Entry Level Contracts and the "Arbitrary" Slide Rule

One of the more unusual items from Edmonton's 2010 draft class was the number of players eligible to play in the AHL for the 2011/12 season. Ordinarily a team might have 3 or 4 of their 9 players eligible for the AHL the second year after the draft. As it happens, the Oilers have 8 (Hall, Pitlick, Hamilton, Marincin, Martindale, Davidson, Pelss, and Jones) of their 11 2010 draft picks eligible to play in the AHL this coming season. We can be pretty certain that each ofPelss and Jones will be heading back to their teams from last season, and even more certain that Hall will be dressing for the Oilers this coming season.

Early indications would seem to be that Pitlick, Hamilton, and Marincin are, at least tentatively, slated for the AHL next season, based on the fact that they have been signed to their Entry Level Contracts. However, due to the following paragraph, Article 9.1.(d).(i) of the CBA, the "slide rule" appears to only apply to Marincin:

2011 Top 31: 1 - 9

I don't think I actually look at this tier as 9 more or less equal talents, but it does look murky in the middle. I'd be surprised to see Zibanejad, Hamilton, or Murphy go top 3, or Nugent Hopkins, Landeskog, or Larsson go 7-9, but other than that, I don't know where to break this group into tiers.

9 Zibanejad: Sure sounds like he'll go higher than this, I would like to see a bit more offence but if he had it he'd probably jump way up the list, as close as it seems these top 9 are grouped.

8 Murphy: The ultimate high risk/high reward. Craig Button says he sees a Zubov like player. That would work.

7 Hamilton: Very complete sounding player, with more than enough offensive to potentially play on a top pair at some point down the road.

6 Landeskog: I have him sliding just a little bit because I think his offence might be a little shy of the other forwards.

5 Strome: Not much to say here, I don't really understand why he's not generally ranked a little bit higher, but it's so tight I guess it's not that surprising. Very good numbers, young player for the draft, I think he's a bit underrated.

4 Larsson: I sure wish he'd brought more offence this year. I know he's in a men's league,and apparently moved up the depth chart, but it's still a little bit disconcerting.

3 Huberdeau: He had a fantastic season. I'm not sure how much The Memorial Cup plays into a team's evaluation, but it can't have hurt his ranking in this draft.

2 Couturier: I decided there were just too many scouting reports in favour of RNH to ignore. I don't mind abandoning consensus a little bit when it comes to defencemen like Gudbranson since I think those types of D are generally overrated by NHL teams. But, NHL teams are generally pretty good at assessing forwards. Given that, it's fair to ask why I still have Couturier as high as I do. I think his offensive upside is under-appreciated, and if it's really close between the 4 forwards after RNH, he has the best track record.

1 Nugent Hopkins: Interested to see what he looks like in EDM, I will be more surprised if the Oilers pass on Nugent Hopkins than I would have been last year if the Oilers selected Seguin. Fantastic hockey sense.

2011 Top 31: 10 - 24

I have this tier a little bit bigger than most pundits, who generally say the draft drops off around 20. I must say, I'm more comfortable with that assessment having read Dave Shoalts's article, in which Brian Burke suggests he sees it much the same way.


24 Morrow

23 Rattie: Which Rattie is the real one, the guy who seemingly struggled after the arrival of Johansen and Niederreiter, or the guy scoring at a torrid pace before they returned? If Rattie's stats took a dip because the returning players started to receive the PP ice-time that Rattie had been using, he might be undervalued even at this spot.

22 Phillips

21 Beaulieu: I have him a bit lower than most, but within this tier I'm not sure it means all this much. His hockey sense has been questioned, and for me that's a big factor.

20 Siemens*: The perfect argument for a 19 year old draft. How much of his success is due to playing on a powerhouse team with one of the best D in the WHL? I'm not sure, and that's why he's a little lower down the list.

19 Klefbom*

18 Brodin*: Love hockey sense in players, if I rated D as highly as many seem to he'd be higher in my rankings.

17 Puempel

16 Grimaldi: Talk about a tough guy to rank. By the time you get to this point in the draft, you start to have to decide between high risk/high reward vs. lower risk/smaller reward. Grimaldi sounds like he'd be on the higher risk side of the ledger.

15 Scheifele

14 McNeill: Not too much separates McNeill from Scheifele in my rankings. I rate Scheifele just below because I think teams tend to overvalue the U-18's.

13 Oleksiak: This represents a bit of a gamble, but his offensive production in the NCAA is better than one would normally imagine for a 6'7" D.

12 Khokhlachev*: My guess is Khokhlachev won't go this high, and there are sensible reasons to have him lower than this. I'm not sure how relevant the "Russian" factor is, so I'll give it less weight than I'm sure the teams do. He did come over to play in the CHL, so that would seem to suggest he's willing to give the NHL a better chance than some, but one does wonder what his options might look like in two years if he hasn't yet cracked the NHL.

11 Armia

10 Bartschi

2011 Top 31: 25 - 31

One of the problems with doing these lists annually is that I know I'm doing so missing some pieces of information that could cause players to move a fair bit. Player X isn't coach-able, Y will do whatever it takes to make it, Z has some personal problem. I think, for the most part, this stuff doesn't make a big difference as to where each player is ranked, but in the cases where it makes a sizable difference, I'm out of the loop and that's going to hurt the quality of the list. I hope that by nicking the types of players I think NHL organizations generally overvalue, I can post a list that at least makes for interesting conversation, but I do so knowing it's not without its drawbacks.

This year, I'm not going to bother with too many comments on the player's game and style. There are a number of lists detailing that information and I'm sure they do a better job than I would. Instead, I'll write some comments regarding particular players of interest and/or players where my ranking is a little different than the general consensus.

The "Late Birthday" Advantage

I have been meaning to post something about the late birthday advantage for awhile, but I had kind of forgotten about that idea until I read this interesting article over at Oilersnation. Cam Charron's piece looks at the July 1st - Sept 15th players from a slightly different perspective than mine, but it's well worth the read for anyone who's interested in the minutia of draft decision making.

The advantage I'm speaking of doesn't refer to the "more upside" angle*, it refers to an edge which is a result of the current CBA. Currently, teams hold the rights to a drafted player for 7 accrued seasons, or until age 27, whichever comes first. The interesting part, as it relates to the draft, is that "Age" is calculated based on a player's age as of June 30th. What this means for 2011 draftees (any year, really) is that two players who reach the NHL 3 years after their draft could be treated differently with respect to UFA age, depending on their birthday. If Connor Murphy (DOB: March 26, 1993) plays 2 years of college hockey followed by one year in the AHL before joining the NHL at the start of the 2014/15 season, he will be eligible for UFA status July 1, 2020. However, should Duncan Siemens (DOB: September 7, 1993) play 2 years of in the WHL followed by one year in the AHL before joining the NHL at the start of the 2014/15 season, he will be eligible for UFA status July 1, 2021.

The Need for Defensive Depth

Many fans seem to be of the opinion that the Oilers should, or will, draft a defenseman with their 2nd first round pick should they select Nugent Hopkins. I don't share that sentiment, but I thought I would explore the idea that the Oilers "need" to add to their defensive depth chart in this year's draft.

Before the 2010 draft, the defensive depth chart looked something like:

1. Peckham
2. Plante
3. Petry
4. Motin
5. Chorney
6. Hesketh
7. Bigos
   

How Much Rebuilding is Too Much?

In the old CBA, I was a big proponent of the Oilers rebuilding. I believed the Oilers were stuck in a cycle of finishing 7th-10th in the West and weren't likely to have future success without dropping to the bottom for a couple of seasons. Even with that background, I have not been the most vocal fan of the Edmonton rebuild over the past year and a half. I don't doubt that rebuilding can work in this CBA, but I'm less sure it's worth* all the on-ice losing in a CBA that makes it very difficult for a team to keep its core together over the long term.

Daryl Katz was on "Oilers Lunch" a week or two ago and suggested it's a luxury to own a team in such a sophisticated hockey market. As mentioned, I'm generally not an advocate for rebuilding in this CBA, but if a thing's worth doing, it's worth doing "right". Especially if your market is as savvy as Daryl Katz believes, and will continue to support a 30th place team as long as there is the promise of a future contender.

Early 2011 Top 30

With as little as there is to choose between some players, don't be too surprised to see some significant movement between this and my final list. I wouldn't find it terribly surprising if more research between now and the time of the draft sees some players move up and down, especially the players I'm less familiar with.

I have not included any detailed comments here, I'll be saving those for posts leading up to my final list and to the draft itself. That said, if you are curious why I have some players ranked in the positions I do (at this time), ask away and I'll do my best to answer!

Top 30:

1. Couturier
2. Nugent-Hopkins
3. Huberdeau
4. Strome
5. Larsson
6. Landeskog
7. Hamilton
8. Ryan Murphy
9. Bartschi
10. Zibanejad
11. Khokhlachev
12. Grimaldi
13. Phillips
14. Armia
15. Puempel
16. Rattie
17. Beaulieu
18. Scheifele
19. McNeil
20. Morrow
21. Oleksiak
22. Miller
23. Brodin
24. Namestnikov
25. Siemens
26. Rask
27. Prince
28. St. Croix
29. Klefbom
30. Noesen

Leverage, Ryan Nugent-Hopkins, and the Edmonton Oil Kings

While it’s yet to be revealed who the Oilers will select with the 1st overall pick, the name most frequently hinted has been Ryan Nugent Hopkins. Many have suggested that Nugent Hopkins would benefit from another year in the WHL, both to add some size and continue to round out his game before plying his trade in the NHL. I wonder if the Oilers would agree that it's probably in their best interest, should they be planning on selecting and returning Hopkins to the WHL, to find a way to orchestrate a trade of Nugent Hopkins to the Oil Kings from the Rebels? But why would Red Deer entertain the idea of moving their best and most marketable player?

Due to the NHL/CHL agreement, a player Nugent Hopkins's age is not eligible to play in the AHL; he must either be returned to his junior team or stay in the NHL. The Oilers have shown they have no problem with keeping an 18 year old player on the NHL roster, so the idea that Nugent Hopkins won't be returned to junior has surely crossed the minds of Red Deer’s management. Given that information, and assuming the Oilers would ideally like to see Nugent Hopkins playing for the Oil Kings*, I wonder if the Oilers (and Oil Kings) might consider approaching Red Deer management and saying something like:

"We want to control the development of our prospect. We are likely to prefer developing him either at the NHL level, or if we send him back to the WHL, with the Oil Kings as opposed to with the Rebels. That is not us taking a shot at your developmental skills, we just want to do things our way if we can, have more control than we would if he were in Red Deer. So, your can either trade him to the Oil Kings, for something, or take your chances that we'll send him back to Red Deer with the understanding that you are likely to lose him to the NHL for nothing. Your call..."

Changes to the ELC System

One thing has become clear through the vigorous debate surrounding Hall and Paajarvi this season, and that is the need for revision to the ELC system. Setting aside the question of whether there is a need for an ELC system at all in a capped league, what can be done to improve the current system?

Currently, situations can arise where the team would ideally like a player to be in the NHL, but decides to keep them out for contractual reasons. I’m assuming that the player would also rather be in the NHL at 18 or 19, instead of sent back to junior because of the current ELC system. By changing the ELC system for 18 and 19 year old players, both the player and the team can be helped. Eliminating the “slide rule”, and altering the ELC system such that an 18 year old player receives a 5 year ELC, and a 19 year old player receives a 4 year ELC would remove the incentive teams have to send an “NHL ready” player back to junior to massage the contract situation.

In negotiations, it is often important to consider the transaction from the perspective of the opposing party. It’s easy to see why the owners might like to control top rookies for a little bit longer, but the reason this could be a slam dunk is that it is (arguably) in the interests of the majority of players as well. When you want something, and realize the other party is either largely indifferent to, or mildly in favour of, that point of negotiation, often you can find a way to get the issue resolved at a lower cost to yourself than you might have initially thought. It is true that this change would be a further restriction on the earning potential of top end players early in their careers, but I believe the NHLPA would probably accept such a restriction; they’ve had no problem sacrificing the earning power of young players in the past. In fact, they’ve thrown rookies under the bus twice in the past 20 years: by allowing a rookie cap to be implemented, and allowing for further rookie restrictions in the most recent CBA. I would be surprised if many union members were particularly concerned with helping the few 18 and 19 year old players reach RFA status one or two years earlier than they would by sticking with the current system, if it were something the owners requested. After all, every dollar the rookies are denied is a dollar for everyone else, due to linkage.

For that matter, I don’t think the owners would have much of a problem convincing the players to remove the “7 years service” requirement for UFA status, which would change the UFA requirements to be a flat age 27 for all players. For a large majority of union members, the 7 year clause has no relevance so there’s no reason for them to get too concerned about keeping it for the small number of players that benefit from the “7 years service” rule.

So, if I'm the owners heading into the next CBA negotiation, I don't think I would have overly strong opposition if I were to ask for those changes to the ELC system, and that minor change to UFA qualifications.

Western Conference Projections

Having tackled the Eastern conference, it is time to move on to the West. Again, division winners are noted by an asterisk.

1. Vancouver Canucks* - Art Ross winner, very deep group of defencemen, one of the best goalies in the league. A nice combination, in (at least arguably) the weakest division would seem to be a recipe for a great regular season.
2. San Jose Sharks* - I suppose it’s possible the Kings could pass them, but I need to see it before I’m confident enough to put them ahead of a regular season juggernaut like the Sharks.
3. Detroit Red Wings* - Everyone’s rested and healthy, Hudler’s back to add some depth. I wouldn’t count on another couple of 70 point seasons from Datsyuk and Zetterberg. The question is Howard, in my mind.
4. Chicago Blackhawks – They’ve lost some depth, but the young core should still be improving.
5. Los Angeles Kings – I look at the Kings as a pretty good bet to make the playoffs, but they’ve got a bunch of young players so they could take a leap forward or a slight step back. So I’ll split the difference and project them as the 5th team in the West
6. Nashville Predators – this team is consistently underrated by many, myself included. But they’ve got good goaltending, a good D core, and a solid if not spectacular forward core. Looks like a playoff team, or failing that a team that’s close.
7. Calgary Flames - I’m not nearly as pessimistic about this team as most. I don’t think they’ll challenge Vancouver, but I’d be surprised if they fall down the standings like some, barring injuries to Iginla, Bouwmeester and/or Kiprusoff. Then again, maybe I should be given the current injury problems?
8. Anaheim Ducks – The defence might be a bit weak, but they’ve got a good goalie and pretty decent forwards. PP of Getzlaf, Perry, Ryan, Selanne, and Visnovsky should be very good. Can that carry a team through the regular season?
9. Phoenix Coyotes – I need to see it again before I believe it, as far being a slam dunk for the playoffs. Their goaltending might regress a little, and with LA coming on, we’ll see.
10. St. Louis Blues – Halak seems like he might be an upgrade, but a look at last year’s stats suggests this team already had pretty good goaltending, so I’m not sure they’ll get quite the boost some might think, even if Halak is a 0.920 sv% goalie, unless the rest of the roster performs better.
11. Colorado Avalanche – Like many, I expect this team to step back a little bit, but I don’t expect them to slip all the way back to the lottery.
12. Minnesota Wild – Not too much to say, but they don’t look quite as raw as the three teams remaining, and would appear to have better goaltending provided BAckstrom stays healthy.
13. Dallas Stars – None of the three remaining teams have very good defences, on paper. Dal probably has the best forwards.
14. Edmonton Oilers – I had a difficult time deciding between Edmonton and Columbus. Ultimately, my tiebreaker is that I project the NW to be an easier division. They could shoot quite a bit higher if a couple of the rookies are better than I’m expecting.
15. Columbus Blue Jackets – I don’t really like having them this low, because I think they've certainly got the potential to be better than last. But, someone has to be. I’m not sure what to expect out of Mason.

Eastern Conference Projections

On paper I think the teams group, loosely, from 1-2, 3-7, 8-12, 13-15. Obviously it’s highly unlikely that’s how it will turn out, but I do think there is a bigger divide to start the year between 7 and 8 than between 5 and 6, or 9 and 10, or 14 and 15. Division Winners are noted by an asterisk.

1. Washington Capitals* - I don’t think they’ll be quite as dominant this season as last, but still good enough to win the Eastern conference.
2. New Jersey Devils* -Superior depth should help them edge out the Penguins, who I think will be second in this division. I’m not sure that, on paper, the Capitals are better than the Devils, but the Devils have a more difficult looking schedule so I’ll give the regular season edge to Washington.
3. Boston Bruins* - I see the NE as being a relatively tight division, but I like the Bruins depth at forward, provided Savard returns at some point.
4. Pittsburgh Penguins – It’ll be interesting to see what kind of numbers Comrie and Kunitz are able to post this season. Maybe it’s not surprising given the importance of goaltending, but to win the division I think they’ll need a great year out of Fleury.
5. Buffalo Sabres - somehow I ended up with both Pominville and Vanek in my draft, so consider this pick a reach if you will. I don’t think Miller projects to be as good as last season, but I also expect more (perhaps erroneously) out of some of BUF’s forwards
6. Ottawa Senators –incredible PP potential in Ottawa this season, with the addition of Gonchar and the potential maturation of Erik Karlsson, along with Spezza, Alfredsson, and the mercurial Kovalev. I would rank them ahead of Buffalo were it not for the difference in projected quality of goaltending.
7. Philadelphia Flyers – The goaltending is a bit of a concern, but I suppose it’s not impossible that they make a trade relatively early if the goaltending is a problem.
8. Tampa Bay Lightning – I don’t know that I see them as a markedly better team than those in this tier, but I like what Yzerman’s done so I’ll project them as the last playoff team. Kind of surprised Pouliot didn’t crack the team.
9. Montreal Canadiens – Price will be one to watch this year. I’m also curious to see Eller and Subban, MON might be a fun team to watch this season.
10. New York Rangers – If Gaborik’s groin acts up, this team could fall pretty sharply.
11. Carolina Hurricanes – Not much to say with this team, hopefully for Carolina guys like Skinner and Boychuk can step up because the forward depth isn’t looking all that great past Staal and maybe Jussi Jokinen.
12. Toronto Maple Leafs – How many games will Kadri play this season? I’ll go with 48.
13. Atlanta Thrashers – Not really sure who’s going to score the goals for this team.
14. New York Islanders – At least another year until this team pushes for the playoffs, especially with Streit and Okposo out for awhile. I think it’s “flip a coin” territory between NYI and FLA for last in the East, I went with FLA because I’m not sure what team looks like if/once Vokoun is traded, and I think that trade comes as soon as Tallon gets what he think is a decent offer.
15. Florida Panthers – I think this team could surprise depending on Vokoun, but I also think if Vokoun is keeping them from falling right into the basement, Tallon may try to move him earlier than the deadline to ensure FLA finishes with a top 3 pick again this season.

What to do with Paajarvi and Hall?

Over the past couple days, there have been numerous articles discussing the potential demotions of Hall to the OHL, and Paajarvi to the AHL, in an effort to maximize the value of their ELC’s. It’s fair to say that, in general, I tend to be a believer that 18 and 19 year old players should be demoted barring the situation where they can be a true contributor to a team. That said, it’s not hard to see why this is potentially a pretty complicated issue for a GM; there are many angles to consider: Is the player’s development likely to be better, or worse, at the NHL level when compared to the alternative? Can the player still learn more at a lower level while retaining the ELC year? What is the current quality of the team? Can the player help improve a team? Is it in the team’s best interest to start this player now, or one (or two) years later? Does the team risk damaging its relationship with the player if they demote a “clearly ready” player? Is that risk worth delaying the contract? Do you need the player around to sell tickets?

I don’t know the answer to all these questions, though I have my opinions. I think if the Oilers had handled this a bit differently over the summer, they would be in a better position to frame a potential demotion. They never really came out and said something like “We’re happy to keep Hall and Paajarvi at the NHL level provided they can be positive, two-way contributors to our line-up. If they aren’t ready to play 16-18 minutes a night, we don’t think it will hurt Hall to go back to Windsor for a year and shift to C, or hurt Paajarvi to play in Sweden or the AHL for another year to improve the weaker areas of his game.” On the other hand, were they able to retain/sell 1,500-2,000 season tickets, by pushing the hype, the rebuild, and the “new direction”, that they wouldn’t have been able to otherwise sell? If so, at $100 a seat, you’re looking at something like $6 – 8 million they’d have been without, PLUS they then have to try to generate new season ticket holders, which most people would agree is harder to do than retaining the ones you already have. It’s easy to see the hockey argument for sending these players out, but teams aren’t necessarily run with hockey matters as the only consideration.

I think the argument that you might get a more team-friendly deal with a player that starts in the NHL at 18, instead of at 20, is with, at least some, merit. It’s true that the agent might advise the player not to sign a long term deal, but for a lot of people there’s value in certainty. If Taylor Hall starts this year and posts 40, 50 and 60 point seasons on his ELC, ending at age 20, he could conceivably have hit very few of his performance bonuses, let’s say 800 K-1.3 mil. That would put the player at $3.5-4 mil in salary earned over 3 seasons. Sure, it’s a lot of money, but a player would have to be pretty confident in his future ability to turn down roughly $25 mil in a 6 year deal. What if he stagnates, or regresses? What about injury risk? Is it that hard to imagine a player willing to trade some future earning potential for the certainty of $25,000,000 now? If he continues progressing and becomes a superstar, he’ll be a UFA again at 28 and can make his mint at that time. Yes, it’s speculation. No, we don’t know what sort of long term deal Gagner would have been willing to sign this summer. Would he have been willing to sign the sort of long-term deal Tyler had proposed earlier this summer? I don’t know, but I have to think it’s more likely he would than if he had started in the NHL during the 09/10 season and posted 55-60 points during years 2-3 of his ELC (which would have been the upcoming 2010/11 and 2011/12 seasons) than the ~45 point seasons he actually recorded during seasons 2 and 3 of his ELC.

What is the Plan? A Prelude

Over the next week or so, I’ll be posting a two or three part series titled “What is the Plan?”, trying to discover exactly what Edmonton is trying to accomplish this coming season. I had planned to have the first part posted earlier this week, but decided to wait upon hearing Edmonton’s GM was going to be appearing on “Oilers Lunch”, with host Bob Stauffer. That interview occurred yesterday, with Bob having Steve Tambellini on for an 18 minute interview, always a welcome event for ravenous Oilers fans looking for tidbits of additional information regarding the team. The entire interview is worth a listen, but being the self-important guy I am, I was most interested with a question near the end of the interview, since it (sort of) came from me. Bob was kind enough to ask a question paraphrased from an e-mail I had sent earlier in the day, and I thank him for that.

Bob paraphrased (1) my question as follows:

"How do you, do you have goals for this season coming up? And is there a concern that maybe goals for this season might be short term when you've got a long term vision planned for the organization?"

Tambellini’s response was:

"No, I think that you have to be aggressive and the fact that we were obviously, we've made numerous changes on and off the ice, and I really believe this has just, this has given the organization a chance to start again. And, will we be young in some places? Yes. Do we want to make the playoffs? Absolutely, that should be your goal every year. So, our goals are to be better at developing, more consistently obviously throughout the year, and we're going to demand a lot more of our people. And young people are going to be put into spots that maybe they will not be ready for, but maybe they will be by Christmastime. It's going to be exciting. I kind of wish it was a little closer to the start of camp, but I guess maybe I should relax and just wait."

Pining for Pisani

Yesterday, Fernando Pisani signed with the Chicago Blackhawks, crushing the (perhaps unwarranted?) hopes of many, myself included, that would see Pisani return for another season with the Oilers. Other than a need for change, it’s kind of hard to figure out why management wouldn’t have re-signed him. He seemed like a great fit for many of Edmonton’s current needs at forward. Pisani is able to kill penalties, would improve the RW depth, and provide a veteran who can handle top opposition players. Further, he’s a player that, by all accounts, is well liked and considered a good teammate - he doesn’t really seem like someone management might consider a locker room problem.

I think it would be hard to argue he’s not a better player than some of Edmonton’s current top 14F, so what exactly is going on here? Was he not willing to sign in Edmonton for 700K or so? Or did the Oilers simply decide they didn’t want to have him back? I have a hard time believing he wouldn’t have been willing to play in Edmonton – he’s from here, he’s used to the organization. If the Oilers offer him $700,000 on a one year, one way deal on August 1st, I’d have been kind of surprised if Pisani passed on it given the apparent lack of interest in him on the UFA market. But, maybe he felt he’d be able to get the type of deal he did from someone, so no rush to sign that hypothetical offer from Edmonton?

What Counts as "Circumvention"?

According to the arbitration decision arbitrated by Richard I. Bloch, it was the position of the NHL that the last 6 years of the voided Kovalchuk deal constituted a circumvention of the salary cap, even though according to the letter of the CBA there was no single part of the contract that specifically contradicted the agreement. This is interesting, to me, as it might suggest the NHL was arguably more worried about the structure of the deal than it was with the length. What I mean is, they specifically mention the last 6 years, not just the 2 years that takes this deal beyond the Hossa contract. The arbitrator noted that all the factors (length, structure, NMC/NTC) combined to allow him to reject the deal, but in reading the document it seemed to me that the structure was his biggest problem with the deal. I could be mistaken on that, but that was my sense in reading the decision.

The NHL may be able to pick and choose what they pursue as far as circumvention goes, going forward. I'm not exactly sure what they will, or even should, do as far as somewhat similar contracts like those mentioned in footnote 23 of the brief, but it doesn't feel quite "right", to me, to allow the Savard deal after having pointed out that it wasn't only the last year or two of the Kovalchuk deal that bothered you, but the last six years.

I’m also interested in exactly how “competitive fairness” or “competitive balance” factors into circumvention - I don’t know how I feel about Bloch potentially opening that Pandora’s Box. Who is to judge which cap manipulating manoeuvres qualify as “circumvention”, and which ones don’t, if contracts that act in opposition to “competitive balance” and reduce a player’s cap hit are deemed to be circumvention? If a player and team agree to sign a contract for far less than market value in an effort to give the team more cap room, does this represent “circumvention”? Suppose it’s a certainty that the other 29 teams would have offered Sidney Crosby a max contract if he went RFA in the summer of 2008. Does that mean, based on the NHL’s rationale - with which the arbitrator apparently agreed, Crosby and the Penguins are both equally guilty of cap circumvention since they signed Crosby for less than his market worth in an effort to “artificially” create more cap room for the Penguins to fill out their roster?

Are teams guilty of circumventing the salary cap when they send a waiver-ineligible player on an ELC to the AHL 30 times in a season to avoid having their full salary count against the cap? Sure, that team might have followed the letter of the CBA by moving a player between the AHL and NHL 50+ times in a season, as they have that right under the current waiver system., but why did they do it? I think it’s reasonable to suggest they did so with the intention of reducing their cap hit, keeping them below an upper limit they would have otherwise exceeded. Is this not somewhat analogous to the NHL’s position with Kovalchuk? That they followed the letter of the law, but they did so while trying to game/circumvent the upper limit of the Salary Cap?

What other moves affecting "competitive balance" could be looked at as circumvention in this way? Does the Malakhov trade count as an "artificial" reduction meant to circumvent the Upper Limit?

The Art of Negotiation

Last summer, I wrote a brief post mildly lamenting a small overpay I felt the Oilers made with Jason Strudwick, and instead of re-posting the thing I've chosen to save a bit of time by providing a link here.

I guess I just don't understand this sort of deal. I'm not sure why management gives a raise to this type of player. Was it REALLY necessary to give Strudwick a $25,000 raise to retain his services for next season? I'm not in the Oilers room, or Strudwick's agent, but I have a hard time seeing which other NHL team would have even given him a one-way contract, nevermind a raise to $725,000. He played the 10th most TOI per game among Edmonton defencemen last season. Admittedly, one could make an argument that he was more like 8th in ATOI, since the Johnson/Staois and Whitney/Visnovsky pairings were never on the team at the same time. Even given that, why did the 8th defenceman on the worst team in the league deserve a raise?

Maybe I'm way off in assuming the Oilers could have signed Strudwick for $500,000 as a UFA, or signed Jacques for $550,000 and Deslauriers for $700,000 on one-way deals if they had declined to qualify both players and looked to re-sign them as UFA's. Or used their leverage with Dubnyk to get him signed for $700,000, given that he had no guarantee of a one way contract, Khabibulin and Deslauriers (in this hypothetical) ahead of him on one-way deals, and isn't a stone cold lock to get picked up on waivers this fall. But that represents a real savings of $690,000, and it seems to me that money that could be better used than giving end of the roster players slight overpays that don't seem particularly likely to generate enough goodwill to influence potential future contract negotiations. Better used for things like signing a couple college free agents, hiring more scouts, signing higher quality AHL veterans, or incremental money that could be used to sign a UFA F or D this summer for 2.2 mil instead of 1.5 mil, with an eye towards getting a better quality player that can be flipped for a 2nd at the deadline.

Creating Your Own Problem & The Return Of The Three Headed Monster?

It sounds like the Oilers have come to terms on a two year deal with goaltender Devan Dubnyk, on a one way deal with a cap hit around $800,000 per season. IF the Oilers have decided Dubnyk is their guy, a two year deal is not unreasonable since it can potentially help the Oilers avoid a Group VI free agency with Dubnyk in the event he doesn't play enough games this season (like Schneider in VAN). That said, there are two problems with the deal in my opinion: the yearly amount, and the timing of this deal.

The main problem here is you've created a favorable comparable in arbitration for Deslauriers. If I'm JDD's agent, I don't think I need to work very hard to show that (a) Edmonton thinks Deslauriers is better, since they gave him the majority of starts last year after Khabibulin went down and (b) Deslauriers had a better performance last season than Dubnyk, by whatever measure you want to use (Wins, starts, SV%, SO) in the best environment possible for a direct comparison - the same team. His agent has another decent comparable in the aforementioned Schneider, a goalie with 10 career starts that was given a one way deal at $900,000 for the 2010/11 season.

The other problem I have with this deal is that $0.8 million is more than the Oilers probably should have needed to spend to get Dubnyk under contract for two seasons. Dubnyk and his agent have surely seen the market - there are a lot of goalies available for nothing. Yes, it's possible he could be claimed on waivers this fall if EDM were to send him down, but it's not a certainty. You'd think management would have been able to leverage that uncertainty to get Dubnyk to take a lower wage than $800,000 for the certainty of a one way deal, but perhaps his wage suggests that both parties feel his value around the league is higher than I imagine it to be?

As noted at the fantastic CopperNBlue, it's not impossible that the arbitrator listens to one of the strangers hearings imaginable, in that the Oilers might be arguing for a higher award so they'll be able to walk away, while Deslauriers seeks an award just below the amount required for Edmonton to have walk-away rights. CopperNBlue suggests that somewhere around $1.3 million is the line above which the Oilers could theoretically walk away from Deslauriers, and I, more or less, agree. If anything, I think the magic number might be more like $1.4 million. That would be right around the salary of another potential comparable, Jonas Gustavsson. So, if Deslauriers is awarded a salary above the walk away point, the Oilers might be able to get out of this problem unscathed, but it would seem to be an unintentional "victory" - if the Oilers were worried about this possibility, you'd think they'd have either (a) not qualified Deslauriers, and tried to sign him as a UFA afterwards if they wanted him back, on their own terms or (b) waited to sign Dubnyk until they find out exactly what happens with Deslauriers.

One reason that many suggested as a possible rational for the decision to not qualify Potulny was the unwillingness to get stuck with an arbitration award that was perceived to be worth more than Potulny could negotiate on the open market. I have no idea if that's why the Oilers decided against qualifying Potulny (and perhaps Pouliot), but if that was part of their reasoning, I don't see why they wouldn't have extended that reasoning to include Deslauriers, and chosen not to qualify him either. Presumably the Oilers knew two weeks ago that Dubnyk was in their future plans, there is/was no reason to get stuck with a ~ $1.1 million contract for a goalie you don't really want when you can just sign a comparable replacement on the UFA market for $0.6 million if you develop a need for another goaltender.

So, it wouldn't be terribly shocking, if after Deslauriers' arbitration hearing in a couple of weeks, the Oilers have the following three goalies on one way contracts:

Khabibulin - 3.75 mil
Dubnyk - 0.8 mil
Deslauriers - 1.1 mil

2010 Draft Top 40: 18-40

18) Etem
19) Pysyk
20) Howden
21) Schwartz
22) Sheahan
23) Pitlick
24) Merrill
25) Weal
26) McIlrath
27) Tinordi
28) Nelson
29) Coyle
30) Toffoli
31) McFarland
32) Faulk
33) Bennett
34) McKegg
35) Galiev
36) Pickard
37) Petrovic
38) Kabanov
39) Spooner
40) Marincin

2010 Draft Top 40: 11- 17

I never mentioned why I put an * beside both Johansen and Niederreiter in the 3-10 list, so I'll mention here that the * refers to a player with a "late birthday" (in this year's draft, those born between July 1st, 1992 and Sept 15th, 1992), who in my opinion can carry a bit of extra value over a roughly equivalent prospect that doesn't have a late birthday, since the team can theoretically have that player play his 20 year old season in the AHL while controlling his rights for 7 years before he hits UFA status, while a player with an "early birthday" (a first year eligible player born before July 1, 1992) would be down to 6 years of controlled rights before hitting UFA. This doesn't matter too much earlier in the draft, when you might project a player to be ready for the NHL less than 3 years after the draft, but for the longer term prospects, the extra year down the line can't hurt.

2010 rankings: 11-17

11) Jeff Skinner - There's a lot there, hard to believe THN has him at 25 OV while RLR has him as the 5th best F and ISS at 9 OV; that's a lot of variation for a guy that early that plays in the OHL, you'd expect that more from a Russian, for example. Skating would appear to be a concern, but that's an awful lot of production to ignore once you get past pick 10 or so, IMO.

12) Jack Campbell - I agree with YKOil, this goalie appears to be a better prospect than the top goalies the past couple seasons. I hesitate a bit having him even this high, but I think most of the "sure things" are gone by this point already; he's probably worth the risk and time invested in a goalie at this point.

13) Derek Forbort - He kind of reminds me of Oliver Ekman-Larsson when I read about him, not sure how accurate that is having never seen either player pre-draft. Maybe OEL's ceiling was seen to be higher in his draft, although, I have read Redline suggesting that Forbort might have the highest potential of any D in the draft.

14) Evgeny Kuznetsov - really like the sound of this player, I don't actually expect him to go this high.

15) Alex Burmistrov - It's one thing to expect a player to put on 10-15 lbs post draft. 30 lbs is a different story.

16) Nick Bjugstad* - This is a projection pick, but there's a lot of potential to project. Bjugstad is a late birthday, July 17, 1992, meaning he won't be a UFA until the summer of 2020 instead of 2019 like the majority of his draft class, so a team can be patient with him, leave him in college for 3 years, and see what develops.

17) Austin Watson - This is another projection pick, it really depends how much you take from his time in Peterborough after the move from Windsor. I like the sounds of the player, but am a bit hesitant because, while 20 pts in 10 games is great (22 pts. in 14 games including playoffs), it's a pretty small sample size.


The rest of the top 40 will come in one grouping, I think it's a bit muddy beyond this point. That makes it sound like I think there's a notable difference between 17 and 18, which I guess isn't really the case, but I do think there's a better case for Watson to go nearer the front of this group than the players who will follow him.