Why Ilya Kovalchuk Isn't The Poster Boy For A Failed CBA
by David M. Getz on Jan 27, 2010 2:00 PM EST
47 comments
[Ed. note: This post focuses on a recent Ken Campbell column about the prospect of the Atlanta Thrashers dealing Ilya Kovalchuk. It doesn't focus on the Capitals in any direct way, but since it's a commentary on the state of the league as a whole, as well as the fate of Southeast Division foe, we think it's a topic worth touching on.]
The NHL's season's almost two-thirds of the way to its conclusion, the vast majority of the league can still make a reasonable claim of being a playoff contender, big contracts are becoming more affordable by the day, and the trade deadline is just six weeks away. All of which naturally means that trade discussion is heating up and, as usual, there are a number of big names that are being thrown around as possible trade candidates, among them Sheldon Souray, Tomas Kaberle, Marty Turco, and Scott Niedermayer. But no one's attracting as much attention as Thrashers winger Ilya Kovalchuk, and with good cause. After all, there's an awful lot to discuss about a potential Kovalchuk trade: what the Thrashers might fetch in return, how his acquisition alters the Stanley Cup Playoff landscape, what a blow that big might mean for the Thrashers franchise. And, if you're The Hockey News' Ken Campbell, the fact that the trade would undermine the league's financial status and collective bargaining agreement:
[A Kovalchuk trade] will also go a long way toward proving the collective bargaining agreement was a sham and that we missed a year of hockey for a whole lot of bupkis.
Now that's a hell of a statement, and one that caught me by surprise. I, for one, would have never made that connection, and although I was skeptical about the claim I was curious to read Campbell's case. Unfortunately it turned out it was built on speculation, strawman arguments, and either a distortion or complete lack of understanding of asset management.
In essence, Campbell makes three points. They are:
- The current CBA is a failure because it doesn't provide teams like Atlanta enough financial protection and forces them to give up their best players.
- The CBA is not strong enough to protect teams who do a poor job of personnel management.
- The Thrashers are being forced to move Kovalchuk due to financial constraints, part of an ongoing theme for the franchise.
For sake of structure, it's easiest to look at the points one at a time. So, without further ado, let's move on to point number one, which I think it's fair to say would be Campbell's thesis:
(1) The current CBA is a failure because it doesn't provide teams like Atlanta enough financial protection and forces them to give up their best players.
What Campbell says:
Wasn’t the season-long lockout and subsequent CBA supposed to prevent this very thing from happening? Didn’t the league sit out the 2004-05 season so struggling non-traditional hockey markets wouldn’t be forced to trade their superstar players at the primes of their careers? Wasn’t the mere presence of a salary cap supposed to even the playing field for everyone?
Yes and yes. Has it turned out that way? No and no. The reality is there remains a huge division between the have and have-not teams in the NHL, which is a major reason why the Thrashers will almost certainly be forced to deal Kovalchuk prior to the March 3 trade deadline.
Why he's wrong:
I'm going to deviate from Campbell's order briefly to go ahead and get this out of the way: it's ridiculous to say the salary cap hasn't helped to level the playing field. Yes, it's true that there are teams who have an advantage because they can spend more money, but realistically there's never going to be a way to eliminate that fact. The best anyone can do is hope to mitigate it and increase parity - something that the fact that 26 of the league's 30 teams are within five points of a playoff position with almost two-thirds of the season complete suggests is happening.
Campbell's other point, and perhaps his bigger one, is that the cap and CBA were put in place "so struggling non-traditional hockey markets wouldn’t be forced to trade their superstar players at the primes of their careers". It's true that's part of the benefit of the cap and the CBA, but the sentence is misleading. It should read, "Didn’t the league sit out the 2004-05 season so struggling non-traditional hockey markets wouldn’t be forced to trade their superstar players at the primes of their careers because they couldn't afford to keep them, knowing what big market teams like Detroit, New York, and Toronto could offer?"
That's not what's happening with Kovalchuk. He's asking for huge money - between ten and eleven million dollars a year, depending on the source - and that's just not what he's worth from an on-ice perspective. It's not an issue of Atlanta being unable or unwilling to pay Kovalchuk -- both CapGeek and NHL Numbers have the Thrashers spending in the neighborhood of fifty million dollars this year, depending on bonuses, and the team has made significant financial commitments in each of the past two offseasons. Rather, it's an issue of whether Kovalchuk has an interest in signing with a mediocre team with a bad general manager and a shaky ownership situation, and if so, whether the price he's willing to do it at makes sense for the Thrashers from an asset management standpoint. No cap or CBA is going to keep a player in a city where he simply doesn't want to be playing.
(2) The CBA is not strong enough to protect teams who do a poor job of personnel management.
What Campbell says:
The other reality is there isn’t a financial system or enforced curbs on spending that can overcome incompetent management and ownership.
It turns out there’s no CBA in the world that can protect a team from bad drafting and developing, poor player personnel decisions and ownership wars that seem to keep the franchise in a constant state of chaos.
And while the cynic might suggest Kovalchuk has been part of the reason why the Thrashers have only made the playoffs once in their history, this is not a Jay Bouwmeester situation.
The real reason is more likely because the Thrashers have never been able to fill their roster with NHL-caliber players and have never been able to find a center any better than Todd White to play with Kovalchuk.
Why he's wrong:
He's not. He's just wrong it what it means when it comes to evaluating the CBA. The fact that teams can no longer overcome managerial incompetence is in itself an indication that cap is working. In fact, that was the whole point of instituting a cap. Make the on-ice results about who does the best scouting, makes the best selections at the draft, makes the best trades, and finds players whose production outpaces their salary cap number, rather than who has the biggest pocketbook.
The Thrashers have a miserable history, and they've miserable management for their entire history. They let Steve Staios and Andrew Brunette walk. They drafted Patrick Stefan over Henrik Sedin and Daniel Sedin. They traded Braydon Coburn for Alexei Zhitnik. Beyond top fifteen picks, their draft history is terrible. A team that doesn't draft well, makes short-sighted and lopsided trades, and lets solid role players walk away shouldn't succeed. The goal of a capped league is to create a more level playing field, not create parity at all costs despite organizational management.
Teams that manage their organizations poorly should fail on the ice. And the Thrashers have been. There's no problem here.
(3) The Thrashers are being forced to move Kovalchuk due to financial constraints, part of an ongoing theme for the franchise.
What Campbell says:
The Thrashers will have no shortage of willing dance partners when they put the crown jewel of the 2010 trade deadline up for auction. And as was the case with Dany Heatley and Marian Hossa before him, Kovalchuk’s departure will leave the Thrashers in worse shape both in the short- and long-term.
Why he's wrong:
Campbell's creating a strawman argument here, at least if he's using it as a way to provide support for his premise that the current CBA is a "farce". The reason Kovalchuk's on the block isn't that the team can't afford him, it's that they can't convince him to sign a contract that's reasonable in a salary cap world, and to pretend otherwise just to make a point is ridiculous. As mentioned before, the Thrashers have been adding salary and seem more than willing to entertain reasonable offers from Kovalchuk's end.
How Heatley and Hossa play in is beyond me. If the implication is that salary was an issue in either case - which I think is a fair read, given that Campbell's point is that small market teams aren't able to keep their players - he's mistaken. Heatley was traded because he wanted to leave the city where he'd killed a teammate and friend with his reckless actions; keeping a player who wants to leave under those circumstances doesn't seem like a good idea for your franchise, short- or long-term. Plus, from a hockey perspective, the trade wasn't a bad one. Hossa averaged 1.12 points per game in his time with Atlanta; Heatley averaged 1.14 in Ottawa, before sulking his way to West Coast. Plus Atlanta got Greg de Vries in the trade. A great trade for Atlanta? No. But a fair one given the circumstances? Yes.
As for Hossa, he left for the same reason Kovalchuk might: he wanted to win. His decision to accept a one-year, $7.5 million dollar contract to play in Detroit the next season while leaving a five-year, $35 million offer from the Penguins and a long-term offer reportedly worth over $9 million to play in Edmonton on the table should be evidence enough of that.
If Ken Campbell - or anyone else for that matter - thinks the NHL's current collective bargaining agreement is imperfect or needs revision, that alone isn't a sin. There's an argument to be made there. Just not this one.
28 recs |
47 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Smakedown!
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Jan 27, 2010 2:09 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
It’s equal parts smackdown and takedown.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
You see, sometime JP types too fast on twitter and makes typos.. So one day when @nateewell was tearing some clown a new one a new word was born out of JP’s quick thinking.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
This needed to be written. When I read that column I was like, “wtf????”. Way to go.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Jan 27, 2010 2:10 PM EST reply actions
Excellent Rebuttal DMG
I agree with you totally that an argument can be made. Except alot of the Thrashers woes can be pinned on poor management and ownership not the greater CBA picture. As you said alot better than I have in this post.
Thanks for the great read.
A rambling Rec from Georgia Tech from me
For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism.
Well done. I had to reread this:
2. The CBA is not strong enough to protect teams who do a poor job of personnel management.
over and over because it seemed, frankly, idiotic.
(It’s amazing how much talent has left this team)
Semin is a Checkahhhh? Fleischmann is a Centahhhh?
by ns on Jan 27, 2010 2:19 PM EST up reply actions
True. A salary cap exposes poor drafting/scouting/player management by GMs. The Yankees can afford to waste picks or trade prospects left and right because they can always plug holes with free agents. But with a cap, covering holes becomes harder and mistakes get magnified. Witness how the Nylander experience taught GMGM and the rest of Caps fandom the evil of the No Movement Clause. Heck, a seemingly small buyout of Clymer seems to have hampered personnel moves.
"Ah, dinner. The perfect break between work and drunk." - Homer Simpson
Glad you wrote this. I thought the same thing when I read Campbell’s column. The bottom line is, the cap wasn’t intended to, and shouldn’t, protect teams from bad management.
Ok, I’m going to bend your argument here. In advance, I know this isn’t what you meant. But…
The cap does indeed protect teams from bad management: other teams’ bad management! These days, when I think of bad management, I think of the Rangers, the Canadiens, the Leafs, etc… who haven’t gotten it together since their purse strings were cut. In an uncapped world, these teams would be throwing dollars and Loonies at Kovy, the Sedins, Semin, Ovie and the rest because they could and their fan bases would want them to do so and coaches/GMs would be trying to keep their jobs by doing so. That’s the bad management I think of when I count the blessings that the cap has brought. Back then, a small market’s best, brightest and most talented fought an almost impossible battle against the deep pockets of the established NHL. How do we know this? Because now that the ice has been cap-tilted back to level our local resident uber organization is thriving. In DC!
And take a look at the clubs that managed to win a Cup in the past 20 years. Where are they now? A few successful clubs not withstanding (Pittsburgh, Detroit, New Jersey), most of those teams are struggling to remain perennial contenders because they mortgaged their souls to win a cup (Carolina, Tampa Bay, Dallas, etc…) that took years to recover from as an organization and they are still trying to wrap their heads around life in a capped world.
Granted, we got Ovie in effectively the first cap period draft and managed to land the best player in the universe in doing so (Crosby be damned), so my holding up the Caps as the shining example might be a bit self aggrandizing (I’m a homer, I admit). But the club’s success (at all levels) under the cap cannot be argued against. Our success might be compared to the Pens when we win the Cup this year, but even their organization is showing gaping holes right now. I’ve been with this team for 35 years (fan) and have never seen it in a better position.
"More Gary Thorne, please."
Remember that Pitt was bad for a long, long time before Crosby’s sophomore year.
by DrinkingPartner on Jan 27, 2010 4:02 PM EST up reply actions
I’d disagree to some level on the achievement level.
At this point, the big club has won only one playoff series using a bunch of first round draft picks and acquired veterans. Sure, there are non first-round draft picks who APPEAR to have the promise desired to kick things up the prospective notch, and until that cheaper talent can come in and show the promise that a Letang, Talbot, etc. have and contribute some regular value to the roster, I’d rate the entire organization as close but not quite there yet.
If you don't know how to write or what to think, or have a question about something on an elitist blog, read its community guidelines for assistance.
by Bald Pollack on Jan 27, 2010 4:04 PM EST up reply actions
Agreed on the achievement thing. I’m under no illusion that we’ve “been there and done that” yet. But we have been there and done a lot of growing as an organization that has led to an inexorable climb to the remaining next steps. My main point is that we are now a highly performing and sustainable organization compared to the pre-salary cap era and, while admittedly the sample size is small, I think it’s remarkable what has been done and it’s being noticed everywhere.
"More Gary Thorne, please."
No salary cap or other structure is going to protect teams from themselves. Stupid is as stupid does. What we have witnessed here with the Caps is that if you have a solid plan, patience, and good hockey scouting abilities, (and some luck) you can succeed in this league whether you are in Canada or on Mars.
Atlanta, as evidenced above, has not been successful because of their own poor strategy and draft abilities, not because of a salary cap. In fact, the only reason they could have possible kept Kovy is because of the cap and the inability of other teams to bid much beyond what Atlanta was offering. Without a cap he gets a $12M/year bid to fail in Toronto.
You sir, should proffer yourself a profile avatar before DMG gives you an oratory smakedown.
If you don't know how to write or what to think, or have a question about something on an elitist blog, read its community guidelines for assistance.
by Bald Pollack on Jan 27, 2010 3:10 PM EST up reply actions
i would be honored to be smacked-down by someone as loquatious as mr DMG. however, i will update my profile with the appropriate avatar asap.
by dcsportsfan1 on Jan 27, 2010 3:34 PM EST up reply actions
You make a good point, most of the teams that have fallen to the bottom is a direct result of the management.
There are two sides to this ‘bad management’. The inability to retain any talent on your team and the horrible mistakes you make once you do get the talent. The teams that stick to the bottom are those who have made both mistakes.
Still waiting for someone to draft Paul Newman. . .
Bravo
The only thing missing from DMG’s analysis was the proffer of a f*king porcupine and a fork.
IS KEPTIN NOW
by EmilyB on Jan 27, 2010 2:51 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
A forkupine?
When you dance with the devil, you wait for the song to stop.
by Steck It Out on Jan 27, 2010 3:37 PM EST up reply actions
A Chris Bourque-upine!
(This is the part where you photoshop experts come in)
When you dance with the devil, you wait for the song to stop.
by Steck It Out on Jan 27, 2010 3:59 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Who needs Photoshop?
His hair will fit the role admirably… last time I saw him, he looked like something out of Dragon Ball Z!
I need a snappy signature...
Seriously people. PhotoShop is time consuming! We can’t photoshop every wild hair you people have up your ass. Okay, maybe I can, but I wont!
PuckDaddy be damned, I'm putting CincoCinco on the back of a Schultz jersey!
by Chris meet Alex on Jan 27, 2010 4:31 PM EST up reply actions
DMG- I rec you sir. The awsomeness of this article eclipses the shallow knee jerking happening at THN by miles. I’m astonished that THN put out that garbage but I’m equally proud of your prose.
Campbell needs to be reminded that there was arguably no smaller/insignificant a hockey market than DC in the past and now it’s turned into a juggernaut. How? Years of investment, marketing, hard working players, smart management decisions and an ever increasing hockey smart fan base. And, also arguably, because of the cap. Organizations that did not adapt to the new model either chose to do so or just couldn’t handle it. GMGM and Ted had a fire sale before the lockout in prescient anticipation of hockey in a capped world. Here we are 5/6 years later with the benchmark organization for the rest of the NHL to admire.
Granted, Detroit did it first in a an uncapped league and that was liquid genius (and a hockey God was their coach). But I think our current structure and stability rivals that success and perhaps could be longer lasting. Future Cups be damned, this club has set the new standard.
"More Gary Thorne, please."
Well said
Lyle Richardson (Spector) jumped on this theme too, and it is entirely off the mark. Some people just have an ax to grind, and will use any excuse to bash the CBA, assuming that 90%+ of the readership doesn’t pay attention to or care about the details.
More fun than a stick to the face!
On the Forecheck is SB Nation's blog covering the Nashville Predators.
by Dirk Hoag on Jan 27, 2010 3:18 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
I am swamped, but I am looking forward to reading this!
by Bushwood Bushwhacker on Jan 27, 2010 3:19 PM EST reply actions
New Stat?
ratio of comments to rec’s, or would that be rec’s to comments? a few minutes ago, this fine post had 13 comments and 13 rec’s – 1:1, baby, that is fine!
Parity
The best anyone can do is hope to mitigate it and increase parity – something that the fact that 26 of the league’s 30 teams are within five points of a playoff position with almost two-thirds of the season complete suggests is happening.
It may well be that the salary cap has contributed to parity somewhat, but I doubt it’s had as strong an influence as Bettman-influenced point inflation. The fact that the four teams who are out of the hunt are the only four teams under .500 (when the number should be closer to fifteen or so) sort of underscores this.
Admittedly, this is completely unrelated to the topic at hand, which I agree with wholeheartedly, but it bugs me enough to comment on it.
Better parity than the NFL, by far. Four teams out of the hunt? NFL had twice as many teams out of the hunt at this, comparatively speaking, point. Sure you can’t dig yourself out of a hole, but some teams like the Redskins, Lions, Bucs, Bills, Browns (the list will go on and on) barely have enough talent to go on the field. Only the adage of anyone can win on Sunday gave those teams wins.
While I want to see how the CBA will grow with the ‘new’ NHL, Campbell is extremely off base calling it anything other than a success so far.
Rec’d. Simple logic makes for the best arguments.
by DrinkingPartner on Jan 27, 2010 4:05 PM EST reply actions
Great job DMG, but did you even break a sweat smakeing down that hack piece?
Now let's say you and I go toe to toe on bird law and see who comes out the victor.
by Fehr and Balanced on Jan 27, 2010 4:16 PM EST reply actions
Where he and these other anti-CBA (or more specifically, anti-salary cap) bloviators lose me is that they fail to offer ideas a better system. One that would provide more stability for the league, its franchises, players, and fans.
IIRC, the players were recieving upwards of 75% of league revenues before the lockout and now they’re locked into somewhere in the mid-50%‘s. However, there is now a league minimum salary, something that didn’t exist under the old system and would certainly be scuttled if the cap ever went away. It is currently $500K and would increase to $525K if the CBA goes its full term through the 2011-2012 season.
Furthermore, mostly because of the minimum salary there is no denying that the players are better off (paid more $$$$$) under the current CBA than they were under the old one. Under the original terms of the CBA, the maximum player salary was $7.8 million. Now we see Kovalchuk demanding $12 million heading into year six of the deal. Excuse me for not feeling sorry because Kovalchuk can’t demand more $$$$$ per year than I’m likely to earn over my entire lifetime because of the CBA.
Many people including myself have been waiting for the inevitable contraction of the salary cap, forcing salaries down, but it has not yet happened and I’m beginning to wonder if it ever will. But that’s not the point. The old system was heading for a total and complete collapse because there was only a handlful of teams who could have kept up. Under the new system, more teams are able to compete as long as they manage themselves properly. That is not a euphemism for “cheap.”
There are many franchises are exploiting the loopholes in the CBA and are allegedly “making a mockery of the CBA.” But those who are brazenly exploiting the loopholes and still succeeding on the ice are few and far between. Yeah, you may be paying a player $10 million and only being charged $7 million under the cap rules, but the player is on such a long term contract that you can’t move him to another team nor is a buyout feasible option because you can’t absord the dead money hit to the cap for the next 23 years. If you’re going to do those kinds of deals, you better make sure the person you give them to is worth it.
The one thing Campbell and the rest of the Union Mouthpiece crowd gets right is that the CBA does not and cannot protect against bad management. That’s the real story here behind the Kovalchuk situation. And until they offer ideas on how to idiot-proof a CBA, they really shouldn’t be listened to because all they’re asking for is a return to the old system where Kovalchuk would leave Atlanta for a “more traditional hockey market.”
Ted Leonsis Used to Recommend: http://capsnut.blogspot.com/
Everybody Wang Chung......
Please load brain before shooting off mouth.™
The only real idea I have to protect against bad asset management is to eliminate trades/free agency and just have a fantasy draft every July. How dumb that is. Poor asset management is up to the owner to correct by firing his bad GM. That argument I don’t get. Fair spending is one thing, but that’s about it.
Familiar Rapports: Bald Pollack, F&B, Gould Old Days.
Lobbies: Osala, Perreault, Erskine, Pothier, Neuvirth, Flash.
Fan of: Mean Lars Backstrom, Line Mashing, Cake.
Color me surprised.
I am actually (perhaps in the minority here) surprised at how ridiculous Campbell is being here because (unlike his moron namesake in the NHL offices – sorry can’t pass up an opportunity to say that Colin Campbell is a joke), I think Ken is actually usually pretty thoughtful and interesting.
This one is way off.
PuckDaddy be damned, I'm putting CincoCinco on the back of a Schultz jersey!
by Chris meet Alex on Jan 27, 2010 4:34 PM EST reply actions
I guess it’s his way of ensuring his welcome in 30 dressing rooms rather than in 30 corporate boxes. The one sided nature of his argument is pander for the union and intentional. And how do you figure yourself to be in the minority here at the Rink? Your comments are in lock step with every other clear thinking rational JP poster.
"More Gary Thorne, please."
That was written awkwardly, I mean to say that I seem to be in the minority in being surprised that Campbell wrote this crap, not that I’m in the minority about it being ridiculous… lots of other folks seem to be commenting that they think Campbell often/usually not worth reading.
PuckDaddy be damned, I'm putting CincoCinco on the back of a Schultz jersey!
by Chris meet Alex on Jan 28, 2010 2:34 PM EST up reply actions
Well Done
As you correctly point a salary cay league puts a greater premium on management and good ownership. That is why the Thrashers are in trouble. It is not a case of rich teams poaching their best player.
Oh and Campbell is just factually wrong on the White being Kovalchuk’s best center. Ilya has played with Marc Savard and now Nik Antropov (who is having a career year so far).
All things Thrashers + stats: www.birdwatchersanonymous.com
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
|
82 | 54 | 15 | 13 | 121 |
|
Atlanta
|
82 | 35 | 34 | 13 | 83 |
|
Carolina
|
82 | 35 | 37 | 10 | 80 |
|
Tampa Bay
|
82 | 34 | 36 | 12 | 80 |
|
Florida
|
82 | 32 | 37 | 13 | 77 |
(updated 4.12.2010 at 9:21 AM EDT)
The Vault
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Trending Topics: Odd arbitration decisions; more NHLers Tweeting
- Ovechkin wins fifth Kharlamov Trophy, talks Talbot
- Puck Headlines: Witt hits waivers; Kovalchuk grievance details set
- Jersey Fouls: Sharks get creatively awful; hockey movie pass/fail
- White, Flames agree to one-year deal; Bruins sign Wheeler
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.
