Playing “What if?” with four of the cap era’s biggest free agency decisions

We’re over a week into the free agency period, which means most of the big decisions have already been made. And we’ve seen plenty. The Canadiens chose to try an offer sheet on Sebastian Aho, and the Hurricanes chose to match. Artemi Panarin chose the Rangers over the Islanders and Blue Jackets. The Panthers chose to give $70 million to a goaltender. And the Predators chose to finally do whatever it took to land Matt Duchene, even if it meant giving up P.K. Subban.

Will some of those decisions turn out to be mistakes? Probably. That’s the beauty of this time of year. The GMs, owners, players and agents make the best choices they can, and the rest of us get to watch and see how it all turns out.

That’s always been the fun part for me, because I love a good round of “what if?” I mean, I really love it. I’m the guy who once wrote an entire alternate history of the NHL based on the Tom Kurvers trade never happening. I may have a problem. But I’m betting at least a few of you are right there with me.

So today, let’s look back on four key free agency-related scenarios from the salary cap era, and how history may have changed if they played out differently. As we’ll see, the decisions that get made at this time of year can have profound and sometimes unexpected impacts – not just on the teams and players involved, but on what does (and doesn’t) happen around the league as a result.

2006: What if the Senators choose Zdeno Chara over Wade Redden?

The situation: One year into the cap era, the Senators were Cup contenders who’d just finished the 2005-06 season with the best record in the East. But they were faced with a tricky offseason dilemma. Each of their two best defensemen, Wade Redden and Zdeno Chara, were on the brink of unrestricted free agency. And the team decided that they only had the budget and cap space to re-sign one of them.

So who would it be? Both players were coming off excellent seasons; Chara had finished fourth in Norris voting, while Redden was fifth. Chara was a rare combination of size and skill who’d taken a while to find his game in the NHL but had developed into one of the best defensemen in the league since being traded to Ottawa, having been named a first-team all-star in 2004. Redden hadn’t quite hit those heights but owned a longer track record, having been a consistent presence on the Ottawa blueline for a decade. Along with Daniel Alfredsson, he was the face of the franchise.

You can pick one. Who do you go with?

What happened: The decision went down to the wire, but ultimately the Senators chose Redden, re-signing him on the eve of free agency to a two-year extension that carried a $6.5 million cap hit. Chara became a UFA, and quickly signed a five-year deal with the Bruins with a $7.5 million cap hit.

Needless to say, it all worked out brilliantly for the Bruins. Chara has had 13 years and counting in Boston; he’s been a postseason all-star five times, won a Norris and been a finalist four other times, and led the team to a Stanley Cup in 2011. He’s almost certainly the greatest free agent signing of the cap era, and maybe even of all-time.

Redden finished out his two-year extension in Ottawa, playing reasonably well if not quite at an all-star level, before needing a new deal again in 2008. This time, the Senators couldn’t keep him, and even tried to get him to waive his no-trade clause on multiple occasions. He refused, denting his reputation with some Senators fans in the process, and eventually signed a six-year contract with the Rangers on the first day of free agency. That deal ended up being a bust, and Redden spent much of it in the AHL.

At the time, it had seemed like a tough call. In hindsight, it couldn’t have been more lopsided. And the Senators chose wrong.

But what if… : First things first. A lot of the “Redden vs. Chara” narrative has always felt a little too convenient. We don’t know a lot of what happened behind the scenes, including whether Chara ever really wanted to stay in Ottawa in the first place. It’s possible that the Senators just re-signed the player who wanted to stay to the best deal they could, and the rest of it is just a dramatic storyline slapped on top of some fairly standard cap management.

But that’s no fun. So let’s pretend that the Senators really were faced with an either/or choice. What if they’d chosen Chara, on the same sort of five-year deal he got from Boston?

Well, the first repercussion is that a big chunk of their fan base is furious. That’s the part of the story that gets skipped over these days, but as a hockey fan living in Ottawa at the time, I can tell you that it’s hard to overstate just how popular Redden was. He had his occasional detractors, like any player. But for most of his time as a Senator he was the golden boy, and the fans didn’t want to see him go.

Are the Senators better with Chara instead, even at a higher salary? In hindsight, absolutely, although it’s worth remembering that Redden helped them get to the Stanley Cup final in 2007. Do they win that final with Chara in the lineup? They might. And they almost definitely manage more than the two playoff game wins they had over the following four years. Could they have kept Chara on another deal beyond that? That gets dicey, but even if he’d bolted after five years, they’d have still come out ahead compared to two years of Redden.

Meanwhile, the Bruins lose out on their captain, and probably their 2011 Cup too. More bad news: they would have had an extra $7.5 million to spend in that 2006 offseason. Do they throw it at another blueliner, like Ed Jovanovski or Pavel Kubina? Or maybe one of the big forwards like Alex Tanguay or Martin Havlat? None of those options look great in hindsight. Take Chara off the market in 2006, and the next decade-plus of Bruins history starts to look very different.

On that note, here’s one more what-if to consider: What if Chara had hit the market, but chosen not to sign in Boston? According to reports, the other main bidder was the Los Angeles Kings. Would Chara have been as dominant in Los Angeles as he was in Boston? Probably. But that might not have been a good thing. If Chara improve the rebuilding Kings by just a few wins by Year 2, that moves them out of the second-overall pick in the 2008 draft, and probably makes Drew Doughty an Atlanta Thrasher. Do the Kings win two Cups with Chara instead of Doughty? And if you want to really get crazy, do the Thrashers improve enough after adding Doughty with the second-overall pick that they’re not in Winnipeg today? Bruins fans are happy that we never got to find out.

>> Read the full post at The Athletic

(Want to read this post on The Athletic for free? Sign up for a free seven-day trial.)

Deadline Philosophy 101: Eight tough questions for NHL GMs

Today could be a busy day on the NHL trade market. Not as busy as tomorrow, of course, but the league has a long history of major deals going down the day before the deadline, as GMs get ahead of the last-minute rush and pull off their big moves 24 hours early.

That makes today an exciting day to be a fan. But it also makes for a tough day to write about the deadline, because whatever you come up with can be wiped out by a single move. Marc Bergevin isn’t doing enough in Montreal? Whoops, he just landed Matt Duchene. Some team should be looking at Marc-Andre Fleury? Too late, they just acquired Ryan Miller.

So instead, let’s play it safe and stay away from specific rumors by taking a step back to look at the bigger picture. Today, let’s get philosophical.

As a fan, it’s easy to get hung up on the numbers – stats, standings, cap hits and more. But NHL GMs have even more than that to think about. Many of the questions they face don’t have easy answers, but they can determine the direction that a team takes at the deadline and beyond.

Here are some of the bigger-picture questions your favourite team's GM may be pondering as we count down to tomorrow's deadline.

How do you put a price on loyalty?

As fans, we're constantly told that pro sports are a business, and that we shouldn't expect loyalty to play much of a role. We've certainly seen plenty of examples over the years where that was the case, and it goes both ways — think Martin St. Louis forcing his way out of Tampa, or the first-place Capitals banishing veteran Brooks Laich to the Maple Leafs to save cap space.

There's not much room for loyalty in the hockey world. (Just ask Peter Budaj.) But can't there at least be some?

This one gets especially tricky when players have no-trade clauses, and the organization will have to ask them to provide a list of teams or even waive the clause outright. There was a time when that seemed to be a relatively straightforward conversation – a player had the right to waive, and a GM had the right to ask them if they'd consider doing so.

But over the years, as more players negotiated no-trade protection and the clauses became a more common part of the NHL landscape, many teams have become more sensitive to the perception that players who are asked to waive are somehow being treated poorly.

That can all lead to some teams doing a strange dance where they try to create the perception that players are waiving clauses or providing lists without anyone on either side actually asking them to. We've seen that in Vancouver, where Jim Benning started off saying he wouldn't ask anyone, eventually waffled, and now has already moved Alex Burrows and seems to have everyone in play.

It all gets a bit silly, but you can see where GMs are coming from. Moving on from a player who's spent most of their career fighting and bleeding for your franchise — in some cases literally — isn't as simple as just weighing the numbers and pulling the trigger. If we see some veteran trade bait stay put tomorrow, that could be why.

How much stock do you put in chemistry?

This question turns out to be pretty important, for one simple reason: Depending on how a GM answers, he may not want to make any deadline moves at all.

On the surface, a contending team's GM's job at the deadline is relatively straightforward. Improve your team as much as possible, without overpaying. That qualifier is the tricky part, of course, but the goal should be clear: Bring in reinforcements who make you better right now.

But those reinforcements mean somebody else has to leave, either as part of the trade or to make room on the roster. And if that departing player has been part of the team all season or longer, his absence is going to be felt somewhere. "Chemistry" has become the catch-all term for the fear that a move that makes you better on paper might still hurt you in the long run.

There's probably some truth to it. It's also probably true that GMs put too much stock in chemistry, and maybe even embrace it as a handy excuse not to do anything. Not everyone buys into the concept.

But there's no doubt that it's a factor weighing on the minds of the league's better teams. Here's Stan Bowman telling us "there's something to be said for chemistry." Then again, here's Brian MacLellan of the league-leading Capitals pointing to the team's 2010 deadline as an example of making too many moves and throwing off their chemistry, days before he pulls off a blockbuster to bring in Kevin Shattenkirk.

There's something to be said for ditching the warm-and-fuzzy feelings and just making your team better. But any GM who's a big believer in chemistry will have some balancing to do.

>> Read the full post at Sportsnet

The six riskiest trade deadline targets

An NHL rink has never been a place for the prim and proper, and when things get heated there isn’t much in the way of vocabulary that’s considered off limits. But these days, there’s one four-letter word that causes even the bravest hockey lifer to clutch at his pearls and reach for his fainting couch.

Risk.

Coaches won’t tolerate it, as demonstrated by their game strategies. Players are benched for engaging in it. Fans don’t always understand it. And general managers hate it, which is why most of them go to such great lengths to avoid making trades.

As this year’s deadline draws near, every potential trade target carries some risk. Anyone can get hot, or get hurt. Young prospects can turn out to be the next Brett Hull or Markus Naslund, and tossed-in draft picks can turn out to be the next Ray Bourque or Patrick Roy. No trade, no matter how minor, is ever risk-free.

But some trade targets carry more risk than others. If you go out and pull the trigger on a move for Brian Boyle or Martin Hanzal, you pretty much know what you're getting. Matt Duchene or Gabriel Landeskog would cost you plenty, but you could feel reasonably confident about what the future would hold with either guy.

Other players on the market... well, you wouldn't be so sure. Maybe that's a good thing — it's hard to find a game-changing bargain in the "sure thing" pile. But in a league where nobody ever seems to want to roll the dice and take a risk, these are some of the names that will require doing just that.

JAROME IGINLA AND SHANE DOAN

Best case: We're going to group these two together because they both offer up the same question: At what point does reputation, character, veteran leadership and good old-fashioned narrative outweigh actual performance?

Both guys are former all-stars and longtime captains who've been around forever, and neither has ever won it all. They're classic Old Guys Without a Cup, and from Lanny MacDonald to Ray Bourque to Teemu Selanne, the hockey world loves its OGWACs.

If you want to get all romantic about things, either of these guys would report to work for a contender and leave absolutely everything on the ice in what could be their very last chance at that elusive title. Then the rest of the team would see that, crank up their own effort level, and go to war for their new teammate. It's a beautiful, vicious cycle, and it ends with one of those Stanley Cup handoffs that makes everyone cry.

Worst case: Neither one of these guys has been very good this year.

Sorry, I know that sounds harsh. But it's reality. Iginla has seven goals and 16 points, while Doan has five and 20. Those aren't exactly the sort of numbers you want to mortgage the future for.

And sure, both of these guys bring more than offence to the table on and off the ice. But this is a young man's league now, and time comes for us all (except maybe Jaromir Jagr). If these two guys look like they're missing a gear now, what would they look like two months into a grueling playoff run?

It's possible that either guy could come cheap, especially if their no-trade clauses mean their current team lets them choose their destination. And that inspirational-veteran narrative is awfully hard to resist. But if this turns into a bidding war, there's a good chance that you give up a decent pick or prospect to bring in an inspiring story that just can't play anymore.

>> Read the full post at Sportsnet

Eight names with the most to gain -- or lose -- from the World Cup

The round robin portion of the World Cup has officially hit the halfway point. And that means that for four of the eight teams, the tournament itself is half over, since they’ll be going home empty-handed once the round wraps up on Thursday night.

We don’t know which teams those are yet, and there’s still plenty of time for this year’s tournament to take a few more twists and turns. But it’s fair to say that the pressure is building. And for some of those who are front and centre in this tournament, the pressure has been higher than for others.

So today, let’s take a look some of those who find themselves under an especially bright spotlight this week. Here are the eight names who have the most to gain – or lose – from their time on the World Cup stage.

Team Canada: Carey Price

Canada is a bit of a funny team to find a pick for. As the host team and overwhelming favorite, there’s no team in the tournament that’s under more pressure as a group – even one loss will be reason for panic across a nation. But the roster is stacked with so much talent that few individual players really stand out as being directly under a microscope.

But Price is an exception. After missing most of last year with an injury, his performance in the tournament will be watched closely for any hint that he's not 100 per cent back to his old Hart Trophy form.

Fans of Team Canada will want to see him do well, although with Braden Holtby and Corey Crawford waiting in the wings, it's not make-or-break. But fans of the Montreal Canadiens will be living and dying with each shot on net, hoping that their franchise player looks like his old self.

Saturday's opening-night shutout against an overmatched Czech squad was certainly a good sign. If Price is back to his old tricks, everyone will breathe a sigh of relief. But if he struggles, even briefly, well…. Montreal fans aren't the sort to panic, right?

Honourable mentions: When Habs fans need a break from overanalyzing Price, they can overanalyze new acquisition Shea Weber. Sidney Crosby will be under the spotlight because he's Sidney Crosby. And after taking over the GM duties from two-time winner Steve Yzerman, Doug Armstrong will take plenty of heat if Canada doesn't win it all.

Team USA: John Tortorella

We tend to focus on players in these sort of pieces, but there's no question that coaches and GMs can come under just as much scrutiny, if not far more. That's especially true for a team like Team USA, who made plenty of roster decisions that were widely questioned, all in an apparent effort to build a squad that would have the best chance at beating Canada.

After Saturday's disastrous opener that saw them drop a 3-0 decision to an underdog Team Europe, the Americans are in serious danger of missing the playoffs.

The heat on the management group has been cranked up, and there's lots more to come if Team USA can't come through in a literal must-win against Canada tonight. Plenty of that will fall on the shoulders of GM Dean Lombardi, who had the final call on the roster. But Lombardi still has two Cup rings in the last four years and plenty of credibility to draw from, so he'll get at least some benefit of the doubt.

Not so for Tortorella. He may have a Cup ring of his own, but 2004 was a long time and three jobs ago, and his reputation has taken a beating in recent years.

The coach already put himself in the spotlight earlier in the tournament with his musings on the national anthem, and he made that spotlight even brighter with some odd lineup decisions, including Saturday's puzzling scratch of Dustin Byfuglien and tonight's apparent line combos.

Tortorella's hard-nosed style is well-known, and he has a team that seems to have been designed in his image. If that team turns out not to be good enough, the coach will end up wearing that.

Tortorella still has his defenders, and Team USA can silence the doubters with a big effort tonight against the team they were built to beat. But if they can't pull it off and end up going home before the final four, there will be plenty of finger-pointing to go around. And a lot of them will be aimed behind the bench.

Honourable mentions: Yet another Hab makes an appearance, as Max Pacioretty was called out by Tortorella during the exhibition round. Patrick Kane will be under plenty of pressure as the team's best player, and his ugly defensive gaffe in the opener didn't help matters.

>> Read the full post at Sportsnet

The NHL playoffs all-bust team

We’ve crossed the halfway point in this year’s playoffs, which means we’re down to four teams left battling it out for the Stanley Cup. Making it this far is an enormous accomplishment, and we should take some time to celebrate the excellence of the players who are making it happen.

We should, but we won’t, because it’s way more fun to point fingers at the guys who didn’t get it done. So today, let’s assemble a dream team of playoff busts from the first two rounds.

One obvious disclaimer here: “disappointment” is relative. A first-liner who suffers through an awful series may still be more productive than a fourth-liner who meets expectations, but the star still gets the dreaded bust label. Fair? Maybe not, but that’s why these guys get paid the big bucks.

These lists are always tricky, since you’re dealing with a small handful of games and the boxcar stats can be misleading; I fully expect to wake up tomorrow to find the words “small sample size” spray-painted on my garage door. But I’m willing to take that chance, mainly because I just want to write a post about disappointing hockey players that doesn’t include any Leafs.

We’ll pick a full roster of centers, wingers, defensemen, and goalies. Spoiler alert: This is going to end up being a pretty impressive group that would win an awful lot of games under normal circumstances (if you could squeeze them under the salary cap). But if you had many of them in your playoff pool, you’re already out.

Center

Evgeni Malkin, Penguins — Let’s start with an easy one. The Penguins bowed out to the Rangers in five, but all were one-goal games. An extra goal or two could have turned the series around, which is why it was so frustrating to watch a superstar talent like Malkin struggle through a point-less series. That slump extended beyond the playoffs — he had no goals and just three points in his final 10 regular-season games — and it’s contributed to calls for the Penguins to trade him. (So far, it sounds like the team will stay the course.)

Paul Stastny, Blues — Stastny was the league’s biggest UFA signing last summer, at least in terms of average annual salary, and while his 46-point season was well under his career best, his solid two-way play still made him a key component of the Blues’ hopes. But his playoff numbers — just one goal and no assists in six games — were even worse. He didn’t play badly (his lined outscored and outchanced their opponents), and he certainly wasn’t alone, as pretty much every Blues forward not named Tarasenko could make an appearance on this list. But after yet another disappointingly short playoff run in St. Louis, it’s hard to argue that the Blues got what they paid for.

Tomas Plekanec, Canadiens — That Plekanec is, in theory, the Canadiens’ no. 1 center probably says more about the way the roster has been built than it does about the player. But that’s where he’s slotted in, and one goal and four points in 12 games doesn’t really cut it.

>> Read the full post on Grantland

The year in trades: How many of last season's deals actually worked out?

I miss trades. The NHL used to be a league filled with them, from small deals to major blockbusters. At any given time, there always seemed to be at least one major star on the verge of moving, sometimes several, and occasionally they’d all get swapped for each other. For a fan, it was all great fun.

But over the years, things began to change. The salary cap, among other factors, made player-for-player deals less common, and in recent years the midseason trade market had almost dried up completely. There were still plenty of minor deals, and even occasional blockbusters during the offseason, but once the season started we were lucky to get a handful of moves involving anyone the typical fan had ever heard of.

And then came the 2013-14 season, and the trade market was suddenly … well, not busy. But it was at least marginally active, with several big names being moved and even a few old-fashioned midseason blockbusters. Was there hope? Had the art of the deal finally returned?

It’s too early to tell. But the NHL has a well-established reputation as a copycat league, where owners and GMs of the also-rans continually look at what the winners are up to and yell “Let’s start doing that!” So if we want to know whether this year’s trade market was a blip or a trend, we have to start with this question: “Did any of those deals actually work out?”

So let’s find out. Here are 10 of the biggest trades that went down during the 2013-14 season, and whether they turned out to be worth it in hindsight.

Thomas Vanek, Version 1

The deal: On October 27, the Sabres sent Vanek to the Islanders for Matt Moulson, a first-round pick in either 2014 or 2015 (the Islanders chose to give up the 2015 pick), and a 2015 second-rounder. Buffalo retained some of Vanek’s salary.

At the time: Vanek was a pending free agent and seemed unlikely to want to re-sign with a Sabres team that was well into a scorched-earth rebuild. But while seeing him traded wasn’t a surprise, the destination was — the Islanders were a borderline playoff team at best, and they gave up a good player and two high picks to acquire a guy they didn’t even know if they could sign long term.

In hindsight: A disaster. Vanek played well enough, but the Islanders’ season tanked and they couldn’t work out an extension despite offering him far more money than he’d eventually wind up getting. The Islanders ended up having to cut their losses by trading him at the deadline, getting back far less than they paid for him (see below). Meanwhile, the Sabres traded (then later re-signed) Moulson and now own the Islanders’ top pick in a 2015 draft that could be one of the best in years.

Teachable moment: Don’t jump the gun on a rebuild. The Islanders haven’t won a playoff round since 1993, so you can understand some impatience, but they weren’t ready to make this sort of deal. In a way, you have to admire New York GM Garth Snow’s willingness to get aggressive when going after star players, but this move was too much too soon.

Ben Scrivens

The deal: On January 15, the Oilers acquired Scrivens from the Kings for a third-round pick.

At the time: The Kings had one goalie too many, because of the emergence of rookie Martin Jones. The Oilers had too few, because of them being the Oilers. So they added some relatively cheap depth.

In hindsight: It didn’t take long for Scrivens to have an impact — just two weeks after the trade, he put on one of the best goaltending performances in recent history. He also played well enough to allow the Oilers to completely change course in net. By the time the trade deadline rolled around, they’d traded away Ilya Bryzgalov and Devan Dubnyk and added Viktor Fasth. Heading into next season, Oilers fans may actually feel good about their goaltending for the first time in years.

Teachable moment: There are always goaltending bargains available. The depth of players at the position has never been better, so if you need an upgrade in net you can usually find one without paying a fortune. Why yes, that was ironic foreshadowing for our next entry – thanks for noticing.

>> Read the full post on Grantland

Ten key free agency questions

July 1 has traditionally been a day full of questions for hockey fans. Questions like: “Wait, he got how much?” And, “for how many years?” And, “are you joking right now?” And, “has everyone in this league lost their damn minds?”

Welcome to NHL free agency, which officially begins today at noon ET. In honor of the occasion, here are 10 more important questions to consider as we count down to the opening of the vaults.

1. How much did Thomas Vanek cost himself?

When Vanek signs a deal, which he’ll likely do early on today, he’ll be joining his fourth team in the last calendar year. He started the 2013-14 season with the Buffalo Sabres, and finished it with the Montreal Canadiens.

In between came a four-month stint with the Islanders, who gave up a hefty package to pry him out of Buffalo. They reportedly offered the pending free agent a seven-year, $50 million deal to stay in New York, but were turned down and eventually had to recoup some of their losses by sending Vanek to Montreal. The star winger went on to post a disappointing playoff run that had some questioning his work ethic and suggesting that he’d torpedoed his value.

This week, we’ll find out just how much Vanek cost himself. While it’s hard to imagine that he’ll get anything approaching the Islanders’ offer, he’s still in line for a big payday. ESPN’s Pierre LeBrun reported yesterday that up to 10 teams had made contact with the Vanek camp. One of those teams is Minnesota, which has been widely assumed to be Vanek’s preferred destination all along (he was a member of the Gophers squad that won a national championship in 2003). The Wild reportedly don’t want to offer a long-term deal, but Vanek may be willing to take fewer years for the right fit.

Of course, that could all go out the window if somebody decides to break the bank on a player who, it should be remembered, has been one of the highest-scoring wingers in hockey in recent years. He almost certainly won’t get Islander money, but somebody somewhere will be ready to pay up.

2. Where does Ryan Miller land?

The last time we had a Ryan Miller Watch, it was in an attempt to figure out which team would make a midseason trade for him. That team ended up being the Blues, which pulled off a blockbuster with the Sabres to bring in the former Vezina winner as what they hoped would be the final piece of a Stanley Cup puzzle.

We know how that turned out — after a strong start in St. Louis, Miller struggled down the stretch and the Blues coughed up the division title before going out in the first round against Chicago. That wasn’t all Miller’s fault, of course, but it was enough to convince the Blues to move on.

That leaves Miller as the top name available in today’s goaltending market. But that market is suddenly a very tight one, with few teams actually in need of a starter right now. And that has left Miller with far fewer options than you might have expected considering how much demand there was for his services just a few months ago.

One possibility that makes a lot of sense is Vancouver, and Miller has reportedly been visiting with the Canucks this week. If that deal doesn’t happen, it’s hard to find too many fits elsewhere around the league. The Sharks, Wild, or even the Penguins could be looking to shake things up in goal. The Flames could use help, and the Hurricanes could, too, if they find a taker for Cam Ward (which they won’t). But all of those scenarios come with question marks. And don’t forget that Jonas Hiller, another good goaltender with a strong résumé as a starter, is also available.

The betting here is that Miller works something out with the Canucks, but if those talks fall apart, he could be in for a long week.

>> Read the full post on Grantland

NHL offseason primer

Hey, remember when that one team won the Stanley Cup? Seemed like a good team; I think they wore black. I seem to recall something about a grumpy coach who took off his shirt during the parade, although that may have been a nightmare I had.

But it’s easy to forget all that these days. After all, the Stanley Cup final ended 10 days ago, and that’s quite a while in the NHL at this time of year. We’re now firmly into offseason mode, and the next few weeks are the busiest of the year for NHL front offices working toward reshaping their franchises.

By the end of next week, rosters around the league will look very different than they do right now. Some teams will have transformed themselves into contenders; others will tread water; and a special few will manage to ruin any chances they had.

Here’s a guide to what to look for between now and then.

Compliance Buyout Window

The first order of business is the buyout period, which has already started. Buyouts can fall into two categories, and while players can also be bought out the old-fashioned way, accompanied by a cap-hit penalty that lasts twice the number of years remaining on their deal, the real focus will be on compliance buyouts.

Last year’s CBA gave each team two compliance buyouts,¹ and this is the last year they can be used. A player who receives this kind of buyout still gets his money, but his cap hit disappears from the books.

It’s a two-step process, with players first needing to clear waivers before a team can make the buyout official. Several players hit the wire over the first few days, including Aaron Rome, Jordin Tootoo, and David Booth; we also saw the merciful end of the Ville Leino era in Buffalo. But the biggest news broke late last week.

First up came the Rangers’ buyout of Brad Richards, whose impending doom was an uncomfortable side plot of the Rangers’ Cup playoffs run. His age (34) and contract (six years left at a $6.67 million cap hit) made the move inevitable, and having his ice time cut in the final basically sealed the deal. He’ll land on his feet somewhere, but the Rangers really had no choice.

The Kings faced a similar dilemma with Mike Richards, although he was never the sure thing his Rangers namesake seems to be. But he owns a similar contract² and really seemed to have lost a step during the team’s playoff run. You’ll note that I said “owns,” as in present tense — the team eventually ended the speculation by announcing that it wouldn’t be buying him out.

That leaves a few more players still awaiting word on their fates, including:

Martin Havlat, San Jose Sharks: The onetime star was a healthy scratch during the playoffs and carries a cap hit of $5 million next year. On a team looking to make changes, this one’s an easy call. He’s gone.

Ryan Malone, Tampa Bay Lightning: Declining production mixed with problems off the ice and a $4.5 million cap hit mean that, like Havlat, he’s all but a sure thing.

Marc-Andre Fleury, Pittsburgh Penguins: If he’d struggled again in the playoffs, Fleury probably would have been another easy call. Instead, he played fine, and that could be enough for the Penguins to hold on to him. Pittsburgh has a new GM, and has indicated it may not use its buyouts at all. Also working in Fleury’s favor: His deal expires after next year.

The Trade Market

To some extent, the draft has replaced trade deadline day as the most likely source of blockbuster deals (with the added bonus of then seeing those deals awkwardly announced live by Gary Bettman). This year features an unusually high number of star players who could be moved. And you know what that means: Get ready to hear endless reports about teams wanting “a player, a pick, and a prospect.”

Here are five star players who could have new homes by Saturday:

>> Read the full post on Grantland

Grab bag: 52, 53, 54... Bossy's record is no more

In the grab bag:
- The week's three comedy stars
- My Teemu withdrawal sets in
- A rare bust from the loaded '88 draft
- What's wrong with Thomas Vanek?
- Don Cherry drops an f-bomb (or does he?)
- And a YouTube breakdown of Selanne's record-shattering goal

>> Read the full post on Grantland

Ten thoughts from the NHL trade deadline

The NHL’s trade deadline passed Wednesday, and as always, it was capped off by a hectic few days. There were 20 deals made yesterday, and a total of 33 in the week leading up to the deadline.

Some teams, like the Sabres, were very busy. Others, like the Maple Leafs, were … uh, not especially busy. And some teams probably wish they’d just sat the whole thing out.

Here are 10 thoughts on some of the biggest moves and non-moves from the past few days.

Luongo Unchained

It took two years, but Roberto Luongo finally got his wish: a trade out of Vancouver. He even wound up going to what had long been reported as his preferred destination, the Florida Panthers, in exchange for Jacob Markstrom and Shawn Matthias.

At last season’s deadline, Luongo was devastated over not moving and infamously told reporters, “My contract sucks.” The contract didn’t get any better, but apparently the Canucks’ asking price came down enough that new ownership in Florida was willing to pull the trigger.

The deal is risky for the Panthers, but it offers a clear upgrade in goal for a team that has been seeking stability at the position for some time. The bigger spotlight is on the Canucks and general manager Mike Gillis, who spent the last year turning one of the league’s best goaltending duos in Luongo and Cory Schneider into some spare parts and future pieces. They alienated Luongo, traded the other guy instead, made up with Luongo, and then incomprehensibly alienated him again. The entire scenario would have seemed impossible 12 months ago, but here we are.

But while it’s tempting to point and laugh in the direction of Vancouver, it’s worth remembering that the Canucks still got out from under a bad contract that was supposed to be untradable. (Well, mostly out from under it — they could still get burned by recapture penalties down the road.) As others have pointed out, if a new GM had come in and made this deal, the perception might be different. When it’s Gillis cleaning up his own problem, though, the standards change, and this isn’t playing well in Vancouver.

But hey, if Canuck fans were disappointed, at least they could look forward to reaping a windfall for Ryan Kesler. More on that in a second.

Martin St. Louis Turns Heel

Let’s get this out of the way: Martin St. Louis screwed the Tampa Bay Lightning.

St. Louis was reportedly upset about being snubbed from Team Canada when the selections were first announced. That roster was picked by Lightning GM Steve Yzerman, and it opened a rift that apparently couldn’t be healed, even though St. Louis eventually made the team after all, as an injury replacement.

We don’t know exactly what happened behind closed doors between the parties — St. Louis has implied that there’s more to the story than just the Olympic snub — but it’s hard to think of a scenario where the player ends up looking good here. He didn’t just demand a trade; he also gave Yzerman only one destination to work with. That was the Rangers, and under the circumstances, Yzerman did reasonably well. He picked up Ryan Callahan, a 2015 first-round pick, and a conditional pick that could become a 2014 first. Callahan is likely a rental, but with the Lightning headed to the playoffs, he’ll help soften the loss of St. Louis a little bit.

But only a little bit, because this is a major loss for the Lightning. St. Louis is the reigning Art Ross winner, and despite his age, he’s still an elite offensive player. He’s also been one of the league’s most respected and popular players. But that reputation will take a well-deserved beating now, and all the apology letters in the world won’t help.

>> Read the full post on Grantland

The NHL's official application form for submitting an offer sheet

Jay, just curious, how many pages of the new
CBA have you not got around to reading yet?

The Calgary Flames tried to offer sheet Ryan O'Reilly last week. You may have read about how that turned out.

But while we now know how close the Flames came to disaster, there's an aspect to this that most of us aren't familiar with: how an offer sheet gets made in the first place. Given the millions of dollars involved, you might assume that it's extremely complicated. It's not. The GM in question just has to complete a simple form to get the process started.

Luckily, DGB spies were able to obtain a copy of the very same form that Jay Feaster and the Flames recently had to fill out.

***

Dear general manager,
Thank you for your interest in signing an NHL player to an offer sheet. To help us process your request as quickly as possible, please fill out the form below.

Your name: ____________________

Your team: ____________________

Name of player: ____________________

Name of player's team who will immediately match this offer, making this whole thing a huge waste of time: ____________________

Amount of money that player is worth: ____________________

Amount of money you are offering that player (or just draw an arrow to the number written above, then write "times three"): ____________________

Offer sheets have rarely been successful in the NHL. Please indicate why you feel this is a good year to sign an RFA.
(   ) This year's condensed schedule may make teams less likely to match a front-loaded offer.
(   ) Next year's tight cap could make it harder for teams to find the space to match aggressive offers.
(   ) Brian Burke is not currently an NHL GM, so I probably won't have to fight anybody in a barn.
(   ) Can really focus on player transactions this year, since thanks to the Blackhawks this isn't one of those annoying seasons that's plagued by all sorts of distractions and uncertainty over who's going to win the Stanley Cup.

Read the rest of this post...

Grantand: Ten players who've been early season surprises

We’re about a quarter of the way through this truncated NHL season, and that seems like a good time to have a look at some of the players who are putting up impressive numbers so far.

But while it’s not exactly a shock to see names like Stamkos, Crosby, and Rinne near the top of various categories, some of this year’s other leaders are less predictable. Granted, we’re dealing with a dozen games or so in most cases, so your “small sample size” warning light should be blinking rapidly. But that doesn’t mean we can’t take a moment to recognize some early season surprises.

>> Read the full post at Grantland