NHL Realignment

So with this being a topic again, I think I figured out the best possible scenario – not ideal but with 30 teams nothing will be ideal for a four-division/conference scenario. And things would have to be re-worked slightly if say another team moved to the Greater Toronto Area from another city. Expansion to 32 teams would also require some tweaks but would make things easier.

But with 30 teams. Going to 4 conferences with playoffs within the conferences is inherently unfair since two would have 7 teams and two would have 8. To alleviate that, you’d have to pair two divisions into one conference. You could still guarantee that the top 3 teams in each division make the playoffs but the final two spots can come from either division. If a 5th place team makes it, that team plays in the sub-bracket with the division with only 3 teams that qualified.

Example:

Conference X has two Divisions (A and B)

Teams that qualify:

A1

A2

A3

A4

A5

B1

B2

B3

The first round would see the following playoff match-ups

Series 1: A1 vs A4

Series 2: A2 vs A3

Series 3: B1 vs A5

Series 4: B2 vs B3

Second Round

Series 1 winner vs Series 2 winner

Series 3 winner vs Series 4 winner

If four teams from each division qualify then it goes intra-division cleanly through the first two rounds.

That said, let me unveil my four divisions:

Division A (8 teams) – Northeast

Boston
Buffalo

Ottawa

Montreal

Toronto

New York Rangers

New York Islanders

New Jersey

Farthest Distance Traveled (I think) – 431 miles Boston to Toronto

Division B or C (7 teams) – Rust Belt/Upper Middle America/Central

Philadelphia

Pittsburgh

Detroit

Columbus

Chicago

Minnesota

Winnipeg

Farthest Distance Traveled (I think) – 1,269 miles Philadelphia to Winnipeg

Division C or B (7 teams) – South

Carolina

Tampa Bay

Florida

Washington

Nasvhille

St. Louis

Dallas

Farthest Distance Traveled (I think) – 1,182 miles Washington to Dallas

Division D (8 teams) – Pacific

Vancouver

Edmonton

Calgary

Colorado

Anaheim

San Jose

Phoenix

Los Angeles

Farthest Distance Traveled (I think) – 1,388 miles Edmonton to Phoenix

Yes that means you could theoretically have a Florida vs. Vancouver first-round playoff series (or something like Philadelphia vs. Vancouver depending on which is Division B and which is C – they’d need better names than that). But the western conference already has teams in all North American continental time zones potentially playing each other in the first round, so that’s not such a complete shock. To minimize travel within the season these divisions probably are best – at least better than anything I’ve seen thus far.

You could make a case when you get to the final four of having Conference X winner play Conference Y winner, but instead, I’d suggest for more excitement two options:

1. A rotation where the divisions that play each other in the final four alternate to mix things up.

2. Re-seed the final four teams based on regular-season record.

Yes this means theoretically two teams from the same division could meet for the Stanley Cup (a fifth-place team would have to make it to the finals for this to happen) but hey – playoffs should be about the two best teams that have made it through three rounds after qualifying for the playoffs competing for the Stanley Cup.

Here’s how 82 games could break down (which also equalizes travel situations and allows teams and star players to be seen all over the league:

For seven-team divisions:

You play everyone in all three other divisions twice (1 home, 1 away) = 46 games

You play everyone in your division six times (3 home, 3 away) = 36 games

That is a perfect 82 game schedule and make travel within division essentially equitable

For eight-team divisions:

You play everyone in all three other divisions twice (1 home, 1 away) = 44 games

You play everyone in your division five times = 35 games

The three remaining games also are played within the division matching teams up into four team rotating pods. So each four teams play an additional three games within the division against each other. = 3 games

That is not quite an ideal 82 game schedule but it’s the best possible solution.

What do you think?

Another CBA Possibility

With players and owners, in essence (even if they can’t see it), willing to go 50-50 starting in year 1, here are a couple of potential compromises to get there while still maintaining the value of current contracts. (For the record I still like my initial plan written about earlier in this blog had it been used for a full season. I’m not sure it would work for a partial season, which is the situation we are now in).

 

The big numbers we need to look at include what the revenue was last year for the league: $3.3 billion

The players were scheduled for 57% of that league-wide revenue: $1.881 billion

A 50% split on $3.3 billion: $1.65 billion

Equivalent pay cut to get from $1.881 billion to $1.65 billion: 12.2%

 

So in reality, to get to an immediate split (and of course we’re still working off a $3.3 billion number that is going to be significantly smaller this year and could be in the next couple of years as the damage from this lockout is likely to have major ripple effects for a few years), players need to take a 12.2% pay cut.

 

Scenario A:

To instantly achieve that paycut, owners use something like a “make whole” provision and immediately defer 12.2% of all existing contracts for whatever length is remaining on the life of all contracts. Essentially every contract is re-written to take a 12.2% pay cut for all the remaining years on the contract and that money is paid out to players in the future. Let’s say that owners don’t probably want to take a one-year hit to pay that all off, so it gets done over the course of a few years. We’ll call it four years of payouts (with no interest, a concession from the players) starting in year three of the new CBA. So in years 3, 4, 5 and 6 of a new CBA, the owners are on the hook to “make whole” the missing 12.2% of any contract that was signed before the new CBA.

All contracts signed prior to the new CBA now are worth 12.2% less when it comes to salary cap accounting purposes. That allows for an easy way to calculate the salary cap each year. It’s a 50-50 split from year one through ideally in my book the 10th and final year of the CBA.

Owners will immediately know their liabilities that they need to fund and can start dedicating resources to fund the “make whole” provision in any form they want. As long as they make the payments, and we’ll call it equal distribution over the four years to make it simple, they are in compliance. Any team found to be late in payments would be docked draft picks, thereby hurting their future earning potential by weakening their crop of young players. When I say draft picks, I mean first- and second-round type picks over multiple years to make it damaging to a team’s prospects. And of course, the legal ramifications of missing payments as players would be able to sue owners to get the money back in court since all current contracts would be re-written to include the “make whole” provisions.

For players with contracts that currently last more than six years, it’s a bonus as they’ll get some money sooner rather than later. That is a concession for the owners in this negotiation and for all the owners that are up in arms about long-term contracts, it’s a back-handed way of penalizing those owners for their signing players to ridiculously long contracts.

A concession for players since some will actually get money paid out sooner, contract length limits will have to be in the new CBA. I think two-year entry level deals are fine. Second contracts cannot be more than six years (getting a player to his first year of free agency, which would come after his eighth year in the league) and all contracts once a player is eligibile for free agency are capped at seven years.

Now for the issue about escrow. We all know league revenues aren’t going to be $3.3 billion this year so players are going to lose money to escrow at very least this season, and I can forsee it happening for multiple seasons as fans really are disgusted and revenue isn’t going to come back as fast as I think many expect on both sides. I would negotiate that escrow gets capped each year on a sliding scale to minimize the damage to players’ salaries that has been incurred but give owners closer to what they want. Revenue is going to be way down in the first year, and both sides should be penalized for not getting a deal sooner.

No cap on escrow in year one and the split is 50-50 fully on whatever revenue the league can salvage in year 1 (which I’m assuming is 2012-13). If they play half a season and revenue is $1.65 billion (doubtful), then players get half of that.

Year 2: Escrow cap at 10%

Year 3: Escrow cap at 8%

Year 4: Escrow cap at 7%

Year 5: Escrow cap at 6%

Years 6-10: Escrow cap at 5%

Oh and one other issue financially that would have to be hammered out and should be altered is the cap limit and floor. They are two wide ranging. In my previous look at the CBA I slowly had them moving. Here I think they should just be tightened immediately. From the get-go, the limit and floor should be $4 million above and below the mid-point. Teams, however, should be allowed to trade some cap space, up to $4 million each season (that would essentially allow teams to still get $8 million above or below the midpoint and be in compliance, which is essentialy what happens now). Players stashed in the AHL or overseas do not count against the cap (concession favoring players), but owners can cut buy out one contract every two years without it affecting the cap (buy out is set at 50% of remaining contract paid immediately).

 

Scenario B:

Instead of a make whole provision, all contracts are held and the league gets to a 50-50 split over time. Basically the league uses the current salary cap as the starting point and the cap does not move until it comes into line with a 50-50 split. So basically if the players are getting $1.881 billion of HRR now, then the salary cap doesn’t move for how ever many years it takes to grow revenue to $3.762 billion. Once it hits that number, the cap moves to ensure a 50-50 split going forward. It’s a simple, clean way to do it. It incentivizes the league and the players to work together to grow the league as fast as it possible can. The faster the growth, the quicker the owners get their 50-50 split and the quicker the players payroll increases.

Cap floor and ceiling stay like I outlined in scenario A ($4 million above and below with the ability to trade cap space). Buyouts and stashing contracts in AHL/Europe similar to scenario A as well. Contract limits are also the same as above.

Escrow would be tricky especially in the early years since revenue won’t be close in year 1 since it will be shortened and it might be a few years to get to 50-50 (i.e. revenue of $3.762 billion). So in year 1 escrow is capped at 25%. The league imposed the lockout and should take the hit if revenue goes down so much that clawing back 25% of this year’s salaries from players still doesn’t get them close to a 50-50 split. Year 2 escrow is 10%. It becomes 5% capped starting in year 3. Again this is just another incentive to grow the game as fast as possible.

 

Scenario C:

It’s basically Scenario B, bu a 50-50 split is imposed starting in year 3 regardless of how close they are to 50-50. That means the cap could go down that year to meet 50-50. If the cap has to decline, owners would be allowed anywhere from one to two free amnesty contract cuts to help comply with the a lower cap. So if the cap dropped less than $5 million, owners would be allowed to cut one player freely and completely before year 3. If the cap drops more than $5 million, they would be allowed to cut two contracts to help comply with the cap. If the 50-50 split is achieved before year 3 it goes into effect then (basically if they can get to it in year 2 – doubtful – it can be imposed in year 2 by natural revenue generation). Once 50-50 is hit (no later than year 3), it remains in effect for the rest of the CBA.

 

So there are three new scenarios to get the owners and players to get a deal done. Here’s hoping they can see something like one of these scenarios when they are brainstorming on their own and be willing to agree to it. If everyone just wants hockey to be playerd, a deal like one of these should be an easy compromise.

 

Additional Notes:
I’ve been outspoken in how I believe this lock out is squarely on the owners shoulders. I mean, by definition a lock out is a choice by owners. I come to this view in for various reasons, not the least of which is the obvious ones about how the owners have been bragging for years about record revenue and the growth of the game and then they want to shut it down or how much money they spent during this past offseason knowing the CBA was expiring and then wanting to immediately try to violate those contracts by cutting their value through “collective bargaining.” Those are certainly some reasons, but I’ve also been in a union (and still am in one now) and know that contracts can be negotiated while employees still work and owners still pay their employees. A lockout is unnecessary in modern, civil society. Once a CBA expires, as long as the two sides are willing to negotiate in good faith then you should still be able to run the business at full and normal capacity while continuing to negotiate a new CBA in meeting rooms outside the place of business. It happens regularly. I know it’s happened with a company I’ve worked at. Why can’t owners take the route that most other companies do and continue to negotiate while not shuttering doors and closing business? It’s disgraceful.

Would Ted Leonsis, as an executive at AOL in his previous life, really shut down AOL in say the late 90s when millions of people around the country used AOL to access the internet because he wanted his employees to make less money? If AOL employees were unionized and a contract was up, would he have endangered one of the biggest internet companies in the world that was growing rapidly just to cut salaries of his employees? My bet is no because it would have destroyed the brand (thereby losing value) and sent customers elsewhere. So why do it now? With this business? No one benefits from a lockout of employees. The Capitals might be losing money each year on an operating basis, but you can’t tell me that the value of the Washington Capitals franchise hasn’t grown immensely since Ted bought the team. Now he’s still losing money and losing value in the franchise. Don’t see how that’s a positive in any way for him.

NHL CBA

I’m wading into the strife that is collective bargaining in the NHL … I don’t really want to, but if everyone else is going to provide their opinions on who to bridge the wide gulf between the stupid owners and the apparently more-than-willing-to-sacrifice a little bit players (bet you can’t tell whose side I’m on) that I might as well throw in my thoughts too. I have a few radical ideas that I think would be great, but in the guise of actually trying to bridge the gap, I think I’ll avoid such suggestions (like relocation and/or contraction being part of the equation because there’s probably less than 0% chance the owners are willing to discuss those topics – which of course are a large, large reason we are here). I will touch on the core issues at stake here as they are likely the hardest to bridge.

So on to it…

1. Length: It’s a 10-year deal. Anything less would just put us in the same spot again too soon for fans to stomach. Labor peace has to be lasting this time. MLB is doing great with it’s no long stretch without a shutdown. As an incentive to players, who are moving closer to the owners’ proposal in this deal, I think the players should have five one-year options to extend the CBA up to another five years. Each of those additional years would follow the same terms in relation to hockey-related revenue splits, salary cap, salary floor, etc. that are seen in year 10 of my proposal.

2. Hockey-related revenues: The definition does not change from what it is right now. It’s already not the full revenues that owners take in, so they are already getting a bit of a bonus from the definition. Greed is unbecoming.

3. Splitting of hockey-related revenues and Salary Cap: The owners have come in at 43-57 in their favor, a near reverse from the current level. The owners also want an immediately 24% rollback. The players have offered a drag on growth that based on projections brings them down to about 54-46 in their favor. That’s not going to work either. The obvious answer is a 50-50 split, but that’s too simple. Why not a hybrid of the two proposals. The players put an artificial drag on salary growth, so as hockey-related revenues continue to increase as they likely will, the players get a bit more money in the first few years and eventually give up a little more than 50% by the time things are all said and done. There is also no immediate rollback on salaries, a win for the players and an acknowledgement by owners that players are giving up more than they want. Here’s the breakdown starting with what is projected for 2012-13.  Under the current CBA with a 57-43 in favor of the players, the salary cap is $70.2 million this year. That will hold for the first year just so teams don’t have to make huge changes before this season. I will project revenue growth will average 7% a year for the 10 years. Don’t forget the cap is currently at $8 million above the midpoint. Here we’ll also be scaling back the upper end over the 10 years to further slow salary growth, which would theoretically benefit the owners.

Year 1:

HRR: $3.27 billion

Players’ Pool: $1.87 billion

Salary Cap: $70.2 million ($8 million above midpoint)

Year 2:

HRR: $3.5 billion

Players’ Pool: 54%, or $1.89 billion

Salary Cap: $71.05 million ($8 million above midpoint)

Year 3:

HRR: $3.75 billion

Players’ Pool: 52%, or $1.95 billion

Salary Cap: $72 million ($7 million above midpoint)

Year 4:

HRR: $4.01 billion

Players’ Pool: 50%, or $2.01 billion

Salary Cap: $73.8 million ($7 million above midpoint)

Year 5:

HRR: $4.29 billion

Players’ Pool: 50%, or $2.15 billion

Salary Cap: $78.5 million ($7 million above midpoint)

Year 6:

HRR: $4.59 billion

Players’ Pool: 50%, or $2.3 billion

Salary Cap: $82.5 million ($6 million above midpoint)

Year 7:

HRR: $4.91 billion

Players’ Pool: 48%, or $2.36 billion

Salary Cap: $84.6 million ($6 million above midpoint)

Year 8:

HRR: $5.26 billion

Players’ Pool: 48%, or $2.5 billion

Salary Cap: $89.1 million ($5 million above midpoint)

Year 9:

HRR: $5.62 billion

Players’ Pool: 48%, or $2.7 billion

Salary Cap: $95 million ($5 million above midpoint)

Year 10:

HRR: $6.02 billion

Players’ Pool: 48%, or $2.89 billion

Salary Cap: $100.3 million ($4 million above midpoint)

4. Salary Floor: The salary floor currently comes up $8 million below the midpoint. If the players really want to help out the owners who are losing money and don’t have any signs of improving elsewhere, lower payrolls costs would be helpful. So we’ll actually slow the increase in the floor as well.

Year 1: $54.2 million ($8 million below midpoint)

Year 2: $55.1 million ($8 million below midpoint)

Year 3: $57 million ($8 million below midpoint)

Year 4: $58.8 million ($8 million below midpoint)

Year 5: $63.5 million ($8 million below midpoint)

Year 6: $67.5 million ($9 million below midpoint)

Year 7: $69.6 million ($9 million below midpoint)

Year 8: $75.1 million ($9 million below midpoint)

Year 9: $80 million ($10 million below midpoint)

Year 10: $86.3 million ($10 million below midpoint)

5. Entry-Level Contracts: They currently last three years. The owners want to extend them to five. Split the difference and call it a four-year deal for first contracts. That helps slow contract growth for young players, a benefit to owners. It also actually means more money for veterans since that money will have to be spent elsewhere.

6. Free Agency: Currently players need seven years of experience or to turn 27 to become unrestricted free agents. The owners are asking in the current round of negotiations for 10 years of experience with no age restriction. Here again, a little compromise goes a long way. How about eight years of experience or the game of 29? That again helps to slow wage growth, which is good for owners. Players still can get a big contract in the prime of their career.

7. Contract Length: Outside of entry-level contracts, the owners now want to cap contracts at five years. That’s too short. First, to help small-market owners, no contract can be front loaded. Yearly payments cannot change materially, say 2% from one season to the next within a contract. Let’s cap the limit of contracts at eight years. That means an all-star player getting a big payday after turning 29 can be signed until his late 30s. Not a bad deal if you can get it.

8. Olympics: The players get to compete in all Olympics. It’s too important to grow the game. The owners should want it to help generate interest, which in turn generates revenue.

9. Buyouts and other cap-clearing loopholes: Teams cannot send a player to the minors or loan him to a European team to remove his cap hit. Teams can buy out a players contract in the similar fashion to they do now, taking a cap hit in the process. Any player on a one-way deal remains a cap hit regardless of where he is playing unless he gets bought out or he goes on injured reserve. That does limit salaries for players, but to help offset that loss for players, LTIR savings can be banked for cap purposes (unlike now) so mid-season acquisitions can be even bigger.

10. Revenue Sharing: The owners need better revenue sharing. So, during the 10 years a lot of that money they players are giving up goes directly into a revenue sharing pot. That money gets re-distributed to lower revenue teams. And there is no restriction by market on who can receive revenue as part of the sharing program. If you simply take the difference between the 57% players are getting now and the percentage they’ll get each year in the future, we are talking about $3.16 billion over 10 years. While that number grows over 10 years, we are going to use that and divide it by 10 and say that $316 million in shared per season. I am amending this part (Aug. 29) because thinking more fully about it, there’s no way that much revenue sharing will happen. What I’ll suggest then is half that money go toward revenue sharing. That’s $158 million a year into a pot to share. This number doesn’t change from year to year. It’s based on projected revenue yes, but it’s set at the beginning of the contract. Owners will have incentive to make sure the game keeps growing at at least 7% just because of the added revenue sharing. The top 15 pay in revenue pay in. The bottom 15 get money. It gets weighted by how much a team brings in above the median revenue or mow much below the median revenue.

At $158 million per year, that’s an average of about $10.5 million per top-15 revenue team per season. That isn’t much at all, on average. Again, it’ll be based on how much above the median revenue a team is to determine how much their share will be. But we’re not talking about about one team having to pay too much. Maybe even there is a cap for the top team and the rest of the sharing from there trickles down based on that. It’s something worth developing further. Plus if the game does grow by 7% a year, then the owners are still pocketing even more money thanks to the rollback in how much money goes to players. And any growth above 7% goes completely to the owners so if they grow the game and push for growth, they get all the profits.

 

Well, that’s my broad, but basic plan for the collective bargaining agreement. I might continue to tweak it or add to it in the future and will note that throughout. Let’s call it a living document. The players are absolutely giving up a whole lot in terms of revenue, but they weren’t going to get that much anyway. Owners get a lot, but also give some up as well. It’s fair and balanced. The owners don’t get their immediate rollback but by the end of the contract are closer to their terms by the end of the contract in terms of revenue split. The owners also get a drag on wage growth with longer term entry-level contracts and a higher threshold to reach free agency. Contract limit lengths also favor the owners. Players get a steady increase in the salary cap each year, still favorable free agency requirements and options to extend the CBA and keep labor strife at bay. They also get the owners to better share revenue, which will help all teams and the players together. Both players and owners … compromise. What a revolutionary thought.

Strasburg Rules

Just a few quick notes on Stephen Strasburg and the impending shut down of his season because of an innings limit set by his team.

 

1. The point of limiting his innings is so he can have an opportunity to help the Nationals win the World Series in the next few years. The problem with this thinking, of course, is that the Nationals are legitimate contenders for the World Series THIS YEAR. If your stated goal is to win the World Series and I’m guessing ownership and management in Washington does indeed state that as a goal to fans, how can you justify shutting down a Cy Young candidate because you want him to pitch for the team in the future with the goal of those future seasons possibly including a World Series title. There is no guarantee that the Nationals will be good enough next year or the year after or the year after that, etc. to get to the World Series. Injuries to other players on the team or another team having a better roster and just being better are always a possibility. This year the Nationals are one of the best teams in baseball and while they are young enough that they could be good for multiple years, next year is no guarantee. So how on earth do you justify shutting down a star pitcher before the season in which you can win the World Series and your goal as an organization is to win a championship because you want to save him for the future so you might be able to win a championship in the future? It’s ridiculous logic. Why not let him pitch this year and see if you can win it all this year? You know actually go out and accomplish the goal now. Too many variables come into play in future seasons … take advantage of what you have in front of you right now because you never know if you’ll be in this position again (even if on paper it looks like you could be).

 

2. Innings limits are flat out stupid. It should be pitches, not innings that mean anything if you are trying to conserve arm strength and avoid injury. If a pitcher can go out and throw seven innings a night and limit himself to 90 pitches an outing and pitch well and his innings limit is say 150 innings. Is that the same as another pitcher also with a 150 innings limit who only averages 6 innings, but throws say 110 pitches per start. You’ll get more starts out of player B in this scenario but he’ll have thrown hundreds of more pitches in the season, and thus added wear and tear on his shoulder compared with player A. I say again, innings limits are flat out stupid.

 

3. If I’m a Nationals fan – and I’m absolutely not – I’m furious that my team has a shot to win the World Series this year and they are going to shut down one of the best pitchers in baseball and not let him help attempt to win a World Series this year all because he’s reached a mythical limit and they want to save him to help the team … wait for it … win a World Series in the future. The future is now Nationals ownership and management. If you don’t win this year and end up never winning a World Series with Strasburg, you’re going to feel like a bunch of fools. Put another way, I don’t buy a Ferrari to store it in my garage so that maybe I won’t have to change the tires or replace a part of the engine for five years instead of three.

Capitals Offseason – Part 6

Here’s what will likely be my final free agency/offseason scenario for the Caps. And let’s face it, I need one scenario with a radical shake up (not quite trading Ovi shake up, but some major moves). The Caps have a new coach, so why not rebuild quite a bit to give the team a different look as well.

Offense

Ovechkin-Ribiero-Hudler ($5 million)

Parentau ($3.25 million)-Backstrom-Ryan ($5.1 million)

Chimera-Laich-Brouwer

Ward-Beagle-Hendricks

Perrault

Defense

Alzner-Carlson ($1.285 million)

Hamrlik-Green ($5.25 million)

Souray ($3.5 million)-Schultz

Erskine

Goalies

Holtby-Neuvirth

TOTAL PAYROLL: $69.8 million, just whiskers below the current cap of $70.2 million

Bobby Ryan ($5.1 million) — I’m forecasting a trade with this one. Bobby Ryan is unhappy in Anaheim and wants out. The Caps desperately need a a top-six winger. Perfet fit, right? Even better is that Ducks coach Bruce Boudreau knows the Caps roster and that could help facilitate a trade. I’m thinking – and this might easily not be enough – but Marcus Johansson (who let’s face it doesn’t have a perfect spot on the Caps right now), Dmitry Orlov and a pair of draft picks (2013 first-round pick and then either a second or third-rounder as well though I’m not sure). That might be sufficient to pull it off. Ryan would be a huge addition and give the Caps two scary lines in this scenario. The third line would be very dangerous as well – this team with this kind of addition (and the others listed) would easily be among the favorites in the Eastern Conference next season.

Jiri Hudler (4 years, $20 million) — $5 million might excessive but in this year with a thin crop of free agents and not many 20 goal scorers to be had, you are simply going to have to overpay. And replacing Alex Semin’s production needs to happen on the second line. Hudler had 25 goals and 25 assists last season and is only 28. He is going to be a hot commodity. And if Ales Hemsky can get $5 million a year, why not Hudler? Overpaying will likely happen even with labor uncertainty looming.

PA Parenteau (4 years, $13 million) – The Caps completely revamp their second line adding Parentau and hoping that a line that include three guys who were around the 20-goal plateau meshes into a brand-new, solid second line. Parentau is still young, but that contract is a huge bump from what he had last year. Looking at some other contracts, Antoine Vermette carries a salary of $3.75 million and I figure Parenteau maybe gets something a bit less since he doesn’t have the experience Vermette had before signing his deal. If that was the Caps second line all of next season, I think I could be perfectly comfortable with that scenario. ADDITION TO THIS NOTE COPIED FROM PREVIOUS POSTS: I’ve read a lot of knocks on him about how he only played well because he played with John Tavares on Long Island. Well, hello?!?! If you put him with any host of all-star caliber centers he should be able to play well then. Pair him with Backstrom, who is absolutely as good as Tavares, if not better.

Matthieu Perrault (1 year, $825,000) — He’s a restricted free agent, so he doesn’t have a lot of room to do anything. It’s a nice raise over last year’s contract after he potted 16 goals and was decent most of the year. He signs on to something above the tender the Caps have to make him and all are happy.

Jay Beagle (2 years, $1.65 million) — I see Beagle and Hendricks as very similar players, so why shouldn’t they have similar contracts? Beagle’s matches the deal Hendricks got. I think that’s the perfect comparison.

John Carlson (2 years, $2.57 million) — Like Beagle’s deal, the Caps don’t have to look past their roster for a comparable contract for John Carlson. He and Karl Alzner are the team’s top pair. Carlson is coming off his entry-level deal just as Alzner was last year. The contracts match. The pair match as the Caps top line defensive pairing. They’ll get there money in a few years. For now, they get matching deals. Eventually Carlson will likely get paid more than Alzner thanks to his better offensive upside.

Mike Green (1 year, $5.25 million) — My previous forecast was for $5 million, but he was tendered for $5.25 million so I’m making that adjustment. I think for Green personally and the team, both are best suited to a one-year deal this year. He proves he’s healthy and can produce offensively again and the team will reward him with a big contract next year.

Sheldon Souray (2 years, $7 million) — Souray proved last season he is still a quaility defenseman in this league. Now he gets rewarded with another decent deal. He is 35 so the deal remains short. But his experience allows him to get one more decent payday. Oh and Dennis Wideman has already proven defensemen are going to get paid big time this summer. Souray is a good fit because you’re going to pair him with Dmitry Orlov – a youngster. Even better, Orlov has already played with Souray so it won’t be as big an adjustment period. Souray played with Orlov when Souray was on loan to Hershey and Orlov came over for his first taste of North American professional hockey a couple of years ago. Seems like a pretty obvious move. As for his salary and how I decided on that. I figured he is a couple years younger than Roman Hamrlik when he signed a similar deal with the Caps, but his offensive production wasn’t quite as high in the season before the deal and his previous base salary was lower. All in all, I call the pros and cons between the two a was and give them a similar contract.

 

Obviously, you could tweak this scenario, mixing and matching some of the players listed here along with others I’ve mentioned. You could drop Parentau from this lineup and sign Aucoin and re-shuffle the lines as you see fit. This scenario clearly is predicated on a huge trade, giving up a couple of young players and some high draft picks for an all-star caliber winger. In the scenario above, you could also mix and match the top six as you see fit, but if the Caps had all the players above on their roster, I would guess that those would be the top six in some form.

 

We’re just a couple of days away from the excitement. Well, it could be exciting for the Caps. Or it could be a snooze fest Sunday. GMGM isn’t — as always — tipping his hand.

Capitals Offseason – Part 5

No need for any introduction, you know what I’m doing here … let’s get to a fresh scenario (Capgeek.com for salary information):

OK, maybe a brief introduction. Why not rearrange the Caps lines so that there are three that are focused highly on offense and then one very defensive, shut-down mode? Oh and maybe Ribiero on the first line with Ovi so they both can get a lot of offensive zone starts and get Backstrom on a second line to spread out the Caps two best players.

 

OK … now on to the scenario:

 

Offense

Ovechkin-Ribiero-Brouwer

Parentau ($3.25 million)-Backstrom-Laich

Chimera-Perrault ($825,000)-Johansson

Hendricks-Beagle ($825,000)-Ward

Aucoin ($512,500)

Defense

Alzner-Carlson ($1.285 million)

Hamrlik-Green ($5.25 million)

Souray ($3.5 million)-Orlov

Erskine-Schultz

Goalies

Holtby-Neuvirth

TOTAL PAYROLL: $62 million. Plenty to add at the trade deadline or protect against a cut in the current cap post-CBA.

PA Parenteau (4 years, $13 million) – The Caps completely revamp their second line adding Parentau and hoping that a line that include three guys who were around the 20-goal plateau meshes into a brand-new, solid second line. Parentau is still young, but that contract is a huge bump from what he had last year. Looking at some other contracts, Antoine Vermette carries a salary of $3.75 million and I figure Parenteau maybe gets something a bit less since he doesn’t have the experience Vermette had before signing his deal. If that was the Caps second line all of next season, I think I could be perfectly comfortable with that scenario. ADDITION TO THIS NOTE COPIED FROM PREVIOUS POSTS: I’ve read a lot of knocks on him about how he only played well because he played with John Tavares on Long Island. Well, hello?!?! If you put him with any host of all-star caliber centers he should be able to play well then. Pair him with Backstrom, who is absolutely as good as Tavares, if not better.

Matthieu Perrault (1 year, $825,000) — He’s a restricted free agent, so he doesn’t have a lot of room to do anything. It’s a nice raise over last year’s contract after he potted 16 goals and was decent most of the year. He signs on to something above the tender the Caps have to make him and all are happy.

Keith Aucoin (1 year, $512,500) — He gets the same amount he made last year with the expectation that he’ll be on the NHL roster more than the AHL roster next year. That’s incentive enough to take another deal with the Caps who seem to like him well enough.

Jay Beagle (2 years, $1.65 million) — I see Beagle and Hendricks as very similar players, so why shouldn’t they have similar contracts? Beagle’s matches the deal Hendricks got. I think that’s the perfect comparison.

John Carlson (2 years, $2.57 million) — Like Beagle’s deal, the Caps don’t have to look past their roster for a comparable contract for John Carlson. He and Karl Alzner are the team’s top pair. Carlson is coming off his entry-level deal just as Alzner was last year. The contracts match. The pair match as the Caps top line defensive pairing. They’ll get there money in a few years. For now, they get matching deals. Eventually Carlson will likely get paid more than Alzner thanks to his better offensive upside.

Mike Green (1 year, $5.25 million) — My previous forecast was for $5 million, but he was tendered for $5.25 million so I’m making that adjustment. I think for Green personally and the team, both are best suited to a one-year deal this year. He proves he’s healthy and can produce offensively again and the team will reward him with a big contract next year.

Sheldon Souray (2 years, $7 million) — Souray proved last season he is still a quaility defenseman in this league. Now he gets rewarded with another decent deal. He is 35 so the deal remains short. But his experience allows him to get one more decent payday. Oh and Dennis Wideman has already proven defensemen are going to get paid big time this summer. Souray is a good fit because you’re going to pair him with Dmitry Orlov – a youngster. Even better, Orlov has already played with Souray so it won’t be as big an adjustment period. Souray played with Orlov when Souray was on loan to Hershey and Orlov came over for his first taste of North American professional hockey a couple of years ago. Seems like a pretty obvious move. As for his salary and how I decided on that. I figured he is a couple years younger than Roman Hamrlik when he signed a similar deal with the Caps, but his offensive production wasn’t quite as high in the season before the deal and his previous base salary was lower. All in all, I call the pros and cons between the two a was and give them a similar contract.

 

Check back in the next couple of days for more scenarios!

Capitals Offseason – Part 4

Before I kick off Part 4 of the long series on the Capitals offseason, I’d like to take a couple of moments to note some recent signings in the leage that I had projected in previous posts over the past month.

In late May in one of my Caps free agency projections, I suggested Shane O’Brien of Colorado as a potential target and to pay him $2 million a year over three years. He has just signed for that exact deal in Colorado. Today, Dennis Wideman’s rights were traded to Calgary and he immediately signed a deal for five years at $5.25 million a year. In an earlier post, I predicted he’d sign a deal for five years at $5.5 million per season. That’s awfully close.

Initial thoughts on Adam Oates as the new coach? I hope he invigorates the offense a lot while still being able to maintain some defensive discipline.
Now to the task at had at looking at another possible free agency scenario for the Caps now that they’ve added Mike Ribiero to the mix s a top-six center. I think this eliminates them from chasing Alex Semin, so I’ll keep him out of some potential scenarios for the next few days. But you never know with George McPhee, he has been known to surprise on the first day of free agency.

 

Anyway, off to the latest scenario (salary numbers, as always thanks to Capgeek.com and where I can, I’ll carry over salary forecasts from previous scenarios):

Offense

Ovechkin-Backstrom-Brouwer

Hudler ($5 million)-Ribiero-Johansson

Chimera-Laich-Ward

Hendricks-Beagle ($825,000)-Perrault ($825,000)

Aucoin ($512,500)

Defense

Alzner-Carlson ($1.285 million)

Hamrlik-Green ($5.25 million)

Schultz-Orlov

Erskine

Goalies

Holtby-Neuvirth

TOTAL PAYROLL: $60.2 million. That gives the Caps plenty of flexibility to deal with a change in the cap following a new CBA and/or to add during the season at the deadline.

Jiri Hudler (4 years, $20 million) — $5 million might excessive but in this year with a thin crop of free agents and not many 20 goal scorers to be had, you are simply going to have to overpay. And replacing Alex Semin’s production needs to happen on the second line. Hudler had 25 goals and 25 assists last season and is only 28. He is going to be a hot commodity. And if Ales Hemsky can get $5 million a year, why not Hudler? Overpaying will likely happen even with labor uncertainty looming.

Matthieu Perrault (1 year, $825,000) — He’s a restricted free agent, so he doesn’t have a lot of room to do anything. It’s a nice raise over last year’s contract after he potted 16 goals and was decent most of the year. He signs on to something above the tender the Caps have to make him and all are happy.

Keith Aucoin (1 year, $512,500) — He gets the same amount he made last year with the expectation that he’ll be on the NHL roster more than the AHL roster next year. That’s incentive enough to take another deal with the Caps who seem to like him well enough.

Jay Beagle (2 years, $1.65 million) — I see Beagle and Hendricks as very similar players, so why shouldn’t they have similar contracts? Beagle’s matches the deal Hendricks got. I think that’s the perfect comparison.

John Carlson (2 years, $2.57 million) — Like Beagle’s deal, the Caps don’t have to look past their roster for a comparable contract for John Carlson. He and Karl Alzner are the team’s top pair. Carlson is coming off his entry-level deal just as Alzner was last year. The contracts match. The pair match as the Caps top line defensive pairing. They’ll get there money in a few years. For now, they get matching deals. Eventually Carlson will likely get paid more than Alzner thanks to his better offensive upside.

Mike Green (1 year, $5.25 million) — My previous forecast was for $5 million, but he was tendered for $5.25 million so I’m making that adjustment. I think for Green personally and the team, both are best suited to a one-year deal this year. He proves he’s healthy and can produce offensively again and the team will reward him with a big contract next year.