NHL

Topics in this edition of the PHR Mailbag include breaking down one of the new CBA rule changes, fitting the Hughes brothers on the same team, and more.  If your question doesn’t appear here, check back in next weekend’s column.

Gmm8811: I thought I saw somewhere that players that go on and clear waivers have to actually play at least one game with their AHL affiliate. Did I hear that correctly? Is that starting this year? Would you expand on that info, please? Do you foresee any drawbacks to that? Looking forward to the new season.

This isn’t actually a waiver-specific rule.  A player can clear waivers and not be sent down while remaining eligible to play for their team.  That doesn’t happen often but it does happen, especially around the trade deadline.

What the rule you’re mentioning speaks to is paper transactions.  Section 30 of the new CBA MOU adds a blurb to Section 13.12 of the CBA that basically says that a player who is sent to the minors needs to actually report to the minors and play in at least one game.  The exact rule is as follows:

A Player who has been Loaned to a minor league club, and was not credited with a day pursuant to (h) above for one (1) or more days since the Loan, must actually report to the club and play in one (1) or more games with such minor league club before he is eligible for Recall. Not withstanding the foregoing, a Goaltender on Loan who has played less than the required one (1) game may be Recalled if his NHL Club would otherwise have less than two Goaltenders available to dress in the Club’s next game.

This is one of the changes that the league and the NHLPA agreed would come into effect for the upcoming season.  As we saw in recent years, many teams would ‘paper’ a player to the minors on an off day, then recall him the following day to play in an NHL game.  The player never actually reported to the minors but didn’t receive his NHL salary for the day, giving the team a few thousand dollars extra in cap space.  This rule is designed to deter teams from doing this.  Now, if a team sends a player down to the minors (whether they cleared waivers or are waiver-exempt), they actually have to report to that team and play in a game before they can be brought back up.  Notably, there is a rewrite to another subsection in there that effectively says if an emergency recall situation presents itself (someone else gets hurt putting the team below the required minimum number of skaters), then the recently-assigned player can be recalled before actually playing in an AHL game.

I doubt this will actually change much, however.  Teams that need space are still going to churn their roster, it’s just going to involve multiple players now instead of one.  Player A gets sent down, Player B is recalled.  Player B gets sent down, Player A is recalled and so forth.  If waiver exemption is exhausted, then start with Player C and maybe Player D if needed (or re-waive Players A and B to give them another 30-day exemption window).  So now, the player who was getting papered will probably lose out on NHL money and ice time since the scheme, so to speak, will now require multiple players to pull off which will cause a different type of grumbling.  That’s the drawback that comes to mind.

It’ll stop Carolina from papering Jackson Blake down (something that probably happened 15 or more times last season despite the fact he played in 80 NHL games) but probably won’t change much else.

frozenaquatic: Hi! Thanks for doing these. Getting out the crystal ball: Are there any teams you think will underperform this year? Who is a shocking team that we could see having problems and dropping out of the playoffs?

For quick reference, I had a question last column about four teams missing and four teams making the playoffs, one set per division.  Rather than rehashing that out, you can read through my picks here.

Based on the four miss teams in there, the one that best fits this question would be Washington.  Montreal missing wouldn’t be too shocking, neither would Minnesota, and while Los Angeles would certainly be a surprise (and I don’t think they’re missing the playoffs), that wouldn’t be as shocking as a reigning Conference winner missing the postseason.

A lot went wrong for Washington in 2023-24 and just about everything went right last year.  They had several players have career years, the cheapest goalie tandem gave them above-average play, and some typical underachievers had some bounce-back efforts.  If some of those gains are lost, it’s plausible that they could be on the outside looking in.

In terms of an underperformer who still makes it, I’d pick Florida.  The way they struggled down the stretch without Matthew Tkachuk was telling and they’ll be without him for quite a while to start the year.  Between that and two long playoff runs, I could see them landing in a Wild Card spot which would be a bit of a disappointment for them.

Johnny Z: What would it take to get Kirill Kaprizov to be a Wing? Yes, I realize the Wings are not a contender, but getting KK would be a big step towards the prize.

Zakis: To piggyback off Johnny Z, what would realistic packages be for Kaprizov for any team in two scenarios: 1) Kaprizov doesn’t sign an extension.

2) He agrees to a sign and trade.

Notwithstanding the unlikelihood of Detroit happening, the situation of how this happens is important to actually answer this question.  Zakis provides two scenarios but I think it’s actually three.  Is it as a straight rental?  If not, Detroit one of the only teams he’d sign with (or one of the only teams offering the contract he wants)?  Or, is there a bidding war for his services in a sign-and-trade with eight to ten teams realistically in the mix?  All of those would yield different-looking returns.  Let’s try to hypothesize each one, using a Detroit-specific answer and a general one to cover Zakis’ follow-up query.

1) In a pure rental scenario, you’re probably looking at two key components.  One is a first-round pick, the other is a key youngster.  Now, this isn’t like the Brock Nelson trade where the young forward was a recent first-rounder (Calum Ritchie).  For someone at Kaprizov’s level and to win a bidding war as a rental (without an extension, more teams can get involved), that other piece is going to hurt.  My initial thought was Marco Kasper and if he’s a third center at the time of the trade, that still could be the case.  If Nate Danielson is having a big year and sees some NHL action, perhaps he’d fit as well.  Detroit shouldn’t need salary retention but if a different acquiring team does, add a second-round pick (or maybe a third, depending on when the deal happens) to the price.

2) If Kaprizov says there’s only one or two teams he’d sign an extension with, Detroit loses a lot of leverage.  They still could probably get the above with the extension balancing out the reduced leverage but there won’t be as much of an add as there should be.  Speculatively, the acquiring team would want to offset the money a bit.  For the Red Wings, that might be someone like J.T. Compher while in general, a top-six forward with a couple of years left fits.  Now, if you’re thinking that this feels really light, you’re right.  But history shows that if a player only has one destination in mind, it’s more of a fifty cents on the dollar type of return.  If you’re the acquiring team, this is the best-case scenario.

3) Now, if Kaprizov is willing to sign an extension with a bunch of teams, look out.  (This is Minnesota’s best-case scenario if they can’t re-sign him.)  Then, you’re looking at probably multiple core players, at least one first-rounder, and a top prospect.  Someone’s going to keep upping the ante and it’s going to hurt.  For the Red Wings, think along the lines of Lucas Raymond, Kasper, a first (or more), and someone like Trey Augustine.  Minnesota gets two core top-six players (Kasper should get there), cap flexibility as those two cost less than what Kaprizov will, and future assets to either keep or try to flip to add another replacement piece.

Now, having said all that, I still think Kaprizov eventually re-signs.  It might take slightly more than what they’ve offered or perhaps a shorter-term agreement compared to eight years but right now, I’d predict they get it done.

Schwa: Who’s an under-the-radar pick to surprise in camp and force their way onto a roster – PTO, long-time AHL, rookie??

PTO – I’ll go with Kevin Labanc here.  He’s coming off a season where he played pretty sparingly in Columbus and didn’t do a lot in limited minutes.  But he has shown top-six flashes in the past and the Hurricanes have had a knack for getting the most out of some of their back-of-roster pieces, even in limited roles.  There isn’t really a great spot for him (which would make him signing a bit of a surprise) but if he gets a deal, he might be able to contribute.

Long-Time AHL – I’m not sure how under the radar he is but Boston’s Matej Blumel is the first player I thought of when I saw this question.  He was a stellar performer in the minors the last three years with AHL Texas but barely got an NHL opportunity.  The Bruins gave him a one-way deal this summer, a sign they think he could do just that.  Alex Steeves, another Boston signing, could also fit the bill although he might have a bigger hill to climb.  I think he has more NHL upside than he got to show in several years with Toronto.

Rookie – Let’s go with Colorado’s Zakhar Bardakov.  A 2021 seventh-round pick in his third year of eligibility, he’s 24 and hasn’t seen the ice yet in North America.  However, he’s coming off his best performance with SKA St. Petersburg of the KHL and plays with some grit.  The Avs have built a deeper roster but there’s still room for some rookies to grab hold of a spot and Bardakov could step in and do just that.

pawtucket: There’s a lot of talk about the Hughes brothers wanting to play together. How, then, does a team (Devils?) tightrope the salary cap while having a $12MM Quinn, $8MM Jack, and $5MM Luke all needing to be signed around the same time (Quinn expires in two years, Jack in five, Luke maybe in five)?

First, I think you need to reset your number for Luke Hughes.  A five-year, $25MM offer isn’t going to get it done.  While that might be his desired term, the cost would still probably eclipse $7MM and if it’s a longer-term pact, an AAV above Jack’s will be needed.  For Quinn Hughes, that number might wind up a little light as well based on the increasing cap but it’s fair enough to use here.  I’m going to put Luke at $7.5MM and sort of split the difference between the two ranges earlier, meaning the trio would cost $27.5MM.

Short-term, that wouldn’t be hard for New Jersey to manage.  A top-line center and top defense pairing already costs more than $20MM on most teams and by the time 2027-28 rolls around, that shouldn’t be overly costly.  Dougie Hamilton will be on an expiring deal by then so he’d probably be movable, even if not for a great return.

But if they time up their contracts to be up when Jack’s deal expires in 2030, that could be a different story.  At that point, Quinn is still probably in that $12MM range (maybe $13MM), Jack Hughes could very well be at $13MM himself, and Luke could be touching double-digits as well.  (It’s so early in his career that this number could be quite light before long.)  Now you’re talking somewhere between probably $36MM and $40MM for three players.  By then, the league-wide cost for those three spots might be up around $30MM to $32MM so the gap is a bit higher but probably manageable.  It would come down to a team having enough expiring deals to offset those salaries or moving out some pieces to cover the difference but I don’t think it would be overly problematic to fit them in.

Photo courtesy of Nick Wosika-Imagn Images.