Finally, John Tortorella did what Tom Renney should have done starting November of 2008 - bench Wade Redden.
I used to say that Redden was a $2M player getting paid $6.5M/year. Recently, he had been playing like a call-up from Hartford. The only thing is, the call-ups from Hartford were playing better.
When everyone under age 26 on the roster plays better than a mid-3os veteran, there is a problem. And that problem, regardless of salary, should sit in the stands and watch a few (dozen) games.
When they put him back in the lineup Monday against Carolina, if he doesn't respond to the benching with smarter and more physical play (and if he stops playing "hot potato" with the puck like it's going to hurt him if he skates with it) there is only one more thing you can do: put him on waivers.
It will hurt paying him $6.5M to be in the minors, but to be honest, I couldn't care less. Our ticket prices are high regardless. Sure, we'll see that stupid Chase ad on the plexiglass every game, but we see that now with him on the team. What we pay to watch the Rangers is only going to go up every year, regardless of if he is on the team or in the minors. Might as well have him down there.
Other teams couldn't do that, because they don't have an endless supply of money like Jim Dolan and Cablevision have. So if they're paying a player over $6M to play in the AHL, ticket prices skyrocket. Ours will anyway. See what I mean?
What WOULD affect me is if he is taken on re-entry waivers and the Rangers have to pay half of his salary for the next 4 full seasons. That WOULD directly affect me because then they can't use his Cap space to pay for a player who hits, or shoots, or passes well, or scores, or clears the crease.
* * *
Coming off of back-to-back wins, there is no better time than now to bench Henrik Lundqvist. Let Chad Johnson get his first 2 games in against weak teams. Carolina and Florida are no definite wins, for sure, but the ideals thing would be to let him beat Carolina on Monday, then against Florida on Wednesday. This gives him great experience, some confidence, and his first MSG start.
Plus, it would give Lundqvist a full week off before he plays the Islanders on Saturday at MSG.
Two friends. Two bitter enemies. Two obsessed fans. One Rivalry.
Showing posts with label Contracts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Contracts. Show all posts
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Why the Rangers Lost...
Why the Rangers lost last night in Chicago was actually an event 20 years in the making.
You see, on a cold December morning in Lloydminster, Saskatchewan, Canada, while the rest of the young hockey team was learning how to throw body checks, a 12-year old Wade Redden was having his first period.
His parents, who had woken up at 5 in the morning to drive him to play with his team, instead had to drive him to the gynecologists office to look at why their preteen son was such a pussy.
Fast forward to 1995, and 18-year old Wade had become the first woman ever drafted into the NHL. His family cried, and the Islanders were questioned, but stood their ground. (Six months later, when they realized he could never throw a body check, he was traded to Ottawa for Bryan Berard and Martin Straka.)
It is now 2009, and with a snowy Chicago as the backdrop, Marian Hossa was standing in the crease between Henrik Lundqvist and Mr and Mrs. Redden's daughter, Wade. A slew of Chicago players were pounding at the puck and Lundqvist, and the younger Redden daughter was content standing behind Hossa. His one defense mechanism - pushing Hossa once with his stick.
Well, her decision to go to the gynecologist to learn how to use tampons instead of learning how to throw checks and clear the crease sunk the Rangers again. Hossa, unfettered in an area of the ice he never should have been allowed to enter anyway, kept Redden away from doing anything to stop him or Jonathan Toews from putting the puck past Lundqvist.
Game tied with 6 minutes left.
That's one minute for every million dollars Madame Redden is being paid this year to not hit, not clear the crease, not play defense.
You see, on a cold December morning in Lloydminster, Saskatchewan, Canada, while the rest of the young hockey team was learning how to throw body checks, a 12-year old Wade Redden was having his first period.
His parents, who had woken up at 5 in the morning to drive him to play with his team, instead had to drive him to the gynecologists office to look at why their preteen son was such a pussy.
Fast forward to 1995, and 18-year old Wade had become the first woman ever drafted into the NHL. His family cried, and the Islanders were questioned, but stood their ground. (Six months later, when they realized he could never throw a body check, he was traded to Ottawa for Bryan Berard and Martin Straka.)
It is now 2009, and with a snowy Chicago as the backdrop, Marian Hossa was standing in the crease between Henrik Lundqvist and Mr and Mrs. Redden's daughter, Wade. A slew of Chicago players were pounding at the puck and Lundqvist, and the younger Redden daughter was content standing behind Hossa. His one defense mechanism - pushing Hossa once with his stick.
Well, her decision to go to the gynecologist to learn how to use tampons instead of learning how to throw checks and clear the crease sunk the Rangers again. Hossa, unfettered in an area of the ice he never should have been allowed to enter anyway, kept Redden away from doing anything to stop him or Jonathan Toews from putting the puck past Lundqvist.
Game tied with 6 minutes left.
That's one minute for every million dollars Madame Redden is being paid this year to not hit, not clear the crease, not play defense.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Requiem for a Team...
Superstitious as I am, to prepare for tonight's Game 7, I did what I did for their last Game 7: Went to my fourth-grade class, headed to the Sunrise Mall, changed the lyrics to a song on the radio in my mom's Volvo to words about the Rangers winning the Stanley Cup, and sat down in my den to watch the game.
What can I say about the game itself? Not much. You watched it, I watched it, we know what happened. A great defensive play by Ryan Callahan turned into a double-deflection. Henrik Lundqvist was in position to stop a shot, but he couldn't get over to stop the freak deflection. Not his fault, not Callahan's, not Dan Girardi's.
I am pretty positive that when the players were gathering around Lundqvist at the end of the game, they were saying, "Sorry. We know you're the best in the game. Wish we could help you out. You don't deserve this." And I'm pretty sure he regretted signing a multi-year deal to be here.
I didn’t want to say anything earlier just in case the Rangers pulled out a Game 7 victory in Washington, but since that dream bubble has burst, I will say it: I had the same feeling going into Game 7 tonight that I did going into Game 6 in Buffalo in May 2007: defeat.
I did not, however, have this feeling for Game 5 in Pittsburgh, when I thought the Rangers could win. My theory was, win Game 5, Game 6 would be a guarantee, and Game 7 a 50/50 chance.
However, after Buffalo won Game 5 in overtime, you knew what would happen. Beaten, the Rangers would return to MSG and put up a half-hearted effort, and the Sabres would pounce upon them. And that did happen, with the Rangers going down 4-2 in the 2nd before a futile third period brought the score to a respectable 5-4.
The difference in Game 5 in Buffalo and Game 6 at MSG this past Sunday? Chris Drury scored in Buffalo.
I won’t blame this series or this season on Chris Drury. He is given 1st line money because of a great opportunity he was given: He beat the Rangers when he tied the game with 7.7 seconds left, then became one of the 3 best free agent forwards available less than 2 months later. Fact is, he is a 2nd line player. It’s not his fault that Glen Sather thought his career-high 69 points (37 G, 32 A) in 2006-07 was worthy of Jaromir Jagr/Joe Thornton money.
However, it again might be dark times ahead for the Rangers. As I’ve mentioned before, this team is handcuffed with Scott Gomez, Wade Redden, and Michal Rozsival. I’m actually getting sick of writing it, but here goes one more time:
This team has these insane salaries on the books for 5 more years (Gomez, Redden) and 3 more years (Rozsival). Once again, it isn’t their faults they’re getting paid this much money. Gomez got lucky also - him, Drury, and Daniel Briere were the top free agent forwards that summer, and he capitalized. The only this Redden is at fault for is accepting NY’s offer when another team offered him the same exact contract, but he wanted to play in NY (I can only guess that team was Toronto, though it is unconfirmed). Rozsival liked the Rangers for giving him a chance to comeback after the lockout, and Sather apparently thought his lax defensive play and his over-passing on the power play was worthy of Rob Blake/Sergei Zubov money.
No GM in their right mind would accept a trade for these underachievers (or I guess they are just “achieving” to their potential, which isn’t very high). In a salary cap world, who would take a $7M center until 2014 with a 5.9 shooting percentage (including empty netters) and who can’t crack 45 assists? Who would want a $6.5M defenseman with 3 goals and limited defensive skills? Is a $5M player who is responsible for more shorthanded goals against than power play goals for going to be high on anyone’s summer trading list?
Be sure, the darkest days are coming if these salaries are still on the books. No good free agents can be signed when the team teeters so close to the edge of the salary cap. That is $18.5M that can’t be alloted to re-signing Paul Mara or Derek Morris instead, or can’t be used to make a move at a real first line player, either via free agency or a trade.
Think Atlanta would accept Scott Gomez for Ilya Kovalchuk? Get real.
I had said numerous times that $39M can't buy you heart in this Emerald City. Tonight, Redden proved that. He actually did have one good play - I told my girlfriend to write down that after 8 pre-season games, 81 regular season games for him, and 7 playoff games, he finally had a good play. He then went and ruined everything by standing in front of Sergei Federov and refusing to drop down to block a shot. Apparently, Drury isn't the one with the broken hand, Redden is, as he also couldn't throw his stick out fast enough to try to block the shot once he decided he was too precious to drop down.
Five more years of Gomez. Five more years of Redden.
Something's gotta give.
What can I say about the game itself? Not much. You watched it, I watched it, we know what happened. A great defensive play by Ryan Callahan turned into a double-deflection. Henrik Lundqvist was in position to stop a shot, but he couldn't get over to stop the freak deflection. Not his fault, not Callahan's, not Dan Girardi's.
I am pretty positive that when the players were gathering around Lundqvist at the end of the game, they were saying, "Sorry. We know you're the best in the game. Wish we could help you out. You don't deserve this." And I'm pretty sure he regretted signing a multi-year deal to be here.
I didn’t want to say anything earlier just in case the Rangers pulled out a Game 7 victory in Washington, but since that dream bubble has burst, I will say it: I had the same feeling going into Game 7 tonight that I did going into Game 6 in Buffalo in May 2007: defeat.
I did not, however, have this feeling for Game 5 in Pittsburgh, when I thought the Rangers could win. My theory was, win Game 5, Game 6 would be a guarantee, and Game 7 a 50/50 chance.
However, after Buffalo won Game 5 in overtime, you knew what would happen. Beaten, the Rangers would return to MSG and put up a half-hearted effort, and the Sabres would pounce upon them. And that did happen, with the Rangers going down 4-2 in the 2nd before a futile third period brought the score to a respectable 5-4.
The difference in Game 5 in Buffalo and Game 6 at MSG this past Sunday? Chris Drury scored in Buffalo.
I won’t blame this series or this season on Chris Drury. He is given 1st line money because of a great opportunity he was given: He beat the Rangers when he tied the game with 7.7 seconds left, then became one of the 3 best free agent forwards available less than 2 months later. Fact is, he is a 2nd line player. It’s not his fault that Glen Sather thought his career-high 69 points (37 G, 32 A) in 2006-07 was worthy of Jaromir Jagr/Joe Thornton money.
However, it again might be dark times ahead for the Rangers. As I’ve mentioned before, this team is handcuffed with Scott Gomez, Wade Redden, and Michal Rozsival. I’m actually getting sick of writing it, but here goes one more time:
This team has these insane salaries on the books for 5 more years (Gomez, Redden) and 3 more years (Rozsival). Once again, it isn’t their faults they’re getting paid this much money. Gomez got lucky also - him, Drury, and Daniel Briere were the top free agent forwards that summer, and he capitalized. The only this Redden is at fault for is accepting NY’s offer when another team offered him the same exact contract, but he wanted to play in NY (I can only guess that team was Toronto, though it is unconfirmed). Rozsival liked the Rangers for giving him a chance to comeback after the lockout, and Sather apparently thought his lax defensive play and his over-passing on the power play was worthy of Rob Blake/Sergei Zubov money.
No GM in their right mind would accept a trade for these underachievers (or I guess they are just “achieving” to their potential, which isn’t very high). In a salary cap world, who would take a $7M center until 2014 with a 5.9 shooting percentage (including empty netters) and who can’t crack 45 assists? Who would want a $6.5M defenseman with 3 goals and limited defensive skills? Is a $5M player who is responsible for more shorthanded goals against than power play goals for going to be high on anyone’s summer trading list?
Be sure, the darkest days are coming if these salaries are still on the books. No good free agents can be signed when the team teeters so close to the edge of the salary cap. That is $18.5M that can’t be alloted to re-signing Paul Mara or Derek Morris instead, or can’t be used to make a move at a real first line player, either via free agency or a trade.
Think Atlanta would accept Scott Gomez for Ilya Kovalchuk? Get real.
I had said numerous times that $39M can't buy you heart in this Emerald City. Tonight, Redden proved that. He actually did have one good play - I told my girlfriend to write down that after 8 pre-season games, 81 regular season games for him, and 7 playoff games, he finally had a good play. He then went and ruined everything by standing in front of Sergei Federov and refusing to drop down to block a shot. Apparently, Drury isn't the one with the broken hand, Redden is, as he also couldn't throw his stick out fast enough to try to block the shot once he decided he was too precious to drop down.
Five more years of Gomez. Five more years of Redden.
Something's gotta give.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Calm Before the Storm...
The day before the NHL Trade Deadline is always interesting. To me, it's like how the supermarket is always crowded the day before a blizzard or a hurricane - people are getting ready for the next day.
But instead of stocking up on canned corn, American cheese, blueberry preserves, and frozen dinners, NHL GMs are placing players on waivers and making room for additions and preparing for subtractions.
Some surprising names on waivers, too, including Gary Roberts, whom teams have interest in. You would think some team would have atleast offered Tampa Bay a late-round pick for him.
Islander Jon Sim is also on waivers. I asked Islanders' writer Bryan, and he made it seem like the Islanders want him taken so they don't have to have him on the roster next year (he has one more year at $1M left). Makes sense. He has 7 points in 5 games, including 3 assists last night, so maybe some team can take him while he's hot.
Miroslav Satan also was put on waivers by the Penguins. Surprising as well, because while he wasn't having a great year but he is only on a one-year deal, and he can contribute as a 4th line player. His whole career, people have been saying he hasn't been living up to his potential. Well, maybe his potential is 50-60 points a year only. (He also was the team's 4th leading scorer... you think they would atleast have packaged him in a deal for a higher-scoring winger?)
Of course, the big news here (and I guess in Calgary and Dallas) is that Sean Avery is back on the Rangers, immediately making my signed #16 jersey relevant again. His last game was on November 30 against Edmonton, where he scored a goal, had 9 shots, and played just over 18 minutes. Then, he made a joke and was suspended 6 games.
Here's who else has been suspended since Avery "was mean." (I probably shouldn't have put that in quotes since I said it, but, well, you know.) ...
Tomas Plekanec suspended 2 games for tripping. Mikhail Grabovski got 3 games for pushing an official during a scrum. Jarrko Ruutu bites someone and gets 2 games. Evgeny Artyukhin received 2 games for a knee-on-knee hit that had an intent to injure. Denis Gauthier gets 5 games for literally attacking Josh Gorges when he skated up to him and leaped into his head. Tyler Kennedy got 1 game for leaving the bench to fight. And this week, Steve Ott received 1 game for an eye gouge, also an intent to injure.
All of these offenses were less serious than a bad joke aimed at Jack Bauer's estranged daughter (Elisha Cuthbert) and a dirty player (Dion Phaneuf). And while Avery was banished from the league, Frans Nielsen returned from being Superman-ed by Mike Mottau (who received a 2 game penalty).
Hey, atleast Ryan Hollweg didn't get suspended by the NHL in that time. (Of course, that bum hasn't played since early January).
* * *
Anyway, didn't mean to get off topic, but tomorrow should be an interesting day. I don't think the Rangers will be doing too much, because of salary cap concerns. They can't be involved in "big splashes" because players like Scott Gomez, Chris Drury, and Wade Redden are nearly untradeable (because of the length/amount of the contract; poor performance; no-trade clauses). And they did have a productive day today, getting Avery, and putting Aaron Voros and Eric Reitz on waivers.
A couple of players, like Dmitri Kalinin and Nigel Dawes (and yes, even Petr Prucha) have expiring contracts and could be jettisoned for picks or equal roster players, like when Aaron Ward was shipped out for Paul Mara. (I could definitely see it happening in Kalinin's case.)
I do wish that they atleast got a low-round pick for Voros, but maybe that wasn't going to be happening so they put him on waivers, hoping he gets picked up by someone, or atleast he'll be off the books and playing in Hartford.
Then again, maybe Glen Sather only contacted John Davidson in St. Louis and Don Maloney in Phoenix.
Friday, February 27, 2009
No, I'm Not Saying What You Think I'm Saying...
Tonight's 2-1 loss to Florida in regulation (in a "4-point game," no less) goes to show that if you sign 2nd-line players to 1st-line money and 4th-D-men to 1st-pairing money, you won't be able to score goals or stop an onslaught, no matter who is behind the bench and how good your goalie is.
The Rangers wasted cap space by signing 2nd-line centers Scott Gomez and Chris Drury to money Rick Nash, Marian Hossa, and Ilya Kovalchuk should be making. Ryan Whitney makes less than Michal Rozsival, and Zdeno Chara makes only a million more than Wade Redden.
And this is going to be the same for a long time, unless GM Glen Sather admits his mistakes and tries to take what he can for these players. It's not entirely a knock on the players - although even they'll admit they aren't playing up to their ability - but they are eating up so much cap space for such a long time that there is no light at the end of this tunnel.
Sather has admitted mistakes in the past. He signed Matt Cullen to a crazy deal, Cullen couldn't take NY, and he shipped him back to Carolina. Aaron Ward isn't on Broadway anymore, either. Adam Hall is gone. (I realize as I'm typing this that the only year he recognized mistakes from where 2006-07, also the year he let Petr Sykora leave for Edmonton when he wanted to be a Ranger. Sorry to get off topic.)
He needs to ditch some of these contracts if only for the cap room. I like Gomez as a person, but wouldn't you, as a fan, rather see the Rangers put his $7M cap hit into a proven scorer like Kovalchuk or Nash, or into a big defender like Chara or Jay Bouwmeester? Or maybe divided into a $4M player and a $3M player?
* * *
The team did seem more "attacking" today with John Tortorella behind the bench, but...
a) He has only coached 2 games now.
b) You can only squeeze so much juice from a dry lemon.
c) He had Gomez, Markus Naslund, et al, on the ice with the time winding down. Tom Renney would've done that, also. Same as for the power play - basically the same guys. Yes, they went 1-4 in Toronto, but they only had 2 shots on goal in 4 power plays!
* * *
What's worse? Missing the playoffs and getting a 1st round draft pick in the top 14, or selling some future to barely make the playoffs, lose in the first round to a superior New Jersey or Boston team, and getting a pick around 16-22?
I'm not rooting for them to lose - no way. But I do hope that if they make the playoffs they don't sell off what they have in their system just for 2 extra home games. The Islanders did that with Ryan Smyth and failed the same year that Atlanta did it with Keith Tkachuk.
We all know what will happen if they get a draft pick in the 1st round though - they'll waste it.
* * *
Crazy that after a 5-0 start and a pretty solid first two months (I think they were 11-2-1 at one point) we are talking about what happens if they miss the playoffs.
I told you those early points would be huge in February, March, and April. Imagine if they started 2-2-1? They'd be out of the Top 8 right now.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
On NHL Salaries
Note: This post has nothing to do with the Islanders or Rangers individually, but is certainly relevant to the plight the NHL finds itself in; therefore, it is quite relevant.
In the latest edition of their ridiculous feud, Anaheim GM Brian Burke called out Oilers GM Kevin Lowe and claimed that Lowe was responsible for the inflated salaries we're seeing this year. Apparently, because Lowe signed Buffalo's Thomas Vanek and Anaheim's Dustin Penner to offer sheets last year (Buffalo matched; Anaheim didn't), that's why $300 million in contracts were doled out on July 1 alone. Now, I don't mind Brian Burke, if only because his name is markedly similar to mine, but he's wrong on this one.
Burke's argument is as follows. Generally, a player gets an entry-level contract when he comes into the league. When he starts out-earning that one, he's supposed to be given a mid-level contract, which is eventually topped by the big-money deal he gets when he hits free agency. According to Burke, Lowe's moves have eliminated that middle deal entirely, meaning that a guy goes from his entry-level deal to the big bucks right away.
There are two problems with this statement.
First off, every other sports league has done away with the mid-level deal as well. Look at the NBA. Just a few years ago, Carmelo Anthony, LeBron James, and Dwayne Wade each went straight from their rookie deals, which paid them roughly $1.5 million a year each, into deals that paid them $20 million a year until they become eligible for free agency. The NFL is no stranger to this phenomenom, either; with non-guaranteed deals, players are always holding out for more money and receiving extensions for years and dollars they'll never see. In Major League Baseball, the trend has turned toward young stars signing with their teams at sliding rates that take them through their arbitration years and, potentially, their first years of free agency. This is as close to what Burke considered a mid-level deal as we will ever see in sports again.
The second issue I have with Burke's blaming of Lowe is that the CBA has pretty much gotten rid of the need for mid-level contracts. Players don't hit free agency until they're 31 years old, by which time they've proven their worth. Very rarely is the case where a team doesn't know what it's getting. As for younger players who would normally be receiving these mid-level deals, that's a different issue entirely. If the player wants to continually prove his worth, thereby driving up his salary, and the team doesn't want to commit to a long-term deal worth big bucks, they can go to arbitration each year. While a player can only request arbitration after his fourth year, it occasionally takes that long for a player to develop; any player who is dominant right away is locked up as soon as possible.
So, to recap...
- Every other sport has done away with mid-level deals.
- Restricted free agents with four years service time can go to arbitration each year if they choose.
- Teams who have excellent restricted free agents are wise to sign them to long-term deals at market value.
Let's look at how Burke himself handled the case of Corey Perry. Perry is a former first-round draft pick, turned 23 in May, and scored 29 goals and had 108 penalty minutes in just his second full NHL season. Surely, someone was going to give him an offer sheet if the Ducks didn't do something. So what happened? Burke signed him to a five-year deal worth $5.25 million per season. That's less than what many of the big-name free agents received; it's half of what Vancouver reportedly offered Mats Sundin. In other words, Burke should thank his lucky stars that he gets to keep Perry for what may be five years of elite production. Sure, he'd rather pay less for that production, but that's the way the NHL is these days.
And the reason for that, of course, is the ridiculous deals given to unrestricted free agents.
We haven't discussed unrestricted free agents yet, and that's because they're the catalyst behind this whole entire thing. The trickle-down effect is unmistakable. Every time a Cliff Fletcher pays $3.5 million a year for Jeff Finger, every other defenseman of his ilk is going to want the same money. That's what drives salaries up, and as much as the GMs complain, they are the ones to blame.
A common cry in the lead-up to July 1st has been, "What was the lockout for?". Personally, I'm at a loss for words on this one. Coming off the lockout in 2005, the salary cap for each team was $39 million. The upcoming season's salary floor will be $40 million. Now, the NHL was smart to link the salary cap to league revenues, but it's not working. Too many teams are forced to put money into bad players just to hit the floor. Also, too many teams find themselves with too much cap room and make the wrong choices. This doesn't even begin to mention the nature of competitive bidding, which is presumably how Wade Redden is making $6.5 million a year to play for the Rangers.
And this is where it gets ugly. Let's use Redden as an example of how a big deal can ultimately ruin a player's career. It's fairly certain that Wade Redden did not request $6.5 million a year from the New York Rangers. However, given the cap room they had and the needs they had, they felt it was necessary to overpay in order to get their player. So, now, Redden has this huge deal, and with that huge deal comes pressure. The fans and media are going to be all over this guy if he doesn't perform at a superhuman level for the next six years. Same with Jeff Finger in Toronto. Nobody's going to turn down the money these guys were offered, but at the same time, their lives are going to get a whole lot complicated as a result of receiving it.
Getting back to mid-level contracts, they're not given because they simply don't exist anymore. Instead, they've been replaced by inflated salaries that aren't earned, just given out because GMs aren't being rescued from themselves. As much as I want to see the NHL succeed, I'm looking forward to the year when the cap doesn't increase; in fact, I'd love to see it decrease, just to see some accountability for all this spending. The GMs in the NHL have taken the most perfect salary system in sports and destroyed it. Instead of blaming each other for it, they need to look in the mirror and realize what they've done - preferably before we need another work stoppage to correct it.
In the latest edition of their ridiculous feud, Anaheim GM Brian Burke called out Oilers GM Kevin Lowe and claimed that Lowe was responsible for the inflated salaries we're seeing this year. Apparently, because Lowe signed Buffalo's Thomas Vanek and Anaheim's Dustin Penner to offer sheets last year (Buffalo matched; Anaheim didn't), that's why $300 million in contracts were doled out on July 1 alone. Now, I don't mind Brian Burke, if only because his name is markedly similar to mine, but he's wrong on this one.
Burke's argument is as follows. Generally, a player gets an entry-level contract when he comes into the league. When he starts out-earning that one, he's supposed to be given a mid-level contract, which is eventually topped by the big-money deal he gets when he hits free agency. According to Burke, Lowe's moves have eliminated that middle deal entirely, meaning that a guy goes from his entry-level deal to the big bucks right away.
There are two problems with this statement.
First off, every other sports league has done away with the mid-level deal as well. Look at the NBA. Just a few years ago, Carmelo Anthony, LeBron James, and Dwayne Wade each went straight from their rookie deals, which paid them roughly $1.5 million a year each, into deals that paid them $20 million a year until they become eligible for free agency. The NFL is no stranger to this phenomenom, either; with non-guaranteed deals, players are always holding out for more money and receiving extensions for years and dollars they'll never see. In Major League Baseball, the trend has turned toward young stars signing with their teams at sliding rates that take them through their arbitration years and, potentially, their first years of free agency. This is as close to what Burke considered a mid-level deal as we will ever see in sports again.
The second issue I have with Burke's blaming of Lowe is that the CBA has pretty much gotten rid of the need for mid-level contracts. Players don't hit free agency until they're 31 years old, by which time they've proven their worth. Very rarely is the case where a team doesn't know what it's getting. As for younger players who would normally be receiving these mid-level deals, that's a different issue entirely. If the player wants to continually prove his worth, thereby driving up his salary, and the team doesn't want to commit to a long-term deal worth big bucks, they can go to arbitration each year. While a player can only request arbitration after his fourth year, it occasionally takes that long for a player to develop; any player who is dominant right away is locked up as soon as possible.
So, to recap...
- Every other sport has done away with mid-level deals.
- Restricted free agents with four years service time can go to arbitration each year if they choose.
- Teams who have excellent restricted free agents are wise to sign them to long-term deals at market value.
Let's look at how Burke himself handled the case of Corey Perry. Perry is a former first-round draft pick, turned 23 in May, and scored 29 goals and had 108 penalty minutes in just his second full NHL season. Surely, someone was going to give him an offer sheet if the Ducks didn't do something. So what happened? Burke signed him to a five-year deal worth $5.25 million per season. That's less than what many of the big-name free agents received; it's half of what Vancouver reportedly offered Mats Sundin. In other words, Burke should thank his lucky stars that he gets to keep Perry for what may be five years of elite production. Sure, he'd rather pay less for that production, but that's the way the NHL is these days.
And the reason for that, of course, is the ridiculous deals given to unrestricted free agents.
We haven't discussed unrestricted free agents yet, and that's because they're the catalyst behind this whole entire thing. The trickle-down effect is unmistakable. Every time a Cliff Fletcher pays $3.5 million a year for Jeff Finger, every other defenseman of his ilk is going to want the same money. That's what drives salaries up, and as much as the GMs complain, they are the ones to blame.
A common cry in the lead-up to July 1st has been, "What was the lockout for?". Personally, I'm at a loss for words on this one. Coming off the lockout in 2005, the salary cap for each team was $39 million. The upcoming season's salary floor will be $40 million. Now, the NHL was smart to link the salary cap to league revenues, but it's not working. Too many teams are forced to put money into bad players just to hit the floor. Also, too many teams find themselves with too much cap room and make the wrong choices. This doesn't even begin to mention the nature of competitive bidding, which is presumably how Wade Redden is making $6.5 million a year to play for the Rangers.
And this is where it gets ugly. Let's use Redden as an example of how a big deal can ultimately ruin a player's career. It's fairly certain that Wade Redden did not request $6.5 million a year from the New York Rangers. However, given the cap room they had and the needs they had, they felt it was necessary to overpay in order to get their player. So, now, Redden has this huge deal, and with that huge deal comes pressure. The fans and media are going to be all over this guy if he doesn't perform at a superhuman level for the next six years. Same with Jeff Finger in Toronto. Nobody's going to turn down the money these guys were offered, but at the same time, their lives are going to get a whole lot complicated as a result of receiving it.
Getting back to mid-level contracts, they're not given because they simply don't exist anymore. Instead, they've been replaced by inflated salaries that aren't earned, just given out because GMs aren't being rescued from themselves. As much as I want to see the NHL succeed, I'm looking forward to the year when the cap doesn't increase; in fact, I'd love to see it decrease, just to see some accountability for all this spending. The GMs in the NHL have taken the most perfect salary system in sports and destroyed it. Instead of blaming each other for it, they need to look in the mirror and realize what they've done - preferably before we need another work stoppage to correct it.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Revisiting the DP Deal
Word out of Tampa Bay is that the Lightning are on the verge of completing a "lifetime" deal with Vincent Lecavalier. It's supposed to be a nine-year deal to finish out Lecavalier's playing career, followed up by some kind of coaching or front-office job for Lecavalier's golden years. Not a bad idea; Lecavalier certainly is deserving of a big contract and has proven his worth to the Lightning for many years. Good job, guys.
Now can we finally leave Charles Wang alone?
Seriously. The Alexei Yashin deal, we'll ignore for the time being. Not because it wasn't an awful deal (it was), but because it was signed nearly seven years ago. More relevant to the Lecavalier signing is the Rick DiPietro deal from 2006, a deal that was criticized by pretty much everybody. The whole thing was a bit dubious, what with Wang handling the negotiations with DiPietro's agent directly, but the deal isn't nearly as bad as it was made out to be. DiPietro is making $4.25 million a year; he'd get significantly more than that as a free agent. His contract might look bad after year ten or so, but for the seven seasons between then and now, the Islanders will have DiPietro at or below market value.
But the real proof is in the emulation of this deal. Mike Richards for twelve years. Alexander Ovechkin for ten years. Now, Lecavalier for nine. Was Wang really that crazy after all?
I say he wasn't, and it's not because I'm an Islander fan. You need stability in goal to be a good team; look at the Flyers' teams over the past decade for proof of that. Besides, goalies don't take the pounding of average players and so are more durable. If DiPietro's hip troubles don't prove to be chronic, the Isles got themselves a great deal for much of the contract's duration. And the Ovechkin and Lecavalier deals will prove to be just as beneficial for Washington and Tampa Bay respectively.
In these uncertain times, the NHL is heading down a familiar path of fiscal responsibility. Although the salary cap was intended to curtail overspending, teams are tempted more than ever to spend on free agents since the cap is rising each year. Worse, the floor isn't rising with it, so the same economic disparities we became accustomed to around the turn of the century will be back before we know it. It's these long-term deals that may be the best deals of all. Who would you rather have on your team - a 26-year-old DiPietro on the verge of becoming an elite goalie, with thirteen more years at $4.25 per, or a washed-up and untradeable Bryan McCabe? Sort of makes you wonder which GMs are really the smartest.
Now can we finally leave Charles Wang alone?
Seriously. The Alexei Yashin deal, we'll ignore for the time being. Not because it wasn't an awful deal (it was), but because it was signed nearly seven years ago. More relevant to the Lecavalier signing is the Rick DiPietro deal from 2006, a deal that was criticized by pretty much everybody. The whole thing was a bit dubious, what with Wang handling the negotiations with DiPietro's agent directly, but the deal isn't nearly as bad as it was made out to be. DiPietro is making $4.25 million a year; he'd get significantly more than that as a free agent. His contract might look bad after year ten or so, but for the seven seasons between then and now, the Islanders will have DiPietro at or below market value.
But the real proof is in the emulation of this deal. Mike Richards for twelve years. Alexander Ovechkin for ten years. Now, Lecavalier for nine. Was Wang really that crazy after all?
I say he wasn't, and it's not because I'm an Islander fan. You need stability in goal to be a good team; look at the Flyers' teams over the past decade for proof of that. Besides, goalies don't take the pounding of average players and so are more durable. If DiPietro's hip troubles don't prove to be chronic, the Isles got themselves a great deal for much of the contract's duration. And the Ovechkin and Lecavalier deals will prove to be just as beneficial for Washington and Tampa Bay respectively.
In these uncertain times, the NHL is heading down a familiar path of fiscal responsibility. Although the salary cap was intended to curtail overspending, teams are tempted more than ever to spend on free agents since the cap is rising each year. Worse, the floor isn't rising with it, so the same economic disparities we became accustomed to around the turn of the century will be back before we know it. It's these long-term deals that may be the best deals of all. Who would you rather have on your team - a 26-year-old DiPietro on the verge of becoming an elite goalie, with thirteen more years at $4.25 per, or a washed-up and untradeable Bryan McCabe? Sort of makes you wonder which GMs are really the smartest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)