Trades and Signings

[glen a richter]

I think if Davis had been given more time and been able to lead the transition to a younger roster, things would have been very different. It just boggles the mind how the only difference they want from one head coach to the next is personality. If the system stinks, the system stinks. It doesn't matter if Hitch had the personality of a wet paper towel and Yeo is more of a players coach, the system is still the same flawed system. For me, the parallel is with the Jets going from boisterous windbag and defensive minded Rex Ryan to cool, calm and collected defensive minded Todd Bowles. You can dramatically change the personality of the coach, but again it doesn't mean a damn thing if they're promoting the same system that didn't work before.

What really bugs the shit out of me is that they continue to draft these guys who should help the offense take a big tick upward, but don't hire a coach to match the players. If you want a defensive minded team, draft accordingly and let guys like Tarasenko and Schwartz play somewhere else for a coach they can thrive under. For what it's worth, I think Schwartz's development was stunted horribly. His stats should be way better than they are. I see guys like Kyrou and Thompson getting completely and utterly effed because of Yeo. I hope if (when) we have another first or second round flame out this season, Yeo is sent packing and we finally get to see an offensive minded coach behind the bench. Either that or Yeo's assistants (specifically Berube) get to take charge of the offense and Yeo is neutered in that sense.

[theohall]

To get a different style coach, we need a different GM, because he is too comfortable hiring the "known" and not patient enough with what he doesn't know when it isn't working as quick as he wants.

[Kerfuffle]

you guys surprised at all with the Shattenkirk signing by the NY Rangers? I was surprised he only got 4 years - thought he would have gotten 7 from other teams as he was the prized D-man this offseason.

[glen a richter]

Not surprised at all. Shattenkirk grew up a Rangers fan and is living out his dream. If I were a well compensated pro athlete, I'd do the same thing to play for my childhood team.

[theohall]

you guys surprised at all with the Shattenkirk signing by the NY Rangers? I was surprised he only got 4 years - thought he would have gotten 7 from other teams as he was the prized D-man this offseason.

Not really surprised either. There is also the consideration he doesn't play defense that well, already, outside of the offensive side. In 4 years, he's 32 which means getting slower and that will hurt the strongest part of his game. And like glen said - choosing to play for the team you want sometimes means taking less than you could get elsewhere. This is actually becoming more common among UFAs in the NHL and the NBA (holy crap, I knew something about the National Boring Association).

[glen a richter]

A couple of coach signings, both great moves in my opinion.

Rangers lock up Lindy Ruff as an assistant coach--I'm shocked he couldn't get a HC position elsewhere, but that'll do wonders for the Rags offense.

Kings hire Pierre Turgeon as an "offensive coordinator".

[theohall]

Kings hire Pierre Turgeon as an "offensive coordinator".

Turgeon is basically stepping into the role Davis Payne filled as an associate coach with the Kings the past 5 years. They just officially changed the title.

[Toasted Oates]

you guys surprised at all with the Shattenkirk signing by the NY Rangers? I was surprised he only got 4 years - thought he would have gotten 7 from other teams as he was the prized D-man this offseason.

It was reported that he nixed a sign and trade with Tampa that would have given him the years you suggest. At that point, it was kind of set in stone: back home to NY.

A couple years ago he scored a shootout winner @ MSG and the roar was pretty stunning. He has quite a contingency of family and friends over there. Putting myself in his shoes, I can see why he'd take less money to play in that building full time.

[glen a richter]

I would have preferred Jagr on a 1 year deal than anyone Armstrong signed this offseason. Oh well.

[WaukeeBlues]

you guys surprised at all with the Shattenkirk signing by the NY Rangers? I was surprised he only got 4 years - thought he would have gotten 7 from other teams as he was the prized D-man this offseason.

Yea as others have said he really wanted to play in New York and its been known for years. As far as only the four year term that's reportedly what the Rangers (wisely) were prepared to give him and nothing more. Ironically, one of the top defenseman free agents found himself in a position of little bargaining power as he basically had it written on his forehead in all caps "I WANT TO PLAY WITH THE RANGERS"

[Kerfuffle]

Yea as others have said he really wanted to play in New York and its been known for years. As far as only the four year term that's reportedly what the Rangers (wisely) were prepared to give him and nothing more. Ironically, one of the top defenseman free agents found himself in a position of little bargaining power as he basically had it written on his forehead in all caps "I WANT TO PLAY WITH THE RANGERS"

Yeah I didn't know he had basically excluded himself to one team - dumb move - lost all negotiating power. When I heard he got 4 years I was like 'why didn't my Blackhawks sign him then?' I would have taken him in a heartbeat. I had just assumed he was automatically getting 7 wherever he went.

[cardsfan04]

I wasn't surprised he want to NY, but I was a little surprised it was only 4 years. I still think he's a little overpaid, but I figured he'd get 7 years too. Premier FAs always get huge deals it seems.

[theohall]

Part of the Rangers not offering longer term deals now is their recent history.

2 years ago, the Rags signed Stepan to a 6-year, $39M contract. He's now in Arizona.

Certain GMs (read those who've been bitten in the ass by players under-performing on long term deals) have learned not to offer the Moon if the Space Station can get the job done. Other GMs are still screwing themselves signing 28 and 29 year old players to 7 year deals. Or maybe they are screwing the GM who will eventually replace them. Now - if giving one of those guys that long deal will win you a Cup in the first 5 years, it's worth it. But only one team wins each season and more than one GM hands out these ridiculous deals each year.

Carey Price is 29 and they signed him to an 8-year contract. Seriously?? 8 years??? at 10.5M cap hit per season. Is he really going to be worth 10.5M at 35, 36, and 37? Yes, great goalies tend to play longer, but almost 1/7th (probably 1/8th by the time contract is done) of the cap on one player.

[WaukeeBlues]

Part of the Rangers not offering longer term deals now is their recent history.

2 years ago, the Rags signed Stepan to a 6-year, $39M contract. He's now in Arizona.

Certain GMs (read those who've been bitten in the ass by players under-performing on long term deals) have learned not to offer the Moon if the Space Station can get the job done. Other GMs are still screwing themselves signing 28 and 29 year old players to 7 year deals. Or maybe they are screwing the GM who will eventually replace them. Now - if giving one of those guys that long deal will win you a Cup in the first 5 years, it's worth it. But only one team wins each season and more than one GM hands out these ridiculous deals each year.

Carey Price is 29 and they signed him to an 8-year contract. Seriously?? 8 years??? at 10.5M cap hit per season. Is he really going to be worth 10.5M at 35, 36, and 37? Yes, great goalies tend to play longer, but almost 1/7th (probably 1/8th by the time contract is done) of the cap on one player.

You can add Oshie and Kuznetsov with Price.

I don't think these GM's are delusional that do this (at least more recently). I think the GM's know the ends of these contracts are going to be $hit, but you over-commit on term to keep them now. Caps are "win now." They frankly don't give two hoots if this team is in cap trouble in 4-5 years. If they haven't won a cup by then they're rebuilding anyway, which is going to include, among other things, dumping bad contracts.

I think these GM's on some of these deals fully know that the last quarter/last half of these contracts are just dead weight but they have to do it in order to keep the player for the "NOW."

I was surprised this year with the relatively sane behavior of GM's, especially when it came to Alzner and Shattenkirk. Myself and many commentators online and on NHL network radio thought Alzner was about to get PAID. He did, but not nearly to the AAV and term I would've guessed. I figured he'd be at 7-8 years with AAV of $6+. He signed for 5 at $4.625. I was shocked.

Part of it I think is the earlier scare that went through the GM ranks when there was a strong indication that the cap may not go up at all for '17-'18. It did, but only by $2 million. That's scared some GM's.

[theohall]

They frankly don't give two hoots if this team is in cap trouble in 4-5 years. If they haven't won a cup by then they're rebuilding anyway, which is going to include, among other things, dumping bad contracts.

I think these GM's on some of these deals fully know that the last quarter/last half of these contracts are just dead weight but they have to do it in order to keep the player for the "NOW."

Totally get the "NOW" thing. The catch is it's getting harder for GMs to dump bad contracts. If they can't unload it via trade, their rebuild won't be capable of signing future stars they may discover. Say they can't move the player and the team doesn't want the player back for whatever reason. Now you are in buyout territory which will cost you a lesser amount of money, but it gets spread over more years hurting your cap for more time. Just as a crazy example... let's say Price needs to be bought out in 5 years (Yes, it's extreme and probably would never happen) and no one will accept a trade for him. 3 years remaining on the contract. 23.5M in remaining salary.

The cost is either 1/3 or 2/3 of the remaining salary, averaged out over twice as many years that were left on the contract. This is determined by the age of the player at the time of the buyout - if they are under 26, they get 1/3, if they are 26 or older they get 2/3./quote] And the value can't be "slid" to be a more manageable number each year.

They would be paying 2.6M per year for 6 years for someone no longer on their roster. That's pretty much the value of a #3 or #4 (2nd pairing) defenseman currently.

Say they do wind up being to trade the guy - the team usually winds up eating a significant portion of the contract still in order to make any kind of trade - which won't make an owner happy - paying a player to play for an opponent.

Slippery slope any time these guys sign contracts of more than 4 years and a player is 29 or older. Consider the average age for the league is under 27.3 as of last season and seems to be getting younger. This is due to all of the development stuff throughout North America which is creating NHL-ready players at younger ages.

Smart GMs are getting on board with this and exploiting it in how they manage their salary cap - see Pittburgh which given their cap constraints before each season the past 2 years seeming wouldn't be able to sign a roster capable of winning a Cup, but, did so both seasons. Same story is rolling around this season about the Penguins. They are so cap constrained and only have x defenseman signed. So what? It was also true in in the Summer of 2015 and they had even fewer players signed with similar cap space available as right now. Their cap situation now is actually better than it was in the Summer of 2015. It just takes a willingness to let the younger players play, vice signing marginal aging veterans to smaller contracts to fill out the roster. (Yes, I'm pinging Armstrong on this one).

[glen a richter]

Anyone remember back in the 90's when RHI was popular for about 2 years? Those guys got paid based on their position in the standings. You wanted to make money, you better perform and win games. Too bad that can't realistically be a thing in the NHL and other leagues. You sign a guy to an absurd 8 year contract (or 15 year contract) knowing full well that their performance will fall off a cliff at the end of it. Then you have loopholes like Stan Bowman is using to get out from under the Hossa contract.

Punish the teams who give absurd ass contracts to prevent the problem from coming back. I don't know how, maybe if a guy retires for anything other than a league approved injury--concussions, etc...-- before his contract is up the team has to take a 2X cap hit for the remainder. Just something to rein in the douchebaggery that is the extremely long term contract. Give teams incentives to keep contract length down, like extra cap room for maintaining certain standards.

[WaukeeBlues]

Anyone remember back in the 90's when RHI was popular for about 2 years? Those guys got paid based on their position in the standings. You wanted to make money, you better perform and win games. Too bad that can't realistically be a thing in the NHL and other leagues. You sign a guy to an absurd 8 year contract (or 15 year contract) knowing full well that their performance will fall off a cliff at the end of it. Then you have loopholes like Stan Bowman is using to get out from under the Hossa contract.

Punish the teams who give absurd ass contracts to prevent the problem from coming back. I don't know how, maybe if a guy retires for anything other than a league approved injury--concussions, etc...-- before his contract is up the team has to take a 2X cap hit for the remainder. Just something to rein in the douchebaggery that is the extremely long term contract. Give teams incentives to keep contract length down, like extra cap room for maintaining certain standards.

Well the "cap avoidance" contracts (Marian Hossa, Shea Weber, et al) are all subject to a cap recapture penalty if they retire. Even if a contract isn't a 13 year deal and they voluntary retire they can't come back to the NHL unless it goes through the team that still holds their rights (Kovalchuk's situation this summer) and if it's LTIR that has a bible-size amount of rules and regulations that were thoroughly discussed and debated last lockout.

All of which is my way of saying I think it's actually fine how they are doing things now. I don't care about contracts that would be in excess of 8 years I just don't think the AAV should be manipulated like they were pre-2013 lockout. I've been hollering on my soapbox for years: allow any length contract but the annual salary difference between highest and lowest paid years can't differ by more than 20%. Freedom of contract: go ahead and sign your 13 year deal, but you're not going to get an AAV benefit for doing it.

The NHL is under no obligation to save GM's from themselves. If they want to over-commit to guys like Oshie and Kuznetsov they have the freedom to do it. Enough bad examples of it happen then the GM behavior changes from learning experiences. Free market baby.

[theohall]

It should be noted the last CBA changed a key rule in cap structure for NHL players.

Old CBA: Signing bonuses count toward the cap but are subject to a limit of 10 percent of the player's salary.
New CBA: Signing bonus have no limit on percent of player's salary - at least I can't find anything stating such a thing.

Examples of new contracts with "buyout" circumventing structure:

1) Steve Stamkos 68.5M only 8M of which is salary. The remainder is doled out annually in signing bonuses varying from 8.5 to 5.5M. Buying out 9.5M AAV - not going to happen. Even if it were the last 2 seasons, it would still be 6.5M AAV. This also makes trading Stamkos darn near impossible given most teams current cap situations. This fits Waukee's no more than 20% variance AAV structure and protects the player moreso than the team since (Aside: this is also a reason Stamkos stayed in Tampa. Florida has no city, county or state income tax. The bonuses are paid in Florida, so the only taxes Stamkos faces are on the $500K he earns each season at away games)

2) Ryan O'Reilly - 7 years 52.5M salary is $1M per year with signing bonuses covering the rest resulting in a 7.5M/year AAV. Protects the player form buyout and being traded. It also fits Waukee's 20% structure.

The danger of both of these contracts is injury. There is no easy cap relief with the AAVs of these contracts. Signing bonuses count as salary, which means even in the late years of the contracts, the team would have to compensate for 6+M per season for buyout or LTIR were the player injured and unable to play.

Important note: Signing bonuses are guaranteed, salary is not.

While this seems to circumvent the cap structure in some regard, it doesn't really, since 1) the player is protected financially due to signing bonus guarantees 2) the team is still on the hook for that cap hit were something to happen to the player at any point in the contract 3) trying to circumvent a #2 situation via trade would be very difficult with the large $ amounts involved. (That #2 thing actually affected Tampa Bay this season when Stamkos was on LTIR and they were dealing with a severe cap constraint while trying to acquire help due to all of their injuries)

Surprised we haven't seen more of these types of contracts with the higher end players.

Tarasenko's contract is almost exclusively salary without that signing bonus protection. His only protection in the contract is a full NTC starting in 19-20, which doesn't protect a non-guaranteed salary.

[WaukeeBlues]

I think about this sometimes. We all know about how nitpicky Andy Murray was with David Perron early on. Had he just loosened up a bit and let the kid be himself, would his career had turned out differently?

The problem with the Blues is that they have consistently hired taskmasters as head coaches. Now there's nothing fundamentally wrong with having a taskmaster as a head coach when things go to shit, but doesn't it make more sense to alternate hires between different coaching styles? Murray to Hitchcock to Yeo isn't a whole lot of difference one to the next to the next. They've really been tethered to the same exact coaching philosophy since 2006 which hasn't yielded a damn thing but one lucky WCF appearance that was destined for failure anyway. Isn't it time for a real change? Hire a coach who will let the kids loose a bit. I realize they had a brief flirtation with Davis Payne and I wonder how things would have turned out if they let him stick a little longer instead of cutting the cord so quickly when the kids were still young.

Things they are a' changing. If you're a coach you'd have to be an idiot or willfully ignorant to not see the Penguins win two cups in a row and the Sharks and especially Predators get to the finals by playing a run and gun, heavy forecheck, fast game with giving the "kids" important roles in the process. The 'neutral zone trap' is 0/4 in Stanley Cup finalists in the last 2 years and probably more than that going farther back in history but I'm lazy and don't want to think too hard.

Point being: As an owner and especially a coach if you're seeing teams playing fast and offensively powerful making the finals and winning cups that should be a pretty loud explanation as to what's working right now. I realize team personnel has a lot to do with it but its not like the Blues couldn't play that style if they wanted to.

[theohall]

I think about this sometimes. We all know about how nitpicky Andy Murray was with David Perron early on. Had he just loosened up a bit and let the kid be himself, would his career had turned out differently?

The problem with the Blues is that they have consistently hired taskmasters as head coaches. Now there's nothing fundamentally wrong with having a taskmaster as a head coach when things go to shit, but doesn't it make more sense to alternate hires between different coaching styles? Murray to Hitchcock to Yeo isn't a whole lot of difference one to the next to the next. They've really been tethered to the same exact coaching philosophy since 2006 which hasn't yielded a damn thing but one lucky WCF appearance that was destined for failure anyway. Isn't it time for a real change? Hire a coach who will let the kids loose a bit. I realize they had a brief flirtation with Davis Payne and I wonder how things would have turned out if they let him stick a little longer instead of cutting the cord so quickly when the kids were still young.

Things they are a' changing. If you're a coach you'd have to be an idiot or willfully ignorant to not see the Penguins win two cups in a row and the Sharks and especially Predators get to the finals by playing a run and gun, heavy forecheck, fast game with giving the "kids" important roles in the process. The 'neutral zone trap' is 0/4 in Stanley Cup finalists in the last 2 years and probably more than that going farther back in history but I'm lazy and don't want to think too hard.

Point being: As an owner and especially a coach if you're seeing teams playing fast and offensively powerful making the finals and winning cups that should be a pretty loud explanation as to what's working right now. I realize team personnel has a lot to do with it but its not like the Blues couldn't play that style if they wanted to.

But the current head coach, Yeo, is a defense-first and foremost, let the offense come from the defense head coach. Blues aren't going to do squat even with younger, faster players until they get a head coach who isn't a defense grognard.