Are the Caps Betting on Brooks Laich, or Betting on the NHL?
In 1990, Abe Pollin was unprepared to pay any player more than $1,000,000 a year. Now a consistently above-average forward can be guaranteed $27,000,000 over six years.
If I could buy stock in the NHL, I would.
Last year, leaguewide revenues increased enough to lead to a nearly $4 Million rise in next year's salary cap, from $59.4 Million to $64.3 Million. Since players get about 57 cents of every dollar of NHL revenues, that reflects an average increase in revenues of about $8.8 Million per team, or roughly $260 Million for the entire league. And that rise happened in a year in which many teams had serious financial difficulties. One team – the Thrashers – could not survive its troubles. The Dallas Stars were sold in bankruptcy, and the multiyear bankruptcy saga of the Phoenix Coyotes continued. Add in the New York Islanders, and that’s four teams (13% of the league) with severe problems.
The coming years look brighter for at least three of those troubled franchises. The Stars have been sold and are ready to focus on hockey again. The ultimate wisdom of moving the Thrashers to Winnipeg has yet to be determined, but at a minimum a team with committed owners and an excited fanbase in Winnipeg is better for the NHL than the hot mess in Atlanta the last few years. It seems very likely that the Phoenix saga will be resolved, one way or another, by this time next year. The Islanders problem seems more intractable – it’ll be 2015 before the Islanders can move if no new arena is built – but even that issue has a clear end date. And the NHL may have suitors in Quebec City, Kansas City, and the Greater Toronto (Hamilton) area who are ready to purchase a team. Those ownership groups might scoop up the Coyotes or Islanders if things don't improve, or, as the upcoming shift to 4 divisions suggests (since 30 ain’t divisible by 4, but 32 is), perhaps the NHL may expand in the near future. It's certainly hard to imagine that we'll be talking about so many bankruptcies and such in a couple of years.
And the outlook is good for the league as a whole. The NHL has a hit on its hands with the Winter Classic, buoyed by College Football’s inexplicable decision to surrender January 1st. The league has a new TV deal worth an additional $120 Million dollars per year over the previous deal. That’s $4 per team, or a projected $2+ Million increase in the salary cap. And unless the NFL and its players get smart in a hurry and resolve their labor dispute, the NHL might attract its share of disappointed and bored football fans this season.
Over the next few years, the salary cap is going to go up my friends. And I think it’s going to go up a lot, especially next year when the TV contract kicks in.
The Caps apparently share my optimism. You can tell, because they just committed to pay $4.5 Million per year for six years to a guy that was, under last year’s pay scale, probably entitled to about 75% of that. But that’s $59.4-Million-Salary-Cap thinking, and today is a new day. Laich’s salary would have been about 1/13th of last year’s cap, but now it’s just 1/14th of this year’s salary cap -- about 7%. And as long as the salary cap rises, Laich's share of the team's payroll will drop throughout the life of his deal.
Betting on the fiscal health of the NHL is nothing new for the Caps. When Ovechkin signed his $124 Million contract, the salary cap was $50.3 Million, and his $9.5 Million cap hit was 19% of that. Now it’s 15% of the current cap. The Caps and the league probably shouldn't count on revenues to keep rising by 25% every four years, but they can expect an increase next year and they can probably expect further increases as franchises get healthy and perhaps as the league expands.
Depending on how Laich plays and on what happens with league revenues, this contract will probably end up as somewhere between a moderately good deal and a moderately bad one. As long as Laich stays healthy, I find it hard to believe that he'll either outperform or underperform it by any kind of extreme degree. He's a known commodity, and he's certainly an above-average player. The average salary on a team of 23 spending to the cap is $2.8 Million. Is Laich going to be worth $1.7 more than that? Maybe, maybe not. But he probably won't be too far off in either direction.
There's one other factor to consider. This is the first major contract signing for any skater in the UFA class. That makes it potentially a market-setting deal. I predict that how we feel about this contract is going to be echoed as the Erik Coles and Alexei Ponikarovskys of the world get raises. It's going to be Drury, Briere, Gomez and Nylander all over again -- except that this time there's only one sure first line forward who is a free agent. One. After Brad Richards gets paid, it's going to be a mad scramble for guys who are over the hill, who have injury concerns, or who don't give a consistent effort. Sather, Gauthier, Burke, Feaster, and the rest of them just got handed $4 Million in cap space. If I'm right and it's going to turn into silly season, then Laich's contract surely won't be the silliest. Hell, Bryzgalov's contract is already worse. Strap in -- I think this is going to be "one of those" offseasons. And if it is, then the Caps may have done very well to get their guy signed before it even begins.
If this FanPost is written by someone other than one of the blog's editors, the opinions expressed in it do not necessarily reflect those of this blog or SB Nation.
29 comments
|
22 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Rec’d for writing. Great post.
You perhaps knew me better as "Your Nation's Capital." Same great commentary, now with 100% more transparency!
depends on how you want to bet on the FX market. The Canadian Dollar is currently trading at about 1.02 per USD. That makes the NHL profits go up for Salary Cap calculations to my understanding as it’s figured in USD. If the loonie stays strong (or the dollar weak) the Jets revenue (which will be higher anyway) will cause another 3-4% bump all by itself.
At some point in the next few years the USD will have to trade higher as Fed raises rates to get people to keep buying bonds, but until that happens i see the FX effects being a major factor driving the cap up.
Don’t get me wrong, the gist of your argument is spot on — Revenues are up. The new beer deal isn’t going to hurt either. I can see another 10 to 20% of revenue growth just this coming year.
Any team with long-term deals with superstars in place are in really good shape over the next few years.
I look at it like this:
You generally have to overpay for UFAs.
Laich was UFA.
We probably overpaid (as would any team signing him) for Laich.
If we’re going to overpay for someone, at least I feel good about it being a known quantity in Laich.
The overpayment (over perceived value) wasn’t so bad as to eff up our cap. Laich is a good player. Maybe more a 3.5M player, but this is what it cost, and we’ll deal. Stop doing dumb things like Sloan and Poti and we’re fine.
It isn’t even anger-inducing. It does not seem to be worth that kind of emotional investment. It might not even be disappointing any more. It is expected.
-Peerless 5.6.2011
Another way to look at it – has there, in recent memory, been a free agent season in which the Caps locking up the second-most coveted UFA at $4.5m/year wouldn’t have been universally hailed? Largely irrelevant, I know, but still an interesting spin.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Definitely an interesting spin, but obviously not all free agent seasons are equal. The Briere/Drury season had quite a bit more talent than this one.
Obviously, this is all speculation.
No doubt. But given the escalating cap, etc., it’s pretty remarkable (and obviously says more about the free agent class than about Laich).
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Yeah, exactly. A lot more micro-level stuff goes on, and I think we are learning that right now. First round picks are normally treated as gold, but this year teams obviously weren’t in love with the draft class. So you see the Caps, among others, traded them away. You’re looking at a thin FA pool (at least up front) so there isn’t going to be a lot of opportunity to fill holes on the FA market. Poof, you have Brouwer for a First. That bucks the assumptions/understandings about the relative values of a First (certainly my relative value) and the relative value of a grinder, versatile as he may be. Laich, in the context of the same market, had tons of leverage, so he got 4.5 and there’s not any doubt that he would have had at least that much if he waited until July 1. Put Laich UFA in the Briere/Drury year and maybe his price comes down a bit.
I bet every team has spread sheets of UFAs-to-be going out 7-10 years and do their best to stagger their own FAs both against their own balance sheet and against the relative strengths of what the classes look to be in future years.
Obviously, this is all speculation.
___
Nice work Gouldie, and I agree. Here’s what I wrote more than a week ago:
Per CapGeek:And from June 1:
With all signs pointing toward a $64m cap, here’s the upper limit’s evolution: $39.0m, $44.0m, $50.3m, $56.7m, $56.8m, $59.4m and $64m.Pretty remarkable – that’s an average increase of 8.7% (and 6.3% since crossing the $50m mark). And pretty important for reasons we’ve discussed before. Say the growth continues at 5%. That means that in Year 5 of a five-year deal starting July 1, the cap would be at ~$77.8m. A $4.5m deal today represents 7.6% of the cap. In Y5 (with that projection), it’s down to 5.8%.
Point being, obviously when we discuss a player’s new deal, we look at the immediate short-term – is $4.5m too much for Brooks Laich next year? And we should. But, over time, the number becomes more and more favorable to the team. Put another way, if you think $4.5m*5 is overpaying Laich by $1m, that’s an average overpayment of 1.4% of the cap… which doesn’t sound crippling to me.
I’d probably go up to $4.5m with the caveat that he’s used the way I think he should be, namely as a 3C that takes a ton of draws and plays lock-down D.
Is $4.5m too high for that role? Sure. But I think a few things come into play here. First and foremost, it would free up 19’s line for O-zone draws, which means you’d be getting a crapload more value out of 8 and 19 (when you consider that they’re paying ~$15m for two-thirds of a line that’s taking a lot of D-zone draws, $4.5m for the center on a different trio doesn’t sound so bad). Secondly, he’s proven very durable, consistent and versatile – he could play any F position on any line if need be. Thirdly, his D last year was super at ES and on the PK. Finally, over the duration of any likely deal, the cap is going to continue to rise at a pretty good clip (thanks, NBC), so today’s $4.5m deal is easier to stomach every year of the deal.
When it’s all said and done, it’s a bit of an overpayment – maybe even by ~25% or so, if you take F&B’s number. But when you consider how many things he can do for you, how dependable he is, and what he allows you to do, I’d be fine with it. The alternative is finding a 3C patch (at, say ~$2m) who doesn’t have the upside or a 2L (at, say, $3m) who doesn’t have the versatility… I’d say fuck it. Overpay on Laich and stop with the shit Sloan/Poti deals – it’ll more than pay for the difference.
Guess I knew this would be the number all along.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Nicely done. I didn’t remember the fact of the words, but obviously they must have left an impression…
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Jun 29, 2011 8:52 AM EDT up reply actions
The way you’d play Laich and described him fits on player from a hockey family everyone loves to loath around here. Jordan Staal. While considerably younger than Laich, and no comparison is 100% fair (no player plays the exact same game or is utilized the same way), but there are some trade offs to consider. With that added age we know what we get out of Laich – 20 goals 50 points. We know we get someone who is super durable and it took a puck to the face and some fractures to keep him out of the game after, somewhere around, 350 games without missing. While a lot of the skill sets are similar to Staal, the face offs, defensive play, excellent PK play, 50 points, we also in Laich get a great PP guy(when the overall scheme is working, as we learned this year the guy standing at the front of the net won’t score if the puck never gets to the goal).
Point being, when we look at other comparables such as Staal or Ryan Malone, Laich isn’t getting overpaid that much, especially when you consider the rise in salary cap. The worst part of this deal in there here and now is that its too large for the Caps to reasonably keep Scott Hannan without a trade(or waivers, but IDK contract specifics of whom the Caps could do that to) to off load cap space.
Bruce Boudreau when asked about Brooks Laich's return to the lineup, he said: "He just adds another dimension to our team. If it was puzzle, he just fits that thing. He completes us."
Brooks Laich completing everything from teams to tires and everything in between.
Agreed, generally (though I do think Staal is markedly better overall), but it’s important to note that Staal’s deal was signed when he was an RFA, not a pending UFA – the Pens had more leverage vis a vis Staal than the Caps had on Laich. Malone is a more similar comp in that respect.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
It will also be interesting to see how the cap going up affects the in season trades and waiver wire this year. You can bet that with the cap going up so significantly this year, there will be at least a couple of teams who will lose out on the summer crop of agreement, and they will have plenty of cap room to play around with at the trade deadline.
Rec’ed for perspective. My head was spinning from the volume of discussion in the Laich post yesterday—took a long time to load and even longer to read.
I found it interesting that GMGM yesterday also described signing Laich as going with the “devil you know” character-wise, that there are others who may be great players but are not good guys for the locker room.
"Hockey won’t hold still for a portrait. To gain a glimpse inside you join it in progress—just as the players do." Epilogue of 24/7
Rec'd for sense
I’m not in love with the dollars (I think it’s $750k too much/year against the cap) or the term (I think it’s two years too long), but from some of the discussion yesterday, you’d think this was the Nylander contract or the Poti, Steckel, and Sloan extensions all over again. The Nylander contract was silly because it was too much money and term and a no-movement clause for an older player. The Poti extension was silly because he was already becoming a marginal defenseman on the team and his health was already in jeopardy. The Steckel and Sloan extensions were silly because they were too much money and term for replacement-level (or below in Sloan’s case) talent.
Brooks isn’t old. He just turned 28 and will be 33 at the effective end of this contract. The contract has a limited NTC, but it appears to be quite limited and shouldn’t prevent the club from being able to ship him out (unlike Nylander).
Brooks isn’t injured. Matter of fact, he’s been one of the healthiest, most durable players in the league over the last few seasons despite spending a good amount of time in front of the net (not as much as he should, perhaps). It’s a good bet that he plays at least 75 games/season over the duration of the contract.
Brooks isn’t replacement-level talent. He’s not a game-breaker by any means, but the notion that he could be cheaply replaced with someone like Vernon Fiddler or Marty Reasoner is quite honestly ludicrous. Fiddler or Reasoner might be able to cover some of what Brooks does (faceoffs, PK), but neither is a guy you’d like to see getting more than 30-45 seconds a night of PP TOI. Both of these guys have made their living being decent players on mediocre teams. Not exactly the kind of talents you want to bring in to take you over the hump for a Cup run.
We’d all like every contract to be a “steal,” but the simple fact of the matter is that it’s impossible to build an entire roster out of ELCs, RFAs and savvy under-market UFA signings. Both teams in the Cup finals this year had contracts that were worse than Laich’s (Keith Ballard = $4.5m for a #8 D; Michael Ryder = $4m for a 3W). Last year’s final was no different.
There are some terrible contracts on the Caps. This isn’t the best contract on the Caps right now, but it’s far from the worst. It’s a mild overpayment in dollars and term for a legitimately valuable player who likely would have received a bit more on the open market.
Armareddon.
by D'ohboy on Jun 29, 2011 9:59 AM EDT reply actions 5 recs
I’m not in love with the dollars (I think it’s $750k too much/year against the cap)
And they’ve already waived Sloan and made up that difference, if one were to look at it that way.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Do the Caps really need a nacho boy permanently on the roster?
Bruce Boudreau when asked about Brooks Laich's return to the lineup, he said: "He just adds another dimension to our team. If it was puzzle, he just fits that thing. He completes us."
Brooks Laich completing everything from teams to tires and everything in between.
Right, but plenty of teams rock 22- or even 21- man rosters for long stretches – maybe the Caps do that when they can.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
If they sign another good defenseman, then you have top-6, Erskine, and then some combination of McNeill, Orlov, Collins, and Fahey depending on who gets signed. I think that’s fine.
I don’t think Sloan was ever driving who does or doesn’t get signed on the blue line.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Jun 29, 2011 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions
This is almost all true, but the discussion of Fiddler/Reasoner is, at best, not faithful to the argument. No, none of those guys are going to replace what Laich does. But they may be able to fit a very specific need (shutdown 3C) while saving us more money to address other issues (maybe another grinding W). So it’s not a discussion about whether Laich or Reasoner/Fidler is better. Obviously it’s Laich. It’s about whether Laich is the best use of 4.5 million against the cap. I think that’s a much closer debate.
If the cap continues to go up and Laich doesn’t decline, then it will probably be fine. Like you said, it won’t be the best or worst deal on the team.
Obviously, this is all speculation.
by Rob Parker on Jun 29, 2011 10:15 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
But they may be able to fit a very specific need (shutdown 3C) while saving us more money to address other issues (maybe another grinding W).
Fair enough, but given that Brouwer is likely to make around $2.2-$2.5m, a “grinding winger” UFA is likely to come in around $2.5-$3m (unless you luck into a guy like Bergenheim). Reasoner could expect to make around $1.5m-$1.75m in this market. Suddenly, you’ve kinda-sorta replaced Laich’s production for about the same cost, and you’re banking on things going right with both guys. I think GMGM overpaid slightly to reduce the risk that things wouldn’t go right – the devil you know and all.
Armareddon.
U Locked up Brooks Laich ! Me Like the Laich ! thats a good job by your organization !!
FLYERROB ! YOU STAY AWESOME FLYERS FANS ! www.naawayland.com Robert Wilson - I JUST GOT MARRIED May 07th 2011th !!!! WE GOT BRYZGALOV ! BREEZY AND THE FLY BOYS !
by FLYERROB on Jun 29, 2011 10:06 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Rec’d
Check out DC is for Baseball!
by what Juneau about that? on Jun 29, 2011 11:20 PM EDT up reply actions

by 

































