Thursday, May 04, 2006
Onward?
I'm sure most Flames fans are about as interested in reading about hockey right now as I am in writing about it, but here goes anyway. (Private Time is over!)
The Flames are pretty much set, from both a hockey and business perspective, on the defensive end. Their starting six defencemen and the soon-to-be Vezina Trophy winner are all wrapped up for 2006/07. (All salary info from TSN.ca)
The D is, in some senses, unimprovable: if anything, they can afford to trade a guy assuming Mark Giordano and/or Richie Regehr are ready for full-time duty next season. Hamrlik is overpaid, but that's neither here nor there at this point. The only need here is a backup goalie who is good for 20-25 starts.
The Flames have eight (active) forwards under contract for next year, for a total of $15.7M: Iginla ($7M), Langkow ($2.44M), Amonte ($1.85M), Nilson ($1.37M), Simon ($1.22M), McCarty ($800k), Lundmark ($575k), and Ritchie ($450k).
It all adds up to about $29.4M in contracts for next season. At this point, you can look at things one of two ways:
What's out there? Well, the Flames could compete with a dozen or so other clubs for the top UFAs: Daniel Briere (nice), Marc Savard (pass), David Vyborny (maybe), and a handful of other (mostly much older) guys. The alternative is to be willing to give up a few draft picks--which as the trading deadline demonstrated are a devalued currency--and target younger Restricted Free Agents. Now here you find some quality. Get a load of this gallery of talented RFAs selected from a random NHL division:
There's also Richards, Cheechoo, Spezza, Havlat, Gagne, Gomez, Nathan Horton, Staal & Cole, Bergeron & Boyes, and most of Buffalo's roster. That, folks, is a shopping excursion that I could actually get excited about.
The assumption underlying all this is that the Flames can and will spend close to the cap number, and I don't actually know this: the nearest thing Ken King gives to an indication is his frequent mentioning of being in the Top 10 Payrolls.
The Flames should be spending the cap, or thereabouts. Calgary is rich and hockey-nutty; ticket supply is overwhelmed by demand; and the Flames must sell more merchandise than most or all of the other teams in the league. The Flames, in a phrase, are a large-market team.
The Flames have fifteen million dollars to buy some more pucks into the opposition's net. It'll be interesting to see how they go about accomplishing it.
UPDATE: Here's the compensation schedule for RFAs, based on their average salary in the new contract:
Up to $660,000 - No compensation
$660,000 to $1 million - One 3rd round draft pick
$1 to $2 million - One second round pick
$2 to $3 million - One 1st and one 3rd round pick
$3 to $4 million - One 1st, one 2nd and one 3rd round pick
$4 to $5 million - Two 1sts, one 2nd and one 3rd round pick
Over $5 million - Four 1st round picks
The Flames are pretty much set, from both a hockey and business perspective, on the defensive end. Their starting six defencemen and the soon-to-be Vezina Trophy winner are all wrapped up for 2006/07. (All salary info from TSN.ca)
The D is, in some senses, unimprovable: if anything, they can afford to trade a guy assuming Mark Giordano and/or Richie Regehr are ready for full-time duty next season. Hamrlik is overpaid, but that's neither here nor there at this point. The only need here is a backup goalie who is good for 20-25 starts.
The Flames have eight (active) forwards under contract for next year, for a total of $15.7M: Iginla ($7M), Langkow ($2.44M), Amonte ($1.85M), Nilson ($1.37M), Simon ($1.22M), McCarty ($800k), Lundmark ($575k), and Ritchie ($450k).
It all adds up to about $29.4M in contracts for next season. At this point, you can look at things one of two ways:
- Fret about the value the Flames are getting for some of these contracts. Shouldn't we be getting more production for Amonte's two mil? What should we legitimately expect from Iginla for seven mil? Do we even want Lundmark on the team anymore? Or Simon?
- Realize that the Flames are $15,000,000 below next season's salary cap with essentially no needs to address except scoring.
What's out there? Well, the Flames could compete with a dozen or so other clubs for the top UFAs: Daniel Briere (nice), Marc Savard (pass), David Vyborny (maybe), and a handful of other (mostly much older) guys. The alternative is to be willing to give up a few draft picks--which as the trading deadline demonstrated are a devalued currency--and target younger Restricted Free Agents. Now here you find some quality. Get a load of this gallery of talented RFAs selected from a random NHL division:
There's also Richards, Cheechoo, Spezza, Havlat, Gagne, Gomez, Nathan Horton, Staal & Cole, Bergeron & Boyes, and most of Buffalo's roster. That, folks, is a shopping excursion that I could actually get excited about.
The assumption underlying all this is that the Flames can and will spend close to the cap number, and I don't actually know this: the nearest thing Ken King gives to an indication is his frequent mentioning of being in the Top 10 Payrolls.
The Flames should be spending the cap, or thereabouts. Calgary is rich and hockey-nutty; ticket supply is overwhelmed by demand; and the Flames must sell more merchandise than most or all of the other teams in the league. The Flames, in a phrase, are a large-market team.
The Flames have fifteen million dollars to buy some more pucks into the opposition's net. It'll be interesting to see how they go about accomplishing it.UPDATE: Here's the compensation schedule for RFAs, based on their average salary in the new contract:
Up to $660,000 - No compensation
$660,000 to $1 million - One 3rd round draft pick
$1 to $2 million - One second round pick
$2 to $3 million - One 1st and one 3rd round pick
$3 to $4 million - One 1st, one 2nd and one 3rd round pick
$4 to $5 million - Two 1sts, one 2nd and one 3rd round pick
Over $5 million - Four 1st round picks
# posted by Matt @ 12:36 pm 
Comments:
0h 5h1t! The playoffs aren't even over and Matt has already signed Hemsky and Stoll to new contracts in Calgary! Whatever shall we do?
You make a good point Matt, and one which Ken King with his dreams of a publicly funded hockey arena would like you to forget: The Flames are a big market team (honestly -- if Denver is big market, why wouldn't Calgary, OR Edmonton be considered big market?).
These guys have made an industry out of crying the small market blues, but with 90 cent dollars, a sold out building and other revenue, it is a pretty hard case to make. There is no reason we shouldn't be snagging a couple of these guys.
if you're going to be in the rfa game you'd really have to be smart and target teams that have no wiggle romm at all - grossly overpaying for someone like Gaborik so Minnesota won't match (which they likely wouldn't) means you have a big boat anchor of a contract
In 2008/2009 Philly is going to be paying Hatcher and Rathje 7M - even if they buy them out they will have a significant cap hit
If you're going to overpay a guy he better be the right guy.
Isn't there a good chance the cap will be moving up substantially next year, too? If ownership's willing to pony up, you could have a lot more that $15 mill, too.
The "$15M" figure was based on a guess of a $44-45M salary cap next season. I've heard as high as 46 is possible.
BDHS touches on another issue: if you're really worried about being "matched" (I don't see the downside, easy-come easy-go), then you target teams in cap trouble. If you're not worried, you just go after whoever you want.
Also, I focused this post more around the higher end guys, but I'd argue that signing "depth" players from the RFA list - in the $1-2M range - is a good idea. Kesler for instance: I suspect the Canucks will try pretty hard to sign him, but they have the Sedins to worry about and existing large contracts for Naslund and Bertuzzi. It may be that the Flames (or another team) can offer Kesler $300k more than what the Canucks are able to spend.
The compensation for a contract under $2M/yr is only one 2nd-round pick. Big deal, I'd say.
matt - agreed on Kesler as a good example of the tact I would take - its not so much going after the bigger name guys that I'm against, its overpaying them - if you can get Tanguay for a reasonable amount and the Avs don't match then you've hit a home run, if they do match him as you said, so what
its that stupid big contract you have to avoid
if I was a Flames' fan I would be hoping they dump a few of their veteran grinders who are making @ 1M and use that cash to upgrade the scoring - its like LeGG - no way he should be making anymore then minimum - I understand intangibles etc but you can pay someone less then 1M to skate, check and be a great guy in the room
I don't think McCarthy himself would blow that much combined money on Darren McCarthy and Chris Simon:D
What I would say is that given the compensation schedule, no one should really be thinking about putting a signature to an offer sheet with a $2M+ amount. A team like Calgary, perversely, has the luxury of possibly looking at the $2M-$3M band if they're confident they will remain low on the draft ladder. But the basic trick will probably be squeezing the pips on underappreciated properties like Kesler, where the market compensation level is probably in the high ones and you only really have to outbid the Northwest teams who know how good the guy is (pretty goddamn good).
I'm not against that in principle, but I'm not sure how you accomplish it. $3.5M is too much for a 5th D, but $2.3M is waayy too much for nothing (buyout). And the only way to trade him will be to (A) package him with someone who's underpaid, or (B) acquire someone else who's overpaid, neither of which solves anything.
If the cap is $46M, then I'd expect that the Flames will spend $42M, at least. I'd be outraged if they spent less than $40M, not that it would do me a bit of good.. :)
Not trying to be argumentative, but what are the figures for TV deals in traditional big markets versus one like Calgary?
It's fairly obvious that Calgary does well merch-wise across Alberta, but I wonder just how big the discrepancy is for local TV dollars.
The cool thing about the Flames picking up Kesler is he'd able to pound Iginal every practice instead of just when the Canucks and Flames meet.
The RFA for picks scenario almost has very, very rarely happened under the previous CBA; I see no reason why it would suddenly change now.
One guy not mentioned who might be a nice fit for CAL as a UFA is Arnott.
As if I didn't hate the Flames enough. Seeing that smug pretty boy in a Horsehead sweater might put me over the top.
BTW Matt, I love your idea of team's going after RFA's, I agree that because of the reduced compensation, and the reduced value of draft picks (IMO), RFA offer sheets will become far more common as soon as someonetakes that step.
I thought that step would be taken last summer with Spezza, as OTT was kinda close to the cap, so Spezza might have been able to have been signed?
Interesting that you'd mention targeting within the division, I agree and in fact wrote a blog post about it last fall when I was maintaining my own blog, suggesting the Oilers lay the boots to CAL with offers to a couple of their players - why let them have their guys for cheap?
http://hockeysymposium.blogspot.com/2005/07/potential-rfa-targets-for-oilers.html
well, I seem to not be able to figure out how to link to my blog, anyone an internet wizard who can advise?
in the meantime, it should read
potential-rfa-targets-for-oilers.html
at the end of that url, to see my post, where I mused the Oilers should consider bidding upon Kobasew, Langkow, and Iginla ( I thought I had mentioned Leopold, but looking back I guess not)
Here you go Speeds:
Potential RFA Targets
You need to use the html anchor tag to make the links hot.
Incidently, yours was actually the first Oil blog I linked to; but then you went MIA pretty quickly. Nice to see you around, both here and HF, and over at LT and IOF.
yeah, ran out of things to say.
When the draft and free agency comes around I may start posting there again, or I may continue to stick stuff up on IOF. I think I'll at least use that blog site to archive my old draft rankings (for 03, 04, and 05).
Christ, make me the GM of the Flames--if someone had the brass balls to tender an offer sheet to Iginla, I'd at least have the sense to pack Jarmoe's pags for him personally that afternoon. In Years One and Two the extra budget room allows me to go Caligula on the RFA market; then the extra draft picks start landing on the conference like kidney shots. You could end up getting seven or eight good players back for the Nigerian Nightmare.
Meanwhile, the genius who tried to bluff me is presumably trying to find a way to unload a whole lot of $2M-$4M talent and build a Sutter-style roster around Iginla and 15 meatheads. Let's hope he has (a) a goalie as good as Kiprusoff with (b) an agent as gullible as Kiprusoff's.
Post a Comment
<< Home
0h 5h1t! The playoffs aren't even over and Matt has already signed Hemsky and Stoll to new contracts in Calgary! Whatever shall we do?
# posted by 
: May 04, 2006 12:52 pm
: May 04, 2006 12:52 pm 
You make a good point Matt, and one which Ken King with his dreams of a publicly funded hockey arena would like you to forget: The Flames are a big market team (honestly -- if Denver is big market, why wouldn't Calgary, OR Edmonton be considered big market?).
These guys have made an industry out of crying the small market blues, but with 90 cent dollars, a sold out building and other revenue, it is a pretty hard case to make. There is no reason we shouldn't be snagging a couple of these guys.
# posted by : May 04, 2006 1:10 pm
: May 04, 2006 1:10 pm if you're going to be in the rfa game you'd really have to be smart and target teams that have no wiggle romm at all - grossly overpaying for someone like Gaborik so Minnesota won't match (which they likely wouldn't) means you have a big boat anchor of a contract
In 2008/2009 Philly is going to be paying Hatcher and Rathje 7M - even if they buy them out they will have a significant cap hit
If you're going to overpay a guy he better be the right guy.
Isn't there a good chance the cap will be moving up substantially next year, too? If ownership's willing to pony up, you could have a lot more that $15 mill, too.
The "$15M" figure was based on a guess of a $44-45M salary cap next season. I've heard as high as 46 is possible.
BDHS touches on another issue: if you're really worried about being "matched" (I don't see the downside, easy-come easy-go), then you target teams in cap trouble. If you're not worried, you just go after whoever you want.
Also, I focused this post more around the higher end guys, but I'd argue that signing "depth" players from the RFA list - in the $1-2M range - is a good idea. Kesler for instance: I suspect the Canucks will try pretty hard to sign him, but they have the Sedins to worry about and existing large contracts for Naslund and Bertuzzi. It may be that the Flames (or another team) can offer Kesler $300k more than what the Canucks are able to spend.
The compensation for a contract under $2M/yr is only one 2nd-round pick. Big deal, I'd say.
matt - agreed on Kesler as a good example of the tact I would take - its not so much going after the bigger name guys that I'm against, its overpaying them - if you can get Tanguay for a reasonable amount and the Avs don't match then you've hit a home run, if they do match him as you said, so what
its that stupid big contract you have to avoid
if I was a Flames' fan I would be hoping they dump a few of their veteran grinders who are making @ 1M and use that cash to upgrade the scoring - its like LeGG - no way he should be making anymore then minimum - I understand intangibles etc but you can pay someone less then 1M to skate, check and be a great guy in the room
I don't think McCarthy himself would blow that much combined money on Darren McCarthy and Chris Simon:D
What I would say is that given the compensation schedule, no one should really be thinking about putting a signature to an offer sheet with a $2M+ amount. A team like Calgary, perversely, has the luxury of possibly looking at the $2M-$3M band if they're confident they will remain low on the draft ladder. But the basic trick will probably be squeezing the pips on underappreciated properties like Kesler, where the market compensation level is probably in the high ones and you only really have to outbid the Northwest teams who know how good the guy is (pretty goddamn good).
# posted by : May 04, 2006 2:39 pm
: May 04, 2006 2:39 pm I'm not against that in principle, but I'm not sure how you accomplish it. $3.5M is too much for a 5th D, but $2.3M is waayy too much for nothing (buyout). And the only way to trade him will be to (A) package him with someone who's underpaid, or (B) acquire someone else who's overpaid, neither of which solves anything.
If the cap is $46M, then I'd expect that the Flames will spend $42M, at least. I'd be outraged if they spent less than $40M, not that it would do me a bit of good.. :)
Not trying to be argumentative, but what are the figures for TV deals in traditional big markets versus one like Calgary?
It's fairly obvious that Calgary does well merch-wise across Alberta, but I wonder just how big the discrepancy is for local TV dollars.
# posted by : May 04, 2006 8:19 pm
: May 04, 2006 8:19 pm The cool thing about the Flames picking up Kesler is he'd able to pound Iginal every practice instead of just when the Canucks and Flames meet.
The RFA for picks scenario almost has very, very rarely happened under the previous CBA; I see no reason why it would suddenly change now.
One guy not mentioned who might be a nice fit for CAL as a UFA is Arnott.
As if I didn't hate the Flames enough. Seeing that smug pretty boy in a Horsehead sweater might put me over the top.
BTW Matt, I love your idea of team's going after RFA's, I agree that because of the reduced compensation, and the reduced value of draft picks (IMO), RFA offer sheets will become far more common as soon as someonetakes that step.
I thought that step would be taken last summer with Spezza, as OTT was kinda close to the cap, so Spezza might have been able to have been signed?
Interesting that you'd mention targeting within the division, I agree and in fact wrote a blog post about it last fall when I was maintaining my own blog, suggesting the Oilers lay the boots to CAL with offers to a couple of their players - why let them have their guys for cheap?
http://hockeysymposium.blogspot.com/2005/07/potential-rfa-targets-for-oilers.html
well, I seem to not be able to figure out how to link to my blog, anyone an internet wizard who can advise?
in the meantime, it should read
potential-rfa-targets-for-oilers.html
at the end of that url, to see my post, where I mused the Oilers should consider bidding upon Kobasew, Langkow, and Iginla ( I thought I had mentioned Leopold, but looking back I guess not)
Here you go Speeds:
Potential RFA Targets
You need to use the html anchor tag to make the links hot.
Incidently, yours was actually the first Oil blog I linked to; but then you went MIA pretty quickly. Nice to see you around, both here and HF, and over at LT and IOF.
yeah, ran out of things to say.
When the draft and free agency comes around I may start posting there again, or I may continue to stick stuff up on IOF. I think I'll at least use that blog site to archive my old draft rankings (for 03, 04, and 05).
Christ, make me the GM of the Flames--if someone had the brass balls to tender an offer sheet to Iginla, I'd at least have the sense to pack Jarmoe's pags for him personally that afternoon. In Years One and Two the extra budget room allows me to go Caligula on the RFA market; then the extra draft picks start landing on the conference like kidney shots. You could end up getting seven or eight good players back for the Nigerian Nightmare.
Meanwhile, the genius who tried to bluff me is presumably trying to find a way to unload a whole lot of $2M-$4M talent and build a Sutter-style roster around Iginla and 15 meatheads. Let's hope he has (a) a goalie as good as Kiprusoff with (b) an agent as gullible as Kiprusoff's.
# posted by : May 05, 2006 12:24 am
: May 05, 2006 12:24 am Post a Comment
<< Home
