Pro Hockey Rumors Originals News & Rumors

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.