PHR Mailbag

The upcoming holiday roster freeze is a built-in demarcation line as we cross into the second trimester of the regular season. Teams have a clearer picture of where they stand, leading some to make significant changes to their coaching staff while others invest more resources in exploring the trade market.

As we prepare to turn the calendar to 2024 and start hearing some pre-deadline trade rumors in earnest, it’s good timing for another edition of the PHR Mailbag. In part one of our last edition, our Brian La Rose examined how the Blue Jackets front office could navigate another disappointing season and potential moves for the Oilers. Part two investigated just what’s been going on with the Wild’s roller-coaster season and how the Flames can shift more responsibility to their incoming wave of young talent.

You can submit a question by using #PHRMailbag on Twitter/X or by leaving a comment down below. The mailbag will run on the weekend.

Topics in this edition of the PHR Mailbag include Minnesota’s tough start to the season, discussion on if there’s a path for Calgary to retool instead of rebuild, and much more.  If your question doesn’t appear here, check back in our mailbag from three weeks ago (apologies for the delay in getting this back half posted).

jacl: What’s happened to Jason Robertson? It seems that you don’t hear his name called during a game at all. You never hear his name called in big situations this year. Am I expecting too much from him this year after his last couple of years?

Expectations should rightfully be quite high for Robertson.  You don’t fluke into back-to-back 40-plus-goal seasons which is what he has done the last couple of years.  Now, he finished tied for sixth in NHL scoring last year which is a lot harder to repeat, especially on a Dallas team that has a fair bit of balance offensively.  If you were expecting 40 goals again from him, I think that would be fair.  If you were hoping for another jump in points, then I’d suggest you might have aimed too high.

Robertson has been a bit quiet this year but he’s still hovering around the point-per-game mark.  His shooting percentage is still above the NHL average but is a bit below his career average.  If you’re looking for a reason for optimism, another percent or two on that front as the season progresses could still give him a shot at a 40-goal pace.

I Wander Off: Dear all-knowing and wise mailbag answer person.

Is it just me or is Murphy’s Law in effect for the Wild this year?

I.e. we all know about the cap struggles but it just seems like every pass, shot, hit, block, blocked shot, or save somehow someway always doesn’t seem to A) connect for a goal or B) goes right into the back of the net.

Sincerely, a diehard Minnesota Wild fan and frustrated State of Hockey resident.

Things certainly look a little better now following the recent coaching change at least.  Yes, they’ve had some misfortune but there were some risks heading into the season.

Filip Gustavsson had a great year last season.  No question about that.  But before that, he was struggling to establish himself at the NHL level.  They had no choice but to re-sign him but there was always going to be the risk that he went back to his previous form which is what has happened so far.  I think he’ll get better but luck or no luck, they’re not going to have the same level of goaltending as a year ago.  Marc-Andre Fleury just turned 39 and had to slow down at some point.  Again, I think he can be better but perhaps he’s not a quality platoon piece anymore.  There was always going to be some risk between the pipes as a result so it’s not just Murphy’s Law on that front.

They also didn’t do much to upgrade their offense over the summer.  (Yes, their cap situation played a big role in that.)  But they had a mediocre attack last year so them being near the bottom of the league on that front wasn’t entirely unforeseeable either.  Matt Boldy struggling stung and Kirill Kaprizov got off to a slow start which didn’t help things but this is where the lack of depth hurt them.

For me, Minnesota is a bubble team.  I don’t think they’re as bad as their record but they’re also probably not a 103-point group either.  Is that all Murphy’s Law?  Maybe a bit but after getting some best-case results last season, it could also be things normalizing a bit.

Zakis: What was GMBG thinking with the Hartman, Mats, and Foligno extensions?

Also, what are the chances the Wild sign Kirill to another extension, and what would that look like with the cap purportedly going up?

And why won’t the Wild play their highly touted youngsters?

When GM Bill Guerin signed Ryan Hartman, Mats Zuccarello, and Marcus Foligno to new deals, it was a case of GM believing in his core group a little too much.  Remove any possibility of in-season uncertainty and just get them done.  He thought this was a 103-point squad once again and with that logic, getting some important veterans locked up made a lot of sense.  Of course, the mistake was believing that last season was repeatable and possibly even built upon.

Having said that, I’m not going to pile on too much.  I have no issue with the Zuccarello signing from a value perspective.  Hartman’s, in a vacuum, is defensible if you think he can get back to his form from a couple of years ago.  Even if he’s in the 40-45-point range, it’s not bad and he’s a center, a spot they don’t have much depth at.  So I can’t criticize those a ton.  Foligno’s on the other hand, that one felt like an immediate overpayment.

A lot can happen between now and the time that Kaprizov is even eligible to sign an extension which isn’t until July 2025.  If they’re in contention and use the cap room created by the high buyout costs going away, I think there’s a reasonable chance he’d consider it.  I’ll say 40% for now as testing the market could be tempting.  I’m not as bullish on the revenue projections as the NHL is in its public proclamations (attendance is down in quite a few buildings and a lot of teams are facing reduced regional TV rights which will hurt HRR) but maybe the trailing years in the lag formula (which is how the cap will be set moving forward) are stronger than I think.  At this point, I think Kaprizov would be targeting something above Artemi Panarin’s $11.643MM AAV, assuming he remains a top-end player.  Let’s say $12.25MM for, well, as many years as he’s willing to sign for.

As for not playing the highly-touted youngsters, I don’t see that.  Marco Rossi is playing top-six minutes most nights.  Brock Faber is over 23 minutes a night on the back end.  Boldy is a regular in the top six.  Liam Ohgren and Danila Yurov are under contract overseas and aren’t quite NHL-ready.  Carson Lambos is just getting his feet wet in the pros and counting on a 21-year-old goalie in Jesper Wallstedt would be highly risky.  The ones that aren’t playing are either not available or not quite ready.  There are concerns that I have with this roster but not playing the top youngsters isn’t on that list.  Their time is coming soon but not yet.

kyzr: How could Calgary avoid a total teardown and retool to be competitive? If Hanifin and/or Tanev are moved, who could the Flames trade for to be the replacement? Thanks!

This is a scenario that doesn’t come up too often anymore as player-for-player shakeup moves don’t happen too often.  The fact that both players are pending unrestricted free agents doesn’t help either as these types of swaps typically involve pieces that are either signed or at least under club control for a while.  That can be managed by allowing early extension discussions though and, in Hanifin’s case, perhaps a sign-and-trade to allow for the eighth year.

I suppose the other way would be to move the veterans for future assets and then flip those or other future pieces for win-now help.  But even that doesn’t happen.  Generally, when teams are in the middle, they’re either loading up or selling off, not making moves to try to hang around the middle.

But I’ll play along.  The Islanders feel like a team that could do something like this with Noah Hanifin with someone like Alexander Romanov being part of the return.  Romanov is hovering around the 22-minute mark for ice time, a career high and could slot into Calgary’s top four.  I could see the Blues having interest in something like that with one of their $6.5MM blueliners (likely Torey Krug) being involved but that might not be a good idea for the Flames.  Maybe Seattle with Jamie Oleksiak coming back who has another year left?

The problem for Calgary or really any team entertaining a scenario like this is that the teams that want a player like Hanifin or Chris Tanev don’t want to subtract anyone of consequence from their roster.  They want to add that extra piece or two, not make more of a lateral swap which is what your idea entails.  If the Flames wind up moving those two – and I think they will – I suspect it will be more of a traditional seller type of move, not a half-in, half-out type of approach.

Ripper Magoo: How many goalies would you give a 7 x 7 contract to?

This is a tough one that really made me think.  There aren’t many goalies who are safe bets to have seven straight above-average seasons which means there’s a case to be made that none of them should get one.  But there are a handful I think I’d take the chance on.

Jake Oettinger (DAL) – He’s already in the top ten at least for goalies and a seven-year deal in July would bring him to 32, more than young enough to still play at a top level.  I think the Stars would love to get him at this price but it’s going to cost more than that when his deal is up for real in 2025 when he’ll be an RFA with arbitration rights.

Igor Shesterkin (NYR) – If he was a free agent this summer, seven years takes him to his age-35 season.  Lots of goalies are still going strong at that age.  He’s a high-end netminder that’s young enough to build around.

Ilya Sorokin (NYI) – There would be a bit more risk here as he’s a year older than Shesterkin but his track record is big enough to show me that he’ll be a high-end starter for at least most of that deal.  Plus, that’d be an upgrade on his current contract.

The other one I’ve flip-flopped on is Boston’s Jeremy Swayman.  The track record isn’t there yet but at the same time, if the Bruins wanted to sign him to a long-term deal this summer, I think the asking price would be in this range so I have to seriously consider him for this scenario.  I know Connor Hellebuyck just got more than that but I’d be leery at seven years at this price point with the workload he has carried over the years.

Read more

Topics in this edition of the PHR Mailbag include the rough start to the season for the Blue Jackets, how the Oilers could get out of their slump, and much more.  If your question doesn’t appear here, check back in next weekend’s mailbag.

Black Ace57: What does Columbus do going forward if their high-paid stars keep struggling? They looked like a team that could compete this year, but if their top guys keep struggling it looks more like a team in need of a retool or short rebuild.

I wasn’t sold on the Blue Jackets being a playoff team this season but I was expecting them to be more competitive than they have been so far.  In theory, I agree with you that a retool would help but the problem is who do they retool with?  Selling low on Patrik Laine isn’t wise.  Same for Johnny Gaudreau.  I don’t think they’re moving Boone Jenner either.  So, aside from the currently injured Jack Roslovic, the forwards they’d move don’t have a particularly significant track record; they aren’t players that will bring impact pieces in return.

On defense, Andrew Peeke and Adam Boqvist have some value but they’ve been on the block for most of the season now.  Clearly, the offers haven’t been great as otherwise, they’d have been moved already.  Erik Gudbranson doesn’t have a trade market and the other veterans are players they probably don’t want to trade.

If they can find a taker for Merzlikins, they can try the lateral goalie swap and hope the change of scenery works for each player.  With his contract ($5.4MM through 2026-27), that’s easier said than done.

They’ve changed the coach multiple times now.  They’ve changed the goalie coach.  Pulling those levers again isn’t going to change much.  So my recommendation to them would be to play the youngsters as much as possible and hope that the veterans find their footing.  If they don’t, at least the development of their young core players gets advanced.  That’s a small win but with their current situation, that might be the best-case scenario aside from moving out some rentals closer to the trade deadline if they’re out of it by then.

Pyramid Headcrab: Any insight on Johnny Gaudreau? His scoring has completely fallen off a cliff, and his play does not inspire confidence. Can you think of any other players who have had such a precipitous drop after signing a new contract?

And more vitally, is this a case of a guy completely phoning it in after getting a big paycheque, or is this a case of a player not fitting in a new system?

The player who replaced Gaudreau in Calgary comes to mind, Jonathan Huberdeau.  He gets acquired, signs the long-term extension, and falls off a cliff, notching 60 fewer points compared to 2021-22.  This season, he’s on pace for even less.  Jeff Skinner also fits the bill.  After a 40-goal year in his first season with Buffalo, he followed that up with 23 points followed by 14, making his deal one of the worst in the league.  Fortunately for the Sabres, he turned it around and while his contract isn’t a bargain, it looks a lot better now.

Gaudreau will get an opportunity to do like Skinner and play his way out of this.  There is no trade market for him at the moment.  In a perfect world, Adam Fantilli becomes the top-line center they think he can be, giving Gaudreau a higher-end linemate that he hasn’t had with the Blue Jackets so far.  If that happens, I think he can rebound somewhat.  Not to the point where $9.5MM is viewed as a bargain but also not among the worst in the league either.

I also don’t think this is a case of Gaudreau cashing in and checking out, so to speak.  I suspect this is more just him not fitting into the current system and lacking that impact center to play with.  Granted, at $9.5MM, it should be Gaudreau helping elevate a linemate, not him needing a better linemate to bring out the best in him.  It hasn’t gone well for him in Columbus so far but I think he can turn it around.

Winter in Colorado: What’s your take on Patrick Kane’s return? Every talking head out there thinks he’ll come back and be fine. No player has ever returned successfully from hip resurfacing surgery. It’s entirely possible Kane will be the next Nicklas Backstrom. Yet, I haven’t heard this from any hockey media. It really doesn’t matter what team or contract Patrick Kane wants if he can’t play.

This is a great point and frankly, it wasn’t even one I was really considering too much but you’re absolutely right, it does have to be factored in.  Ed Jovanovski didn’t come back for too long when he had it.  Ryan Kesler had it done and never played again.  Backstrom wasn’t bad last season after coming back but now, it’s fair to wonder if his playing days are done.  If I’m a GM, this should be something to consider.

I wonder if Backstrom’s situation could make Kane’s camp lean toward pursuing a multi-year deal.  While it’s possible he leaves money on the table if he is able to buck the trend, locking in guaranteed money with injury concerns can rarely be called a good idea.

Here’s what I keep coming back to with Kane.  The contending teams that want him are almost all in cap trouble.  Their preference is undoubtedly going to be Kane taking a cheap deal that doesn’t require them to turn around and move out another player, possibly with an incentive added with so few teams being able and willing to take on money.

Kane is going to have to pick between trying to ring chase now (and perhaps land in a spot where he can be insulated a bit which helps from a health standpoint) or going for one last big financial score.  I lean toward him taking the former (perhaps not by choice; the big-money deals are going to be tough to get at this point of the year) as that’s where his best options for short-term success will be.

Binnie: Two questions to ask. The first one is which team has the best chance of signing Patrick Kane. The second is about Michael Rasmussen contract extension, how long are the terms and average salary per offered if true.

There seems to be some speculation that his preference would be to stay in the East after finishing up last season with the Rangers, a team that it doesn’t look like he’ll be returning to.  Florida doesn’t have a lot of cap space but there seems to be considerable mutual interest and frankly, of the Eastern contender teams that could have a realistic shot at trying to afford him, they might be the best fit.

Buffalo is out there both for the fact he’s a local and the sense he’d help give them a boost in a season that they’re supposed to emerge from their rebuild.  Detroit is believed to be in the mix as they’re looking to get out of missing the playoffs as well.  Both of them can afford pricier long-term deals.  If Kane wants one of those, I’d lean to Buffalo.  If he’s willing to take the one-year deal, Florida is my pick for where he signs.

As for Rasmussen, I’m sure Detroit GM Steve Yzerman is at least kicking the tires.  The center is a pending RFA so a deal will have to get done at some point.  It’s safe to say that he’ll get more than his $1.72MM qualifier, especially with arbitration rights.  But I don’t think Rasmussen has shown enough to receive a long-term extension, the types that are often done in-season.  Barring injury, he’d have gotten there last year but he doesn’t have a 30-point season under his belt and he’s at a lower pace offensively so far this season.

Honestly, I think the best play for both sides here is a one-year pact, another bridge deal if you will.  If I’m Detroit, I’d be leery about going higher than a low $3MM offer on a multi-year agreement (three or more seasons).  If I’m Rasmussen, why am I locking in long-term for that when I can get $2MM or more on a one-year deal and ideally have a better platform year?  Those would be my picks for a new contract for Rasmussen which is why I don’t think the two sides will get one done.

Nha Trang: Alright, how’s this for a deadly hypothetical? Congratulations, Brian! You’ve just been drafted to be the new GM of the Oilers, a team in the dumps, with over half of their cap space tied up in just six players (each and every one of them with NMCs), you’re projected to have only $10MM of cap space NEXT season, and you’ve got a goalie in the minors with a no-trade clause and a nearly $4MM cap hit himself. What’s your turnaround strategy, beyond fleeing screaming for Tahiti? (That, or coming to Massachusetts to clock me upside the head with a goalie stick for making the suggestion.)

My strategy is probably pretty similar to the one they’ve probably been looking into.  In net, I’m looking for change-of-scenery players that wouldn’t necessarily require a huge inducement to take on Campbell’s deal.  I’m looking at Columbus and Elvis Merzlikins or Seattle and Philipp Grubauer.  Both netminders are signed for as long as Campbell and their AAV’s are less than $1MM apart.  With Columbus, perhaps add in Cody Ceci and Andrew Peeke to make the money come close to matching and with Seattle, Ceci and William Borgen for the same purpose.  That’s probably not the exact trade when all is said and done, that’s the core of the swap.

If those don’t work, I think I might make a bigger offer for Arizona’s Karel Vejmelka.  (The problem is they won’t take Campbell back.)  The Coyotes don’t seem to be locked in with having him as their long-term starter and if I can get two years at $2.75MM to pair with Stuart Skinner, that’s worth pursuing.  Kulak is probably the money matcher and as much as I wouldn’t want to do it, I could be persuaded to put Xavier Bourgault, one of their top prospects, in the offer.  This isn’t a viable situation for a rebuild, not with their core.  Selling is not an option so the swing is defensible.

Failing that, Montreal’s Sam Montembeault would be my next target since his contract is a lot easier to fit into the current salary structure; he could be added without subtracting anyone of consequence off their current roster.  A first-round pick is off the table but if they accepted a package headlined by a second-rounder, that would be worth pursuing.  That’s not going to be a big upgrade in terms of getting a new starter but that at least shores up the backup spot, increasing the chances of getting points from those games which will help as they look to get back into a playoff spot.

I’d also look at shaking up the back end.  Between Ceci, Brett Kulak, Evan Bouchard, and Philip Broberg, they have a lot of defenders who are mobile but not particularly good in their own end.  One or two of those is manageable, four out of seven on the roster is an issue.  Moving Kulak and/or Ceci for different-styled players making similar money (Peeke and Borgen are examples from the earlier goalie offers) would be useful.  Getting more defensive structure and stability should help solve some of the goaltending struggles and with the remaining puck-movers plus Darnell Nurse and Mattias Ekholm, their offensive game shouldn’t take much of a hit.

Up front, I don’t think I’d change a whole lot.  What I would do is waive one of Adam Erne or Sam Gagner to make them waiver-exempt and shuffle one of them back and forth (down on off days) along with James Hamblin.  (Not at the same time as they need 12 forwards though.)  The idea would be to dip out of LTIR on those days and bank a tiny bit of cap space which might come in handy at the deadline.  Ideally, it’d be nice to get a penalty kill specialist into Gagner’s spot and a more skilled fourth line grit player into Erne’s but given their weaker prospect pool, I wouldn’t be trading much for those.  Rather, I’d watch the waiver wire for more optimal fits.

Otherwise, this is a good forward group and I expect they’ll turn it around on their own.  That coupled with better defense and possibly better goaltending should get them into the playoffs at least.

Read more

American Thanksgiving is generally viewed as a good point for teams to assess where they are and what they might be looking to do on the trade front.  One team – Edmonton – didn’t even wait that long before deciding to make a coaching change while another – Calgary – has flipped from looking to extend its key pending UFAs to putting a hold on those discussions; one has already requested a trade.

With that in mind, it’s a good time for our next mailbag segment.  In our last one, topics included the Shane Pinto situation in Ottawa, possible teams that could be looking to make an early trade, Mike Sullivan’s future in Pittsburgh, and much more.

You can submit a question by using #PHRMailbag on Twitter/X or by leaving a comment down below. The mailbag will run on the weekend.

Topics in this edition of the PHR Mailbag include the Shane Pinto situation in Ottawa, how Patrick Kane could return to the Rangers, Mike Sullivan’s future in Pittsburgh, and much more.

Black Ace57: When do the Senators finally solve this Pinto contract issue? How much further into the season is it reasonable to drag this out?

Well, this certainly took an unexpected turn after this question was posted, didn’t it?  With Pinto now out for the first 41 games of the season due to his suspension, he’s not eligible to return until January 21st and it appears as if the usual December 1st signing deadline won’t apply here.  With Ottawa not wanting to carry dead cap money by having a suspended player on its roster, it stands to reason now that they won’t want to register the contract until as close to January 21st as possible.  At that point, it could very well be a minimum-salary deal as they’re no longer required to pay the value of his $874K qualifying offer; that requirement ended when the offer lapsed in July.

Honestly, I’m bewildered by this whole situation.  The suspension was out of nowhere but I’m also quite surprised that things got to this point with him being unsigned.  GM Pierre Dorion knew the cap bind he was putting himself in when he signed Vladimir Tarasenko; how was there not a plan to deal with that?  In the end, he’s going to get bailed out since Pinto’s midseason deal will be low enough that the cap implications should be minimal as it shouldn’t cost more (or much more) than the player whose spot he’d be taking on the roster.  But this was not well handled on their end.

For me, the big takeaway here is that the strategy of ‘deal with the cap later’ when trying to add a player, one that is seemingly popular with the fans, has gotten a whole lot more difficult to execute.  Accordingly, teams will need to keep that in the back of their mind next summer, even with the expected increase to the salary cap.

Bradley B: Based on the first few games, do you see any teams making an early trade?

I’d love to say Edmonton based on how poorly they’ve started but their cap situation makes that next to impossible.  They could swap out a minimum-salaried player for another one but that’s not going to move the needle very much.  But there are a few others that I think could be looking to do something.

Calgary has underwhelmed thus far.  Yes, they were a non-playoff team last season but expectations were that they’d be better after the offseason coaching change.  They’re also capped out but with some higher-salaried expiring deals, especially on the back end, they might have the chips to make a player-for-player swap to shake things up.  Daniel Vladar has been a speculative trade candidate but he hasn’t started the year well which can’t help his value.

Washington is another one to keep an eye on.  They’re in LTIR and Max Pacioretty and Joel Edmundson should be back at some point next month.  At that point, their cap situation will force their hand, barring further injury.  Anthony Mantha, on a big expiring deal himself, seems to be the speculative option to move and frankly, he’s someone that could benefit from a change of scenery.

Seattle is a wild card.  They’ve had some bad luck on the offensive end with a pretty low shooting percentage that is bound to improve but they’re now without Andre Burakovsky for a while.  They have a bit of money to play with (not a ton, mind you) so I could see them trying to add a piece and could use Chris Driedger’s expiring contract as an offset.

There’s a reason I’ve been talking about teams that should be looking to make a move sooner than later which isn’t exactly what you asked.  But because so many teams are capped out, I don’t see there being a whole lot of trade action in the near future.  That’s not a fun answer though so these are the teams I think would like to do something that I’ll be keeping an eye on.

gowings2008: This hasn’t been talked about much, but do you think it’s possible that Kyle Connor gets traded to Detroit? He’s from there (also lives there over the summer) and has multiple friends and former teammates on the team. Plus, there’s definitely a hole next to his buddies Andrew Copp and J.T. Compher on the second line. Seems like this makes too much sense not to happen at some point.

It makes a lot of sense for the Red Wings.  I’m not sold on the why for Winnipeg, however.

This is a team that just paid big bucks on long-term extensions for Mark Scheifele and Connor Hellebuyck.  They have an owner who told TSN’s Darren Dreger just this week that a rebuild is something he wants no part of.  With that in mind, why would they then turn around and move their top winger?  They’d have to get a significant long-term core piece in return that can also help them now and frankly, there isn’t a fit that makes a lot of sense.  Futures aren’t the currency the Jets will want to deal in at the moment.

Connor has two years left on his contract after this one.  If, in the final season of the deal (2025-26), Winnipeg finds themselves out of the mix near the trade deadline, then things might be a bit different.  If Connor was to express a willingness to sign an early extension if he was traded to Detroit, then that’s a scenario where this idea could be plausible and at that time, perhaps a futures-based return is more viable.  But even with that, Connor to Detroit is nowhere near the point of making too much sense not to happen eventually.  Very few players (if any) are in that type of situation where a move to a specific team is a lock at some point.

jchancel: “If” the New York Rangers were interested in re-signing Patrick Kane, who would they move out in order for that to happen?

There are two different scenarios for any hypothetical return for Kane with the Rangers (and I think the interest is legitimate).  The first is that he decides to ring-chase and decides to sign a team-friendly one-year deal around the $1MM range pro-rated.  That gives him the most options as most contending teams can fit that contract in.  In that scenario, they can basically just waive one of Jimmy Vesey or Tyler Pitlick and call it a day.  Kane, meanwhile, has a bounce-back year and turns that into a multi-year agreement next summer.  That’s the best-case scenario.

The other, obviously, is that Kane has enough of a market to command a multi-year deal at market rate.  I’m skeptical that the Rangers could free up enough money in that situation.  Barclay Goodrow and his $3.671MM cap hit is the obvious pick but with four years left, is there a viable market for him?  Even the teams that are open to taking on a contract might balk at the term.  Anything below that doesn’t move the needle in terms of making the money work and anyone making more almost certainly isn’t getting moved.

If the Rangers have any chance of bringing Kane back, they need him to be more focused on maximizing his 2024 offseason earning potential than his 2023 season possible money.  If that’s the case, I think they’ll have a real chance at re-signing him.

One More JAGR: When is Sullivan finally going to get the axe? Different season, same issues plague this Penguins team. Window is closing every year, now it’s cracked almost closed IMO. Most of the players who have played under his watch and since been released have done better on other teams. That tells me it’s a coaching issue. I realize there’s not many coaches available right now, but two years ago when they should’ve pulled the trigger there were. He’s lost the locker room, his system is ineffective. Midseason or end of season, does he get axed?

You don’t need me to tell you how highly Mike Sullivan is viewed at the ownership level.  There is certainly some symmetry between how he sees things and how ownership does.  That buys him a long leash to work with.

That said, if you’re looking for something to hang your hat on, Kyle Dubas just got handed the keys to the castle, so to speak.  A seven-year commitment for a GM is practically unheard of; that’s how much confidence and trust they have in him.  If Dubas goes to FSG and says that he wants to make a change, would they really say no to the executive who has six-plus seasons left on his contract?  That’d make for a tough situation for all parties involved.

I’m always leery of openly discussing the possibility of someone losing their job.  It’s part of the business but it’s not the most fun to speculate about.  But there is no long-term connection between Dubas and Sullivan.  If Dubas decides that Sullivan isn’t the right fit for this team, midseason or offseason, I think he will have the green light to pull the trigger.  It’s too early to predict if Pittsburgh’s season will be a struggle to the point where this move could be considered so I can’t sit here and state with any sort of confidence if I think it’ll actually happen.

Read more

The regular season is now in full swing, and all 32 teams are at least a few games into their schedule. There have been many recent storylines of impact, such as Oilers captain Connor McDavid’s injury, a hefty suspension to Flames defenseman Rasmus Andersson, and the ever-closer return of free agent winger Patrick Kane from offseason hip surgery.

With a fair idea of where teams stand after a handful of contests, it’s time for another edition of the #PHRMailbag. Our last callout for questions resulted in a pair of articles that ran the last two weekends of September. The first one looked at the future of Sharks captain Logan Couture in San Jose and the brief and controversial tenure of Mike Babcock as head coach of the Blue Jackets. The second one examined some likely Calder Trophy candidates, the sometimes-frustrating NHL-CHL transfer agreement, and some key contract details often found in ELCs.

You can submit a question by using #PHRMailbag on Twitter/X or by leaving a comment down below. The mailbag will run on the weekend.

Topics in this edition of the PHR Mailbag include the Calder Trophy battle for Rookie of the Year, a look at potential bonuses available for players on entry-level deals, and much more.  If your question doesn’t appear here, check back in last weekend’s mailbag.

DevilShark: Review of Luke Hughes’ Calder chances, please! Convince me he is not next to Bedard as a top-two favorite or, if you agree, explain why he doesn’t seem to be on anyone’s radar for this award. Thanks!

Cyclone: Hypothetical… If Bedard underwhelms, Hughes, Cooley, or Fantilli for the Calder?

The reason Hughes isn’t on the radar for the Calder is that his name isn’t Connor Bedard.  It’s really as simple as that; it’s him versus the field.  If Bedard stays healthy, it’s his award to lose.

Should he be second?  I don’t think I’d have him there, to be honest.  This isn’t a bad thing in reality but the fact he’s on a good team will hurt him.  He’s not going to be getting top power play time, not with Dougie Hamilton in the fold.  I’m not sure he plays higher than fourth at even strength at the start of the year, barring injuries.  That’s not going to give him prime opportunities to rack up the points.

Logan Cooley will have that opportunity in Arizona.  He could be their top center right away.  Adam Fantilli might get that chance in Columbus.  More minutes should lead to more power play time and scoring opportunities.  The Calder Trophy is often numbers-dependent and while Hughes should be a very important piece for the Devils this season, I’m not sure he’ll put up enough numbers to really get him near the top of the radar.

I feel like there’s one other player that warrants a mention here, Buffalo’s Devon Levi.  If the Sabres finally snap their playoff drought and he’s the number one goalie that helps get them to the postseason, I think there’s a good chance he’ll appear pretty high on some ballots as well.

KRB: The CHL and NHL have a rule that 18-and 19-year-olds drafted out of juniors can’t play in a North American professional league unless it’s the NHL. I understand why the rule was put in place: to keep professional leagues like the AHL and ECHL from stripping Canadian juniors of high-end talent. But the rule can hurt some players, for example, Shane Wright. Do you see this rule continuing, or do you think perhaps they may grant “exceptional status” to certain 18-and 19-year-olds to play in professional minor leagues, similar to that granted to 15-year-olds like Connor Bedard, to play in major juniors?

I do see this rule continuing for the foreseeable future.  As unpopular as it might be, the presence of those top players in major junior helps make those leagues as strong as they are from a competition perspective.  If they’re out of the league and the competition level goes down, it’s going to be harder to attract the top players that have NCAA or USHL options as well.

Those top players also help drive revenues.  While there are a handful of big teams across Canada, many CHL squads are in smaller cities where the profit margins are small.  Fewer star players means less merchandise, ticket sales, etc.  That would also be quite detrimental to the league.

I’ve wondered about what an exemption could look like.  In my mind, it’d have to be limited to one 19-year-old player per team at a time (an exception being if a prospect on an AHL exemption gets traded to a team that is already using it).  And if the team uses it, the developmental fee paid is substantially higher.  Instead of it being paid out as part of the pool the CHL receives now from the NHL, the team using the exemption has to pay two or three times that amount to at least help offset some of the financial element.  But still, I don’t see it happening.  I’m not sure it could be done by “exceptional status” though as those cases are judged case-by-case; there won’t be any set criteria.  Anything that is judged as it pertains to an NHL team could carry the appearance of bias.

I’m honestly a bit surprised Wright was granted an exemption even though there was a logical case for it. I suspect he will be the last to get one for a while.

Zakis: What are the ‘A’ and ‘B’ bonuses for ELC’s based on position?

Let’s start with the A bonuses.  For forwards, it’s the following categories:

1) Top six among forwards in ATOI, minimum 42 GP
2) 20 goals
3) 35 assists
4) 60 points
5) 0.73 points per game, minimum 42 GP
6) Top three among forwards in plus/minus, minimum 42 GP
7) Makes the All-Rookie Team
8) Selected to the All-Star Game
9) All-Star Game MVP

For defense, it’s the following:

1) Top four among defensemen in ATOI, minimum 42 GP
2) 10 goals
3) 25 assists
4) 40 points
5) 0.49 points per game, minimum 42 GP
6) Top three among defensemen in plus/minus, minimum 42 GP
7) Top two among defensemen in blocked shots, minimum 42 GP
8) Makes the All-Rookie Team
9) Selected to the All-Star Game
10) All-Star Game MVP

And for goalies:

1) 1,800 minutes played
2) GAA is equal to or below the median GAA of all goalies who play 25 or more games
3) SV% is equal to or above the median SV% of all goalies who play 25 or more games
4) 20 wins, minimum 30 minutes played in each victory
5) Shutouts are equal to or above the median number of shutouts of all goalies who play 25 or more games
6) Makes the All-Rookie Team
7) Selected to the All-Star Game
8) All-Star Game MVP

Individual games played bonuses can also be negotiated.  The maximum ‘A’ bonuses in a deal are capped at $1MM, or $250K per bonus for deals signed since 2022.  Before that, the limits were $850K and $212.5K, respectively.

The ‘B’ bonuses I’m not going to go into as much detail here as it’s basically four pages in the CBA.  Here’s the quick version.  Bonuses can be negotiated based on end-of-season awards.  For forwards, there are potential amounts for finishing in the top ten in goals, assists, points, or points per game (minimum 42 GP).  For defense, it’s those four plus ATOI.  For goalies, it’s top five in GAA, SV%, or wins (minimum 25 games played).  The value of any of these can’t exceed $2.5MM, previously $2MM.  These ones aren’t anywhere near as common as ‘A’ bonuses and generally, only the top few picks get them.

Unclemike1526: The Blackhawks have immensely upgraded their forward group since last year. Their defensemen will go as far as Korchinski, Vlasic, Allan, and Kaiser will take them. The obvious weakness is G where Soderblom, Commesso, and Stauber are untested and Mrazek is just plain horrible. What do you think the odds are Davidson speeds up the rebuild by trading for Hellebuyck? He’s supposedly on the market and the Hawks are probably one of the few teams that have both the Prospect, Draft, and Salary Cap Capital to get a deal done. I think Davidson could get a deal done for just about anyone they want. The Hawks could take on half of Mrazek’s contract back as it’s an expiring deal and would give the Jets something to maybe flip at the deadline for something anyway to add to the kitty. Thoughts?

You’re correct in identifying that Chicago is one of the few teams that could afford Connor Hellebuyck’s contract now and have the capital to make a compelling offer.  But there are two key issues with the idea of the Blackhawks making a move for him.

First, the addition of Hellebuyck to the Blackhawks doesn’t really expedite the rebuild.  Instead of being a really bad non-playoff team, they’d be a non-playoff team with good goaltending.  If Chicago was only a goalie away from being a playoff-caliber squad, I’d say this makes sense for them.  But they’re nowhere close to pushing for a postseason spot so why trade assets for a rental goalie that doesn’t get you to the playoffs?

Second, Winnipeg has no intention of throwing in the towel this season.  At least not yet.  That’s why Hellebuyck is still there.  So a package of some futures and Petr Mrazek isn’t going to move the needle for them.  They want someone who can help them win now and Mrazek isn’t that netminder.

I could see a scenario where Chicago goes after Hellebuyck next summer in free agency.  At that point, their cap space is a big asset and maybe a year of Bedard helps up interest in Chicago as a market across the league.  He still might not get them to the playoffs right away but at that point, he’s only costing money, not other assets.  But in terms of trading for him now, no, I don’t think that would be a wise move for them.

pawtucket: Has Vegas’ recent Cup win using four goalies set the future of the position? Are NHL goalies going to be treated like running backs in the NFL (where teams are starting to roster 4-5 on cheaper contracts as they are replaceable) and will we see their contracts affected in a similar way?

For the Golden Knights, last season felt like they were a victim of circumstance more than a legitimate strategy to go with extra goalies.  Part of the reason they went and got Adin Hill in camp last year was the Robin Lehner injury that they didn’t necessarily trust Laurent Brossoit who had struggled considerably in his first season with the team.  Then, when more injuries arose, they opted to bring in Jonathan Quick as insurance.

But in a perfect world, their tandem last year would have just been Hill and Logan Thompson with Brossoit waiting in the wings as an experienced third option.  That is the trend I think we’ll start to see more of.  The value for third-string netminders went up a lot this summer as teams see the value of having an experienced option that has had some success in their system.  Vegas showed that a team can have success going four deep into their goaltenders but I don’t expect teams will be trying to duplicate that exact strategy.

Read more

Topics in this edition of the PHR Mailbag include some players to keep an eye on when it comes to waivers over the next few weeks, Logan Couture’s short-term future, and more.  If your question doesn’t appear here, check back in next weekend’s column.

Grocery Stick: What are candidates to be exposed on waivers after training camp and claimed by another team? Does the current cap situation make it easier to sneak players through waivers?

Here are a few names that I’ll be keeping an eye on when it comes to waivers in the coming weeks.

Michael Carcone (ARI) – A dominant AHL season coupled with a surprisingly strong showing at the Worlds with Canada helped earn him a two-year, one-way deal to avoid free agency.  Since then, Arizona has bolstered its forward depth which could push him out.  He’s worthy of a longer NHL look but at 27, will a team be willing to take a shot on a bit of an older option?

Declan Chisholm (WPG) – Winnipeg has strong defensive depth but something has to give.  If Logan Stanley is indeed going to stay now, they’re going to be hard-pressed to keep Chisholm up unless it’s in the number eight role.  After seeing Johnathan Kovacevic – a by-product of AHL Manitoba as well – get claimed and have success in Montreal last year, teams may try to duplicate that with Chisholm.

Brett Murray (BUF) – While Murray cleared waivers last year, he then turned around and had a productive year with AHL Rochester, notching 23 goals and 26 assists.  At 6’5, there could be teams intrigued by his size and uptick in production which means they might be inclined to give him a shot on their fourth line.

Lassi Thomson (OTT) – It’s not very often that a player still on his entry-level deal is waiver-eligible but Thomson qualifies with four pro seasons under his belt.  The 2019 first-rounder is a right-shot defender (which already makes him intriguing) and has had success in the minors the last two seasons.  A rebuilding team that can commit a roster spot to someone who might not quite be NHL-ready yet will want to take a long look here.

As for the second part of your question, the current cap situation makes it easier to sneak some through waivers but not all.  The players I listed above are all either at the minimum salary or close to it.  That is particularly appealing to cap-strapped teams which there are a lot of this season.  Those players become more likely to be picked up as a result.  But if a team decides to send a player making a million or more down, the fact that so few teams have cap space makes it more likely that they’ll pass through unclaimed.  There will be some established players that hit the wire in the coming weeks that stand next to no chance of being picked up thanks to their contract.

My list of lower-cost options is hardly exhaustive either.  There will be quite a few others with similar profiles that will be waived and sometimes, it’s the lesser-known pieces that draw attention more than the ones that are more proven.

Weasel 3: Do non-competitive teams intentionally hold back cap space each year looking for early waiver claims? If so, do they tend to flip the resource or hold on to them?

I don’t think weaker teams are holding back space for that reason.  Yes, they’re the teams more likely in theory to place a claim on someone but those teams will be looking for the younger options that probably don’t make too much money.  Those teams bank cap space for strict cost savings.  If you’re a team going nowhere and have no hopes of playoff revenue, why not lower your salary costs in the process?  I think that’s the bigger driver for teams well below the Upper Limit.

Claim-and-flips are hard to pull off.  The CBA notes (Sec. 13.20(b)) that if a player is claimed, he first has to be offered to any other team that placed a claim on him.  Only if that team (or teams) declines to take the player can he be flipped via a trade.  If the player is any good, chances are that more than one team would have placed a claim originally and the ones that didn’t get him would probably be interested if he was to be made available again.  That isn’t to say that it doesn’t happen – it does periodically – but the players are usually of the lesser variety.  Generally speaking, the team either keeps the player or puts them back on waivers.

MillvilleMeteor: What kind of return could the Ducks expect if they can’t work out a deal with Trevor Zegras and decide to trade him?

First, let me say that I don’t see this scenario playing out.  At this point, a bridge deal seems like the inevitable outcome and a three-year pact seems most likely.  That would mean Zegras would still be under team control at its expiration with arbitration eligibility.  At this point, the AAV is the hold-up and perhaps to a lesser extent, the year-to-year breakdown which affects the qualifying offer.  This should get done over the next few weeks.

But I’ll play along with your scenario.  Pretty much any team that gets him would need to offset the money and considering Anaheim’s cap space, the team might want to work in a pricey deal as part of the swap.  So I’d say two NHL pieces for starters, a young core piece with several years of club control left and a more expensive money-matcher.

If I’m GM Pat Verbeek, I’m asking for at least two ‘A’ prospects (or equivalent picks but prospects would be preferred).  Is Zegras a franchise center?  He might be, he might not be.  If I’m trading him, it’s at the level where someone’s treating him like he is one.  I’d also expect a ‘dart-throw’ prospect in there, a drafted player who someone on Anaheim’s scouting staff feels could be an under-the-radar pickup.  On the other end, I would expect the Ducks to also move out someone like Brett Leason, a league-minimum roster filler option to help match contracts and give the acquiring team a second NHL player to replace the two they’re sending out.

Having said all that, how many teams realistically can make that type of offer?  Longer-term contenders don’t have the prospect pool or draft capital to make that offer.  Non-playoff teams won’t want to part with top futures and there are only a handful of teams that fall somewhere in between those two categories.  How many of those would make a higher-end move at this time?  Probably not many which is why I don’t see a swap happening.

DevilShark: Where will Logan Couture be playing on this day next year and which team(s) will be paying his salary?

Earlier this week, Sharks GM Mike Grier told reporters including Curtis Pashelka of The Mercury News that if Couture (or Tomas Hertl) approached him with a desire to move to a playoff-bound team, he’d be open to the idea of honoring that request.  But we’re not at that point yet; Couture himself reiterated his desire to stay with San Jose just last month.

Could the reality of what’s likely to be another ugly season change that mindset?  Perhaps.  But I think he’d be willing to stick it out a little longer at least.  Perhaps in a couple of years if this is looking like an Arizona-style long rebuild, then he’d look to change his mind.  But not yet.

The other factor to consider here is his contract.  Couture has four years left on his deal and turns 35 in March.  His AAV is $8MM which is on the higher side for someone whose career high in points is 70.  There’s a market for him but in this cap environment, it’s probably not the strongest.  In a couple of years when the deal is a bit shorter and the cap potentially a fair bit higher, it might be a bit easier to move.  The Sharks aren’t going to get a great return but simply moving him for a minimal return like they did with Brent Burns last summer doesn’t need to happen and frankly shouldn’t.

So, on September 23, 2024, I’m predicting Couture is still a member of the Sharks.

PyramidHeadcrab: Is Mike Babcock’s stint as head coach in Columbus the shortest in NHL history? Let’s exclude interim coaches, for the sake of argument.

YzerPlan19: Has any coach been fired/resigned without coaching a game? Or running a practice even?

Off the top of my head, I couldn’t think of another coach whose official stint with a team lasted zero games and a cursory search didn’t reveal any either.  I can’t say with certainty that there weren’t any but it doesn’t look like there is.  And, to be fair, there probably shouldn’t be; this is a pretty unique situation that frankly didn’t exist a generation ago where players could be heard on privacy concerns.  Tough love was the name of the game across the league so these types of actions (or whatever the equivalent back then would have been) just weren’t heard of.

While not a coach, the closest to this I can think of is Neil Smith’s stint as GM of the Islanders.  He was hired in June 2006 and lasted all of six weeks, meaning his stint at the helm with then was a 0-0-0 record.  Garth Snow then retired and was named GM, giving that whole set of events a similar set of bizarreness as Babcock’s.

Black Ace57: Is there any idea on when we might actually hear the findings of the Hockey Canada investigation? Are they really going to let this drag on into the season?

I don’t think anyone really knows when the results are coming.  This is the type of investigation where all involved are going to be very meticulous before anything gets announced for obvious reasons.  It wouldn’t shock me if the league wants to do some sort of negotiation with teams of the affected players – if charges are laid – to try to do some sort of agreed-upon suspension that can be announced concurrently with the results.  That will also take some time.  The story isn’t going away but yes, there is a very realistic chance that the outcome isn’t made public within the next few weeks.

Photo courtesy of USA Today Sports Images.

Training camps are drawing ever closer, but that doesn’t mean the news cycle is slowing down. An unexpected head coaching change late in the summer dominated storylines over the weekend, while the Colorado Avalanche moved to pick up one of the few impact free agents left on the market a few days before.

With those moves in the rearview mirror, it’s time for another edition of our mailbag. Our last one ran in two parts. Edition one looked at how teams view the goaltending position in the wake of Vegas’ tandem approach that led to a championship, candidates for a breakout season in 2023-24 and the value of Pierre-Luc Dubois’ long-term extension in Los Angeles. Edition two covered some recent high-value trades, puzzling summer moves and the rebound potential for the Stars’ former elite duo of Jamie Benn and Tyler Seguin.

You can submit a question by using #PHRMailbag on Twitter or by leaving a comment down below. The mailbag will run on the weekend.

Topics in this edition of the PHR Mailbag include a look at some value trades from last season, when the salary cap might start to go up quicker, the 2024 draft class, and more.  If your question doesn’t appear here, check back in our last two mailbag columns.

DevilShark: Wondering about your perspective on the top few value trades from the past season now with some hindsight. I’m talking about outperforming their cost – irrespective of their teams’ place in the standings (so not the traditional thing where we look at who helped their team win the cup). Which team made out with great value in the margins?

For a full listing of the trades from the 2022-23 league year, click here.  This is the list I’m working off of for this question but I’ll cut it off at any moves made this offseason.

One that came to mind quickly was Montreal acquiring Sean Monahan and the world’s most confusingly-protected first-round pick from Calgary for free.  Monahan showed for a couple of months that he’s still an above-average player and while they weren’t able to flip him as planned at the deadline, things went well enough that he signed for a much more reasonable $2MM.  They should get more value out of him next season and could flip him for another asset or two in-season.  No matter what, they still eventually get the first-round pick as well.  That’s a very good return on a cost of nothing.

Similarly, Carolina using their cap space to pick up Brent Burns with some retention (and Lane Pederson) for Steven Lorentz, Eetu Makiniemi, and a third-round pick is fantastic value.  Burns is still a top-pairing defender and the Hurricanes got him for a depth forward, an okay goalie prospect at a position they had some surplus, and a mid-round pick.  The Hurricanes made out extremely well here.  I’d also like to put Adin Hill for a 2024 fourth-rounder here but by following the rules of your question, I can’t really do that.

In terms of an in-season move, Dallas buying low on Evgenii Dadonov worked out quite well.  They expected he’d bounce back under a familiar head coach in Peter DeBoer and guessed correctly as he became a key secondary contributor both down the stretch and in the playoffs.  The Stars then leveraged his struggles with Montreal into getting Dadonov to take a pretty cheap two-year deal ($2.25MM AAV) that’s $650K lower than what it would have taken to qualify the underperforming forward they traded for him in the first place (Denis Gurianov, who eventually went non-tendered anyway).  They got the short-term upgrade and at least a medium-term one for very little return.

St. Louis getting Jakub Vrana is another under-the-radar one I think warrants a mention.  They picked up him with Detroit retaining 50% of his $5.25MM AAV for last season and next for a seventh-round pick and a minor leaguer.  Vrana scored 10 goals in 20 games down the stretch.  If he even comes close to that type of production next season, the Blues should be able to flip him for much more than that if they find themselves out of the playoff picture.  And if they are in the mix, he should be an important contributor that was acquired for very little.

aka.nda: Which team(s) summer moves have you scratching your head? What do you think those moves suggest about what that team is hoping or expecting to happen? Is there anything they could do on the market that would inspire more confidence?

A couple of Eastern Conference teams come to mind.  Detroit had money to spend and spent it patching a lot of depth holes with the exception of J.T. Compher whose five-year, $25.5MM contract seems overly optimistic that he can produce at the level he did with Colorado last year when injuries pushed him onto the top line.  They went from being a non-playoff team to a better non-playoff team.  To GM Steve Yzerman’s credit, he did well on the Alex DeBrincat and Jeff Petry acquisitions from a value perspective but I still don’t think those move the needle to make them a playoff team.  They’ve spent a lot of money to possibly finish sixth in the division even though their actions think they’re a playoff-caliber squad.  To be fair, I don’t think there’s much they can do either other than bide their time for the top teams to start to lose some of their top talent.

I also wasn’t a big fan of the Islanders’ moves.  Seven years for Pierre Engvall and Scott Mayfield is nothing short of nonsensical, even if it does keep the cap hits at a reasonable amount (and that is an important consideration).  Four years for a 35-year-old backup goalie also falls in that category even if that backup is a pretty good one.  They took a core that squeaked into a playoff spot and didn’t do anything to improve the roster.  They have no cap flexibility to speak of to try to improve.  Sure, they’ll be in the Wild Card mix again but was locking up secondary players to long-term deals really the best course of direction?  Why not concentrate some of Mayfield and Engvall’s money to go after an offensive upgrade that actually addresses a big area of weakness?  GM Lou Lamoriello clearly feels this core is good enough to get in and the team plays a style that can do some damage in the playoffs.  I’m not sure they get there at this point.

jacl: is Benn good for a point per game this year? Ever think we’ll get Seguin back to his old self? it’s been years since he’s been any good and when centering his own line, it never produces.

Generally, players in their 30s don’t have resurgent seasons.  Jamie Benn bucked that trend, going from 46 points in 2021-22 to 78 points last year.  Fewer players in this situation go on to then improve upon those numbers the following year.  I don’t think Benn will be an exception to that idea either.  His 17.2 shooting percentage was among the tops in the league last season and is at a rate that many would qualify as unsustainable.  That means his 33-goal total is probably going down and with Wyatt Johnston set to push for more minutes as well as newcomer Matt Duchene, I expect Benn’s 45 assists to also go down.  I could see him in the 50-point range which would still be an improvement over his post-pandemic numbers.  That wouldn’t be a great return on his contract but he’d still be an important part of their attack.

As for Tyler Seguin, I don’t see him getting back to the days of him hovering around the point-per-game mark.  He was a top-line fixture at that point in his career.  He isn’t now and the Stars are probably hoping they’re not in a situation where he’s pressed into that duty.  Seguin is a secondary part of their attack now and those players typically don’t light up the scoresheet.  If he continues to produce around the 50-point mark in a middle-six role within the framework of a deep attack, they should be fine.

Unclemike1526: I know the Cap only went up about $1 million this year. I also keep hearing the Cap is going to rise quite a bit in the near future according to the owners. About how much are they saying it’s supposed to go up and when? I think it’s time Hockey joined the ranks of other Pro sports. I just want to know what they’re saying, so I’ll know just how much I’ll be disappointed when it doesn’t happen. Thanks!

The drag in the growth of the Upper Limit of the salary cap in recent years is tied to the pandemic.  That shortened season, the players received their full salaries but with games being canceled and restrictions on attendance, revenues plummeted.  In the CBA is a rule that says players and owners have a 50/50 split of Hockey Related Revenue (HRR) and that season, it wasn’t even close.  That created a ‘debt’ to be repaid to the owners, a clawback of sorts to eventually get the split from that season back to 50/50.

In the 2020 CBA extension, it was agreed that the cap would only go up by $1MM until that debt was repaid.  As of today, that debt is not entirely repaid which is why the cap only moved from $82.5MM to $83.5MM for 2023-24.  However, they’re really close to paying that off which should come this coming season.  At that point, there is a minimum increase to the cap defined as follows from the 2020 NHL CBA Memorandum of Understanding:

Except for the 2026-27 League Year, minimum year-over-year increase in the Upper Limit is the lesser of 2.5% and the trailing two-year average HRR growth percentage. (measured using Final HRR from the League Year four years prior, Final HRR from the League Year three years prior, and Preliminary HRR from two years prior and after taking into account any FX impact adjustments).

For simplicity, let’s use the 2.5% number which would take the cap up to a minimum of $85.59MM in 2024-25 and $87.73MM in 2025-26.  Any further jumps would be tied to increases in HRR which is harder to forecast.  I don’t anticipate a massive jump for 2024-25 as with quite a few teams in a tough spot with their regional rights, they’re either losing their deals altogether to move to an in-house production or will be negotiating cheaper contracts.  That won’t spin HRR in a negative direction but I think it will slow the anticipated growth.

The NHL won’t be getting to the cap levels of the NBA or NFL, however.  Those leagues have TV contracts worth more than the NHL’s entire revenue stream combined and I don’t sense a significant growth in TV ratings down the road that could allow the NHL to get that type of lucrative TV money.  The cap will be going up more than $1MM per year moving forward but it’s still going to check in well below those other leagues.

Emoney123: Who are the watch candidates in the 2024 draft for Flyers since it appears likely another rough season with a potential top-5 pick as well the 1st-round pick from Florida and 2nd-round picks from Columbus and LA? Celebrini seems headed towards #1, who could be other options? Hopefully the light at the end of the tunnel is not a train.

Right now, Macklin Celebrini seems to be the early consensus first pick.  He’s going to be challenged by Cole Eiserman, a high-end goal-scoring threat.  Ivan Demidov is an early wild card, a player who set the MHL (Russian junior league) record for most points as a 17-year-old.  But as we all know, Russian-born players have slipped at times in recent years.  On the back end, Artyom Levshunov and Sam Dickenson are the two top early candidates in a class that is expected to feature more blueliners than usual going within the lottery.  While it’s way too early to start ranking players, these five seem to be close to the consensus top five.

Generally speaking, this is not perceived as a particularly strong draft class compared to the 2023 one and some scouts appear to prefer the 2025 class.  Again, though, this can all certainly change.  If Philadelphia winds up with a high selection in June, they’re going to get a quality player, perhaps just not the franchise type of player that Chicago just selected.

Justajaysfan: How do you think Vegas will do this season? Is Adin Hill able to carry his success from last year’s playoffs into this season and be able to perform like a number 1?

I’m going to flip the order of these and talk about Hill first.  I’m not particularly bullish on him being a true number one goaltender but his career-high in regular season games played is 27.  Yes, he carried a starting workload for a good chunk of the playoffs but there’s a difference between that and being a six-month starter.  I don’t think he’ll be able to play at his playoff level (.932 SV%) over a full season, however.  The good news is that he shouldn’t have to.

Lost in the talk about Hill and his eventual re-signing is that the starting goalie from last season (Logan Thompson) is now healthy so they don’t need Hill to play at that level.  If the two play like they did a year ago when they each posted a .915 SV% during the regular season, the Golden Knights should once again be a contender for a top spot in the West.

Vegas is bringing back the majority of its Cup-winning group with Reilly Smith being the notable exception so they should be well-positioned to try to contend.  Edmonton could give them a run for their money (especially if they can find a way to get even a bit better of a performance between the pipes) and if Los Angeles gets better goaltending than I think they have, they could get in the mix as well.  I’m not going to predict a Stanley Cup repeat – it is still the summer with moves left to be made – but they should be in contention once again.

Photo courtesy of USA Today Sports Images.