played well with Kovy again tonight, but I think MaxPac added a little more energy to their line which slightly improved their overall make-up. All 3 players were quite dangerous offensively, but it was Tomas that had the most chances - he came very close in the 2nd to beating Turco on a wrap-around.

It's rather representative of his season actually, as the game was one where he played the full length of the ice, killed penalties like a star and yet garnered a zero for us all to look at in the game log.

Now I'm not saying that he had a brilliant season. Not by a long shot. But let's remember we're talking about $2.75 million here, not $7.37 million. Often our best penalty killer, one of two remaining 20-goalscorers and always true with his effort. I think what I mentioned in his mid-season evaluation holds true for me at this point:

No longer a rookie, but a veteran, his ability to commit to team winning in times of costly slump (for that new contract), speaks of his value to the team.

The Robert Lang effect

Apart from the question of what happened, there's the question of why it happened.

One theory, and certanly one with many adherents at the moment, is that Tomas digressed because he actually got worse. Obviously, I don't agree otherwise I wouldn't waste my time writing this. Another theory is that something on the team changed that affected Tomas in some way.

I don't intend to make excuses for a loss of thirty points, but I don't think it's all down to the individual here. To a certain extent, I think Plekanec suffered from not being one of only two options. I think his stats suffered from having Robert Lang around. When trigger-happy Carbonneau didn't see Plekanec on the scoresheet in 3 straight periods, he'd promptly change the way his team was deployed.

The place I feel this most affect Plekanec was in PP ice time and points. Last season, Plekanec racked up 12 goals and 25 points on the PP, this season those numbers fell to 6 goals and 12 points. As per behindthenet.com, his ice time 18 months ago was averaging about 3.38 minutes per game. This season he was down at 2.94 minutes a contest. What's more, when he did get time, it was on the second unit for the most part; whereas the previous campaign saw him rolling out on the top line of the best PP in the league.

The PP doesn't explain away his 3 or 4 extended slumps, but let's be honest if we were sitting here looking at 26 goals and 26 assists (which is what you get by just adding back his PP point missed) then the critics wouldn't be in the majority.


In context, he's cheap

Even if you don't buy all that stuff, it's still helpful, Habs fans, to look at this signing in context. Particularly in the context that an arbitrator would have done. For the statistically-inclined this will be the more interesting find.

There are 127 forwards in the league who will be paid more than Tomas Plekanec next season, and probably a few more once Tanguay and co. sign. That means that if the league had true parity and all teams paid for talent properly, Tomas would fall into a highly paid 5th forward category – at least based on pay.

That alone makes his signing a good one. But consider his goalscoring statistics for a minute.

Of the 130 forwards to be paid $2.75 million or more, only 120 have scored 20 goals at one juncture over the past three seasons. Tomas has scored 20 goals in three straight seasons, something that is matched by only 42 other players in the group.

By now you critics will be saying: "Yes, but those are the overpaid players. There are plenty of bargains out there that outperform Plekanec".

I'm one step ahead. You're right critics in thinking that there are lower paid players out there. In fact, 24 players that scored 20 goals this past season will be getting less that the $2.75m allotted to Pleks. But beware, 7 of those are on their first contracts (Berglund, etc.) and several of them are older men taking pay cuts for one reason or another. What's more is it really fair to peg Tomas based on his worst season in three, when it might well be the anomalous result?

I don't think it is, so I consider multiple seasons. With that filter, there are only 4 players who are not yet signed to contracts of lower value than Plekanec who have scored more goals in the past 3 years. One is a free agent and played with Crosby (Petr Sykora) and the other three are definitely on the downslope of their careers (Selanne, Guerin and Tkachuk). All others are either signed to more money than Plekanec or simply don't come close to the consistent 20-goal man tag that Tomas has now earned.

So you see, when taken in context, Tomas Plekanec is just about the cheapest consistent 20 goalscorer around – a much better investment than many teams have made (e.g., $4+ million for PM Bouchard, or $3.53 million for Jochen Hecht).


Why did Gainey bend?

All this is nice for fans, but let's face it, it's not new information. It was known in June when Gainey could have made an offer. It was known for the past three weeks of the Gomez era. Why did Gainey decide to bend on the very eve of arbitration then?

The Canadiens signing this deal at a significant raise shows me who was holding the leverage going into the arbitration. I think Plekanec and his agent were right to think that they did. Gainey probably moved up from his low offer and was able to make the deal by allowing the deal to expire at season's end. It was the right thing to do as Gainey will not find another centre that even approaches Plekanec's scoring abilities on the open market at this point for the same price, nor will he find anyone within the organization that could handle the remit of a top two line.

I suspect that Bob might also have anticipated a pretty disheartening loss in the arbitrator's court, despite a down season by Pleks. I only looked at the numbers for some players for a morning and I recognise that Plekanec might have been in line to out-earn Grabovski, Zubrus and Fredrik Modin.

Gainey also needed to get this done at a number lower than the contract handed to Saku Koivu. He needed to do that to save his PR for the season – a record that is already in tatters in many quarters.


Another signing to the good and another day closer to play. Even so, i think we'll run out of news before we run out of time...

Out With The Pride: In With A Real D

I know this organization values its own reputation more than anything, and that seems to extend to its reputation of hanging on to the wrong players while valiantly trying to make them play in ways they were never born to.

But as we are already hanging on to one massive project at the back to save face, would we be comfortable in saying that perhaps the project in trying to turn a man who happens to be 6'4" into an NHL defenceman?

Mike Boone wonders 'akey' about what it might take to sign Mike Komisarek.

Pardon me for looking right past Mike's name and to that of Jay Bouwmeester in the very same article. The way I see it, we should try dabbling with young defenders developed by competent defence coaches rather than hope another might slip through under our noses here like Markov did.

If Mike Komisarek is to be paid $5 million a year, I would happily see an extra $3 mil a year off to watch him try to set the all-time record for meaningless hits on another team while Jay-Bo forms the second partnership we crave in front of the Apprentice.

We like Mike K, but if he's going to be unreasonable about his value as Souray was before him, then we can do better things with our money. If the salary cap ever fell and Mike Komisarek was taking up more than 10% of our salary base, it would indeed be a sad day for the team.


Alternative solution

Bridesmaid Bob Gainey could anticipate losing that battle of tax-free salary right now, however, and simply set his sights on a minor upgrade at the back (whether or no he offers a savings on Komo's contract).


One I've had my eye on for a while, and who could be a UFA on the right date is Johnny Oduya. He's not technically as big as Mike Komisarek, but perhaps the fear that he'll play good defence will go further than the fear you might be checked just before celebrating your teammate's goal next year. One can only hope. He might also be amenable to playing for his true value.

Other ways to better spend $5 million: Matthias Ohlund, Alex Kovalev, part of Scott Niedermayer, and indeed Mike Komisarek plus the other $2.5 million player we could sign if he took a sane raise.

Gainey's Hands Tied?Schneider And The Cap

Adding Mathieu to the payroll has certainly confused a lot of people. I have to admit I had to do some reading and a bit of legwork to determine that the Canadiens would be OK with this salary load.

One of the problems is that websites like Cap Central and NHL Numbers do not know what the Canadiens have done in terms of applying for long-term injury allowance. Having done this last night, I now know why they approximate for every team...

I myself am not privy to the information. But to suffice to say, that according to Cap Central before yesterday, we were not in a position to add salary. We did and everyone in the organisation seems just fine with that. It leads me to believe they have processed a bit of paperwork over the season...

Long-term injury (LTI) allowance
The NHL CBA has made it deliberately difficult for GMs in the league to spend the salary space made by injuries to players on their team (if you want to read the actual clauses, download the PDF here and go from p. 226). The reason for this is obvious – Lou Lamoriello and other sly managers would be carrying all kinds of injured players and injuring others as they needed to.

The downside is that teams like Pittsburgh, who started without their 2 main defenders were wary to replace like with like for fear that they would be in a very compromising position come time for Gonchar and Whitney had to return.

The Canadiens, like the Penguins have had long-term injuries to some heavy hitters (salary-wise) this season. Koivu and Tanguay (the highest paid forwards) both missed loads of games; Higgins, Komisraek and Dandenault missed large numbers too; and now Robert Lang's $4 million is virtually off the books for the season.

While the injured player's salary still counts to the cap; what is allowed is spending up to the amount the injured player was making and exceeding the cap by that amount. So if Crosby was injured and the Pens were up against the cap, they could still trade for Ovechkin if they wanted to. What the team cannot do is bank salary for later. So if Koivu and Tanguay are injured for a corresponding ten-game stretch, the Canadiens can apply to replace their pro-rated $11 million for the duration of that time.

We know that the Canadiens did not do this, but they did in fact replace the players. For example, when Mike Komisarek got injured he was not initially replaced, but soon after the Candiens recalled Matt D'Agostini from Hamilton. From my understanding, it should have been alright for the Habs to make D'Agostini a cap freebie, essentially because his salary was absorbed by the overage that Komisarek's created.

Now, as I said, there is some formality to the procedure in that the NHL team must declare intentions and process paperwork. I am not entirely clued in as to how soon this must be done or whether a player once assigned as a replacement to one can then be reassigned to replace another. I am reasonably sure that there is no loophole that would make it possible for, Chris Higgins, to be Mike Komisarek's replacement and for another much cheaper player to be brought up from the minors. I feel this loop-hole if it existed would have been exploited by Brian Burke or someone by now.

So, essentially what you get is a one for one replacement – provided one of the employees of the hockey team can be bothered to do the paperwork. When we had 4 LTIs at the same time, there was certainly the potential to make sure that D'Agostini, Pacioretty, Weber and Chipchura's salaries were not our excess cap space.


Best case scenario

That said, I have worked out a best case scenario without any cheating (I think) – where each LTI is replaced by a minor leaguer whose salary bumps our cap limit by the same amount – essentially making that replacement cap neutral.

Based on this calculation, I would suggest that the Canadiens have already spent just over $38 million dollars, leaving them $18,563,000 or so in cap space for the remaining 25 games.

After that, I did the simpler calculation of pro-rated salary from here on (including Schneider) and came up with 17,590,000. I should note that I have allowed for Lang's salary to make cap neutral space of about $1.22 million extra; and also for Ryan O'Byrne's demotion to be permanent, which saves an additional $290,000.

Toting that up, you can see from my estimates that the Canadiens still have about $974,000 in space, which would still theoretically allow them to add a $3 million player today, or a higher paid player closer to the deadline.

Again, I should note that I did the calculations (for simplicity) on a per-game basis. This will be ball-park right, but salary is calculated daily and so could be off by several thousand if the schedule is more imbalanced than I thought. To be honest, i couldn't have done it the other way so quickly...

I also assumed a lot about player replacements. It is possible, for example, that D'Agostini was not Komisarek's replacement.

In any case, it should give some idea of where we sit.


Brisebois performance clause

Thinking it was enough reward for Brisebois that someone would even pay him to play hockey anymore, i at first assumed that Brisebois' cap hit of $1.5 million!!!! on Cap Central was in error and the $750,000 I remember was correct.

With a little more investigation, I have regrettably come to the conclusion that Brisebois is being paid that much – more than Gorges, Lapierre, Latendresse, Halak and more.

Can any of you tell me what exactly his bonuses are tied to? Is there any hope that he won't reach his conditions?


Dead wood

In doing this, I also found it amazing that Gainey had any maneuverability without the amount of dead wood this team is carrying. In addition to Brisebois's $1.5 milion, there are: the salary offloads from Chicago for Samsonov (totalling more than $760,000 for no one); Laraque at $1.5 million (all of which is down the toilet in my book); Dandenault at $1.725 million and Bouillon at a whopping $1.825 million, respectively (about half of which is overpay, I'd say).

Thank goodness Gainey managed to sign Andrei Kostitsyn for relatively little, and Higgins and Komisarek in the $2 million range. Plekanec still looks like a downright bargain at $1.6 million next to the aforementioned...


Welcome Matt. We look forward to a) a shot at the point on the PP, b) not looking to Brisebois or O'Byrne every game and c) you trying to earn another contract for yourself next year...

Mats SundinTo Cement His Place Among Highest Paid Ever

Don't know if you knew, but Mats Sundin was a free agent. What's more he signed yesterday for some silly amount with the Vancouver Canucks (Little Sweden). I hadn't heard or read about him for so long that I'd nearly forgotten that he was the best player in the league and therefore deserved to earn more than Niklas Lidstrom, Crosby, Malkin and Ovechkin.

In fact, I shouldn't have forgotten, because if pay is the way to judge (and it must be with Keith Tkachuk perennial cup winner so high up the list, then Mats Sundin is the third best player of all time.

OK, facetiousness aside, he is a good player. And in a salary cap environment you're not a good GM if you have $10 million spare at the end of the year. So, indeed, why not sign Sundin?

Am I bitter the Habs lost out? Well I'd rather have Sundin to Lang, but not overly bitter no.

Leafs fans on the other hand have reason to be bitter. My esteemed Score Federation compatriot at Down Goes Brown explains why here.

As for the Canucks, they are "happy". Some must be. Their fans (all proudly wearing their retired number 7) will expect a lot from the team that already has shutout machine Luongo. Cup or bust.

Mats Scarlet SundinThere Is Always Room For One More

As we're all into quoting the Pythons and cartoons, I thought a quote for me. Always a favourite to repeat in the forced British accent, and perfectly applicable for the latest Mats Sundin news: "There's always room for one more!"

According to reports of questionable reliability (given that Gaborik is looking so good in Bleu, Blanc, Rouge), Sundin and Gainey met this week in California.

Any self-respecting GM not lucky enough to ice Crosby and Malkin should be making tracks for Sundin too. Players like the big Swede are rare specimens indeed. The fact that players will have to be moved to make room shouldn't discourage anyone form adding Sundin (including Gainey) – it is hard not to see how he wouldn't upgrade most teams. Besides, a few favours to a bottom feeder in the future might tempt them to take a salary for a few months.

All the way to LA for a coffee?
Probably not. While I don't doubt Gainey is serious about Sundin, LA also happens to be home to said bottom feeders and goalie-less Kings and is close enough to a number of trading partners should salary need to be shed. The speculation has begun. Let's see where it takes us this time...


Another signing idea
Probably a bit late, but wouldn't it have been cool to have signed Patrick Roy for a game? Have him take the ice and make his last moment as a Montreal Canadien a little nicer?

A one game cap hit on league minimum wouldn't hurt, and Roy could flip it right to the Children's hospital.

Probably a bit too left field again for traditionalist management. Still, would be quite an event.

The Arbitration Farce: When's Kostitsyn's Extension Going To Be Announcued?

The Penguins have filed for salary arbitration with Marc-Andre Fleury. The Penguins have no intention of going to salary arbitration with Marc-Andre Fleury.

The Penguins exploit a loophole and prevent Kevin Lowe or a desperate GM from targeting Fleury on July 1st:

Arbitration hearings are set by the National Hockey League and take place from July 20 to August 4. Both sides can continue to negotiate a contract until that time.

"By filing for salary arbitration it gives us extra time to continue to negotiate a contract with Marc-Andre," Pens general manager Ray Shero said. "As a result of the filing, Penguins' fans are assured that Marc-Andre will be under contract to our club for next season. Marc-Andre has done a tremendous job for us. We remain committed to negotiating a contract with him in the near future."

This strategy is not stupid. It is quite shrewd actually.

I will be more upset than ever now if the Canadiens manage to dangle Andrei Kostitsyn for even a split second for all those jumped up GMs on July 1st. Much better to keep him in house for when all their lazy asses are on holiday come August having already blown the load on the Ryan Malones of the league.

Bob. Another chance to show us you are not just one of the pack. Let's see it...