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.

Performance Bonuses and Their Impact on Edmonton's Deadline Transactions

This past summer, I wrote an article about the cap consequences of the Reinhart trade.  I thought it might be worth taking a look at how things have played out to this point for the players with bonuses, and how that might impact Chiarelli's thought process heading into the trade deadline.  Now, without seeing the actual contracts it's difficult to know exactly which bonuses each player is eligible for, and exactly what the triggers are, but I'll list the bonuses it looks like each player has a reasonable chance at hitting.  It's not impossible that others could be hit, but this is a look at those more seemingly attainable at this point in time.

Klefbom - max 350K in performance bonuses:  He has a very good chance at hitting the TOI/game threshold provided he gets healthy enough to play in 42 games this year, and a half decent chance to achieve either of the plus minus bonus or the 0.49 points per game bonus. Could potentially max out his 350K, depending which bonuses he's eligible for.

Nurse - max 850K: Has a reasonable chance at plus minus bonuses and TOI.  I don't think he would be voted for the all rookie team ahead of Gostisbehere or Parayko. Maybe 425K?

Reinhart - max 2.35M:  He is unlikely to receive any performance bonuses.

McDavid - max 2.85M and Draisaitl - max 2.475M:  Both of these players are grouped together as they have pretty similar outlooks relating to their bonuses.  Both McDavid and Draisaitl look reasonably well positioned to achieve 3 or 4 of their Schedule A bonus triggers, with 4 likely hitting the limit of their 850K .  The Schedule B bonuses are of particular interest.  The only bonus that either player looks like they have a chance at hitting is top 10 in points per game among forwards BUT both have a decent chance.  There is a minimum of 42 GP required, so McDavid in particular has to stay healthy, but McDavid is currently 2nd among forwards in points per game. Draisaitl is 12th and only 0.01 points per game behind 10th (Hall, interestingly enough).  It's possible both could hit all their bonuses, which would be 5.325M combined.

There is a reasonable chance 6.1M in bonuses could be earned between the five players.  So what does that mean?  Well, that means the Oilers are looking at the potential for a significant overage penalty on their 2016/17 cap.  According to general fanager, the Oilers are ~2.8M below the cap at the moment, so assuming that to be accurate, that nothing changes on the roster, and that those 6.1M in bonuses are indeed achieved, the Oilers would have a performance bonus overage of ~3.3M for the 2016/17 season.  I would argue it doesn't make a lot of sense to keep an unlikely playoff team together if it results in carrying an overage penalty forward into a potential playoff season, so I think it would be a good course of action to dump as much money as they can prior to the deadline to avoid as much of that potential as possible*.

In terms of the deadline, the two players seemingly most likely to be on the potential trading block (making significant money) are Schultz and Purcell.  It sounds like Edmonton will look to move Schultz, and assuming no money is retained that will save them some money against the salary cap. There has been some talk of keeping Purcell and signing him to a new contract for less money.  In a vacuum I don't think that's a horrible idea, but the potential of a bonus overage charge changes the picture.  It's not just choosing between keeping/re-signing Purcell and trading Purcell for a pick.  If the Oilers move Purcell now, it probably saves them something like 1.3M against the cap, so keeping him and re-signing him for 2M (not a given he'd sign that, but let's assume he does for the sake of argument) might have an effective cost of 3.3M factoring in the potential bonus overage penalty that could have been reduced by moving him at the deadline.  I think that means the best approach would be to move both Schultz and Purcell by the deadline. The earlier they are moved, the more cap space saved, and while retaining money to improve the quality of pick might ordinarily make some sense, I don't see that as being the best option here if either/both player can be moved without retaining salary, even if the quality of return is somewhat reduced.

* It would also save some money to carry 7 defensemen instead of 8. The combination of extra playing and development time in the minors with some cap space saved probably makes it prudent to demote either Nurse or Reinhart.

If money has to be retained in Purcell and Schultz trades, the Oilers might well choose to look at moving other players in addition to those two, at least partially in an effort to reduce potential bonus overages.

Cap Consequences of the Reinhart Trade

Ordinarily, it is an enormous positive for a cap team to have a number of players on Entry Level Contracts (ELC), as their relatively small salaries give the team an opportunity to spend more money elsewhere on the roster.  However, an issue arises when a team has a number of players on an ELC with significant performance bonuses.  Teams are only allowed to exceed the cap via performance bonuses by a maximum of 7.5% of the Upper Limit, which for the 2015/16 salary cap of 71.4M works out to a 5.355M maximum. The combined bonuses for Nurse (0.85M), Reinhart (2.35M), Draisaitl (2.475M), Klefbom (0.35M), and McDavid, not signed yet, but assuming a max deal (2.85M) total 8.875M.  So what does that mean?  In a nutshell, should the Oilers start the year with all five of those players on the roster, the team will have an effective salary cap of 67.88M in order to preserve the required room for bonuses.¹

 A few thoughts:

• The impact this has on Edmonton's summer plans is hard to know, but it may have repercussions for free agent spending.

• This is a not really an issue if both Reinhart and Draisaitl are in the minors, as the remaining bonuses wouldn't exceed the overage.  If one of them is in the minors at any given time, the Oilers would exceed the overage maximum, but only by about 1M instead of ~3.5M if both are in the NHL.

• We don't know exactly what Marincin will cost, but for the sake of argument let's say he signs a one year deal for the same money as Reinhart.  In comparing the cap hits head to head, we might ordinarily say they cost the same, while noting that Reinhart has bonuses available that could result in a higher cap hit for the current year if Edmonton were not at the cap, or a cap penalty the following year, if achieved, were the Oilers at the cap - the overage talked about earlier.  However, assuming Edmonton would have already used all their overage room on the other four players, Reinhart carries an effective cap hit of the combined 3.21M vs. the 0.86M of Marincin. That is not the case if Draisaitl and Nurse, for example, are in the AHL - only if the bonus overage has already been exceeded.

• There is a consideration for Draisaitl that does not exist for Reinhart.  If Edmonton leaves either Reinhart or Draisaitl in the AHL all year, an ELC year would be burned.  However, with Draisaitl, a year in the AHL vs. a year in the NHL results in him being a UFA in 2023 instead of 2022; Reinhart's UFA status is not impacted by whether or not he plays in the NHL.  When you combine that with Draisaitl having an effective cap hit of 3.4M (again, assuming the bonus overage is already maxed out), is it that hard to argue that Edmonton would be better off to sign a UFA W for 2.5M, save some cap space, save a year towards UFA status for Draisaitl, and let him play a full year as the #1C in the AHL?

• For 2016/17, the Oilers would need to remain 3.17M under the cap² once Klefbom's bonuses are off the books, with the potential for a bigger number if other players with bonuses were to crack the roster (for example, Slepyshev).

I don't want to get too far into the weeds here, regarding things like LTIR consequences and "impossible to earn" bonuses - perhaps that will be something to look at as the summer progresses and we get a better sense of any UFA's EDM has added, any trades/buy-outs, the contracts/cap numbers of any RFA's. But the quick takeaway is that the Oilers may not have as much money to spend in free agency as some might have hoped, or been expecting, depending on the number of players with significant ELC bonuses on the roster.

¹ The calculations, to the dollar, are pretty complicated and beyond the scope of this article, but what it means, more or less, is that EDM has to stay at least 3.52M below the cap this year if all these players are on the roster.

² This assumes that the 2016/17 cap is identical to the 2015/16 cap.  If the cap increases, so does the size of the bonus cushion.

 

Front-Loading Ference's Contract?

The structure of Ference's contract has yet to be released, but I would not be surprised to discover that the Oilers frontloaded the contract to the fullest extent possible, so as to increase Ference's "tradeability" in the later years, should they so desire.  If everything goes to plan three years from now, both Klefbom and Nurse will be in the NHL, and along with Smid still under contract, it very well could be the case that Ference would fit outside Edmonton's top 6D.  In that case, front-loading Ference's contract could increase his appeal to an acquiring team for the 2016/17 season.

Trading Down From The 7th Overall Pick

Moving down in the draft is viewed with trepidation by some Oilers fans, probably largely related to the Parise/Pouliot move at the 2003 draft. I would argue that trading back can be a reasonable way to extract value, particularly when the player a team likes, and would select at their original position, would still be available at a later position.  But given that this is the last time (hopefully) in a while for Edmonton to select a player with a somewhat high probability of being a cornerstone player, it makes sense to me that the Oilers use that opportunity to select whomever of Monahan, Lindholm, or Nichushkin remains.  They already have two 2nd round picks to build depth within the system, and if they feel they need even more depth, they could always trade down next year at a time where they are less likely to be giving up an impact player by doing so (assuming they draft 10th-18th or so next season).

If Colorado Is Willing To Trade The #1 Overall Pick, How About This?

There has been a bit of chatter today hinting that the Avalanche may be willing to move their 1st overall pick.  Who knows how seriously they might look at that option, but if they do, I wonder if they might consider the following deal:

Trading Up From The 7th Overall Pick

Not unlike the build up to most Entry Drafts, it seems as though many Oilers fans are clamoring for the team's management to trade up.  The only time I can remember the Oilers trading up in the first round was the 2007 draft, when Edmonton traded the 30th (Nick Ross) and 36th (Joel Gistedt) picks to Phoenix in exchange for the 21st pick (Riley Nash).  Even though the Oilers haven't moved up all that often in the past, I do think it's reasonable to wonder if Edmonton's at least a little more likely to move up this year based on one of GM MacTavish's answers regarding the upcoming 7th overall pick, given during a season ticket holder's conference call (transcription from that conference call courtesy Dan Tencer).

Our wish list in the draft would be to draft a centerman and/or a defenseman with that pick in that area. The higher end centermen, not to divulge too much about where we're ranking players, but if you look at the public rankings like Red Line or Central Scouting, there are really three very high end centermen available in this draft. Nathan MacKinnon from Halifax, Monahan from Ottawa and also Barkov, who played in the Finnish men's league. I think that those three centermen, relative to some of the public rankings, we would finish just out of the realm of getting one of those three centermen if we didn't move up.

Valeri Nichushkin

Like many Oilers fans, I was checking the reverse standings daily near the end of the season to see where the Oilers might be slotted to pick in the 2013 Entry Draft.  At the conclusion of the season (and after the lottery had no impact on Edmonton's selection), the Oilers were slated to choose 7th, a rather fortunate position in my mind since many observers of the draft, myself included, have surmised there to be a tier of 7 prospects at the top of this year's draft.  Well, "a tier" is probably the wrong way to put it; most seem to have it organized as a group of 3 followed by another group of 4, or 4/5 players followed by 3/2 players.  That group of 7 includes Jones, Drouin, and MacKinnon, who are generally seen as the top 3, followed by some order of C Barkov, C Monahan, C/W Lindholm, and W Nichushkin*.  In any case, picking 7th assures that Edmonton will receive one of the players in this "top tier", should they view the draft in the same manner.  I would argue that the most likely group of players to be selected in the top 6 is Jones, Drouin, MacKinnon, Barkov, Lindholm and Monahan.  That isn't to be confused with a guess that it's more likely than not those 6 players will in fact be the first 6 drafted - maybe they will be, or maybe they won't, I'm only guessing the aforementioned group of 6 players more likely to be the first selected than any other single group of 6 players.  I would be a bit surprised to see another player crack the top 6, but at the same time it isn't unusual to see a surprise or two near the top of the draft, like Hickey in 2007, or Fowler, Couturier, and Forsberg sliding in 2010, 2011, and 2012, respectively.  If that group of 6 is in fact selected as the top 6, it would leave Nichushkin for the Oilers**.  The problem, if you want to call it that, is that some of the circumstances surrounding both the Oilers and Nichushkin might conspire to move him down Edmonton's list.  I'm going to attempt to make the case that, in spite of those potential pitfalls, it would be in Edmonton's best interest to draft Nichushkin if he is the player left available from that group of seven, "warts" and all.

An Interim Solution?

It is unclear just how much dialogue might take place between the NHL and NHLPA prior to September 15th, now that both sides have planted their flags with their initial proposals. I'm sure both Fehr and Bettman would like to use their plan as the basis for further negotiation; we'll see how that goes. Maybe we'll see some sort of hybrid if a deal gets done by October? Something along the lines of no rollback, no change to HRR definition, 54% of revenue to the players in year one with that cap number fixed afterwards until such time as 51% of HRR would result in a higher cap number?

I'm not really expecting to see a deal prior to September 15th, but I have been wondering if there might be a way to play out the 2012/13 season while negotiations continue. The two sides are really only arguing about the money sandwiched between the owners proposal of ~43% (with current HRR definition) and the 57% the players are willing to play for. So, why not lock that 14% of revenue into an escrow account, to be distributed once a deal is made? Keep negotiating throughout the season and actually play the games. In this theoretical agreement**, the teams would continue to pay all the salary currently due to their players, but only ~75% of it would actually go the players - the remainder going into the newly created escrow account, to be dealt with upon the creation of a new CBA.

The Nashville Decision

“The day you say you have to do something, you’re screwed. Because you are going to make a bad deal. You can always recover from the player you didn’t sign. You may never recover from the player you signed at the wrong price.”
Billy Beane in Moneyball

While it's true that I'm generally an advocate for offer sheets, it's not hard to feel a little sympathy for the Nashville Predators. Building a winning franchise as a budget team cannot be easy; to lose both Suter and Weber in the same summer would have been a pretty bitter pill to swallow for David Poile. That said, retaining a player beyond the point that makes financial sense, simply because he's "your" property, is not necessarily a prudent position to take as the architect of a club. Losing Weber obviously wouldn't have been ideal, but in this case I think it would be less negative than matching Philadelphia's offer sheet.

2012 Top 30, and Some General Draft Thoughts

As I continue to make these lists, year after year, I get less comfortable with my final rankings. I haven't really decided if that's a good thing or a bad thing. I'm particularly uncomfortable with my list this year - I'm the guy that made it and I'm not sure how much weight I put behind it. This draft is defense heavy, which always makes me nervous; it can be difficult to differentiate between D based on the descriptions available. Additionally, there were numerous injuries and that never helps.

Making a list is an interesting process to me. Being tasked with creating the list doesn't require one to be a great scout - you don't really need to be a scout at all*. The list is all about compiling, evaluating, and assimilating information. As the quality of your information improves, hopefully the quality of your list will improve in turn. For the most part, I think the publicly available information gives us a fairly good picture of a player. The other information that teams gather can potentially be invaluable, and in those cases makes a big difference vs. the generally available information. There is no doubt that, lacking that information, the quality of this list suffers. At the same time, there is generally a tendency in life to overvalue bits of (assumed?) exclusive information. If a team thinks they have unearthed something about a player that no one else has, there may be a tendency to put more weight behind that tidbit than is truly warranted.

Summarizing The Schultz Situation

If you're as interested in the technical, contractual side of hockey as I am, it's not uncommon to become a little exasperated in exploring some of the minutia surrounding the NHL's CBA. Justin Schultz's situation presents one such case where reading the relevant sections of the CBA doesn't fully explain Schultz's impending UFA status. There seems to be an understanding as to why Anaheim loses Schultz's rights, but it's less clear exactly why he avoids draft re-entry only to become a UFA on July 1st. I'll try to provide an overview of the issues involved, and if I'm missing some, feel free to help me flesh this out in the comments.

Consistency and Fairness

I was a bit disappointed today to see Jeff Petry assigned to the AHL. Just my opinion, but I thought he's played well enough to deserve regular time in the top 6D for the Oilers, at this point.

That said, I also have no problem understanding the argument that playing 25 min per game in the minors, with significant PP and PK time, does more to develop his long term potential than does 12-14 minutes per game at the NHL level, with little special teams time. I don't know if that is the case, but if it is, it seems like a sensible approach to developing your players.

The problem comes if and when you handle different players differently, because I'm sure players want to feel the organization is being fair, and not playing favorites. If you are looking more towards development than you are to wins, is there just as good an argument for demoting Lander and Paajarvi as there is for Petry? Could both of those players see their long term development assisted by first line PP and PK minutes at the AHL level?

I have a similar position when it comes to the "RNH back to junior" debate. I was of the opinion last year that Hall should probably have been sent back to junior at the 9 game mark, and maybe I was right, maybe I was wrong, who knows? But to me the team has to be consistent, in that if you gave Hall a chance to make the team, provided he can contribute, it's only fair to do the same with Nugent Hopkins. That isn't to say that if the team goals change, the decision can't change; I wouldn't have found it indefensible to have sent Hall back to junior last year, even if he was one of the 12 best forwards, provided you thought development was paramount*, and then keep RNH the following season if the overriding goal that year was to make the playoffs and you were of the opinion that keeping RNH helped you do that.

Obviously there are a lot of different variables in play here, and that makes comparing Petry's situation to that of Lander/Omark/Paajarvi somewhat difficult, but if you were Jeff Petry, might you wonder just why you were sent down and those guys weren't? If the argument is that Petry simply was the 8th best D, well, that's a different story, but I'm not sure that's the argument here.


* And assuming you thought development would have been better served by another season in the OHL.

Managing Martindale

While it's true that Edmonton's selections from the 2010 draft class are looking promising at the moment, that promise loses its meaning if you are unable to get the players under contract. So far the Oilers have signed Hall, Pitlick, Marincin, and Hamilton, the first four picks from the 2010 Oilers draft class - no small feat. However, there are still a few players the Oilers will probably look to keep within the organization, and most of them need to be signed by June 1, 2012 for the Oilers to retain them. Of those players, and for a few reasons, Ryan Martindale is probably the one most important to sign at this moment. The Oilers might really like to have Bunz and Blain under contract, but since neither is AHL eligible nor is either going to play in the NHL to start the season, there is no pressing need to sign the player.

Based on his age, Martindale is AHL eligible, and based on his performance (both last season and thus far at camp) I think one could make a case he's worth serious consideration at the AHL level this season, as opposed to a fifth season in the OHL. The carrot the Oilers can dangle to Martindale, to convince him to sign, is to have him play in the AHL in 2011/12, making 60-70K, instead of nearly nothing in junior, along with burning a year from his entry level contract. If he’s assigned to junior, unsigned, those carrots are gone, and the Oilers lose some leverage because they can offer no immediately tangible reason for Martindale as it affects his play for the 11/12 season. The fact that they didn’t sign him in the fall would have demonstrated to him that he’s a ways down the depth chart, so why would he sign with EDM when he could go back into the draft, potentially go higher, and hopefully go to a team with less forward prospect depth that he’d have to battle for future NHL employment?

It's true that the Oilers could sign Martindale even after they assign him to the OHL, but I think the Oilers would be taking a pretty serious risk by allowing him to return, unsigned, to junior.

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.