RSS - Posts
Well, color me stupid.
Rather than trade Brad Richards, as I suspected they’d do at some point, the Tampa Bay Lightning today re-signed their top playmaking center for 5 years at $39 million.
It’s a great move for the Bolts, as Richards has been arguably their best player for the last three years. But was it the right move?
I see the Richards signing as just Part One of the story. Part Two is: Who’s getting shipped out of town?
The math remains the same: With this new deal, Tampa Bay has committed some $20-21 million next year to three forwards: Richards, Vinny Lecavalier, and Martin St. Louis. And don’t forget about their teammates: Including those three, some $34 million is committed to 13 players for next year (including the retired Dave Andreychuk). Last year’s $39-million team salary cap is expected to rise, but only slightly, to the $40-42 million range.
So that leaves, at most, $8 million to re-sign the likes of Pavel Kubina, Cory Sarich, and Ruslan Fedotenko. And, oh by the way — a goalie, as there’s no way John Grahame will be brought back. Eight mil just isn’t going to do all that.
Without at least one trade to clear cap room, the Bolts team for 2006-07 will have the same deficiencies as this season’s. Perhaps worse, without Kubina and/or Sarich; the organization isn’t exactly brimming with defensive farmhands (as evidenced by last year’s Timo Helbling experiment, before then-rookie Paul Ranger settled in). Handing over goaltending to prospect Gerald Coleman would be disastrous; if GM Jay Feaster is crossing his fingers on unrestricted free-agent goalie musical chairs bringing a stud to the St. Pete Times Forum, it’s a questionable roll of the dice.
The obvious trade bait is St. Louis, with the remainder of his 6-year, $31.5 million contract. The former league scoring leader was rumored to have been offered to the Blackhawks at this year’s trade deadline for Nik Khabibulin, so presumably Lightning brass already have him in play. But again, who would have a fit for the diminutive right wing? And can the Lightning fulfill a need in return, i.e. a starting goalie? (Anaheim comes to mind as a possibility, just because of the sudden expendibility of J.S. Giguere…)
Fredrik Modin also looks like a candidate for relocation. The cap savings wouldn’t be major, but his contract is up after the 2006-07 season, and with so much tied up in the Big Three, it’ll be pretty near impossible to retain him. He’d be much easier to move than St. Louis, and the emergence of Ryan Craig this past season means the Lightning won’t take an offensive hit.
In any case, it’ll be an eyebrow-raising offseason for the Bolts.
I wouldn’t feel terrible if Lecavalier was gone. When he’s good he’s amazing, but more often than not he’s maddeningly erratic.
Part of me feels that Vinny could fulfill a little more potential under someone other than Tortorella (no one seems to be asking too many questions about Tortorella – I say it’s time to start), but in the new world of the salary cap there’s not a lot of room for patience.
St. Louis might make more sense, but I have to believe our return would be far greater on Vinny.
Either way I’m not sure the Bolts are going to be able to significantly improve both the blue line and the net. I still think some things need to change behind the scenes as well in order for off-season moves to take.
Comment by Joel — 05/22/2006 @ 11:08 PM
In fact, that attempt to re-acquire Khabibulin died because Chicago countered with a request for Lecavalier instead of St. Louis. (A deal that would have been even better for the Blackhawks than originally conceived, now that Tuomo Ruutu is apparently considering early retirement, as per that FOX Sports link above.)
I think that says it as far as the Bolts’ commitment to keeping Vinny. They believe he’s just about to really become a dominating force in the league — and I agree. He’s eminently more tradeable, but it’s probably a better idea to keep him; that one-two punch down the middle is hard for any team to get.
Tortorella’s certainly not been the most pleasant coach for either fans or players to deal with this year. But in my mind, a Stanley Cup win grants you at least a couple of years of job security. His act will eventually wear thin, but until then, he gets another couple of chances. And really, what else could he have done this year? He was stuck with Grahame and Burke in goal, and coaching techniques (including press-conference tirades) go only so far when the net lacks a guy who can close out games.
As much as the whole organization’s loathe to admit it, the season’s shortcomings begin and end with Khabibulin’s departure. His performance in Chicago this year isn’t a guide; had he still been in Tampa Bay (and stayed healthy, naturally), the Bolts probably would still be playing hockey this month. I don’t see how next year’s squad can credibly pick up the No. 1 netminder they need to be truly competitive, unless they move a major contract.
Comment by CT — 05/23/2006 @ 10:13 AM
The Bolts may have a problem in the very short term – i.e. next year. But the CBA’s built-in escalator clauses are about to take elite-player salaries on a wild ride.
If league revenues climb at a 7% annual pace, by 2010-11 the individual player cap will be up 50% to $11.7 million.
So Richards would cost just 66% of the individual cap –- the equivalent of signing him for $5 million in today’s market.
We’ve got a set of tables up on this at SportsMatters.
If you buy into the revenue projection, it shows that in 2005-06, Trinity of Richards/St. Louis/Lecavalier cost the team about 41% of the salary cap. The figure will rise to 48% next year and be back to 41% by the 2008-09 season.
After than, it just gets silly: in the last two years of the CBA, the Bolts will use just 37% and 35% of the cap to pay three players who are collectively worth close to 60%.
Not only have they locked-in three proven performers, Tampa has ensured that from 2008-11 they’ll have ample resources to sign free agents and make a run at the Cup.
Comment by Avi — 05/24/2006 @ 2:03 AM
Interesting longer-term view. I was concentrating on just the immediate future.
This assumes league revenue does increase, rather than stagnate (doubtful it’ll fall). I seem to recall the NY Post’s Larry Brooks finding some sort of loophole in the CBA that gives owners a favorable disincentive to boost revenue, because keeping it depressed means less of a cut with the players. I can’t locate a link for that at the moment, though.
In any case, a hopeful scenario for five years down the road, even with all sorts of variables that go with a long-term strategy. In particular: Are all three players’ performances still going to be worth this salary level five years from now? On this point, St. Louis underachieved this year in what was supposed to be an ideal environment for him, with the more wide-open play. We’ll see.
Comment by CT — 05/24/2006 @ 11:45 AM
MORE CAP ROOM, MORE OPTIONS
It’s been a fine year for the National Hockey League. So fine, in fact, that unexpectedly higher league-wide revenues of $2.1 billion will lead to a significantly high salary cap for 2006-07, to $44 million instead of this season’s $39 mi…
Trackback by Population Statistic — 06/23/2006 @ 12:19 PM