Let's rewind a few weeks to the start of the free-agency period. The most coveted free-agent available this year, Marian Hossa, shocks everyone and signs with the Chicago Blackhawks. In one fell swoop Hossa signed with his former team's rival (not surprising considering his track record), displaced his friend and former Blackhawks star Martin Havlat, and added to an already ballooning Chicago payroll.
Oh, but it's okay. Hossa got one of those crazy, new, front-loaded contracts that makes everything okay! Want me to explain? I'd love to!
Chicago signed Hossa to a 12 year deal worth $62.8 million. Ludicrous, but here's the catch; the contract is heavily front-loaded so even though Hossa will make nearly $8 million for the next seven seasons, his contract will drop to $4 million and less for the last 5 years. This averages Hossa's cap-hit to $5.167 million per season. In short, a team can only have about $57 million worth of contracts per season. So by giving Hossa this contract, they have around $3 million more in cap space for the first seven seasons than they would if Hossa's cap-hit matched his actual cash dollars.
Don't worry, the hard math is almost over and I'll get to the interesting stuff. Why is this contract so strange? Let's compare it to that of Eric Staal on my favorite team, the Carolina Hurricanes. Staal is a comparable player to Hossa in terms of offensive production. Staal is also signed to a long term deal and also for a lot of money. However, Staal's cash dollar amount starts at $6 million and goes up to $9.5 million at the end of the deal. This gives Staal a large cap-hit of $8.25 million. Here is the key difference; when Staal's contract expires he will be 32 and in the prime of his career. When Hossa's deal expires he will be 42 and ready for bingo (in hockey years that is).
The Hurricanes should be able to justify the steep cap hit in 2015 because Staal should still be putting up big numbers. Can Chicago justify wasting over $5 million in cap space on a guy who may not be nearly as productive?
This is where it gets interesting. There is an allegation that Hossa and the Blackhawks have a secret deal in place that Hossa will retire before the end of his contract, thereby preventing Chicago from having to pay him the low end of the contract in the future and also preventing them from wasting the cap space now. For Hossa and the Blackhawks it's a win-win. Get a guy in the prime of his career, pay him lots of money now, and take a smaller cap-hit by circumventing the rules of the CBA (the Collective Bargaining Agreement, in layman's terms, the rules).
Why stop there? They could have signed him to a 40 year deal, pay him $8 million for the first 10 seasons, then pay the league minimum of $500,000 for the last 30. His cap-hit would be $2.375 million and he could retire at the age of 40 and nullify the last 30 years of the contract. Well, that would be about as transparent as a Filet-O-Fish wrapper and since it is totally against the rules, they lessen the risk of getting caught by signing him to the contract he has now.
Well, the NHL thought something was rotten in Denmark anyway because they have launched an investigation of Hossa and Chicago's deal. If they are found guilty of malfeasance, Chicago faces a maximum penalty of $5 million and the loss of draft picks. I would imagine Hossa's contract would be declared null and void as well, thereby making him a free-agent. From there I'm sure Hossa and the Blackhawks could figure something out that didn't fly in the face of the rules.
So to tally it up; so far this summer Chicago has misfiled their RFA qualifying offers, unceremoniously fired their much loved GM, and potentially signed Marian Hossa to an illegal contract. Quite a bit of funk blowing around in the Windy City...
Friday, July 31, 2009
Monday, July 27, 2009
It Is Broke, So Fix It
There is an inherent problem with the NHL All-Star Game. It should be an exciting spectacle of high-talent, high-intensity hockey. The talent is high, but not always the intensity. Why? Because it's in the player's best interest (and that of the team he belongs to) to sandbag it. What incentive is there to play hard? Why risk injury? A Honda Pilot if you're named MVP? A little more bling for your trophy cabinet? Pretty insignificant when we're talking about multi-million dollar players who only lust for one, big trophy by the name of Lord Stanley's Cup.
Well, why not take a page from Major League Baseball and give the winning conference home ice advantage for the playoffs? Not only would that not sit well with hockey purists, it simply doesn't make sense for the NHL. Not a knock on baseball, but hockey is a full contact sport. In hockey, giving it your all means laying your body on the line every shift. Imagine this; Eric Staal goes all out, lays a full contact hit on an opposing player, and dislocates his shoulder. He's out for the season and for what? So divisional rival Washington can get home ice advantage and win the Cup? It doesn't make sense for hockey.
So how then? In what way do you bring out the intensity in the All-Star Game without risking a player's health? You don't. You can't and you don't. Part of the reason hockey is such an intense, uptempo sport is because there is that physical risk. Take it away and you lose the crux of the appeal.
Is it a lost cause then? Do we accept that the All-Star Weekend is a glorified breather for the players? After all, one of the best players in the game sat out the All-Star weekend (albeit due to "injury") and he lifted the big one over his head this summer. How can the NHL increase the appeal while maintaining as little risk as possible to the players? Simple; "John Kerry" the whole weekend and flip-flop the schedule. Make the All-Star Game itself the triumphant opening to the weekend and make the SuperSkills Competition the main attraction.
Seems counterproductive, right? Well, what is the All-Star Game for? It's supposedly to display the games greatest players and potentially entice more fans to watch the game. How does that work when those players are sandbagging it to prevent injury? It just ends up looking like Ice-Capades to the untrained eye. Do we really want a potential fan tuning into the All-Star game and thinking our beloved sport is boring? Not I.
So this flip-flop achieves what? Try to imagine this scenario. A guy/girl goes into work and says to his/her friends, "Did you see the NHL All-Star Game this weekend? There was this sweet tic-tac-toe pass on the game winning goal." Not exactly enthralling to a non-hockey fan. Okay, now try this one, "Did you see the NHL Super Skills Competition this weekend? This 6'9" guy hit a slap shot that was 105 miles an hour!" Which one are you more willing to tune into? The latter appeals to what American sports fans love so much about baseball; the stats. How fast can a player skate around the rink? How fast can he belt a slap shot? How fast can he break the targets? Not to mention the fact that there is a greatly reduced risk of injury in these events. It's all gravy.
Don't stop there either. Make more SuperSkills events that test other aspects of the game. Make the casual fan say, "Wow, I need to see that in a game!" It's better than, "This is what the best in the world has to offer? Boring!"
Well, why not take a page from Major League Baseball and give the winning conference home ice advantage for the playoffs? Not only would that not sit well with hockey purists, it simply doesn't make sense for the NHL. Not a knock on baseball, but hockey is a full contact sport. In hockey, giving it your all means laying your body on the line every shift. Imagine this; Eric Staal goes all out, lays a full contact hit on an opposing player, and dislocates his shoulder. He's out for the season and for what? So divisional rival Washington can get home ice advantage and win the Cup? It doesn't make sense for hockey.
So how then? In what way do you bring out the intensity in the All-Star Game without risking a player's health? You don't. You can't and you don't. Part of the reason hockey is such an intense, uptempo sport is because there is that physical risk. Take it away and you lose the crux of the appeal.
Is it a lost cause then? Do we accept that the All-Star Weekend is a glorified breather for the players? After all, one of the best players in the game sat out the All-Star weekend (albeit due to "injury") and he lifted the big one over his head this summer. How can the NHL increase the appeal while maintaining as little risk as possible to the players? Simple; "John Kerry" the whole weekend and flip-flop the schedule. Make the All-Star Game itself the triumphant opening to the weekend and make the SuperSkills Competition the main attraction.
Seems counterproductive, right? Well, what is the All-Star Game for? It's supposedly to display the games greatest players and potentially entice more fans to watch the game. How does that work when those players are sandbagging it to prevent injury? It just ends up looking like Ice-Capades to the untrained eye. Do we really want a potential fan tuning into the All-Star game and thinking our beloved sport is boring? Not I.
So this flip-flop achieves what? Try to imagine this scenario. A guy/girl goes into work and says to his/her friends, "Did you see the NHL All-Star Game this weekend? There was this sweet tic-tac-toe pass on the game winning goal." Not exactly enthralling to a non-hockey fan. Okay, now try this one, "Did you see the NHL Super Skills Competition this weekend? This 6'9" guy hit a slap shot that was 105 miles an hour!" Which one are you more willing to tune into? The latter appeals to what American sports fans love so much about baseball; the stats. How fast can a player skate around the rink? How fast can he belt a slap shot? How fast can he break the targets? Not to mention the fact that there is a greatly reduced risk of injury in these events. It's all gravy.
Don't stop there either. Make more SuperSkills events that test other aspects of the game. Make the casual fan say, "Wow, I need to see that in a game!" It's better than, "This is what the best in the world has to offer? Boring!"
Friday, July 24, 2009
Psychics Wanted
I have a fun game for you to try out. Next time you are due for a raise, tell your boss to keep paying you the same amount, but in a year they can start paying you a salary of $2 million, because that's how much you'll be worth. Then report back to me how long it took for you to fit your belongings into a box.
Seems ludicrous, right? Well that's the way the NHL works.
The debate will never cease on how much a player should be paid, or how a team is overpaying for someone. Seriously, not even the greatest player in the world will escape without criticism for the number of Ben Franklin wallet photos he's walking around with. I'll give you an example; I read somewhere that Alexander Ovechkin may not deserve the money he's making, or the length of his contract, because he plays such a physical game that it's hard to tell how durable he'll be. Really? That's the argument? For this guy?
On the other hand, players today demand contracts that are older than middle schoolers. That means General Managers are playing a lot more Miss Cleo than they ever have. How do you know how good or bad a player will be in the year 2017? What if 6 years pass, the guy turns into a skating mascot and you're still paying him $6 million a year? Whoops. Sometimes, it turns out he was injured before you even signed him!
Players are investments. With an investment, the least that you want is to break even. Ideally, you get a steal. However, more often than not you're left wondering why you emptied your savings into webvan.com, and believe me, there will be more than one webvan.com lacing up his skates this October.
What it comes down to is spending wisely. Anytime you put your money into a hypothetical, it's a gamble. You just have to play the odds in any given situation. How has he played thus far in his career? Does he have upside, or has he reached his max potential? Do I really see him playing at age 42? Why is my 12 year old cousin blogging about how much of an idiot I am?
Life for a General Manager is hard. Remember how your mom used to criticize you for wasting all of your money on baseball cards or Ninja Turtles? Now imagine you are a GM and have a couple million moms, constantly scrutinizing every penny you spend. And, these moms aren't lovable-casserole-making-moms, they're annoying-fanboy-blogger-moms. Not a terribly nurturing bunch.
Remember, no NHL GMs are psychic (none that I know of), so maybe cut them some slack. Or maybe e-mail them the name of a good tarot card reader.
Seems ludicrous, right? Well that's the way the NHL works.
The debate will never cease on how much a player should be paid, or how a team is overpaying for someone. Seriously, not even the greatest player in the world will escape without criticism for the number of Ben Franklin wallet photos he's walking around with. I'll give you an example; I read somewhere that Alexander Ovechkin may not deserve the money he's making, or the length of his contract, because he plays such a physical game that it's hard to tell how durable he'll be. Really? That's the argument? For this guy?
On the other hand, players today demand contracts that are older than middle schoolers. That means General Managers are playing a lot more Miss Cleo than they ever have. How do you know how good or bad a player will be in the year 2017? What if 6 years pass, the guy turns into a skating mascot and you're still paying him $6 million a year? Whoops. Sometimes, it turns out he was injured before you even signed him!
Players are investments. With an investment, the least that you want is to break even. Ideally, you get a steal. However, more often than not you're left wondering why you emptied your savings into webvan.com, and believe me, there will be more than one webvan.com lacing up his skates this October.
What it comes down to is spending wisely. Anytime you put your money into a hypothetical, it's a gamble. You just have to play the odds in any given situation. How has he played thus far in his career? Does he have upside, or has he reached his max potential? Do I really see him playing at age 42? Why is my 12 year old cousin blogging about how much of an idiot I am?
Life for a General Manager is hard. Remember how your mom used to criticize you for wasting all of your money on baseball cards or Ninja Turtles? Now imagine you are a GM and have a couple million moms, constantly scrutinizing every penny you spend. And, these moms aren't lovable-casserole-making-moms, they're annoying-fanboy-blogger-moms. Not a terribly nurturing bunch.
Remember, no NHL GMs are psychic (none that I know of), so maybe cut them some slack. Or maybe e-mail them the name of a good tarot card reader.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Explain This To Me Like I'm Five...
There's an episode of "The Office" where the character Oscar is trying to explain to the character Michael how his budget works using an allowance and a lemonade stand as a comparison. After the severely dumbed down explanation, Michael replies, "Okay, break it down in terms of, um... okay, I-I think I'm getting you..." How does this apply to the NHL? Let's just say some General Managers are acting a little Michael Scott-like in their understanding of money.
Let me start by saying I have the utmost respect for these men and the difficult jobs they do. That said, some of them are screwing their teams royally!
So, who's doing it wrong? Let's look at Philadelphia. They are flush with talent on both offense and defense. However, they had to go to Russia and bring back a problematic goaltender in order to afford someone who is considered a "starter." Then, they trade a boatload of talent for a highly paid, yet aging star in Chris Pronger. Not to mention the fact they are saddled with Danny Briere's $6.5 million dollar contract until 2015. That would be fine if Briere was worth that much.
Philly has almost $46 million committed to salaries for next season and the salary cap is likely to come down from this seasons cap of $56.8 million. Even if it didn't, that would mean the Flyers would need to find 3 forwards, 3 defenseman, and a starting netminder for $10.8 million.
Philadelphia was in the worst condition, until Chicago stole their thunder. How? Well, for starters, Chicago is already over the cap for this coming season. They'll need to find ways to shed salary and not lose key players before the season starts.
However, like Philadelphia, the Blackhawks' real problems lie in the future. Chicago has $43 million committed to salaries next season. 7 of their players become Restricted Free Agents next season, and 5 of them Unrestricted Free Agents. Among those players are Jonathan Toews, Patrick Kane, Andrew Ladd, and Duncan Keith. Heck, Toews and Kane alone will cost more than the $13.8 million in the cap space that's available for next season. Don't forget you have 10 other players to sign as well. Bet you're rethinking that $7.1 million contract you gave Brian Campbell last summer, right Dale Tallon?
The issue is a common one and a totally avoidable one; don't overpay for players. Pay a player their appropriate value. If you really want that player but they're asking for too much, don't sign them! Any team would love to have Marian Gaborik, but if I'm the Rangers, do I pay $7.5 million for a guy who gets injured more often than a hemophiliac rodeo clown?
When I was growing up my parents tried to teach me not to spend money on something that isn't worth it. I probably could have lived with a few less video games, but for the most part the lessons stuck. Maybe I should tell my parents to call some of the leagues GM's and give them some pointers...
Why does this matter? Why not let those teams mismanage their money? Because when a player gets an inflated contract, it ruins things for everyone. If Player X gets a $4 million contract, even though he deserves a $3 million contract, everyone else gets bumped too. To go back to an analogy for five year-olds, you can't give one child two scoops of ice cream and another, equally valuable kid one scoop. Unless of course you value your children differently...
It's a "buy first, ask questions later" mentality and some teams are going to feel the sting when the bill comes. It's only a matter of time until it hits the fan and GM's learn to rebuild through the draft (see Kings, Los Angeles or Blues, St. Louis for good examples) and not throw wads of money at UFA's (see Gainey, Bob). Unfortunately, you can't always expect your kids to make the right decisions the first time. Sometimes you have to watch them fall and hope they learn to get back up and not make the same mistake twice.
Let me start by saying I have the utmost respect for these men and the difficult jobs they do. That said, some of them are screwing their teams royally!
So, who's doing it wrong? Let's look at Philadelphia. They are flush with talent on both offense and defense. However, they had to go to Russia and bring back a problematic goaltender in order to afford someone who is considered a "starter." Then, they trade a boatload of talent for a highly paid, yet aging star in Chris Pronger. Not to mention the fact they are saddled with Danny Briere's $6.5 million dollar contract until 2015. That would be fine if Briere was worth that much.
Philly has almost $46 million committed to salaries for next season and the salary cap is likely to come down from this seasons cap of $56.8 million. Even if it didn't, that would mean the Flyers would need to find 3 forwards, 3 defenseman, and a starting netminder for $10.8 million.
Philadelphia was in the worst condition, until Chicago stole their thunder. How? Well, for starters, Chicago is already over the cap for this coming season. They'll need to find ways to shed salary and not lose key players before the season starts.
However, like Philadelphia, the Blackhawks' real problems lie in the future. Chicago has $43 million committed to salaries next season. 7 of their players become Restricted Free Agents next season, and 5 of them Unrestricted Free Agents. Among those players are Jonathan Toews, Patrick Kane, Andrew Ladd, and Duncan Keith. Heck, Toews and Kane alone will cost more than the $13.8 million in the cap space that's available for next season. Don't forget you have 10 other players to sign as well. Bet you're rethinking that $7.1 million contract you gave Brian Campbell last summer, right Dale Tallon?
The issue is a common one and a totally avoidable one; don't overpay for players. Pay a player their appropriate value. If you really want that player but they're asking for too much, don't sign them! Any team would love to have Marian Gaborik, but if I'm the Rangers, do I pay $7.5 million for a guy who gets injured more often than a hemophiliac rodeo clown?
When I was growing up my parents tried to teach me not to spend money on something that isn't worth it. I probably could have lived with a few less video games, but for the most part the lessons stuck. Maybe I should tell my parents to call some of the leagues GM's and give them some pointers...
Why does this matter? Why not let those teams mismanage their money? Because when a player gets an inflated contract, it ruins things for everyone. If Player X gets a $4 million contract, even though he deserves a $3 million contract, everyone else gets bumped too. To go back to an analogy for five year-olds, you can't give one child two scoops of ice cream and another, equally valuable kid one scoop. Unless of course you value your children differently...
It's a "buy first, ask questions later" mentality and some teams are going to feel the sting when the bill comes. It's only a matter of time until it hits the fan and GM's learn to rebuild through the draft (see Kings, Los Angeles or Blues, St. Louis for good examples) and not throw wads of money at UFA's (see Gainey, Bob). Unfortunately, you can't always expect your kids to make the right decisions the first time. Sometimes you have to watch them fall and hope they learn to get back up and not make the same mistake twice.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
How Bob Gainey "Milburied" the Habs
Yesterday, a coworker asked me why I was slapping myself in the face. It was an attempt to wake up from the hilarious dream I was having in which Bob Gainey, GM of the Montreal Canadiens, traded Christopher Higgins for Scott Gomez of the New York Rangers. Usually it's up for debate who "wins" any given trade. However, you can send the debate team home for this one. Gainey got fleeced.
Then I heard the rest of the trade...
Gainey obtained Scott Gomez along with Tom Pyatt and Mike Busto (both throw ins) from the New York Rangers for Christopher Higgins, Ryan McDonagh, Pavel Valentenko, and Doug Janik. Ouch. Gainey might want to check his back pocket too, because he just got robbed. This flirts with dangerously-bad, Mike Milbury-esque trades.
Why, you ask, is this trade so slanted in favor of the Rangers? I love lists, so here we go:
Oops #1) Gainey didn't get what he was looking for. This trade was supposed to distract all of the dejected Montreal fans who were forlorn over Gainey's inability to trade for Vincent Lecavalier. Instead, Gainey got a player with half the size and half the skill. Gomez is a slick little speedster, but he is by no means big, nor strong, nor as productive offensively as Lecavalier.
Oops #2) The big name going the other way. Higgins hasn't put up the same kind of numbers as Gomez, but his value is higher as a goal scorer and a physical player. Not to mention a younger and likely more appropriately paid one (I'll get to that later). Higgins won't have to do much to exceed the expectations set for Gomez.
Oops #3) The other names. To Montreal, Pyatt and Busto are decent prospects at best. They're both in the minors right now (Busto is in the ECHL which if you didn't know, is second tier minors). Safe bet is neither gets more than a handful of games in the NHL other than as a role player. Going to New York, we have McDonagh, a first round draft pick and Montreal's 1A prospect. What?! Why?! Why trade him too?! McDonagh wasn't just icing on top of the cake that is Christopher Higgins, he's another cake! Not to mention Valentenko, a big defender whose Russian team says is ready for the NHL, or Doug Janik who actually has 161 NHL games under his belt already. This won't just hurt the Habs next season, it will hurt for years to come as McDonagh smashes tiny Habs-forwards into the glass.
Oops #4) The money. Montreal got rid of an RFA who they could have resigned for significantly less than the nearly $7.4 million per season they'll be paying for Gomez over the next 5 years. I'll let you reach for those smelling salts... That's right, Scott Gomez who has had 1 season with more than 20 goals makes nearly $2.3 million more than Marian Hossa! Take a big whiff of those salts people. While the rest of the league is worried about being pushed to the cap ceiling as it lowers onto them like an Indiana Jones booby trap, Gainey goes out and gets the most ridiculously overpaid player he can.
Oops #5) Montreal fans hate this trade. I won't say all of them do, but most of them do and definitely the smart ones. Message boards around the interweb have Habs fans already calling for Gainey's head on a pike.
So to recap, here's Gainey's report card on this trade:
Gomez not a #1 Center = Fail
Higgins has more value = Fail
Value of prospects traded = Fail
Taking on a ridiculously expensive contract = Fail
Pissed off your fan base = Fail
What could have compelled Bob Gainey to make a trade so bad that it nearly made Pierre McGuire physically wretch during a broadcast? I have no idea, but maybe if I keep slapping I'll wake up...
Then I heard the rest of the trade...
Gainey obtained Scott Gomez along with Tom Pyatt and Mike Busto (both throw ins) from the New York Rangers for Christopher Higgins, Ryan McDonagh, Pavel Valentenko, and Doug Janik. Ouch. Gainey might want to check his back pocket too, because he just got robbed. This flirts with dangerously-bad, Mike Milbury-esque trades.
Why, you ask, is this trade so slanted in favor of the Rangers? I love lists, so here we go:
Oops #1) Gainey didn't get what he was looking for. This trade was supposed to distract all of the dejected Montreal fans who were forlorn over Gainey's inability to trade for Vincent Lecavalier. Instead, Gainey got a player with half the size and half the skill. Gomez is a slick little speedster, but he is by no means big, nor strong, nor as productive offensively as Lecavalier.
Oops #2) The big name going the other way. Higgins hasn't put up the same kind of numbers as Gomez, but his value is higher as a goal scorer and a physical player. Not to mention a younger and likely more appropriately paid one (I'll get to that later). Higgins won't have to do much to exceed the expectations set for Gomez.
Oops #3) The other names. To Montreal, Pyatt and Busto are decent prospects at best. They're both in the minors right now (Busto is in the ECHL which if you didn't know, is second tier minors). Safe bet is neither gets more than a handful of games in the NHL other than as a role player. Going to New York, we have McDonagh, a first round draft pick and Montreal's 1A prospect. What?! Why?! Why trade him too?! McDonagh wasn't just icing on top of the cake that is Christopher Higgins, he's another cake! Not to mention Valentenko, a big defender whose Russian team says is ready for the NHL, or Doug Janik who actually has 161 NHL games under his belt already. This won't just hurt the Habs next season, it will hurt for years to come as McDonagh smashes tiny Habs-forwards into the glass.
Oops #4) The money. Montreal got rid of an RFA who they could have resigned for significantly less than the nearly $7.4 million per season they'll be paying for Gomez over the next 5 years. I'll let you reach for those smelling salts... That's right, Scott Gomez who has had 1 season with more than 20 goals makes nearly $2.3 million more than Marian Hossa! Take a big whiff of those salts people. While the rest of the league is worried about being pushed to the cap ceiling as it lowers onto them like an Indiana Jones booby trap, Gainey goes out and gets the most ridiculously overpaid player he can.
Oops #5) Montreal fans hate this trade. I won't say all of them do, but most of them do and definitely the smart ones. Message boards around the interweb have Habs fans already calling for Gainey's head on a pike.
So to recap, here's Gainey's report card on this trade:
Gomez not a #1 Center = Fail
Higgins has more value = Fail
Value of prospects traded = Fail
Taking on a ridiculously expensive contract = Fail
Pissed off your fan base = Fail
What could have compelled Bob Gainey to make a trade so bad that it nearly made Pierre McGuire physically wretch during a broadcast? I have no idea, but maybe if I keep slapping I'll wake up...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
