Hypothermetically Speaking

So... question...

Given that you, as the GM of an NHL team are SERIOUS about rebuilding your club - from the ground up no less - do you make this trade:

Souray, O'Sullivan, Nilsson and Moreau
FOR
Redden, 2010 1st, 2011 2nd and 2012 1st

------

The Salary Grid* looks like so:

2010-11: EDM = -4.6 = 4.5 + 2.4 + 2.5 + 1.7 - 6.5
2010-11: NYR = +4.6

2011-12: EDM = +2.0 = 4.5 - 6.5
2011-12: NYR = -2.0

2012-13: EDM = +5.0
2012-13: NYR = -5.0

2013-14: EDM = +5.0
2013-14: NYR = -5.0

* With buy-outs the absolute cost to the Rangers goes down substantially while the relative value of benefits received by the Oilers go down

------

The Cap Grid looks like so:

2010-11: EDM = -5.8 = 5.4 + 2.9 + 2.0 + 2.0 - 6.5
2010-11: NYR = +5.8

2011-12: EDM = +1.1 = 5.4 - 6.5
2011-12: NYR = -1.1

2012-13: EDM = +6.5
2012-13: NYR = -6.5

2013-14: EDM = +6.5
2013-14: NYR = -6.5

Surprisingly, the big hit to the Oilers - in regards to the Cap - don't really occur until the 2012-13 season as the two year stretch per the Nilsson and O'Sullivan buy-outs is avoided.

------

This is, basically a cash for picks deal with the variables being value received by the Rangers from Souray's play (fight! fight! fight!) and the value received from by the Oilers from Redden's play (doh!).

So:

- is it worth it to you to dump all of your problem contracts/players at once AND get some nice draft picks in exchange for a player on the downslope with a nut-crushing contract?

- is it worth it to the Rangers to get a player(s) they might want AND save their future Cap and cash positions in exchange for being able to dump a Cap and cash killing contract?

------

So what do you imagine/mean/believe when you say the words 'rebuild'?

------

Have a great evening everyone.

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.