Free agents twisting in the wind
A high-profile agent told Sun Media yesterday that the current environment for free agents is "all being orchestrated" by the NHL and the plan all along was to make these players sit to see if they’re willing to sign for less money.
"I think what you’ve got here is something that has been in the works for a while," said the agent, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "I don’t think I’ve ever seen a bunch of guys sitting around like this looking for work. This is something teams have been looking at for a while."
Greg Wyshynski gave Garrioch a hard time over this story in the Puck Headlines on Wednesday, but I was actually told the exact same thing — nearly word for word — by a lower profile agent last week. At the time, I chalked it up to frustration on the part of one individual, but it turns out this is something being talked about with some regularity behind the scenes.
"NHL teams know that [players will panic] and for the most part agents think NHL headquarters instructed teams to get as many players as possible to free-agent market to get players fighting against each other [for contracts]," the agent told me via email. "Some GMs have said that 'we'll wait until August because we believe we get better deals then.' None of them will say anything about Bettman instructing them since collusion charges could [come into play]."
I trust the source that said that to me, but I'm still uneasy about spreading rumours that widespread collusion is going on. It would be incredible if all 30 teams were able to agree to not stock their teams as well as possible to further some nefarious league objective.
Unbelievable, even.
Still, it's also really shocking how many quality players are available, probably 20 of whom definitely should have found a home by now. Alex Tanguay is one, but how about Sergei Zubov, Robert Lang, Manny Fernandez, Mats Sundin, Petr Sykora, Jason Williams, Taylor Pyatt, Manny Malhotra, Dennis Seidenberg, Dominic Moore, Mike Comrie, Mathieu Schneider, Miroslav Satan, Mike Grier, Mike Peca, Blair Betts, Martin Skoula, Marc-Andre Bergeron, Rob Niedermayer, etc.?
In terms of the argument that there's no cash left to spend, considering the cap is the same size as it was a year ago, that should be pretty easy to determine. Using rough calculations from nhlnumbers.com and capgeek.com, here's what teams spent last season compared to this one and the cash left over:
| TEAM | 2008-09 | 2009-10 | Diff |
| ANA » | $57.5 | $54.3 | -$3.21 |
| ATL » | $43.6 | $48.9 | $5.33 |
| BOS » | $56.8 | $58.0 | $1.17 |
| BUF » | $50.6 | $52.1 | $1.44 |
| CAR » | $51.1 | $54.0 | $2.96 |
| CGY » | $58.9 | $55.3 | -$3.53 |
| CHI » | $57.9 | $59.6 | $1.70 |
| CLB » | $51.2 | $47.8 | -$3.45 |
| COL » | $53.4 | $50.1 | -$3.30 |
| DAL » | $57.3 | $48.7 | -$8.64 |
| DET » | $57.4 | $55.1 | -$2.32 |
| EDM » | $55.2 | $55.7 | $0.45 |
| FLA » | $54.7 | $50.2 | -$4.58 |
| LAK » | $43.9 | $50.6 | $6.67 |
| MIN » | $54.4 | $53.6 | -$0.82 |
| MTL » | $57.5 | $55.2 | -$2.32 |
| NAS » | $45.4 | $40.7 | -$4.76 |
| NJD » | $55.0 | $50.1 | -$4.89 |
| NYI » | $46.7 | $41.7 | -$5.04 |
| NYR » | $56.4 | $53.2 | -$3.21 |
| OTT » | $54.9 | $56.6 | $1.68 |
| PHI » | $66.2 | $56.0 | -$10.18 |
| PHO » | $45.5 | $45.0 | -$0.54 |
| PIT » | $56.7 | $55.2 | -$1.51 |
| SAN » | $57.2 | $57.3 | $0.08 |
| STL » | $54.3 | $52.2 | -$2.10 |
| TBL » | $51.0 | $49.6 | -$1.35 |
| TOR » | $50.1 | $58.9 | $8.78 |
| VAN » | $53.9 | $53.3 | -$0.54 |
| WAS » | $60.1 | $57.4 | -$2.71 |
| AVG | $53.8 | $52.5 | -$1.29 |
Tossing out the figure from the Flyers that is heavily influenced by all the long-term injury exemptions they had, there is about $30-million "extra" left to get us back to where we were a year ago, with the tiny rise in the cap contributing another $3-million or so.
If you assume that adding an additional player to a roster would mean subtracting a league minimum salary that's being counted here, that leaves roughly $1.5-million per team to add one additional free agent. And that's before we get into signing the remaining RFAs, injuries, callups and the like that are sure to push spending above the $53.8-million average of last season by the time we get to April.
In short? There's really not much cash left at all — and that's a more likely explanation for all of the guys searching for homes than GMs banding together for the greater good. Five to 10 teams could use another piece, but they won't be spending much, and that's bad news if you're either an unsigned player or an agent, whatever the cause may be.
0 recs |
58 comments
| Add comment
|
Comments
I think Zubov signed with St. Petersburgh
miss u, CR baby...u want 2 get back 2gether? - now with lots of Ducks love
by sleza on Jul 30, 2009 8:37 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Here’s the news on Zubov possibly going to Russia. It’s close, but not done yet.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Jul 30, 2009 2:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
fine… i should translate more carefully :)
miss u, CR baby...u want 2 get back 2gether? - now with lots of Ducks love
by sleza on Jul 30, 2009 4:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Now it’s done…
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Jul 30, 2009 5:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
swedes can predict the future apparently…
miss u, CR baby...u want 2 get back 2gether? - now with lots of Ducks love
by sleza on Jul 30, 2009 6:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think Mats Sundin can predict his own future.
by Habs on Jul 30, 2009 7:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nothing surprises me about how this league is run at this point. James, do you think the agents might rise up and sue the NHL for collusion? Its been done before in other sports leagues.
The population of Pominville keeps rising!
by Blackcapricorn on Jul 30, 2009 8:43 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Well… no. I say at the end there that the lack of cap space is to blame for all this, not collusion.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Jul 30, 2009 2:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Can’t speak to the Canadian courts but collusion is particularly hard to prove in under American Antitrust law right now. If the NHL front office and GMs have half a brain they’ll be able to legitimately mask their collusion and the Union won’t be able to prove it.
by Fehr and Balanced on Jul 30, 2009 3:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agents crying wolf because their clients aren’t worth nearly as much as they think? Hardly a new phenomenon.
And Garrioch is the National Enquirer of hockey journalism. Frankly, I believe he simply makes up half the quotes he writes, and if he’s going to accuse the league of collusion, which he basically does in this piece, then he needs to back it up with proof.
by Resolute on Jul 30, 2009 8:45 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Totally agree with the Garrioch comment. Collusion among owners? – an aggressive acusation with no offer of proof at all. As James highlighted, there are few dollars chasing players that several years ago thought they would be able to sign for more when their contracts were up.
At the end of the day, with 30 teams and GMs trying to keep their jobs by showing their owners they are moving in the right direction with their teams, it would be a massive effort to collude and keep remaining free agents of rosters to save a few bucks.
Just not buying this story
by hockeysully on Jul 30, 2009 9:02 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Frankly, I believe he simply makes up half the quotes he writes
And the other half is real quotes, but complete BS as people tell him things to make him go away.
Still makes him better than Eklund though. Eklund’s 100% total BS.
by Afino on Jul 30, 2009 9:18 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And really, Garrioch’s just pissed that Atlant Moscow wont’ start Martin Gerber when they play the Sens.
by yrmom on Jul 30, 2009 10:10 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pretty interesting he managed to make up the exact same quote that another agent gave me a week earlier. Would be quite a feat.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Jul 30, 2009 2:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The same thing happened in Baseball
The same thing happened in baseball where many free agents had to wait to nearly spring training to get signed. Unless MLB is also in on the conspiracy it looks like it is just one of the effects of the economy.
by jkrdevil on Jul 30, 2009 9:01 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
If this is true, someone forgot to give Bob Gainey the memo.
Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.
by saskhab on Jul 30, 2009 9:21 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
This is where I come out. No league with Bob Gainey in it is guilty of collusion.
I think the teams that were inclined to spend a ton of money already have. The rest of the teams have tough financial situations that aren’t fully reflected by looking at where they are relative to the cap. It’s not surprising that teams are spending less money overall this year, and it’s no surprise that the middle-tier of players are getting squeezed because the stars get the big contracts and rookies get more of a chance than they would have otherwise.
by Gould Old Days on Jul 30, 2009 10:04 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
When it’s all said and done, on average, teams will have spent more than last season. There are a lot of contracts still to come when you consider all of the injuries that’ll happen.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Jul 30, 2009 2:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Colusion?
1) The same thing DID happen in MLB several years ago. Eventually the MLBPA went to court and the league was found to have ‘colluded’ against the players and they were awarded millions
2) Not saying that the same thing is being done here, and the BIG difference is the MLB doesn’t have a salary cap. Its going to be VERY difficult to prove and as one responder al;ready stated, a lot of this might be agents feeling the wrath of their clients over a lack of a contract
I find sometimes it's easy to be myself
sometimes I find it's better to be somebody else
by Fauxrumors on Jul 30, 2009 9:24 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
The strange part of these collusion suggestions is that the only player on James’ list that makes any sense is Tanguay. It is a little puzzling that he hasn’t signed (and I don’t believe Garrioch’s suggestion that nobody’s offered more than $1.2 million for one second).
But the rest of these guys are either old as dirt (Lang), Old as dirt AND have questions surrounding commitment (Sundin), or simply aren’t any better than the kids teams can promote from within (Niedermayer and most of the rest of the list.)
by Resolute on Jul 30, 2009 9:44 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not to mention
that over half the players on that short list have major question marks in terms of age, injury, consistency or attitude. I’m completely unsurprised that teams aren’t lining up to pay Comrie like a 20 goal scorer. The ones without question marks are typically the ones without (a lot of) talent, and in a tough market that type of player can expect to get squeezed.
I've been looking at the sky
by Back In Black on Jul 30, 2009 9:42 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
and in a tough market that type of player can expect to get squeezed.
This was one of the expected effects of the cap system…the stars would continue to get paid and the kids on the lower-end of the salary scale would play a more important role, while the middle guys could eventually get squeezed. The middle guys on the FA market have still been seeing average to too high contracts since the lockout, and it looks like the economic conditions and cap uncertainty are finally putting the sqeeze on the market for those players.
by Bosc Ulrich on Jul 30, 2009 9:58 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s what happened in the NFL post-cap: the vets with mediocre skill levels got almost entirely squeezed out by kids that could be signed much cheaper for likely similar production.
NHL GMs would have to be dumber than dirt to collude like MLB, considering that MLB got hammered for $280M (in 1990 USD — almost half a billion 2009 USD) under U.S. law, and the NHL’s far more susceptible to more worker-friendly Canadian labor law.
That 17-year-old Hokie sitting in the rafters in Greensboro didn't see any of this coming.
by JoshCVT on Jul 30, 2009 1:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’ve heard retirement rumours about Fernandez, Sundin, and Rob Niedermeyer (yes, Rob apparently has some lingering injury issues) from that list, and most of the rest have injury problems or age concerns. After we weed out those players, not much is left in terms of real talent. I don’t think there’s an awful lot out there, to be honest. Dominic Moore should fire his agent for turning down that $1.75m or whatever Burke offered him at the trade deadline, though.
I may miss some, but off the top of my head, the following UFAs ended the season injured: Tanguay, Zubov, Lang, Sykora, Schneider and Betts.
Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.
by saskhab on Jul 30, 2009 10:00 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Collusion has existed in the NHL before, but that was when the owners had a very comfy relationship with the head of the NHLPA.
by Bosc Ulrich on Jul 30, 2009 10:09 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Most of these players have underperformed, are old, and/or injured. There’s no collusion here, only a rare injection of common sense. GMs are finally waking up to the recession and corresponding cap issues. Why pay one of these guys the millions their asking when you can develop a prospect for six figures.
MG
by puckreport on Jul 30, 2009 10:19 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
While the list of players you cited have some strong history behind them, I belive that most teams could probably look at their prospects and justify holding a spot open for one of them instead of signing one of these players. If nothing else you want some idea of compeition for a roster spot going into camp.
Players with obvious injury risks ahve to be a special challenge for teams with cap issues, esspecially before training camps have even begun.
Also are guys like Malhorta, Comrie, Satan, Peca, Skoula, Bergeron, Neidermayer really worth the expense, there recenty play either indicates a cealing of third line forward or very limited defensman. At some point third line forwards or depth defensman should come from your AHL club. None of these guys are differnce makers.
All of these guys except possbily Moore and Seidenberg are on the back side of their carrers, or appear to have at least topped out. The ones who have been top six forwrads appear to be only marginal top six forwrads now, except Tanguay.
I think the issue that is finally developing is that teams are deciding that unless your a legit top six forward or top four defenseman, you not worth buying on the open market. If you are below that your like what so many of the goalies have recnelty found out, replaceable. It appears that a stratification is developing.
by sctlaw on Jul 30, 2009 10:20 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Yes, there is some cap space available this year, but next year the cap is going down. And that is where there is no cap room. If the UFA’s want to sign one year deals, I’m sure teams will oblige them.
by godot10 on Jul 30, 2009 10:50 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Until things came to a screeching halt about two weeks, the pattern of signings was about the same as in the past two years. About two-thirds of the players had signed one or two year deals, the rest three years or longer. The majority of those signing one year deals took pay cuts (veterans coming off longer term deals), the majority of those signing for two years got increases. The one difference I noticed was that there were far more three year deals than four year terms-last year those categories were about even. I don’t know if would attach any great significance to that.
Last year the only signings of name players after July 30 were special situations like Teppo Numminen and Chelios. Most of the other players signed didn’t finish the year in the NHL.
It may be that the deeper pool of free agents this year has allowed teams to bide their time. It may be that some teams are just waking up to the fact that they have mismanaged their cap space. The next 30 days will give us a better take on whether this is just a late-breaking market or a true culling of the herd.
by Big Picture Guy on Jul 30, 2009 11:27 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Every year previous to this one, there was a significant increase in the cap. A team like Philly or Detroit would’ve been able to add or retain a $4m player, and they would do just that. Dallas dropping to one of the bottom 5 payrolls in the NHL right now is one of the stories of the summer.
Also of note is San Jose’s dire cap situation. Teams might be hoping to pluck a quality player from them for next to nothing. James’ figures show them right at the cap… what they don’t show is that they have about 5 roster spots to fill up. Even if they were just filled up with minimum wage players, they’d have to dump a $2.5m player just to start the season.
Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.
by saskhab on Jul 30, 2009 11:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Collusion?
Or a collection of GMs finally realizing that:
- yes, there is a salary cap now, and
- yes, you should probably plan with more than the coming season in mind, and
- no, it’s not necessarily smart to pay an aging player based on past (pre-injury) performance when you might have talented, minimum salary kids in your system ready to make the jump
I may just be seeing what I want to see (GMs finally the cap doesn’t automatically grow like a chia pet), but of that list of players and their historic asking price, only Tanguay doesn’t give me reservations. (And as saskhab said, even he is coming off an injury.)
Lighthouse Hockey: Side effects may include Weight gain and frequent game loss.
by Dominik on Jul 30, 2009 11:40 AM CDT reply actions 3 recs
I was going to reply to this...
…but you took the words right out of my mouth. Great post.
If I were to add anything I’d simply say this whole non-issue has to do with a) sentiment against Bettman in general and b) overvaluation of some of these remaining UFA players. I think with the cap the way it is, the days of building a team through free agency are fading (except for good ol’ old-school Gainey).
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Jul 30, 2009 12:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
a) sentiment against Bettman in general
And also probably frustration among agents commiserating with each other over how tough flat-cap times are, and freaking out about their commissions. “Man, we used to be able to pull a number out of the air and force a guy to sign it or else. Now that only works with Glen and Bob.”
Lighthouse Hockey: Side effects may include Weight gain and frequent game loss.
by Dominik on Jul 30, 2009 12:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly. “Oh crap, my house payment!” or “How am I going to gas up my Hummer?!”
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Jul 30, 2009 5:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
In his defense, Gainey has never before built his team through free agency. In fact, before this year, the most significant free agent Gainey had acquired for the Habs was Roman Hamrlik. While a decent signing, this is no world breaker.
This year, he had the possibility to completely redo the team because there were 11 UFAs. Good on him for having the balls to do it – it was needed.
by Habs on Jul 30, 2009 12:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
What I don’t get is that if teams are really sitting back to drive a player price down, wouldn’t the player’s price go right back up when 5 teams suddenly start going after him? Seems kind of pointless to me if it did happen to be true.
by Mobsky on Jul 30, 2009 11:58 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
The wriging was on the wall last year, when the Ducks practically couldn’t give Mathieu Schneider away. It became obvious that a situation like this (or worse, and I think it will still get worse) would come if the cap stopped rising or fell. And that’s all that’s happened.
I really don’t understand the collusion angle. There’s just not much for the owners or GMs to gain from that. Even if they drive all the price down for all those players, they’re only saving cap space, not real dollars.
by RyanV on Jul 30, 2009 12:18 PM CDT reply actions 4 recs
Excellent point
Cost certainty virtually destroys the motivations for collusion. Total player salary cannot be reduced.
I've been looking at the sky
by Back In Black on Jul 30, 2009 12:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
But if you keep the market down you can sign better players for cheaper. Then you can sign more talent under the same salary cap, and your young kids coming up will watch their salaries rise slower than they have the last few years. There is still a reason to collude to keep salaries down, even if overall expenditures may remain about constant.
by Fehr and Balanced on Jul 30, 2009 3:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
On that note, i always wonder more about collusion when I read Bettman or a GM speak out against the long-term deals. That sounds like a directive from on high…
Lighthouse Hockey: Side effects may include Weight gain and frequent game loss.
by Dominik on Jul 30, 2009 4:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
What you call collusion...
…I call the market resetting itself. Two things have happened that cannot be ignored—the salary cap most likely will decrease next season for the first time since it was instituted, and the economy has taken a serious hit, which in turn affects the owners paying out the salaries.
I heard the same complaints from agents about collusion in Major League Baseball last season, and they carried the same non-existent weight that their NHL counterparts have. The market crashed right at the start of MBL’s hotstove free agent started, and nearly every team wound up spending less than normal. For instance, the St. Louis Cardinals originally planned to spend up toward $112 million on payroll and even resigned one of their pitchers to a big contract, but after the economy tumbled, they reset their budget and payroll now stands at around $88 million. That’s adjusting your expendures to meet new projected revenues (i.e., lower overall ticket sales, loss of corporate sales), and that in turn will affect how much a team spends on payroll. While some players always will attract sizeable contracts, the second tier on down will find it hard to demand top dollar, because managers and owners are now less willing to hand out those deals to non-elite talent.
It’s simple cause and effect, and the way the “market value” in the league is supposed to work. If the market itself declines, then payrolls and a player’s financial value also will decline. Whether agents wish to believe it or not.
by Forsch31 on Jul 30, 2009 4:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I never called it collusion; in fact, I don’t actually think it’s collusion. I was merely saying that there is still an incentive to hold prices down, even if teams will spend the same amount of money regardless. The argument you just laid out is precisely the reason that the NHL won’t be convicted of collusion; they probably won’t even be charged. As long as the NHL has an explanation that is at least equally as plausible as collusion they will be fine.
by Fehr and Balanced on Jul 30, 2009 6:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
“I trust the source that said that to me, but I’m still uneasy about spreading rumours that widespread collusion is going on.”
That’s because it’s B.S. and a ploy used by agents in every sport to drum up fan interest in their clients. It happens every single year in MLB and most years for NFL players too, including this year. Agents believe if fans of a particular team, or many fans of several particular teams, will put pressure upon the owner/G.M. of their beloved team to sign whichever free agent has a sexy name. That’s all it is.
For those who believe there might be some form of collusion going on, ask yourself one simple question. When is the last time 30 grown men with inflated egos used to getting their way agreed on anything even as simple as what day it was? Never.
by Chad_ on Jul 30, 2009 1:35 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I think yesterday when they voted down Balsillie’s ownership application.
by yrmom on Jul 30, 2009 4:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The brains behind this plot….
Eklund!
More free agents
More rumors to make up
More stories to write
More clicks
If you've read this far...seek help.
by ThePeerless on Jul 30, 2009 2:24 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Frankly, I’d be stunned if de facto collusion isn’t happening. If not among UFAs, then certainly among RFAs. The utter lack of offer sheets for restricted free agents is inexplicable without at least an implicit agreement not to go after each others’ players.
by J. Michael Neal on Jul 30, 2009 3:53 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Really? For me the deterrent for signing RFAs is in the CBA itself: Too much compensation.
You not only have to pay a free agent the inflated price of outbidding a rival enough that they don’t match, but you also have to give up picks. The cases where that trade-off is palatable seem too few and far between for my (admittedly fiscally stingy) fantasy GM eyes.
Lighthouse Hockey: Side effects may include Weight gain and frequent game loss.
by Dominik on Jul 30, 2009 4:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The entire “you have to pay them a billion dollars AND a draft pick” is baloney, unless you’re Kevin Lowe. The way Lowe did it (let’s throw millions of dollars at guys and see what happens!) IS stupid. But when you look at the cap strapped teams… Until the Aaron Ward trade, Boston had under 3M in cap space. Give Kessel a deal for under 3.9M/yr (I think thats where the threshold is), and you get him for a fairly decent price, for the cost of a 1st + 3rd. Trading a 1st + 3rd for Kessel straight up would be a pretty good deal, and if you can sign him to that contract, it’s a decent deal financially. The same thing should’ve been done with the Sharks and Ryan Clowe, or the Wings and Hudler (if Hudler weren’t going to the KHL). Grabbing an RFA from a team with tons of cap space is a bad idea, but the best way to use it is to snatch guys from teams with little space. Dean Lombardi said a couple years ago that if anyone went after a Kings RFA, they’d match, and then they’d immediately sign the aggressor’s RFA’s for good measure. If you sign a RFA away from a team without an cap space, its going to be much easier, AND they’re going to be unable to return the favor.
http://sacrificethebody.blogspot.com/
Sacrifice the Body - Examining the NHL through statistical analysis, reasoned thought, and blind conjecture.
by IAmJoe on Jul 30, 2009 7:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
One minor issue...
Poaching RFAs is great in theory… and not so great in practice.
I agree that in a theoretical economic/competitive situation that is what you do. Same with Minny’s goalie, as per Mudcrutch and Lowetide earlier this year. The problem is if you go and deliberately fuck with someone who is struggling with juggling their numbers, what happens the next time you’re in that position. It’s a bit of a nuclear option in some ways that might put you at risk w.r.t. trading and other social activities in the long run. The opportunity costs have to be really heavily weighted in your favour for anyone to go out to do this, and this goes beyond just the player for picks swap.
by rsm on Jul 30, 2009 11:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is why I said that there is de facto collusion. They probably don’t get together and collectively decide not to make offers to RFAs, but it’s understood that it’s something you don’t do.
by J. Michael Neal on Jul 31, 2009 12:09 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
“De facto collusion” is not illegal so even though you are probably right, it won’t result in any penalty or liability for the NHL.
by Fehr and Balanced on Jul 31, 2009 10:10 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The way Lowe did it (let’s throw millions of dollars at guys and see what happens!) IS stupid. But when you look at the cap strapped teams…
But Kessel is the rather rare instance I’m thinking of (I don’t think even Clowe or Hudler would be worth it), and if you stay below the threshold of making it really expensive (say $3.9, which I think is right), it’s that much easier for Boston to match and trade someone else to get back under the cap, or match and deal him, plus you have the “nuclear” aspect rsm refers to that affects your later negotiating position with teams. Meanwhile, last year all the whole Backes/Bernier trade of pissing volleys between STL and VAN just served to inflate the salaries and payroll of both.
Lighthouse Hockey: Side effects may include Weight gain and frequent game loss.
by Dominik on Jul 31, 2009 12:13 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think BOS would be ecstatic if someone could get Kessel to sign a 3.9 mill deal with BOS having the right of first refusal. I think if Kessel would sign for 3.9 BOS would have already inked him to that deal.
by Fehr and Balanced on Jul 31, 2009 10:11 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
This Of course implies that Kessel would sniff @ 3.9M/Year
Which he wouldn’t as his asking price is 5. If Kessel would accept 3.9M/year he would have already been signed by the bruins
by Jpynn on Jul 31, 2009 5:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
There wouldn’t even have to be real collusion, I don’t think. The way that Burke and Lowe went after each other reminded me of the bitterness that junior high school girls develop when they think someone is stealing their boyfriend – loud, bitter, and leading to endless grudges.
Professional hockey seems to be quite clubby at the level of NHL front offices – does anyone really want to provoke that kind of venom from someone they will still have to deal with? It’s just more pleasant if everyone gets along at family dinners instead of starting screaming political arguments, no matter how right the dissenter might be. More than collusion I see an implicit peer pressure to just not rock the boat because it just makes trouble and everyone gets upset.
"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle." -- Philo of Alexandria
by Baroque on Jul 30, 2009 5:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or maybe the players leftover just blow
Injured, old, ineffective. That about sums up the remainder pile.
Plus, I wouldn’t believe Bruce Garrioch if he told me the sun was hot. He fills the space between car stereo ads with 12 inches of facts-optional drivel.
In a day & age when the internet provides all the fakes news one cares to consume, and I can read a quality hockey writer such as Eric Duhatschek online, why would I waste the finger motion it takes to click through to Malkin to the Kings?
If two different people told me the tiny Republic of Togo was about to invade the St. Lawrence Seaway, that doesn’t make it true. The plural of “anecdote” is not “fact.”
by garth the hoser on Jul 30, 2009 7:58 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Common Sense
If you knew your morgage was going up next year, and your salary was going to go down. Would you go out and buy an overpriced inefficient unreliable vehicle this year? From the look of things, most teams salaries have gone up just trying to keep their own RFA’S. Some teams had a few holes to fill and did it right away(Montreal). None of the players that are remaining on the ufa list are sure bets. Guys like Sykora and Satan are streaky scorers. Do you bet that they are going to have a good year? Guys like Peca and Schnieder are a crap shoot. I would much rather see my team bring up a guy from the AHL for less than a million and find out that was a mistake than sign some guy for 3 million and find out that was a mistake. Maybe I have “small market syndrome” from being Sabres fan. There just arent the dollars out there to take risks like teams used to.
by danabob on Jul 31, 2009 9:34 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.
On Facebook? Use Connect to join SB Nation. Share insights with fans and friends.- » Create a new SB Nation account
- » Already registered with SB Nation? Log in!

by 

















