Friday Caps Clips: $1.375m for Jurcina
by J.P. on Jul 31, 2009 6:39 AM EDT
in Caps Clips
Email
Print
Your savory breakfast links:
- Early this morning, word came down that Milan Jurcina has been awarded a one-year contract worth approximately $1.4 million - below the "walk away" threshold, but certainly not below the "trade away" point. [Capitals Insider]
- Update: "Done deal: Milan Jurcina is under contract. He was awarded a one-year contract worth $1.375 in arbitration late last night." [@tarikelbashir]
- Brendan Morrison was in town yesterday and said all the right things to Tarik, Whyno, Vogs (who fires up the Wayback Machine) and Nate (audio).
- Alexander Semin is Number 28. No, I mean in FanHouse's countdown of the NHL's top 50 players. [FanHouse]
- Alex Ovechkin, Cookie Monster. [Alex Ovetjkin]
- Today in Michael Nylander rumors: "We may see Nylander in Omsk around November." [@dchesnokov]
- No Clips yesterday meant we didn't get a chance to congratulate Peerless on his four-year anniversary blogging, so we'll do so here today - congrats, and a heartfelt thanks. [Peerless]
- Finally, Happy 49th Birthday to Dale Hunter, member of the NHL's most exclusive club.
242 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
“I’m sticking with 1.4M for Juice. No way he’s worth more than double Jeff Schultz, irrespective of their relative contractual status.” – Jul 28, 2009 12:46 PM EDT
bigonetimer, FTW
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Hold the phone – $1.375m is the actual number. Who’s the big winner now?
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
assuming price is right rules..
scott in shaw chimed in with:
Oh
And I bet $1,368,750.00
(a 50% raise)
by Scott in Shaw on Jul 28, 2009 9:43 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
retroactively rec’d.
by Natty Bumppo on Jul 31, 2009 9:05 AM EDT up reply actions
Scott continues to display otherworldly intelligence…
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Jul 31, 2009 9:07 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Zombie smarts?
"The passion of our supporters cannot be contained by clothing."
by Bald Pollack on Jul 31, 2009 9:09 AM EDT up reply actions
nice call…that $6,250 is in Ovi’s couch
from the house that Red Jesus built
by bigonetimer on Jul 31, 2009 11:45 AM EDT up reply actions
Per Tarik, it’s actually 1.375 million.
"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." - Delores Ibarruri
Cap implications
I was going to play with the cap implications and go for bang-for-buck ratios, but that got long fast and I’m thinking about a FanPost for that.
Congrats to those who nailed it. I said 1.39, which turned out to be not far off at all.
"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." - Delores Ibarruri
Well, the WaTimes says “just under” $1.4m, so we may have a different winner after all…
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Oh, and related question, which I tried to ask earlier — why is $1.57 the bottom at which they can’t decline the contract? Does anyone think that was why they went to arbitration? Figuring that they’d get more than the Caps were offering, but less than 1.57? That would be a win in their book.
The original language of the collective bargaining agreement set a threshold dollar value above which the club could walk away from an arbitration decision. That amount was $1,042,173. The CBA also states that…
“The dollar amount of $1,042,173…shall be increase on an annual basis at the same percentage of increase in the Average League Salary, with the commencement of the 2007/2008 League Year being the first year such increase shall take effect (Article 12, Section 12.10(d).”
If you've read this far...seek help.
Ah, I figured it was something like that, not an absolute. (I was eventually going to go look for the CBA and read it, but I figured one of you mavens would have it at your fingertips, so to speak.)
Thanks.
There’s a link to the CBA in the left sidebar on the front page of this site.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Yes, I beleive he did. When I posted Fanshot last night I saw 1.4 mil and figured that was the true number. Shame on me.
by Carl Putnam on Jul 31, 2009 11:00 AM EDT up reply actions
Oh, and anyone who had him there can scratch Zubov off their wish lists.
"The passion of our supporters cannot be contained by clothing."
I don’t know that it much matters to further acquisitions. Jurcina at 1.4 has the same cap hit as Jurcina at 1.2, if he’s traded away or waived.
by Gould Old Days on Jul 31, 2009 8:34 AM EDT up reply actions
I’d keep Jurcina over ShaMo at this point. I just don’t think Mo’s getting any better, and I feel like Jurcina still has some upside. But I’d bet I’m in the minority here.
I probably wouldn’t mind terribly if they both went in a package though.
I agree that ShaMo is probably the player he’s going to be, and that Juice is still developing. But I think Juice’s upside may still be lower than ShaMo’s current talent.
by Gould Old Days on Jul 31, 2009 8:34 AM EDT up reply actions
I don’t know. I think we have to think not just about raw talent, but about the type of game each player brings to the table, and which of those games we’ll more easily replace out of Hershey, now and in the future. Jurcina, I think, has a mean streak that ShaMo lacks, and I think we still need that.
"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." - Delores Ibarruri
I don’t know about that – Jurcina hits more often that Morrisonn but Morrisonn’s had about a half dozen NHL fights, which is a half dozen more than Jurcina.
I don’t really like Dmen fighting – losing one of them throws the rotation off. If someone’s going to drop ‘em (cool), I’d rather it be a forward, which is why I really liked the idea of Finley at forward (among other reasons). I’d rather they wear the other side down and paste ’em into the boards, and not set up curtains in the penalty box :)
"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." - Delores Ibarruri
Fair ‘nuff, but I think Morrisonn fights infrequently enough that it wouldn’t really be an issue. It’s just that based on their past history I see Morrisonn as the guy more likely to take exception to someone whacking away at the goalie or crashing the net a little too hard.
Fair enough :) My question, though, was how often was Jurcina on the ice when that happened? Did he get a fair shake? (My memory doesn’t serve on this one.)
I think that defending the goalie has got to be a team effort. Everyone’s got to get involved in that so that whoever’s on the ice when the shenanigans start gets to get in the offender’s face. As we saw last season, having just one enforcer doesn’t have enough effect as a deterrent.
"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." - Delores Ibarruri
My question, though, was how often was Jurcina on the ice when that happened? Did he get a fair shake? (My memory doesn’t serve on this one.)
I’m not sure but he’s played 4,486 minutes in the NHL so I’m sure there have been times someone has mistreated the goalie.
I think that defending the goalie has got to be a team effort. Everyone’s got to get involved in that so that whoever’s on the ice when the shenanigans start gets to get in the offender’s face.
I agree. I think an NHL team ought to have at least two people on the ice willing to fight at all times.
I think an NHL team ought to have at least two people on the ice willing to fight at all times.
Am I missing something, are you being sarcastic? How about during the PP? Anytime AO’s line is out with Green’s D pair we probably won’t have that, unless you mean “Knuble is willing to fight, but we don’t really want him to fight.” The same could be said for several others.
No sarcasm, but poor word choice when I said “at all times” – special teams situations or cases where it’s late and close, obviously it’s not a priority.
But the rest of the time, I think having two guys on the ice is ideal, but I did mean it in a ‘willing to fight sense’ – the sense where guys like Morrisonn, Steckel, and Laich would be included but guys like Fleischmann, Gordon, and Jurcina wouldn’t be.
I think an NHL team ought to have six people on the ice willing to fight at all times if the situation calls for it.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Jul 31, 2009 10:21 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Related: A blog ought to have four people on the masthead willing to fight at all times.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
It’s us, OFB and Puck Daddy, and it’s gonna be like the news team brawl in Anchorman.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
I thought DMG was the one who’d been arrested twelve times…
by Murshawursha on Jul 31, 2009 11:14 AM EDT up reply actions
I’m not only a stonecold killer, but a mastermind capable of getting away with my transgressions. D isn’t as wily.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Yeah I’m easy to identify because I wear my signed Jeff Schultz jersey at all times.
by David Getz on Jul 31, 2009 11:19 AM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
Don’t forget to keep the hair short and unidentifiable!
by Rob Parker on Jul 31, 2009 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I would have rec’d it, but it would have been cooler to walk away from it ;)
"The passion of our supporters cannot be contained by clothing."
by Bald Pollack on Jul 31, 2009 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Nah, I blindly rec Wire references, but that’s a rule I’ve got to let go.
Now I’ve got to rec Eastbound and Down references.
"The passion of our supporters cannot be contained by clothing."
by Bald Pollack on Jul 31, 2009 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions
I could be the PBS guy…
If you've read this far...seek help.
by ThePeerless on Jul 31, 2009 12:26 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think an NHL team ought to have six people on the ice willing to fight at all times if the situation calls for it.
by Natty Bumppo on Jul 31, 2009 10:26 AM EDT up reply actions
The thing that makes it… frustrating or difficult or enter-grimace-recalling-word-here to wait on 23’s development is that on some nights he is completely mentally absent, a characteristic that shows up most in his PIMs. Plus he doesn’t kill. Or get PP time.
He was good in the playoffs, and if the Caps knew they’d have that guy 81 times a year they’d be fine with him. But there’s a substantial body of work that suggests that he won’t be that 81 times a year, and that he’ll take a lot of penalties as he wanders through.
If that shot of his was more accurate, I’d be curious to see what he can do on the PP. Sometimes, there’s a benefit just to making a PK’er duck. :)
"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." - Delores Ibarruri
The release is at least as important as the accuracy. Even if he was able to put the puck on net he doesn’t get his shot off in time to not get it blocked.
I feel like no other defenseman is going to get substantial PP time as long as 52 is here.
Still, he has a hard shot. I’d be interested to see if he could work on the release issue enough to make it a viable weapon.
by Murshawursha on Jul 31, 2009 8:57 AM EDT up reply actions
Juice will not be a PP player. He has a great shot but he is slower than plate tectonics. If he were to play PP he’d be right up top front and center, and a blocked shot or flubbed pass is a SH breakaway against.
I think that there is a chance another D can get substantial PP time even with Green here. Green isn’t the prototypical point man on the PP. He doesn’t score with a big booming shot, he scores with a great wrist shot and the hockey sense to get into open seams. Everyone should try to watch the ANA PP if they show any of the ANA games on NHLN this summer. Green should play the role of Scott Niedermayer, i.e. a rover, and we should have a guy with a booming shot that plays the point right in the center of the ice, like Pronger did. From what I hear Carlson is a great PP QB because he has a big shot and passes very well. That is still years from being realized but I think it’s quite possible that in 2 years our PP1 line has 2 D, 2 Alexes, and Backstrom.
by Rob Parker on Jul 31, 2009 9:04 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
There will be times when Green isn’t available, we can’t put all our PP hopes on just one defenseman. Single point of failure. If it comes down to it, the more versatile guy should be the one that stays if all other aspects of their games are close. And I wholeheartedly agree that whomever does the better job of clearing our own crease should get the nod. Crosby isn’t going to all of a sudden forget how to park himself at the side of our crease to bang in rebounds (or anyone else for that matter). Tactically, that part of the Caps’ defense MUST be fixed as best they can or we’ll be another Memorial Day spectator to the playoffs.
by war_capitals on Jul 31, 2009 9:29 AM EDT up reply actions
im in agreement with murshawursha, for what it’s worth. I dont see Morrison stayin gon the roster when the season begins expecially since how far he’s fallen in two year (2 years ago, inseparatable with Green – upcoming year, most likely to be on a line with Nylander, I mean healthy scratch).
I dont see Morrison stayin gon the roster when the season begins expecially since how far he’s fallen in two year (2 years ago, inseparatable with Green – upcoming year, most likely to be on a line with Nylander, I mean healthy scratch).
I don’t see Mo becoming a healthy scratch on a regular basis because I can’t think of six guys who go ahead of him. There Green and Poti, sure, and then maybe Schultz and Alzner if they do well, and then….? Jurcina and Erskine aren’t very likely to pass the guy on the depth chart.
What makes you think that’s going to happen, though? Mo played significantly more minutes per game than Erskine and Jurcina, played a lot more on the PK than either of them, and played against tougher competition in general. The coaching staff certainly seems to have Mo higher up on the depth chart than either of them right now and I don’t see him falling behind both of them in camp.
Note: Morrisonn with 2 n’s is the D, with 1 n is the C.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
“Done deal: Milan Jurcina is under contract. He was awarded a one-year contract worth $1.375 in arbitration late last night.” – Tarik
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Bymy reckoning, this puts the Caps about $150K under the salary cap for 22 roster players (and Clymer’s buyout), with neither Alzner nor Carlson in the mix. So the question is…
…who is getting traded?
If you've read this far...seek help.
I’d say Jurcina’s the most likely. The Caps want to win now and of the three defensemen I think are options to be traded (Jurcina, Morrisonn, Pothier) I think the team feels like Jurcina brings the least, as evidenced by the fact that he never plays any sort of special teams.
Agreed. Further, some GM’s love bodies – it’s easy to envision a rebuilding team willing to gamble on his potential, especially if they’ve ever seen him with his shirt off.
But don’t expect much – a 2nd round pick for Juice would be a steal.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Unless there’s an injury in someone’s camp, at which point… (And I think that’s probably the most likely circumstance under which a Caps D gets moved.)
I think if the Caps had their druthers you’d be right; but I suspect that in reality the Caps are going to shop around most (NOT Green/Schultz/Poti) of their D and see who brings the best return. Who gets traded is going to be more of a product of how other GMs value our D than how we do.
B-b-b-but Pothier’s in the best shape of his life!
Agreed that they’d move any of those three (plus Ersky) if the opportunity presented itself.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Jul 31, 2009 9:09 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Good point, and one that shouldn’t underestimated. I think the team will learn towards moving Juice if the offers are close, though. For example if the best offer for Jurcina was a fifth and someone wanted to give up a first for Mo, I think they’d move Mo. But if it’s the difference between a good team (I dunno, say St. Louis*) offering a second for Mo or Pothier and a bad team (say the Islanders*) offering a third for Jurcina, I think they’d move Jurcina.
- Teams just picked as hypothetical examples.
I’d say Pothier would be more likely to move closer to the trade deadline if he does, because of his cap hit. Teams are shopping carefully this year. An offseason move would be more likely to be Jurcina or ShaMo.
"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." - Delores Ibarruri
I don’t think there are any other teams in the league that want Pothier more than the Caps do. His salary makes him tough to move, he’s local, he’s got a great story (which would be kind of lost if he was traded), and the Caps have invested this much into him so they may want to see what the return will be this year. It’s hard to imagine him being traded.
by Gould Old Days on Jul 31, 2009 9:20 AM EDT up reply actions
Agreed; 60 games in 2 years for $2.5m doth not a valuable asset make. I’d presume they’ll move one or more of the younger guys, let Pothier come off the books or resign him for a one-year cheap deal next year depending on performance.
"The passion of our supporters cannot be contained by clothing."
by Bald Pollack on Jul 31, 2009 9:30 AM EDT up reply actions
Well, there’s also the experience issue – Pothier’s one of the few guys who’s got a lot of it. We don’t have experience on the blueline to just throw around, so he brings something else to the table.
"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." - Delores Ibarruri
Not as much as you’d think – in terms of NHL experience Pothier’s pretty ordinary, part of a group he’s just ahead (Juice) or behind (ShaMo) of.
"The passion of our supporters cannot be contained by clothing."
by Bald Pollack on Jul 31, 2009 10:04 AM EDT up reply actions
Of the Caps defensemen who will or might conceivably dress for games this year (based on last year’s appearances), here is how their number of games experience stacks up (regular season/playoffs):
Poti: 717/ 45
Morrisonn: 350/ 21
Pothier: 301/ 29
Jurcina: 275/ 21
Erskine: 273/ 19
Green: 242/ 21
Schultz: 174/ 3
Alzner: 30/ 0
Sloan: 26/ 0
Collins: 15/ 0
If you've read this far...seek help.
by ThePeerless on Jul 31, 2009 11:18 AM EDT up reply actions
sorry…that was a typo on my part
If you've read this far...seek help.
by ThePeerless on Jul 31, 2009 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions
Claim an anniversary hangover; all is forgiven.
"The passion of our supporters cannot be contained by clothing."
by Bald Pollack on Jul 31, 2009 11:42 AM EDT up reply actions
Jurcina doesn’t make enough to be of any help, though. Unless Carlson outplays Alzner to the point where they’re willing to rush him ahead of Karl then there isn’t really anyone to replace Jurcina without screwing up the cap even worse. On the other hand, you could replace Morrisonn (or Pothier, if it came to that) with Alzner and save money.
I imagine it will come down to what they can get in return, but based on the money they’re making it doesn’t make a ton of sense to trade Jurcina instead of Morrisonn unless it’s an issue of what return you’re getting.
Not to mention in terms of style Morrisonn’s got more potential replacements in the org. than Jurcina right now, although it does depend on how GMGM wants the team constructed obviously.
My understanding is that moving Jurcina and putting Alzner on the roster would put the team about 150k into the bonus cushion and I think it’s feasible that the team decides they’re willing to be docked that in 2010-11 to keep Morrisonn over Jurcina.
On the other hand I also think the team wants to keep itself open to making deadline moves this seasons, which is a pretty good case for Pothier.
I do think there’s still at least a 50/50 chance Nylander goes overseas though, making it purely a personnel decision.
I think the issue here is how much the team actually likes Mo. I’m guessing it’s a great deal more than I do, and that throws off my judgement.
You can certainly take the bonus risk with Alzner most likely, but then if you’re not accumulating space for the trade deadline you run into the same issues as last year.
So if Nyles goes before the season starts, do we keep all the D-Men and just have some sort of rotation? Or do we still try and sell one of the guys…
Fehr is fair, but I like Laich
Morrison and Erskine will be the first to go. Jurcina’s play in the playoff’s plus his pure suze (which GMGM loves) will keep him on the roster next year to see if he keeps improving.
With where the Caps are right now – i.e. trying to win a Cup – I don’t see them moving a guy who’s proven for a guy with potential.
The first/next trade window is probably around the middle-to-end of the pre-season schedule, when teams have an injury or two, discover that Young Prospect hasn’t developed, or what-have-you. That’s when the Caps would most like to move a guy too — if the other team has a little injury-created need, they might get a third for 23 instead of a fourth, or whatevs.
Tactically, is it better to try to move someone now, or wait for training camp? If no one on another team goes down (this isn’t football and therefore in my mind not as likely to happen), I’d think the player would be worth less in a trade then than trying to get him moved to a team that’s not finished filling out their roster now.
Before the free agent signings, I had a discussion where I floated trading Poti for a second line center, non-sensible as that might have sounded, if only because he’s not on the last year of his contract and makes good money, not that I wanted him traded. But we got the center, so I don’t see any reason to be trading him now.
From some of the hints that have been dropped by McPhee directly, it wouldn’t surprise me to see a trade go through within days. The team may have had a deal with another team, pending the results of this arbitration.
Then again, McPhee is a big fat liar, so I don’t know why I’d put much stock in anything he says about the future.
The other thing I’d like to see happen soon is a Backstrom contract extension.
by Gould Old Days on Jul 31, 2009 9:52 AM EDT up reply actions
To send this thread into utter chaos… how much and for how long on Nicky?
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Let’s see Backstrom play on Ovie’s line for the rest of both of their careers!
"My face is my mask."
by Jake Shapiro on Jul 31, 2009 9:57 AM EDT up reply actions
As much as he wants for as long as he wants?
Ok, not that simple, but really “whatever it takes” because that’s how important he is, no?
I’d be ecstatic with anything under 6 mil and over 5-ish years, but getting both of those might be impossible (then again maybe I’m underestimating the impact of the current economic environment on bargaining positions?)
I’d easily give him a 10 year contract if the cap hit were favorable, if it were something he wanted.
I’m guessing he uses Stastny’s and Kopitar’s contracts as guidelines for what he wants, and hopefully GMGM is able to get him for less since he’s not our franchise player the way they are (or were projected to be at the time of signing) for their respective teams.
5 years, $30.4m?
"The passion of our supporters cannot be contained by clothing."
by Bald Pollack on Jul 31, 2009 9:59 AM EDT up reply actions
I’d do an Ovechkin – give him that contract and then another similar one right behind it. 10 years, 68.327 million isn’t crazy to me. Backstrom’s that kind of player.
by Gould Old Days on Jul 31, 2009 10:09 AM EDT up reply actions
I agree that that’s what you want to do, but I’m working under the assumption that he might want to test the market as a UFA similar to what Green might do. I’d love for him to sign a contract longer than that; I just don’t know if will happen.
"The passion of our supporters cannot be contained by clothing."
by Bald Pollack on Jul 31, 2009 10:19 AM EDT up reply actions
Sounds about right to me.
That being said, if we wait until after next year’s cap is announced, and the number goes down, does Nicks asking price go down half a million or so as well?
Because now I can justify browsing and commenting during the work day with the argument that I am promoting my business.
by Sombrero Guy on Jul 31, 2009 10:27 AM EDT up reply actions
Cap Question
Is there a way a GM could make a contract “depending on the Cap” ??
for instance… Sign Nick to 10yrs, 5mil per that escalates by a certain % if the cap goes up, and decreases by a certain % if the cap goes down?? (the certain % is the same percentage that the cap fluctuated that season)
may be a stupid question, but would be kinda cool for the team/player so no one gets jipped just cause it’s a down economical year.
I believe the CBA is very restrictive on “creative” terms, and I don’t think this would be legal. But that comes from reading part of the CBA a long time ago.
by Gould Old Days on Jul 31, 2009 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions
I’d call them “creative” use of standard terms…
by Gould Old Days on Jul 31, 2009 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Agreed – can’t cite it, but can’t imagine it would be allowed.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
And another question… are we going to do what Chicago/Detroit/Philly have done and just sign him to a ridiculously long deal in order to lower the cap hit?
Fehr is fair, but I like Laich
Backstrom’s only 21. For the team to be able to do that they’d have to sign him to a 22 year contract or something crazy like that, so don’t expect it to happen.
But that worked out so good for the Islanders.
by Malin A on Jul 31, 2009 10:11 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Backstrom has actually proven something before getting the contract…
by Gould Old Days on Jul 31, 2009 10:12 AM EDT up reply actions
PHI did it with M. Richards. It doesn’t have to be a 30-something player that gets that kind of deal. I’d like to see Backstrom signed at about 8/48.
Right, but Richards’ contract only goes until he’s 34 or 35 – i.e. when there’s a pretty good chance he’ll still be playing, as opposed to some of the other deals we’ve seen where guys are contracted into their early/mid 40s. I thought that was the type of deal that was being referred to.
(Like the Hossa deal, which is being “investigated”)
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Mirtle’s comments on the “investigation” are spot on. Why the hell is the NHL looking at Hossa’s and not Zetterberg’s? It seems to me that the NHL uses a magic 8-ball and the stars to determine what actions to take on a given day. Between Campbell and Daly there’s really no telling what is going to happen.
Hossa’s deal is much more eggregiously structured, but the concept is similar. From sk8’s handiwork in another thread:
Hossa: 12 years, cap hit: $5,233,333
30yo and ends the season 42yo partway through the season
7 years at 7.9M, then 4M, 1M, 1M, .75M, .75M
Zetterberg: 12 years, cap hit: $6,083,333
28yo and ends the season he turns 40yo
9 years of 7M+, then 3.35M, 1M, 1M
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Well, Zetterberg’s contract runs up when he’s 39 and Hossa’s runs up when he’s 42, for one thing. In NHL history there have been 78 seasons where a forward age 39 or older played at least 20 games and there have only been nine seasons where a forward age 42 or older played in more than 20 games.
Besides age at completion, look at the structure of the deals – basically, Hossa’s deal has four “joke” years at the end and Zetterberg’s has two.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Not really – it’s a distinction without much difference.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
also, the fact that three red wings were given deals structured in this way…i’d think the investigation would start with ken holland’s office.
by Natty Bumppo on Jul 31, 2009 11:21 AM EDT up reply actions
dying to know how you came up with that stat. as an aside, i think zetterberg’s contract ends when he’s 40 technically, no? my posit was that the league already had something to go off on the hossa deal, since either “handshake deal” would be difficult to prove.
by Natty Bumppo on Jul 31, 2009 11:18 AM EDT up reply actions
deal ends in 2021 according to capgeek.com.
by Natty Bumppo on Jul 31, 2009 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions
I think they’re “looking into” Hossa’s deal because they realize that things are getting out of control on these long-term deals and Hossa’s is the most recent. More than any actual investigating, I think it’s a warning going forward that the League is going to scrutinize these deals very closely.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
It wouldn’t surprise me at all, either, if the league were going harder on the Hossa deal because he was a UFA signing and not the retention of a player drafted by that team, as Z and Franzen were.
The NHL/BOG/powers that be have to realize that these contracts are quickly becoming one of the few ways for teams that draft/develop well to keep their talent long term. I imagine they won’t be as gung-ho about cutting down on it in those cases, whereas there’s likely no qualms in a salary cap environment about busting the big UFA signings when they play these same games.
Interesting point – I wonder if it would be worth working into the next CBA, somewhat akin to the NBA’s exemptions on homegrown players. Let teams sign their own players to contract of any length but limit UFAs to seven years or something.
It’d probably be difficult to push past the PA, but it’s an interesting idea.
Would you say that it violates the spirit of the salary cap if teams front loaded their contracts to convince the players that they are being paid more by operation of the time value of money?
I would say ‘yes’ in a technical, theoretical sense because it probably allows teams with more money to spend more in real dollars while keeping the nominal dollar cap hit the same as compared to smaller teams, but I’m not sure it’s a big enough deal that the league ought to do something about it, mostly because I haven’t researched it at all.
Well the follow-up is that if it is OK to do that, how do you distinguish between “time value” contracts, and the tack on 1 million a year contracts like Hossa? It seems you would have to have a flat ban against the regressive contracts, even though from a business sense I think the time value approach is a valid way to try to negotiate and sign players.
Well, my suggestion for dealing with it would be one of two things:
- Limit the amount by which a player’s salary can decreased over time (for example only 25% per year, only 33% over two years).
- Have all years over the age of 35 count, regardless how old the player was when he signed the deal.
Agree with your train of thought.
I think if the lowest years were limited to no less than a certain percentage of the highest years, say maybe 50%, those retirement contracts would be gone in a New York minute.
What about just having the actual amount of money be the cap hit, not the average? That way teams can’t load up as much.
by red army line on Jul 31, 2009 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions
What about just having the actual amount of money be the cap hit, not the average? That way teams can’t load up as much.
That lets teams manipulate the cap more easily. For example a team could say, “hey, we know you’re a $2 million dollar player, but we only have 1.5 million in cap space this year. Why don’t you sign this deal that pays you $1.5 million this year and $3 million next year? We get to keep you and stay under the cap and you come out 500 grand ahead”.
If I was the conspiratorial type, I would wonder if the arrangement hadn’t been broached between the parties when Hossa signed with the Wings in the first place… sign a one-year now, even if it is below what you could get elsewhere now, we’ll take care of you later.
If you've read this far...seek help.
by ThePeerless on Jul 31, 2009 12:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Looky here – turns out Hoss’s deal isn’t the only one under the microscope after all.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Jul 31, 2009 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Pronger’s contract was so obviously designed to try and get around the cap that it might has well have a big neon sign flashing above it.
And Pronger saying ""I’m sure that will get addressed at the proper time. As of right now, that’s the system" doesn’t help either.
He’s technically right though… All of these contracts fall within the letter of the law, though certainly not the spirit.
by Murshawursha on Jul 31, 2009 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Isn’t the funniest part of all, though, that his deal was a loophole-fail right from the start because Holmgren and Co. didn’t understand the CBA (or simply didn’t agree with the way it was read)? Or was there a contrary decision I missed on that issue?
I don’t know if I’d be able to stop laughing if the Flyers got punished for trying and failing to circumvent the cap on his contract.
No, you’re right… the Flyers forgot his new contract wouldn’t kick in until after his current one expired…
by Murshawursha on Jul 31, 2009 2:34 PM EDT up reply actions
Ha, I had the same reaction. Will be entertaining if they get punished and still are stuck with the contract and cap hit since it falls under the 35+ multiyear contract rule.
I have noted for awhile and still fear that there will be some form of an out for teams as it relates to a CBA redo and these long-term deals, like the one time buyout before the cap went into place, but maybe that won’t be the case given some of the recent attention these deals are getting.
But then it’s not circumventing the cap at all, so how can they be punished for it?
by Murshawursha on Jul 31, 2009 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, his cap hit is still lower than it would be if he actually intended to play the entire length of the contract. It’s those low salaries at the end, where it’s clear he has no intention of playing.
It’s still circumvention, it’s just poor circumvention that’s less effective than it would be for an under-35 player.
Though it’s really no different then any other front-loaded contract at this point since they’ll still pay the full hit after he retires.
by Murshawursha on Jul 31, 2009 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions
I think that was her reaction when she was told about her record in SCOTUS appeals, and then told that she was still going to be confirmed.
by Rob Parker on Jul 31, 2009 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
The other thing I’d like to see happen soon is a Backstrom contract extension.
For the love of Jeebus, YES!!! If there were ever a guy on our roster that you’d like to foster some goodwill with (by re-signing him early), its Backstrom. So far, not even a sniff of anything along those lines though, eh?
And for the record, GMGM looks like he’s in pretty good shape and not “big” or “fat”. We’ve already covered the lying vs. pokerface-ing angle before… : ]
by war_capitals on Jul 31, 2009 9:56 AM EDT up reply actions
Tactically, is it better to try to move someone now, or wait for training camp? If no one on another team goes down (this isn’t football and therefore in my mind not as likely to happen)
There’ll be no injuries in the NHL team camps, but there will be dozens in the various national Olympic team camps. Ask anybody!
IS PAЯTY NOW
I say Juice. As a 3-D, he’s the most easily replaceable out of Hershey but I think the replacement might just be Sloan, at least for awhile and if only for the cap number. When they resigned Sloan, my first thought was “bye bye Juice.”
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity
Augh!
Yeah, I’m quoting Charlie Brown… I know.
Jurcina’s new salary makes him pretty well untradable. It’s far too high for any team to be paying a 6th or 7th defenseman that much, and hell, he might even be 8th on the Caps depth chart:
1) Green
2) Poti
3) Alzner
4) Pothier
5) Schultz
6) Morrisonn
7) Erskine or Jurcina
No way the Caps keep 8 defensemen on the roster, someone has to go, and it’s best to move the worst of the lot. Honestly, unless the Caps are willing to take on someone that’s underperforming (Wade Redden, anyone?) in exchange for two of the 5-7 guys…
Again…AUGH!
Let's go Caps!
Jurcina’s new salary makes him pretty well untradable.
I disagree, rather wholeheartedly.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
I dunno, JP. What team is going to pay a 6th or 7th D-man $1.375M? Seems a lot to me. And what do you get in trade for that?
Let's go Caps!
by MikeL-Pivonka on Jul 31, 2009 1:06 PM EDT up reply actions
Jurcina’s a 6th/7th d-man here, true enough. But on some teams out there, he could easily fill a top-4 role. Hell, he and Mo were pretty much our top pairing a couple of seasons back, weren’t they?
by Murshawursha on Jul 31, 2009 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions
I think he’s a 6th D with upside. To a contender or a team near the cap, he’s not going to be desirable. But for a rebuilding team to whom the difference between a $900k and $1.3m guy isn’t significant, a guy of Juice’s age, frame and potential could be worth a 3rd round pick pretty easily, I think.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
His salary makes him just as trade-able as before. The difference is getting a 3rd round pick to a 2nd now.
His salary – that he has one and it’s manageable – makes him more tradeable than before. 72 hours ago, he was a mediocre D who could hit a homerun in arb. Today, he’s a mediocre D for whom there’s cost certainty.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
I think if he was only awarded around 1.1 he would have been more trade-able than he is now. I don’t know how him having a higher salary than before = easier to trade.
In any case, we agree that it didn’t make him less attractive.
I don’t know how him having a higher salary than before = easier to trade.
It’s not that a higher salary makes him easier to trade, it’s that having a (reasonable) salary rather than the looming arbitration hearing makes him easier to trade
Side question: Could we have traded his rights after he elected arbitration, and if we would have, would the team that got him have to go through it?
by Murshawursha on Jul 31, 2009 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes, and my assumption is that any team that traded for him would work out a deal to avoid arb (maybe it would technically have been a sign-and-trade) – I don’t think you’d trade for a guy with arb pending and go through with the arb process.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Gotcha… Yeah, it didn’t make sense that a team who hadn’t seen him play the entirety of the previous season would have to bring a case against him. So yeah, I’d agree that he’s way more tradable now.
by Murshawursha on Jul 31, 2009 1:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, a team that didn’t have a good enough scouting report and statistician to produce a case against a guy probably isn’t going to trade for him either.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
But they’d have to be able to produce a BETTER case against him than the Caps, which seems unlikely. So it would be in their best interest to wait for the award to come down unless they were willing to pay his asking price. In which case my question wouldn’t really apply anyway.
by Murshawursha on Jul 31, 2009 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions
I wouldn’t want Redden… he’d be the second-to-last player I want on the Caps (Avery is last). The idea was to indicate the type of player, not that particular one…
Let's go Caps!
by MikeL-Pivonka on Jul 31, 2009 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Uhm… Wade Redden is making $6.5million a year… until 2015. We’d have to trade like half our d-corps to fit that in, and then we’d be guaranteed salary cap hell for 6 more years. It would probably prohibit us from signing either Semin or Backstrom as well.
by Murshawursha on Jul 31, 2009 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions
See my comment above… Redden was an example, not a player I’d want.
Let's go Caps!
by MikeL-Pivonka on Jul 31, 2009 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions
the fact that redden got 6.5 million a year still blows my mind.
Because now I can justify browsing and commenting during the work day with the argument that I am promoting my business.
by Sombrero Guy on Jul 31, 2009 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions
Not mine. There’s the world in which you and I live, then there’s the one in which Glen Sather lives. I long ago stopped trying to comprehend what passes for logic in that other world.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Jurcina’s new salary makes him pretty well untradable. It’s far too high for any team to be paying a 6th or 7th defenseman that much
There are 133 defensemen who are going to make the same amount as Jurcina next year, or more – 4.5 per team. Factor in players still on their entry level contracts or who haven’t hit arbitration yet, and Jurcina’s salary seems to be right in line with his role.
Even if it’s slightly high to say it far too much for any team to take on it hyperbole – there are plenty of teams out there who either need to round out their defense corps (Anaheim, St. Louis, Nashville) or who aren’t very good and could take a guy with upside (Atlanta, Islanders, Colorad) and who have the cap space to do it.
Update from TEB
Update:I’m hearing the Caps sought salary of just under $1.1 million in Tuesday’s arbitration hearing, and the Jurcina camp came in just below the “walk away” number of $1.570 million.
Even though Jurcina’s salary was set closer to his agent’s figure than the team’s, the Caps, I’m told, are satisfied with the award.
IS PAЯTY NOW
Guess all the parties at the table were in agreement that the Caps would walk…
If you've read this far...seek help.
by ThePeerless on Jul 31, 2009 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Going to arbitration over 300k seems like a bit of a waste to me…
by Murshawursha on Jul 31, 2009 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions
I could do alot with the league minimum… But I see your point.
by Murshawursha on Jul 31, 2009 1:13 PM EDT up reply actions
I’d take a few days and a flight and sit in a room where people said no so flattering things about me in exchange for a 275,000 raise.
by David Getz on Jul 31, 2009 1:13 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
So, aside from the agent’s comment that the decision was lengthy, anyone have any pet theories as to why the Jurcina award was twelve hours late? I’d love to read a good conspiracy theory.
PC Load Letter
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Jul 31, 2009 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
It’s a movie reference. Office space. Printer gives “PC Load Letter” error message. So they smash it. Much fun is had by all.
Funny things are funnier when you explain them.
by Gould Old Days on Jul 31, 2009 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Printer gives "PC Load Letter" error message, to which the character responds “PC Load Letter? What the fuck does that mean?!?”. So they smash it. Much fun is had by all.
I’d rather be told to to give up than be given a joke that I don’t get. Sorry, I’m obviously older than just about everyone who posts here, so I’m not going to get the jokes. And when I do watch tv/movies, my taste is probably way different.
But thanks for the explanation.
I was with you there, man—really—even heard Michael Bolton’s whiny voice when I read it.
by bilspacecadet on Jul 31, 2009 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Including anyone who has watched that scene over and over again. Still is totally hilarious. Reminds me that my signature needs some flair.
What is the tune that is being played while this is happening? I remember it being absolutely perfect for the scene.
see ice warrior below. wrong scene, same band.
by Natty Bumppo on Jul 31, 2009 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions
you’re RIGHT. major mess up by me. “still” on an incredibly awesome youtube video.
by Natty Bumppo on Jul 31, 2009 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions
i should mention: also incredibly NSFW unless you have earphones.
by Natty Bumppo on Jul 31, 2009 2:30 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Japers' Rink
Related FanShots on Japers' Rink
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
The Vault
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Why the Devils and the Kings are evidence the Capitals shouldn’t trade Alex Ovechkin
- Eulogy: Remembering the 2011-12 New York Rangers
- Stanley Cup Final: 5 keys for New Jersey Devils and Los Angeles Kings
- Friday’s Three Stars: Devils head to Final; Brodeur, Kovalchuk the difference in Game 6
- Devils eliminate Rangers in Game 6, ending fear of the past, setting course for the future
