Polemic Hockey

The Penner situation has caused lots of comments about the RFA situation under the current CBA. Here's my suggestion, and it doesn't just apply to RFAs.

Make players drafted by your organization, whom you have kept in your system since the draft only have half of their salary count against your cap. Players acquired before or during their rookie year, make it 75%. You could also make matching an offer sheet count against your cap 50% as well.

The exact percentages don't matter. The idea of encouraging teams to draft well and keep their own players should be rewarded.

Sakic, Fedorov, Kessler, Vanek. It didn't work.

The only RFA signing that I know of (under the existing RFA regime, or close to it) where the team walked away was Chris Gratton.

The Lightning did not match Gratton's offer sheet from the Flyers in 1997. That was smart; what was stupid was trading the picks back to Philly for Mikael Renberg and Karl Dykhuis. Ouch. (And then they turned around and traded Gratton back with Mike Sillinger for Renberg and Langkow.)

And who did the Flyers take with those picks? Simon Gagne, Justin Williams, Maxime Ouellet, and Tim Gleason. The chance for the Ning to have Gagne alone tells the tale of that trade. Of course, the Flyers ended up with Gagne, but Tampa took the Cup in 2004. (Gratton ended up being part of a trade for Cory Sarich, a piece of their 2004 Cup team--that's two Cups Clarke handed other teams, counting the Lindros trade.)

With those picks, and other trade bait, the Ducks could really make a move. Plus, Burke hasn't hurt himself with Scott Niedermayer by willing to get his nuts in a twist while he waits for him to decide. Maybe that will guilt Scott into coming back.

UPDATE: Before the 1995 CBA, walk-aways were common, but the system was much different.

Duck fans:

Don't get mad at Kevin Lowe. Take his picks and get a better player than Penner. There are people out there that are under contract in the $4-$5m range that could be had for a 2008 first rounder, a Bryzgalov, and, fine, a 2008 2nd rounder that are better than Penner.

Anyway, I read Duck boards and its like they forgot that they just won the Cup. Most fans would take a Cup win even if it meant their team was relegated to the AHL the next year, never mind keeping a damn good group together.

It would also appear that it's time for the Captain to decide, if he feels any responsibility to the team. If he signs the retirement papers, matching becomes a whole different thing.

Don't get me wrong. Penner is going to get better, and I think, honestly, he's worth more as a Duck than on any other team because he fits. But, good grief--$4.3m?

UPDATE:

In other words: be careful what you ask for, Kevin, you might get it.

Question: TSN.ca reports that the Oilers have tendered an offer sheet to Penner. Everyone is taking that as meaning that Penner has accepted it. Is he required to accept it? If not, has he? This is a subtle but important distinction.

If he has the option of rejecting the offer, the whole situation is different. If he simply has to go with the highest bidder or the match, then it means something else. In other words, if he's signing with another team because he wants to, it makes me want to keep him less if I'm Burke.

UPDATE II:

I still haven't seen anything definitive that says anything other than Lowe tendered the offer. However, section 10.3(a) of the CBA clearly allows RFAs to reject RFA offers. If the clock is ticking on the Ducks, it's because Penner signed with Edmonton.

Let him walk.

UPDATE III:

Contracts with an average value over $4m result in two 1st round picks, a 2nd rounder, and a 3rd rounder. (CBA sec. 10.4.) That was before the salary adjustments.

Let him walk.

UPDATE IV:

ESPN.com is reporting that Penner did in fact sign the sheet. Some players of note, signed through 08-09 for around $4.5m per:

Milan Hejduk, Ales Hemsky, Henrik Sedin, Daniel Sedin, Brendan Morrison, Mattias Ohlund, Jere Lehtinen, Mike Modano, Sergei Zubov, Shane Doan, Jonathan Cheechoo, Henrik Zetterberg, Tomas Holmstrom, Alexei Zhitnik, Bobby Holik, Eric Staal(!), Jason Arnott, Doug Weight, Glen Murray, Daniel Alfredsson, Chris Phillips (scored a big goal for the Ducks in the final...), Jason Blake, Tomas Kaberle, Brian Gionta, Bill Guerin

NBA match fixing.
Another criminal in the NFL.
Interminable problems with steroids in baseball.

Heck, even cycling can't avoid these controversies. And so, our good clean Canadian boys, who aren't much for steroids and dog fighting, have kept our sport clean. So, what does the NHL do? Not much.

We should be hearing how the NHL doesn't have these problems because of how wonderful the players are and see those ads showing how menschy they are, like the Shanahan/Fedorov ad. A full page ad in the New York Times is news in itself. Let's get one with the Stanley Cup, Scott Niedermayer and some of the recent hall of fame inductees. "All Natural," the caption could read.

People are becoming disillusioned with these other sports. Baseball is trying very hard to get people interested in following Barry Bonds's mission to stop Hank Aaron, but no one outside of the SOMA area in San Francisco cares, because we all know he cheated. We know Sosa and McGuire cheated too. We know Aaron and Maris are still the real record holders.

And the NFL is filling up with too many people trying hard to live up to white America's negative black stereotypes. Some of those types (do we want them? dunno) must surely find some appeal in the lily white affect of the NHL.

And then there's the NBA. I think the ref cheating is just a straw that broke the camel's back kind of thing. Their move to cable has been as bad for them as the NHL's move to small time cable. There have been plenty of scandals there, too. Plus, is anything worse than watching a whole basketball game only to endure fifty time outs in the last minute?

MLS is capitalizing on this. They have instituted a new version of the North American club championship, called the SuperLiga. They have David Beckham. They are all over the big demographic changes occurring in this country. Scott Gomez doesn't make up for that.

We talk a lot about problems in hockey. Those problems have to do with the technical rules of the game, the number of supportable franchises, and so on. None of them have to do with cheating, or striking at the heart of sporting. Remember that next time you go on a tirade about fighting and violence. It may be wrong, but it's not cheating.

I've noticed this blog listed in a few places as being "pro" certain teams. I'm not going to pretend that I'm some kind of inhuman robot that dispassionately comments on each team and player. I don't even know what the use of that is. To me, being a fan is an essential aspect of any observation of the sport.

But that's not the purpose here. Objectively, some of the posts here fall into the "fan" category, but the substantive points here are not pro- or anti- any team. If there is that appearance, it is intended to correct for the ridiculous media narratives that pervade and pollute fan discussion.

The purpose of this site is to penetrate that force field of shit and look at the game based on what we can see and records we can read. In a sense, it is an empirical deconstruction of media narratives. This means sometimes we will be critical of an overrated player or team, or shine positive light on an underrated player or team.

So, just because I reject the "Devils Destroy Hockey" meme doesn't mean, to me at least, that I'm biased in their favor. I believe I have stated unequivocally on many occasions that it is important for the NHL to succeed in New York, LA, and Chicago. Therefore, it does not follow that I am somehow a proponent of the "Rangers Destroy Hockey" meme due to some pro-Devils bias.

It is my fundamental contention that most sports journalism is a travesty; it is mostly soap opera for men. It doesn't educate the fan, or make them more informed. It just updates them on the heroes and heels of the week. If you're interested, like I am, in understanding hockey, in being better at predicting outcomes, and advocating a solid future for the game, you shouldn't have a problem with this.

If, on the other hand, you find some kind of catharsis in blaming Chris Pronger or Derian Hatcher for your problems, this is not the site for you. I suggest you pickup a comic book instead.

First there was the largely unexplained Kukla/Eklund spat, which, so far as I can recall amounted to allegations by Kukla that Eklund had been trolling his site. Now, today, on the same feed that this blog is syndicated on, I see a blog called "Peklund The Phoney Hockey Blogger."

My thought on Eklund's site is that if you go to a rumors site, you're going to get rumors. I have no problem with that. If that were the only problem, it would be wrong to single out Eklund. There are plenty of establishment media writers that publish rumors that never come true, don't make sense, and a scoffed at by GMs (for what that's worth).

The problem is that Eklund puts his own stamp of reliability on it, and that stamp of reliability is terribly, poorly, awfully calibrated. I don't know Eklund, obviously. I don't know if he is susceptible to getting spun like a top by his sources or if those sources really do say what he's reporting; that is irrelevant. The issue is his own rating system.

We've gone to war in this country based largely on the reports of anonymous sources. It's standard journalistic practice to do so (as long as you get a second one, usually). It would be hypocritical to skewer Eklund for that. (And allegations that his sources are "fake" are just that: allegations. If someone can substantiate them, fine.)

Also, either the man is sloppy or he also violates his own rule. Recently he posted something from a "solid source" (n.b. source singular) that was an (e4), which, according to his own faq means there are two sources.

If I were Eklund, I'd drop the ratings and just put comments, like "yeah, this sounds strange but the source was confident" or some such.

UPDATE: So, I said what I'd do if I were Eklund. If I were Peklund, I would go through every Eklund rumor ever, and see if his system really works. Over the last two years, see which kind comes true more often. Is there are correlation between something happening and it being higher on his scale? etc. Me, I work a day job and run a home business and hockey and blogging are just my extra releases....

Every time I watch a media narrative develop about the Devils, I take a skeptical eye towards it. Over the last 15 years there have been more silly myths about this team than any other. OK, more silly negative memes. Some teams have plenty of silly positive memes that aren't true, not based in fact.

So, all of the joking about Brent Sutter being hired just to get fired by the Devils struck me as something worth investigating. Since Lemaire retired, there have been four firings: Ftorek, Robinson, Constantine, and Julien. Pat Burns had cancer. Robinson quit the second time.

In that same span, there were two Stanley Cup championships. So, WTF? Is that high for the NHL? Let's take a look at some of the other teams around the NHL.

What about the Flyers? In that time they canned Wayne Cashman, Roger Nielson, Craig Ramsay, Bill Barber, and Ken Hitchcock. That's 5, with zero finals appearances and zero cups. They fired Roger Nielson before he had a chance to return. (wtf?)

So, teams that don't win the Cup aren't a good comparison. What about, say, the recent champion Ducks? Heh. Pierre Page was fired for being retarded in 1998. Craig Hartsburg was fired for retarded. Guy Charron was fired for being retarded. Mike Babcock wasn't "renewed," but the message was if you stay you're on a short leash. That's 4 dismissals, 2 finals appearances, and 1 cup. Just about on par with the Devils.

Another funny part about this is that right before Lou's admittedly bizzare termination of Claude Julien, no one took them seriously as a Cup contender. Then because they didn't win the Cup, Lou's move didn't pay off. Again, wtf?!

The idea that the Devils are uniquely itch on the coaching trigger finger is, unsurprisingly, not based in fact. This doesn't mean that it's such a good idea to do these things, as it makes the place a less attractive destination for coaching talent, and it also may give certain players too much power (but do you really think a coach that doesn't get along with Martin Brodeur should win that battle? puh-leeze), and it may also not provide a stable environment.

Yes, there are downsides, but they are not unique, or even irregular, in NJ.

So, file this under negative Devils meme #12357

Woody Paige demonstrates why he is one of the lamest among the lame:

Forsberg and the Avalanche should get together in Denver in the coming season and say a proper goodbye.
One more ride for Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.
Avalanche general manager Francois Giguere has recently added two critical pieces to the team - forward Ryan Smyth and defenseman Scott Hannan. Only one piece remains missing.
Foppa.
One more Cup for Joe Sakic and Peter Forsberg.

Woody, if you think the Avalanche's addition of Scott Hanan gives them a Cup-worthy defense, or that the aged pairing of Sakic and Forsberg have another Cup in them without Patrick Roy, you're an even worse analyst of this sport than I thought.

Then again, at least he isn't making shit up like Al Strachan.

By now, I've come to the conclusion that Scott Niedermayer is in fact retiring.  While I find it pretty silly to retire at age 33 with a chance to repeat, that appears to be his choice.  I've read the first credible information as to why he's chosen to delay the announcement (waiting for his brother's wedding to pass by) and it makes a lot of sense.

At long last, it appears that there will be more than one piece of hardware for club hockey.  I am not trying to take any sheen off the Stanley Cup.  But if you are going to have 30 (or 32?) teams you need to give the fans something to root for.

Good old Al.

Vitali Vishnevski arrived in Anaheim after being selected in the first round promoted as the savior of the franchise.  He was supposed to be the Duck Scott Stevens, Konstantinov, and Bourque all roled into one.  
Vishnevski learned how to check like Stevens, but never without getting himself wildly out of position in a way that stood out even on the miserable pre-Murray Ducks.  The expression on his face was always a combination of witless and looking over his shoulder to make sure no one caught him doing whatever it was he was doing.
When Brian Burke cast him off after a comical arbitration award, it was just another of the subtle yet powerful moves that resulted in the Ducks Stanley Cup win.
Though in some people's eyes, Burke may be turning into the Darth Vader of the NHL instead of the Luke Skywalker, there is no doubt that, one way or the other, he has grown more powerful than Yoda Lamoriello in the Cap era.  It is well documented that Burke spent time learning how to work in the cap system from studying other cap leagues.  The result was a Cup.
Lamoriello on the other hand, had only ever had to deal with owners' budgets.  Going into the cap era, though, it seemed that no one was more ready than he to deal with the cap.  No one seemed to let more talent walk away in their UFA year than Lou, and never suffer the consequences.
Sure, Lou has made some bumbling mistakes.  Like failing to invoke the clauses in John Madden and Brian Rafalski's contracts that would have prevented them from becoming UFA after their first pro contracts; like allowing Bobby Holik to stand as a #1 center for two seasons; like even offering Bobby Holik a near-Ranger sized contract to stay; like not knowing Scott Niedermayer enough to know that he might walk out to play with his brother.
But none of those mistakes prevented a three cup dynasty--a dynasty whose essential element was always Martin Brodeur, who has perhaps 5 strong years left.  But unless something changes, there is no cup on the horizon in that time, because the cogs and spare parts like Vishnevski and Zubrus that are coming to fill the Devils ranks lack the spark of genius they are trying to replace.

Brilliant move by Edmonton signing Vanek to an offer sheet even though it didn't work. If it opens up this market, things in the NHL will get more interesting.

There is no non-collusion reason not to sign RFAs, especially given their price in picks under the new CBA (ie. lower). Just by way of quick example, look at who Edmonton got with their last 4 first rounders that should be in the NHL by now:

Pouliot (54 games, 12 points)
Jesse Niinimaki (never made NHL)
Ales Hemsky
Alexie Mikhnov (2 games, no points)

So, one solid NHLer in 4 first round picks? Sounds like giving up four for a proven quantity in Vanek makes sense. And his contract, though high, was not out of line with other current prices.

I can't even figure out what Strachan's agenda is exactly, so I can't easily deconstruct what he's getting at all the time. Now he seems to be advocating a return to the glory days of the 90s (!) usually not a decade people remember fondly in hockey, even if I think there were many great playoff series then.

First he says, "the big spenders thus far in the free-agent market are none other than the wealthy teams — the same teams that spent vast amounts prior to the lockout." (ie, Colorado, Detroit, Toronto, Philadelphia, and the Rangers.) These are the "big market" teams, according to Strachan whose popularity is good for the sport in the US.

Then he says, "

It's an undeniable fact, whether small-market fans like it or not, that big cities drive the television ratings. And television ratings drive league revenues, both directly and indirectly.

The NHL has never been as popular and as highly ranked in the American sports picture as it was when the New York Rangers won the Stanley Cup in 1994.

In 1994, the league had just seen Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York in the final in the last three seasons. This had nothing to do with success in Philadelphia, Colorado (didn't even exist yet), Detroit (who absolutely bombed in 1994), or Toronto (who I won't be addressing here as a significant interest builder in the US). Thus his attempt to equate the "good news" of the ridiculous contracts some of these teams have entered into lately as good for the league doesn't wash.

Strachan then goes on to discuss the miserable fate of the Kings, Hawks, and Bruins. These are the big markets. For your reference, the ten largest US media markets are:

(1) New York
(2) Los Angeles
(3) Chicago
(4) Philadelphia
(5) San Francisco
(6) Dallas
(7) Boston
(8) DC
(9) Atlanta
(10) Houston

This means that the "big market" teams that the league should be fellating are the teams located in those big markets. Denver and Detroit do not appear on that list. There are 12 teams in those top 10 markets, and most are largely ignored compared to some of the supposed big spenders that Strachan praises and received so much coverage on ESPN.

It is important not just for one team in those markets to be good, but all of them. That means that it's not just important for the Rangers and Flyers to be good. It's important for the Rangers, Devils, Islanders, Hawks, Kings, Ducks, Flyers, Sharks, Stars, Bruins, Caps, and Thrashers to be good. However, that list doesn't seem to be on most people's radar.

I don't know if it's just that Detroit and Denver seem to be big important cities to Canadians or what, but there are mostly irrelevant in the US, especially compared to NY, LA, and Chicago, which are the real triad of key US cities in terms of culture, power, money, and the media.