Previously, I analyzed 25 teams’ current list of players’ contracts against the recommended model for the Next CBA. (See “The Next CBA: Part I”, “The Next CBA: Part II”, ANA through CGY (U.2), CAR through DAL (U.2), and DET through MIN (U.1), MTL Through NYR, and OTT Through SJS.)
Below is analysis of STL, TBL, TOR, VAN and WSH. This blog uses current information from www.capgeek.com to determine contractual impact of the recommended, next CBA on these teams. I assume that players being paid over the League Minimum Contract (LMC) floor of $700K are at least Non-Franchise Contract (NFC) Players, so their re-designation is not listed unless their salary must change or a special designation is required. I also assume the goal of every team would be to honor the contract awarded unless there are public rumblings to the contrary. And all changes required to meet the recommended CBA’s contracting language are discussed.
The End of the NHL
STL – The Blues have no players meeting FPC I, II or III status.
Alexander Steen and Jaroslav Halak both need a one-year exception on their contract due to term length to complete the agreement as signed. Cap change = $0
Cam Jansen, Matt D’Agostini and Tyson Strachan’s contracts do not meet the LMC floor so requires a raise for all three players. Cap change = $350K AAV and total
Alex Pietrangelo is well over, and T.J. Oshie is barely above, the ELC cap with bonuses, requiring a pay cut for both players. Cap change between the two is = -$1.871M AAV / -$5.608M total
The Blues are pretty squared away in terms of contract issues. They join nine of the first 26 teams in falling under the average with only seven contracts up for review. An AAV of -$1.315M / -$5.258M total further assists the ‘small market’ team, and no players lose any term over current contracts.
TBL – Vinny Lecavalier meets dollar requirements for FPC I status. No players meet FPC II or III status.
There are two ways to go with Lecavalier based on his age. One is to designate him the FPC I, pay the one-time bump up to the FPC I ceiling in a two-year, ‘normal’ term, seek a one-year exception, and release him to UFA status for the seven years thereafter. The other is to provide him the NFC Maximum with maximum bonus for three years plus the one year exception, and then release him to UFA status for the final six years of term. While the difference is only $221K in dollars, the additional year of term should suit the player and definitely suits the team. Cap difference (with lost term) = -$3.445M AAV with-$51.664M total
Mattias Ohlund turns 34 just before training camp this season. Due to his age, his term goes against the proposed CBA’s parameters. He can serve the next two years as written, seek a one-year exception in the 2012-13 season, and then becomes a UFA for the final three seasons of his current SPC. Cap difference (with lost term) = -$1.804M AAV with-$10.821M total
Martin St.Louis is 35 years old this season. He can serve this year’s last contract season and, with a one-year exception, the first year of the new one he just signed before he becomes a UFA. Cap difference (with lost term) = -$3.376M AAV with-$16.878M total
As an NFC contract holder, Ryan Malone can only begin the new CBA era with a three-year deal, plus seek one year’s exception. That would make him one year short of fulfilling the last year of his current agreement. Cap difference (with lost term) = -$900K AAV with-$4.5M total
Nate Thompson, Blair Jones, Chris Durno, Marc-Antoine Pouliot and Matt Smaby’s LMCs are below the minimum requirement. Cap difference (with lost term) = $700K AAV and total
Victor Hedman and Steven Stamkos’ ELCs are above the maximum with bonuses. With Stamkos likely to be designated the club’s FPC II to start, the smart thing for him to do here is take a three-year term, after which he can assume the FPC I role from Lecavalier. It remains to be seen what Hedman’s post-ELC contract will be, but if he continues to progress and impress, it will be substantial. Combined Cap difference = -$4.667M AAV /-$6.881M total
The Lightning have to police up some of the contracts written by the previous owners group. Only one of the contracts that Steve Yzerman wrote would not meet the proposed CBA rules (Martin St.Louis’, and only because of the term with his age – it does not go against the current CBA at this time). There are 12 players affected for a total of -$89.257M. On the less attractive end of things, this team has four players that would lose a total of 13 years of term.
TOR – Dion Phaneuf meets criteria for FPC II and Jean-Sebastien Giguere meets requirements for FPC III. No players meet FPC I status.
Phaneuf can serve his current agreement in total with a one-year raise to FCP II maximum and a one-year exception. Cap difference = $50K AAV / $500K total
Mike Komisarek’s contract needs a one-year exception to stand as is. Cap difference = $0 AAV and total
Mike Brown and Matt Lashoff’s contracts are below the minimum requirement. Cap difference = $312.5K AAV and total
Tyler Bozak and Luke Schenn’s ELCs are over the ELC maximum with bonuses. Cap difference = -$2.452M AAV and total
The Maple Leafs have six players affected for a total of -$3.142M in salary pay back once all of the dust settles. And there are no hockey players to penalize with the loss of any term.
VAN – Daniel and Henrik Sedin both meet requirements for FPC II. No players meet conditions for FPC I or III.
The assumption here is the Sedins have to be packaged together and only one person each can be the FCP I, II or III. So if I am Vancouver, I seek to not award EITHER player an FCP contract in order to give them the longest term under contract – based on the fact they turn 32 this season, they could hold FCP status for only one year and then become UFAs. So, award both the NFC maximum this season, give them a one-year exception to carry them through age 35 and the current term of the SPC and provide them bonus money to make up the dollar difference between the two contracts. Cap difference = a net of $0
Robert Luongo’s contract as written would have to be renegotiated. Like the Sedins, he turns 32 this season, so could only hold an FPC contract for one season. So award him an NFC with matching bonus money to equal his current dollar figure for three years, get a one-year exception and then renegotiate in his UFA season. Cap difference = a net of -$3.404M AAV / -$40.85M
If they want to keep him at current term, the best course of action for Ryan Kesler is to make him the FPC III and pay him the one-year bump to the FPC III minimum. Cap difference = $167K AAV / $1M total
Dan Hamhuis could not serve his current SPC’s term, even as an FPC. While they could give their brand new defenseman a designation of NFC maximum for a good-will raise, this blog assumes maximum savings for teams in order to define total impact of change. So he is awarded an NFC contract for his current dollar figure through three years, receives a one-year exception, and loses two years to UFA status. Cap difference = -$1.5M AAV / -$9M total
Keith Ballard, the Canucks’ other new defenseman, is in the same boat as Hamhuis, but with one less year of term. Cap difference = -$840K AAV / -$4.2M total
Tanner Glass, Rick Rypien, and Joel Perrault’s LMC’s do not meet the dollar floor, so all need a raise. Cap difference = $167K AAV / $1M total
The Canucks have nine affected players for a total Cap difference of -$52.825M. The big dollar loss comes at the expense of three players (Luongo, Hamhuis and Ballard) losing term over the current SPC with contracts all in the $4.5 – 5.333M range. Other adjustments are minor in nature.
WSH – Alex Ovechkin meets the FPC I standard, and Nicklas Backstrom meets FPC II standards. No player meets the FPC III standard.
Ovechkin, being 25 at the start of training camp this season, is just about what the FPC designations were made for. He receives a one year raise to the FPC I Ceiling, can make eight years as contracted plus receive a one-year extension, and then loses two years of term to UFA status from 2019-2020 through 2020-2021. Cap difference (with lost term) = -$1.62M AAV / -$17.815M total
Backstrom, as the FPC II, can fulfill his current contract with the one-time raise to the FPC II maximum and a one-time extension. Cap difference = $50K AAV / $500K total
D.J. King’s salary is just under the LMC minimum and requires a raise. Cap difference = $75K AAV / $150K total
Capitals’ fans, that’s it. Three players affected, one of them with two years of lost term, and a total Cap difference of -$17.165M. The total dollars seem high, but the vast majority of it is for Years 12 & 13 of a $9M-per-year-plus annual contract for Ovechkin.
The Capitals hold the best circumstances of any other team under this new CBA with only three players requiring adjustments. And while the dollar figure ranks them at the ninth highest dollar return, practically all of it is the last two years of Ovechkin’s contract which can be made up with a UFA signing.
The Maple Leafs are next with only six affected players, the least amount of Cap give back and no lost term for any player. This follows Brian Burke’s re-tooling philosophy – smaller term equals less hassle. Toronto will know when to give an FCP beyond their Captain.
They are followed by the Blues who are just under the average number of player adjustments with seven and a just-about-average AAV.
Out of the northwest come the Canucks next with nine affected players and more than $50M in returned Cap dollars. The eight years of lost term for Roberto Luongo at greater than $5.3M is most of the reason why.
And finally, the Lightning will be forced to adjust 12 contracts and correct several of the contracts made under the last ownership regime.
Final NHL averages are: 8.23 players affected per team; for an average team payroll difference from current numbers of -$16.188M; and with 1.43 players losing 3.16 years of term.
This series will wrap up with an overall assessment of how this proposed CBA’s changes would affect what is currently on the books, both in terms of if this season were 2012-13 and actually where we would be going into 2012 based on current contracts. It will also have some discussion on future thoughts for actually crafting changes.
Take me to “The Next CBA: Part I”
Take me to “The Next CBA: Part II”
Take me to analysis for ANA through CGY (U.2)
Take me to analysis for CAR through DAL (U.2)
Take me to DET through MIN (U.1)
Take me to MTL through NYR
Take me to OTT Through SJS
Take me to On Goal Analysis and the OGA Blogs…