Jurcina files for arbitration; Mo does not
Per Tarik, Jurcina is the only Cap to elect arbitration. The others have until 7/15 to sign their QO's or work out a deal.
8 months ago
gotsparkly
56 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
My take ....
I’m a little surprised, but ShaMo’s not stupid. McPhee will let him walk if he does, and I think ShaMo knows it. Guess he really does want to be a Cap.
"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." - Delores Ibarruri
by gotsparkly on Jul 5, 2009 7:01 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Beat me to it, farts. And the deadline’s 7/15 to accept their QOs. ;)
by Bald Pollack on Jul 5, 2009 7:05 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Whee, typo! Thank you; fixed.
"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." - Delores Ibarruri
by gotsparkly on Jul 5, 2009 7:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mo wants to be a Cap. Jurcina is out of his mind if he thinks an arbitrator will give him a penny more than the QO. In fact, if the number the Caps file for arbitration is less than the QO, he could be awarded less money than his QO.
Let's go Caps!
by MikeL-Caps on Jul 5, 2009 7:24 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Mo may want to be a Cap, but he wants to make $2.5m (conservatively) in doing it. With a team carrying 3 defensemen making at least that amount now, and two more who will take up another almost $3m in cap space, Mo becomes expendable, barring additional movement of course.
By very rough math, Juice made $912k this year, which would make his QO around $953k. If memory serves, Mo was making compatively the same in ‘07-08 that Juice did this year. The club was offering around $1.1m for Mo. If there’s anything to take from past behavior, there you go.
by Bald Pollack on Jul 5, 2009 8:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Juice is far from out of his mind. Given his hits and blocked-shots numbers he’ll likely get comfortably over 1 mil.
by brs03 on Jul 5, 2009 10:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If I’m George McPhee, I file Juice’s arbitration salary at about $800K. If Juice files at $1.1M, then the arbitrator will likel find the middle ground and give Juice about $900K.
I thought QOs had to be a 10% raise, making Juice’s a little over $1M.
Mo may want $2.5M, but if he’s going to get that, he’s going to have to go somewhere else to get it. No way the Caps give that to him. There may be a team out there willing to offer that to him, but it’s too early for someone to jump in on this right now.
Let's go Caps!
by MikeL-Caps on Jul 6, 2009 9:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I believe Juice’s QO can be for 5% up from his previous salary.
by Bald Pollack on Jul 6, 2009 10:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If I’m Juice I’m asking for a good deal more than 1.1 in arbitration. His numbers compared with the rest of the team and the rest of the league for hits and blocked shots are good enough that he should be asking for a decent amount more.
If he takes it all the way to arbitration I don’t see how he doesn’t get over 1 mil. If Morrisonn can get 1.975(?) in arbitration, Juice can get at least 1.1+.
by brs03 on Jul 6, 2009 10:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think the main reason is because Morrisonn is a more effective player than Jurcina. Morrisonn is usually in better position, gives the puck up less often, isn’t afraid of playing to his size (Jurcina gets a lot of hits, imagine if he played up to his size).
And of course, Morrisonn doesn’t skate like he’s running in wet cement. There aren’t 5 defensemen in the NHL slower than Jurcina. Morrisonn can keep up with having Green as a partner. Jurcina having Green as a partner would be a disaster.
I’m not saying that Jurcina can’t play in the NHL, I don’t think he’s worth more $1M/year. In the end, by going to artbitration, he may end up the odd-man-out as the Caps have a number of defensmen, most of whom are better than Jurcina (certainly Green, Poti, Pothier, Alzner, Morrisonn and Schultz are.) If they were able to graft Erskine’s mean streak on Jurcina, you’d have a very effective defenseman…
Let's go Caps!
by MikeL-Caps on Jul 6, 2009 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you’re severely overrating Morrisonn, or underrating Jurcina. They’re much closer than you seem to be suggesting in ability, if not style. His positioning isn’t good, he has little ability to read the play or think the game, and has nowhere near the physical game of Jurcina.
Mo’s positive is that he has decent chemistry with Green, at least half the time. If not for that he’d be playing a similar role to Jurcina, only trying to be more positional and without the hitting or the heavy shot.
by brs03 on Jul 6, 2009 1:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
info on offer sheets
http://www.nhlscap.com/offer_sheets.htm
so juice filed for arbitration, but the others could still sign offer sheets if they don’t accept the QO
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 5, 2009 8:44 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
It would be interesting to see if Morrisonn takes a pay cut for a longer term deal. Does anyone think it would make sense for the Caps to sign Mo for 4 years at 1.5 Million per? Would that make sense for Mo?
by Gould Old Days on Jul 5, 2009 8:57 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Maybe not at 4 years, but I think something like that might work for all involved.
Then there’s the whole “who gets moved” angle, as Mo + players could maybe get some higher than expected picks.
by Bald Pollack on Jul 5, 2009 10:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
2 years at 1.5m might make sense for both parties. I’m encouraged that ShaMo didn’t file for arbitration. I’d think that has to increase our options with a little added depth at D.
by mechanicsville on Jul 5, 2009 10:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lesson time. What happens if a player doesn’t elect arbitration and doesn’t sign his QO? Does that mean the team can now offer less? Not that the player would take it of course, unless no one else wanted him.
by gfcaps fan on Jul 5, 2009 9:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
12.3, section b appears to fit the bill:
(i) If a Group 2 Restricted Free Agent has not accepted his Club’s Qualifying Offer, nor filed a request for Player-elected salary arbitration in accordance with Section 12.2 above, the Club may
elect to file for salary arbitration to determine that Player’s Paragraph 1 Salary for that League Year.
(ii) If a Club elects salary arbitration in accordance with this subsection, the Club’s offer in salary arbitration must be equal to or higher than the Player’s aggregate Paragraph 1 Salary plus Signing,
Reporting and Roster Bonuses in the final League Year of the Player’s SPC.
Club-elected arbitration is a one-time thing though.
by Bald Pollack on Jul 5, 2009 10:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, they can pay him less. That’s what happened to Flash, he didn’t accept the QO but came to camp and earned his contract, making less than the QO would have given him.
Before the QO expires I’m pretty sure the only deals they can sign are deals that pay salaries equal to or greater than the QO amount. But afterwards it’s whatever they can get really.
by brs03 on Jul 5, 2009 10:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm pretty confident that they can sign whatever deal they want even before the QO expires both based on examples from previous off-seasons and reading the CBA.
by sk84fun_dc on Jul 6, 2009 10:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
oops, somehow that got posted before I was finished typing…to continue the previous post.
Morrisonn’s history provides an example of signing a lower than QO extension before the QO expired: The two year contract extension agreed to in July 2006 after he filed for arb., but before the hearing and before the QO expired was for slightly less per year – 900,000 per year for 2 years instead of a little more than than 900,000 for one year per the QO.
http://capitals.nhl.com/team/app?articleid=316282&page=NewsPage&service=page
Players also agree to contracts for less than the QO to obtain one way contracts, to get extra years, etc.
by sk84fun_dc on Jul 6, 2009 10:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This puts the Caps officially under the salary cap, assuming they carry 13 forwards, 7 defensemen, and 2 goalies. Even if Juice gets 1.33 Million in arbitration (which is more than I think he’ll get), the most expensive 22-man roster I can come up with is:
Ovechkin, Nylander, Semin, Knuble, Clark, Backstrom, Laich, Bradley, Beagle, Fehr, Fleischmann, Steckel, Gordon (13)
Green, Poti, Pothier, Morrisonn, Alzner, Jurcina, Erskine (7)
Theodore, Varlamov (2)
That roster, with the Clymer buyout, is pretty much exactly at the cap. I’m pretty sure Schultz will displace one of the other seven defensemen, which should save the team a few hundred thousand. And Juice ain’t going to make 1.33 Million, so that’s some more money under the cap. All in all, this is pretty good news.
by Gould Old Days on Jul 6, 2009 3:53 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Bourque would make the Caps before Beagle, as he won’t be waiver exempt… not sure how that impacts things.
Really whether or not the Caps come in under the cap depends what they do with the D (barring some unforseen move involving a bigger name). If they carry 8 D they’ll be over (but with the bonus cushion that’s ok, sort of). If they move a Dman or start Alzner in Hershey they won’t be.
by brs03 on Jul 6, 2009 8:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They need to leave some space under the cap for injury call-ups and possible moves at the trade deadline.
"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." - Delores Ibarruri
by gotsparkly on Jul 6, 2009 8:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The bonus cushion is big enough for the callups. But yes, accumulating space for the deadline would be an issue and I doubt GMGM plays it as close as he did last year and handcuffs himself again.
by brs03 on Jul 6, 2009 8:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bonus cushion was 2.5 Million on the team I put together there.
by Gould Old Days on Jul 6, 2009 9:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I also see Bourque as more likely to make the team out of camp, but Beagle’s more expensive so I put him on this list. The difference is a couple hundred thousand (which may mean Beagle has some bonuses — I don’t know) which could definitely come in handy around the trade deadline.
Cheaper still is Keith Aucoin, who’s basically signed at the league minimum. You put Aucoin (playmaker) on the wing of Brooks Laich (faceoff guy, defensively responsible) and it might make both players better. It seems to me Aucoin has what Laich is missing, and vice versa.
by Gould Old Days on Jul 6, 2009 9:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Doesn’t Aucoin have a one-way this year?
I see there being potentially two holes at forward (lost 3, replaced 1) – that gives you 14 forwards, 7 D, and 2 G for 23 roster slots. Of course, BB might opt for 8 D, too, which would be unusual but given last year… Aucoin and Bourque seem the most likely to slide into those but no guarantees, obviously.
"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." - Delores Ibarruri
by gotsparkly on Jul 6, 2009 9:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He does. It’s one reason why I think he’ll be at least the 13th forward on the roster when training camp breaks. He gets paid an NHL salary whether he makes the team or not. And as I’ve written before, I like the idea of Laich at center with Aucoin at his wing.
by Gould Old Days on Jul 7, 2009 9:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think Aucoin’s salary impacts whether or not he’s on the roster, for the same reason. He’s going to get paid what he’s going to get paid anyway so it makes the decision about where to put easier because it’s solely based on talent.
by David M. Getz on Jul 7, 2009 10:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think it matters at least some. Last year, the team probably saved a couple hundred thousand dollars by keeping Aucoin in Hershey all year. This next year, they won’t save any money for doing that, so that’s one less reason to keep him in the AHL. I don’t think it’s very important in the grand scheme of things, but it’s there.
What I think matters more is that Aucoin is signed for just about the league minimum and has just about the lowest cap hit of anyone in the organization. So if the Caps are 500k under the cap with 12 forwards, they’ll have some incentive to carry him as a 13th in case anyone gets hurt.
Of course, on the other hand the team banks savings against the cap every day they are under the cap, and they can use those to acquire an expensive trade deadline acquisition. So it may not make sense to keep someone on the roster if he ain’t going to play.
by Gould Old Days on Jul 7, 2009 7:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jurcina will be lucky if he gets $1M in arbitration. His peripheral numbers look ok, but his primary numbers are not very good. And that tendency to take penalties at critical times.
Let's go Caps!
by MikeL-Caps on Jul 6, 2009 9:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Erskine’s getting 1.25 million next year and Mo made 1.975 last year. Jurcina should expect more than a million.
by David M. Getz on Jul 6, 2009 10:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is that something the Caps can handle given their salary cap situation?
"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." - Delores Ibarruri
by gotsparkly on Jul 6, 2009 10:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A decision will be have to be made between Mo and Alzner (or perhaps Pothier), but yes they should be able to handle it.
by brs03 on Jul 6, 2009 11:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Mo goes before Pothier does – one thing the blueline doesn’t have a ton of is maturity / experience, and Pothier’s got more of that than most of the Caps blueliners.
"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." - Delores Ibarruri
by gotsparkly on Jul 6, 2009 11:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Erskine’s deal is completely irrelevant, as he wasn’t an RFA. Mo’s is more relevant.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Jul 6, 2009 11:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don think so because I think it’s the kind of contract the NHLPA might point to as an example of the value the Capitals put on a defensive defenseman.
by David M. Getz on Jul 6, 2009 11:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But they can’t use it as a comparable if it’s as a UFA.
by gfcaps fan on Jul 6, 2009 12:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
JP is talking about the facts of the CBA as noted in section 12.9g and what is admissible during an arbitration hearing.
Erskine’s contract is inadmissible as the term of the contract only covers UFA seasons.
by sk84fun_dc on Jul 6, 2009 12:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I stand corrected – I didn’t realize the rules about who could and couldn’t be mentioned were quite as restrictive as they are (i.e. I didn’t realize you couldn’t bring up any player unless they’re being used as a “comparable player”).
by David M. Getz on Jul 6, 2009 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, sorry I wasn’t clear that I meant in the arb hearing. I’m sure, however, that if they’re trying to reach a deal and avoid arbitration, Juice’s camp has mentioned Ersky a few times.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Jul 6, 2009 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Accordingto Puck Daddy, a player that is a UFA cannot be mentioned as a comparable player, so that may not be admissible.
"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." - Delores Ibarruri
by gotsparkly on Jul 6, 2009 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not admissible in the arb hearing, but certainly would be mentioned in contract negotiations.
Walsh: “You guys are paying Ersky $1.25.”
GMGM: “So?”
Walsh: “So that’s clearly where you value a defensive defenseman who’s much older than my client and doesn’t have the upside.”
GMGM: “But your client is an RFA.”
Waslh: “So?”
GMGM: “So he can pound sand. See ya at the hearing.”
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Jul 6, 2009 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Well, yeah. :)
"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." - Delores Ibarruri
by gotsparkly on Jul 6, 2009 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are you assuming that Jurcina is better than Erskine? That’s a tough call. Personally, if it comes down to who gets the 6th defenseman sweater, I give it to Erskine because of his willingness to get his nose dirty in the corners and in front of the net (Jurcina isn’t as aggressive as Erskine). Plus Erskine is a faster skater and makes fewer mistakes in the defensive zone.
On the bright side, if the arbitration gives Jurcina a ridiculous salary, the Caps can walk away from him…
Let's go Caps!
by MikeL-Caps on Jul 6, 2009 1:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmm… let me go find a calendar and we’ll set up a match race on skates between Erskine and Jurcina
Let's go Caps!
by MikeL-Caps on Jul 6, 2009 1:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It might get expensive having to rent the ice for so many hours…
by brs03 on Jul 6, 2009 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Unless there’s outdoor ice, we better stick with a calendar.
Let's go Caps!
by MikeL-Caps on Jul 6, 2009 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
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 6, 2009 10:08 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Ouch!
The Caps used Jurcina and a comparison for Morrisonn???? Yikes. Talk about undermining your own case with Juice…
Maybe Juice will get over $1M….
Let's go Caps!
by MikeL-Caps on Jul 6, 2009 1:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
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
Southeast Standings
| GP | W | L | OTL | PT | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Washington
|
71 | 47 | 14 | 10 | 104 |
|
Atlanta
|
70 | 30 | 29 | 11 | 71 |
|
Tampa Bay
|
70 | 28 | 30 | 12 | 68 |
|
Florida
|
69 | 28 | 30 | 11 | 67 |
|
Carolina
|
70 | 29 | 33 | 8 | 66 |
(updated 3.19.2010 at 1:17 AM EDT)
The Vault
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
