Chop, Chop, Chop

Had a question the other day about whether Mikhail Grabovski might be able to use the threat of going to play in the Kontinental Hockey League as leverage in his negotiations with the Maple Leafs over a new contract this summer.

ANDREW WALLACE/TORONTO STAR

Alexei Yashin skates in the KHL in November, 2008.

To me, the threat of this league was always overblown, and the tragic death of Alexei Cherepanov last season during a KHL game, an incident which seemed to question the level of safety for players in the league, sure didn’t help.

Well, the latest news from the KHL suggests this is a league where few agents of quality NHLers will be sending their players in the near future.

But it might also provide a template for the NHL should economic matters deteriorate and begin to cause serious problems.

With the agreement of its players union, the KHL held a “re-draft” today, essentially a tool to allow teams to slash some player salaries.

Here’s how it worked.

Each of the current 24 teams – the league has ambitious plans to expand – protected 15 players. Of those exposed, players that were taken in the first round would have their entire contracts embraced untouched by their new team.

Three players changed teams.

After that, things got a little Stalin-esque.

Players taken in the second round, you see, had their paycheques cut by 20 per cent, and nine players were taken.

Two more players went in the third round when salaries were chopped by 40 per cent. In the fourth round, players selected saw their pay decreased by 50 per cent.

In all, 17 players were picked. The rest of the available players, 42 in total, were then shipped back to their original teams with a 50 per cent pay cut.

The Orwellian explanation for the process was that it was designed to “ensure the future stability of the League.”

Maybe. And certainly cutting costs is both a way to stay alive and a means of attracting other teams and investors. The Canadian Football League would be a decent comparison, and football in general is an industry in which players frequently get their salaries reduced for salary cap or other reasons.

Four years ago, meanwhile, NHL salaries were slashed 24 per cent across the board as part of the new collective bargaining agreement between owners and players.

Drastic times often require drastic measures. It could be that with the current NHL-NHLPA collective bargaining agreement expiring in 2011, around the time when financial hardship could be hitting the NHL, the measures taken by the KHL today could seem mild by comparison.

Here’s a few added questions from our playoff mail bag:

Q: Hi Damien,

I wanted to hear your thoughts on Mats Sundin. After watching Sundin during the stretch run and the early part of these playoffs, what is wrong with this guy?

I have heard the argument that it's conditioning, but let's be honest, after 35+ games, conditioning shouldn't be an issue. Some of said his skills have deteriorated, along with losing a step, but is it possible for someone to diminish that much in such a short period? I wonder if he's hiding some other injury, because if you watch him play, he's always the first guy off on a line change, which was never the case in Toronto. Secondly he doesn't seem to be taking many slap shots.

Lastly, in his last year in Toronto, he scored the majority of his points using down-low cycle game. Do you think his skills might of eroded earlier, but because of the type of game he play no one in Toronto noticed?

Punji Panicker, Toronto

A: Two things. Sundin was pretty darn good last year, but as Scott Niedermayer and Teemu Selanne showed last season, taking half-a-year off just isn’t kind to NHL players. It takes them a while to catch up.

Secondly, Sundin was featured by the Leafs in every important situation, given every power-play chance with the best players. That hasn’t been the case in Vancouver.

Finally, his reluctance over whether he wanted to play this season always suggested he just wasn’t sure, and in the end he was either convinced to play or lured by the money. Well, this is too hard a league for anyone to compete in who isn’t fully committed to the work and sacrifice at hand.

Q: Hi Damien,

Did the Habs underperform this year or did they overperform last year? Their last 4 seasons have looked like: 93 pts (8th), 104 pts (1st), 90 pts (10th), 93 pts (7th).

It can be argued that they improved last year, but it didn't look like they were improving enough compared to other teams in the east to keep pace. I'll confess, I came into the season thinking they were destined for 6th-8th. Am I just a curmudgeon or could it be that the Habs simply overperformed last year (as opposed to having a break out year) and just aren't that good?

Carl Hill, Toronto

A: Great question, and I’m sure one that Bob Gainey is mulling over. I would still argue this team under-performed, if only because so many of its key players – Carey Price, Alexei Kovalev, Andrei Kostitsyn, Mike Komisarek, Roman Hamrlik, Saku Koivu – suffered through inexplicable off-years. These are good players who seemed to wilt as the situation got worse, but they’re still good players. What seemed to be the case is that the balance of the team was wrong, that the addition of players like Georges Laraque and Robert Lang didn’t address the team’s real needs, particularly the need for size and production at centre ice. Things are miserable in Montreal right now, but they at least still have lots of young players and a chance to fix it this summer.

Q: Good to see the Leafs go to the university pool for new talent but as a former NCAA and CIS player it is disappointing that the eggheads and scouts in Toronto and most of the NHL along with the Canadian press give the NCAA so much attention yet virtually ignore the Canadian university scene.

Here we have Matt Gilroy a 25 year old - Hobey Baker winner and great player no doubt - signing a $3.5 million, one way contract with the Rangers yet to my knowledge no contract, and certainly little fanfare for the Canadian University player of the year (Senator Joseph A. Sullivan trophy) Marc Rancourt from St. Mary's. He has a very impressive junior and college career as well as being an academic award winner.

Just surprises me that with the talent level so high in Canadian university hockey there are so few recruited by the NHL. It just seems a missed opportunity. And without the intense media coverage the investment risk in contracts is so much less than the NCAA route.

Hype is a huge reason but any thoughts on this?

Chris Cathcart, Toronto

A: Bit of a mystery to me, although it has always been the case. You’d have to believe there is some talent there, although NHL scouts suggest the level of play just isn’t comparable to the NCAA and that the CIS is populated by far too many players in their early to mid-20s. It’s almost a semi-pro league because of the ages of the players.

Darryl Boyce, a Leaf farmhand this season, is one player who went from major junior to CIS hockey and then to pro hockey, but he hasn’t been a success story yet like Mike Ridley and Steve Rucchin were once upon a time. I’ve always believed that if the CIS wanted to be taken more seriously as a breeding ground for pro talent, it had to address the age issue. The average age of a CIS player is about 23, much older than the NCAA, although that gap has closed in recent years. There are also more teams in the NCAA, and they play longer schedules.

All in all, my experience is that NHL teams will go anywhere in search of talent, and if they believed it was there in the CIS, they’d be chasing it.

Q: Watching the Flames play at the end of the season with 17 because of the salary cap, I wonder what is the penalty for exceeding the cap. I can't find an answer.

Nes Chyz, Windsor Ont.

A: There is no penalty. You just can’t do it. The league won’t register the contract if it takes a team over the cap.

During the playoffs, Damien Cox is answering your questions daily. Click here to submit a question.
**Note: please follow the link above to send a question to Damien. Questions posted in the comments section may not make it to the mailbag. Thanks.**

Comments

[kenny]

Wasn't Robert Lang was leading the Habs in scoring when he tore his Achille's tendon? He might take exception to your saying the Habs didn't have size and production at centre.

[Aaron]

CIS will never be what the NCAA is - and that's a good thing. In Canada, athletics are there to supplement the academic experience. In the US, academics are far less important, and I understand that student athletes a required to miss significant amounts of class time in order to play. In the US, you are an athlete first, and a student second. As a university student that has known several players who have played CIS hockey, I can say that the talent isn't anywhere near a level that would warrant significant signings out of university. And I don't think that's a bad thing. How many student athletes will make a living from professional sports anyway? Very few. So I think that its good that we're focussing on developing student athletes who will be able to contribute to society by giving them a good education.

[Keri Kettle]

Damien -

Three comments on your response to the NCAA / CIS question.

1) You are incorrect about the NCAA teams playing longer schedules. The NCAA actually has a shorter season - they do not permit practices until early-October, whereas CIS teams practice and play in early September - and limit the number of exhibition games. The CIS has no limit on Exhibition / Tournament games. The NCAA season appears longer because their season ends later. As a direct comparison, UNB (CIS Champs) played 49 games, whereas Boston (NCAA Champs) played 46 games.

2) Your comment about the NCAA having more teams doesn't contribute to your argument. The key issue is that the quality of hockey is consistently higher in the NCAA - i.e., the gap between the top and bottom NCAA teams is smaller than the gap between the top and bottom CIS teams. There are scouts watching Lakehead vs Laurier ... not so much for Ryerson vs. UOIT.

[Keri Kettle]

Third comment ...

3) The NCAA does a much better job than the CIS of hyping its product. Hockey scouts are as susceptible to that hype as anybody else.

[Dave]

Aaron is quite right. In addition, the kind of money that US schools throw at student athletes makes a huge difference. If you're coming out of a Canadian high school with a tonne of talent, you may well be looking at a full ride scholarship. Staying in Canada, a few friends come to watch your games and you make some great friends. For this reason, the top talent heads south.

[nugentmania]

That KHL model for reducing costs is offensive to ever sensibility I can identify. If I suspect common sense is in play, then the least talented and least paid players will be left unprotected. Making those guys take 40% and 50% pay cuts?

Or....did those teams leave high priced talent available to really slice the salary costs? I'd love to see those numbers.

[Bryan M]

I agree with Kenny...Robert Lang was on pace for 30 goals and 65 points or so. He was consistent too. The Habs tanked after he was gone. Now obviously the Habs woes weren't solely due to the loss of Lang, but I think he mattered. Therefore signing him last year was a good move on the part of the Habs - he just ended up with a terrible injury.

[Dan]

Wow! Your analysis of the Habs' reversion to mediocrity is totally off: "I would still argue this team under-performed, if only because so many of its key players – Carey Price, Alexei Kovalev, Andrei Kostitsyn, Mike Komisarek, Roman Hamrlik, Saku Koivu – suffered through inexplicable off-years."

Which of these players had an "inexplicable off year"?
Koivu? At 55 points in 65 games this year he had a better year than last year when he managed 59 points in 77 games and had better production than average over his career. At a career 0.809 points per games over his career, Koivu would, on average, have had 53 points in 65 games. No off year.

Kovalev? Sorry, he had a statistically inexplicable ON year last year. With 84 points in 82 games Kovalev reached the 80 point mark for only the 2nd time in his career of some 15 years. Kovalev's career point per game average is 0.818 or 67 points per 82 games. At 65 points in 78 games, this year, he managed a point per game average of 0.833, which is BETTER than his career average. Kovalev is just a vastly over-rated player whose production almost never lives up to his billing. For all the gushing about his "talent" he is, on average, a 28 goal and 67 point player per 82 games i.e. an average 2nd line talent. Verdict? No off year this year and dramatic over-achievement last year with point production at 125% of his career average.

Hamrlik? He had 33 points in 81 games THIS YEAR as opposed to 26 points in 77 games LAST YEAR i.e. he had a better year than last year. Also, he is a career -60 player that was a +4 this year. Verdict? No off year this year with roughly average point production and better than average +/-.

Carey Price? Yes, he better stats last year than this year but what of it? Does that mean that he had an off year this year or overachieved last year? With only 2 years of full-time NHL experience it is statistically impossible to say whether he overachieved last year or underachieved this year. He did backstop Canada to a gold medal at the WJHC but this means nothing as so did Justin Pogge, Trevor Kidd, Jimmy Waite, Jose Theodore, etc and none of these guys were/are anything special. If anything, Theodore is famous for overachieving stupendously in one year early in his career and being a bust for the rest of his career. On the other hand, Luongo won only a silver at the WJHC and is a bonafide sueprstar. The list goes on and on. Andrew Raycroft had even better stats than Price in his rookie year, and won the Calder, but has been a bust ever since. Did Jim Carey play to his natural ability when he won the Vezina in his first year and was never heard from again or did he overachieve in his first year? How about Steve Penney's outstanding performance in the '84 playoffs to be followed by a crap season the next year and languishing in the minors for the rest of his career? Based on the above examples, a goalie that shines in his first year and bombs the next year is quite likely to have been a flash in the pan. Verdict? The jury is out until Price proves that last year was not the fluke.

Kostitsyn? The same goes for this guy as with Price. Kostitsyn has only two full years of NHL experience. He scored virtually the same number of goals this year as last year i.e. 23 goals in 74 games this year vs 26 goals in 78 games last year. Adjusted for the same number of games he should have had 24 goals this year compared to 26 last year. This is pretty similar production and hardly an "inexplicable off year". Adjusted for the same number of games he would have had 43 points this year as opposed to 53 points last year. Once again, with only this year and last year to go by what evidence is there that he had an off year this year as opposed to overachieving last year - or since assists are the issue, that he didn't ride Kovalev's 2nd best career year to more assists than is natural for him? Verdict? No off year in goal production and the jury is out until Kostitsyn proves that his assist total last year wasn't a fluke based on overproduction by Kovalev.

Komisarek? This guy is the closest to having had an "off year" but I would love to know what is so special about this guy? Before this year he played 3 years in the NHL averaged 14 points per year and averaged a +5. Last year, when he played on the top team in the East, he was a very inconspicuous +7 with 17 points while this year he had an even +/- and had 11 points i.e. stats that are slightly off of hi career averages. He was also out for 17 games due to an injury that he inflicted on himself by trying to fight Milan Lucic.

You haven't answered the reader's question at all as a) your facts are wrong on half the guys you mention and b) on another 40% you have no data to back up your claim that players had an off year, this year. The question still remains, whether a season which is much inline with poor seasons 2 and 3 years ago is the aberration or the season last year that sticks out like a sore thumb above the 3 of the other 4 years.

How about this explanation? With low expectations last year (they weren't expected to make the playoffs by most analysts), many Habs players had better years than they would normally have (e.g. Kovalev, Price, BOTH Kostitsyns, Plekanec, etc) because of reduced pressure. This is sort of similar to the Leafs playing their best hockey every year in the last 4 years at the end of each year when their playoff hopes were almost gone and pressure was reduced. As expectations rose the next year, the pressure mounted on the overachievers, the opposition figured out the tendencies of some of the Habs' rookies (i.e. anyone with a brain can now figure out that Price flops to his knees before an opponent even shoots and that going high will more likely result in a goal) and the opposition was more motivated against a supposedly high calibre opponent. Therefore, the Habs performed right where they should have and where they had in 2 of the previous 3 years. Moreover, an outstanding year that was aided by having the #1 ranked PP in the league could not be replicated when a) the Habs let their PP quarterback (Mark Streit) go while getting nothing in return and b) such a high ranking on the PP could not be maintained considering Kovalev's drastic over-achievement the year before. Reduce the performance of the top "sniper" and remove the PP QB and what would YOU expect? Since having the #1 PP vastly inflated performance in one year, having it reduced to middle of the pack status also helped reduce overall results back to middle of the pack while lower goal-scoring (due to a significantly worsened PP) added pressure on Price to perform better due to less offensive support and shattered his confidence when he couldn't sustain the team and because he couldn;t meet expectations from last year. Throw in the fact that Montreal had the 2nd fewest number of injuries in the league last year and alot more injuries this year. It's not every year that a team has almost no injuries i.e. a fluke that contributed to a fluke season. Next, throw in the fact that last year there was no strong team in Montreal's division (against which they played 32 games) as Ottawa and Boston BOTH barely made the playoffs with Ottawa going into a plummet for the last 65 games of the season and Montreal winning EVERY SINGLE GAME AGAINST BOSTON 9which barely snuck into the playoffs) last year. Gee 16 points (last year) against a playoff bubble team (i.e. Boston) as opposed to 3 points against the 2nd best team in the league (this year) and you suddenly get 13 points fewer against JUST ONE TEAM. Moreover, Montreal got to play fewer games against divisional opponents that were bubble teams and non-playoff teams as each team played divisional rivals only 6x this year vs 8x last year. I think that that is a much more likely explanation of why Montreal overachieved last year rather than underachieved this year.

[Peter]

Dan,
that's one hell of an analysis. i have to say i agree with you. i think they had the same problem as Ottawa had last year. they had a fluke year before, got over hyped by the media and fans and even themselves started to believe that they are something special. and then it all came crashing down to Earth. just because the fans stuffed the all-star voting, doesn't make them an all-star team...