It's A Bird, It's a Plane... It's a Draft Pick?

Photo is picked up from Faceoff.com, an Edmonton Journal blog

So. Let's say that this team really IS in for the long rebuild. Cool.

Hey! Look! Ottawa is thinking of buying out Cheechoo's contract! I guess that looks kinda like so (feel free to check my math):

JONATHAN CHEECHOO

Salary: $3.5 million
Cap hit: $3.0 million
Buyout: $1,155,000 or $577,500 per year in budget costs
2010-2011: $ 77,500
2011-2012: $577,500

Hrmmm... ain't that a coincidence... the Oilers are looking/rumored to be buying out Nilsson and/or O'Sullivan...

ROBERT NILSSON BUYOUT FROM CAPGEEK.COM

2010-2011: $-83,333 ($416,667 in budget costs)
2011-2012: $416,667 ($416,667 in budget costs)

PATRICK O'SULLIVAN BUYOUT FROM CAPGEEK.COM

2010-2011: $935,417 ($397,917 in budget costs)
2011-2012: $397,917 ($397,917 in budget costs)

Gee, what kind of draft pick would Ottawa give up to save approximately $323,000 in budget costs and somewhere from to $238,000 to $321,000 in Cap hits (think Nilsson)?

Guess we'll never know.

------

Edit to add: If Tambellini really did have a Penner & Gilbert for the TO 1st on the table (per Dupont at the Boston Globe)... and Chiarelli couldn't get that to go... then they are both idiots. Tambs for offering and Chiarelli for not closing. Just a stupid, stupid deal to even offer!

------

Have a great evening everyone.

2010 Reload or Rebuild - Rebuild It Is Then

Well, THAT was underwhelming.

The Trades

Did like the Staois trade straight up. Johnson is gone end of the year so this is purely about trimming next years Cap hit and getting a 3rd round pick.

Did not like the Grebeshkov trade before and it makes even less sense now. If Visnovsky was a trade target then keeping Grebs makes a lot of sense - pump his value with powerplay and butter minutes and trade him NEXT year.

Did not like the Visnovsky trade. I haven't liked Whitney since his full-on regression in Pittsburgh and I liked him less once he signed an inflated deal based on best before dated play (which makes him an Oiler by default I guess). No draft pick? Dear god.

The Waiver

Ryan Jones will be a better NHL player than JF Jacques. whoop-de-freaking-do

The Trades Not Made

How many smallish, duplicate skill-set forwards do we have on this team? How many were traded today. Reason enough to fire Tambellini right there. Moreau still with the team? And Pisani and Comrie are still with the team?

Epic failure. Epic. No excuse good enough for that.

One (Possible) Saving Grace

Of 3 trades made, only 1 makes any sense IF Tambellini is actually planning on the buy-outs (Nilsson, POS) and the reloading of the roster (Jagr) for next year - which I believe to be true btw. If, however, this is the start of a full on rebuild (which I will believe when seen) then the trades make some sort of sense.

Look, the total possible Cap dump here is around $7.5 million less a few replacements (I would probably keep Johnson just so that I can retain a veneer of respectability - he is a 'veteran' defenseman after all). Drop Pisani and Comrie and the savings are now in excess of $10 million - even factoring in some replacements.

Tambellini now has a chance to dump/trade any/all of the remaining forwards that have to go. I figure that one, maybe two, can be legitimately traded.

Using a ratio of 1/2 (half of what goes out comes back in; i.e. Moreau for a 4th and some scrub with a guaranteed one-way contract) the resulting Cap savings could be as much as another $2 million.

With any luck Khabby doesn't come back (another $3+ million) and Souray becomes another off-season casualty/trade (using the 1/2 ratio that is another $2.7 million).

So here's the trick - use what you have. And what you have is a team as bad as it will ever get (I hope), a few decent veteran pieces, some good prospects and a whack of Cap space and budget play.

THAT first part (the bad team bit) is the one, possible, saving grace that comes out of a day like today.

Given that Visnovsky, Grebeshkov and, even, Staois aren't easy pieces to replace on this team (mostly because they comprised some of the few quality pieces on it), don't try to replace them.

At least not yet. Make signing, or trading for, ONE decent player the goal of the off-season (Seidenburg maybe?) - it worked for Phoenix (Sauer) and go from there.

Keep Eberle and co. off the roster for now and let Nilsson/POS/Brule et al play out their contracts or become trade deadline tradebait. The in-season goal is to collect ONE more decent player and collect another top-3 pick in 2011.

Hemsky is the only real question mark in this whole process and I have to hope that even Tambellini can't screw that trade up.

A decent management team could make lemonade out of this fiasco.

Hence my hopes aren't all that high.

F&*k me.

------

Have a great evening everyone.

2010 Reload or Rebuild

Hrmmmm....

This team isn't that good. Hasn't been for a long, long time. Makes it hard to write about. Even harder when I can't see where it will get any better any time sooner, or later.

So I will keep this short.

SHOULD MAKE PLAYOFFS

IF this is my goal - to build a team that should make the playoffs and then hope for some quality time with my Fairy Godmother at a Shnapp's Shooter party come said playoffs - then:

Step 1: Moreau goes, Souray goes, Pisani goes, etc.
Step 2: Dump any four of the munchkins
Step 3: Do everything I can, short of giving up the 1st, for Weiss

If Step 2 and Step 3 aren't mutually exclusive then all the better.

i.e.

Brule, Cogliano & Plante
FOR
Weiss

Works just fine for me.

Given that goaltending may be plentiful yet again, I wait for the off-season to fix that problem.

Given that my team isn't deep enough to overcome mediocrity I wouldn't hold my breath as to 'fixing' the problem.

Given the state of the team's goaltending right now... maybe mediocrity isn't so bad after all.

heh

WILL MAKE PLAYOFFS

IF this is my goal - to build a team that will make the playoffs and should be a year-to-year contender for the Stanley Cup then:

Step 1: Moreau goes, Souray goes, Pisani goes, etc.
Step 2: Dump any three of the munchkins
Step 3: Do everything I can, short of giving up the 1st, for Toronto's 1st

If Step 2 and Step 3 aren't mutually exclusive then all the better.

i.e.

Penner/Visnovsky/Gilbert (one of), Brule/Cogliano & 2nd
FOR
Ryder (or equivalent salary) & TO 1st

Works just fine for me. Hell, Penner and Gilbert could work if the salaries match up.

If I can follow that up with a trade of Souray and assets to Dallas for Turco, their 1st and assets then all the better.

Given that 'bad' goaltending is a key, positive, factor in any successful rebuilding I am already set with current assets. No chance I keep Turco.

Given that I am committing to a full rebuild then all I have to worry about is getting assets with a good work ethic - so that is my major worry.

That and Hemsky. Would hate to lose him.... and with this I probably would.

UPDATE (from when written):

GREBESHKOV TRADE

Grebs for a Nashville 2nd. Tambs is in for the long haul.

Unless Nashville collapses, not a great trade.

Edit to add:

I am reading in numerous comments (made elsewhere of course :-) ) that this trade makes sense:

1. as a salary dump and

2. as a value trade because he was set to earn too much if qualified

Utter f&*king hogwash.

1. Katz has the cash to stash so if this was about the salary dump then it puts to lie every claim made that he was/is willing to spend to build a winner*

2. As an RFA every team that wanted him to stay could qualify to stay and every team that wanted him to go could just not qualify - just like a UFA**

* and sometimes that means spending on a loser so as not to get less than fair value
** which means the team that trades for him has the advantage of being to keep him - regardless of all other factors not involving not playing in the NHL - which is BETTER than UFA

I repeat: not a great trade.

More to come.

------

Have a great evening everyone.

2010 Reload or Rebuild - NBA Edition

As mentioned before I have started to follow the NBA. The ability to reshape a team, almost overnight, is pretty interesting stuff.

However, I also follow it, in part, because I believe that the NBA's management know-how, when it comes to Cap managing a team at least, is far ahead of that of most NHL general managers. There are lessons there to be learned.

What Matters in the NBA

What matters are these four things (in order):

1. Acquiring superior talent;
2. Having money and spending it wisely;
3. Well rounded roster; and
4. Coaching well-matched to the talent

Not much different from any sport really (shoulda known!).

The Salary Cap and Luxury Tax issues only matter on the way to, and at the close of, the accomplishment of those four things.

One area where the two sports differ, markedly, is the extent to which the possession of superior talent affects the record of a team. Because the NBA game is only 48 minutes long and most starters play 30+ mins a night a top-tier player will affect as much as (and sometimes more) two-thirds of a teams 'game'.

In the NHL, other than the goalie (who plays the entire game), only a handful of players will log more than 25 minutes a game over the course of a season. Given an NHL game is 60 minutes long the math says that no matter how good a player like Ovechkin is he will put less time in on the ice than a Kobe or Lebron.

Which means that in the NBA there are few things more important than acquiring superior talent. #1 with a bullet.

Now We Talk Money

Much like in the NHL superior talent will only show up in one of three ways:

1. Top-end draft picks
2. Lucky draft picks
3. Smart, aggressive management with money

As the first two options are pretty standard I will spare a few more moments to discuss the last - smart, aggressive management WITH money.

The NBA Salary Cap sits around $57.3 million while the Luxury Tax kicks in (dollar for dollar) at roughly $69.9 million. The Luxury Tax threshold comes with an extra kick however - teams under the Tax get as much as $4.5 million as part of a share of the taxes paid by those over the Tax.

i.e. Salaries totalling $69.9 million have an effective cost of $65.4 million while Salaries totalling $70 million have an effective cost of $70.1 million.

That last $100k is a killer.

However. The correlation between paying the Tax and being a play-off bound team is pretty strong (I use hoopshype). Check the link.

Excepting the Knicks and the Wizards almost all the teams listed (15 in all) as paying the Tax are either IN the play-offs or probable for it.

Excepting the Raptors, Bobcats, Hawks, Blazers and Grizzlies most teams listed (15 in all) as not paying the Tax are out of the play-offs.

To be fair, that Western Conference is nuts.

Why?

Go back to what I said about smart, aggressive management with money.

Sooner or later one of the teams that doesn't like to, or cannot, pay the Tax will HAVE to dump a good player. And that is where a team WITH money can come in and get said player.

That isn't always easy however. The NBA has a trade kicker (actually, there are several) wherein salaries have to, more or less, match up. So the trick is being able to match up.

Much easier to do that if you are already spending more than you need to. The key is having expiring contracts available.

Expiring contracts - contracts that end in the current year - can have a lot of value in the NBA. Houston, a team that is paying Tracy McGrady $23 million NOT to play may be able to improve their team by trading him to Philadelphia or Chicago - teams that want to dump NEXT year's salary.

Want to build a winner in the NBA - spend the cash.

Reload or Rebuild?

Okay, granted, while the margin for error is much higher in the NHL (larger rosters, well paid middle class and no skater plays 60%+ of the available ice-time), the NHL isn't all that different from the NBA.

Next post will be the final one of this series.

------

Have a great evening everyone.

2010 Reload or Rebuild - The Revisits - #1

As mentioned just previous, and as alluded to in the title, I am now re-visiting the topic of what I would (if it mattered and if you cared and even if you cared that it mattered I guess) do: reload or rebuild?

First, however, a quick post on luck and why it matters, to me, in this case.

If any of you recall there was a time when I was doing a series of Franchise 101 posts. For the purpose of this post the relevant post to reference is this one:

Franchise 101 - Part 05 - Objectivity

------

For those of you who don't want to take the link elsewhere (Too late for some. I know. Sorry) I will quote the relevant portion below:

A quick lesson on Objectivity and Subjectivity:

Objectivity

Yes. Halle Berry is better looking than my wife.

Subjectivity

My wife is every good thing for me. She rocks my world in every way. Absolutely gorgeous. Get lost Halle.

The Goal

There is the rub. As long as the topic, or goal, is simply that of 'who is most attractive' then my example stands, if however, the issue is that of lifemate and compatibility then my example is stood on its head (pointed as it may be).

Does luck play a role? Of course. Is some subjectivity a good thing? Of course. Too much of either however is, typically, a bad thing.

The lesson - as important as it is to objectively classify the competitive standing of a team it is even more important to understand the goal at hand. Ostensibly this is to win the Stanley Cup.

------

In the NHL there are, really, only four categories needed to classify the competitive standing of each team: Play-off Longshot, Play-off Bubble Team, Play-off Probable and Cup Contender.

Play-off Longshot

The team, as currently constituted, won't be in the play-off chase. Too young, too injured, too dysfunctional, too short on talent in key spots and/or too much of any combination of the items already mentioned - it just isn't a play-off team.

Everything would have to break right for this team to make a run.

Play-off Bubble Team

The team, as currently constituted, has some issues but is strong enough in other areas to compensate. If the team can avoid the injury bug and/or long-term slumps from key players then they should be competitive most nights and right in the thick of it.

Throw in a career year from a key player and/or a rookie that blows the doors off and this team is in and may be making a run.

Play-off Probable

The team, as currently constituted, has few issues and a lot of strengths. Barring impairment caused by long-term injuries to, or unexplicable drops in performance from, key players or a total break-down in team chemistry this team will be 'in' the play-offs, not 'trying' to get in.

If a few things break right this team will be competing for a top-4 conference finish and can be considered a Cup contender.

Cup Contender

The team, as currently constituted, is a powerhouse that only total catastrophe can derail from a play-off berth. A solid team without any real weaknesses the roster will have players whose talent is undeniable, players whose performance is dependable, and players who know how to compete night after night. The team probably has a few players who have all three of those qualities.

These are strong teams that can survive the odd set-back quite easily and if players play like they should they will be in it to the end.

------

A GM who has an accurate gauge of the competitive standing of their team should have an advantage over the GM's who do not. I said 'should' because other factors may be in play; the most common being, of course, interference from higher management.

------

You will find this kind of talk in other posts of mine, in the recent past the most notable would be this one:

A Plan

So. That gives you a sense of my starting frame of reference as far as these sorts of things go.

What About 'Luck' Then?

Well:

1. Luck exists;

2. Luck exists on a micro level;

3. Luck exists on a macro level; and

4. Regardless of any mitigations undertaken, see also #1

So I think there is such a thing as luck. 'kay.

In terms of 'micro-level' I am talking about certain individual things that can be done, on a person by person basis, to mitigate the chance that bad things happen or increase the chance that good things happen.

i.e. an NHL-level shooter should be able to, fairly reliably, hit the net with a certain level of accuracy at a certain level of speed. Practicing a type of shot (wrist shot, slap shot, one timer, point shot, etc) should improve a players ability to maintain, and maybe even improve, their level of proficiency with that shot to an extent the 'un'lucky effects are minimized or eliminated in some cases.

In terms of 'macro-level' I am talking about all, or at least a large combination of all, the individual things that can be done, on a person by person basis, to mitigate the chance that bad things happen or good things happen.

i.e. not just practicing a shot but practicing many types of shots, practicing stick-handling and pass reception, studying goalie tendencies and increasing ice awareness, maintaining physical fitness levels and optimizing the mental and emotional approach to the game, etc.

And lest I haven't made the point clear enough before - sometimes 'luck' just 'happens'.

What Direction The Wind?

I also look at things in a reference or direction mode. Which is to say, when I add everything up do I (or 'you', or 'whomever' for that matter) need:

-- luck to work with me for me to succeed or
-- luck to work against for me NOT to succeed

Think about that for a second. If I am a NHL level shooter and I have:

-- maximized, to the best of my ability, every talent and skill I have; and
-- allowed for the talent of the opposing team to alter or block my shot

Then I know that I should be scoring some goals. If I am scoring less than I should then odds are good I am not getting lucky or I should review my mitigation efforts and if I am scoring more than I should then luck is with me.

HOWEVER

If I am a NHL level shooter and I'm not practicing and doing all sorts of other good things then there comes a point in time where - just to maintain status quo - luck HAS to be working in my favor. Over time my ability to successfully do things, at a certain level of predictability, will decrease.

The Oilers

I would propose to you that the problem with the Oilers the last few years is that team management has, serially, constructed rosters that required luck to be working in their favor in order for the team to succeed:

- certain players HAD to stay healthy
- certain players could NOT have off years
- certain players HAD to improve their productivity a great deal (not just a bit)
etc.

And all that, obviously, hasn't happened.

Start To Put It Together

So, put it all together and you should, now, have an idea of what I think about the question of reload vs. rebuild.

It's all about competitive level and requirements for luck. Until the next post in this series, take care.

------

Have a great evening everyone.

2010 Reload or Rebuild - To Be Revisited

I will post more on this on a later date but for the record my decision on whether or not to try for a 1 year reload versus a 3 to 5 year rebuild rests on three unknowns:

1. If Boston wants Penner;

2. If they would give up the Toronto 1st rounder for him and be willing to wait to the last hour of trade deadline day to do it; and

3. Where Toronto is in the standings

My reasoning revolves around the concept of 'luck' and whether or not your success or lack of success depends on it working for you or against you, respectively.

The dots aren't hard to connect.

Not that it matters.

------

Have a great evening everyone.

Yay! 2010!

(can't get the pic of my MAP jersey to load so I went this direction)

Next verse! Same as the first! A little bit louder and a little bit worse!

A few things with which to start the New Year:

Don't Second Guess

Look. IF Moreau, Staios, Nilsson or POS get traded (heck, include Brule and Cogliano in there if you want) DO NOT be surprised or, worse, second guess yourself IF they happen to do well in their new home.

Performance if a function of three things (I had four in my head when I started typing this section but I'll be damned as to where the fourth one went, so three is what you get):

1. Skills and ability (inherent or learned)
2. Use
3. Luck
4. ... heh ...

Where-ever those players go you can rest assured that #2 will most probably change and #3 may as well. Right here, right now, these guys (Brule excepted) aren't having any luck and their usage is debateable.

That is just the way it is.

Ad Nauseum

For the first time in a long time I was lost as to what to do with this team - either to improve it from what we have now or to rebuild it. Usually I have a pretty good idea of what can be done (sans actual inside knowledge) but now, right now, not so much.

In a macro sense the issue is that too many of the team contracts are too big and too long (hah!) to be easily tradeable in a Cap system where most of the other teams are maxed out or almost maxed out. Dealing in the smaller contracts won't yield much and the few value contracts that are there are tied to players you don't want to deal.

A reasonable man looks at the roster and sees that:

-- there are players that you keep (almost regardless): Gagner and .... Gagner

-- those you trade only if there is a clear upgrade possibility or you want to change the direction the team is headed: Hemsky, Horcoff, Penner and Gilbert;

-- a couple that you keep if they stay cheap enough: Potulny, Stone, Stortini and Smid;

-- and a few pick 'ems (keep one): Pouliot or Brule, Souray or Visnovsky and Deslauriers or Dubnyk.

That leaves:

-- Grebeshkov (RFA / 3.15 / 0 yr)
-- O'Sullivan (RFA / 2.95 / 1 yr)
-- Nilsson (RFA / 2.00 / 1 yr)
-- Cogliano (RFA / 1.13 / 0 yr)
-- Khabibulin (UFA / 3.75 / 3 yr)
-- Staios (UFA / 2.70 / 1 yr)
-- Moreau (UFA / 2.00 / 1 yr)
-- Comrie (UFA / 1.25 / 0 yr)
-- Strudwick (UFA / 0.70 / 0 yr)
-- one of Pouliot (RFA / 0.83 / 0 yr) or Brule (RFA / 0.80 / 0 yr)
-- one of Visnovsky (UFA / 5.60 / 3 yr) or Souray (UFA / 5.40 / 2 yr)
-- one of Deslauriers (RFA) or Dubnyk (RFA)

Myself, being less than reasonable, would trade four of the six pick 'ems but that's just me.

FTR: I keep Pouliot because a) Brule is a prime pump and dump candidate so I get more out of him and b) if I can't squeeze Pouliot into a supercheap contract after YET ONE MORE shyte year (his fault or not) then I just let him go (i.e. trade in the off-season).

Having been on the Pouliot bandwagon from the start you have to believe me when I say - that last bit hurt to say it.

Looking at a lot of roster turn-over there, but that's okay. As being good right now isn't an option, and neither is being good right away, we are left with being good one day much sooner than never but much later than now.

As I have mentioned elsewhere, I am absolutely certain that many of those names are moveable THIS year.

Goaltender Interference

I wrote this pre-injury but the idea remains the same - there is always a way.

Khabibulin's contract will be almost impossible to move this... err... next year... err... ever. The term and the amount are just too long and too large (I flatter) to be easily absorbed. This leaves just two possibilities:

1. Send him to Russia for a year or so and hope he likes it

2. Find a GM that is either a) desperate b) stupid or c) both

Option 1 will probably be the easier solution to implement. Outlets for that contract are very few (in no particular order):

a. Chicago makes some sense, depending on whether or not they actually want Khabibulin back, as $2 million in Cap relief is significant;

b. Philadelphia isn't a bad bet if Emery/Boucher continue to struggle but the lack of salary fill, from Philly, makes this a hard trade to complete;

c. Ottawa isn't getting much from Leclaire or Elliot but, as managment isn't under the gun to 'win-now', only an 'outta-here' trade makes sense;

d. Los Angeles, as with Ottawa, isn't getting much out its goalies but the team does have a winning record and has played a lot of raod games early; and

e. Washington has the pressure to win so they might throw a look at him (using Theodore and Nylander) but Varlamov is just playing too well right now

For the record I think the Washington deal may have been the easiest (though it would have required Katz eat some salary).

For The Record: Boston

I have seen some suggestions about trading Visnovsky to the Bruins for the Leafs #1 pick. Trading to get that pick IS freaking brilliant if it can be pulled off.

Visnovsky won't make that happen. The Bruins have few REALLY bad contracts and the one they have they like (Lucic). Morris and Ference are both done after this year so that leaves Wideman, Krejci, Ryder and Sturm as the only decent sized contracts the Bruins would have to trade in order to take on a contract the size of Visnovsky's.

(Yes. They could trade Morris. But odds are good that space is already spoken for. Ference, I will admit, is a maybe/probable.)

Taking a look at boxcars and details I am thinking that if Visnovsky (if healthy) is going to Boston for that pick the trade looks a lot like:

Visnovsky & Brule/Cogliano
FOR
Wideman, Krejci & TO 1st?

Think about that for a second. A lot of noise in Boston. Krejci isn't having a great year but his boxcars are okay while Wideman is a fair bit younger than Visnovsky and was signed as one of that teams d-men of the future.

Which means that Visnovsky to Boston just isn't an easy trade to visualize happening. Visnovsky only works if Boston really wants to make a Cup run, wants to dump salary and can't find a cheaper offer elsewhere.

Hence my point - you want to talk the Toronto pick out of Boston... talk Penner. That'll make 'em cream their pants.

Penner
FOR
Krejci and the TO 1st

Would probably work. And I don't even like Krejci that much.

For The Record: Pittsburgh

Want to trade Visnovsky? Send a glance Pittsburgh's way. Gonchar is making noise about his payday and he will be 36 next year. Me? I say pay the man (and I do think he will stay). But if Pittsburgh is thinking different then they may take a look at Vis. Regardless of the play of Letang

The guy you want is, of course, Staal. If not Staal then target the best selection of Goligoski, Tangradi, Depres and picks you can get. I wanted Letang last year but... well... good luck with that now.

Full disclosure: Tangradi and Depres are listed only by virtue of the listing at HF, and I haven't spent any time scouting or watching Goligoski. I don't know any of their games at all. Sorry.

Of course... that means that none of the guys you actually WANT to trade are traded yet.

Yay.

Be an interesting trade deadline to be sure.

------

Have a great evening everyone.

Who Needs 'Em?

Conventional wisdom generally holds that there is little value in a team tanking a season. It doesn't guarantee a Cup win, it aggravates a fanbase and leaves the players disillusioned and unmotivated.

Fair enough.

Last 10 Stanley's

2009 - Pittsburgh
2008 - Detroit
2007 - Anaheim
2006 - Carolina
2004 - Tampa Bay
2003 - New Jersey
2002 - Detroit
2001 - Colorado
2000 - New Jersey
1999 - Dallas

Nice list of teams.

A Road Less Travelled?

Interesting thing though, of those teams that have won the Cup in the last 10 years, no less than 6 teams owe significant debt to having been horrible teams at one time (or several times as the case may be):

2009 - Pittsburgh ... Crosby, Malkin, Fleury
2006 - Carolina ..... Staal ....... 2003, 2nd overall
2004 - Tampa Bay .... Lecavalier .. 1998, 1st overall
2002 - Detroit ...... Yzerman ..... 1983, 4th overall
2001 - Colorado ..... Forsberg .... 1991, 1st overall (Lindros)
1999 - Dallas ....... Modano ...... 1988, 1st overall

So that is 6 of 10.

Sidedoors

Of the other 4 teams:

2007 - Anaheim ...... Pronger (1993, 2nd overall) & Niedermayer
2003 - New Jersey ... Niedermayer
2000 - New Jersey ... Niedermayer .. 1991, 3rd overall

So, even if by way of Hartford and Toronto, 3 more teams needed players picked high in draft by teams that had, once upon a time, horrible, horrible seasons.

Righteousness

That leaves the 2008 Detroit Red Wings. They would be the anomaly.

They are the only team that has won the Cup in the last 10 years without a player who was chosen in the top-4 of a draft year.

Good for them!

Well, except for Brad Stuart maybe (1998, 3rd overall, San Jose)?

As he wasn't a key component of that team making the play-offs, winning a round or winning the Cup I guess we can ignore his contributions in the context of this post.

So. Still. Good for them.

Mostly.

Morality Play?

Don't kid yourself. Sometimes it takes a crawl through a river of shit.

While poor timing, poor drafting and poor management can ruin a good wallow in the muck of awfulness NOTHING can goose a team's chance to win it all like having one, or (even better) multiple, top-4 draft pick selections on the roster.

It's almost a pre-req.

------

Have a great evening everyone.

Can't Have It Both Ways

Finding out you can't have it both ways is usually something you figure out right after you find out you can't have it both ways.

We's a funny bunch of humanity.

Twice The Pronging

Think about the Chris Pronger trade for a second.

If that trade is about the 'now' then there is no way Ryan Getzlaf isn't part of that equation. Even if it is done Iginla style: i.e. Pronger for Getzlaf straight up.

If that trade is about the 'future' then Bobby Ryan and Ladislav Smid are your two must have targets and if you can get a 1st round pick to round out that package you take it.

And you make Brian Burke make that choice.

But when you try to have it both ways then you get less. Plain old less.

Doubles Your Fun

Of course, as free-thinking people, it is our right to double our fun. Think about the Smyth situation for a second.

If you aren't going to trade him then you sign him. Early. Even if at a slight premium.

If you are going to trade him then you hold an auction and get the best package out there.

But to go into a negotiation, without time or leverage, having acted in a manner that says you kinda-wanta-but-maybe-not-so-much, then maybe, just maybe, acting as if you are the one holding the gun is a bit much.

Which is how one winds up with a package of Nilsson, O'Marra and a 1st instead of a guy like Okposo or some other worthwhile asset from another team that BID HIGHER THAN THE ISLANDERS.

Trying to have it both ways. Maybe not so good.

If Your Protected

And it isn't just about the trades. Think about the product for a second.

If it's about being competitive 'now' then veteran players get signed to fill holes on defense, or on the forward lines, or wherever you need them to play.

If it's about developing a team for the future then none of Smid, Gagner and Cogliano play when they did. And Penner and Souray don't get signed.

But If Not

Think all that through real careful like. Go deep.

Say Pronger gets traded for Bobby Ryan and Ladislav Smid and a 1st (which is still #30) and say the team dedicates, right then and there, to a rebuild situation. Not a liquidation per se but no half-measures either.

Tjarnqvist is still a probable signing but does Roloson get a 3-year deal? Maybe Roloson does. Hard to deny the heroes so lets say that everything else remains the same

EXCEPT

that Smid is played as a call-up (or stays in the minors another year) and if Smyth isn't signed then he is traded for 'best' package available. We'll call that package 'Okposo' equivalent.

With the season more or less playing out as it did the team is down a Plante but up a Ryan and an 'Okposo'.

Getting a little more speculative now but lets say that in 2007-08 Smid plays his first year and Gagner and Cogliano do not. Pouliot gets full play (for better or worse) and a couple of Sanderson's are playing in place Nilsson and Penner.

Does Souray get signed (better question - does Horcoff? I believe he would actually but you may think differently)?

So where does this team end-up in the draft? Worse than the Blues and Islanders but not as bad as Atlanta? Is Luke Schenn now an Oilers draft pick?

Finally we get to the end of the 2008-09 season. Gagner and Cogliano have played their 1st year and maybe even Ryan and 'Okposo' have as well. Regardless of how well they do that is an awful lot of rookie minutes to shelter. If Souray isn't signed a couple of years back then odds are good we finish below LA and maybe even Atlanta - is Braydon Schenn now an Oiler prospect?

Gagner, Cogliano, Smid, Ryan, Nash, 'Okposo', Eberle and Schenn(s) make for an amazing future line up. Time to start signing guys like Glencross.

And it didn't take incredible leaps of logic (timewarps aside) to get there.

Reverse it all and think of what coulda woulda shoulda if this team had gone the competitive route (Getzlaf, Smyth signed at $4.75 million when he should have been, Glencross on the team, etc).

EITHER WAY - it is better than what we have now.

You Could Be Screwed

Which is where we are now I think. This team, as constructed, could make the play-offs. 'Could' is not spelled 's-h-o-u-l-d' in this case however and that is the essential problem with trying to have it both ways.

The future is bright, but not so bright I gotta wear shades, and the 'now' is overpriced and 'iffy' competitively. Hell. Our future will be overpriced too.

You want to know what the most interesting thing about the Heatley saga was (did he send Patrick Kane a 'thank-you' note btw?)? For me it was Bryan Murray pushing the Oilers to the point where the package for Heatley included Cogliano.

Somehow I think that were the roles reversed the Oilers would have accepted Nilsson instead of Cogliano in the package.

Which would have been a package I could live with.

Because I wanted it both ways. Or perhaps I knew I could not.

------

Have a great evening everyone.

Sad

Oiler team management is screwed loose. And not in the good way. The Heatley trade, as proposed, is one of the worst I imagined.

Again and again and again we see this team's management transfer ALL of the risk onto the home team.

On a day where Calgary signs a bedrock defenseman for the next 5 years - for all of the cost of a Cameron Abney (think about that for a second) - the Oilers offer up 5 years of development time, SPENT ON TWO QUALITY PROSPECTS, and one middling-poor-but-the-jury-is-out contract for an overpaid, if legit, sniper who has now whined his way out of two different teams.

Remember when Souray signed? Back then I said all the risk was on Edmonton - why? Because Souray HAD to have a career year, pretty much every year, just to be worth his contract. It was the same story with Penner - but with him it was worse because of the assets given up to sign him.

Not an average year.

Not an okay year.

Not a good year.

No.

A freakin' GREAT year.

We sit at 0 for 2 for Penner and 1 for 2 on Souray so far. On a roll baby! On a roll!

How well would Heatley have to play for the Oilers to earn back the $7.5 million in salary AND the loss Cogliano AND Smid (and even Penner for that matter)?

He scored 72 points last year and wasn't all that great defensively (less Alfredsson anyways). Horcoff may have only scored 53 pts last year but we know he, at least, was carrying the rest of the forward core around on his back.

Why are so many of the Oiler faithful peeved at Horcoff? Because at $5.5 million he needs to be both great defensively AND score 65+ pts (my number) to make the optics work. Horcoff gets 25 goals and 40 assists and I promise few would be complain about his pay. As understandable as it is, 53 pts from Horcoff both looks bad and IS bad.

Does Horcoff need a career year every year? No. But he does need a good-to-excellent one.

As with Souray, and Penner before him, Heatley's price would require him to have phenomenal years every year. And since we know he can't carry a team, he is a complementary player afterall, that also means Horcoff and Hemsky or Gagner (if going pure soft minutes outscoring line) HAVE to remain healthy (who else would he play with?).

The risk is all on the Oilers in this one. Again.

Do that enough times and a team becomes the New York Rangers (Hey! I know! Let's sign Kamensky - we'll be GREAT!).

It's bad enough to watch Pronger and Smyth walk for, basically, nada. To then overpay for Penner and Heatley is just too much. THINK ABOUT THOSE FOUR NAMES. Can you see the difference? This team is sending out quality for dross (even if it is shiny shyte like Heatley) on a regular basis.

Had it just been Penner, Nilsson and Smid in the trade, I could have swallowed my dislike. But two quality prospects? Nuts to that. Didn't Ottawa want a puck moving defenseman? Smid?

That Heatley would then turn around and take time to 'think' about it only accentuates the hilarity.

Here is the thing. Players don't want to come here? Fair enough.

At what point in time do we realize that maybe it isn't the city that is to blame? Maybe, just maybe, players, and their agents, know that a winner won't be built here anytime soon. Forget Detroit. This group can't even compare to Columbus.

At what point in time do we maybe realize that team management is a joke.

And everyone knows it.

------

Have a great evening everyone.

Congratulations to the Penguins

One of Two

I can't claim to have been here since the beginning - that honor belongs to guys like LT and MJ and the like - but I have been around a long, long time (it was soon after I moved up here, 1997 or so I guess). One of the things I remember, in the course of time, was the development of the mind-set, now prevalent in the Oilogosphere, of 'what-the-f%ck-is-really-going-on?'.

It started with +/- and TOI (still one of my all time favorite stats) and general observation and then grew with the discussions that followed. Some intrepid soul would dig into something that had struck them as worthy of investigation and then it would be 'out there' to be tested and torn and tried and, maybe, if worthy, true.

One of the things I remember, impact(fully), was the discovery - it seemed like a discovery, given that it flew full in the face of conventional wisdom at the time - was that Sergei Gonchar and Zigmund Palffy were great ALL AROUND talents.

Somewhere along the way someone(s) did the work and pointed out that those two weren't just point machines. They were, truly, great players in their own right.

From that moment on the gulf between the Oilogosphere-types and the HF fanboy's became self-evident and, despite a golden run put in by LT and Cerebral and others (as mods at HF) it was only a matter of time before the Tyler Dellows and Vic Ferrari's of the world left HF behind.

Of course, now there is Behind the Net (and the great Gabriel Desjardins) and the Oilogosphere and all this type of stuff is easier to see, understand and tabulate BUT, way back when, there was a time when that kind of knowledge was, almost, mini-revolutionary.

Just a few hours ago Sergei Gonchar won the Stanley Cup. He is, quite probably, the 5th best defenseman playing in the NHL today. You wouldn't know it. He still doesn't get the respect he deserves but at least now he has claim to the Stanley Cup.

About f&*king time.

I called the Wings but sometimes I am perfectly happy being wrong.

You quit too soon Ziggy. Sorry man.

------

On Heatley

Matheson references the cost for Heatley as being a talented puck-moving d-man, a top-6 (young) forward and a top-10 draft pick. That is a stupid trade to make. Tambellini makes that trade and he has done something stupid. I cannot say it plainer. Even IF Ottawa sends a pick back with Heatley.

Too damn much to give up.

A winning trade for Edmonton, one that takes into account the Cap-hit barrel that Heatley's contract tosses Bryan Murray over, is:

Heatley
FOR
Penner, Staios and Eberle

Murray saves a LOT of money, a little bit of Cap space in the short term ($550k), gets a contract MUCH easier to trade than Heatley's and a highly regarded prospect at the same time.

That is enough for me to give up (though I could be persuaded to throw in a prospect like Chorney and/or a middle rounds draft pick). If Murray can get better elsewhere then good on him.

My advice: focus on getting Bouwmeester, and if you really need a better LW (and we do) scoop Malone out of Tampa Bay.

------

On Tampa Bay

Speaking of Tampa Bay. Sending Vinny to LA for Johnson, the #5 and a guy like Handzus just makes too much sense. Anything more is bonus.

Stamkos (whom I was wrong about), Hedman and Schenn make for a pretty sweet rebuild starter-kit.

Of course, at one point in time, Johnson and the #5 were headed to Anaheim for Pronger (not a horrible trade actually).

------

Have a great evening everyone.

Expansion Teams Incoming

Take Your Pick

Fearless Prediction #1

BoG of the NHL finds a way to dodge the Balsillie bullet altogether. Mostly because the rest of the league doesn't want to miss out on the expansion fees a Toronto team would offer (not to mention the Sabres and Leafs getting their 'our-turf' fee).

Fearless Prediction #2

Balsillie gets the Coyotes but has to keep them there for the next 2-3 years or until another buyer is found. He then gets awarded the expansion team for Toronto... and still has to pay through the nose for the privilege.

------

While a second expansion team for Kansas City may or may not be approved in either scenario the real key for Bettman is pointing out to the BoG just what they are missing out on ($) without going the expansion route.

No matter how this shakes out - even if Balsillie wins it all outright - there will finally be a 2nd team in Toronto.

------

Have a great evening everyone.

Well That Kinda Sucked

Second Round

Can also mean: chance to try again. Seems I will trend towards the favorites this time:

DET over ANA (in 6)
VAN over CHI (in 6)

BOS over CAR (in 5)
PIT over WAS (in 7)

First round was not kind to me. 3 for 8. Not good.

------

Have a great evening everyone.

Timing. And Luck.

(please, dear Lord, let them be wearing skates)

Luck O'the Irish

Brian Burke is about to have a wonderful off-season. Rarely have I seen circumstance so benefit a NHL General Manager.

Everything should be working to his advantage. EVERYTHING.

A. The team operates in a large market with a rabid fan base and can spend full Cap without blinking an eye.

B. The dollar resources of the team, and the force of Burke's personality/control of the team, are such that the budget should be able to exceed Cap.

C. His is one of (very) few teams entering this contract season with lots of Cap space, lots of budget space and few RFA committments to consider.

D. Individual NHL teams will be facing serious fiscal obstacles and will be eager to deal with someone who has cash and knows how to use it.

E. The NHL, as a whole, has entered a period of time where salary inflation should be almost non-existent due to the economy.

F. The NHL, as an operating league, has already approved deals which work to the dollar strengths of the team (see: Detroit).

i.e. the heavy lifting has been done.

G. The upcoming UFA and Entry Draft classes are stocked with talent (as opposed to the 2008 UFA list or the 1999 Entry Draft lets say).

H. The upcoming Entry Draft has two distinct classes of teams in the top-7 picks and this will provide opportunity. **

I. He will have carte-blanche in all his dealings and can remake the team as he sees fit.

THAT is some pretty sweet timing. Los Angeles should be in this position as well but I don't see those owners as being as willing to spend the dough.

------

About That #1 Pick

Being contrarian I do not see a deal for Tavares as being impossible, or even 'really' hard for Burke to achieve. In fact I also see Los Angeles as being a contender for that (the #1) pick.

** That is because of the two classes of teams that I mentioned above.

1 ... New York Islanders
2 ... Tampa Bay Lightning
3 ... Colorado Avalanche
4 ... Atlanta Thrashers
5 ... Los Angeles Kings
6 ... Phoenix Coyotes
7 ... Toronto Maple Leafs

On that list Toronto, Colorado and LA stick out like sore thumbs. The financial capabilities of those three teams, compared to their brethren, is staggering - and of the three, financially, Toronto is way, way ahead.

Two things further differentiate Toronto from Colorado and LA:

a. roster and payroll flexibility (Toronto only really cares about Schenn) and
b. compete level

Because of where their rosters are (in terms of build and compete) both Colorado and LA are teams that should be/want to be serious play-off spot contenders next year. Colorado's picture is litle muddied in that the team will be subject to two, mutually exclusive but same sourced, motivations:

a. possibly dumping some salary if Sakic re-signs or
b. probably adding a replacement player if Sakic retires

Regardless of the Sakic decision fall-out however, the point to be made is that neither Colorado nor LA is in the same strategic space as the Leafs - namely, being quite willing, able and happy to trade picks, players and money for a big move in the draft.

In fact, because of their compete factor it is quite plausible that either one of LA or Colorado would be willing to trade their pick for quality players coming back the other way.

------

Enter Brian Burke

The trick here is for Burke to trade for one of the 3rd or 5th picks and package THAT with the 7th.

I think people underestimate how many quality trade chips Burke actually has. Kaberle, alone, represents a serious upgrade to either Colorado's or LA's defense corps (Kaberle, Doughty, Johnson and Hickey make for a quality defense corps).

Think about it: Stajan, Ponikarovsky, a bevy of 2nd round picks, Kubina, Hagman, White, a (albeit) small pool of prospects and even Stempniak or Finger... yeah, Toronto has tradeable assets.

My Take? A package in the form of Kaberle, Stajan and a pick gets LA's 3rd or Colorado's 5th.

And don't forget - Toronto can afford any bad contract any team wants to dump.

Snow is a fairly smart GM. He knows that, as valuable as Tavares or Hedman is, a package of high quality assets can make all the difference in the world (see also: Quebec/Lindros).

My belief is that Burke gets the 1st if he gets Snow any two of Duchene, Cowen, Kane and Schenn in a package. I suspect the package would look a lot like this:

Tavares

for

x2 1st rounders (as mentioned);
x2 2nd rounders (only one needs be current year);
a prospect (or still a 1st year player);
one of Ponikarovsky/White (probably White).

The only question for me is this: if Burke gets the #3 and has a legit shot at two of Duchene, Cowan, Kane and Schenn, why would he trade that away?

I gotta give this to Burke: his timing is impeccable. Or maybe he should just pull that leprechaun out o'his ass... though it does explain the temperament.

------

Have a great evening everyone.

Trade Deadline Musing - 2008-09 (More)

[UPDATE: Burrows signed for 8 million over 4 years. Fantastic signing for Vancouver and it fits the theme of this post perfectly.]

After watching Dawes and Halak go uncontested (as in: no one made them an RFA offer sheet) last year I finally concluded that most NHL GM's really aren't all that smart. They can't be.

As much as I understand that they operate in an imprecise medium that doesn't excuse the number of misses that they accumulate.

Lucky Lou?

Of course, to refute my stance we have GM's like Lou Lamoriello. This guy is good. The Colin White contract has always been one of my favorites and when one works their way through the Devils contract structure they will find very few misses along the way.

Here is one of the things I truly respect about him: he knows how he wants the team to play. And then he works it from there. Rarely will you find on his teams a player who doesn't belong and if a signing doesn't work out he rectifies the mistake before it gets too ugly.

Think about that for a second. Now think about your favorite team the Oilers.

It is to cry.

That is part of what makes the trade for Havelid so smart. The guy he traded for him was, for all intents and purposes, a 'found' asset. Signed, pretty much unheralded, as a free agent out of Europe.

In return the Devils get a Lidstrom-lite type of player and, as with everything I have ever seen from that type of player, solid positional play has a pretty long shelf life.

Havelid's game is pretty low maintenance, he doesn't require big hits or a big shot or blazing speed to be effective, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Devils sign him to a two year deal in the $1.5 mill/yr neighborhood.

Somehow I don't expect that Lou would have let the disconnect (between coach and personnel) that has taken place on the Oilers under Lowe, happen.

------

I remember saying, once upon a time on Hockeysfuture, that long-term signings of role players who can play their position well was a good thing if you can get them to lock in cheaply enough.

I was looking at signing players for 5 to 6 years at a time and doing so in the $850k to 1.5 million range.

Someone disagreed (of course) and they threw out, in their rebuttal, the fact that few, most probably none, of the NHL teams out there currently practice that philosophy.

I now refer you back to my first few sentences.

A Grid

Start with a 23 man roster and a $56 million Cap/budget.

14 Forwards / 7 Defensemen / 2 Goalies

3x 1st line (F) at ~ $5.00 mill ea = $15.00 mill
3x 2nd line (F) at ~ $3.25 mill ea = $ 9.75 mill
2x 1st pair (D) at ~ $5.00 mill ea = $10.00 mill
2x 2nd pair (D) at ~ $3.00 mill ea = $ 6.00 mill
Goaltending (pair) = $5.00 mill
Bench players on minimum wage = 3x ~ $500k = $1.5 mill

That adds up to ~ $47.25 mill for 15 players.

Granted, those are the numbers for a well balanced team but I fail to see where I am out of line in the reasoning.

You now have $8.75 mill for 8 players. Average wage would be just over $1.09 mill a player. Dropping the pro-roster to 22 players, which seems a standard tactic nowadays brings that number up to just over $1.15 mill a player.

After all is said and done the average wage of the players that make up the bottom half of the playing roster (not including bench and back-up) shouldn't be any more than $1.00 to $1.25 million.

Back To Point

Now think about my original stance:

"long-term signings of role players who can play their position well was a good thing if you can get them to lock in cheaply enough"

The key words in there aren't: 'role player', nor are they: 'cheaply enough', they are: 'who can play their position well enough'.

i.e. if you have a roleplayers, on your team, who are good at what they do, then EVERY guy you can get to sign for long term at a rate LESS THAN $1.25 million a year is a probable win (if same player is a definite outscorer the you can probably go a little higher).

Risk vs. Impact

More importantly, at that price point a team can afford to make 3 or 4 mistakes of this kind comparative to that of making a mistake on a signing for the top line.

i.e. for every, theoretical, Nylander signing I can make 4 or more role-player signings of this type; the cost savings of a mistake are significant.

Pisani - Exhibit 'A'

In 2005/06 he was looking for a new deal paying in the range of $1.0 to $1.2 million a year (I always hear $1.1 million but I figured I would give a range).

He doesn't have a lot of NHL history but he is driving results on his line, he is 26/27 years old and he has a whack of AHL time in (where he excelled).

NOT jumping on this opportunity was a clear MISS for Lowe and Co. Coming right out of the AHL, and still in a place where just having an NHL paycheque is a huge plus, how hard would he have fought a 5 year offer in the $1.35 mill /yr range?

Granted, Pisani represents a bit of an outlier for the purposes of this arguement, but - even for when this arguement was first made (by myself) - for those who have followed this blog, player contract inflation is something I often talk about.

As it is, well, the 'miss' was even bigger than I thought it would be (even after the play-off run I figured he would only get 5 years at $10 million - oops) and it would be unfair to lay blame to the full extent of the 'oops'.

Strudwick

This brings me to Strudwick. I like Jason Strudwick as a player. He can play both defense and forward (I like him better at forward), he isn't a problem if he sits a game here or there, he is a positive in the dressing room, he can fight (well) when needed and he has the right attitude on the ice.

He isn't a pure bench player nor is he even a 3rd line guy.

No word of a lie though, signing him on a 4 yr deal (long-term for him) in the $650k range would be money well spent imo.

Stortini, Brodziak and Reddox need the same kind of treatment.

So Who Is Right?

It begs the question. Knowing the intrepid souls that you are I am sure that, by now, you have checked and found that the good GM's (Lamoriello, Holland, Holmgren) have precious few long-term contracts of the nature I propose.

Does that make me wrong?

I don't rightly know. One thing that you, dear reader, have to keep in mind is that those GM's (at least those with a fair number of years of service) have a number of constants on their roster. Pandolfo and Maltby have been with their respective teams forever. Each team has guys who sign multi-year deals again and again and again.

So what is it that those teams have?

Stability probably plays a factor. So does a tradition (post-Mickey Mouse) of excellence. They have, historically, been high payroll teams. Good scouting. Only their star players get the really big bucks. They always have a few outstanding role players. There are a lot of things they do right.

Yet I still don't think that I am wrong. On reflection, what I think I am talking about is simply another way of doing what they do - building excellence into my team one contract at a time. Retaining the best players I can, no matter the line they play on.

Funny thing. I find myself back to where I started actually. There aren't a lot of really good hockey GM's out there.

So how wrong can my approach be? Be nice to see it tried.

------

A quick note on Horcoff. My biggest issue on his $3.6 mill/ yr contract was that it was one year too short imo. Seems I was right.

Also on Horcoff, My biggest issue remains length of deal **, take him to age 38 and lower that Cap hit by a million or so while you are at it.

(7.00 / 6.50 / 6.50 / 6.00 / 4.00 / 3.00 / 1.50 / 1.50) = 4.50

** if you are going to give a guy a retirement contract then the Zetterberg model is the one you follow and if you have the money then use it.

Also, I would trade my first round pick in a package for Hunter without even blinking. But that's just me.

------

Have a great evening everyone.

Conventional Wisdom Cracked Wise - Part 02

It is no secret that I get tired with most of those who post on the fanboards now-a-days. Considering the incredible amount of NHL data and analysis now available there is no excuse, excepting that of age I guess, for some of the junk that gets written out there.

What REALLY bugs me however is when said junk gets transmogrified into some kind of commonly accepted principle.

As in... there is no reason to wait for the off-season for valuable RFA's and UFA's to become available because the teams which own their rights will sign them in a timely fashion.

Proper analysis of this issue comes in two parts a) a look at the term 'valuable' and b) will players come available.

In this post I will focus on b) will players come available?

To which I give you:

Philadelphia Cream Cheesed

Please note - I am not picking on the Flyers as I think Paul Holmgren has done an outstanding job rebuilding that team. However, they illustrate my point rather nicely and such gifts I cannot refuse.

Roster Detail



Immediate Notes

Gauthier isn't included because he is already in the minors and will probably stay there until his contract is up. Also, Rathje's LTIR status is irrelevant because he starts and ends his year on that list.

The chart shows that the Flyers have, in 2008/09, ~ 45.04 mill of next years Cap space allocated to 8 forwards, 3 defensemen and 2 goalie's. This leaves some 4 or 5 forwards and 4 or 5 defensemen left to be signed.

Let's deal with 2 of those spots right away - the 12th forward spot and the 8th defenseman spot will automatically be slotted in at 550k /year. New total is ~ 46.14 mill for 15 players.

If next year's Cap rises the 4 million some are predicting then the new Cap is 54.30. The difference is ~ 8.16 mill.

The RFA's

Umberger, Carter, Cote, Kukkonen and Jones.

Of these, the two guys who have counting numbers above expectations are Umberger (++) and Jones (+++). Carter (+) isn't dominating as people would like but is still showing respectably while Cote (+) is doing pretty well considering the opposition he plays. Kukkonen isn't doing anything special either way.

Of the 25+ age group, Cote and Kukkonen will probably come cheap. Without the benefit of big year's they can't demand much and while both can play the 'almost 27' card only Kukkonen has the 'Europe is HOME' card. So let's be fair here. Maybe 600k for Cote and 1.25 mill for Kukkonen?

Now the two outperformers. Umberger and Jones. If both players keep performing well they won't come cheap. Umberger, on a deal that takes him into his UFA years will net an easy 2.5 mill while Jones is no less than a 1.8 mill signing under the same auspices.

I am being very nice to Holmgren with both of those deals.

That leaves Carter. Hard to say what will happen there. Hard not to note that he is still on pace to score 20+ goals and 40+ points. In today's NHL that means a two year deal of 2.0+ million. Let's be nice to Holmgren (again!) and assume that no one makes a RFA run at Carter and he signs at 2.0.

RFA signings should cost the Flyers a cool 8.15 mill. (to answer the obvious question - no, I didn't plan that)

UFA's

Smith and Vandermeer

No money left to sign them. If there was I would expect that Smith would get the going rate of 3+ mill for 'veteran stay-at-home defensemen and respected by all Captain types' while Vandermeer will be hoping GM's notice he is consistent at playing well against weaker opposition (say 1.5 mill?).

Cap Flex and Maneuvers

Holmgren does have some moves he can make. I will rate them by degree of difficulty.

EASY: Moving Sami Kapanen (poor performance) and Antero Nittymaki (expensive back-up). At the very least they are easy salaries to swallow (via the minors). If replacements come in at 550k each the savings total 1.4 mill in Cap space and certainly add breathing room.

MEDIUM: Moving Hatcher is a possibility. Holmgren could then seek an equivalent (maybe keep Smith) or make the deliberate switch to Coburn, Kukkonen, Jones and eventually Picard/Parent. Option 1 doesn't free up Cap space while Option 2 could really pay off if Coburn takes another leap forward in development. Moving Kukkonen is also an option but the Cap Flex gained is marginal at best.

HARD: Trading other roster players. Philadelphia has very few 'poor' bets on the roster. Most of their players are underpaid given performance (Coburn, Upshall), earning their keep (Biron, Knuble, Lupul), too new and shiny to trade (Timonen) or close to unmovable regardless (Gagne, Hartnell).

Summary of the Cheese

Philadelphia is, due to one great trade deadline/off-season, looking at a successful future. Most of their salary issues are minor in nature (Kapanen/Nittymaki), will resolve themselves over time (Knuble/Hatcher) or have the promise of established performance (Gagne/Timonen). Hartnell's underlying play is fine so if he can improve his counting numers he will earn his contract.

That means the issue is, quite simply, the Cap itself. None of the raises that I have proposed for any of the roster players I named is overcosted - to get any better Holmgren would have to replicate the success of Coburn's contract... good luck with that.

So, even given that his roster is well constructed, he (Holmgren) STILL looks to be losing one of Hatcher/Smith and then Vandermeer off his roster at the end of the season.

For the record - I believe that the progression of Coburn, et al will result in the Flyers having a better team next year and that Holmgren has set that team up for continuing sucess over the next 5 years (if not more).

Summary of the Point

There are more teams like the Flyers out there. There may not be a lot of big hitters available this coming off-season but RFA's and UFA's will come available this off-season and steady, veteran players like Smith and Vandermeer will be in that group.

Think further for a second. Everything I just wrote about the Flyers goes out the window if they pull Stanley Cup Cinderella run. If Carter or Umberger pulls a 2005/06 Fernando then all bets are off and Holmgren's off-season gets a lot more interesting real quick.

So remember, sometimes conventional wisdom has it wrong.

------

Have a great evening everyone.