A Different Course of Action: Part 2 - Moves to Keep

Maybe the best way to start this post is to say that I didn't love this summer for the Oilers, particularly the decisions on defense. I cannot recall a roster position where I disagreed more with Edmonton's transactions than the defense this past summer.  We will see by the end, but my guess is there would probably be only two or three of the same D between the group the Oilers chose and the group I probably would have tried to assemble.

Having said that, even amongst the fans more skeptical of Oilers management, there were three forwards most were in favor of Edmonton having signed - those being Zach Hyman, Ryan Nugent Hopkins, and Derek Ryan. The Ryan deal I have no issues with; a quality player at a reasonable rate. With Hyman and Nugent Hopkins, I would rather have seen EDM pay them more per year for a shorter term. Without question, from the outside looking in it is impossible to assess if that were possible, however, there is more than enough information to suggest I am more allergic to term with late 20s/early 30s players than is Holland.

Keeping those 3 signings leaves a depth chart and cap situation as follows: 

I have removed the Neal cap hit to reflect his buyout. In Hollands position I would have been very aggressive in trying to find a trade prior to a buyout, or working a deal with SEA. It is again impossible to evaluate what could have been done here, we simply don't have enough information, so this is a move to keep for purposes of this exercise. 

A Different Course of Action: Introduction and Part 1 - The Clean Slate

Some loved the moves, some hated them; there were many opinions of the transactions this past summer by Ken Holland and the Edmonton Oilers. Most fans were probably somewhere in between, picking and choosing among the signings and trades.

This series of quick posts will attempt to unwind the clock, keeping moves that are (in my opinion) reasonable enough gambles, followed by hypothetical player transactions varying in perceived degree of plausibility.

The first post exists simply to set the stage, stepping back to the time just prior to the Shore and Nugent Hopkins signings.

 

 

The cap hit for James Neal is a number used to reconstruct what would have been his cap hit had Edmonton not bought him out this summer.

For ease in the construction of the roster, I have Stalock and Klefbom on the team even though the Oilers were probably thinking there was a decent chance both would be on LTIR. As it turns out, Archibald ended up on LTIR as well, but management wouldn't have had reason to suspect that would be the case in June.

NEXT: Part 2 - Moves to Keep

 

 

The Draisaitl Contract: Part 2b - A Bridge Deal and Cap Management

In addition to more time for player evaluation, a bridge contract would give Edmonton salary cap flexibility they wouldn't have with a long term contract for Draisaitl. Before we get to some of the aspects of cap management to consider, we should take a quick look at what might constitute a reasonable* bridge contract for Draisaitl.

The Draisaitl Contract: Part 2a - A Bridge Deal and Player Evaluation

A long term deal, or a bridge contract?  In answering that question for Draisaitl, the Oilers will have a few factors to consider.  Throughout this series of posts I will look at some of the advantages and disadvantages of each, concluding with my preference (from the outside looking in) were I in Edmonton's position. 

Player Evaluation

Given his age, we know from the outset this contract will be based on projection.  Draisaitl is a young player, steadily improving (hopefully, for both the Oilers and Draisaitl himself). He's not playing at an MVP-level like McDavid already, nor is he (likely) going to be paid like one. The advantage of a bridge contract, from an evaluation standpoint, is having the time to answer any lingering questions about Draisaitl's ability to carry a line by himself. We can debate the extent to which Draisaitl benefited from playing with McDavid, but I've yet to hear the argument that he didn't benefit. The Oilers are in an unusual situation with five RFA years for Draisaitl; gathering more information wouldn't hurt the Oilers prior to signing a longer term contract. The issue at hand is the cost of acquiring that information, should the team decline to sign Draisaitl long term this summer. Part of the difficulty in evaluating this situation from the outside looking in is that we are working with incomplete information.  Presumably, if Draisaitl were willing to sign Scheifele or Monahan's deal, the contract would already be done.  Some speculation puts the number to sign long term around 9M AAV. For argument's sake, let's assume it would actually take 64M over 8 years (8M AAV) to get Draisaitl to sign long term this summer. Forwards in the NHL are largely paid on offensive production.  If Draisaitl, at C during even strength behind McDavid, posts solid, but lesser, numbers the next two seasons, it's unlikely the Oilers would have to pay a significant premium (if any) when compared to the current long term cost*; they could potentially even sign him for less long term than it would cost today. If he produces notably more than expected in that role, and Edmonton has to pay him 9M, even 10M, vs. his cost today, maybe that is perfectly fine?  Yes, they'd be paying somewhat more than if they'd have signed him long term this summer, but (a) they'd be more sure what Draisaitl is on his own, (b) they'd have gained a cap benefit in the short term (much more detail to follow on the cap benefits in Part 2b) and (c) if they get him signed for 8 years 2 years from now, they would have him under contract until 32, instead of until 30.

The Draisaitl Contract: Part 1 - The "Percentage of the Cap" Argument

In the build up towards Connor McDavid signing his 8 year, $100M contract extension, much has made of McDavid's "percentage of the cap", and how it compares to Crosby's when he signed his post-ELC deal*. While I understand the temptation to look at this situation from that perspective, I don't love the "percentage of the cap" argument, even for McDavid. The idea behind it makes some sense, in theory.  However, in practice, looking at a percentage from 10 years ago is only an appropriate comparison if the general league wide allocation of salaries is the same.  Since Crosby's post ELC contract was signed, the cap has increased faster than the salaries of the highest paid players, as expressed by a percentage of the cap, which in my opinion means that a straight across comparison of percentage wouldn't capture the changing league dynamics.

How Much Leverage Should the Flames Exert?

Drafting a player as good as Johnny Gaudreau in the 4th round is like finding a $100 bill in your winter coat when the weather turns.  Hard to believe, and even harder to believe how happy you are when it happens.  There was some angst and consternation for Flames fans during the "Will he/won't he sign an ELC?" saga that was early-2014, but eventually he did sign with the Flames.  He scored a goal in his first and only game of the 2013/14 season, and was pretty prolific in the final 2 years of his ELC.  Fantastic for the Flames, and for Gaudreau.  But, now it is time for the next contract, and negotations haven't gone as smoothly as a Flames fan might have hoped.

Johnny Gaudreau is in a somewhat unusual position for a player who has finished his ELC, in that he's not eligible for an offer sheet.  The CBA requires a player his age to have "3 years professional experience", and Gaudreau does not due to his 1 game pro season in 2013/14 not qualifying* as "a year of professional service".  With no arbitration rights and no opportunity to sign an offer sheet, he has no way to leverage himself a deal outside of "holding out".  Certainly there is an amount of leverage there, but it's not the same as going to arbitration, or signing an offer sheet with another club.  Calgary, on the other hand, might think to themselves "You know, we've got a ton of leverage here.  We can theoretically say to Gaudreau ' Here are your options.  A 1 yr deal at your QO, or an 8 year deal at 6.75M.  You can hold out if you want, but we're not moving and if you don't sign this year, you're in the exact same situation next summer.  Do you really want to go play in Russia for a couple years just to be in the same place?'"

Are they going to overtly state this to Gaudreau's camp?  Probably not - if I were in Treliving's position, I wouldn't count on such a statement to not create hard feelings.  Besides, there is no real need to be explicit; they know it, Gaudreau's representation is almost certainly aware of it as well.  A reminder probably only agitates the situation at this point; perhaps they feel differently if he's still unsigned on November 15th.

So what do the Flames want to do?  The difference between 6.75M and 8M on an 8 year deal is 10M - not the kind the money a businessman would necessarily want to spend on goodwill, particularly if they don't think their offer is unfair, and don't think Gaudreau has a significantly better alternative.  I wonder if the Flames and Gaudreau look at a one year deal?  The Flames get another year of relatively cheap information before they commit long term, and Gaudreau would have a stronger bargaining position going forward.  The Flames would also then have the opportunity to trade for, or sign a guy like Rakell** to an offer sheet, a RH F that would fit well with CGY, while fitting under the cap.  When Gaudreau gets a big pay bump in 17/18, they'll have cleared a bunch of cap space via Smid/Engelland/Wideman (~11.7M) to make room for Gaudreau's raise.  Is it worth having to deal with the potential of a somewhat higher cap hit for Gaudreau in 17/18 if there is a chance to get a player like Rakell signed long term? Or are they better off trying to get a good long term deal now, while they hold relatively more negotiating clout?  Tough questions, and it will be interesting to see how the Flames handle this situation.

* The CBA also defines a year of "professional experience" as a year played under an SPC, which as I understand it would mean that if Gaudreau went to Europe to play this season, he still wouldn't be eligible for arbitration or an offer sheet next summer.

** Or maybe Trouba, with the recent news of his trade request becoming public.

Potential Offer Sheet Target - Seth Jones

Offer Sheets.

Arguably the most underutilized way for an NHL GM to acquire players.

At this point, I'm sure many are tired of hearing me talk about the lack of offer sheets in the NHL, and my surprise that we don't see more of them. That said, I think there are a confluence of factors this summer that may increase the chances we see an offer sheet, perhaps even involving the Oilers. The UFA pool is lacking in top end RH D, and with a few of the more obvious trade options seemingly, potentially, falling away in the past few days (Hamonic, Barrie, Vatanen), there aren't a lot of quality options for Peter Chiarelli.  There are, however, a few teams with promising RFA RH defencemen that might be attractive for a team to acquire via offer sheet, for one reason or another.  Ideally a team might prefer to acquire them via trade, but if a deal can't be made, it's not impossible a team looks at the more rare option of an offer sheet.  All of Jones, Dumba, Lindholm (LH D, but good enough to be under consideration anyways), Barrie and Trouba are players who may be good acquisitions for the Oilers in the right circumstance, but I'm going to focus on Seth Jones for this article as he probably fits best in terms of being a player of interest to the Oilers while also being part of a team in an unenviable cap situation.