|
|
By ADAM, on February 27th, 2012 I’m a few weeks behind on some hockey-related podcasts, so I’m going through all the discussion of the Sidney Crosby debacle.
I want to know what qualifies sports media pundits to assess or speculate as to the nature or origin of very intricate head injuries. I do not want Glen Healy analyzing my fantasy lineup, let alone Crosby’s MRI results. I do not want John Shannon, Nick Kypreos, Damien Cox, Bob McCown, Bob McKenzie, Darren Dreger, or any of the other pundits even trying to explain the injury.
Someone needs to tell them that they’re making themselves look ridiculous, and, more importantly, doing a disservice to the entire hockey community by speculating on very important issues that they are incredibly unqualified to be commenting on.
I would try to analyze an engineer’s plan for a new bridge or a doctor’s interpretation of test results. I have to assume that they went through a lot of training to be able to do things that I cannot do.
Someone tell that to Sportsnet and TSN.
By ADAM, on February 24th, 2012 The Oilers continued the league-wide initiative to ensure I won’t miss any interesting hockey happenings while at work on Monday by agreeing on a new contract with forward Ales Hemsky. I’ve never seen such division over a contract signing on Twitter.
Here’s my summary of the various sides.
- Some Oilers Fans: Hemsky is awesome. He’s better, today, than our other forwards but it doesn’t reflect because he’s asked to do more and/or put in more difficult situations. This is bore out by the advanced statistics that are capable of going beyond offensive output and plus/minus.
- Other Oilers Fans: Hemsky is an injury-prone waste of cap space. We should be pursuing a goalie with our money.
- Most Mainstream Media: What kind of crazy is going on in Edmonton? $5M for Hemsky?!?!?
- Mainstream Media on Oilers Payroll (officially or otherwise): Ales is a tremendous player and big part of our future.
Pretty much everyone has some valid points. Here are mine.
- $5M per season seems reasonable for Hemsky given his statistics, track record, and comparable players. Cap hit wise, he’s the equivalent of James Neal and Ryan Kesler. While true, those are not fair comparisons as neither of those players came as close to unrestricted free agency. The closest matches in terms of style of play and contract are Martin Havlat and Mike Ribeiro, both of whom signed longer-term contracts. Put in that context, this is good value for Hemsky.
- Even if it is above market value, the Oilers can afford it. They need to surround the young stars with other people that can play, and overpaying for Hemsky (if you deem it that) ensures that there’s a veteran in the same skill pool as the young core. You also have to factor in that Hemsky is assuming a lot of the risk here; there surely would have been a longer-term contract on the table out on the open market, even it was for a slightly smaller cap-hit. A severe injury and/or major downturn in his play and this could turn out to be disastrous for Hemsky.
- I like to look at contracts in terms of the cap hit as a percentage of the cap. When Hemsky started his current contract in the 2006-07 season, he had a cap hit of $4.1M. This was against a cap of $44M. In other words, his cap hit was 9.3%. His cap hit this season has fallen to 6.4%. His new contract will, assuming that the salary cap system doesn’t change and that the cap remains at $64.3M, see him earn 7.8%…or less than his last contract started at. Here’s his cap hit as a % over time.
I’m still holding out hope that someone tries to sign a contract for a fluctuating dollar value, based on a fixed % of the cap.
By ADAM, on February 24th, 2012 I like Pierre LeBrun, really. He’s generally well informed and manages to avoid the “I’m a demigod and you are just a peon” vibe that a lot of hockey insiders evoke.
But his blatant defense of the Kings acquisition of Jeff Carter this morning makes no sense.
Bottom line is, as I said earlier, Carter makes more sense for LA because they want to make sure they have cap room to sign Quick.
That might be what the Kings are saying, but it clearly doesn’t make any sense at all. Both Jeff Carter and Jack Johnson are signed long-term. Carter carries the higher cap hit. Ergo, they now have less cap room (pending other moves) to resign Quick after next season.
Parroting the company line is one thing, defending clearly illogical and un-factual positions is another.
Having said that, the Kings will see Dustin Penner and Jarret Stoll come off the books after this season, so this may make sense in a “Carter will fill the void left by departing free agents” way…even though nobody is saying that.
By ADAM, on February 22nd, 2012 Leading into what promises to be a truly abysmal NHL trade deadline, the Carolina Hurricanes effectively removed Tuomo Ruutu from the trade market by locking him for 4 years at $19M. If you’re keeping score, that’s a $4.75M cap hit for 4 years starting next season.
The Hurricanes seem to like Ruutu, but frankly he seems like a 3rd line player to me. He’s putting up some points in Carolina, but that’s probably a result of the “someone has to score” thing that happens on really bad teams.
And let’s not kid ourselves, the Hurricanes are bad.
Sports Club Stats has their playoff odds down to under 3%; they aren’t making it. They’re middle of the pack in both goals for, and goals against, but haven’t been able to translate that into any success whatsoever. Their top 4 forwards, by cap hit, are Eric Staal, Ruutu, Jussi Jokinen, and Brandon Sutter. Each of them is signed for at least 2 more seasons after this one.
You have to wonder why the Hurricanes are signing guys like Ruutu. He has a 54.8% offensive zone start %, but only a 49.3% offensive zone finish %, suggesting that the Hurricanes are going the wrong way with Ruutu on the ice. That’s not entirely unexpected on a bad team. Ruutu also has a PDO of 1022, so even in a year that isn’t looking that great by traditional statistics, he’s been the benefactor of good luck.
As a Leafs fan, I love this. These kinds of strange moves help ensure that the Hurricanes aren’t changing their game plan, and that can only bode well for their competitors.
(Advanced Status courtesy Behind the Net)
By ADAM, on February 21st, 2012 I haven’t heard it yet, but apparently Damien Cox made some rather interesting comments (surely a first) on Prime Time Sports at some point last week. His claim boils down to the Vancouver Canucks being so far above the rest of the Canadian NHL clubs that you couldn’t assemble a team from the other 6 that could compete with the Canucks.
Obviously, there are a few things to take into account when trying to prove him wrong.
- The salary cap will surely make this difficult, as the Canucks have proven adept at finding good value…something some of the other Canadian clubs have repeatedly failed to do.
- It can’t be gauged how well such a team would gel and/or play together.
- We’ll obviously never see it happen, so nothing will be proven one way or the other.
- Some of the moves below are only made feasible (contract wise) because the inbound players are on still on their entry-level contracts.
- The Calgary Flames are absolutely atrocious.
As a Leafs fan, I started with them.
The first thing I did was gut the goaltending. In switching from James Reimer and Jonas Gustavsson to Carey Price and Ondrej Pavelec, our salary for goalies goes from $3.15M to $3.9M. It’s obviously a huge upgrade, and one that at the very least puts them on par with the Canucks.
There are 2 holdovers form the Leafs on the back-end, Dion Phaneuf and Cody Franson. Phaneuf provides horrible value but I’m still holding out hope that he’ll live up to his contract. Franson is on the books for only $800K and is well worth that. I bring in Dustin Byfuglien ($5.2M), Josh Gorges ($2.5M), Erik Karlsson ($1.3M) and Chris Phillips (just over $3M). That leaves us with a far superior defensive group than what the Canucks bring to the table, and will cost us just under $20M.
The real difficulty here is in the forward corps. It’s probably not a stretch to suggest that the Canucks have the 3 top forwards in the country. I actually keep a fair number of the Leafs, as they’ve proven to be reasonably good at what they do (and atrocious at the rest). Kessel, Lupul, Armstrong, Grabovski, Kulemin, and Mike Brown are sticking around. Kulemin sees his role change to that of a 3rd liner and penalty killer, which he’s quite good at. From Ottawa I get Jason Spezza (finally, a #1 center for Kessel/Lupul) and Nick Foligno. Ales Hemsky and Taylor Hall make the trip from Edmonton, joining Max Pacioretty to round out the forwards. I haven’t put a lot of thought into the lines, but we’d probably see Spezza between Lupul and Kessel, Grabovski between Hamsky and Pacioretty, a 3rd line of Kulemin/Foligno/Hall, and a 4th line of Brown/Steckel/Armstrong.
While Cox was probably not right, it’s not nearly as ridiculous as it appears at first sight.
By ADAM, on February 19th, 2012 Sportsnet is saying that Brian Burke met with Scott Howson in New York earlier today.
They also speculate that a trade between the Leafs and Columbus could involve James Reimer.
If the Leafs can get Nash and give up any combination (including all of) Kulemin, Schenn, Kadri, and/or Reimer, you make this trade without thinking. The only stumbling blocks for me would be Jake Gardiner and the next dozen 1st round picks. Anything short of that and I’m on board.
By ADAM, on February 19th, 2012 I hate using the term “sweepstakes”. Mainly because the first time I saw that in regards to a trade was on HockeyBuzz with Eklund discussing the Matt Niskanen (or some equally irrelevant NHL player) sweepstakes.
Ugh…what a horrible time in my life.
Now, Rick Nash.
The guys on HNIC’s Satellite Hot-Stove were talking about potential destinations for Rick Nash. Let’s address them.
- Philadelphia Flyers. This makes no sense at all. While the Flyers might covet Rick Nash, and he would be magical alongside Claude Giroux, the Flyers have absolutely no cap space to wiggle within. According to capgeek.com (from hereon, all numbers come from there), the Flyers can afford to pick up a contract of $521,232 at the deadline. Nash’s $7.8M cap hit would clearly not fit there, so the flyers would have to move some contracts. I would suggest the Flyers simply cannot afford to add Rick Nash without gutting their roster, something they should be reluctant to do.
- Vancouver Canucks. The Canucks seem like a good trade partner for the Blue Jackets when you start looking at assets. Columbus needs a goalie, Vancouver has a budding young star sitting on the bench. They have some good quality youngsters in Cody Hodgson and Chris Tanev, and I’m sure the Blue Jackets would love to add those 2 alongside Cory Schneider. Alas, the salary cap leaves the Canucks with even less space than the Flyers. They already have 4 forwards locked up at more than $4.25M until the end of the 2013-14 season. I doubt they’d want to add another, and couldn’t afford to for this season without shipping one of them out. The Canucks seem to be built at least partially on chemistry, and I can’t believe that anyone would want to rock that chemistry as the playoffs approach.
- Toronto Maple Leafs. I would love to see this happen, but it just doesn’t make a lot of sense. The Leafs most valuable asset going into the trade deadline is probably Mikhail Grabovski, an impending free agent who appears to want to stay in Toronto. They don’t have the prospect depth or quality to add Rick Nash, and should be reluctant to do so if it means subtracting quality contributors from a playoff-chasing roster. If a deal were to happen, I assume it would look something like Grabovski (with a contract extension), Jake Gardiner, Nazem Kadri, and Ben Scrivens. Having said that, the Leafs need the same thing that the Blue Jackets are looking for: help in goal and defensive strength. These are not easy to come by, and leaves these 2 teams as a somewhat poor fit.
- Los Angeles Kings. The Kings are the perfect fit for Nash. They need some offensive punch, they have a superstar-goalie-in-waiting that they can use as a swappable asset, and they want to win. The problem here is that the Kings are built with a franchise player in goal, on defense, and up-front. If you bring in Rick Nash, he suddenly takes the “highest paid” seat away from Drew Doughty, something that Doughty fought hard to steal from Anze Kopitar. Looking into the future, Kopitar, Doughty, and Mike Richards are locked up until at least the end of the 2015-16 season. The wildcard is Jonathan Quick, who becomes an unrestricted free agent after next season. Now, most hockey minds will say that the Kings need to sign Quick to a long-term extension before worrying about Rick Nash. If I were making the decisions in Los Angeles, I would make a play for Rick Nash that would see Quick head to Columbus. I would install Jonathan Bernier (under team control for at least 2 more seasons after this one) as the starting goaltender, and roll the dice with that roster for the next couple of seasons.
I’m going to throw a 5th team into the mix. The Nashville Predators. I know finances are tight in Nashville, but they have all the makings of a Stanley Cup winning team…except a superstar forward. If you bring in Rick Nash, that sends a strong message to Shea Weber and Ryan Suter that you are committed to winning. There’s a top-flight NHL goaltender in Pekka Rinne, and a team that seems ready to make a push in the playoffs.
By ADAM, on February 13th, 2012 Olympic hockey fascinates me.
The process of choosing the teams feels like a video game, and the hockey is amongst the best there is. Unfortunately, the 2014 Sochi Olympics won’t see the puck drop for roughly 2 years. Much remains to be decided, including whether or not the NHL will allow their players to participate (spoiler: they will).
First up, Puck Daddy brings us a listing of the 32 men’s teams attempting to qualify for the tournament.
According to IIHF regulations, the top 9 teams are guaranteed entry. As of now, that would be:
- Russia
- Finland
- Sweden
- Canada
- Czech Republic
- United States
- Switzerland
- Germany
- Norway
3 more will be granted access. Likely candidates include Slovakia, Belarus, Latvia, Denmark, and Austria.
There are 2 questions that come to mind.
First, why do we need 12 teams? Why not have a different tournament structure and limit it to 6, 7, or 8 teams? Nobody is interested in seeing Finland play Denmark, nor does anyone give anyone outside the top 6 a realistic chance of being competitive. The whole tournament could be more exciting with more match-ups between the good teams.
More interestingly, how are these rankings calculated? Canada and Sweden have won each of the last 3 best-on-best international hockey tournaments (last 3 Olympics).
Here’s how the IIHF website breaks it down.
- The last 4 World Championships and last 1 Olympic Games are looked to for data.
- Each tournament awards points based on the order of finish, as follows:
- 1,200
- 1,160
- 1,120
- 1,100
- 1,060
- 1,040
- 1,020
- 1,000
- 960
- 940
- 920
- 900
- 880
- 860
- Further more, they use a sliding % as a smoothing factor over time. Those percentages look like this:
- Year 1 – 100%
- Year 2 – 75%
- Year 3 – 50%
- Year 4 – 25%
- Year 5 – 0%
So, it’s a pretty simple formula. Canada’s 2010 Olympic Gold medal is currently 900 points towards their total.
I guess it doesn’t really matter, since the rankings rarely ever matter. That said, it’s kind of ridiculous that the Olympics, the only best-on-best tournament in the world (these days) is given the same weighting as the World Championships, which are an afterthought for more of the top players.
By ADAM, on February 8th, 2012 I first about this issue on CBC’s Satellite Hot-Stove Saturday, then read Corey Pronman’s response at the awesome Hockey Prospectus.
Essentially, Eric Francis (perhaps the least intelligent of CBC’s group of nimrods) believes that the CHL/NHL agreement will be a contentious issue during negotiations for the next CBA. All this chatter started when Steve Yzerman suggested that NHL clubs should be able to send junior eligible players to the AHL instead of having to send them back to their CHL teams.
Here’s what Yzerman had to say.
“We talk about it all the time,” Yzerman told the Tampa Bay Times. “We would like to have, particularly guys who have played three years in junior that when we feel it’s time to go to another level, we’d rather see them in the American League.”
“I’d like to see us talk further about it,” Yzerman told the paper. “We’re not trying to raid junior hockey, but we look at Brett, he’s played in junior hockey for three years. Part of the reason we wanted to keep him is we felt like it was time to play against stronger competition and a higher pace. Junior hockey is good, but he’s had three full years.”
Brett is Brett Connolly, and most people would agree with Yzerman’s assessment. It’s probably not a stretch to suggest that some players see their development stunted by playing more junior hockey instead of making the jump to the pros. I would certainly make that case for Nazem Kadri, who wasn’t physically ready for the NHL at 18 but could have used his skills to negate that problem in the slower-paced AHL, while gaining some experience against stiffer competition.
Regardless of whether or not we agree on that point, I can’t understand how this will be a contentious CBA issue.
Without further knowledge, we can’t assume that all NHL clubs share Yzerman’s views. However, what he’s suggesting makes sense, and would be in the best interest of player development. There are certainly downsides. Players would start eating away their entry-level contracts (ELC) earlier in their career, thus arriving at restricted free agency at a younger age. That’s really the only downside for the teams, but faced with restricted free agency 2 years earlier vs. stunting the development of a future star, I think we know which side they’d fall on.
It follows that the NHLPA would certainly be in favour of this. The earlier they can get to their RFA year, the earlier they can hit the jackpot. It also makes it more likely that youngsters can get to the show, so there may be some infighting over the potential loss of jobs to fringe veterans.
All of this assumes that there aren’t significant changes coming to the entry-level system, something that the Hockey Prospectus article seems to accept as a given. I’m not sure. I think the current system has worked out rather well for both sides. Obviously the owners will want to delay free agency, the players will want it earlier. They’ve settled on 3 years before, and I have no reason to suspect they won’t do so again.
By ADAM, on February 7th, 2012 I think we all share Mr. Brassard’s shock.
|
|
Recent Comments