My bad.
When I referenced signing Strudwick to a 4 year deal (a couple or so posts ago) I must admit that I didn't look at his age. Given he is already 32 there is no way he gets a deal longer than 2 years. Maybe go 3 years if you can get him to agree to minimum (NHL) wage and you are willing to bury him in the minors for that 3rd year.
By the same token, depending on how one wants to maneuver with the first UFA year, there is no reason not to sign Brodziak, Reddox and Smid to deals as long as you can make them.
Why not sign Pouliot in the same fashion (next year)?
Because he is already at $900k+ and you don't even know what role he will play for you yet. As there is little chance he would want to sign for more than 3 years at low rate ($950k?) and because you don't know if he will progress beyond bubble status there is no point in making the kind of deal I propose.
i.e. replace with Nash or Eberle and try again.
The difference with Brodziak, et al is that you already know, beyond much doubt, that they will be able to fill their 3rd and 4th line roles just fine - so why risk a 20 goal season? Brodziak, especially, is a guy you want to lock-up at $950k or so as long as possible; he'll have a great year very soon (a la Stoll) and I would hate to pay for it earlier than I have to.
------
Have a great evening everyone.
Saturday, 7 March 2009
Wednesday, 4 March 2009
Trade Deadline Musing - 2008-09 - Final Thoughts
So, Tambellini or Lowe? This was some solid team building and asset management work so, as rare as it may be coming from me, for what it is worth, well done.
Getting right to it.
WINNERS (in order - most winnerest listed first)
Phoenix
Upshall is one of those under-rated leader types while Carcillo is one of those 'almost-more-trouble-than-he-is-worth' types; to get a 2nd rounder thrown in on the deal? Wow. If they can sign Upshall to a decently affordable contract... WOW.
Morris has been over-rated almost forever. Dawes alone would have been an adequate return so if Prucha or Kalinin turn out then this is a clear win. I don't have much faith in Kalinin but Prucha is an interesting roll of the dice.
Lombardi is, argueably, not far off Jokinen in terms of performance so the 1st round pick will help make up the difference. Prust, and the 4th for Tellqvist, are just the icing on the cake for the Coyotes.
Great work by Maloney.
Calgary
Sutter, despite being a dick, completed some nice trades here. He had to. Leopold will fit in wherever they need him and it's put up or shut up time for Jokinen.
Boston
Boston gave up three, borderline at best, NHL'ers (so I'm not a big Lashoff fan - big whoop) and got back two Cup run veterans; fair enough I say. The kicker for me is the 2nd rounder from Tampa - that will be just like a late 1st rounder given how screwed up that franchise is. Well done Boston.
Edmonton
Two new options to try out on LW and, more importantly, they are both legit options (none of that "let's try Cole at LW" bullshiite this time). Kotalik is an enigma, so I can't put too much faith in him just yet, but O'Sullivan is a real 'upside' piece and for the Oilers to get that much for an UFA bound Cole... well... great, great trade imo.
Columbus
Vermette can play center and Leclaire was making too much money so that alone makes this trade a win, however, even I will sometimes put immediate results in front of good player asset management and so the 2nd round pick is a small price to pay for ensuring a play-off run.
Howson and Hitchcock are proving a formidable team and they will get a lot out of Vermette.
San Jose and Chicago
A Cup contender just got better. That is one scary team.
Carolina
Cole plays well on that team. For their sake I hope he sees that and, in remembering his excellent Edmonton adventure, notices that the grass is plenty green in Carolina. With any luck the economy drives his asking price down and they get him on a, relatively, cheap contract.
Pittsburgh
Guerin is a nice pick-up but all the heavy lifting was done for this team on the 26th of February. Wozwho?
Toronto
Also a 'loser' at the deadline (see below), Toronto's last trade of the day shows that Burke 'gets' it. Toronto spent $600k to get a, very low, 4th round pick. There are far worse ways for a 'money' team to spend its money (see also: Redden).
LOSERS (in order - biggest loser listed first)
Tampa Bay
These guys are a joke. One of St. Louis or Lecavalier is gone at the draft, I swear it. Rebuilding teams do not give up draft picks. Barrie and Co. don't deserve a franchise. Not that it means anything but, and I say this with feeling, I am sorry Tampa Bay. I'm so sorry.
NY Rangers
Sather is far too arrogant a man. Morris and Antropov won't do much to fix the various mistakes made and losing Dawes will only aggravate the wounds. Avery will help but this team needed Antropov to fill time at the center spot like it needed a hole in the head.
Philadelphia
Yeah. This team needed a guy like Carcillo on the team. A lack of discipline will kill this team come play-off time. Carcillo is the last thing they needed. AND they threw in a 2nd rounder? Holmgren? Is that you? WTH?
Montreal
On a day when players like Pahlsson, Moore and even Christensen are being traded for some low rent assets (well, O'Dell hurts a bit I guess) it is borderline unexcusable for a team like Montreal to stand pat when their need for a center is so obvious and so great.
Lang isn't coming back in time Mr. Gainey. He just isn't.
Toronto
Also a 'winner' at the deadline (see above), Toronto just didn't get much for a team that is looking to crash hard and fast. Good thing they have money.
Colorado
That is it? All they do is unload Leopold for a 2nd rounder and meh? If you are going to rebuild then do so and to be brutally truthful the Avalanche had a lot of non-core assets they could have traded but didn't. Yeesh.
SIDEWAYS (in order - most horizontal listed first)
Anaheim
A lot of movement and while I would normally give them more credit than not for trying to have a rebuild without a crash I look at the trade of O'Dell and I think that IF you are going to try such a rebuild, you get a piece better than Christensen when you are unloading your younger assets.
Atlanta
O'Dell was a nice little pick-up but the Havelid trade needs to work out, big time, before I give Atlanta credit for doing anything more than tread water.
Los Angeles
Justin Williams has to get healthy just for this trade to remain 'sideways'. Unlike Buffalo and Florida - two teams who could 'win' their trades - this trade has the potential to be a loser.
NY Islanders
Did what they could. Good for them. Who cares? That pick better be ripped.
Buffalo
If the two draft picks are a wash then they traded Moore for Kotalik and picked up a back-up goaltender for a 4th rounder. If Moore finds a role in Buffalo then this can be upgraded to a win. No harm and no foul in that.
Florida
Much like with Buffalo this trade could become a win for the Panthers. Thing is, Eminger had several bad years before this 'rebound' year with Tampa so forgive me for not holding my breath.
FORGETTABLE (in order)
St. Louis
Richmond. wheeeeeee.
------
Have a great evening everyone.
Getting right to it.
WINNERS (in order - most winnerest listed first)
Phoenix
Upshall is one of those under-rated leader types while Carcillo is one of those 'almost-more-trouble-than-he-is-worth' types; to get a 2nd rounder thrown in on the deal? Wow. If they can sign Upshall to a decently affordable contract... WOW.
Morris has been over-rated almost forever. Dawes alone would have been an adequate return so if Prucha or Kalinin turn out then this is a clear win. I don't have much faith in Kalinin but Prucha is an interesting roll of the dice.
Lombardi is, argueably, not far off Jokinen in terms of performance so the 1st round pick will help make up the difference. Prust, and the 4th for Tellqvist, are just the icing on the cake for the Coyotes.
Great work by Maloney.
Calgary
Sutter, despite being a dick, completed some nice trades here. He had to. Leopold will fit in wherever they need him and it's put up or shut up time for Jokinen.
Boston
Boston gave up three, borderline at best, NHL'ers (so I'm not a big Lashoff fan - big whoop) and got back two Cup run veterans; fair enough I say. The kicker for me is the 2nd rounder from Tampa - that will be just like a late 1st rounder given how screwed up that franchise is. Well done Boston.
Edmonton
Two new options to try out on LW and, more importantly, they are both legit options (none of that "let's try Cole at LW" bullshiite this time). Kotalik is an enigma, so I can't put too much faith in him just yet, but O'Sullivan is a real 'upside' piece and for the Oilers to get that much for an UFA bound Cole... well... great, great trade imo.
Columbus
Vermette can play center and Leclaire was making too much money so that alone makes this trade a win, however, even I will sometimes put immediate results in front of good player asset management and so the 2nd round pick is a small price to pay for ensuring a play-off run.
Howson and Hitchcock are proving a formidable team and they will get a lot out of Vermette.
San Jose and Chicago
A Cup contender just got better. That is one scary team.
Carolina
Cole plays well on that team. For their sake I hope he sees that and, in remembering his excellent Edmonton adventure, notices that the grass is plenty green in Carolina. With any luck the economy drives his asking price down and they get him on a, relatively, cheap contract.
Pittsburgh
Guerin is a nice pick-up but all the heavy lifting was done for this team on the 26th of February. Wozwho?
Toronto
Also a 'loser' at the deadline (see below), Toronto's last trade of the day shows that Burke 'gets' it. Toronto spent $600k to get a, very low, 4th round pick. There are far worse ways for a 'money' team to spend its money (see also: Redden).
LOSERS (in order - biggest loser listed first)
Tampa Bay
These guys are a joke. One of St. Louis or Lecavalier is gone at the draft, I swear it. Rebuilding teams do not give up draft picks. Barrie and Co. don't deserve a franchise. Not that it means anything but, and I say this with feeling, I am sorry Tampa Bay. I'm so sorry.
NY Rangers
Sather is far too arrogant a man. Morris and Antropov won't do much to fix the various mistakes made and losing Dawes will only aggravate the wounds. Avery will help but this team needed Antropov to fill time at the center spot like it needed a hole in the head.
Philadelphia
Yeah. This team needed a guy like Carcillo on the team. A lack of discipline will kill this team come play-off time. Carcillo is the last thing they needed. AND they threw in a 2nd rounder? Holmgren? Is that you? WTH?
Montreal
On a day when players like Pahlsson, Moore and even Christensen are being traded for some low rent assets (well, O'Dell hurts a bit I guess) it is borderline unexcusable for a team like Montreal to stand pat when their need for a center is so obvious and so great.
Lang isn't coming back in time Mr. Gainey. He just isn't.
Toronto
Also a 'winner' at the deadline (see above), Toronto just didn't get much for a team that is looking to crash hard and fast. Good thing they have money.
Colorado
That is it? All they do is unload Leopold for a 2nd rounder and meh? If you are going to rebuild then do so and to be brutally truthful the Avalanche had a lot of non-core assets they could have traded but didn't. Yeesh.
SIDEWAYS (in order - most horizontal listed first)
Anaheim
A lot of movement and while I would normally give them more credit than not for trying to have a rebuild without a crash I look at the trade of O'Dell and I think that IF you are going to try such a rebuild, you get a piece better than Christensen when you are unloading your younger assets.
Atlanta
O'Dell was a nice little pick-up but the Havelid trade needs to work out, big time, before I give Atlanta credit for doing anything more than tread water.
Los Angeles
Justin Williams has to get healthy just for this trade to remain 'sideways'. Unlike Buffalo and Florida - two teams who could 'win' their trades - this trade has the potential to be a loser.
NY Islanders
Did what they could. Good for them. Who cares? That pick better be ripped.
Buffalo
If the two draft picks are a wash then they traded Moore for Kotalik and picked up a back-up goaltender for a 4th rounder. If Moore finds a role in Buffalo then this can be upgraded to a win. No harm and no foul in that.
Florida
Much like with Buffalo this trade could become a win for the Panthers. Thing is, Eminger had several bad years before this 'rebound' year with Tampa so forgive me for not holding my breath.
FORGETTABLE (in order)
St. Louis
Richmond. wheeeeeee.
------
Have a great evening everyone.
Tuesday, 3 March 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, 1 March 2009
Trade Deadline Musing - 2008-09
Where Do We Go From Here?
The Oilers are, heading into the trade deadline, in a very interesting 'spot' so to speak. Not bad enough to require a full on rebuild and not good enough to make a run with a couple of add-ons the team is some 23 shades of grey.
The upside of this is that the team is in a position to make a whack of incremental changes and not really get challenged on the making of any of them. The idea being that sometimes a bunch of small changes all add up to having the same impact as a few big ones.
Most of what I will write here is predicated on MacT as coach throughout the rest of this year and that next year either: a) he returns or b) the way management wants the team to play doesn't change.
The Coach Factor
MacT favors players who play hard. Neither skill level (Nilsson) nor results (Penner) matter as much to MacT as effort. Normally I don't think there is too much wrong with that approach as most players get the message and the truly lazy you don't want on the team regardless.
Problems will arise however when the approach stops making sense.
If the goal of the game is to win, then sitting on Penner and kicking him the nads every chance one gets - when it is clear he is the best 1st line LW option on the team - doesn't make a lot of sense.
It makes even less sense when a player like Moreau, who is getting hammered out there on a head to head basis shift after shift AND is taking bad penalties again and again and again, gets prime minutes game after game and never gets called on it.
Despite what some fans think, players aren't stupid. The players see what is happening and, understandably, the credibility gap makes it hard for them to listen to the coach.
From what I have seen over the years a coach can get away with some or a little of one (leaning on a guy not totally deserving of the hate) and some or a little of the other (favoritism for a guy not totally earning the love) but not the extremes of both.
Veteran Cheese
For better or for worse, Moreau and Staios have become crutches for MacT and it is probably better for the team over-all if they get moved. Let Souray, Horcoff and Hemsky provide a new leadership core.
Moreau's injury aside, both Staios and Moreau are seen as 'warrior' types. This makes them desirable trade chips. Moreau and Staios also have contracts outsized to their contributions and those contracts have time yet to run. Not so desirable.
These are take what you can get trades. The Oilers are better off keeping Grebeshkov, Smid, Strudwick, Brodziak and Cole (with luck) than they are Moreau and Staios so clearing that salary is important.
Young Meat
With MacT's crutches taken away the risk becomes sending the wrong signal to the rest of the team. Time to get rid of the clutter on the roster.
If Penner were the only problem MacT had with this roster it would be workable; but he isn't. From where I sit the players MacT has trouble with, on a regular basis, comprise a list of Penner, Nilsson, Pouliot and Cogliano. Schremp is an unneeded distraction and he should go too.
Penner and Schremp have to go regardless. One of Nilsson or Pouliot needs a change of address post haste. Cogliano has to learn to play wing, take face-offs or go play center poorly somewhere else - and he needs to be told that straight up.
Some of these players have real value (Penner, Cogliano) while others are add-ons (Pouliot, Nilsson) and others are throw-ins (Schremp); if combined with Moreau and Staios there is some opportunity there to make some big deals.
The Goalie and Cole
I wrestle with the idea of trading Roloson. If I am thinking I am okay with missing the play-offs then he has to go and if I am thinking that I would rather make the play-offs than not then he should stay.
Cole probably has to go. Regardless of how bad I want to make the play-offs. He just isn't the difference maker Roli is.
That was hard to type btw - I have wanted Cole on this team a long, long time and nothing makes the overpriced contracts of Moreau, Staios and Pisani pop into the consciousness more than knowing because of those contracts there isn't a remote chance we could keep Cole on the roster.
Targets
Since I am both seller (selling the Vets to Cup contender teams) and buyer (the younger players) I have a lot of targets to pick from. Since I have a range of items available I should be involved in all kinds of deals.
And since none of what I am giving up, outside of Cogliano, is a core asset I'm not going to hurt my team going forward. In fact, if I can get in on the right deals maybe I secure some assets I can add to my core build.
Lowebellini has a lot of assets to work with right now and the future is wide open, my hope is that this team is radically different come the evening of March 4th.
I have always been a big fan of Dawes from the Rangers. If I am trading Roloson then Washington is the team I call and Gordon, despite the horrible year, could be a target. Ponikarovsky is still a favorite so hopefully Burke returns calls from Tambellini. If Cole is heading back to Carolina then Ruutu is a decent pick-up. I wanted Letang from Pittsburgh but that ship has sailed. Just how desperate is Montreal?
This is the kind of trade deadline where cash can make a real difference so if Katz wants to get some prime assets back then maybe opening the wallet and swallowing hard while he pays some hack to be in the minors is just what he has to do.
Think outside the box. What about Penner and something for Ryan Malone? The length of the contract is horrible but at least he plays MacT's style of game and Tampa chops a whack of years off of their committment ledger.
If you are going to overpay someone it might as well be someone you actually like.
More than anything I would want to a) fix my locker-room chemistry and b) add a core player to the mix - preferably a left winger.
Here's hoping.
------
Have a great evening everyone.
Thursday, 26 February 2009
Simple Things and the Cap
Interesting. The Maple Leafs are increasing their ticket prices.
No question about it. I do get a little snarky every now and then, and I should apologize for it when it happens, but after a re-read I don't actually think my last post was all that bad. Not a great read mind-you but that's par for the course with me so, from where I sit, no harm and no foul.
Now, in a less snarky way, I present to you a simple change to the CBA that, I believe, should have made it into the document from the very start.
Background
Small market (read: small budget) teams are getting hammered because of Cap inflation. As noted before in this blog, once the Cap gets past the $52 million mark the spread between what big budget and small budget teams have to spend reaches, sans significant revenue sharing or an amazing new TV deal, an untenable level.
Right now the Floor ratchets upward in lock-step with the Cap; the maximum spread always being at $16 million:
$b ........ Player %/$b ..... Cap$m .... Flr$m .... %
2.200 ..... 54.0 / 1.19 ..... 39.6 ..... 23.6 ..... 32.2
2.300 ..... 55.5 / 1.28 ..... 42.6 ..... 26.5 ..... 34.6
2.400 ..... 56.0 / 1.34 ..... 44.8 ..... 28.8 ..... 36.0
2.500 ..... 56.3 / 1.41 ..... 46.9 ..... 30.9 ..... 37.1
2.550 ..... 56.5 / 1.44 ..... 48.0 ..... 32.0 ..... 37.6
2.600 ..... 56.7 / 1.47 ..... 49.1 ..... 33.1 ..... 38.2
2.700 ..... 57.0 / 1.54 ..... 51.3 ..... 35.3 ..... 39.2
2.800 ..... 57.0 / 1.60 ..... 53.2 ..... 37.2 ..... 40.0
2.900 ..... 57.0 / 1.65 ..... 55.1 ..... 39.1 ..... 40.4
3.000 ..... 57.0 / 1.71 ..... 57.0 ..... 41.0 ..... 41.0
Notice the inflation effect? (hint: look at the last column) The hard spread of $16 million slightly disconnects Floor from HRR and thus causes Floor Requirement to slowly increase (as a % of the HRR).
By the time we get to $3.0 billion in HRR the % spread between max Players Share and Floor Requirement has shrunk by some 6 percentage points.
i.e. (54.0 - 32.2 = 21.8) - (57.0 - 41.0 = 16.0) = 5.8
That is sizable.
Solution
The easily workable solution is to loosen the strap a tad and tie the Floor Requirement number to Players Share % (not to Cap).
To make it easy on ourselves we will fix the spread at 20 %pts and re-start the CBA at a Floor Requirement of 34% of HRR. If we then increase Floor Requirement in lockstep with Players Share % our chart now changes to look like so:
$b ........ Player %/$b ..... Cap$m .... Flr$m .... %
2.200 ..... 54.0 / 1.19 ..... 39.6 ..... 24.9 ..... 34.0
2.300 ..... 55.5 / 1.28 ..... 42.6 ..... 27.2 ..... 35.5
2.400 ..... 56.0 / 1.34 ..... 44.8 ..... 28.8 ..... 36.0
2.500 ..... 56.3 / 1.41 ..... 46.9 ..... 30.3 ..... 36.3
2.550 ..... 56.5 / 1.44 ..... 48.0 ..... 31.0 ..... 36.5
2.600 ..... 56.7 / 1.47 ..... 49.1 ..... 31.8 ..... 36.7
2.700 ..... 57.0 / 1.54 ..... 51.3 ..... 33.3 ..... 37.0
2.800 ..... 57.0 / 1.60 ..... 53.2 ..... 34.5 ..... 37.0
2.900 ..... 57.0 / 1.65 ..... 55.1 ..... 35.8 ..... 37.0
3.000 ..... 57.0 / 1.71 ..... 57.0 ..... 37.0 ..... 37.0
So now we have a %pt spread that stays constant (at the 20%) and a Salary Budget gap that increases (from $14.7 million at $2.2 billion HRR to $20 million at $3.0 billion HRR).
Who's a Happy Baby?
Small budget teams are happy. As long as most other factors remained unchanged (like revenue sharing) the budget pressure drops by several million dollers.
Large budget teams are happy because no new money is expected of them and they get to increase average player salaries even more (yippee!).
Players are unhappy because they, potentially, leave million of dollars on the table as the small budget teams contract their payrolls.
Except... well... would that actually happen?
No. I don't think it would.
Remember, players get their share regardless so all that would actually happen is that the dollars would be apportioned differently.
Now, given that not all players, and their contracts, are created equally we know some player somewhere would be unhappy - BUT - the veterans have thrown the rooks under the bus before and with early UFA we know there are fewer disadvantaged to complain so it is hard to see where this is a loser.
------
Do I think this suggestion is the solution for the NHL. Of course not. Any hard Cap concept that doesn't have significant revenue sharing involved is one that won't work under anything but the slowest inflation effect.
FTR, back in the day, I supported a soft Cap with a luxury tax component that would increase in effect on a plateau basis. I still think that is the best overall way to do it.
------
By the way, in regards to the Malkin for Sedins comment. I meant it. Yes, Malkin is a phenomenal talent, but if Pittsburgh could get the Sedins to sign long-term deals (5 yrs+) in the $6.00 - 6.25 million range then the math is simple:
2 Sedins at a $12.00 million Cap hit > 1 Malkin at a $8.70 million Cap hit
The odds of finding the right winger for Malkin at $3.30 million are pretty long and, to be blunt, Pittsburgh needs the depth that the two bodies would provide.
------
Have a great evening everyone.
No question about it. I do get a little snarky every now and then, and I should apologize for it when it happens, but after a re-read I don't actually think my last post was all that bad. Not a great read mind-you but that's par for the course with me so, from where I sit, no harm and no foul.
Now, in a less snarky way, I present to you a simple change to the CBA that, I believe, should have made it into the document from the very start.
Background
Small market (read: small budget) teams are getting hammered because of Cap inflation. As noted before in this blog, once the Cap gets past the $52 million mark the spread between what big budget and small budget teams have to spend reaches, sans significant revenue sharing or an amazing new TV deal, an untenable level.
Right now the Floor ratchets upward in lock-step with the Cap; the maximum spread always being at $16 million:
$b ........ Player %/$b ..... Cap$m .... Flr$m .... %
2.200 ..... 54.0 / 1.19 ..... 39.6 ..... 23.6 ..... 32.2
2.300 ..... 55.5 / 1.28 ..... 42.6 ..... 26.5 ..... 34.6
2.400 ..... 56.0 / 1.34 ..... 44.8 ..... 28.8 ..... 36.0
2.500 ..... 56.3 / 1.41 ..... 46.9 ..... 30.9 ..... 37.1
2.550 ..... 56.5 / 1.44 ..... 48.0 ..... 32.0 ..... 37.6
2.600 ..... 56.7 / 1.47 ..... 49.1 ..... 33.1 ..... 38.2
2.700 ..... 57.0 / 1.54 ..... 51.3 ..... 35.3 ..... 39.2
2.800 ..... 57.0 / 1.60 ..... 53.2 ..... 37.2 ..... 40.0
2.900 ..... 57.0 / 1.65 ..... 55.1 ..... 39.1 ..... 40.4
3.000 ..... 57.0 / 1.71 ..... 57.0 ..... 41.0 ..... 41.0
Notice the inflation effect? (hint: look at the last column) The hard spread of $16 million slightly disconnects Floor from HRR and thus causes Floor Requirement to slowly increase (as a % of the HRR).
By the time we get to $3.0 billion in HRR the % spread between max Players Share and Floor Requirement has shrunk by some 6 percentage points.
i.e. (54.0 - 32.2 = 21.8) - (57.0 - 41.0 = 16.0) = 5.8
That is sizable.
Solution
The easily workable solution is to loosen the strap a tad and tie the Floor Requirement number to Players Share % (not to Cap).
To make it easy on ourselves we will fix the spread at 20 %pts and re-start the CBA at a Floor Requirement of 34% of HRR. If we then increase Floor Requirement in lockstep with Players Share % our chart now changes to look like so:
$b ........ Player %/$b ..... Cap$m .... Flr$m .... %
2.200 ..... 54.0 / 1.19 ..... 39.6 ..... 24.9 ..... 34.0
2.300 ..... 55.5 / 1.28 ..... 42.6 ..... 27.2 ..... 35.5
2.400 ..... 56.0 / 1.34 ..... 44.8 ..... 28.8 ..... 36.0
2.500 ..... 56.3 / 1.41 ..... 46.9 ..... 30.3 ..... 36.3
2.550 ..... 56.5 / 1.44 ..... 48.0 ..... 31.0 ..... 36.5
2.600 ..... 56.7 / 1.47 ..... 49.1 ..... 31.8 ..... 36.7
2.700 ..... 57.0 / 1.54 ..... 51.3 ..... 33.3 ..... 37.0
2.800 ..... 57.0 / 1.60 ..... 53.2 ..... 34.5 ..... 37.0
2.900 ..... 57.0 / 1.65 ..... 55.1 ..... 35.8 ..... 37.0
3.000 ..... 57.0 / 1.71 ..... 57.0 ..... 37.0 ..... 37.0
So now we have a %pt spread that stays constant (at the 20%) and a Salary Budget gap that increases (from $14.7 million at $2.2 billion HRR to $20 million at $3.0 billion HRR).
Who's a Happy Baby?
Small budget teams are happy. As long as most other factors remained unchanged (like revenue sharing) the budget pressure drops by several million dollers.
Large budget teams are happy because no new money is expected of them and they get to increase average player salaries even more (yippee!).
Players are unhappy because they, potentially, leave million of dollars on the table as the small budget teams contract their payrolls.
Except... well... would that actually happen?
No. I don't think it would.
Remember, players get their share regardless so all that would actually happen is that the dollars would be apportioned differently.
Now, given that not all players, and their contracts, are created equally we know some player somewhere would be unhappy - BUT - the veterans have thrown the rooks under the bus before and with early UFA we know there are fewer disadvantaged to complain so it is hard to see where this is a loser.
------
Do I think this suggestion is the solution for the NHL. Of course not. Any hard Cap concept that doesn't have significant revenue sharing involved is one that won't work under anything but the slowest inflation effect.
FTR, back in the day, I supported a soft Cap with a luxury tax component that would increase in effect on a plateau basis. I still think that is the best overall way to do it.
------
By the way, in regards to the Malkin for Sedins comment. I meant it. Yes, Malkin is a phenomenal talent, but if Pittsburgh could get the Sedins to sign long-term deals (5 yrs+) in the $6.00 - 6.25 million range then the math is simple:
2 Sedins at a $12.00 million Cap hit > 1 Malkin at a $8.70 million Cap hit
The odds of finding the right winger for Malkin at $3.30 million are pretty long and, to be blunt, Pittsburgh needs the depth that the two bodies would provide.
------
Have a great evening everyone.
Saturday, 21 February 2009
Miscellanea - February
Garth Snow
Lowetide sends some love Snow's way. I know some may point to the Dipietro contract and say 'what?' but those people would be wrong.
The Rick Dipietro contract remains one of the best contracts in hockey. Topped only by the Zetterberg and Hunter contracts imo.
Dipietro Contract - Part 1
Dipietro Contract - Part 2
Dipietro Contract - Part 3
I cannot blame Snow for Dipietro's Mr. Glass act and if you actually read through those links you will find where I say:
"The real danger is a chronic malady (a la Dunham's groin issues when with Nashville) that leaves DiPietro on the active roster drawing full salary and affecting the Cap."
That said, not sure what I think about in regards to the Campoli trade. The 1st is more than I would have paid to get him and so I have to think Snow did well there.
Funny thing though - if he pairs well with a stay-at-home on the Ottawa roster then Snow will end up looking bad for something over which he had less control than Ottawa did.
Right. I did just talk about the Dipietro contract didn't I?
Geniousity
Oh. About that Zetterberg contract. Absolute genius wasn't it?.
Funny thing though - I recall lots of posts about those sorts of contracts on the message boards back in day. Hell. I posted a few. Most people said that people who were making posts like that were idiots. Contracts just wouldn't work that way.
Two signatures later and Holland is a genius.
Cool. So I wasn't an idiot. For the record, that aspect of this topic, the aspect about being right all along, doesn't upset me at all. Here is what does upset me however - if I can figure it out then how hard can it be to figure it out?
I'm not that smart. Just look at my sentence structure.
Vancouver is in negotiations with the Sedins. Given their historic ability to perform at a high level, and the fact that they never seem to get injured, I am surprised they aren't getting the Zetterberg treatment.
I really am. I am also surprised Pittsburgh never traded Malkin for them.
Finally, on this topic, never underestimate the effect that timing can have on intelligence.
Shero has to sign Crosby and Malkin during a day and age when money was everywhere and money was cheap while Gillis gets to sign the Sedins during a day when everyone is afraid they won't be able to make the mortgage payment.
My guess is everyone will be commenting on just how smart Gillis is **.
Rebuilds
Still working on my 'Rebuilds on Steroids' post. Gold Star for the first among you who sees how Snow is working the cba to his advantage. Davidson is St. Louis is doing the same.
It isn't much of an advantage mind. More along the lines of: "this is how you have to do things anyways so what you do with what you have is up to you".
That is your hint right there folks.
You too can be a genius!
F^*k me.
:-)
------
** ftr - I do think Gillis has done very well in lalaland, I have a post titled "Tale of Two Gamblers" in production that shows how smart he has been.
------
Have a great evening everyone.
Lowetide sends some love Snow's way. I know some may point to the Dipietro contract and say 'what?' but those people would be wrong.
The Rick Dipietro contract remains one of the best contracts in hockey. Topped only by the Zetterberg and Hunter contracts imo.
Dipietro Contract - Part 1
Dipietro Contract - Part 2
Dipietro Contract - Part 3
I cannot blame Snow for Dipietro's Mr. Glass act and if you actually read through those links you will find where I say:
"The real danger is a chronic malady (a la Dunham's groin issues when with Nashville) that leaves DiPietro on the active roster drawing full salary and affecting the Cap."
That said, not sure what I think about in regards to the Campoli trade. The 1st is more than I would have paid to get him and so I have to think Snow did well there.
Funny thing though - if he pairs well with a stay-at-home on the Ottawa roster then Snow will end up looking bad for something over which he had less control than Ottawa did.
Right. I did just talk about the Dipietro contract didn't I?
Geniousity
Oh. About that Zetterberg contract. Absolute genius wasn't it?.
Funny thing though - I recall lots of posts about those sorts of contracts on the message boards back in day. Hell. I posted a few. Most people said that people who were making posts like that were idiots. Contracts just wouldn't work that way.
Two signatures later and Holland is a genius.
Cool. So I wasn't an idiot. For the record, that aspect of this topic, the aspect about being right all along, doesn't upset me at all. Here is what does upset me however - if I can figure it out then how hard can it be to figure it out?
I'm not that smart. Just look at my sentence structure.
Vancouver is in negotiations with the Sedins. Given their historic ability to perform at a high level, and the fact that they never seem to get injured, I am surprised they aren't getting the Zetterberg treatment.
I really am. I am also surprised Pittsburgh never traded Malkin for them.
Finally, on this topic, never underestimate the effect that timing can have on intelligence.
Shero has to sign Crosby and Malkin during a day and age when money was everywhere and money was cheap while Gillis gets to sign the Sedins during a day when everyone is afraid they won't be able to make the mortgage payment.
My guess is everyone will be commenting on just how smart Gillis is **.
Rebuilds
Still working on my 'Rebuilds on Steroids' post. Gold Star for the first among you who sees how Snow is working the cba to his advantage. Davidson is St. Louis is doing the same.
It isn't much of an advantage mind. More along the lines of: "this is how you have to do things anyways so what you do with what you have is up to you".
That is your hint right there folks.
You too can be a genius!
F^*k me.
:-)
------
** ftr - I do think Gillis has done very well in lalaland, I have a post titled "Tale of Two Gamblers" in production that shows how smart he has been.
------
Have a great evening everyone.
Friday, 23 January 2009
One Night
Every now and then I still drop by Hockeysfuture. I don't lurk like I used to but then, one doesn't see my call hanging out at Oilfans very much either. I tend not to sign in anymore. Gets a bit noisy out there. Thoughts get addled I think.
Still, early memories are fond and so it is I keep the links (sidebar).
That said, it was interesting to find out that my identity, and even my geographical location, has been reassigned.
That's okay though dsf, I do this more on a 'for me' rather than an 'about me' basis so being only somewhat known/remembered is totally okay. Besides, Rage has my back. I think...
:-)
I do have to say that I did kind of mind having to sift through the chaff on this thread. It made me sad to have to wait until post #11 before someone pointed out that Staios' contract was the real problem (yes, I know, it did contradict the premise of the thread), it made me sadder yet when someone listed the incomparable Brad Stuart as a 'good defenseman' and when I read this:
"....Kronwall and Stuart are both better options at present than either of Grebeshkov and Gilbert."
I became so inconsolable I just had to start drinking.
On the bright side, I am happily drinking some 18yr Gibson's now so all I can really say is: Thanks Hockeysfuture!
P.s. this is partly why I wasn't blown away by the Garon trade (though I did think it was okay), my wish was that it had been a bigger trade - one that had brought Letang here. The Oilers are woefully short on effective depth on defense. Strudwick isn't a real answer.
------
Of course, if one thinks about how the Moreau contract (an overpay against rule of thumb standard, my thumbs admittedly, of some 250k) and the Staios contract (overpay, same thumb, of some 300k) were about character and making up for service rendered and veteran leadership and how loyalty to the team can mean so much...
...and then happens to remember that the Smyth contract didn't close because of a spread of a 100k then... hrmmmm... ahhhh, f*#k me... I think I need more alcohol.
Oh look! More. Good.
------
Have a great evening everyone.
Still, early memories are fond and so it is I keep the links (sidebar).
That said, it was interesting to find out that my identity, and even my geographical location, has been reassigned.
That's okay though dsf, I do this more on a 'for me' rather than an 'about me' basis so being only somewhat known/remembered is totally okay. Besides, Rage has my back. I think...
:-)
I do have to say that I did kind of mind having to sift through the chaff on this thread. It made me sad to have to wait until post #11 before someone pointed out that Staios' contract was the real problem (yes, I know, it did contradict the premise of the thread), it made me sadder yet when someone listed the incomparable Brad Stuart as a 'good defenseman' and when I read this:
"....Kronwall and Stuart are both better options at present than either of Grebeshkov and Gilbert."
I became so inconsolable I just had to start drinking.
On the bright side, I am happily drinking some 18yr Gibson's now so all I can really say is: Thanks Hockeysfuture!
P.s. this is partly why I wasn't blown away by the Garon trade (though I did think it was okay), my wish was that it had been a bigger trade - one that had brought Letang here. The Oilers are woefully short on effective depth on defense. Strudwick isn't a real answer.
------
Of course, if one thinks about how the Moreau contract (an overpay against rule of thumb standard, my thumbs admittedly, of some 250k) and the Staios contract (overpay, same thumb, of some 300k) were about character and making up for service rendered and veteran leadership and how loyalty to the team can mean so much...
...and then happens to remember that the Smyth contract didn't close because of a spread of a 100k then... hrmmmm... ahhhh, f*#k me... I think I need more alcohol.
Oh look! More. Good.
------
Have a great evening everyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)