Feeling good Billy Ray!
An idea that I've been pushing since last summer is the dual offer sheet. Last year, Ryane Clowe and Christian Ehrhoff were both RFAs and San Jose was against the cap. I couldn't figure out why GMs all over the league weren't trying to force San Jose's hand and make them choose between the two. Instead, general managers let San Jose skate, they signed both of them on the cheap and were able to work out their cap problems. Both are key players on the best team in the league this year. There is the possibility that offer sheets were extended, but never accepted by either Ehrhoff or Clowe, as it's been rumored by a number of writers that far more offer sheets than Dustin Penner, Thomas Vanek, and David Backes have been made, just never publicized.
This year, there are even more teams in trouble with the cap with more than one RFA to sign. Any team that thinks they aren't set up to be in the lottery, and are a player or two away contending for a division title should be looking to send dual offer sheets this summer and force cap-strapped teams to make their choice.
Commentor Joe on Tyler's site worked up the approximate numbers for the coming offseason:
950,593 and below = no compensation
950,593 - 1,440,292 = 3rd round pick
1,440,292 - 2,880,587 = 2nd round pick
2,880,587 - 4,320,880 = 1st & 3rd round pick
4,320,880 - 5,761,173 = 1st, 2nd, & 3rd round pick
5,761,173 - 7,201,469 = Two 1st’s, 2nd, & 3rd round pick
7,201,469 and over = Four 1st round picks
The ideal scenario for a team looking to do this would be to make an offer in the 2nd round pick range [a max of $2,880,586 per] to the first player, while simultaneously making an offer in the 1st and 3rd round pick range [a max of $4,320,879 per] to the more valuable of the two RFAs. There is no overlap in compensation and both offers are valid.
The following teams are either cap-locked or will be very soon and cannot match two significant offer sheets:
Boston [Kessel, Krejci]
Chicago [Versteeg, Bolland, Barker]
New York [Zherdev, Dubinsky, Callahan]
Washington [Morrisonn, Jurcina, Fehr]
Other teams with more than one RFA, though not cap-locked or the RFAs aren't as inviting:
Atlanta [Armstrong, Valabik]
Buffalo [Stafford, Sekera]
Carolina [Ruutu, Babchuk]
Edmonton [Grebeshkov, Smid]
Montreal [Higgins, Plekanec, Latendresse]
San Jose [Clowe, Mitchell]
This is a strategy that has no drawbacks. Occasionally, when this topic comes up, someone inevitably responds that you are eliminating future trading partners through this strategy. The thinking being that the target general manager will be so upset that he will swear off trading with the invading general manager forever. The moves that took place on trade deadline day this year did much to dispel that notion. Darcy Regier, the general manager of the Buffalo Sabres made a trade with the Edmonton Oilers, a team that he practically swore blood revenge on two years ago over the Vanek offer sheet, proving that team need is going to trump personal feuds. Unless you're Brian Burke.
The trading partners canard aside, there are no legitimate reasons not to pull something like this, especially for conference rivals. Pinning a team against the cap and taking assets only weakens that team's position and flexibility. The people that run personnel in the NHL are an old boys club that tries to avoid screwing over their old pals, but eventually someone is going to pull this off and open the floodgates.
6 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
by dstaples on Apr 6, 2009 3:44 PM MDT reply actions
by dstaples on Apr 6, 2009 3:45 PM MDT reply actions
But your idea has merit. But the only problem is getting players that are still years away from their prime, and overpaying to do so. It might make sense for a re-building team with lots of cap room and a line-up at the ticket both (TO), but for a team looking for that impact player now?
On your list of RFAs I don't see a player that will fit the bill for a first line LW to play with Hemsky, and only one player that could fit the 3C role (armstrong), so I hope the Oilers don't go down this road again (cause it didn't work out so well last time, and I like Penner fine).
by B.C.B. on Apr 6, 2009 4:09 PM MDT reply actions
Really great work here coach. Keep it up!
by shepso on Apr 6, 2009 4:20 PM MDT reply actions
I have an eerie feeling that the Oilers may be targeted, Grebeshkov specially and that they may end up taking a 1st and a 3rd for him.
And excellent work here. . . .
Thanks.
Boston could be hurting on by July 30. Of course, can't the team ask or force arbitration on one of these players, and take themselves out of this bind?
From what we've seen in the past, NHL arbitration is almost always a bad idea. The team has to trash the player in the hearings and the player is usually hurt by it. Then the player gets to choose the duration of the deal and the team is stuck with the arbitrator's ruling.
Boston is better off trading one of the superstars than taking them to arbitration. 14 guys under contract at $48 million with Kessel and Krejci to be paid. If Kessel goes to arbitration, he gets at least Penner's deal, putting them at $52 million with Krejci and five contracts to fit into $4 million.
Boston is going to be selling very soon.
by Coach pb9617 on Apr 6, 2009 4:30 PM MDT reply actions
The more I think about it, the more I agree. It's the best move strategically and it fits with what they need.
It might make sense for a re-building team with lots of cap room and a line-up at the ticket both (TO), but for a team looking for that impact player now?
I think there are a couple of impact guys on the list -- Armstrong, Stafford, Kessel, Dubinsky, Grebeshkov. There are a couple of second level teams that would look a whole lot better with one of these guys. Next year's Buffalo squad would benefit greatly from Grebeshkov on the back end. Next year's Oilers would be a much better team with a proven scorer Kessel on the right wing for Gagner. Nashville would be probably be a safe playoff team if Stafford were around to replace Radulov's goals.
by Coach pb9617 on Apr 6, 2009 4:35 PM MDT reply actions

by 






























