1. 4.

Sunday, August 29, 2010

The New CBA Effect: STL Through WSH – The Colonel

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.



Summary

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
1. 4.

Saturday, August 28, 2010

The New CBA Effect: OTT Through SJS – The Colonel

Previously, I analyzed 20 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, CAR through DAL, DET through MIN, and MTL Through NYR.)

Below is analysis of OTT, PHI, PHX, PIT and SJS. 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.

Onward Through Teams 20 - 25 of the NHL
OTT – Jason Spezza meets the requirement for the team’s FPC II. No other players meet monetary requirements for FPC I or III.

As the FPC II, Spezza will turn 32 at the end of his current, final contract year and only needs a pone year raise to the FPC II ceiling. Cap change = $40K AAV / $200K total

Milan Michalek needs a one-year exception to complete his agreement as written. Cap change = $0

Were the proposed CBA going into affect today, Sergei Gonchar – due to age – could serve one year as written, seek a one-year exception, and then would have to be released in the final year of his contract as a UFA. Cap change = -$1.833M AAV / -$5.5M total

Daniel Alfredsson is in the same boat as Gonchar. Cap change = -$1.833M AAV / -$5.5M total

Ryan Shannon and David Hale’s contracts do not meet the LMC floor and require a raise. Cap change = $100K AAV and total

And Erik Karlsson’s ELC is above the ELC maximum with bonuses and needs downward adjustment. Cap change = -$14.5K AAV / -$29K total

The Senators have a bit under average with only seven players’ contracts requiring adjustment. The overall Cap difference is -$2.021M AAV / -$10.104M total, with two players (Gonchar and Alfredsson) losing a total of two years of term



PHI – Daniel Briere and Kimmo Timonen meet the monetary requirements to both be FPC IIs. No other player meets requirements for FPC I or III.

BUT, Briere will be 33 at the start of the season so cannot be designated as an FPC. The best course of action here is to rework his contract to an NFC maximum with bonus money for three years, seek the one-year exception, and then release him as a UFA in the final year of the current term. Cap change is a -$1.625M AAV / total loss of -$6.5M. The Flyers are well within the rules to pay him the maximum in bonus monies to attempt to make up for the loss of one year’s salary. But the maximum under the rules would be approximately $2.7M short, and it is, in effect, the team paying for a year not yet played with the player not be under contract. Business-wise, it does not make sense to do more than adjust for current annual salary and NFC maximum.

Timonen is similar to Briere. He will be 36 before season’s end, so no FPC status can be granted. He also can only get one year normally, a one-year exception, and then loses one year of term. Cap change is at a -$2.111M AAV / total loss of -$6.333M with two years’ bonus money thrown in

To maintain as close to the norm of current contracts as possible, Mike Richards needs to be designated the team’s FPC III. At age 26 this season, it would give him a one-time bump to the FPC III Ceiling, plus the ability to play eight years normally, one year with an exception and a loss of the final two years of term to UFA status. Cap change is $27.8K AAV and a net loss of -$11.25M for two lost years of term

Chris Pronger will be 36 at the opening of this season so is not eligible for FPC status. He could serve one year plus a one-year extension at the NFC Maximum, and then would be released to UFA status for the final five years of his contract. While on contract for two years, his Cap change =$841K AAV / $1.682M total. Overall for lost contract years, however, he is facing -$2.084M AAV / -$22.925M total

Due to age, Ian Laperriere needs a one-year exception to serve out his current term. Cap change = $0

Jody Shelley, age 35 at mid-season this year, has similar circumstances to Timonen and would lose one year to UFA status. Cap change = -$367K AAV / -$1.1M total

Oskars Bartulis’ contract is below the LMC figure, requiring a raise. Cap change =$125K AAV / $375K total

James Van Riemsdyk’s ELC is greater than the maximum with bonuses. Cap change = -$369K AAV and a total of -$738K

The Flyers just about hit the average issues mark with eight contracts under contention per the proposed CBA. Total dollar difference is a staggering -$4.407M AAV / -$48.471M total, placing them second in overall dollars to CHI so far. They also have one more player losing term than CHI at five (the most for any one team), but less total term than the ‘Hawks at 10 years.



PHX – Ed Jovanovski meets FPC II status in terms of dollars. No other player meets FPC I or III status.

Jovanovski’s one-year term requires a bump up to the FPC II maximum. Cap change = $700K AAV and total

Derek Morris at age 32 this season, can serve one year as is plus a one-year exception and then loses two years of current SPC term. Cap change = -$1.375M AAV / -$5.5M total

At age 39 before season’s end, Ray Whitney, and age 38, Adrian Aucoin, both need a one-year exception to fulfill his current contract. Cap change = $0 AAV and total
David Schlemko does not meet the LMC minimum, so requires a raise in pay. Cap change = $175K AAV / $525K total

As you might expect from ‘The NHL’s Team’ and the hard work of Don Maloney, there are not a lot of issues in the desert. Under the average, they have only five players with issues to solve. The total Cap difference is -$1.069M AAV / -$4.275M total, something a cash-starved team can use. And one player (Derek Morris) loses two years of term per the new CBA’s rules.



PIT – Evgeni Malkin and Sidney Crosby both meet requirements for FPC I status. No players meet FPC II or III status.

There is probably little doubt when only one player can be the FPC I that Crosby would be it. Cap change = $700K AAV / $2.1M total

That would make Malkin the FPC II. Under the assumption they would want the dollar figures to remain the same, they can easily solve this with bonus money. Net Cap change = $0 over term

I would recommend Marc-Andre Fleury be designated as the FPC III to allow him to serve out his full contractual term as currently signed. He would get a one-time increase to the FPC III maximum as the only change to his current status. Cap change = $200K AAV / $1M total

Paul Martin can serve three years of his current contract normally plus seek a one-year exception. But he would lose one year of term to UFA status due to overall contract length. Cap change = -$1M AAV / -$5M total

Zbynek Michalek’s situation is just like Martin’s. Cap change = -$800K AAV / -$4M total

Brooks Orpik and Kristopher Letang both need a one-year exception to finish out their contract term. Cap change = $0

Ben Lovejoy, Brent Johnson and Craig Adams are all paid under the LMC floor and are due a raise. Cap change = $462.5K AAV / $975K total

The 10 players’ contracts to fix put the Penguins a bit above the average. But -$985K AAV / -$4.925M total makes the midnight oil burning worth it to management. Two players (brand new Pens Martin and Michalek) each lose one year of term in the transition.



SJS – In terms of dollars, the Sharks currently have Danny Heatley at FPC I status and Joe Thornton, Patrick Marleau and Dan Boyle at FPC II status. No player is at FPC III status.

Despite turning 30 years old at mid-season, Heatley can still complete his contracted term as the FPC I with a one-year exception and the one-time FPC I Ceiling raise. Cap change = $825K AAV / $3.3M total

Thornton will only be 31 throughout the season. The question is with a one-year deal, do the Sharks want to make him the FPC II? For the purposes of this analysis, I would say no, they do not, lower him to the NFC maximum, and clean up the money with a bonus. Cap change = $0 AAV and total with a bonus to make up the difference

Marleau, the closest to the FPC II marker, gets the FPC II designation. However, he turns 31 before the season starts, so can only serve two of the four years normally, gets a one-year FPC II raise, and receives a one-year exception before being released to UFA status. Cap change = -$1.65M AAV / -$6.6M total

And Boyle, though money-wise does it, is already 34 so does not qualify to receive FPC status. With a current, four-year term, he can play two years at the NFC Maximum with bonus money to equal out the dollars, get a one-year exception for year three, but will become a UFA in the final season. The actual Cap change = -$1.667M AAV / -$6.667M total when bonus are factored in over term

Joe Pavelski needs a one-year exception to carry his current contract as is. Cap change = $0 AAV and total

Cameron MacIntyre, Jamal Mayers, Jason Demers, Jay Leich and Thomas Greiss all have contracts under the LMC floor and require raises. Cap change = $0 AAV and total

And the Sharks go higher than the average with 10 contractual issues, not the least of which is four players meeting FPC status-money. Total Cap change in San Jose is -$2.284M AAV / -$1.935M overall. Two players (Marleau and Boyle) would lose one year each of contract term based on length of current contracts.




Summary

The Coyotes have the least woes in this group as five player contracts under contention with the proposed CBA yield only about one-third of the average Cap change in favor of the team. They also have one player losing two years’ term.

The Senators are just under the average with seven contract issues and are just about average in terms of Cap difference dollars. OTT is right in line with PIT and SJS from this group with two players losing one each term year off of the current agreement.

The Flyers only have eight players’ contracts at issue with the CBA. But I am tempted to say they have the most challenges as five of the eight players (Briere, Timonen, Richards, Pronger and Shelley) lose a total of 10 years’ term that was put in place to meet the current CBA’s requirements.

The Penguins carry 10 players with issues. To make Malkin’s dollar issue go away, he was re-designated the FPC II with accompanying bonuses to make up the deficit from his current salary. And Martin and Michalek who just joined the team would not be eligible for the full four years of their term – even with an exception – due to age. So the two each lose one year of term to UFA status.

And finally, the Sharks, despite too much money in four players, come out with 10 total contractual issues and only lose one year of term each for Marleau and Boyle. Some bonus money had to be paid to Thornton and Boyle while under contract, but the average loss per player compared to the rest of this group only place them at #3 out of five.

Through 25 of the NHL’s 30 teams, the averages are: 8.4 players affected per team (slight down-tick from the last report); for an average team payroll difference of -$12.573M (up from 1 – 20 numbers); and with 1.4 players losing 2.76 years of term (both up slightly from the last post). The last five teams are before us, and then we will look at an overall assessment of the entire League with comments on where to go reference the circumvention loophole.
The next five teams up for analysis will be STL, TBL, TOR, VAN and WSH.

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 On Goal Analysis and the OGA Blogs
1. 4.

Thursday, August 26, 2010

The New CBA Effect: MTL Through NYR – The Colonel

Previously, I analyzed 15 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).)

Below is analysis of MTL, NSH, NJD, NYI and NYR. 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.

Onward Through Two-Thirds of the NHL

MTL – Scott Gomez’s salary meets the FCP I standard and Mike Cammalleri’s AAV equals FCP III status. There are no players meeting FCP II criteria.

The only problem is Gomez turns 31 early this season and has three additional years left on term. Designated as the FCP I under this CBA, he will see a raise of $3.44M in one year of his contract, require a one-year exception, and lose one year of term to UFA status. Cap change = $1.148M AAV / $3.443 total while playing but a total of -$3.914M due to one lost term season

If designated as the FCP II – not FCP III, Cammalleri’s contract is good as written with a one-year salary increase to the FCP II maximum. Cap change = $300K AAV / $1.2M total

Cammalleri should be the FCP II so Tomas Plekanec can be designated the FCP III as most advantageous to the team’s monetary bottom line. Based on his age, he could serve all but the final year normally, receive a one-year raise to the FCP III maximum of $6M, and then get a one-year exception in his contract’s final season. Cap change = $200K AAV / $1M total

Brian Gionta turns 32 at mid-season with three seasons following, and Jaroslav Spacek turns 37 with one more tacked on. If they are both granted the one-year exception, their contracts complete as written. Cap change = $0

Dustin Boyd, Mathieu Darche, Tom Pyatt and Alexandre Picard do not meet the LMC contract floor and therefore would be entitled to a raise. Cap change = $550K AAV and total

Montreal is facing nine players’ contractual adjustments with a - $1.164M total change to payroll. One player (Gomez) loses one year of contract term in the transition.



NSH – No current team players equal FCP I, II or III status.

Martin Erat is 28 years old this season with four additional seasons on term. As an NFC, he can hold a three-year contract, be granted a one-year exception and then must go UFA in his last contract year. Cap change = -$900K AAV / -$4.5M total

David Legwand needs a one-year exception for term plus age and Francis Bouillon needs a one-year exception for age to retain their current contracts as is. Cap change = $0

Jonas Andersson, Wade Belak, Cal O’Reilly and Sergei Kostitsin do not meet the LMC contract floor and therefore would be entitled to a raise. Cap change = $437.5K AAV and in total

Colin Wilson’s ELC pays him over the maximum plus bonuses. Cap change = -$439.5K AAV / -$879K total

So the Predators face a relatively mild amount of correction in their ranks with eight players under review for a total change of -$988K AAV / -$4.942M total. The Predators lose one player for one term season as a UFA.



NJD – Patrick Elias meets FCP III status. No other players meet FCP I or II status at this time.

Elias turns 35 prior to the end of this season. With a one-year exception, he still loses one year of term. Cap change = -$2M AAV /-$6M total

If not designated as an FCP, Anton Volchenkov’s age and term catch up to him. He turns 29 in mid-season this year with five years following. He can play three years of the current agreement straight-up, plus one year as an exception, and then loses two term years to UFA status. Cap change = -$708.3K AAV / -$4.25M total

Brian Rolston will be 38, Colin White will be 32, and Bryce Salavador will be 35 at mid-season with an additional year on term. Henrik Tallinder turns 32 at mid-season with three additional seasons on contract. And Martin Brodeur turns 39 at season’s end. All will need a one-year exception to continue their contracts as written. Cap change = $0

Rod Pelly, Pierre-Luc Letourneau-Leblond, Anssi Salmela and Mark Fraser do not meet the LMC contract floor and therefore would be entitled to a raise. Cap change = $704.2K AAV / $987.5K total

The signing of Ilya Kovalchuk and extensions for Zach Parise and Jamie Langenbrunner notwithstanding, the Devils have a bit of correction to make for 11 players under the proposed CBA. The total change for new CBA contract adjustments is -$1.544M AAV / -$9.263M total from 2010-11 through 2015-16. They also have two players (Elias and Volchenkov) with two total years of lost term.



NYI – There are no players that meet FCP I, II or III status.

Rick DiPietro turns 29 before the season starts and has a following 10 years of term thereafter. With the one-year exception, he still loses six years of term to UFA status. Cap change = -$2.455M AAV / total of -$27M

Andrew MacDonald, as an NFC, needs a one-year exception to complete his current contracts. Cap change = $0

John Tavares, Josh Bailey and Kyle Okposo, three cornerstones for the future of the Islanders, are all overpaid on their ELC. Cap change with maximum bonuses is -$3.315M AAV / -$5.78M total

The Islanders have five players affected under the proposed CBA. The total Cap change is -$2.98M AAV / -$32.78M total spread out from this season though 2020-21. The club also has DiPietro losing six years of contract term based on new CBA contract definitions



NYR – The Rangers have several issues here, dollar-wise. Marian Gaborik meets the criteria for designation as the team’s FCP I. But Chris Drury, Henrik Lundqvist and Wade Redden all meet criteria for FCP II’s, and no player meets the mark as the team’s FCP I.

As the FCP I, Gaborik is set – he reaches age 32 in the last season of his current contract. The team also has to pay him on any one of the seasons in his current agreement at the FCP I maximum of $10.8M. Cap change = $825K AAV/$3.3M total

Drury is age 34 this year with one additional season remaining. With only one year left on his contract at age 35, he is able to serve out the time with a one-year exception. But he would have to serve at the NFC maximum, and could receive bonus money to make up the difference from his current contract’s salary. Cap change = -$1.288M AAV / $0 total with bonuses to compensate

Henrik Lundqvist is most likely to be designated the team’s FCP II. With that designation, the only change to his current contract is a one-year bump to the FCP II maximum. Cap change = $81.3K AAV/$325K total

Wade Redden cannot be designated as an FCP II based on his current age of 33, turning 34 at season’s end this year. Under proposed CBA language, he can serve two years as is on term, seek a one-year exception and then spend his last contract year as a UFA. Cap change = -$2.167M AAV/-$6.5M total

Derek Boogaard’s current contract can remain intact with a one-year exception. Cap change = $0

Brain Boyle’s LMC is below the minimum, so he is due a raise in 2010-11. Cap change = $165K

Mats Zuccarello-Aasen is overpaid on his ELC. This player’s Cap change = -$465K AAV/-$929K total

If you are a Ranger fan, that wasn’t as painful as you thought it would be, was it? Sure you might have wanted to see someone other than Redden as an early UFA. But ‘it is what it is.’ The total count is seven contracts needing adjustment. With the bonus money to Drry to honor his current dollar figure, the Cap change = -$91K AAV/-$3.693M total. NYR also has one player (Redden) with a total of one years of lost term.



Summary

The team in best shape here are the Islanders with five players’ contracts requiring a fix on a new CBA. The Islanders have DiPietro losing six years of term, and three ELC’s will lose millions of dollars above the ELC maximum, leaving an overall Cap change of almost $33M.

Next best is the Ranger’s surprisingly minor seven players’ contract adjustments. They are 3-1-3 in terms of dollar gains, no change and losses for players. Overall, the losing side is greater with a -$91K AAV / and a total of -$3.693M. Only Wade Redden loses a year of term from the team.

The Predators are in the middle of this pack with eight affected players. They stand at just under -$1M AAV / just under -$5M total in contract adjustment dollars. And one player loses one year of current term.

The Canadiens have one more player with contract review requirements than NSH. But their AAV is only a -$194K with a -$1.164M total contract difference. Scott Gomez is their lone term loser for one season, but his numbers are partially offset by his designation as the team’s FCP I.

And finally, without Kovalchuk under contract, the Devils sit with 11 players requiring changes, an increase in Cap Space of almost -$9.263M total, and two players losing two total years’ term.

Through 2/3 of the NHL, the averages are: 8.5 players affected per team (slight up-tick from the half-way point); for an average team payroll difference of -$11.87M; and with 1.15 players losing 2.55 years of term. Closing the circumvention loophole at the half-way point in NHL team analysis indicates all teams have contractual work to do (great, more lawyers…), that practically every team will save money by shaving off contract term, and that the players taking it most on the chin are teams’ most talented veterans and rookies. In return, there is more UFA time for more players in the league.

But we will keep our eye on the numbers as we complete the last 10 teams’ analysis.


The next five teams up for analysis will be OTT, PHI, PHX, PIT and SJS.

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)
1. 4.

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

The New CBA Effect: DET Through MIN (U.1) – The Colonel

This blog has been updated with new financials and charts

Previously, I analyzed 10 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, and CAR through DAL.)

Below is analysis of DET, EDM, FLA, LAK and MIN. 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.

Teams 11 – 15 In NHL Alphabetical Order

DET – Pavel Datsyuk, Nicklas Lidstrom and Henrik Zetterberg all meet FCP II status, and Brian Rafalski meets FCP III status in contract salary terms. No player meets FCP I status.

Henrik Zetterberg is problematic. At age 30 on opening night weekend this season, he has 10 contract years following. He gets most from his current term if he is designated an NFC, retains his current contract with a one-year exception through 2016-17, and then becomes a UFA. The team would, of course, make up the difference from current salary with bonus money. This gives Zetterberg an AAV of -$259K / $0 total dollar difference due to bonuses awarded while playing and a -$6.083M Cap AAV and -$26.142M total over the final four years of his current contract

Pavel Datsyuk is now age 32 with four years remaining on his contract. He cannot be an FCP based on the age restriction, but is eligible for a three-year contract with a one-year exception if sought and granted. His salary is an FCP II’s, which would have to be lowered from $6.7M AAV to no more than $5.788M AAV, the average of four years at the NFC maximum. The $3.65M he would be losing in contract money could be made up in bonuses of $912.5K per season which is under the 34% bonus ceiling. Cap change = -$912.5K AAV but $0 total while still under contract due to bonuses

Brian Rafalski turns 37 years old this season with one additional year on his contract thereafter. No player over age 35 can get more than a one year contract at a time. If the language is placed into the new CBA and DET secures the one-year exception, they can maintain Rafalski under his current term. They would have to lower his salary/AAV to the NFC maximum of no more than $5.75M in 2010-11 and $5.775M in 2011-12. But they could round that back up to his $6M per year with $250K and $225K in bonuses respectively with a lowering of his AAV but a wash to the Cap Hit. Cap change =$0

Nicklas Lidstrom should also be easy to handle. He will be 41 before the end of this season’s playoffs, and only has a one-year contract. The issue is that it is over the NFC maximum of $5.75M. Again, to honor the contract, they could simple pay the NFC max and award him a $450K bonus. His AAV drops, but the Cap change=$0

Johan Franzen is a combination of Zetterberg and Datsyuk. This season he will be 31 years old with the best combination of term and dollars for the club to seek approval to make him an NFC maximum with a one-year exception. This will give him a normal contract through 2015-16. After that period, he becomes a 36-year old UFA with four lost term years. While playing under contract, his AAV and total Cap change = $0. In the final four, lost term years, however, he loses -$3.955M AAV / -$15.818M total.

Todd Bertuzzi and Thomas Holmstrom would both need to receive a one-year exception to maintain their current contracts as he will be 36 and 38-years old respectively this season. Cap change =$0

Drew Miller and Derek Meetch require a pay raise to the LMC floor of $700K each this season. Cap change =$250K

A combination of player age and long term contracts designed to lower AAVs take some of the wind out of the Red Wings’ sails here. Nine players need contract attention for a total Cap change of -$41.66M. Two players also lose a total of eight years’ worth of term.



EDM – There are no players meeting FCP I, II or III status.

Shawn Horcoff turns 32 years old this season with an additional four seasons of term following. He cannot be an FCP, but can be awarded an NFC with one-year exception, losing the last season of his current term. Cap change = -$5.5M in 2014-15
Sheldon Souray turns 35 after the season concludes and retains one year on his contract. The club could seek a one-year exception to maintain his contract’s terms as an NFC. Cap change = $0

Nikolai Khabibulin turns 38 this season with two additional years on contract. The team could seek a one-year exception for him and release him to UFA status in his third year. Cap change is -$3.75M

Jean-Francois Jacques and Steve MacIntyre need their salaries increased to meet the LMC standard. Cap change = $285K

Taylor Hall’s current ELC, like Tyler Seguin’s, is for too much money over the term. Cap change = -$2.477M in 2010-11, -$2.452M in 2011-12 and -$2.427M in 2012-13 (or a total of -$7.356M)

The same goes for Magnus Paajarvi-Svensson who is less over the ELC ceiling than Hall. Cap change = -$252K in 2010-11, -$227K in 2011-12 and -$202K in 2012-13 (or a total of -$681K)

The number of Oilers’ issues are not overwhelming at seven players requiring contractual re-working. But due to age and high ELCs, they are looking at a Cap change of -$17.002M and two players with a total of two lost seasons of term.



FLA – There are no players meeting FCP I, II or III status.

If his term is important to them, the Panthers would need to designate David Booth as their FCP III, increase his salary one season to the FCP III Ceiling, and keep him signed for five years. Cap change = $350K.

Rostislav Olesz turns 25 at the season’s onset with three additional years of term following. The team needs to secure an NFC plus one-year exception for him and his current contract can be honored as is. Cap change = $0

Steven Reinprecht turns 35 before season’s end and retains an additional year on his current contract. With an NFC plus one-year exemption granted, he can finish the current agreement as signed. Cap change = $0

Byron Bitz, Jason Garrison and Nathan Paetsch all make under the LMC floor of $700K so would need a raise in 2010-11. Cap change = $212.5K

Michael Frolik, Dmitri Kulikov and Keaton Ellerby’s ELCs with maximum bonus is just over the authorized Cap hit. Cap changes = -$81K in 2010-11 and -$27K in 2011-12 for a total of -$108K

The Panthers have more personnel to adjust (at nine) than EDM, and with more outgoing dollars. Total Cap change is $1.905M, the second least amount behind ANA for any team to have to be prepared to pay out and a welcome respite for Dale Tallon coming over from the Blackhawks. They also have no lost contract term amongst their players.



LAK – Anze Kopitar and Ryan Smyth both meet FCP II status in terms of dollars. No other player meets FCP I or III status.

Kopitar is 23 this season with an additional five seasons on contract following. All the Kings need to do is increase his salary one season to the FCP II Ceiling. Cap change = $67K AAV / $400K total

Ryan Smyth turns 35 this season and has one additional year on contract. Due to age, he cannot be an FCP. The best option here is for the team to designate him an NFC, seek a one-year extension and make up the contractual difference in bonus money. Cap change = -$487.5K AAv but total dollar change of $0 due to bonuses

Dustin Brown turns 26 and Matt Greene turns 28 this season, and both retain an additional three seasons of term on contract. The team should designate them as NFCs and secure one-year exceptions so they can finish out their contracts as written. Cap change = $0

Davis Drewiske, Richard Clune and Peter Harrold do not meet the LMC contract floor and therefore would be entitled to a raise. Cap change is $125K AAV / $592K total

Drew Doughty’s contract is above the new CBA’s ELC ceiling, so the maximum he could make is $1.273M with bonuses – the team will have to make up for it at his 2011-12 contract negotiation. Cap change = AAV and total of -$2.202M

The Kings are in decent shape with the average of eight players’ contracts requiring attention. The total Cap change = -$1.211M with no lost contract term for any player.



MIN – Beginning in 2011-12, Mikko Koivu meets FCP II standards and Niklas Backstrom meets FCP III status. There are no players meeting FCP I status.

Koivu’s brand new contract cannot pass the new CBA test without alteration. He will be 29 years old next season with an additional seven years to do on his new contract. As an FCP II, he can go through the 2015-16 season as is to age 32, the team request a one-year exemption for 2015-16, be paid one season at the FCP II ceiling, and he will lose two year of term as a UFA in 2017-18. Cap change =$90K AAV / $450K total increased salary over the term for playing and a total of -$13.05M to include the two years’ term lost to the new CBA.

Backstrom cannot be designated the FCP III despite his salary because he is currently 32 and turns 33 mid-season. He would have to receive an NFC through the three remaining seasons on his contract with an additional $250K in bonus money per year to make his current contract dollars a wash. Cap change = $0 AAV and total while under contract due to bonus money paid and -$6M AAV/total for year of lost term

Martin Havlat turns 30 before season’s end and has an additional four years of term remaining on his contract. He can be retained through 2012-13 as is, seek a one-year exception in 2013-14, and release him as a UFA in 2014-15. Cap change = $0 AAV and total while under term and -$5M in 2014-15 when one year is lost from contract

Matt Cullen turns 34 early in the season, and Marek Zidlicky at mid-season, both with two additional years of term remaining on contract. The team could retain both through 2011-12 as is, and seek a one-year exception in 2012-13 so they can finish out their contracts as written. Cap change = $0 AAV / total

Nick Schultz turns 28 before the season starts with three additional seasons of term. The team can retain him through 2012-13 as is, and seek a one-year exception to his NFC contract in 2013-14 so he can finish out his contract as written. Cap change = $0 AAV / total

Brad Staubitz, Clayton Stoner and Nate Prosser do not meet the LMC contract floor and therefore would be entitled to a raise. Cap change is $350K AAV / $650K total

The Wild are just above the average with nine players’ contracts requiring attention. Under the assumption extra bonus money would be given to Backstrom in order to make up for lost dollars, the total Cap change is -$23.4M. The team also has three players losing a total of four years of term between them.



Summary

Based on these five teams’ adjustments above, the Oilers have the least issues with seven affected players due to shorter terms and younger age. Where they do have issue is with every ELC, which drops the Cap change by millions of dollars. Total monetary hit is -$17.002M, and Shawn Horcoff and Nikolai Khabibulin each lose a year of term.

Next is the Kings with eight adjustments and -$1.210M to the Cap Hit.

The LAK are followed by The Wild with nine players affected, and a Cap change of -$23.4M with three players losing a total of four seasons’ term.

The Panthers also have nine player adjustments to make, but their Cap change to date of $1.905M.

And finally, based on age, talent and term, you have DET, again with nine players requiring renegotiations. But due to several older players with high-priced contracts, they have the most money coming back in to the team due to lost term at -$41.66M. Zetterberg and Franzen, two of their star players, both lose four years of term due to age restrictions in the proposed, new CBA.

Through 1/2 of the NHL, the averages are: 8.67 players affected per team; for a team payroll average of -$12.371M; and with a bit better than one player losing 2.67 years of term. These numbers have all increased from teams 5 – 10 to teams 11 – 15.

The next five teams to analyze will be MTL, NSH, NJD, NYI and NYR.

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 On Goal Analysis and the OGA Blogs
1. 4.

Monday, August 23, 2010

The New CBA Effect: CAR Through DAL (U.2) – The Colonel

This blog has been updated with new financials, some reworking of the course of action to cover team contracts under the proposed, new CBA, and with charts to show the money matters facing teams.

Below, I analyze teams’ current contract regimens as if the new CBA in “The Next CBA: Part I” were to be applied this season. While several examples of how the recommended CBA affects Management/The League and Players in “The Next CBA: Part II”, there has been some commenting and traffic about specific team impacts.

This is the second of six blogs with by-team analysis on this subject. (Note in “The Next CBA: Part I” there is new language reference Offer Sheets to FCPs. Thanks for the comment, Davegeek!) The first blog in this six-blog series covered ANA through CGY, and I am now poised to provide CAR through DAL.

These six blogs use current information from www.capgeek.com to determine contractual impact of the recommended, next CBA. 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.

Without further ado, on to the one-time Whalers.

Teams Six – 10 In NHL Alphabetical Order

CAR – Eric Staal meets FCP I status and Cam Ward meets FCP II status. No players meet FCP III status.

Staal would require an increase in salary any one season over the term to the FCP I maximum if so designated. Cap difference = $425K AAV / $2.55M total

Ward would also require an increase in any one season’s salary over term to the FCP II maximum. Cap difference = $150K AAV / $900K total

Tom Kostopoulous, Tim Gleason and Joe Corvo must be designated as NFCs. Cap change = $0

Jerome Sampson, Justin Peters, Jiri Tlusty, Pat Dwyer, Jay Harrison and Brett Carson, as holders of an LMC, all need a raise to the LMC floor of $700K. Sampson and Peters would also get a second year at $725K Cap change =$1.163M in 2011-12 and $412.5K in 2012-13 AAV. Total Cap adjustment is $1.575M over the next two seasons with no players losing contract years.

For the Hurricanes, the total number of players requiring more than just a contract re-designation is 11 with a total Cap change of $5.026M in dollars. The team also has no players losing any contract years.



CHI – Patrick Kane, Jonathan Toews and Brian Campbell all meet FCP II status in terms of dollars. No players meet FCP I or III status.

In an attempt to make a complicated salary structure in the Windy City simple and within the new CBA, here is how to proceed. With possibly the least amount of turmoil, you ignore the fact the Kane and Toews originally got a similar dollar and term contract and designate Toews as the FCP I, Kane is designated the FCP II, and Keith the FCP III to maximize the dollars and term on those contracts.
Toews as the FCP I would have at least one season designated at the FCP I maximum of $10.8M. Cap difference is $900K AAV / $4.5M total.

Kane as the FCP II would receive a one year pay raise to the FCP II maximum and complete the rest of his contract as written. And under the assumption the ‘Hawks want to keep Toews and Kane’s dollar figures and term the same, they can round out the money with an annual $720K in bonus money to Kane over his term. Cap difference is $180K AAV, but $4.5M total to the team with the bonuses in place

And then there’s Duncan Keith as the FCP III at age 27 this season with an additional 12 years left on his contract. Due to the age 32 FCP limit with one-year exception possible, his current contract receives a small raise to the FCP III maximum for one year before it expires into UFA status at Year 8. Cap difference =$65.9K AAV / $462K total while playing and a total of -$33.231M lost in UFA status.

Brian Campbell turns out better as an NFC with bonuses than he would have as the FCP II. With turning 32 this season and on an NFC maximum contract, he can only play normally through the 2012-13 season, secure a one-year exception before turning into a UFA for his last two years of current term, and have the team, in a gesture of good will, make up the difference from his current salary to his NFC in bonus money. Cap change = -$1.356M AAV / $0 total over term he can play with bonuses, plus the loss of two seasons’ salary for a total of -$14.286M. This provides a net change of -$14.286M

As an NFC, Marian Hossa will be 32 years old this season with a contract taking him for another 10 seasons. After Year 5 (2013-14) of his current contract, the team can request a one-time exception to keep him in Year 6 after which he will become a UFA lose four years on his current contract. There likely needs to be a “Hossa Clause” in the CBA to allow for players who lose term to have their current contracts at whatever amount they can serve honored as written, even if it busts the FCP rules.
In this case, Hossa would get a new AAV difference of $2.625M / total of $13.125M over the five seasons he can play and lose -$18.525M on the back end. This is why any new CBA will be difficult to agree upon. Without that change, however, he has a Cap change of $0 while playing and a total of -$18.525M in the six lost term years.

Dave Bolland, as an NFC, will be age 25 this season with four years left on his contract. He needs a one-year exception granted to his current contract to complete terms. Cap difference = $0

Niklas Hjalmarsson, will be age 24 this season with four years left on his contract. He needs a one-year exception granted to his current contract to complete terms. Cap difference = $0

Cristobal Huet ‘s loan to Fribourg-Gotteron in Switzerland removes his Cap Hit from CHI’s books. Under the assumption he will be on loan for both years, the Cap change would be -$5.625 AAV / -$11.250M total.

Bryan Bickell, John Scott, Jack Skille, Jake Dowell, Fernando Pisani, Jordan Hendry, and Nick Boynton, as holders of LMCs, all need a raise to the LMC floor of $700K this season. Bryan Bickell and John Scott would also get $725K in year two of their current agreement, and Bryan Bickell would net $750K in Year 3. Cap difference = $1.158M AAV /a total of $1.725M

So you’re thinking the Blackhawks were crazy to blow up their Stanley Cup winning team now? If this new, proposed CBA went into effect this season, they would have 15 players requiring contract attention with a Cap AAV change of -$5.693M. The Cap dollar difference would be-$79.545M spread out in various amounts from 2010-11 through 2022-23, due in large measure to four players losing 17 years of contract term against the current Cap (including Huet). In CHI’s case, a new CBA would not even really give a GM a clean slate to preside over.



COL – Paul Stastny meets FCP II status. No players meet FCP I or III status.

Stastny, by virtue of his designation as the team’s FCP II, receives a one-season raise to $7.2M. Cap impact = $120K AAV / $600K total.

Kevin Porter, David Koci, and Kyle Cumisky, as holders of an LMC, all need a raise to the LMC floor of $700K this season. Cap difference = $265K AAV and total

Matt Duchene’s ELC would pay more than allowed. His maximum with bonuses would be $1.273M and $1.298M before the end of his ELC period. Cap difference = -$1.915M / -$3.829M total

The Avalanche are in pretty good shape. There are only four players with issues in the new CBA for a total of -$2.964M with no players losing any contracted term



CBJ – Rick Nash meets FCP I status. No players meet FCP II or III status.

Nash is age 26 this next season with seven additional years left on his contract. He needs a one-year exception to this contract (because he turns 32 in Year 7 of his eight-year contract) and a raise in one year to the $10.8M Cap Hit Ceiling to maintain his current contract, most likely in the last season when he is set to receive an $8.2M salary. Cap difference is $325K AAV / $2.6M total

Derick Brassard and Rostislav Klesla need one-year exceptions to NFCs and then would be allowed to serve out their current contract. Cap difference = $0

Derek Dorsett, Andrew Murray, Mike Blunden, and Grant Clitsome, as holders of an LMC, all need a raise to the LMC floor of $700K this season. Derek MacKenzie and Derek Dorsett would also get $725K in year two of their current agreement. Cap difference = $485K AAV /$635K total of $610K

Jacob Voracek’s ELC with maximum bonuses is just under the requirement for this season. Cap difference = $2,167

The Blue Jackets’ eight players with issues is not a major hurdle to overcome. They owe players some money, however. The total cap difference is $3.237M, with the largest single chunk of change going out to Rick Nash in the last year of his contract. With a pair of one-year exceptions for specific players, there are no players losing years of contracted time off of their term.



DAL – Brad Richards meets FCP I status. No players meet FCP II or III status.

Richards will need a raise to $10.8M for his one, remaining season in FCP I status. Cap difference = $3M AAV and total

Louie Eriksson would need to either be designated the team’s FCP III, or the team would allow him to serve Years 1 – 3 of his current contract, seek a one-year exception for Year 4 and make him a UFA in Year 5 with two years lost off the life of the contract. If the FCP III, the difference is $289K AAV / $1.733M total. If not the FCP III, the Cap difference is $0 while playing and -$4.267M AAV / -$8.533M total in the last two seasons of his current contract

Steve Ott would need a one-year exception to his current contract in order to serve out the term. Cap difference = $0

Stephane Robidas will be 34 this season. He can therefore serve Year 1 and 2 of the current contract, seek a one-year exception in Year 3 and loses one year of his current contract to CBA language. Cap difference =$0 while playing and -$3.3M AAV and total in the last season of his current contract

Andrew Raycroft, Fabian Brunnstrom, Brandon Segal, and Jeff Woywitka, as holders of an LMC, all need a raise to the LMC floor of $700K this season. Raycroft would also get $725K in year two of their current agreement. Cap difference is $287.5K AAV / $350K total of a span of two years.

The Stars sport eight players with proposed CBA issues. The total Cap dollar change is -$8.384M. And despite granting one-year exceptions for specific players, there are still two players with 3 years of lost contract status.



Summary

Based on what is shown above, The Avalanche have the least woes, due in large measure to having the vast majority of players with two year contracts at this time. Their five players’ contract adjustments with a total Cap change of -$2.964M in outgoing payroll ties them with ATL for our lowest number of team changes so far.

Next are the Stars with a eight adjustments and a team Cap dollar cut of -$8.384M. Of negative note, the Stars also have two players losing a total of three years in contract term.

The Blue Jackets’ same eight player adjustments hold an increased outlay of $3.237M in Cap dollars, something not beneficial to a small market team.

The Hurricanes have 11 players’ adjustments to make with no lost term for any players. Their Cap payroll outlay increases by $5.025M, however.

The Flames has some issues with 12 contracts to adjust, but lose a combined -$1.03M off the payroll due to this CBA’s rules.

But the Blackhawks beat every other team so far for the total number of players affected with 15, a cap payroll downturn of -$75.982M, and four players losing a total of 18 years of contract term (including Huet’s loan to the Swiss). These are due to ‘mortgaging to the hilt’ to get a Stanley Cup winning team, a process that worked last year. But it is equally likely the experience of Scotty Bowman in the front office was brought in to assist with the difficulties of working such a mangled process. Two thoughts come to mind here: the armchair quarterback sitting at home that says he can GM the ‘Hawks better than current management really doesn’t want to walk a mile in those shoes; and current management might very well welcome a new CBA in order to readjust everything back down to reasonable limits.

So with 1/3 of the NHL analyzed, we have shown an overall number of 88 players’ contract adjustments, with an overall decrease in payroll of -$100.635M due to large measure to 10 players with 27 years of lost contract term and some ELCs above the ELC Maximum with Bonuses. The averages are 8.8 players with -$10.634M in Cap dollars per team.

Note this blog has been adjusted to an Update 2 (U.2) due to player and monetary adjustments, a re-work of the CHI course of action and team charts for affected players’ salaries have been added.

The next five teams to analyze will be DET, EDM, FLA, LAK and MIN.

Take me to “The Next CBA: Part I

Take me to “The Next CBA: Part II

Take me to analysis for ANA through CGY

Take me to On Goal Analysis and the OGA Blogs
1. 4.

Saturday, August 21, 2010

The New CBA Effect: ANA Through CGY (U.2) – The Colonel

These blogs have been upadted with new financial information - charts to illustrate Cap effect are being posted as well

Below, I analyze teams’ current contract regimens as if the new CBA in “The Next CBA: Part I” were to be applied this season. While several examples of how the recommended CBA affects Management/The League and Players in “The Next CBA: Part II”, there has been some commenting and traffic about specific team impacts. So this is the first of six blogs with by-team analysis on this subject. (Note in “The Next CBA: Part I” there is new language reference Offer Sheets to FCPs. Thanks for the comment, Davegeek!)

These six blogs use current information from www.capgeek.com to determine contractual impact of the recommended, next CBA. 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 First Five Teams Of The NHL Alphabet


ANA – No players meet FCP I, II or III status.

Jason Blake will be 37 years old this season with one additional year remaining on contract. Under the new CBA, the team would need to request a one-time exception for him to complete his current contract. (This will be a negotiating point in CBA language – will teams be required to request the one time exception in order to honor the contracts they have already awarded to the maximum extent possible.) Cap change = $0.

Saku Koivu will be 36 years old this season with one additional year remaining on contract. The team would need to request a one-time exception for him to complete his current contract. Cap change = $0.

Lubomir Visnovsy will be 35 years old going into next season with one additional year remaining on contract. The team can request a one-time exception to retain him in his last season as contracted. Cap change = $0.

Toni Lydman will be 33 years old this season with two additional years remaining on contract. The team needs to designate him as an NFC player to complete his current contract. Cap change = $0.

Kyle Chipchura, Ryan Carter, Troy Brodie, Brendan Mikkelson, Brett Festerling and Curtis McElhinney, as holders of an LMC, all need a raise to the LMC floor of $700K this season. Total Cap change = $476K AAV and total

For the Ducks, the total number of players requiring contract adjustments is 10 with an AAV and a total Cap change of $476K, all in 2010-11. No players would lose any contract years. Well done, ANA.



ATL – No players meet FCP I, II or III status and no player’s contracts are at issue.

Chris Thorburn, Eric Boulton and Freddy Meyer, as holders of an LMC, all need a raise to the LMC floor of $700K this season. Cap change = $190K AAV and total

Both Zach Bogosian and Evander Kane are over paid on their ELC in 2010-11, and Kane also in 2011-12. Their contracts need to be lowered to $1.273M this coming season and Kane’s to $1.298M the next including the maximum bonus structure. Cap change =
Bogosian’s AAV and total are -$2.102M; Kane’s is -$1.815M AAV / -$3.629M total; for a total of -$5.731M

For the Thrashers, the total number of players requiring more than just a contract re-designation is five with a total Cap change of -$3.727M AAV and total dollar change for the team is -$5.541M. No players lose any contract years.



BOS – Zdeno Chara must be named the club’s FCP I. No players meet FCP II or III status.

Chara needs to be compensated for his remaining contract season at the FCP I maximum rate for a total Cap Hit of $3.3M AAV and total

Marc Savard will be 33 years old this season with six additional years remaining on contract. At age 35 (in 2012-13), the team will have to request a one-time exception to retain him under current terms in contract Year 4 (2013-14), and then allow him to become a UFA. Cap change = -$4.007M AAV and a total of -$8.014M

Dennis Seidenberg – unless designated as an FCP – has one year too many on his current contract. The team can retain him as an NFC, but must request a one-time exception to keep him in Year 4 of his current contract. Cap change = $0K

Tim Thomas will be 37 years old this season with two additional years remaining on contract. After Year 2 (2010-11) of his current contract, the team can request a one-time exception to keep him in Year 3 but he will become a UFA in Year 4 of his current contract. Cap change = -$5M AAV and total in 2012-13

Adam McQuaid, as a holder of an LMC, needs a raise to the LMC floor of $700K this season and $725K next season. Cap change = $138K AAV / $275K total

Tyler Seguin is over paid on his ELC. His contract needs to be lowered to $1.273M, $1.298M and $1.323M with maximum bonus structure. Cap change = -$2.252M AAV / total of -$6.756M

For the Bruins, the total number of player adjustments is six with a total Cap change of -$11.122M AAV and -$16.196M total dollars difference over various years from 2010-11 through 2015-16. The team has two players losing a total of four contract years.



BUF – Thomas Vanek and Ryan Miller both meet FCP II status. No players meet FCP I or III status.

Thomas Vanek cannot be an FCP II at the same time as Ryan Miller. The team can solve his issue by awarding him the team’s FCP I designation per the proposed CBA with one season of the FCP I maximum salary. Cap change = $915K AAV / $3.657M total

If Ryan Miller is designated the team’s FCP II, he can serve out his current contract as written with no change as long as he gets a one-year exception for play in the last year of his agreement and a one-year raise to the FCP II Maximum. Cap change = $238K AAV / $950K total

Jason Pominville – unless designated as an FCP – has one year too many on his current contract. The team can retain him as an NFC and request a one-time exception to keep him in Year 4 to complete his current contract. Cap change = $0K

Derek Roy and Jordan Leopold only need their current contracts designated as an NFCs. Cap change = $0K

Cody McCormick and Patrick Lalime, as holders of an LMC, all need a raise to the LMC floor of $700K. Cap change = -$200K AAV and total for McCormick and -$50K AAV and total for Lalime, all in 2010-11

Tyler Myers is over paid on his ELC. His contract needs to be lowered to $1.273M and $1.298M with maximum bonus structure. Cap change = -$14.5K AAV / -$29K total

For the Sabres, the total number of player adjustments is eight with a total Cap difference over four years of $1.387M AAV /-$4.828M total. No players lose any contract years.



CGY – Jerome Iginla and Jay Bouwmeester both meet FCP II status. No players meet FCP I or III status.

Jerome Iginla cannot be an FCP II at the same time as Jay Bouwmeester. The team can solve his issue by awarding him an FCP I designation which would also carry him through his 35-year-old season per the proposed CBA. They also have to pay him the FCP I maximum for one season. Cap change = $1.267M AAV / $3.8M total

With Jerome Iginla designated the team’s FCP I, Jay Bouwmeester’s contract is in compliance if he is designated the FCP II. Cap change = $130K AAV / $520K total

Rene Bourque’s contract requires him to be designated as the FCP III if Iginla and
Bouwmeester are the other two FCPs. This would require an adjustment for at least one season to a $6M salary. But at age 29 this season, his FCP reaches the age 32 mark in Year 4 with two years remaining. The team can request a one-year exception in Year 5 (2014-15) and then has to release him as a UFA in year 6 (2015-16). Cap change = an AAV of $533K / $2.667M total through 2014-15, and a savings of -$3.333M in 2015-16. The total dollar change is a net of -$667K

Matthew Stajan (due to age and term) and Robyn Regehr (due to term) need their current contracts designated as NFCs and the team to secure a one-year exemption to complete all terms as written. Cap change = $0K

Cory Sarich needs his current contract designated as an NFC. Cap change = $0K

Miikka Kiprusoff will be 34 years old in this season with a contract taking him through age 37. After Years 3 and 4 (this coming season and next) of his current contract, the team can request a one-time exception to keep him in Year 5 after which he will become a UFA and lose one contract year. Cap change = $0 AAV / total through 2012-13 and an AAV / total savings of -$5.833M in 2013-14

Ratis Ivanans, Tim Jackman, Craig Conroy, Staffan Kronwall and Henrik Karlsson, as holders of an LMC, all need a raise to the LMC floor of $700K. Ivanans and Jackman would get a second year at $725K and a third year at $750K while Conroy, Kronwall and Karlsson would be UFAs after the next season. Cap change equals: AAV and total of $600K in 2010-11 for Conroy, Kronwall and Karlsson; an AAV of $162.5K / total of $325K for Jackman; an AAV of $112.5K / total of $225K for Ivanans; for a grand total of $875K AAV / total of S1.15M

For the Flames, the total number of players requiring more than just a contract re-designation is 12 with a total Cap change of -$1.03M in various amounts from 2010-11 to 2014-15. The team also has two players losing two contract years.



Summary

Based on what is shown above, ATL has the least CBA contractual issues to deal with. Their five players with a -$5.541M Cap difference provide the least turmoil for management to solve.

BOS is next in line with five player issues and a Cap difference of -$16.196M and two players with a total of two lost contract years.

BUF is third in this group with eight player issues and a $4.828M Cap difference. Working within an internal budget, they will have to make up the difference caused primarily by FCP I and II designations.

ANA may have 10 contract issues, but they are the least fiscally impacted team at a $476K Cap difference in terms of dollars. The discussions of $5M for five years for Bobby Ryan and his desire to have less term make Ryan the more astute manager as the parameters of this CBA would not allow for the five year term unless he was an FCP.

The team with the toughest row to hoe here is CGY with 12 player issues with a total Cap dollar difference of –$1.03M. The strange math between the AAV and the total dollars is due to the -$6.5M savings differential from Bourque’s and Kiprusoff’s lost contract years.

I would be remiss if I didn’t make two overarching comments here. First is that you can see with such contracts as Marc Savard’s that this new CBA closes down the number of years on the back end of the contract like the NHL is reviewing following the Kovalchuk decision. Legal folks will tell you a contract as written and signed by parties should be honored. But a new, signed CBA would supersede old contracts. In this case, it would not be like the re-writing of all agreements coming out of The Lockout, but contracts past approved terms would have to be altered.

Currently ‘guaranteed’ money departs from players’ pockets here with the only payback being a release to UFA status. In fact, from the four teams above, four total players lose six total contract years, producing a five-team average of .8 players/1.2 contract years lost per team. Some form of compromise might well need to be stricken here – the final tally of how many players this affects will be important at the end of these blogs.

And a second issue seen with ATL, BOS and BUF above is that the largest, single contract group from these teams impacted by the new CBA is players with an ELC and maximum bonuses. I will look to see if that holds throughout the other 25 teams because it could indicate another negotiating point between the NHLPA and Management/The League that will have to be hurdled for an agreement to be hammered out.

Note this blog has been adjusted to an Update 2 (U.2) due to player and monetary adjustments and team charts for affected players’ salaries have been added.

The next, New CBA analysis blog will cover the impact to contracts for CAR, CHI, COL, CBJ and DAL.

Take me to “The Next CBA:Part I”.

Take me to “The Next CBA:Part II”.

Take me to On Goal Analysis
1. 4.

Friday, August 20, 2010

The Next CBA: Part II – The Colonel

Last Night’s “The Next CBA: Part I” discussed the verbiage in a proposed, next CBA and how it would monetize over several years.

This morning, I provide Part II of this blog beginning with discussion of the CBA’s impact on Management/The League and Players and closing with an overlay of the impact of this change on top of a current team’s salary breakdown to show how they would have to alter their contracts to meet the new CBA’s recommended changes…

Management/The League

Overall, this CBA maintains a Salary Cap that is in the same rink with current costs. Likewise, it increases or decreases at a manageably predictable amount based on periodic FYAs of revenue. And it also closes a Cap Hit circumvention loophole based on cheap, ‘throw-away’ years at contract’s end by providing team’s flexibility in the form of an FCA window for any, designated player to age 32 and limiting the years of all other players’ contracts.

An excellent way to look at how this cap works overall is to attempt to reconstruct the disavowed, 17-year Kovalchuk deal under this proposed CBA’s rules.

If tomorrow we were looking at beginning the 2012-13 season, Kovy was still his current age 27, and the New Jersey Devils still wanted an over $100M contract but at a Cap Hit under $7M in any given year to allow for room to extend Parise and Elias, here is one way to structure it. First, designate Kovalchuk the team’s FPC I. Then, between his 27th and 32nd years, give him a contract like the following with an AAV of $6.934M:


Afterwards, give him seven, consecutive two-year contracts at the NFC Ceiling up to age 42 for a total projection of $101.6M/$6.35M AAV over the course of all eight contracts/16 years. Basically, this is one year shy of the disbanded contract term, for about the same amount, but in a CBA-compliant, Cap Hit pill the NHL can swallow. While it is true his original Cap Hit is $7.23M, remember tat Elias is already 34 so has to sign to either an NFC or an LMC which is lower than he is currently making. It is designating Parise as the FCP II that will make a Cap Hit average between the two players higher than expected with the 17-year Kovalchuk contract that was stricken down. But this may even out as Kovy results to an NFC contract in follow-on seasons.

FPC I’s, II’s and III’s serve to limit the number of players making over the $6M per season mark until the 11th year this new CBA comes into effect. (Thereafter, the NFC Maximum begins under $6M.) While this might not meet the desires of the NHLPA, in comparing this to current contracts is enlightening.

There are seven teams which currently have no players awarded a contract meeting the FPC I, II or III dollar amounts (ANA, ATL, EDM, FLA, NSH, NYI and STL). This would not preclude teams from designating a player to each FPC level for RFA compensation purposes, but would also require at least one year contracted at the appropriate FPC Ceiling over the term. (EXAMPLE: For argument’s sake, we are about 60 days out from the start of the 2012/13 season with the current contract structure in place. The Anaheim Ducks determine they are declaring Ryan Getzlaf their FPC I. He is currently 25 years old, and they want to lengthen his term out to age 32 at the most financially beneficial number for which the club can sign him. They get his signature on a contract with some home town discount of ELC + $50K in his 31- and 32-year-old seasons in exchange for three, FPC I Maximum years in mid-contract. He signs for the following with an AAV of $6.061M:


This is a Cap Hit-friendly AAV that is not a circumvention of the intent of AAVs due to the closing of the loophole. It also does not preclude the Ducks from padding Getzlaf’s last two years with up to $3.672M per season in bonuses which count against the team’s Cap Ceiling, but not against the AAV. Or it could just as easily be counter-balanced by a contract Getzlaf could receive at age 33 and 34 where he could get paid a maximum of $5.925M and $5.95M – plus up to $2.019M in bonuses per year – with a more-true AAV of $5.9375M on a shorter NFC.)

There are 47 players whose current salaries fall under an FPC I, II or III designation. Minus the seven teams with no such players, the average for other organizations is only 2.04 (of three possible) players. If the CBA were going into effect for this season, only DET, NYR and SJS have four players under contract who meet an FPC monetary designation and are therefore facing an issue requiring adjustment. While adjustments are bothersome, they provide Management a measure of flexibility. (EXAMPLE: Again, if this was 2012… The New York Rangers are a team in FPC trouble. Gaborik has an FPC I salary, and Drury, Lundqvist and Redden all have FPC II-size salaries. After contracts have been re-worked, the Rangers award Gaborik the FPC I and Lundqvist the FPC II. Drury, already 32 years old, re-negotiates an NFC contract for the maximum allowed. But the Rangers, who have not gotten value for their money the last few years, want to make a change with Wade Redden. His AAV of $6.5M makes his salary in the FPC II range which has already been designated for Lundqvist. So in 2012-13, Redden plays for his previous $6.5M as a special, one-year NFC contract exception, and the Rangers do not renegotiate his contract by 15 July 2013, allowing him to gain UFA status.)

And teams also exist under current SPCs with FPC I, II or III issues based solely on the age of the player. (EXAMPLE: Buffalo would have two FPCs if the new CBA were currently in affect – Thomas Vanek is at least an FPC II at $7.142M over the next four years. But Ryan Miller at $6.25M over the next four years has two issues. Firstly, he also meets criteria for an FPC II designation, which Buffalo solves by awarding Vanek the FPC I designation and Miller the FPC II. But the goalie also will be 33-years-old in year four of his current SPC. He should not normally carry that high a contract after age 32. The Sabres, however, based on his continued, stellar performance between the pipes, seek permission for a special, one-year NFC contract exception in year four so Miller loses nothing he already contracted for. Upon completion of his current contract’s terms, he is a UFA.)

While standardizing monetization of contracts, the system as written here also allows Management flexibility to solve some Cap Hit issues in terms of renegotiating players contracts. That may be an issue with the NHLPA (although we should remember all contracts were re-written after the 2004-5 Lockout and this proposal is not callig for something that radical)…

The Players

This CBA maintains a Salary Cap, the very presence of which some members of the NHLPA will be against. If they are, however, it must be under the assumption that the League has unlimited resources, which is not the case. But two things should come to mind in a player's favor.

Firstly, unless you are an FPC I, II or III, your salary will never decrease over the length of the contract from your Year 1 salary. If you are in the vast majority of players not awarded an FPC contract, you can also look forward to a raise every one, two or three years when you renegotiate.

And second, a desire for transparency in League profits will be provided through calculation of the FYA that is shared with the NHLPA annually.

Having only three FPCs per team can look and feel like a Cap within a Cap. But if you were trying to apply this CBA to today’s salary structures, the fact remains that only three teams currently have more than three players that meet an FPC designation.

Several others, however, have the issue of too many players meeting FPC I or II designations. They include: BUF (Vanek, Miller); CGY (Iginla, Bouwmeester); CHI (Kane, Toews, Campbell); DET (Zetterberg, Lidstrom); NYR (Drury, Lundqvist, Redden); PHI (Briere, Timonen); PIT (Malkin, Crosby); SJS (Thornton, Marleau, Boyle); and VAN (the Sedins). Some of these issues can be solved by either designating one player the team’s FPC I (EX: the Sedins) or allowing a short term contract to expire into free agency (EX: Thornton). But others require more drastic measures, such as the Wade Redden issue mentioned above.

And another healthy number of teams have term issues per the structure of the new CBA above: CBJ (Nash turns 32 at year 7); DET (Datsyuk turns 32 at year 1, and Zetterberg turns 32 at year 4); MIN (Koivu turns 32 at year 5, and Backstrom turns 32 at year 2); MTL (Gomez turns 32 at year 5); NJD (Elias is currently age 34 so should have an NFC); NYR (Redden is already 33 so should have an NFC); PHI (Briere and Timonen are already over 32 so should have NFC’s); TBL (Lecavalier turns 32 at year 3); VAN (the Sedins turn 32 at year 4); and WSH (Ovechkin turns 32 at year 10). By the terms of the CBA spelled out, all of these players could receive a one-year, non-FPC extension after age 32 and then become a UFA.

As a whole, we have 28 players with contract issues if all of the proposed CBA went into effect today. (In the 2012-13 season, there would still be 25.) But this 2.6% of the league represents the highest paid portion and stands as both motivation for all players and an actual, upwards draw on salary floors. So if I am in the NHLPA, I might ask for a one-time CBA exception to designate up to two players per team who would otherwise be an FPC but who will not count against the three-FPC designations in order to make sure management must live with the contractual decisions already made. The NHLPA would likely have support along those lines from such teams as CHI, DET, NYR, PIT, SJS, VAN and WSH. But because compromise requires something from everybody in return, Management/The League may well allow the decision on those two players, but require the total salary value not to bust the Cap, and for all players after those two to fall under the boundaries of new CBA, requiring renegotiation of every other, non-FPC contract to no more than one, two or three years in length as appropriate.

Also in the players’ favor is the fact that UFA status comes quicker for between 84% and 97% of players. And players would be able to negotiate for up to 34% of their highest salary in the contract period as bonuses to be paid by the club at a Cap, but not AAV, hit.

How Would This Affect An Entire Team?

In order to illustrate how these changes would affect an entire organization, I overlaid the new CBA's structure onto the Toronto Maple Leafs' current salaries to illustrate restructuring issues this recommended CBA causes. Here is how they look:


By the size of their contracts, Phaneuf and Giguere would be designated as FCPs. Here I designated them the lowest FCP level I could in order to maintain flexibility to sign a top line forward to an FCP I contract if so desired.

In bold red font you can see there is a problem for the terms of Kessel, Komisarek, Armstrong and Orr. Since no player would be eligible for an FCP exception, they can be awarded one, additional year at current contract terms and then become UFAs. The one year exception would completely cover Armstrong and Orr’s current SPC but still fall short on the other two by one season. The Maple Leafs also could not seek an exception to allow those players' contracts to remain on the books for the time indicated because neither player has an FCP.

Also in red is Mike Brown’s salary. He is signed for the next season at $537.5K, but the LMC requires he receive no less than $700K.

Tyler Bozak and Luke Schenn’s SPCs call for close to or at the maximum you can currently get on an ELC with all bonuses. These exceed the new CBA’s requirements. Both players can be awarded a maximum ELC of $950K. If they are also given the maximum bonuses possible, then they can receive an additional $323K per ELC year. This chart shows their ELC only and their $323K bonuses in the “Carry Over Bonus Penalty” column as it counts against the total Cap Hit but not the Player’s AAV.

In both the Cap Over/Under Pre- and Post-Training Camp cases, the new structure for the upcoming year would have the Maple Leafs under the Cap Ceiling by $2.163M. The team under the current CBA has $2.026M in Cap Space.

Summary

In overall affect, the proposed CBA maintained the Cap and solved the Loophole issue while still providing flexibility for Management/The League and Players alike. And it did so with relatively little difference in final dollar impact to the Cap Hit. It is, as a solid compromise would require when something is not ‘broke,’ an evolutionary change instead of a revolution.

Weigh in. Give your opinions about a new CBA. Let's hear your voice before we are up against a deadline with no resolution and another Lockout loms. There does not need to be one with a little compromise and adjustment.

Take me to On Goal Analysis