Hmm: someone mentioned a hypothetical trade of Kovalchuk for Versteeg and Barker; so I ran the cap numbers, filling out the roster with minimum wage players and signing IK to a $7MM cap hit
Does this look good?
Hawks are ready for 2010-11, due to their sublime scheme of evil genius
They have a cap hit of $60.613MM, which is $3.8MM over this year’s cap ceiling (keeping in mind that next year’s ceiling is supposed to go down by a couple million or, at best, stay the same). But at least they have a full roster signed.
Nine forwards, five defensemen and one goalie. That’s a full team, right?
So, they’re four million over, and they have at least five players left to sign, to get to the minimum roster of 20. Let’s assume they trade for the five cheapest guys in existence, locking in the lowest cap hits currently available. That’s 5x $487K added to the cap hit, which brings the total to $63.048MM, which is $6.25MM over this year’s cap.
Assuming a best-case/worst-case range, the Hawks have to find a way to clear between $6.25MM and $8.25MM in salary.
I guess if I were them, I would send Sopel to the AHL. That saves $2.33MM, but you have to fill his roster spot now, so add another $487K. So, $4.405MM to go. Who’s next? I guess I would deal Kopecky, that saves another $700K (net), with, $3.7MM to go. No one is ever going to take on that Campbell contract. I guess one plan would be to hope you win the cup and then trade Huet at peak value. That could happen, and then you’d be done. Failing that (and I think trading Huet is extremely unlikely), Chicago is going to have to lose two of Bolland, Baker, Versteeg, Byfuglien or Seabrook, or else lose just one of them and then waive Campbell and hope someone picks him up on re-entry at half-price.
So, to sum up, I would probably demote Sopel, trade Kopecky and two of Bolland, Baker, Versteeg, Byfuglien or Seabrook. And replace them with NINE MINIMUM WAGE EMPLOYEES.
Yeah, right. Good management, Chicago. You’re completely screwed. And after you lose in the Cup finals to Pittsburgh, and HOSSA GOES INTO THE LOONEY BIN, what then?
(Wait. Is that the plan? Hossa goes away on “medical leave” and you get his cap hit off the books? That’s possibly genius. Okay, I take it all back. I hope that happens.)
Chicago 2010 Cap Madness Watch
ESPN is reporting that Kane and Toews extensions are imminent, at five years/$6MM+, and the Keith extension is also close, at around 13 years/undisclosed $. Were those deals to turn out to be true, the 2010-11 Hawks would be at $55.1MM plus whatever the Keith cap hit turns out to be. Let’s assume Keith is signing a 13 year (i.e. the rest of his career) deal. He’s getting $1.9MM this year (salary). Assume he’s going to get a front-loaded deal, per the usual b.s., with a cap hit that’s going to be…at minimum…spitballing a magic number…$2.5MM. That’s the lowest I can imagine the cap hit being.
So that’s, at minimum, a cap hit of $57.6MM for next season. Over this year’s cap by about a million; and we are all assuming the cap is going to go down a bit (or a lot, depending). Oh, and then there’s the small matter of actually fielding a team…
…because that $57.6MM only buys the hawks 10 forwards, 4 defensemen and a goalie.
Scotty Bowman predicts cap decline – MLive.com
Scotty Bowman, the legendary former coach and now an adviser for the Chicago Blackhawks, believes next year’s NHL salary cap could drop about $2-million, a reasonable prediction given how little box-office revenue is being generated in Phoenix, Tampa and Atlanta. Even the rising Canadian dollar won’t offset those black holes. If that cap forecast is ultimately how it plays out, you’d have to think most general managers will get even more gun shy about adding high-priced help (such as Giguere) unless they're on expiring contracts. Cheaper options (such as Martin Biron of the Islanders) will become far more attractive.
Should The Sharks Re-Sign Marleau? – Battle of California
On the flipside, look at the grumblings among some Tampa fans regarding Vincent Lecavalier’s contract now. You’ll find more than a few of them grousing about how Lecavalier should have been moved this off-season and how the team belongs to Steven Stamkos and Victor Hedman now.
So it’s not an easy thing to balance out. You do it right and it’s good for the player and for the team. Make the wrong move — cut the guy off when the team still needs him or horribly overpay with term and cap hit to hinder any future moves — and you’ll be suffering for years.
via Should The Sharks Re-Sign Marleau? – Battle of California.
From Kukla’s Korner: Escrow
Revenues for 2008-09 have yet to be finalized. But based on current projections, players will earn only 85-87 percent of their contracts because of escrow. For example, Alex Ovechkin, due $9 million in 2008-09, would take home $7.65 million in pre-tax earnings. For 2009-10, escrow could become even more significant to make up for any revenue shortfalls. The 2009-10 figure hasn’t been set yet, but some agents are informing their clients that 20 percent of their salaries could be tucked away via escrow. “You always err on the side of caution,’’ said Andrew Ference, the Bruins’ player representative….
via KuklasKorner : Hockey .
Cap Idiots Chart (#6) 7/19/09
Cap# = cap hit.
SGND = number of players signed.
C-Sp = cap space remaining.
cush = the off-season cushion (teams are allowed to go over 10% but they must be down to the cap by the time the season starts — or maybe it’s the day before; ask Brian Burke).
perP23 = cap space per player remaining to be signed, to populate a 23-man roster.
perP20 = same thing figured for a roster of 20.
BCush = a team’s bonus cushion.
madness = cap space per player remaining to be signed, to populate a 22-man roster, while recklessly eating up your bonus cushion.
LTS23 = players left to sign to get to 23.
Exciting new black coloration: highlights teams that are working under a self-imposed cash-cap (CBJ) or are otherwise financially hobbled (the others). They have the cap space but (likely) not the will or the cash to help out the folks in the orange or red zones by taking on their salary dumps.
Some comments on this week’s list: almost all of the movement is from the teams with cap space (shockingly). The bottom half of the list is more or less stagnant. The Kings have slightly more cap space per signing left than they did before, due to the lower-than-expected (by me) cap hit for Jack Johnson. Incidentally, since Purcell is supposed to be signed on Monday, I took the liberty of adding him in; my guess as to his cap hit: $900K. We’ll see if I’m right. I’m usually not.
Spector’s Hockey – Latest Blue Jackets and Sharks News.
Tom Reed reports the Blue Jackets may have $10 million in available cap space but they’re a “budget team, not a cap team”, meaning the club is already likely close to their self-imposed ceiling, which could hamper GM Scott Howson’s efforts to bring in a puck-moving defenseman.
via Spector’s Hockey – Latest Blue Jackets and Sharks News..
Which means they will get a special designation in the forthcoming Idiots Chart (note: they are not the idiots, just one more buyer off the market.)
From Tom Benjamin’s NHL Blog: Defending McDonough
Tom Benjamin blogs on/for/re the Canucks and weighs in on the Hawks fiasco:
The good news going forward was that the excellent young team grew into an excellent team period. The bad news was that they did this despite the fact that Tallon did little to demonstrate competence. Indeed he made several mistakes – Savard, Campbell, Huet – even before the qualifying offer fiasco. The salary cap has been mismanaged badly, so badly that there will not be enough money to sign three stars – Kane, Toews, and Keith – whose contracts expire this year. Finally, it doesn’t really matter who is to blame for not getting the qualifying offers out on time. The underling who goofed was not instructed properly, or did not understand the importance of the offers, or was not competent. That goes directly to the concern about Tallon – Is he capable of running a large and complex organization?McDonough decided that the answer was “No” and so he pulled the trigger despite the fact that he knew he would get blasted for it.
From Mlive.com: New Blackhawks GM Stan Bowman suggests that cap may not fall for 10-11 season, discusses Hawks’ Red Wings-like ‘one-year window’
Actually, it’s Mlive (from Detroit) quoting a block from the Chicago Daily Herald [with my comments in brackets]:
The Hawks are under the NHL’s $56.8 million salary cap for this season [no, you're not] but part of the reason Bowman was promoted to GM was to navigate the team through next summer when there will be serious cap issues with Keith, Jonathan Toews, Patrick Kane, Andrew Ladd, Adam Burish and Hjalmarsson to re-sign as restricted free agents. Bowman isn’t convinced the cap will go down, as many predict.
“There was some talk during the year that this upcoming cap was going to be down into the 40s, and that didn’t happen,” Bowman said. “It could go down, or it could stay the same or it could go up. So that’s going to play into how we think. [How would that work? Besides, obviously, hoping you don't have to gut the team?]
“Going forward we know it’s going to be difficult, but it’s not only us who are facing this. If you look at some of the decisions the Red Wings had to make, they let (Mikael) Samuelsson and Hossa and (Tomas) Kopecky go and they haven’t added anybody. Not that they didn’t want those players, but they’re up against it as well. We’re going to be in that group soon.” [Except that Detroit managed the cap and Chicago didn't; also, Detroit has these things called Cups.]
Bowman warned Hawks fans, as Tallon did, that the club can’t keep everyone and that tough and perhaps unpopular personnel decisions will need to be made.
“It’s going to be a difficult thing and something is going to have to give,” Bowman said. “If the salary cap does inch up, that will help us. If not, then we’re going to have to decide on our core players and go from there. But we’re not unique in that. We’re no different than the Penguins or Red Wings, teams that have had success.” [except that you're supposed to have to gut the team after you win the cup, not before.]
From Battle of California: More on Doug Wilson
Undoubtedly BoC is already in your blog aggregator, but I’m clipping out this bit anyway, since it’s so true and so much fun to contemplate:
Whatever trade options GM Doug Wilson may have had at the draft (and we can only speculate there) are now fairly diminished. How it affects the Sharks going forward? Remains to be seen.
Still, it was only one summer ago that the Ducks sat in the Sharks’ position — over the salary cap ceiling with most of the league’s summer spending done, trying to unload a useful veteran in Mathieu Schneider. While Schneidermayer carried a significant salary for one more season, he had demonstrated an ability to outscore easy competition and was a useful power play pointman — I initially thought there’d be a hefty return for a year of his service. But as “spending” summer turned to ”waiting” summer, the value of Schneider did shift substantially. Nobody was out to do Brian Burke any cap-managing favors, and Atlanta finally bailed out the Ducks with just days to spare. The return? Ken Klee — played 3 games for the Ducks before being shipped to Phoenix (where the Ducks still paid half his salary). Brad Larsen — never played for the Ducks, having an eternal injury of some sort. Chad Painchaud — I’ve never even heard of this guy; frankly it sounds made-up.
My point being — it’s not fun to be in the ”shed salary” position at this point in the offseason — certainly we’re nearing the point where optimistic trade returns may be out of the picture. Now it’s entirely possible that Doug Wilson has more friends in the GM circles than Brian Burke did, and San Jose is still a great team with a lot of superstars — I don’t think the Sharks are screwed by any means. But the later this summer prolongs, the less bargaining power Wilson is likely to have — could be that the Sharks have to give away players for junk at some point.
via Battle of California – Takes and trash talk from all sides of the NHL’s most pathetic rivalry.
From Fear The Fin: Back, meet corner
From the Sharks’ blog Fear the Fin:
You can argue against the signing of Scott Nichol based on his skill, age, injury history, whatever. Same for Huskins. You could even make the case that the Rob Blake deal was evidence of poor decision making by the Sharks, or that they overpaid for Clowe. But, like it or not, those are the moves that have been made so far this year. No matter how much we bitch and moan, nothing changes.
What’s interesting to me though, is the timing of these deals. I was certain that the Sharks would make a trade before any free agents were added to the club, but as of this morning, no personnel swaps have occured. I’ve talked before about how the Sharks’ cap situation effectively eliminates their bargaining power on the trade market, and it seems as if I was right in that regard.
With the signing of Nichol (1 year, $750,000), the Sharks have just under $900,000 left to sign two forwards (including Mitchell, see below), which is a straight impossibility. That number is without the almost inevitable signing of Thomas Greiss (as it’s really the only NHL job left for him), who made $725,000 last season and will make at least $750,000 next year. In addition, Torrey Mitchell still hasn’t signed, and he’ll probably looking for a contract in the $800K to $1MM range if he doesn’t accept the Sharks’ Qualifying Offer. Even if you think that Couture is ready for full NHL time, his deal pays him $875K annually, so there’s not much relief there either. With the NHL minimum salary for the 2009-2010 season set at $500,000, the Sharks need to find at least $1.5 MM somewhere in order to sign Torrey Mitchell and either bring up Couture or sign a decent free agent. While this is good news insofar as it makes a trade a certainty, it doesn’t do much to suggest that the Sharks will be any better this coming season.
Maybe that’s too much to ask for, since the Sharks did win the President’s Trophy in 2008-2009. However, after Doug Wilson all but guaranteed a new look for the team heading into next season, his strategy for the offseason has been interesting, to say the least. Yes, players weren’t brought back. Yes, some harsh words and strong talk were thrown around. Yes, he signed a few guys. But the drastic makeover that the fans expected hasn’t come yet, and the timing is way off.
Something will come though; a trade is going to have to be made. Cheechoo has been shopped, and offers have been made for Ehrhoff. However, as evidenced by the Chimera for Ehrhoff straight-up offer, the value for some of our players might not be as high as we think they should be. Three possible reasons:
1. Because we’re in San Jose (a place where free agents apparently loathe coming to), we tend to overvalue our own players and have an unrealistic view of what return they should provide. For example, I thought that two picks (A late first and a second) or a young mid-six forward and a second round pick would be the return for Ehrhoff. That’s obviously not the case.
2. The cap situation is well known by other teams, and they’re exploiting the fact that the Sharks GM has backed himself into a corner. He HAS TO MAKE A TRADE, which again, limits his bargaining power.
3. The state of the economy is preventing teams from adding any additional payroll. However, the glut of spending at the start of free agency seems to suggest otherwise.
I’m thinking that all three of these things factor into the Sharks’ current level of inactivity. I don’t want to keep regurgitating old points, but it seems quite evident now that by waiting until now (or later) to make a deal, Doug Wilson has basically shot himself in the foot. If he could go back and do it all again, I’d like to think that he would have been more active at the draft, even if the return wasn’t what he was expecting. It was probably a hell of alot better than the return he’ll get now.
In addition, most all of the decent free agents have now left the market. There still are a few gems to be had (Taylor Pyatt, although, he’ll probably command around $2.0MM after making $1.75MM last year), but most of the solid players have been snapped up. Joel Ward, for example, would have been a perfect fit for this team. He resigned with Nashville for $1.5MM over three years; this contract could have been offered by the Sharks with a trade of Cheechoo at the draft, and they still would be in a better financial situation than they are now.
Hell, maybe the return for Cheechoo at the time of the draft was a third round pick. Maybe it was a fourth. Perhaps Wilson didn’t think that was a fair enough return for the former Rocket Richard Trophy winner. It’s probably not. However, when you look at the big picture, you have to consider the cap flexibility gained from trading Cheechoo as something the other team is giving you in the deal. Would you trade Cheechoo for $3MM and a third? A fourth? A fifth? Any one of those deals is a steal. Because when you think of the possibility that the cap room could be used to sign, say, Ward and Travis Moen, the trade becomes Johnathan Cheechoo for Ward, Moen, and a pick (3rd/4th/5th, whatever). Would you do that deal? That’s almost fleecing on a Thornton scale.
There’s no guarantee that the players would sign, or if the contracts would be the same as the ones they inked with other teams, but I think you catch my drift.
So, the good news is a trade is coming. The bad news? We’re most likely getting worked over in the process. The Sharks will contend next year, to be certain, but probably not at the level that they could have if Wilson could have pulled the trigger a little sooner.
via Back, meet corner. – Fear The Fin.
This is what I’ve been saying all along. Save your cap space and wait for bargains. Several teams (SJS, CHI, OTT, CHI) are going to make some very lop-sided trades.
Russo’s Rants: Fletcher continues to work trade market
This from Michael Russo, who covers the Wild for the (MN) Star-Tribune:
“[I]n the cap system, once you spend your money, it’s spent. So how patient do you want to be? There’s certainly conversation now amongst teams and I expect there will continue to be right until the trade deadline. So the question would be: When do you want to make your play and what makes sense? It’s obviously the process we’re going through on a daily and weekly basis, but it’s tough to handicap.”
So what is Fletcher saying here?
Later in the summer or into next season, some teams are likely going to have to move some bigtime players to get under the $56.8 million cap ceiling or create cap flexibility going into next summer. I know some fans are dying for the team to take a “risk,” but the risk has to be the right once. And if there are no free agents out there, there are no free agents — plain and simple.
You can’t dump players in an NHL world with guaranteed contracts, so if you make a mistake and spend your money on a player that is inferior to one maybe you can get via trade later on, you simply can’t make the next move.
So Fletcher wants to save the cap space now to allow him to hopefully trade for a significant player.
Remember, teams can go over the cap by 10 percent during the summer as long as they get below the ceiling by the last day of training camp. Boston, Ottawa and Chicago are over the cap right now. San Jose’s not over the cap, but if you plug in three or four holes the Sharks still have on their roster, they’re basically over the cap.
What does this mean? Maybe Phil Kessel still becomes available in Boston. Maybe Ottawa’s Dany Heatley can still be had. Maybe Jonathan Cheechoo in San Jose. Eventually, Chicago will undoubtedly have to dump salary — whether that’s Patrick Kane himself, or a Patrick Sharp or Dustin Byfuglien.
The Blackhawks might be fine going into the season because if you send Brent Sopel to the minors and one of their one-way contract goalies (Crawford or Niemi), by my math, they’re under the cap for this season (BUT BARELY).
So do you really want to sign Mike Comrie or Jason Williams now if there’s some sort of chance to maybe land a Patrick Sharp?
This is the stuff that has to be weighed. I agree that when you look at the Wild’s depth chart as it currently stands, there’s one giant hole — whether it’s a top center, or if Pierre-Marc Bouchard can fill that hole, a scoring winger.
But sometimes it’s better to wait — especially if there are few exciting free agents available.
via Russo’s Rants » Blog Archive » Fletcher continues to work trade market.
Sharks sign Scott Nichol, now have at most $400K to sign at least three players, which is about $67,000 each
Good luck with that. I still think Marleau for Stoll is a good idea.
From Ryan Garner@HockeyBuzz.com: How the Boyle and Blake Acquisitions Wrecked the Sharks
The future isn’t very bright in San Jose because the Sharks don’t have the cap space to bolster the roster, don’t have the prospects to force their way onto the roster, and don’t have talent they can move because of either no-trade clauses or exorbitant salaries. Plus, since the team hasn’t had a first-round pick each of the last two years, there isn’t much promise in the pipeline. The Sharks would have a first-round prospect and a little more cap space if they hadn’t made the Blake-Boyle moves.
via HockeyBuzz.com – Ryan Garner – How the Boyle and Blake Acquisitions Wrecked the Sharks.
Russo’s Rants: Blackhawks fire Tallon
This was coming for a long time. The Blackhawks wanted to fire him after the season, but their playoff run made that trickier from a PR standpoint. I truly believe the latest offer sheet gaffe just gave the very political hierarchy that currently runs the Hawks an excuse to dismiss Tallon, one of the most popular men in the game among colleagues, agents and players.
I’ll talk more specifically about trades in a blog Wednesday before the NHL schedule is released, but the Blackhawks are in deep trouble when it comes to the salary cap. They’re almost $3 million over now and next year they’re at $42-plus million on a cap that will surely come down from $56.8 million. And, they have to sign Jonathan Toews, Patrick Kane and Duncan Keith next summer. What if Toews and Kane want Malkin-Crosby-like second contracts?
If they do, one (Kane) would likely have to be traded.
As for this year, you can be 10 percent over the cap until the season, but then you have to come down. That means they’ll likely have to trade an important player, and probably for prospects and picks. Sending a guy like Brent Sopel to the minors would help get them down, but you’d still have to pay him his $2 million tag.
Basically, the Hawks have mismanaged the cap to bigtime degrees.
Al Cimaglia Blog – Logjam at forward – ESPN Chicago
Currently, Chicago has 14 NHL-quality forwards signed for next year. That total does not include Aliu, Beach or Jack Skille. Most likely the Hawks will break training camp with 13 forwards, seven defensemen and two goaltenders. Their roster could include only 21 players, but most likely will be 22. As it stands, a 23-man roster is unlikely because of salary cap constraints.
Decisions for Hawks management get more complicated because Beach will not be old enough to play in the AHL next year. A season in the AHL could have helped Beach’s development a great deal. Junior hockey has to be getting old for Kyle. Boredom can often lead to a lack of development or discipline issues. Neither would be good for Beach.
Sharkspage agrees with me
With 8 roster forwards under contract (along with promising prospect Jamie McGinn) for roughly $28 million, and Evgeni Nabokov slated for a cap hit of $6 million, that leaves $1.1 million for at least 3 forwards and a backup goaltender. Qualifying offers were made earlier this summer to goaltender Thomas Greiss (07-08 salary: $725,000), center Torrey Mitchell (07-08 salary: $725,000), and agitating winger Brad Staubitz (07-08 salary: $475,000). All are scheduled for a raise (QO over $1M no raise, under $1M 5% raise, under $660,000 10% raise), giving the Sharks $2.045M in additional salary if the QO offers are accepted.
That would leave the Sharks with 11 forwards, 7 defenseman and 2 goaltenders under contract with a cap hit of $57.745M (55.7M + 2.045M). The San Jose Sharks would be $945,000 over the $56.8M salary cap with one forward left to sign. NHL teams are allowed a 10% overage until the regular season starts.
Like Aaron Portzline said, something has got to give.
via Sharkspage San Jose Sharks, NHL, hockey and local sports blog.
For my crunching of these same numbers, see this.
From Tom Benjamin’s NHL Blog: Bettman’s Nightmare
This a Tom Benjamin post from February, so factor in personnel changes etc. since then.
Revenues would have to fall by about 15% to get to a $46 MM salary cap, so this may be a very pessimistic view. Nevertheless, if it happens, the NHL is screwed. The Leafs are in good shape but many teams are not, and the league as a whole would face a salary crunch of staggering proportions.
The league would go into 2010 season with a maximum payroll of $1.38 billion. Unfortunately, teams have already committed $825 MM to 225 players. That would only leave about $550 MM for the other 465 players if every team spent to the cap. (They won’t. They will probably spend enough to pile a healthy escrow hit on top of the slashed cap, but they won’t spend the entire $550 MM.)
It isn’t enough.
The players signed tend to cost more than the average player – they will earn $3.7 MM in 2010 – but there are still lots of expensive players to be signed over the next two years. The Canucks have Luongo, the Sedins, Ohlund, Demitra, Mitchell, Burrows and Kesler on contracts that will expire, and all of them will get far more than the $1.19 MM per player that will be available.
If the league has salary troubles and some teams are in good shape – Vancouver, Atlanta, Montreal, Toronto, and Minnesota are the five least encumbered teams in 2010 – then other teams must be in deep trouble.
Philadelphia has committed $42.1 million dollars to ten players in 2010. They will have to add 13 players with less than $4 MM. Unless they can give away some salary, they will have to sign a bunch of minor leaguers to minimum wage contracts and dump two or three big contracts to the AHL. Other teams with apparently impossible problems include Pittsburgh, New York, Calgary and Edmonton. A dozen teams lack the space to fill out their roster unless they pay under $1 MM a player.
(As a long time Kevin Lowe basher, I’m nearly delighted the Oilers show up on the disaster list. Assuming they let Cole walk this year, the Oilers would have less than $10 MM to sign 13 players including Gagner, Cogliano and somebody to play goal.)
This CBA can’t handle even moderate drops in revenue. A salary cap at $52 MM in 2010-11 will cause problems when a third of the players are already contracted to receive more than half the money available if everybody spent to the cap.
There are solutions to the salary problem but they all involve Gary Bettman asking Paul Kelly to reopen an unworkable CBA. Call it Gary Bettman’s nightmare.
via Tom Benjamin’s NHL Blog » Blog Archive » Bettman’s Nightmare.
From Tom Benjamin’s NHL Blog: Reacting to the New York Post (Brooks) article
I don’t know whether Brooks is right about CBA relief or not, and I’m not sure that I care. What I care about is the way these lengthy contracts – all of them – obviously circumvent the salary cap. I don’t think the Flyers should be able to get a $7 MM a year defenseman for five years with a $5 MM cap hit. I don’t think the Hawks should get an $8 MM dollar a year winger for a $5 MM cap hit over the next seven years. Will the Flyers pay a price for their Pronger blunder? Will the Hawks come to regret the Hossa signing?
Who cares? If the Flyers pay it is six years from now. If the Hawks pay it is seven years from now. That’s too far away for a price to have any meaning. Nobody has a time horizon that long. This CBA tilts heavily in favour of the big markets without letting them cheat this way. At best, they are stealing cap space from the next decade and spending it now. At the worst, the CBA will change and they will never have to pay it back. A salary rollback and amnesty buyouts? The NHLPA might have something to say about that.
All that aside, Brooks drops this tidbit:
“It would, however, be a shock if the league doesn’t recalibrate as part of a battle that’s certain to include a laundry list of givebacks from the union intended to shrink the cap. Indeed, several general managers have told Slap Shots they believe a rollback of up to 15 percent plus a round of amnesty buyouts will be necessary at the end of next season in order to accommodate a decrease in the 2010-11 cap that is expected to be meaningful.”
This is the first I’ve seen this reported in the mainstream. It depends on where revenues next year, but if Brooks is getting good information several general managers are worried about the scenario I painted in [see Bettman's Nightmare, which I posted above]. If revenues do crash, the CBA isn’t going to work very well.
News Article Devils Must Demand Compensation if this Occurs – HFBoards
HF Boards commenter “Saugus” says, in response to the possibility of “amnesty buy-outs” next summer:
I can’t imagine any fair way to get compensated if this were to happen, maybe extra draft picks? And even that has its drawbacks, because who decides who gets compensated with picks, and what round do they come in? All the same, I doubt that the NHL will allow amnesty buyouts, because it would be deliberately subverting/violating the CBA to help teams in a disproportionate manner. Bettman may be an idiot, and every other day he gets accused of having a bias for one team or another, but even he wouldn’t be stupid enough to do something this blatant to rescue the big market teams that have overspent. The NHLPA would also fight hard against this because they don’t want to see more players getting bought out of their lucrative contracts, which is what would happen. And we must also remember, this is Larry Brooks reporting here. Several thousand grains of salt are needed.
via News Article Devils Must Demand Compensation if this Occurs – HFBoards.
FLYERS LIKELY WILL BE $AVED FROM OWN STUPIDITY – New York Post
Philadelphia likely will never suffer the consequences for the massive blunder in which management agreed to pay $33.4 million of the total $34.9 million within the first five years of the extension. And thus would be on the hook for a $4.921 million cap hit in 2015-16 and 2016-17, even with the defenseman in expected retirement.
The Flyers will not take the hit because the CBA will be long extinct by that time, with another round of rollbacks and amnesty buyouts expected to bridge the gap between the current labor agreement and whatever comes next.
There are no guarantees, of course, but no one knows the fate of contracts that run beyond 2011-12, which is when the CBA will expire once the NHLPA exercises its pro-forma option to extend the deal through that season.
It would, however, be a shock if the league doesn’t recalibrate as part of a battle that’s certain to include a laundry list of givebacks from the union intended to shrink the cap. Indeed, several general managers have told Slap Shots they believe a rollback of up to 15 percent plus a round of amnesty buyouts will be necessary at the end of next season in order to accommodate a decrease in the 2010-11 cap that is expected to be meaningful.
via FLYERS LIKELY WILL BE $AVED FROM OWN STUPIDITY – New York Post.
If teams are allowed to buy-out big contracts without the attendant cap hit, and (say) ten teams take advantage of this, where are these players going to play? It’s exactly the same problem as the one in which the teams need to find a trading partner: there are limited buyers. The difference being that (1) the teams who are dumping salary don’t have to take a cap hit (if they buy out the player) and (2) they don’t get any picks or prospects in compensation (because it’s a buy-out, not a salary-dumping trade).
Presumably, if the cap goes down to $50MM, then there will be probably about 8-10 teams who need to dump salary, 10-15 teams who don’t need to but also don’t have room to sign anyone, and 5-10 teams who don’t need to dump and CAN afford to sign some of these Brieres, etc..
That’s a lot of guys going to play in the KHL.
Also, woe be to any players who are UFA next summer, if “amnesty buy-outs” come to pass. It’s going to be a crowded market-place.
Idiots Chart (#5) 7/10/09 now with exciting new columns!
Okay, I updated the numbers through Friday evening, but more importantly I pulled out the bonus cushion numbers and dedicated a column to the crackpot notion that some GM is going to consider dipping into his bonus cushion in order to pay for his extravagance. To reiterate the rules related to the bonus cushion: (1) teams have to add their potential bonuses into their cap figure; (2) however, teams are allowed to go over the cap by the amount of their total potential bonuses (a.k.a. “the bonus cushion”), provided that they get back down below the cap before some specific date, which I believe is the last day of the regular season; (3) if the players don’t earn their bonuses, the un-earned portion is subtracted from the cap; (4) if the bonuses are earned, teams must get under the cap by whatever means necessary (e.g. dump salary, send someone to the minors, etc.).
Some people are wondering if Tallon is going to dip into his bonus cushion this season in order to keep his team going. After all, what are the odds that KANE AND TOEWS are going to earn their bonuses?
Accordingly, the new column is called MADNESS. The figure in the madness column represents a team’s cap space per player remaining to be signed, assuming you raise the cap ceiling by the amount of the team’s bonus cushion and assuming you’re shooting for a roster of 22.
Why did I choose 22? Here’s my reasoning: A GM that is willing to fritter away his cushion is not also going to be carrying a roster of maximum size. I am making the assumption (or guess) that he will have already “saved” by going for the 22-man roster. Of course, he could “save” further by cutting the roster down to 21 or even 20, but I don’t think there’s a GM on the planet who’s that crazy. So blowing the bonus cushion on a roster of 22 is the most crazy I was willing to imagine anyone reasonably being with another millionaire’s money. If you think someone might try to go down to 20, feel free to run your own numbers. (Or wait for me to get bored and do it, probably later tonight.)
Cap# = cap hit.
SGND = number of players signed.
C-Sp = cap space remaining.
cush = the off-season cushion (teams are allowed to go over 10% but they must be down to the cap by the time the season starts — or maybe it’s the day before; ask Brian Burke).
perP23 = cap space per player remaining to be signed, to populate a 23-man roster.
perP20 = same thing figured for a roster of 20.
BCush = a team’s bonus cushion.
madness = cap space per player remaining to be signed, to populate a 22-man roster, while recklessly eating up your bonus cushion.
LTS23 = players left to sign to get to 23.
Some other things to mention:
I decorated Dallas and Phoenix with little dots to indicate that, while they live in the green zone, they are reputedly cash poor or otherwise hobbled and therefore might not be in the market to pick up another team’s salary dump.
I added an orangey-yellow color to indicate the two teams who would be nice and yellow were it not for the fact that they have an awfully high number of players to sign.
Teams with no bonus cushion have no entry in the madness column. Teams who are over the cap have no entry in the columns indicating how much money they have left to spend, since they don’t have any.
Note that Chicago is over the cap but they still have room to spend if they flirt with MADNESS.
NBA salary cap memo points to economic trouble ahead for NHL – Allan Muir – SI.com
It’s been broadly hinted for months: After four straight years of growth since its implementation in 2005, the NHL’s salary cap is expected to lose ground for the 2010-11 season as a direct, albeit delayed, result of the worldwide economic meltdown.
We won’t know the actual damage until late next June, after the league and the NHLPA get together to hash out the numbers based on a complex algorithm of hockey-related revenues. But judging by the rumbles, things could get very ugly.
The NBA announced this week that its 2009-10 cap would drop approximately $1 million per team, from $58.68 million in 2008-09 to $57.7 million. That total is still slightly higher than the NHL’s recently announced $100,000 boost to $56.8 million.
At the same time, the NBA issued a memo to its teams, suggesting that the ship had only begun to make contact with the iceberg. Based on projections of declining income, the league speculated that next year’s cap could drop as low as $50.4 million.
We’ll pause here a moment to allow the post-apocalyptic dust to settle.
The NBA memo did include a disclaimer pointing out that the projections could “change based on economic conditions and as more information on league-wide business performance becomes available.” Still, even the NBA’s optimistic high-end estimate of $53.6 million represents a 10 percent slice carved out of this year’s pie. That’s a significant change of fortune. And it begs the question: Is the NHL in for a similar hit?
Nah. Why would they be?
[...]
The NBA’s national TV money, about $30 million per team, is safe. But ticket sales, advertising and marketing deals, arena signage, parking, luxury suite sales and the like are expected to take a significant hit. And these concerns have to be shared by the NHL, a league with a national TV deal (about $3 million per team, in addition to local arrangements) that foreces it to rely much more heavily on the very revenue streams that are so susceptible to cutbacks.
And then there’s the loonie. With 35 percent of league revenue generated north of the border, earnings are affected by the value of the Canadian dollar, a non-factor in the NBA’s cap projections. Overall, the Canadian economy has more successfully weathered the financial crisis. As a result, its dollar, which was trading around 82 cents U.S. back on Jan. 1 is closer to 86 today. That bodes well for next season, but tides can change. If the Canadian dollar swings even a few pennies, it can have a dramatic impact on the league’s overall fortunes.
[...]
Don’t expect a similar prognosticatory pronouncement to come from NHL headquarters . . . not that anyone would place much faith in the words of a commissioner who spent much of the last year misleading the public about the financial crisis in Phoenix. But even without one, you have to believe that the league’s eyes are wide open to what lies ahead.
[...]
Of course, it’s one thing to spend up to $50 million. It’ll be another thing entirely for some teams to cut back to that level. After all, there’s no wiggle room in hockey. No allowance for an NBA-style luxury tax if spending can’t be reined in. No re-negotiating contracts to create friendlier hits. If the cap drops and necessitates a personnel fire sale, then get to it quickly because your neighbor’s going to be running a clearance sale of his own.
And that makes me wonder if I was wrong about Dale Tallon and the wisdom of last week’s Marian Hossa signing. Sure, it could still turn out to be a complete disaster. But maybe in recognizing the financial Armageddon he was facing next summer, Tallon decided to go all-in for the upcoming season and worry about tomorrow, well, tomorrow.
Truth is, Tallon could have a pretty tough time crossing that bridge. Consider that the Blackhawks have more than $43 million committed for 2010-11 to just 13 players . . . and that’s without one cent set aside for franchise cornerstones Patrick Kane, Jonathan Toews and Duncan Keith or the other half dozen players they’ll need to fill out the roster. Unless Tallon can find suckers willing to take the contracts of Brian Campbell ($7.1 million) and Cristobal Huet ($5.6 million) off his hands (hope he has Bob Gainey‘s number on speed dial), a $50 million cap could crush the momentum of last season’s feel-good story in Chicago.
The Hawks aren’t alone in having painted themselves into a corner. The Red Wings have contracted $41.5 million to 14 players in 2010-11 and may find themselves hoping that Nick Lidstrom, a UFA after next season, considers retirement or at least a massive home town discount. Hard to imagine them filling out a roster if he comes back for anything near his current $7.45 million hit. The Rangers have a similar amount committed to just 12 players. The Flyers are at nearly $46 million for just 13 players, not including a starting goalie. And the list goes on . . .
Next year’s math problems are still hypothetical for NHL GMs, but the NBA’s doom-saying memo brings them more sharply into focus.
Via NBA salary cap memo points to economic trouble ahead for NHL – Allan Muir
- SI.com.
Why the Blackhawks can exceed the cap – From The Rink
“Basically, because 2010 is not a year in which the CBA can end, teams are able to have bonuses put them over the cap and then carry that excess over into 2010-11. As a result, they are allowed to, all season, go over the cap to the extent bonuses cause that issue, but if players hit all of their targets, by season’s end they’ll have a huge charge to next year’s cap. (Which we’ve already heard will likely be lower than this season’s.)”
Oilers Insider Hockey News and Rumours: Clerical Errors a Bit Bigger Than Getting Caught Photocopying Your Butt
With the news now that Kris Versteeg has been signed by the Chicago Blackhawks to a contract worth more than $9 million over 3 seasons and a full year prior to his original entry level contract coming to an end, one has to wonder what’s been going on in NHL offices around the league.
This is the third similar instance in almost as many days. Just recently, the Blackhawks were forced to re-sign Cam Barker (D), who was likely not in the immediate plans contract wise. Not to be outdone, the Philadelphia Flyers inked Chris Pronger to a seven year extension, not realizing that every single one of those years count as a cap hit to the Flyers teams should Pronger leave prior to the conclusion of the seventh year. Of course Edmonton Oiler fans are not unfamiliar to such controversy, with the current status of Dany Heatley, who is… well is Dany Heatley.
All in all, one has to wonder how team presidents, GM’s and those in charge of professional multi-billion dollar NHL franchises are interviewing candidates for positions of such importance. It’s not like the secretary got caught photocopying his butt and sending out the copies in a memo around the office for a good laugh. These are mistakes that are literally handcuffing each respective team during the summer and possibly for years to come.
There’s more at Oilers Insider Hockey News and Rumours: Clerical Errors a Bit Bigger Than Getting Caught Photocopying Your Butt.
CAP IDIOTS CHART #4 UPDATE — in which it turns out I am the idiot
…because I somehow only just realized that the active roster maximum is 23 now, not 24. It was 24 for most of my life, so I didn’t notice the last four years of 23, especially since the Kings have never been near enough the cap ceiling for me to pay attention to it. That’s my excuse anyway. I’ve adjusted the chart accordingly. Secondly, there is indeed a 20 player minimum for the active roster. This, of course, means that a team can spend to the cap on only 20 contracts, if it so chooses. By keeping 20 players instead of 23 on the active roster, you can obviously squeeze a little more out of the cap ($2.84MM as opposed to $2.47MM per player on average).
So, in theory, you can have an active roster of 20 Fedor Tyutins instead of 23 Brent Sopels. If that’s your idea of a good time.
However, the potential for disaster is high, since any injury would leave the team short-handed until the injured player can be put on LTIR, and even then the injured player wouldn’t be allowed to come off LTIR until cap space had been cleared. Depending on the waiver-exempt status of the replacement player, this can have undesirable consequences. The Calgary situation at the end of last year, where they couldn’t dress a full bench, is a good example of this.
Nevertheless, I decided to add a new column to the chart, one which calculates the amount of cap space available per player if the reckless madman GM decides to go for the 20 man roster. If the team has already signed 20 or more players, the number in this column equals the remaining cap space.
For example, San Jose, who would only have $171K per player if they had to sign seven players, now can feel free to spend up to $300K for each of the four players they need to sign to get to 20.
I’m still generously subtracting Chicago and Boston’s bonus cushion from their cap hit, since they are the two teams who may be inclined to tempt fate and spend their cushion.
CAP# = cap hit
SGND = players signed
C-Sp = cap space
cush = the 10% off-season cushion (NOT the bonus cushion)
perP23 = cap space per player left to be signed (to fill a 23-man roster)
perpP20 = cap space per player left to be signed (to fill a doomed 20-man roster)
LTS23 = number of players left to sign to get to a 23 man roster. Subtract 3 in your own head for the other figure.
NHLSCAP.com – Salary Cap FAQ [and my notes on how it applies to Rathje and the Flyers' Cap Problems]
A player is considered to have a bona-fide long-term injury if, in the opinion of the team, the player has an injury which will cause him to miss at least 10 games and 24 days. Even in such cases, the player’s salary will continue to count against the team’s Upper Limit. This is mentioned at least three times in the CBA, and is repeated in Article 50.10(a):
All Player Salary and Bonuses paid to Players on an NHL Active Roster, Injured Reserve or Non Roster that are Unfit to Play – being either injured or suffering from an illness – shall be counted against a Club’s Upper Limit, Actual Club Salary and Averaged Club Salary, as well as against the Players’ Share.
For players that the team has filed an LTI exception, the team is allowed to exceed the cap by up to the amount of the injured player’s salary with as many replacement players as needed, provided that when the injured player is activated the team comes into compliance with the cap immediately. The team does not get to automatically tack on the amount of the injured player’s salary to the Upper Limit – an example as illustrated in Article 50.10(d) of the CBA illustrates this point:
(a) Illustration: A Player with a Player Salary of $1.5 million becomes unfit to play for more than 24 days and 10 games. At the time the Player becomes unfit to play, the Club has an Averaged Club Salary of $39.5 million, and the Upper Limit is $40 million. The Club may replace the unfit-to-play Player with another Player of Players with an aggregate Player Salary and Bonuses of up to $1.5 million. The first $500,000 of such replacement salary and bonuses shall count toward the Club’s Average Club Salary, bringing the Averaged Club Salary to the Upper Limit. The Club may then exceed the Upper Limit by up to another $1 million as a result of the replacement salary and bonuses. However, if the unfit-to-play Player once again becomes fit to play, and the Club has not otherwise created any Payroll Room during the interim period, then the Player shall not be permitted to rejoin the Club until such time as the Club reduces its Averaged Club Salary to below the Upper Limit.
So – just because a player has a long-term injury does not automatically grant the team extra cap space. A team with a payroll of $44 million that has a player making $4 million get injured doesn’t gain any extra cap space as a result; a team at $54 million and a player at $4 million only gains $1,300,000 (all pro-rated, of course). Relief toward the salary cap only comes if replacing an injured player’s salary would push the team over the cap, and the amount of relief is limited to the amount the team would go over the cap – not the entire amount of the injured player’s salary.
via NHLSCAP.com – Salary Cap FAQ (page 2).
I feel this is not just a technicality, but I’ll be damned if I can figure out why. What’s the difference, for instance, between (1) Rathje’s $3.5MM cap hit being taken off the books, reducing PHI’s cap hit accordingly, and (2) keeping it on the books but allowing PHI to exceed the cap ceiling, and then only to the exact extent it needs to, up to the limit of an overage of the total amount of the injured player’s cap hit?
What is the f-ing point of saying, “Philly is allowed to exceed the cap ceiling by the amount that it has exceeded the cap ceiling, and not a penny more goddammit, but by the way if Philly wants to exceed it a little more it’s more than welcome to, but only up to an overage equaling the cap hit of the injured player, and only until he comes back”???
???
(?)
Why not just say, “Philly’s cap ceiling is increased by the amount of the injured player’s cap hit”? Too easy?
Similarly, what the point of saying that, “all injured player’s cap hits continue to count against the team’s cap and will not be removed, and there will be no relief so don’t even ask, unless of course replacing the injured player (up to the limit of the injured player’s cap hit) causes the team to go over the cap ceiling, in which case okay fine be my guest”?
I mean, who cares what your cap hit is if you’re in no danger of exceeding the ceiling? Is this some way to protect teams trying to stay at the floor, allowing them to do so with a roster of injured players? Could that really be it? Because it’s about the only thing that makes any sense to me.
CAP IDIOTS CHART #3 7/9/2009, now with Philly and Chicago asterisks!
[UPDATE: the latest chart is here. But don't let that stop you from reading all of this nonsense.]
On the last chart I screwed up the Philly numbers, as I took the totals from the nhlnumbers cap hit chart without noticing that the site nonsensically included LTIR figures in the cap hit. This especially makes no sense for a player that is retired. I got some flak from this vis-a-vis Philly fans who wanted to make sure I understood that they were NOT one million over the cap with four players left to sign, but were in fact two million under the cap with five players left to sign.
This is the difference between having not enough money to sign four players and not enough money to sign five players.
But it does make Philly’s situation marginally less horrible, since they don’t necessarily have to dump one of the big salaries. If they are happy pushing their noses right up against the cap ceiling, they can dump one of the two players they have under contract who isn’t one of the big boys but still has a contract big enough to help them squeeze under the ceiling. These two contracts belong to Carle and Jones.
Having corrected this LTIR error, I decided to make a couple of adjustments to the chart, anticipating that, for example, Chicago fans might complain that they have a huge bonus cushion (the biggest in the league) and therefore have $3.8MM more cap space than my chart shows. The bonus cushion allows teams to go over the cap up to the cushion amount in order to pay bonuses, but if they do so, the overage comes out of the next season’s cap ceiling. Since Chicago is in full-scale apocalypse mode next summer, with its big RFA clusterf***, I highly doubt they are going to want to make their situation exponentially worse by lowering their cap another $3.8MM. Of course, they could also just make the insane assumption that Kane will not earn his bonus, in a contract year no less. No rational GM would use his bonus cushion in such a reckless manner. But since I said Chicago would not be stupid enough to sign Hossa and put the Kane and Toews RFA contracts in jeopardy, I have to leave open the option that they are stupid enough to spend their bonus cushion this season. Accordingly, three asterisks (***) next to Chicago’s name and I have subtracted their bonus cushion from their cap hit. They get a soft-red designation because that’s where they belong. I also subtracted Boston’s bonus cushion from their cap hit, because they are the only team in cap trouble who has a significant bonus cushion.
Other notes:
Ottawa has jumped to the front of the idiot line by signing Kovalev. Anaheim jumped into the gray by signing Koivu. Detroit hasn’t signed anybody, but their cap situation improved markedly due to Hudler’s defection. Obviously, no Hudler is bad for Detroit, but it’s good for their cap figure.
Bottom line: you’ve still got 6-8 motivated sellers, and (being really generous) something like 8-10 teams who can comfortably take on salary. Considering that two of those teams, Dallas and Phoenix, are in serious financial trouble, I think it’s more like three really comfortable buyers, and maybe five more who can do it but it will cause some pain.
I wonder who will blink first.
How Much Did Dale Tallon Hurt Chicago Last Summer? – Bird Watchers Anonymous
Last summer the Chicago Blackhawks were declared the big “winners” of free agency. But one year later that summer spending spree is shaping up as A FRANCHISE CRIPPLING EVENT –one that will lower the ceiling on an other wise outstanding collection of young talent. Last season the Blackhawks were not only one of the very best teams in the NHL teams, they were also one of the very youngest. All things being equal they should improve as part of the maturation process–even without adding any new talent.
The true test of a GM sitting on a gold mine of talent is not not screw it up (Mike Milbury = fail as NYI GM) and to find the key complimentary pieces that patch roster holes. This summer Chicago GM Tallon essentially swapped out Marian Hossa for Martin Havlat, unlike Eric Duhatschek I count that as a modest upgrade given Hossa’s health record and outstanding penalty kill skills. (Oh course he also had to throw $1.2 million at the gift-with-purchase Tomas Kopecky too.)
But the decisions that will haunt the Blackhawks for years were made last summer, when the team handed out $5.6 to G Christobal Huet and $7.1 million per year to Brian Campbell. That’s nearly $13 million in cap space allotted to a not-really-elite netminder and a defensemen who is skilled only at one end of the ice. Throw in the fact that Chicago already had an underperforming Stanley Cup goalie under contract and things only look worse.
Fast forward to the Free Agent Frenzy of 2009 and you can see that if Chicago had been content to wait out the final year of Nikolai Khabibulin’s contract, they could have landed an average goalie (Martin Biron) for far less than what they are paying Huet ($5.6 million) now. In fact, the goalie market is ended up being flooded with the return of Ray Emery and the arrival of “The Monster” from Sweden. There are only 30 starting jobs and more than 30 aspiring starters. In fact the goalie tandem of the Philadelphia Flyers (a playoff team) are still without jobs.
Now let’s move forward in time to next summer. Let’s say that NHL revenues hold steady next season–if revenue growth is flat the salary cap will fall by nearly $3 million next season. Why? Because the NHLPA invoked the 5% kicker. The kicker is essentially an assumption revenue will be growing and that teams can spend that revenue growth in the sames season that it is generated. So the 2009-2010 cap number assumes revenue growth of 5% but most people consider this assumption VERY unlikely. What if it falls as many expect? What if it falls by 5%? Well then the cap is going to drop not just $3 million but perhaps as much as $4-6 million. If the upper limit of the cap drops by $4 million it will be at about $54 next summer.
Okay?
It’s longer; read the rest at How Much Did Dale Tallon Hurt Chicago Last Summer? – Bird Watchers Anonymous.
From letsgosharks: To Marleau or Not to Marleau
Patrick Marleau traded! No, no he hasn’t been. But, can you imagine the response if that headline were to become true? Can you see it – “The San Jose Sharks deal their longtime captain for a bag of pucks!” Ok so they won’t get any galvanized rubber for him but realistically what would they get you ask?
Well, I will tell you what they won’t get and that is equal value!
Marleau has just come off his best regular season. Yes, he had 38 goals and played the best defense of any forward on this team. The guy’s God-given speed and size were used to his utmost this season. Marleau makes more defensive saves than any other forward on the roster. I cannot count how many times he had to go back and make a defensive play on a turnover or on a play of quick transition.
The rumor mill is already circulating that GM Doug Wilson is going to deal Marleau. Rumors are that Wilson may deal him for a draft pick.
Great!!!!!!!! That’s exactly what this team needs is a guy that wont be able to help for 2 or 3 seasons. Let’s be honest and use our noggins folks. Marleau has more skills than most players. He led the team in goals. He is the team’s all-time leader in virtually everything. So the team hasn’t managed to breakthrough in the post season so let’s deal him for a draft pick!
Why is that smart?
Answer – it isn’t!
Read the rest at http://www.letsgosharks.com/story/2009/09-0607-01.htm
Chicago’s options to not totally f*** itself are none too pretty
Chicago is holding steady at $1.34MM over the cap with three players left to sign. If they simply promote their prospects under contract to fill the spots (which is the cheapest option), that adds another $2.1MM, which makes the magic number $3.45MM (over the cap). Candidates for salary dump:
Brian Campbell – cap his of $7.14MM for SEVEN MORE YEARS. If you ask me, that contract is literally untradeable. They would have to thrown in valuable assets as freebees just to make it palatable, and even then, there is no one who can afford it. Next…
Cristobal Huet – $5.625MM for another three years. See Campbell, Brian above. No, he’s their goalie, for awhile.
Brent Sopel – $2.33MM for another two years. I doubt anyone will take him at that price.
(note that these are Chicago’s three UFA signings from last year; how’s that working out so far?)
So it’s going to have to be one of these guys, two of them if they have to take salary back…
Sharp
Bolland
Versteeg
Byfuglien
Seabrook
Barker
(or, of course, Hossa. And wouldn’t that be hilarious. Won’t happen though, because Tallon would immediately be fired. No, it’ll be one of the “core.”)
From Forum answers VII – Inside the Kings: Linking to my own comment so I can remember where I made it when I turn out to be totally wrong; feel free to ignore
[the question put to the peanut gallery is: if the cap is supposed to come down hard next year, won't the league do something to stop all these teams from having to dump salary to get under the cap, like maybe decide to keep the cap up anyway, or create some new loophole whereby teams are slapped on the wrist for going over the cap?]
Imagine if the CBA turns out to have a “but not really” clause. What would people be saying about Lombardi if he operated under the assumption that if he manages the team’s cap toward a catastrophic end it will be okay because the league will in effect bail everybody out?
This isn’t General Motors.
And if several teams assume the cap is coming down and act accordingly, but some teams persist in acting recklessly, and THEN it turns out their recklessness is rewarded by some kind of CBA mulligan, how angry do you think those teams who abided by the CBA and dumped huge salaries are going to be? And think about which teams those will be. The big ones. Detroit. San Jose. Calgary. NYR. Chicago.
(Also, the cap is there for a reason: to increase competitiveness and of course to keep costs manageable for owners; won’t the owners be upset to find out their hard-won cap is b.s.??)
Conversely, if those teams all decide to ignore the CBA and bust the cap or put themselves in a position where they simply cannot get under the cap, I don’t think I would be alone in imagining some kind of collusion on the part of those teams. Because I’m quite sure none of them is going to want to act alone to be the only team that boxes itself into a corner.
And what about the players who took less money in order to help their team stay under the cap, only to find out that the cap was really more of a suggestion than a rule? Shouldn’t the NHLPA scream bloody murder? Wouldn’t this be seen by the union as a giant con by the owners, who — they would be right to wonder — maybe never really had any intention of sticking to this whole cap thing if push came to shove?
I guess my shorter bottom line is this: the idea that somehow the rules they have set up will turn out not to be firm will lead to the CBA version of a constitutional crisis.
I wonder if it wouldn’t be easier, in terms of the amount of cataclysm, just to let the troubled teams send their stars to the AHL for a year, until the new CBA negotiations happen and they can fix it. You’re probably talking about four huge contracts sent down to the minors. That would be ridiculous, but it wouldn’t be as bad as total f’ing anarchy.
…and maybe it would serve the players right who took on those giant stupid contracts in the first place. Sort of like people who bought houses they couldn’t afford, because they just knew the market was going to go up up up. And it would be an effective disincentive to future bloated albatross deals.
via
Daly: Pronger contract an ‘over-35′ deal – Broad Street Hockey
Daly told Friedman that the deal is in fact an over-35 contract because of the date it goes into effect. It does not matter that the deal was signed before Pronger is 35 years old (he’s 34 until October 10 of this year), because it does not go into place until the 2010-11 season.
The league’s collective bargaining agreement uses June 30 as the cut off date, and Pronger will be 35 on June 30, 2010.
All indications from Pronger point to him not playing until the end of his contract, considering he will be 42 at its conclusion and he said at his press conference on Monday that he has no intention of playing “as long as Chris Chelios.” If he doesn’t play out the remainder of his contract, his cap hit could seriously handcuff the Flyers in later seasons.
via Daly: Pronger contract an ‘over-35′ deal – Broad Street Hockey.
UPDATED Who’s Vulnerable? (a.k.a. Cap Idiots Chart #2)
[UPDATE TO THE UPDATE: if you navigated here from a link not on this site, go instead to the corrected, updated chart here]
Just a few quick observations before sleep. Since last time, the Kings and Colorado were big movers. The Kings dropped into the gray zone. Colorado went from bad to gray. With the Kings dropping down, the number of buyers is reduced by one.
Meanwhile, in the orange and red zones, everyone’s making their situations worse by varying degrees. Well, not everyone; Washington and Pittsburgh are standing pat. San Jose has shrunk its wiggle room down to unworkable levels. And Chicago has joined Philly in the joyous red zone.
For the hell of it, I granted the Rangers honorary orange status, because any team that must average $1.3MM per player and has THIRTEEN players left to sign, is screwed even though it’s not Chicago or Philly screwed yet. They’ll get there.
“CAP#” = current cap hit
“SGND” = players signed
“C-Sp” = Cap space
“cush” = cap space w/ 10% cushion
“perP” = cap space per player left to sign
“LTS” = number of players left to sign to get to a 24 roster.
And now the Hawks are a million over the cap with four guys left to sign.
That’s all I wanted to say.
Utterly Irrational Trade Thought Involving Other People’s Stars
I was just looking at San Jose’s numbers.
They have a cap hit of $55.4 with seven players left to sign, to get to 23. That’s simply not doable, even if they populate the rest of their team entirely with entry level prospects. With the players they have, it’s reasonable to assume signing the remaining 4-7 players will take them up at least another $4MM.
Which will put them about $3MM over the cap, at minimum.
There are several possible salary dumps that would get them back under the cap. In descending order of salary: Thornton, Boyle, Marleau, Cheechoo, Michalek, Ehrhoff. (I assume Blake and Clowe, just re-signed, will not be traded.) I think it’s likely that they will end up needing to dump slightly more than the salaries of the last three guys, which narrows the field down to Thornton, Boyle and Marleau. (They’ve been trying to trade Ehrhoff, I believe I read that somewhere, but to no avail and not as a salary dump.) My guess is they’re happiest with Boyle and it’s going to come down to the oft-rumored trade of one of the two big forwards. I think this because of all the talk in San Jose about this version of the Sharks not working, and the blame falling squarely on the shoulders of Thornton and Marleau. It just makes sense that they won’t both be with the team next year. I don’t know what DL’s opinion of Thornton is.
But DL drafted Marleau.
San Jose has only three centers on its roster. Those two, and Pavelski. So they’re going to be amenable to taking a center back. Or two. Which is why I think it’s not crazy to imagine that the Sharks would deal Marleau to the Kings…
…for Stoll, Richardson and a pick.
I know. Stop laughing. But, really: Smyth for Quincey and Preissing??
The Sharks get two centers, one with a nice manageable contract and one who is dirt cheap, both of whom can play. And they get about $2.7MM in cap relief. The Kings get a legitimate top-six center. Whether this happens or not, it is a fact that the Sharks have to deal $3MM worth of contracts to somebody. And somebody like Stoll is about the most they can afford to take back.
I can’t imagine DL isn’t thinking the same thing.
[and yes, I know that Marleau has a NTC. Do I think he would waive it to come to LA and play for Lombardi? By George, yes I do! It's more likely than he would waive it to be traded to Ottawa for Dany Heatley, which is by the way a rumor making "the rounds."]
[late update: if you prefer, the whole exercise works just as well with Thornton, but you would have to throw in another piece to make the cap work for the Kings: Johnson, maybe.]
[p.s. the other ingenious thing about this move is, if the cap plummets next summer, Marleau walks: he's a UFA. Normally, that would be horrible, right? But in this case, it's leverage. It lets DL rent the asset for a year, gives him more room next summer, not less, and then if the cap doesn't drop precipitously, he can re-sign Marleau if he wants to. And Marleau will want to sign here by then, because the Kings will be better than the f'ing Sharks. You heard it here first.]
[p.p.s. I'm sorry, Sharks fans. I used to like the Sharks. But loyalty-challenged Rob Blake's ass checks and Roenick's Roenickyismnessitude(ity) forced my hand. (I know he's gone, but the stench lingers.) I rooted for you two seasons ago in the playoffs. Does that count for anything?]
Who’s Vulnerable? Who’s Not? (a.k.a. Cap Idiots Chart #1)
[UPDATE: the most current version of the chart, as of 7/9, is here] I’m just starting to run some numbers related to the cap hits for all the teams. What I wanted to see is basically this: who has the least cap space? Who has the most players to sign? And who has THE MOST AND LEAST TO SPEND PER PLAYER THEY NEED TO SIGN? This last is my way of looking at who is going to have to dump salary and who is in a position to pick up that salary.
“CAP#” = current cap hit
“SGND” = players signed
“C-Sp” = Cap space
“cush” = cap space w/ 10% cushion
“perP” = cap space per player left to sign
“LTS” = number of players left to sign to get to a 24 roster.
Here’s what my incredibly primitive number crunching tells me:
There are nine teams that have the room to take on a big salary without giving salary back. Of those nine, the four who are in an especially good position are: the Blues, the Isles, the Kings and the Blue Jackets.
In the light-green zone, Phoenix is ham-strung by bankruptcy (for the time being) and Ottawa is immobilized until it takes care of the Heatley nightmare.
That leaves seven buyers.
Meanwhile, in Salary Dump Land (indicated by orange and red), there are eight teams who are up against the cap and will have to populate this year’s roster with a huge number of entry level contracts. What’s extra delightful about that is these teams are also among the worst ranked teams in terms of prospects, per Hockey’s Future, so where they are going to get these entry-level players is … (1) either from their depleted prospect ranks, or (2) from the teams at the top of the list, the Kings, the Blues, etc.. The teams with all the tasty prospects.
The teams in Salary Dump Land are: the Caps (ironic name, that), Chicago, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Calgary, Boston, San Jose and — the mayors of Salary Dump Land — Philadelphia.
The other thing I notice about this list is that there are eight motivated sellers and seven healthy, available buyers. The other potential buyers are ones who — if they buy — will put themselves in a dangerous position, either of become one of the citizens of the red and orange zones, or of being caught with their pants down with the cap drops several million next June.
So I come back to: seven buyers, eight sellers.
Last point: one of the four advantaged buyers is Columbus. They are currently looking at UFA Nash contract hell. So their ability to buy at this point is compromised. Because, as of this morning’s “Nash not happy with Columbus offer” headlines, Nash is in play.
When I next have free time, I will try to put together a list of which players on the orange and red teams are good candidates for dumping.
[UPDATE: funny that the Kings signed Scuderi to a $3.4MM cap hit, which is -- per the chart on the right -- exactly their "perP" available amount; therefore, mentally adjust the players signed number to 21; the Kings position in the chart stays the same]
HockeyBuzz.com – Matthew Barry – KINGS FANS NEED TO CALM THE HELL DOWN
Several teams have left themselves ripe for raiding: How does Chicago pay for Kane and Towes and Keith who are RFA’s next year, not to mention Versteeg and Seabrook? Who does Calgary dump? 40 million for just 8 players? The Rangers have 40 million committed to just 15 players, I’m still trying to figure out how Boston pays for Phil Kessel and can someone tell me how the Flyers can add Pronger, Lappy and Boucher without begging a team like the Kings to take salary off their hands?
Lombardi is playing poker and he’s not showing his hand, while others are throwing unnecessary dollars into an ever growing pot. Offer sheets could certainly be put on the table, but that doesn’t seem to be Lombardi’s style… but ask yourself, what WOULD Chicago do if Lombardi offered Kane or Toews multi million/multi-year offer sheets next season when the cap is expected to be lower?
Allow me to answer the rhetorical question: nothing. Because they can’t match if it puts them more than 10% over the cap. So. They’re. Screwed. Watch the frenzy to dump Brian Campbell’s ridiculous contract play out in slow motion for the next several months. I’m sure there’s someone stupid enough to bite, but who has the cap space?
What also has Lombardi sitting in the cat bird seat is most of the big names have headed East. Calgary will be hard pressed to replace 35 goals. Minnesota’s golden boy is a Ranger, Pronger is a Flyer, San Jose was inactive, Columbus and St Louis did little. Vancouver shot their wad with the twins, Dallas and Nashville and Phoenix and St Louis did nothing and Edmonton is about to add a locker room cancer. How are the Kings weaker?
So for those Kings fans that are whipped into a frenzy, the Kings are in great shape. They could still easily trade for Marco Sturm. They could still easily sign “filler” players for one or two years, and if Ilya Kovalchuk or Rick Nash decide to test the free agent waters next season, guess who will be one of a handful of teams who will be able to AFFORD one of these silly 12 year deals.
via HockeyBuzz.com – Matthew Barry – KINGS FANS NEED TO CALM THE HELL DOWN.
In light of today’s events, I looked up my old post: Can you afford to sign Hossa?
[NOTE: some of the musings are out of date; I am not updating anything other than to throw some highlighting on the Chicago stuff and I am adding one editorial comment in a big blue font; you have been warned]
Let’s organize this by “contenders, “Stocks rising,” “Stocks falling” and “rebuilders.”
Contenders:
Detroit — in this thought experiment, they have signed Franzen and let Hossa go. [UPDATE: Detroit has signed Franzen, so we're half way there]
San Jose — $10MM in cap space with 11 players to sign, including Clowe, Goc and Moen. Also, they have Marleau to think about, who is a free agent in 2010. Verdict: they can’t do it.
Boston — $10MM in cap space with 10 players to sign, including Kessel and Krejci. Verdict: can’t.
Washington — $11MM in cap space with 10 players to sign. Verdict: can’t.
New Jersey — $16MM in cap space with 11 players to sign. Hmm. Lots of space, relative to the others. They’ve got Gionta, Madden, Holik, Rupp, Shannahan, Oduya, Havelid, Zajac and one of Weekes or Clemmenson to sign. Let’s say they commit $8MM to Hossa. Now they’ve got $8MM left to sign 10 players. So, I’m going to say it’s just barely doable, but they would be replacing all the aforementioned vets with prospects or like-priced players. It would therefore be a totally different team. Verdict: can’t.
Chicago — $20MM in cap space with 13 players to sign. They’ve got six or seven RFAs this summer and Toews and Kane RFA in 2010, so they can’t do anything to their cap that would push those salaries through the roof. If they don’t re-sign Havlat or Khabibulin, they could conceivably sign Hossa, and Hossa might actually like playing in Chicago with Kane and Toews. However, it would be dangerous, since Kane and Toews will get big money in’10 and there simply wouldn’t be room for all those contracts. Is Chicago willing to part with Havlat, Bulin wall this year, and make themselves vulnerable to an offer sheet for Kane or Toews which they would be hard-pressed to match? I doubt it, but crazier things have happened. Let’s say they sign Hossa to $8MM this year and then next summer they sign Kane and Toews to contracts at…(okay, I have no idea, but I’m going to conservatively say) $11MM/year total for the two of them put together. [UPDATE: after the playoffs these two have had, their prices are going up.] For the 2010 season, they would then have $10MM in cap space with a likelihood that it will be less than that because the cap will probably come down, and they will have 15 players to sign. So in that light, signing Hossa would be a horrible idea that would only look horrible after the 2009 season. Verdict: shouldn’t (one step down from can’t). Doesn’t mean they won’t. But I think they won’t. Because I think they’re not stupid.
[UPDATE: THEY ARE THAT STUPID.]
Calgary — $11MM in cap space with 10 players to sign. They can’t afford Cammy, but they’re going to sign Hossa? Verdict: can’t.
(bonus category!) Second Tier Contenders:
Philly — $4MM in cap space, five players to sign. Verdict: can’t.
Carolina — $14MM cap space, 9 players to sign. It’s almost kinda sorta possible for them, if they let Cole walk as a UFA. Say they sign Hossa, then they’ll have $6MM left to sign 8 players. If they let Ruutu walk as well, they could just about do it. And it might sort of be worth it, but there would be some retooling needed the next year with a big crop of UFAs coming ripe, many of whom would have to go. Verdict: possible (which is like shouldn’t but with slightly more upside).
Vancouver — a whopping $25MM in cap space, but with 13 players to sign. Of their nine biggest forward contracts, only three are signed for next year (Demitra, Kessler and Johnson). That’s one top-six player. They’ve got eight UFAs who could end up anywhere. It’s anybody’s guess what’s going to happen to the Sedins and Sundin. Vancouver certainly could make room for Hossa, sort of plug him into the Sundin expensive UFA slot. But if I’m Hossa, I don’t think I’m willing to sign a long-term contract with a team that has so many question marks that won’t be answered until the end of the summer, if then. Verdict: won’t work.
Pittsburgh — $10MM cap space, 10 players to sign. Can’t.
Montreal — $34MM in cap space, 13 players to sign. Their biggest forwards under contract are two Kostitsyns and Georges Laraque. Everyone else is UFA or RFA. If I’m Hossa, I have no idea what this team is going to look like in the fall. Verdict: won’t work.
Rangers — $15MM in cap space, 14 players to sign. Can’t.
Stocks Rising:
Columbus — $17MM in cap space, 6 players to sign. Hmm. Team is up and coming, good coach, that’s all good if you’re Hossa. They might even be able to keep some space for re-signing Nash the following summer, which is their biggest upcoming cap issue. Verdict: possible.
Nashville — $24MM cap space, 11 players to sign. I’m just going to say that’s doable. I’m not sure what would make Hossa pick Nashville over Columbus or Los Angeles, but the numbers themselves could work.
St Louis — $13MM cap space, 6 players to sign. They’ve got an Erik Johnson and goalie issue the following summer, but they could conceivably sign Hossa at $8MM and five more players with the remaining $5MM. They would be cutting Tkachuk loose, but that’s okay. Add them to the list of teams that could swing it, but again, why Hossa would pick St. Louis over anybody else in this category is beyond me.
Los Angeles — $14MM cap space, 4 players to sign. Two of those — Purcell and Boyle — will be cheap-ish. The third, Johnson, will be medium expensive. Plenty of room to sign Hossa. The pitch is, come skate with Kopitar and Frolov. The team is built so that they don’t have to break up the core because of any one contract, even Hossa’s. Also, the team doesn’t have to cut anyone loose to make it work (c.f. Carolina, Chicago, Minnesota). Verdict: doable.
Stocks falling:
Minnesota — oh, I don’t know. Maybe their stock really isn’t falling. They could afford him by not re-signing Gaborik, but what’s the point of that? I get it from the team’s point of view, but not from Hossa’s. Who’s he going to skate with?
Edmonton — $10MM in cap space, 6 players to sign. Can’t.
Buffalo — $10MM in cap space, 9 players to sign. Can’t.
Anaheim — they’re dumping assets. Once they decide what’s happening with Niedermayer, they’ll have a better idea how much cap space they have left. And they can hardly put themselves in a cap position where next summer (’10) they can’t afford to pay Bobby Ryan. Anyway, so many reasons Hossa won’t end up in Orange County. [UPDATE: the Ducks redeemed themselves quite a bit since I originally wrote this, but I'm going to stick with the assessment that they are on a downward trajectory and in any case have too many cap issues to work out. And I really don't think Hossa wants to go to the hated Ducks. Projection on my part? Maybe.]
Dallas — They could let Lehtinen and Morrison walk, sign Zubov and pay Hossa his $8MM. They’d then have three or four million to sign five players, which could happen. But Dallas can hardly pitch themselves as a team of the future, cap space or not.
Ottawa — no cap space, too many big contracts already.
Rebuilding:
Toronto, Phoenix, Atlanta, Colorado, Tampa Bay, Islanders — he’s not going to a team that’s virtually guaranteed to miss the playoffs.
So, to sum up: Chicago, Carolina, Nashville, St. Louis and Los Angeles (and you may as well throw Minnesota into the mix), all could do it. One is a contender. One is sort of almost one. The rest are not. If I’m Hossa, and those are my choices, I would try for either Chicago or LA. If the Chicago numbers are what I think they are (i.e. season after next the whole house of cards falls apart if they sign Hossa), that really leaves LA looking pretty good.
Not to say Hossa will therefore sign with the Kings. My point is merely that a lot of Hossa’s first choice destinations become far less likely once you look at the numbers. And that calculus always leaves the Kings looking better by comparison.
New Post, in which, instead of earning money, I decide to crunch cap figures related to the preposterous Sedin twins to L.A. UFA rumor
Here’s why I don’t think the swedish twins in socal rumor makes any sense, especially not Deano sense.
Math.
The twins want $12MM/year. The Kings, after re-signing Johnson and Purcell, then adding $12MM for the Sedins, would be at at least $58MM. $59MM if Hickey makes the team. So we have to dump one big salary. There are exactly three candidates for dumping: Stoll, Frolov and Johnson. (Handzus has a NTC but maybe he could be shipped to a contender and he would be happy.) I would get rid of Stoll, because if you don’t, there is no place for Schenn to play EVER, since both [whichever Sedin is a center] and Kopitar would be your 1 and 2 centers for the next decade. So let’s say we dump Stoll for picks. Now we’re under the cap. And this is your Los Angeles Kings for 2009-2010:
Twin1/Twin2/Moller
Frolov/Kopitar/Williams
Purcell/Lewis/Brown
Cliche/Handzus/Simmonds
Johnson/Doughty
Quincey/Greene
Hickey/SOD
Drewiske
Quick
Ersberg
Not a bad line-up. However:
Now it’s next summer, June 30, 2010. The cap IS coming down. To around $50MM, maybe lower. The Kings are at $50MM now, but they have to re-sign Frolov, Cliche, Lewis, Quincey and Quick. Conservatively, that’s 5, 1, 1.5, 3 and 3MM. $13.5MM. Add that to $50MM, you’ve got $63.5MM. You’re $13.5MM over the cap.
Oops.
Now, Lombardi will have seen this coming a mile away. And he will conclude, in order not to be completely f***ed in 2010-2011, he’s going to have to have shed a bunch of salary during 2009-2010. Three players with decent salaries. Frolov is obvious, Johnson also…and…I don’t know…who’s left? We already dealt Stoll in the summer of ’09, and Williams and Handzus are ear-marked for jettisoning the following season (see The Doughty/Moller/Simmonds Nightmare of 2011, below). So I guess you dump Greene and hope that Teubert is ready to take his place.
Now you’re back under the cap, and your 2010-2011 Los Angeles Kings look like this:
Twin 1/Twin 2/Moller
Purcell/Kopitar/Williams
Clifford/Schenn/Brown
Lewis/Handzus/Simmonds
Drewiske/Doughty
Quincey/Voynov
Hickey/Teubert
Quick
Bernier
Also not bad. However:
Now it’s summer of 2011, two years from now. Moller, Simmonds and Doughty are RFA. That’s another $9-10MM in cap space you need to create, at least. And if the twins don’t stink, Moller may be a thirty (or, worse, forty) goal scorer by then. But let’s be conservative. Call it $10MM of space we need to clear. 75% of that we clear by because Handzus and Williams are off the books as UFAs (probably traded for picks at the previous deadline, unless of course we’re on a cup run). So figure you lose those guys and re-sign the three kids and your cap goes up another three million.
And someone has to go. Who? Do you let one of Moller or Simmonds walk? I would cry. Purcell is affordable, since he will still be playing on the contract he gets this summer (unless he only signs for two years, in which case, he’ll be a UFA I think). Maybe you don’t re-sign Purcell (or trade, whatever) and trade another defenseman. Who’s expendable? Who knows. Say it’s Drewiske.
So, here’s your 2011-2012 Los Angeles Kings:
Twin 1/Twin 2/Moller
Wudrick/Kopitar/Loktionov
Clifford/Schenn/Brown
someone cheap/Lewis/Simmonds
Quincey/Doughty
Hickey/Teubert
Voynov/someone cheap
Quick
Bernier
Could be a great team. And all you have to do is:
Deal Stoll now. Deal Frolov, Johnson and Greene before next season’s trade deadline. Deal Handzus, Williams, Purcell and Drewiske before the deadline of 2010-11. Or else just let them all walk (well, not Drewiske, who will probably still be under contract).
Oh, and all these trades will be for picks and prospects, because we won’t be able to take any salary back. So it will literally be trade after trade after trade of “why did we just give up [core player x] for a measly 2nd round pick?”
Answer: because we’ll be over a barrel.
[Hilarious bonus irony: it used to be that teams in playoff contention picked up a few pieces to gear up for the playoffs, and teams that were out of contention dumped salary; NOW, we'll be dumping some of our best players exactly at the time we're gearing up for the playoffs. We'll be fighting for home ice advantage in the post-season, and we'll be SELLERS? How much fun will that be?]
And when Schenn, Loktionov, Voynov, Hickey and Teubert come up for contracts, and the Sedins are literally unmovable because of their huge contracts with 7 years left on them, you have absolutely no choice but to deal…
…Kopitar and Brown.
This is why I think it’s a bad idea.
Sharks 2009-2010 Lineup – Fear The Fin
The Sharks are 10.474 million dollars under the cap, and need to sign (bare minimum) five forwards, one defenseman, and one backup goaltender. Taking into account there will be healthy scratches, it’s safe to assume six forwards, two defenseman, and one backup goaltender will be signed.
Nine players with 10.474 million dollars available equals roughly $1.16 M per player.
The Puck Stops Here : “There are a few things we can say about the draft which are probably true”
Yep.
On average three players selected in the draft will go on to have Hall of Fame careers. It is hard to identify them at this point. It is a reasonable guess that John Tavares may be one of them, but that is far a certainty. Probably at least one of them is not yet selected after the first day of the draft and may be found in the very late rounds of the draft. Several more players will go on to have significant careers, but fall short of Hall of Fame level. Again, identifying them is all but impossible. Some players who are highly rated and have scouts gushing over them today will fail to have any significant NHL career. Your guess is as good as mine for their identity.
It was NOT a surprise that the New York Islanders selected John Tavares with the first overall pick. I don’t care what was written by the media in the days leading up to the draft that suggested it wasn’t a given and tried to create a false controversy to gather further interest in draft coverage. Tavares looks like the best player at this point, he has looked like the best player for quite a while, he outplayed Victor Hedman at the World Junior Championships, if you are paying attention there is no reason not to pick him.
In terms of impact next season, this draft will have little. Maybe a handful of players selected will play an NHL game next year. About two of them will remain in the league all season, while the rest get quickly returned to their junior teams. I think the news that makes the biggest impact next season is the trade of Chris Pronger. The Anaheim Ducks traded Chris Pronger and Ryan Dingle, an AHL forward with little potential to make an NHL impact to the Philadelphia Flyers for Joffrey Lupul, Luca Sbisa, two first round draft picks (this year’s and next) and a third round pick to be taken in 2010 or 2011. It is a hefty price for Pronger, who will be 35 this October. I am surprised the Flyers believe they have salary cap room for Pronger. I don’t think they do. I think they are forced to make further moves to make the salary cap. I think this means Daniel Briere will be moved, likely for limited return, in order to do this. Anaheim will likely win this deal over the long term, but they should be weaker next year as much of their take is futures that won’t be ready to make an impact yet. I am not convinced Philadelphia will be any better with Pronger in the line up, given the other moves that will be necessary to make the salary cap. I think the big winner next year could be the team that gets Philadelphia assets (like Briere) at a cut rate price. If Briere can be healthy, that team will see a big benefit.
From (the great) Matthew Barry: I Loved All The Things That DIDN’T Happen!
1) Tavares – So Dreger and the Union Leader and almost everyone else on XM204 was saying Duchene was going first – THAT didn’t happen and it didn’t seem like there was ever any doubt it was Tavares.
Dreger – so plugged in, and yet…
2) Brian Burke’s failure to move up – yes, he good a great draft pick and that was a CLASSIC sound byte of him telling Bryan Murray “we’re taking your guy” – but what I loved even more was the look on his face when the Kings took Schenn.
What’s extra funny was that it was obvious even before I heard about the sound byte that this is exactly what he was doing. You don’t usually get a quote — much less an exact quote — and MUCH MUCH less a sound byte of an exact quote — of what would normally be a “photoshop a caption” moment. Also, I agree completely, the shot of Burke after Schenn was selected was like a Saturday Night Live parody.
3) As Ek mentioned, JayBo didn’t move – Vinny didn’t move – Jack Johnson and Alex Frolov are still Kings. Every time Bettman said “we have a trade” it was for draft picks. THAT’S HOW IT SHOULD BE – It was about the DRAFT and not trading players.
4) Flyers fans weren’t given a box of chocolates after being used, abused, and pounded like a slab of veal. FOUR first round picks???? FOUR for Pronger???? That’s just NUTS!!!!! The price just went UP, UP, UP on Heater and every other talented player. If you’re going to pay 4 1st rounders for a guy with 1 year left on his contract and will be on the other side of 35, what’s Heater and Gaborik and Hossa and all of the others worth?
I don’t think it’s going to inflate anything, for the simple reason that, in Heatley’s case, Murray is over a barrel, and the UFAs have to find someone with cap room, which is a rare commodity and getting rarer all the time. Also, to state the obvious, Philly is (probably) out of the UFA market.
Okay, okay, take it easy, I know Lupul was a complete salary dump and I’ll be so happy not to see Prongers stupid grin in the West anymore, but still, Sbisa and 2 first rounders is still a serious price to pay – Now, tell me, now that you ADDED a million dollars to payroll, who gets dumped next?
At least six million worth of somebody.
via HockeyBuzz.com – Matthew Barry – I Loved All The Things That DIDN’T Happen! .
Just Saying: Philly is at $56MM and change with six players left to sign
They’ll need at minimum $5MM to do it, and they’ve got about $1.5MM in cap space. Let’s just pretend that they spend a reasonable $8MM on those six players. They’ve got to shed more than $6.5MM in salary by October. I guess maybe they can give Briere away; that would about cover it. Unfortunately, nobody wants that contract, do they?
From Mirtle: More on the Salary Cap
In a general sense, a flat cap indicates flat revenues, although the 5-per-cent inflator we’ve heard so much about lately does tweak those results by about $2-million either way. Commissioner Gary Bettman asked the players to not use the inflator last season, but they disagreed and bumped the cap up to $56.7-million, which resulted in large escrow payments at the end of the year.
This time around, Bettman wanted the inflator used so that the cap would remain relatively the same rather than fall into the $54-million range. The danger there is that, if revenues fall this coming season, as expected, escrow totals would be even higher than this past season and take a big bite out of players’ paychecks.
No wonder we’re hearing about two potential big stadium games.
If I had to guess where the cap’s going in the future, my money would be on it remaining below $60-million for another season or two beyond 2009-10. If escrow continues to rise, the NHLPA will likely back off using the inflator and really tighten team payrolls on the top end.
And, by that point, we’ll be looking at the two sides working on a new CBA. Oh joy.
via Salary cap to stay in $57-million range – From The Rink.
From TSN: Salary cap will be approx. $57MM
The league has been telling general managers and owners that the cap number could be $57.1-million, up a few hundred thousand from last season's maximum of $56.7-million.
via
TSN
.
From Sportsnet.ca: Cammalleri runs screaming from new coach’s defensive system (according to me, not Sportsnet; they just say he’s bolting from Calgary, but I think my headline is more accurate)
Barring a sudden development, it appears Calgary Flames forward Mike Cammalleri will not sign a new contract with the club and will put his services on the open market when the free agent signing period begins July 1.
Cammalleri’s agent, Ian Pulver told Sportsnet Thursday, talks between Calgary and his client have grinded to a halt leading into the NHL draft this weekend in Montreal.
“There doesn’t seem to be a strong indication there’s a deal to be made prior to July 1,” said Pulver. “Mike’s prepared to start a new chapter in his career.”
Okay, so for everyone who thought it was a mistake to trade Cammalleri and somehow blamed the Kings for not being good enough for “Cammy” to want to stay, whereas in Calgary he would be playing for a winner and blah blah blah… Cammalleri didn’t re-sign with Calgary for the same reason he wouldn’t have re-signed with the Kings. He’s all about the money. If he weren’t, he would stay in Calgary, which arguably has as good a chance at the Cup as the rest of the top third of the league.
There is virtually no doubt in my mind that he will end up at a worse team than the Flames. The only question is, will he get anything approaching the $6.5MM he wanted from DL two years ago in arbitration. He might. But I wouldn’t be sad if he shot himself in the foot.
Russo’s Rants: Trade chatter
As of now, Chuck Fletcher is still trying to make a trade, with the emphasis on the trying. As proof by the crickets throughout the NHL, it’s not easy making a trade right now, not when as a colleague said to me today, there’s about 150 players on the block, of which 100 nobody wants. The problem I am sensing from the numerous execs I’ve talked to is sort of what I alluded either in an article or the blog or the Twitter — I don’t know, it all sort of runs together.
There are lots of teams looking to get rid of really good players, but good players with really big contracts. So those teams automatically want picks and prospects back, which as you know if you’ve been reading the Strib, the Wild isn’t exactly filled to the brim with. So, hence Fletcher’s problem. And hence, the league’s problem. You can’t just acquire a $4 million player in today’s game without giving up some dough.
He’s inquired about nearly 40 players, including Phil Kessel and Dany Heatley. But there are many others that I either don’t know about or don’t want to write because it’s just rumor, so who knows what Fletcher gets done — or quite frankly, if Fletcher gets something done.
I’ve been told Ottawa’s cut its targeted teams down to seven. I’ve been told the Wild is one of them. But I’ve also been told L.A.’s hot after him and would consider giving up winger Alex Frolov, a quality defenseman and the fifth pick, which let’s be honest, the Wild can’t contend with.
And, five minutes later, I still think it’s insane. Check out Hextall’s comments on the Kings website re Heatley. If anything, the red-flag comments seem more damning when you see them in context. Is the entire Kings brain-trust just blowing smoke up our a***s every time they talk about a potential trade? Are we supposed to take every interview or fan-chat as coded messages or shots across the bow of opposing GMs?
I still think it makes no sense to trade one LW for another. Yes, it’s an upgrade, in theory. But, forgetting the red-flags, like for example that Heatley is having a problem in OTT with their — wait for it — DEFENSIVE SYSTEM and doesn’t like — WAIT FOR IT — BEING BUMPED FROM THE FIRST POWER PLAY UNIT, how the hell is that supposed to work with Terry Murray, who bumps people from the first power play unit all the way down to the fourth line as punishment for a bad pass.
I just have to believe DL will not pull the trigger on a Heatley deal. Dealing Johnson I would be okay with. Not Frolov. And not the 5th.
If DL makes that trade, the only way he will be able to make it up to me is by signing Hossa next week.
5 comments