Waddell Interview Analysis
Summer holiday weekends bore me. Every summer, Memorial Day, 4th of July and Labor are my WORST weekends of the American summer--why? All my rec hockey leagues take the weekend off. Summer holidays equals NO HOCKEY!!! And when you're a Thrashers fan your team certainly isn't playing on Memorial Day.
So in the midst of my Memorial Weekend ennui, here's my brilliant or not-so-brilliant thoughts on Ben Wight's exclusive Don Waddell interview.
There is the obligatory "Searching for Bobby Fischer Ilya Nikulin" mention: "probably the best [unsigned European player at World Champions] is one we already own, in Ilya Nikulin from Russia." Waddell is obviously wary: "I heard again through his agent that he'd like to explore it but we've heard that every year. We'll see where that takes us over the summer."
Now I'm frustrated by Ilya Nikulin, and you're probably frustrated by Ilya Nikulin, but I can't help but point out that Waddell mentioned his desire to sign a physical top four defensemen--and well--gee--Nikulin would slot into that role pretty nicely. OK I'll stop now.
Waddell makes the point that age and leadership do not necessarily go hand-in-hand and I agree with that. In fact, I'm encouraged by the thought that they will not target old players in pursuit of the enigmatic "veteran presence" older players are presumed to possess. But here is the part that made me cringe:
Q: With Slava Kozlov and Todd White being older players, do you think they can maintain those types of numbers next season?
Waddell: Yeah I do. First of all, they're not that old. Slava Kozlov keeps himself in tremendous condition, so I don't see any reason why they can't repeat what they did this year.
Oh boy. I REALLY hope these comments are just "feel good" thoughts for public consumption. because if they reflect Waddell's actual forecast for the 2009-2010 you should be concerned. "Father Time spares no man." (OK so he spared Gordie Howe and Chris Chelios--but only those two).
Is Slava Kozlov old or not? It's an empirical question, not a feeling. Below is a chart of the age of all 574 skaters who played at least half a season's worth of games in the NHL during 2008-09. Slava Kozlov lives way over there in the far left hand side of the age distribution--to the left of the market that reads "35". Notice just how few other guys are over there? 95% of the skaters in the NHL are younger than Kozlov and only 4% are older than him. Slava Kozlov is old for by NHL standards--I love watching him play--but the end of career draws nearer each day.
As for Todd White, he is younger than Kozlov at age 33, but 86% of the NHL is younger than White. Historical patterns suggest that most non-Hall of Fame level players really hit a wall at age 35 and Todd White will be 34 next season. He established a new career high in NHL points last year--I would forecast that there is 97% chance he will fail to repeat last season. The Thrashers should plan accordingly.
Now to their credit the Thrashers stayed away from signing too many old players in their decline phase last summer. Ron Hainsey was a good example. He's probably not going to make any All-Star teams, but locking up Ron Hainsey for his age 27, 28, 29, and 30 seasons is a strategy which is much smarter than handing a more famous 35 year old defenseman (Adam Foote perhaps) a 4 year contract.
Waddell notes that under the current CBA players are eligible for UFA status at much younger age:
"I think there's going to be a lot more free agents once the system hits its full stride and gets through a cycle. There will be a lot more free agents at a young age and it makes for opportunities to rebuild with some younger players."
Now I like that sort of thinking much better.
Another topic Ben brings up is that of other NHL teams looking to unload contracts due to cap constraints. Given the Thrashers payroll (+/- $46 million) you can't afford to carry very many overpaid players and expect to contend. But Waddell does highlight one particular situation that would prove enticing to Atlanta--a player with a front loaded contract and a high cap hit.
What is Waddell talking about? Many big spending teams (ahem Flyers, ahem Rangers) set up their contracts so the player gets more cold hard cash in the 1st, 2nd or 3rd year and less money in year 4, 5 and 6. Now under the CBA the cap hit is the same for all six years. So if you're a "low revenue" (aka poor) team like the Thrashers, if you're going to trade with a team in cap trouble you want the player who has a cap number (say $7 million) that is larger than his actual cold hard cash salary (say $5 million). If you're the Thrashers you don't need to worry about running up against the cap ceiling--so you can carry a guy with a big cap number provided his real salary is reasonable for the remaining years in his contract.
For an example of what I'm talking about, consider Exhibit A the Daniel Briere Contract (I'm not saying the Thrashers will trade for Briere, this is just a handy example of a front loaded contract.)
| Season |
Actual Salary in Millions |
Cap Hit in Millions |
| 2007-08 | $10 | $6.5 |
| 2008-09 | $8 | $6.5 |
| 2009-10 | $8 | $6.5 |
| 2010-11 | $7 | $6.5 |
| 2011-12 | $7 | $6.5 |
| 2012-13 | $7 | $6.5 |
| 2013-14 | $3 | $6.5 |
| 2014-15 | $2 | $6.5 |
Now I've gone through and looked at the numbers for all 30 teams and the Flyers and perhaps the Bruins are the only two that look to be in serious cap trouble this off season. The Bruins in particular are an interesting case as they have $47 spent with 10 roster holes. The NHL minimum is half a million, so at the very least they will need $52 million to fill those roster holes. The bigger problem for Boston is that Phil Kessel and David Krejci are both due some sizeable pay raises. In the summer of 2010 Blake Wheeler and Milan Lucic will be looking for pay raises. If the GM of the Bruins called up the Thrashers an offered them the final year of Marc Savard's $5 million contract would they take it? hmmm.
0 recs |
10 comments
|
Comments
Waddell mentions the possibility of trading the team’s first pick. I think that strategy is more appropriate for teams expecting to make a deep playoff run which is not realistic at this point for the Thrashers. Kessel and Krejci will both be out for the first month of the season due toinjuries so the Bruins will have some time to straighten out their salary cap issues and I don’t think Savard is going anywhere.
Waddell mentions signing free agents based on “character” and locker room influence. That was part of the logic behind taking on Mathieu Schneider: obviously (based on his performance in Montreal) Schneider had a lot more to give than he showed when he was with the Thrashers. My point is that it’s a two-way street: players may influence the locker room but they are also influenced by their surroundings and their personal situation. That to me is one of the keys in deciding which free agents to pursue: where is the player going in his career and is he the type of player who produces irregardless of the team’s management and surroundings (Marty Reasoner).
by Big Picture Guy on May 23, 2009 8:25 AM EDT reply actions
re: trading 1st round pick. I agree.
The biggest problem with moving the pick is UFA. If you draft E. Kane you control his right for many years to come (likely at a somewhat of a discount too). If you trade that 1st rounder for Chris Chelios (as the Wings did) you better make sure you get that player signed (which they did) because otherwise you tossed away a couple of years of below market player services.
by The Falconer on May 23, 2009 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Bergeron is gone in Boston I suspect, possibly Sturm but I’m betting they deal Bergeron. 39Pts in 64 games this season with obvious major injury concerns due to the past concussion that kept him out so long.
I don’t think their willing to bet 5M/per on Bergeron returning to form.
They keep him another year and he repeats this past season, his trade value plummets IMO and you’re stuck with him. Of course if he rebounds to his pre-concussion form then all is fine.
Given that he’s under contract through 10/11 season, and their existing cap problems I’m betting they’ll be risk averse and try to move him.
Someone could pick him up semi cheaply. A definite risk there as they won’t give him up for nothing, but plenty of upside too. Still quite young, and should he rebound back to pre concussion form he’s on a fair contract. Not a huge bargain by any means but given his age, I’m sure plenty of teams would like him.
If he duplicates this past season going ahead and the concussion proves to have lasting affects, well the contracts not good but it’s not terribly long and he’s still good enough to help a team win even if he doesn’t justify the pay.
Sturm is the only other serious possibility to move, and and given that he’s probably a safer bet to take on the tough minutes at ES I think they keep him.
Savard is terrific, underrated player. Good contract, he takes on the top opposition and he beats them consistently and provides offence in every situation. Wasn’t a big fan of the signing when it was made but he’s been a huge bargain deal.
Guys taken massive strides in his overall game since coming to Boston.
Counting stats may not show the improvement but for my money he’s a clearly better player then he was in Atlanta. Odd age to take a real leap forward but he did it.
Not a chance they move him.
Thanks for providing Boston perspective.
re: Bergeron I think his trade value is already pretty low. If I were a GM I would only consider taking Bergeron if the Bruins were sending me a 1st round pick or a very good prospect, because the odds are strong that the taking Bergeron is basically going to eat a lot of that salary.
I agree that moving Strum would be much easier. Depending on how much money Kessel and Krejci, the Bruins may not need to clear $5 million in cap space and thus moving Sturm might fit the bill.
I’d disagree a bit about him not being a good player in Atlanta. His counting stats took a huge leap his 2nd year (but his games missed due to injury obscured the leap). His biggest problems in Atlanta were the unnecessary penalties and his sort of jerky off ice behavior. He was a very good player for us but had some baggage.
by The Falconer on May 23, 2009 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Pick-up Hockey
We play street, no skates, at 1:00 every sunday in Bessie Branham Park. We’re playing tomorrow. Very low-key, 2+ hour game.
2051 Delano Dr NE
Atlanta, GA 30317
Cole is a very interesting possibility. His down year in terms of scoring would probably keep his price affordable. And he is physical and can cycle.
by The Falconer on May 25, 2009 5:59 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m not sure, I tend to think there are probably a few GM’s out there that see this as a one year anomaly and look at Bergeron at a young 1st liner with room to improve. They may not get a lot for him but I think if he’s moved this offseason he could still bring back something useful.
With regards to Savard, I don’t mean to imply he wasn’t a quality player in Atlanta, he was but offence aside his overall game has definitely taken a leap IMO. He’s clearly the guy driving the results up front for Boston to my mind.
In any case, I don’t envy their situation. Their season was kinda fluky I think, and if Thomas falls back even a little they see their point total drop noticeably and I think it’s inevitable that he does to some degree. I’m just not certain a team can consistently win like they did without noticeably out chancing the opposition and it doesn’t seem to me they did a lot of that.
Even minus their cap headaches their due for a setback.
it’s not a fun situation I’d think.
agree on your assessment of Bruins. Strong odds they will fall back to the pack next year.
Their goaltender had an amazing season which is tough to repeat.
Their forwards had a better than average Even Strength Shooting Percentage—which over the long run will regress to the mean. So they were a bit lucky in their ES scoring out put this last year.
by The Falconer on May 25, 2009 5:57 PM EDT up reply actions

by 






















