Oilers Sign Sam Gagner
The headline itself is a relief. With September fast approaching and Sam Gagner still a free agent, it started to look like there was some cause for concern. When Kevin Lowe spoke to Dan Tencer on Monday he said (transcript via David Staples), "Both those players would like longer deals, and we like both players, but I think from an organization standpoint, we're just uncertain where their overall game is. Typically the agents have a different version or view of where they fit overall. The best thing, I guess, would be to do one year deals." Ryan Rishaug has the deal at 2 years with a cap hit of $2.275M, which you'd have to think isn't what Gagner's agent had in mind for a "longer deal." More analysis after the jump.
The contract is clearly a good one for the Oilers over the next two seasons. Sam Gagner is going to be one of the top three centers on this club over those two years, no matter which definition of "first," "second," or "third" line we use. When I wrote about Gagner in March, I took the optimistic view that Gagner was progressing well, despite some stagnation in his point totals: his possession metrics are improving, and he's starting to take on a more important role. I think there's some chance that he becomes a tremendous player. When Ben wrote about Gagner in August, he took a slightly more pessimistic view, but even then said that Gagner was "a fine player now," and that he was on track to become "a superb second line center someday." In either case, $2.275M is a great deal, and the two-year term leaves the Oilers in a good position to sign Gagner long-term in the future. Had it been a three-year deal, Gagner could have forced his way to unrestricted free agency by going to arbitration. With a two-year deal, that's not possible. The only small risk, then, is that the new collective bargaining agreement lowers the UFA age and service requirements. So credit where due, assuming a short-term deal was the way to go, Steve Tambellini did a fantastic job.The problem (of course there's a problem) is that a short-term deal wasn't the way to go. You and I and everyone else all know that the Oilers aren't going to be able to compete in the next two years, so Gagner's deal is tremendous value at a time when tremendous value is, er... less valuable. From Lowe's comments, we know that Gagner was open to a long-term contract. The question then becomes, why not go for it? Overpaying a bit up front for benefit later is a good call for a team mired in the league's basement. It just doesn't make sense. I suppose it's possible that the money was way out of line, but if there was a deal to be made in the 8-year $28 range, I think the Oilers have missed a tremendous opportunity here.
I understand the desire to have Gagner earn his paycheque, but the problem is, you need players who do a lot more than give fair value on the dollar. In order to have success, you need to make bets, and betting long-term on a young player with no injury history whose play on the ice has improved more than his statistics is about as good a bet as you can find. So consider me disappointed with management for playing it safe, while acknowledging that they played it safe well.
Lastly, I wanted to look at the deal from Gagner's perspective because I don't think his agent did a very good job. He didn't limit the deal to one year in case Gagner has a break-out season. He didn't get a three-year deal which would have put Gagner's destiny in his own hands. He didn't get a four-year deal to make Gagner unrestricted. He didn't get particularly good money (Bryan Little got a bit more and the extra year from the Thrashers). You'd think that with a $3M offer sheet paying only a second round pick, a rebuilding team like the Islanders would jump at the chance to add a player who fits their cluster perfectly. That his agent couldn't get any team to offer more than what the Oilers are paying for Gagner's services is baffling. As an Oiler fan, I hope it's because Gagner asked his agent not to solicit offer sheets out of a sense of loyalty to the team, because we'll be needing a selfless attitude at the negotiating table again in two years.
36 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Wow!
Yeah, I’m surprised at how cheap the signing is. I didn’t think his cap hit would be any less than ~2.5 million, and was worried he’d sign for significantly more than that.
It’s too bad we don’t know the details of the longer term deal Gagner was seeking. I agree that the contract length was a calculated risk… if he has a break-out season over the next couple years, scoring, say, 60 to 70 points, I could see him looking for something in the 5-6 m/a range in a couple years. However, I suspect that Gagner and his agent were asking for more than 24 million over 8 years… although that would be an amazing deal, 3 m/a seems low for a contract of that length.
by Stephen's Beaven on Aug 29, 2010 9:52 PM MDT reply actions
Yeah, I got my math wrong on that one. I was thinking more in the realm of $3.5M per season. I’ll change it to $28M in the article. It does, of course, depend on what kind of money Gagner’s camp wanted a long-term deal. I guess my concern comes more from the verbiage out of the Oilers’ camp, that they wanted to go short-term.
by Scott Reynolds on Aug 29, 2010 10:03 PM MDT up reply actions
I just don’t see how Gagner’s agent is dumb enough to give away UFA years at anything less than 4.5 and probably 5 million
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
If they structured his deal with money up front, they could try 5 (x2 UFA), 4.5 (x2 UFA), 3 (x2 RFA), 2.275 (x2 RFA), which would end with a $3.7M cap hit. It’s a bit more cash, but not high enough that I’d balk at it. Further, the Oilers may not be a team that spends to the cap forever, so giving them the extra salary room later in the deal could be beneficial.
by Scott Reynolds on Aug 29, 2010 10:54 PM MDT up reply actions
I agree with you on that one. It would have been a situation like Gilbert, where the player has a tremendous opportunity to outperform his contract for the next 4 years.
However, If he plateaus as a 60 point player, then how much are you willing to pay him? If its 3.5 then might as well wait!
Sins can be forgiven but conscience is a killer.
The gamble is that he doesn’t plateau, but even if he does, $3.5M is just fine for a guy who can score sixty points playing second toughs. That’s why this deal seems to have a bit less risk to me. There is, of course, the potential snag of that deal just not being available from Gagner’s side.
by Scott Reynolds on Aug 29, 2010 10:56 PM MDT up reply actions
I’m with you on this, but Tyler disagrees. We had a conversation about a long-term deal and he feels there is too much risk right now. He’s almost won me over.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
I’m sure Tyler will write about this himself later, but are the risks he sees primarily CBA-based (i.e. we don’t know what the future is going to look like), or primarily player-based (i.e. Sam Gagner may not end up being very good)? I’d be more concerned about the former, but I’m interested to hear what he thinks.
by Scott Reynolds on Aug 29, 2010 10:06 PM MDT up reply actions
That his agent couldn’t get any team to offer more than what the Oilers are paying for Gagner’s services is baffling.
There’s still very little action on the RFA offer sheet front. This summer it’s been Hjalmarsson (matched) and … ? Teams seem to have a hands-off policy for the most part.
This is a decent signing. I don’t mind the two-year term, let Gagner prove his worth for a long-term deal. I’m with Derek that any long-term deal now into the UFA years would have been expensive at the back end.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries
"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg
I really am confused by the inaction of various GM’s in that regard. You’d think a team like the Islanders would be chomping at the bit to add a guy like Gagner (or Chris Stewart, or Martin Hanzal) if they could do it for a second round pick. But as you say, everyone seems to be very hands-off when it comes to RFAs.
by Scott Reynolds on Aug 29, 2010 10:58 PM MDT up reply actions
While I agree, there are a couple problems.
a) A $3m deal for either player is quite likely matched swiftly, as both teams have reasonable cap space remaining
b) Any long term (5+ years) deal to discourage the current team matching results in a more pricey compensation (the point I learned from you directly)
c) Offer sheets seem to be a PR nightmare among GMs, so the potential reputation risk isn’t worth the procedure if a deal is not likely to succeed. This is my perception than anything based in fact, of course.
I think Hjalmarsson’s sheet doesn’t violate any of these. Chicago’s cap situation meant that there was a reasonable chance it wouldn’t be matched, it was under the term limit for inc. compensation, and the potential contributions of the player + chance of success was greater than the risk and potential loss in PR.
One more factor, unrelated to above, is that I think there is a bit of ‘shell-shock’ among teams that watched the Kessel situation unfold, and don’t want to see that happen to their team.
Camp Torturella - Where Vomit is a Mainstay
Blueshirt Banter - "ARISTH"-Assuming Redden is sent to Hartford
Twitter: RangerSmurf
by George E. Ays on Aug 30, 2010 6:56 AM MDT up reply actions
My response to a) is, who cares? It makes no difference to (for example) the Islanders if their offer gets matched. The PR thing is also more case by case as well. I don’t recall Doug Wilson being raked over the coals, but maybe I wasn’t paying close enough attention. I know this comes as no surprise, but I thought his Hjalmarsson offer sheet was a really smart move. The Kessel thing is a good lesson to bad teams offering up first round picks (don’t do it!), but that risk isn’t really present with only second round compensation available, and isn’t so applicable to a good team. For example, if the Devils don’t end up signing Kovalchuk, they’d have the space to sign Chris Stewart to a five-year $4M contract and make him part of a younger forward core (along with Clarkson, Zajac and Parise). The Capitals are a similar situation, although they’d probably prefer a center. Martin Hanzal would be a fantastic fit for them. If they want to keep the cap hit down and encourage Phoenix to take the compensation they could go with a front-loaded 7-year $3M per year (but more like 7,4,3,2,2,2,2) deal (1st and 3rd as compensation). It’s not necessarily the plan either club should go with, I’m just surprised that it’s a plan that’s used with such infrequency.
by Scott Reynolds on Aug 30, 2010 9:56 AM MDT up reply actions
The PR thing is also more case by case as well. I don’t recall Doug Wilson being raked over the coals, but maybe I wasn’t paying close enough attention.
I’m pretty certain that the “bad PR” explanation carries exponentially more weight among fans that have their heart invested in the team compared to the GMs who know it’s just business.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
You know I'm not a fan boy.
I’d be inclined to believe you if they were actually more frequent. 6 offer sheets in 6 years (one of which was a direct response to another) says that there seems to be some unspoken rule that the GM fraternity isn’t supposed to break here. Maybe it’s not “bad PR” persay, but bad reputations among the circle, more difficulty conducting business as a result, there’s something there that is stopping these sheets from flying around each off-season.
As you, Scott, and many others have explained, they make too much sense not to be happening. So either the GMs are too lost to understand the business (Sather and Sutter), or there’s an element to the business that everyone is missing. Maybe it’s as simple “you don’t target a team with cap space,” which is why Lowe took hell for Vanek, but Wilson is relatively unscathed.
I don’t honestly know, but I think it’s open to a lot of interpretations.
Camp Torturella - Where Vomit is a Mainstay
Blueshirt Banter - "ARISTH"-Assuming Redden is sent to Hartford
Twitter: RangerSmurf
by George E. Ays on Aug 30, 2010 10:17 AM MDT up reply actions
there’s something there that is stopping these sheets from flying around each off-season.
I tend to agree with this. There’s got to be some consideration beyond whether or not an offer sheet can immediately help the hockey team, because if that was the most important consideration, we’d see them much more frequently.
by Scott Reynolds on Aug 30, 2010 10:23 AM MDT up reply actions
they hurt everyone in arbitration since IIRC they can be used as arb comps.
the players themselves may not want to sign them for fear of reprisal when their ‘current’ team matches – while it’s obviously permitted under the CBA, i wouldn’t be surprised if it’s looked at as a disloyal act. i also wouldn’t be shocked if far more offer sheets are submitted to players who then reject them.
and i’m fairly convinced that it’s by and large a gentleman’s agreement.
They can indeed be used as arbitration comparables, but that’s not really a big deal. Keeping “costs” down for everyone doesn’t have any value in this CBA. But yeah, the gentleman’s agreement thing seems to be the most likely reason.
by Scott Reynolds on Aug 30, 2010 10:57 AM MDT up reply actions
6 offer sheets in 6 years
That have been accepted. We don’t know how many were submitted.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
True, but in today’s “information now” era, one would think there’d at least be reports on some of the declined offer sheets. There was a rumor Staal turned down an offer from the Sharks, for instance, but that’s the only one I’ve really seen.
Camp Torturella - Where Vomit is a Mainstay
Blueshirt Banter - "ARISTH"-Assuming Redden is sent to Hartford
Twitter: RangerSmurf
by George E. Ays on Aug 30, 2010 11:49 AM MDT up reply actions
Regarding the two-year term, I wonder if that’s something the agent ever really wanted. Given how long this took, I wonder if he was trying to get one of those other terms, and the Oil wouldn’t bite on the Gagner camp’s terms, and eventually Sam just said, “fuck it, just get me a deal.”
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
That could well be. Two years is basically the worst term possible for him, so I’d hope that the agent was trying to avoid it. Like I said above, this is pretty close to the best short-term deal the Oilers could have hoped for.
by Scott Reynolds on Aug 30, 2010 10:00 AM MDT up reply actions
Players have to be willing to sign an offer sheet for it to actually happen. Maybe Gagner wants to play in Edmonton?
Regardless of that, what needs to happen now is the organization has to figure out the best way to trick him into believing that every month is either February or March.
Yeah, that’s my optimistic interpretation of events. I’m hopeful that Gagner just wasn’t open to signing an offer sheet because he wants to stay with the Oilers.
by Scott Reynolds on Aug 30, 2010 9:57 AM MDT up reply actions
So who is eligible for an offer sheet. If hjamarlsson and Gagner are eligible why wasnt Erik Johnson?
Sins can be forgiven but conscience is a killer.
Players are eligible so long as they’re RFA’s who haven’t filed for arbitration. So Erik Johnson should have been eligible until he signed in early August. Where did you hear that he wasn’t?
by Scott Reynolds on Aug 30, 2010 10:20 AM MDT up reply actions
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/hockey/professional/article_fca7e13e-9425-5e1b-8a96-b965db12d73e.html
towards the lower half of the article
So if a player misses a season with an injury then he is not eligible?
But as I see it, he played more games on his ELC than Hjalmarsson.
Sins can be forgiven but conscience is a killer.
I’m inclined to think that they made a mistake because I can’t find anything in the CBA that would suggest some Group 2 free agents are ineligible to receive an offer sheet with the exception of arbitration. If someone can, it would be much appreciated.
by Scott Reynolds on Aug 30, 2010 10:55 AM MDT up reply actions
so Gagner’s deal is tremendous value at a time when tremendous value is, er… less valuable.
Amen
Sins can be forgiven but conscience is a killer.
Thinking like this gets you reKhab.
I think the precedent for the Oilers is even more important than the current salary cap. We have 3 young players who are going to view Gagner’s salary progression very closely.
by till_horcoff_is_coach on Aug 30, 2010 11:25 AM MDT up reply actions
The latter is a good point. I’m not sure what connection you’re making to Khabibulin though. I’m certainly happier with this deal than I would have been with a two-year 2.75M deal, for example. You’re right that the other young players on the team will likely be using the deals for Brule, Gagner, and Cogliano as a measuring stick. The comment Sum quoted was just meant to emphasize the fact that I don’t think the Oilers are in a position to get much in the way of team success out of the surplus value I expect Gagner to create over the next two years.
by Scott Reynolds on Aug 30, 2010 1:21 PM MDT up reply actions
Could have been expressed a LOT better, but basically the premise is any team benefits when always searching for value contracts regardless of the cap situation.
Khabibulin wasn’t the best example but we had some money available and need for a goalie, so they unnecessarily dumped a ton on it instead of looking for value.
by till_horcoff_is_coach on Aug 30, 2010 1:57 PM MDT up reply actions
Value deals are obviously better than millstones any day of the week, but the suggestion wasn’t that the Oilers should disregard value and sign a bunch of Khabibulins. Rather, I’m suggesting that creating value over the next two years is worth a lot less to the Oilers than creating value in subsequent seasons when the team is (hopefully) in a position to contend. It’s the same reason that the Oilers would be much better off with a disappointing Chris Drury than a disappointing Shawn Horcoff and why I’d be thrilled to take on Cristobal Huet if it meant Nikolai Khabibulin going the other way.
by Scott Reynolds on Aug 30, 2010 2:09 PM MDT up reply actions
Is every one a bit gun shy of a RFA deal?
A lot of you have commented on how there are not a lot of RFA offerings this summer. but if you look at the two biggest ones in recent memory the Oilers were looking a bit nervous in the spring for a while after picking up Penner but after the mess Toronto got it self in to last summer teams may be just a bit gun shy. I know Burke says he would still do it even knowing where they would finish in the standings but I think we all agree that that is grandstanding and that he would rather have the top pick, which he may have had if he had not gone the free agent route.
by Sheldon Oilers Fan for Life on Aug 30, 2010 1:08 PM MDT reply actions
Burke’s was a bit different because it was a trade, but it’s important to recognize a couple of things with regard to GM’s being gunshy. The first is that not all offer sheets require a first-round pick in compensation. If you only stand to lose a second or third rounder, there’s really no risk of the deal blowing up from a “what the other team got” perspective. The second is that the Oilers and Leafs both made those deals with bad teams. I don’t think teams like the Penguins, Blackhawks, or Red Wings should have the same concern, because the odds of them picking in the top ten aren’t very good at all. It’s one thing to go get Penner and risk giving up a top five pick if things go wrong. It’s something else if the likely downside is a selection between 15th and 20th.
by Scott Reynolds on Aug 30, 2010 1:25 PM MDT up reply actions
… which is patently unfair. The fact that the cost is higher for teams that need to do more to help themselves surely serves to depress the market from the draft pick perspective. Contenders like the Pens, Hawks and Wings generally tend to be hard to the cap without a lot of dough to toss around at other teams’ youngsters which constrains the market from the $$$ p.o.v. And then you get guys like Burke spewing vapours about honour among thieves and so forth which likely carries some weight among a chunk of the GM fraternity and there’s not a whole lot left.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries
"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg
by Bruce McCurdy on Aug 30, 2010 3:16 PM MDT up reply actions

by 































