How The $71.4 million NHL Salary Cap Affects the NYR OffSeason

  

   








   NHL General Managers, NHL players, their agents, and the entire hockey blogosphere have learned the 2015-16 salary cap will be $71.4 million. If you’re viewing this blog, then chances are you’re at least a tad bit curious as to the obvious question: How will this affect the New York Rangers?

   The first priority remains the same as our previous weeks of articles: the Rangers must reduce their payroll this summer in order to comply by October 1st. 

    Here’s a look at the NY Rangers cap payroll for the 2015-16 season:

• The contracts in purple indicate that player is a Restricted Free Agent this summer, and the figure in purple is the minimally realistic prediction as to what they could sign for on a 1-year deal.
• The contracts in grey indicate that player’s contract is on the books, thus NOT a free agent.
• The contracts in blue indicate the 2015-16 NHL minimum age as a theoretical cap hit for whatever depth players the Rangers sign this summer. In this instance, the extra skaters are all conservatively presumed to have minimum-wage ($575k/yr) deals.

   Here we see the team looks to be a few million short of being cap-compliant. And this graph represents best-case scenarios for the Restricted Free Agents re-signing at the realistically cheapest 1-year contracts.

   At best, the Rangers are a little less than $2 million over the salary cap this summer, in our extremely conservative estimations.

   So where to cut? Hmmm…

CAM TALBOT

• Exporting Talbot in a trade, and ultimately replacing him with a lesser salary, is the easiest (and as of late, trendiest) means to reduce overall payroll.Trading Talbot away, and ultimately replacing him with that of a, say, $645,000/year goalie… would be a $800,000 reduction on the team’s books.

DEREK STEPAN

• In a 1-year contract, we predict Stepan to sign for no less than $6 million. 
• A multi-year contract would likely range from $6 mil to $7 mil.
• The most similar comparable to ascertaining Stepan’s theoretical value this summer is that of Ryan O’Reilly in Colorado… O’Reilly signed a 2-year $12 million contract shortly before an arbitration hearing was scheduled.

   Our prediction for Stepan’s year-to-year rate is something like:

• 1 years: $6.000000 / year ($06,000,000)
• 2 years: $6.200000 / year ($12,400,000)
• 3 years: $6.333333 / year ($17,999,999)
• 4 years: $6.500000 / year ($26,000,000)
• 5 years: $6.700000 / year ($33,500,000)
• 6 years: $6.900000 / year ($41,400,000)
• 7 years: $7.142857 / year ($49,999,999)
• 8 years: $7.125000 / year ($57,000,000)

   Stepan is an extremely vital asset for Broadway, serving as their wonderfully productive 1st Line Center. Unless traded within the window, there’s two more seasons of Derek to play as a New York Ranger before entering Unrestricted Free Agency. 

  Sather could take the 1-year discount, delaying the probable payday contract to Stepan until next summer… although Stepan’s pricetag could easily (and likely) be higher during this time next summer. 

   Let’s hold off on figuring a course-of-action for signing Stepan until we can appreciate what assets on the team may be more expendable than the team’s #1 center. 

CARL HAGELIN

• With Restricted Free Agency, Hagelin may be headed to NHL salary arbitration next month, if he and his team cannot hash out an amicable agreement beforehand.
• Parallel to last summer’s arbitration decision for that of Vladimir Sobotka (in St. Louis)… we feel a 1-year $2.8 million contract is roughly what Hagelin could/should/would be awarded.

   Should the Rangers and Hagelin agree long-term? Our prediction for Hagelin’s year-to-year rate is something like:

• 1 years: $2,800,000 / year ($02,800,000)
• 2 years: $3,000,000 / year ($06,000,000)
• 3 years: $3,333,333 / year ($09,999,999)
• 4 years: $3,500,000 / year ($14,000,000)
• 5 years: $3,600,000 / year ($18,000,000)
• 6 years: $3,750,000 / year ($22,500,000)
• 7 years: $3,642,857 / year ($24,499,999)
• 8 years: $3,625,000 / year ($29,000,000)

STEPAN vs HAGELIN?

   This duo represent the the lone pair of NYR Restricted Free Agents to a) have the right of salary arbitration, b) make the most money of any of the other RFA’s, and c) be only two years removed from Unrestricted Free Agency.

WHICH DESERVES A LONG-TERM DEAL MORE?

   The answer, almost irrefutably, is Stepan. He is a #1 center, is a coveted asset to any NHL franchise. A cornerstone center, at the young age of 25, is expected to make $6 or $7 million on  a long-term contract.

   As for Hagelin? Two things to note when pondering his gravity of Broadway’s cap structure:

• A) Hagelin is a 3rd line winger, with the upside attribute of being a phenomenal penalty killer. 
• B) Perhaps Hagelin’s most valuable attribute to his contribution to an NHL team is his speed. Yet Hagelin, who turns 27 years old in August, will likely be losing pepper off his footwork fastball.

   In other words, what do you think is the easiest roster change to “correct or “replace” for cheaper money? A $6 million center who plays 19 minutes per game, or a $2.8 million winger who plays 15 minutes per game?

JESPER FAST (24), J.T. MILLER (23) & OSCAR LINDBERG (24)

• All three forwards are Restricted Free Agents without the right to salary arbitration
• We predict Miller’s 1-year extension rate is $50,000 more expensive than Fast’s, despite Miller’s minimum qualifying offer being $100,000 greater than that of Miller’s
• Lindberg, who had a wonderful season in the American Hockey League last season, is fully expected to make the jump to the NHL next year. His qualifying offer is few thousand less than his projected 1-year minimum cost of $725,000

   With all the trade rumors surround Cam Talbot, why don’t we hear too much about any of these assets being included in a packaged trade?

   Because with the trio reasonably projected to make less than $1 million/year on respective 1-year deals… it does not seem an aspect where Broadway can be in a position to “cut the fat.” In other words, what forwards could be returned in a trade which would replace the roles of Fast/Miller/Lindberg while accounting for lesser money? 

   It seems highly unlikely.

   So…

   Let’s assume Cam Talbot is traded somewhere for draft pick(s) and/or prospect(s). And let’s also assume that the Rangers replace his role as Backup Goalie with an Unrestricted Free Agent signing this summer, of whom signs for 1-yr $575,000 (the NHL minimum wage).

   How does this change things?

   So even if all four RFA’s are signed for the most realistically stingy 1-year contracts… and even if Talbot is traded and replaced with a goalie of minimal cost… we see the team remains $275,000 over the cap.

   Not to mention, having the 21st, 22nd & 23rd roster spots all at the NHL minimum wage is a stretch for this example as well. 

   So…?

   Talbot cannot be the only Ranger to be exported this offseason. 

   

   There must be at least one other NY Ranger to be exiled, and replaced with a cheaper substitute, for the team to render itself cap compliant.

   Before we finish, let’s just remind ourselves of which NY Rangers have No-Trade and/or No-move Clauses this summer, making them the peskiest players to attempt to move?

   So while there is a lot of salary cap meat-on-the-bone with this list of NY Rangers… it would seem especially cumbersome to orchestrate a trade involving any one of them. Particularly packaging someone in a Talbot trade to either Edmonton or Buffalo, where one of these players’ approval of such a trade would seem even less likely. 

   So…

   What about the Rangers under contract with the highest cap hits whom are without any NM or NT clauses?

   What can we conclude?

   As we’ve proposed multiple times on this blog, the seemingly most “replaceable” players to dump are Carl Hagelin and/or Kevin Klein.

   Both have theoretical salary caps just south of $3 million, while their respective roles are that of 3rd line wing & 3rd pair defense. 

   McDonagh’s cap hit of $4.7 million is a bargain, considering the Captain’s role on the team.

   Stepan, Kreider & Yandle are all being paid “fairly”, given their respective roles (and Power Play capability).

   Any trade involving Kreider, McDonagh, Stepan, and/or Yandle would be as big a summer surprise as it is (at the moment) highly unlikely.

   Thus, now we see why Kevin Klein & Carl Hagelin have been the most frequent throw-in Rangers skaters mumbled amidst the weeks of Talbot trade rumors. Neither player is a toxic asset (actually both have done very well as Rangers, and would not be traded due to poor performance or sour reputation). Yet when looking for a soul to shed some salary, Hagelin & Klein are the “likeliest” suitors.

   So we will examine two different scenarios:

SCENARIO A:

• Trade Cam Talbot & Kevin Klein for draft pick(s) and/or prospect(s)
• Sign Derek Stepan to a long-term deal worth $6.6 mil/yr [which we predict would be a four or five year deal]
• Sign Carl Hagelin to a 1-year, $2.8 mil deal
• Sign J.T. Miller to a 2-year, $1.2 mil/yr deal
• Sign Jesper Fast to a 2-year, $975k/yr deal
• Sign Oscar Lindberg to a 2-year, $800k/yr deal
• Sign a 7th D, such as Matt Hunwick, to a 2-year, $875k/yr deal
• Assume Brady Skjei will be NHL-ready for duties on the Broadway’s 3rd defensive pair
• Sign a backup goalie to a 1-year, $700k deal ($125k more than the league minimum)
• Sign a 13th “spare” forward to 1-year, $675k deal ($100k more than the league minimum)
• Sign a 14th “spare” forward to a 1-year, $650k deal ($75k more than the league minimum)

• Interestingly enough, we assume if Klein is moved, that the services of Matt Hunwick (hypothetically signed for a  2-year, $875k contract) and rookie Brady Skjei will be enough “in-house” promotion to replace Klein’s role. 
• To do this, the Rangers must accommodate a seven defensemen with only two Right-handed pointmen. If this is the case, why don’t we slide McDonagh to the right point? He played well at the 2014 Winter Olympics in the off-hand position of RD. 
• This also frees up enough cap space to sign RFA’s Fast, Lindberg, Miller & Stepan to multi-year “bridge” deals.
• We can also beef up the 2nd goalie, as well as 13th & 14th “spare” forwards respective cap hits, to a few notches above the league minimum.

   Scenario A brings us to a 23-man roster snugly beneath the ceiling with $50,000 in cap space.

   - Talbot is replaced by a free agent for approximately half of Talbot's 2015-16 salary

   - Klein is replaced by a combination of Skjei & Hunwick

   - Martin St. Louis is replaced by the promotion of Oscar Lindberg

   - James Sheppard & Chris Mueller are replaced by a $675k free agent & $650k free agent respectively

SCENARIO B:

• Trade Cam Talbot & Carl Hagelin for draft pick(s) and/or prospect(s)
• Sign Derek Stepan to a 1-year contract 
• Sign J.T. Miller to a 2-year, $1.25 mil/yr deal
• Sign Jesper Fast to a 2-year, $975k/yr deal
• Sign Oscar Lindberg to a 2-year, $800k/yr deal
• Sign a 7th defenseman to a 1-year, $800k deal
• Sign a backup goalie to a 1-year, $725k deal ($125k more than the league minimum)
• Sign a 13th “spare” forward to 1-year, $675k deal ($100k more than the league minimum)
• Sign a 14th “spare” forward to a 1-year, $600k deal ($25k more than the league minimum)

   - Talbot is replaced by a free agent for approximately half of Talbot's 2015-16 salary

   - Hagelin is theoretically replaced by Fast

   - Hayes switches to wing, while his 3rd center roster spot is replaced by a $1.5 million free agent

   - Martin St. Louis is replaced by the promotion of Oscar Lindberg

   - James Sheppard & Chris Mueller are replaced by a $675k free agent & $600k free agent respectively

   - Matt Hunwick is either brought back for, or replaced by, a $800k free agent defenseman

Scenario B brings us to a 23-man roster snugly beneath the ceiling with $25,000 in cap space.

*Important Note: While the sum of $1.5 million for pursuing a 3rd line winger or defenseman seems awfully underwhelming, the NY Rangers will have as much as $2,505,000 available in performance bonuses to dish out this summer while remaining below the bonus cushion. Should the Rangers wish to "gamble," and assume Kevin Hayes will not activate his maximum potential bonus amount of $2.85 million, the Rangers could theoretically dish out $3 or $4 million in bonuses this summer and still not break the cushion. Thus, a $1.5 million 3rd line forward could actually be compensated $2.5 - $4.5 million in cap-haven performance bonuses, attracting the highest quality of forwards willing to sign on for a 3rd line role.

Conclusion

   These two scenarios seem to be the likeliest ones for a vague picture of the Rangers' team come October. Neither involve trades which tinker with the nucleus of role players pivotal to the team's chances at a Stanley Cup. Simply put: Hagelin, Klein & Talbot will be missed, but not irreplaceably so. 

   There's no reason to think a trade involving Lundqvist, Nash, McDonagh, Staal or Girardi will take place this summer. If not for the unlikely possibility of any of these players waiving there NMC/NTC's, the simple fact that Scenarios A & B demonstrate there should be ZERO pressure at all for Glen Sather to make such a deal.

   Yes, the Rangers need to cut salary. Aptly put, the roster will require metaphorical off-season surgery. Yet while the deportation and replacement of Hagelin, Klein and/or Talbot represent minor surgeries like wisdom teeth removal or laser-eye... why in the world would Broadway go a few steps further and voluntarily engage in open-heart surgery by way of dealing Lundqvist, Nash, Stepan, McDonagh, Staal or Girardi?

   This is not a team looking to make huge adjustments after a largely disappointing 2014-15 season. The team won the President's Trophy, was a viable threat until the end, and was 20 minutes away from their 2nd consecutive Stanley Cup Final. Unlike teams like Colorado, Dallas or Toronto... this is not a team with political carte blanche to rewire all aspects of the roster.

 This is a team that should be considerably more apt to trim around the edges than rebuild its central configuration.

   It doesn't make much sense for the Rangers to move the big pieces... at least not quite yet.

Top 10 (Realistic) Cam Talbot Trades

    The following are workshopped trade proposals regarding the recent Cam Talbot trade rumors, including the Edmonton Oilers, San Jose Sharks & Buffalo Sabres. Since we published this historical data on the historic trade value of draft picks a few days ago, I thought we’d try to carve out some realistic and precise trades that could feasibly happen.

   When comparing Talbot’s speculative future to that of what happened with Cory Schneider in 2013... it's important to be able to take the comparison with the appropriate grain of salt. Let’s compare the two trade-bait goaltenders:

   No, the New York Rangers are not in a position to demand a #9 overall pick straight-up for their goaltender, as the Canucks were able to reap off Schneider. But… Talbot’s stats, while of less sample size and quality, remain damn good. So there’s obvious merit to the list of suitors interested in acquiring his services.

1. This is the 1st trade example idea we’ll submit for examination. Here, this really only makes sense if our trade partner (BUF, EDM or SJ) is trading for Cam Talbot under the assumption that Talbot is equivalent to a late 1st-Round draft pick.

or...

or...

Historical reference

On June 25, 2010… #22 & #113 traded for #27 & #57.

     2.  Again, we assume that teams are pursuing Talbot in a trade, and are still willing to treat him like a late 1st-Round draft pick in terms of absolute trade value:

  Essentially we have New York having its 2nd, 3rd & 4th Rounders being upgraded at Edmonton’s expense. The Rangers’ 2nd-Rounder moves up 2 pegs, their 3rd-Rounder moves up 10 pegs, & their 4th-Rounder moves up 2 pegs. But on the other hand, Edmonton believes it is upgrading it’s #33 overall, since Talbot is comparatively 3 to 8 pegs higher than a late 1st-Rounder.

or...

   While certainly more elaborate, it holds the same principal as the previous Edmonton trade example. If Talbot is treated by Buffalo as better than a #31 overall pick… this trade has the Rangers upgrade 1st, 2nd & 7th Rounders while Buffalo upgrades its 3rd & 4th. Once again, this only computes if Buffalo deems Talbot the equivalent of a late-1st-Rounder.

   3. Now we’ll begin to decrease Talbot’s perceived trade value. We’ll now say the market will trade where Talbot is treated as that of a #30, #31, #32, #33, #34 or #35 overall draft pick. The obvious suggestions (and frankly most realistic, in my opinion) now become:

or...

or...

Historical reference

On June 25, 2010… #30 traded for #35& #58.

   4. Yet if Talbot’s perceived value is even slightly lower than what we’ve been discussing… as in Talbot being treated more like a 2nd-Rounder in the late 30s or early 40s overall? Then rather than Talbot being an upgrade to their #33 overall, Edmonton begins to see at as a downgrade! This is also around the point where San Jose’s 2nd-Rounder can become a straight-up swap. In which case, something like one of these becomes more likely: 

or...

Historical reference

On June 21, 2008… #38 traded for #46 & #76.

Conclusion

   - We know the Oilers, Sharks & Sabres have expressed interest in Talbot

   - We know the Rangers likely have more to gain from Talbot than retaining him, as renewing his contract past 2016 seems unlikely at this point in time

   - We know the Rangers could include a body with Talbot in an effort to relieve NYR payroll for next season...

   - ...but we also know the Rangers could also trade Talbot in an effort to restore 2015 draft picks to the team, which has depleted its 2015 & 2016 draft picks en route to going "all in" on shopping upgrades such as Keith Yandle & Martin St. Louis.

   - The only "unknown" we deal with is how much these other teams are willing to give up. How much do they believe Talbot can be a cornerstone netminder? How much do they believe a long-term extension can be hashed out upon acquiring Cam? How much is a team willing to invest this summer for Talbot's future?

   These hypothetically brainstormed trades seem realistic. We can only wait and see what ultimately results in these bidding bubbles between now and the last weekend in June.

Talbot vs Lundqvist? Introducing "The Ludas Rating", a BRAND NEW goaltending stat!

   Is it a bigger accomplishment to receive a (C+) in a very, very difficult class in school... or receive an (A-) in a trivially easier one? 

   In an effort to run some numbers on NYR goaltenders Henrik Lundqvist & Cam Talbot, we here at SatherOnWaivers have accidentally stumbled upon a whole new method of analyzing & evaluating an NHL goaltender’s performance in a season. Initially we wanted to judge Talbot’s performance in net this season versus Lundqvist, particularly this season since filling in full-time for Lundqvist since his injury. So here’s what we did:

• We went through each net minder’s seasonal game log, and noted the amount of ice time each goaltender logged against each NHL team.

• Then, we calculated each goalie's respective opponent’s # of NHL standings points, weighted in average of each goalie's specific icetimes against each opponent

• We took each goaltender’s Goals-Saved-Above-Average and divided it by number of hours of ice time. If you’ve never heard of this stat before, you can read about it here.

• In the name of relativity and perspective, we also found the same data for both goalies in the 2013-14 NHL season as well

• Finally, we procured a weighted average of how many standings points in an opponent each goalie was facing in the average-60 minute game.

   Still confused?

   Let’s say it’s the 2013-14 NHL Season, we want to compare a few goalies, and the NHL league-wide average standings points per team was 92.233. Goalie A played 60 minutes against the Buffalo Sabres, who were the worst team in the NHL (52 points). Let’s say in those 60 minutes, Goalie A had a GSAA of 3.00, meaning he theoretically stopped 3 more goals than the baseline-average NHL goalie would have stopped himself. Now Goalie B, on the other hand, also played 60 minutes that season, except played the Anaheim Ducks, who were the #1 team in the West (116 points). Yet in that game, Goalie B had a GSAA of 1.50.

   Goalie A stopped 3 goals-above-average against a terrible team, while Goalie B stopped 1.5 goals-above-average against an elite team. So which performance was empirically better?

   That was what we were trying to offer a remedy to, but instead created a brand new goaltending analytic: The Ludas Rating. The Ludas Rating offers itself as a measure of inflation/deflation for performance numbers, taking into account what quality of opponent those numbers were generated from in the first place. 

   In other words, the Ludas Rating attempts to tackle  “how many standings points was Hank or Cam facing in the average game? … And even then, how does one compare different performances against varying quality of opponent?”

   To solve this example...

   Goalie A: 

• 3.0 GSAA in 60 minutes
• Average NHL Standings points of Average Competition: 52
• Average NHL Standings points per NHL team: 92.233

52 / 92.233 = 0.5638

3.00 x 0.5638 = 1.691

1.691 “adjusted" GSAA per hour, or a “Ludas Rating” of 1.691

   Goalie B:

• 1.5 GSAA in 60 minutes
• Average NHL standings points of Average Competition: 116
• Average NHL Standings points per NHL team: 92.233

116/92.233 = 1.2577

1.50 x 1.2577 = 1.8865

1.8865 “adjusted” GSAA per hour, or a “Ludas Rating of 1.8865

   … So it would seem Goalie B has a higher/better Ludas Rating, as his traditional numbers were not as good as those of Goalie A, but his quality of competition was much higher, thus making his 1.5 GSAA/hr vs ANH adjustably better than the 3.00 GSAA/hr vs BUF. 

   So now that we’ve explained what the Ludas Rating is, let’s return to the original subjects of Cam Talbot & Henrik Lundqvist. Here’s their relative stats from last year, the 2013-14 NHL season:

   And just like the introductory example into the Ludas Rating, we see Talbot’s .7558 GSAA/hr seems vastly superior to Lundqvist’s .1963. But, taking into account Talbot was playing weaker competition (83.536 standings points/opponent) than Lundqvist (91.716 standings points/opponent), the Ludas Rating adjusts Talbot’s GSAA/hr to be a lower rate. While Lundqvist technically has his lowered too (playing opponents less than 1% below-average), not nearly as much as Talbot’s. 

   Like other analytical metrics into interpreting data, the Ludas Rating is not perfect. A franchise playing against Lundqvist in October may be a very different team than the NHL Standings will reflect 6 months later. Goalies must face 328 shots in an 82-game season to qualify, as their GSAA is not tabulated under a lesser sample size. This is a quality-of-competition adjustor for GSAA-per-hour, using relative NHL Standings Points as a measuring stick to judge opposition’s “quality.” 

   So what about their Ludas Ratings in the current 2014-15 NHL season?

   *Since the season is ongoing, and teams have not completed all their games, the metric of figuring the Average NHL Standings Points per Team is “projected”, unlike prior seasons fully in the books. That is to say, if a team has 60 Standings Points in 60 games so far, they will be treated as though they are an 82-Standings Points team as that is their current mathematical projection. 

   

   Once again we see Cam Talbot has faced overall-lower competition (avg 88.9 standings points per opponent) than King Henrik (avg 94.668 standings points per opponent). 

   In both seasons, the Ludas Rating has reduced Talbot’s impressive numbers to a more realistic amount, as he has not been facing quality competition. Yet it is worth reminding: Talbot, an undrafted net minder who played college hockey at University of Alabama-Huntsville, who stumbled into the NHL following an abrupt mid-season retirement from Martin Biron in 2013… has undeniably played above-average in his time in New York.

   Are we expecting Talbot to play as good, or better than, Lundqvist? Probably not. Are we expecting Talbot to play above-average in the NHL? Of course. These studies show that, while his sharp career numbers are impressive, a little zip comes off the fastball when we hold Talbot accountable for playing sub-average teams for the most part. Overall, it’s hard to truly feel Cam Talbot is not performing satisfactorily... just not as well as Lundqvist.

* Please note: The data required to calculate a goaltender's Ludas Rating is very obnoxious and tedious. We are working on an algorithm to run smooth tabulations of various goaltenders' Ludas Rating, as to expand upon the metric, and provide more relative insight into goaltending leaguewide and in seasons past. We will post new data as it comes in, we ask you to be patient as this is a new equation, and currently takes a long time to configure. We look forward to your feedback!