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Historical reference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Historical reference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.

Of Picks & Pockets: The Trade Chips of NHL Draft Picks

  With the highly-anticipated 2015 NHL Entry Draft rapidly approaching, I thought I’d do some number crunching on the actual trade value of a specific draft pick. When someone (including myself) ponders hypothetical trade proposals, it can be hard to truly appreciate the trading power of a 1st, 3rd or 5th round draft pick. So I thought I’d shed some light on the historical value attached to the range of draft picks available to be traded this month.

   First, let's take a look at the current order of draft picks:

   For this exercise, we are only examining trades where Team A traded two draft picks to Team B for a single draft pick in return. Any transaction involving future considerations, promises, contract rights or minor leaguers was disqualified from our study.

   So...

Trades of this formula since 2005, where Flop ranges from 7th to 81st overall

    The “flop” is the best draft pick in the deal, listed below on the left. The “turn” is the 2nd highest draft pick, usually fairly close to the flop. The “river” is the third ‘throw-in’ pick, designed to be just the addition needed to the “turn” to acquire the “flop” in a bundled trade. Remember, since the 1st overall pick is obviously the most valued selection, the graph is formatted so less (or lower) is better (or more valuable).

   Here is the itemized list of trades, specifically when a lone draft pick was traded for two lower draft picks. No players, contracts or other assets were included in trade… just the draft picks. Only trades since the 2005 NHL Entry Draft. The [  ] indicates at the time of trade, the draft pick was for the following draft, and its precise number was not known at the time. The [[  ]] indicates the draft pick was for the draft two years away, and so forth.

#07 traded for #09 & #40 ———— (6/20/08)

#12 traded for #17 & #28 ———— (6/20/08)

#12 traded for #16 & #41 ———— (7/30/05)

#12 traded for #13 & [#74] ———- (6/20/08)

   From these results, upgrading a mid-1st round pick, even only a few selections upward, proves very pricy. These trades suggest a trading a mid-1st round pick for an early-1st round pick requires packaging a 2nd round pick as well. To nobody’s surprise, this further demonstrates the monstrosity of a package that could be asked by and/or sent to Arizona, should Don Maloney be serious about trading down the franchise’s 3rd overall pick. Do you think Arizona would accept or reject an offer from Toronto packaging their 4th & 24th overall picks? 

#14 traded for #21 & #42 ———— (6/22/12)

#15 traded for #19 & #59 ———— (6/25/10)

#15 traded for #18 & [#70] ———- (6/20/08)

#16 traded for #19 & #42 ———— (6/22/07)

#16 traded for #20 & #53 ———— (6/24/06)

#18 traded for #24 & #70 ———— (6/22/07)

#20 traded for #23 & #84 ———— (6/26/09)

   Relevant to the rumors of Edmonton open to trading its #16 overall pick in the upcoming 2015 draft. Once again, upgrading a mid-to-late 1st rounder requires an additional 2nd or 3rd round pick. 

#20 traded for #29 & [#41] ———- (7/30/05)

#21 traded for #30 & #36 ———— (6/22/07)

#21 traded for #26 & #37 ———— (6/26/09)

#21 traded for #23 & #54 ———— (6/20/08)

#22 traded for #30 & #39 ———— (6/24/11)

#23 traded for #24 & [#73] ———- (6/20/08)

#24 traded for #35 & #48 ———— (6/24/11)

#24 traded for #44 & #48 ———— (6.23/01)

#25 traded for #30 & #77 ———— (6/24/06)

#27 traded for #47 & #52 ———— (7/30/15)

#28 traded for #35 & #39 ———— (6/20/08)

#28 traded for #41 & [#57] ———- (6/22/08)

#29 traded for #32 & #75 ———— (6/26/09)

#30 traded for #35 & #58 ———— (6/25/10)

   Here the table slides towards something like 2x 2nd rounders for a late-1st rounder. Or, upgrading a late-1st rounder a few selections for an additional 3rd rounder.

#35 traded for #38 & #69 ———— (6/23/07)

#38 traded for #46 & #76 ———— (6/21/08)

#41 traded for [#58] & 84 ———— (6/23/07)

#45 traded for #56 & #66 ———— (7/30/05

#46 traded for #49 & [#105] ——— (6/21/08)

   These trades suggest upgrading a 2nd rounder require conceding an additional 3rd rounder. Or, a late-2nd rounder & late 3rd-rounder for a mid-2nd rounder.

#47 traded for #59 & [#78] ———- (6/25/11)

#47 traded for #49 & #109 ———- (6/26/11)

#47 traded for #89 & #102 ———- (7/30/15)

#56 traded for #62 & #92 ———— (6/27/09)

#59 traded for #69 & #99 ———— (6/26/11)

#59 traded for [#39] & #119 ——— (7/30/05)

#60 traded for #70 & #100 ———- (6/25/11)

[#63] traded for #107 & #137 ——- (6/27/09)

   The going rate for upgrading continues to scale down, as upgrading a 2nd-or-3rd rounder costs an additional 4th rounder. An early-3rd round begins to go for a late-3rd round & 4th rounder.

#66 traded for #79 & #109 ———- (6/24/09)

#68 traded for #72 & #102 ———- (6/21/08)

#71 traded for #77 & #109 ———- (6/26/11)

#71 traded for #98 & #126 ———- (6/24/06)

#73 traded for [#108] & #162 ——- (7/30/05)

#74 traded for #84 & #107 ———- (6/27/09)

#74 traded for #81 & #101 ———- (6/21/08)

#74 traded for #87 & #96 ———— (7/30/05) 

#75 traded for #80 & #200 ———- (6/24/06) 

#76 traded for #99 & #111 ———- (6/24/06)

#77 traded for #96 & #107 ———- (6/25/11) 

#81 traded for [#66] & #169 ——— (6/25/11) 

#88 traded for #115 & #119 ——— (6/24/06) 

Trades of this formula since 2005, where Flop ranges from 29th to 200th overall

   The late-3rd rounders tend to go for 2x 4th rounders. Upgrading a 3rd rounder goes for a cheap rate of only an additional 4th or 5th rounder. As we can see by the graph above, by this point the Turn & River become extremely interchangeable, and more variable in ascertaining a Flop.

#92 traded for [#117] & [[#148]] —  (6/21/08) 

#95 traded for [#93] & #154 ——— (6/23/07) 

#97 traded for #107 & #137 ——— (6/21/08)

#98 traded for #108 & #173 ——— (6/24/06)

#104 traded for #114 & #144 ——- (6/24/06)

#109 traded for [#111] & [#191] — (6/23/12)

#110 traded for #141 & #171 ——- (6/24/06)

#111 traded for [#110] & #211 —— (6/21/08)

#112 traded for #116 & #146 ——- (6/26/10)

#116 traded for #139 & #147 ——- (6/23/07)

#118 traded for #132 & #193 ——- (6/25/11)

   The going rate for 4th-rounders go for a pair of 5th rounders, or a 5th & 6th. When upgrading, the later the 4th rounder pursued, the more the upgrade cost floats towards being a 7th rounder.

[#126] traded for #155 & #160 —— (6/26/11)

#141 traded for #193 & [#202] —— (7/30/05)

[#150] traded for #176 & (#212) —- (6/27/09)

#158 traded for #169 & #199 ——- (6/26/10)

#161 traded for #188 & #196 ——- (6/24/06)

   5th rounders begin to go for a couple of packaged 6th & 7th rounders, or even just a pair of 7th rounders. Upgrading a 5th rounder becomes practically free, as a 7th rounder is the lowest form of draft pick utility in trading.

[#166] traded for #190 & (#211) —- (6/27/09)

[#177] traded for #210 & (#211) —- (6/26/09)

[#178] traded for #188 & (#212) —- (6/27/09)

[#182] traded for #194 & (#212) —- (6/23/12)

#183 traded for [#191] & (#212) —- (6/23/12)

#200 traded for [#208] & (#211) —- (6/26/10)

   The (#211) & (#212) draft picks above actually represent zero draft picks actually involved in trade, as they represent the pick AFTER the last pick in the draft. There is no “upgrading” in the 6th or 7th rounds per say, but teams will acquire 6th or 7th rounders for the current year’s draft, in exchange for similar picks the following year, where it’s an unknown gamble as to whether they will end up higher or lower than this year’s pick. 

   All in all, before guesstimating what draft pick could possibly warrant returning another in a trade, we offer this neatly archived listing of salary cap era draft pick trades. 

Thoughts on the Idea of a Nash/Stamkos Trade

    Other than some unsubstantiated tweets from Don Cherry, there’s really no basis to suspect or conclude a Nash/Stamkos trade is anywhere in the realistic future. Yet I thought I’d take a moment to share some feelings about the very idea of such a trade, and evaluate its merits and reasoning. Again, I am NOT reporting a likelihood of this trade. I’m poking around the inert idea of it, seeing how such a big-named swap would go over in concert with a few key factors to consider.

   So...

  Here’s the tricky thing about evaluating a given Nash/Stamkos trade:

   Stamkos has a no-movement clause on the final year his contract, so he’d have to approve any trade. The only conceivable reason that Tampa would trade their franchise asset would likely be a trade quest made by SS himself. That, and if Stamkos’ approved destinations were so limited, would be one of the few reasons why Tampa would approach New York. Of all the teams for Tampa to swap scorers with in such a trade, their chief rival of the Eastern Conference would unlikely be the favorable preference.

   Martin St. Louis asked out of Tampa, among other reported reasons, to be geographically closer to his home in Connecticut. Should SS demand a trade, it’ll likely include more suitors than strictly Tri-State proxies. So I wouldn’t jump out of my chair to compare the Martin St. Louis exile to that of a hypothetical Stamkos jettison.

   However, if we’re supposing a Nash/Stamkos trade of some capacity, we’re still assuming Tampa does not have the leverage it normally would in unloading a big name. One would think it’s all but a given that Tampa will throw the big money at Steven before his final contract year burns away. And even if Tampa were to shop Stamkos on the trading block after contract negotiations dwindled, it would likely be sometime next season near the trade deadline… not in the Summer of 2015.

   But for the sake of argument, we’ll assume this is the case: Stamkos informs General Manager Steve Yzerman he wants to be traded and is not interested in renewing his contract in Florida. 

   As of today, Rick Nash’s contract contains a full no-movement clause. But in a few weeks on July 1st, it will convert into a limited no-trade-clause… presumably one where Nash submits a list of teams he will not accept a trade to. It’s unknown how many teams he can list, but it would be doubtful that Tampa would be specifically blacklisted. Typical teams would include Buffalo, Edmonton, and Arizona… teams with unattractive geography in addition to an abysmal franchise. Tampa is a contender, with an arguably enjoyable culture. 

   So in terms of required permission, Stamkos would seem to have much more control in yay-or-nay of an arranged transaction between the two clubs than that of Nash. 

   But another question: Who’s the more valued asset? Stamkos or Nash?

   Stamkos is the better player. He’s scored 0.56 goals-per-game through his 7 total seasons in the NHL. Other than the 2013-14 season where he missed several months with a broken leg, Stamkos has finished 1st or 2nd in goals scored since his 20th birthday. Nash, on the other hand, has produced 0.47 goals-per-game since becoming a Ranger in July 2012.

   Stamkos is five-and-a-half years younger than Nash, suggesting he has that many more years ahead of him than his counterpart. Given historical trends, we’re seeing Stamkos in his absolute prime, while Nash will be expected to gradually decline. Had he been healthy, Stamkos would’ve been 1st or 2nd line for Team Canada in the 2014 Olympics. Nash was 4th line.

   There’s very little to suggest Nash, all-else-equal, as the superior asset. He’s not. SS is.

   However: what about from a contractual standpoint?

   Stamkos is a year away from hitting the open market, where he could field dozens of maximum-salary offers. So of course, a team acquiring him in a trade knows the risk that he could just end up being a 1-year rental. It’s all but guaranteed that a team interested in trading for him this summer would be adamant towards re-signing him to a monster contractual commitment.

   Nash on the other hand?

   While tit-for-tat he falls inferior to Stamkos, in the wonky world of pro sports contracts, Nash maintains a clear superiority. Nash, with a cap hit of $300,000 more than Stamkos, has 3 seasons remaining on his contract. This means a team acquiring Nash would have his services ensured until 2018. That’s thrice the certainty versus the team acquiring Stamkos.

   Why wouldn’t Tampa trade Stamkos for a replacement center?

   Interestingly enough, Stamkos was not relied upon much as a center during the 2015 postseason, but more so as a winger. Valtteri Filppula (15.7), Tyler Johnson (13.6) & Brian Boyle (11.5) all took more faceoffs-per-game than Stamkos (8.7). In fact it would make sense if Tampa was looking to unload one of their centers to relieve the crowding, and stand pat with the top-3 they remain with now.

   Why wouldn’t New York trade Nash for a replacement winger?

   We will assume New York has every intention of centers Derek Stepan & Derrick Brassard returning as the team’s 1st & 2nd pivots for the 2015-16 season. If a Nash/Stamkos swap is to truly be realistic, it would suggest to me that Broadway would be wishing for Kevin Hayes to be put back on wing, thus opening a hole in the center lineup.

   No, Stamkos wouldn’t be their 3rd line center; but if Hayes is put at wing, then Nash being traded for a center makes a lot more sense. It would also offer theory that the Rangers identified a lack of center depth as a flaw in the team, and are apt to correct it. With Stamkos, Stepan & Brassard, head coach Alain Vigneault would have all the liberty in the world to feverishly roll 3 lines interchangeably, which he's enjoyed doing both of his years in New York.

   So Stamkos is the better player, but Nash has more ensured service under contract. 

   What would be the side dishes in a Stamkos/Nash trade?

   Stamkos is only contracted to score another 30-50 goals, while Nash could reasonably be expected to deliver 60-100 before UFA expiration. Yet trading Stamkos includes his exclusive negotiation rights, so how much can Tampa viably treat him as an asset projected to score more than 50 goals? How much can Tampa say “it’s not our problem if you can’t re-sign Stamkos, we’re trading him like a player under contract for more than a year.” Conversely, how well would a team like New York respond to that supposed evaluation of Stamkos from the Lightning’s end?

   This is a tough thing to configure. It would really depend on how both traders assessed Stamkos’ chances of re-signing with his new team… as well as how both parties predict Nash’s calibre of contribution will hold up the next 3 years. Honestly I think we’ll just leave this discussion here, as attaching a draft pick to either side of the trade seems arguably valid. Let me just say a Stamkos/Nash swap wouldn’t be the craziest trade in the world, but it would just require a certain aligning of the stars from the Stamkos camp.

   I will say that both the Rangers and the Lightning had fine campaigns, and both will be the Eastern teams to beat next October. While we see franchises make notable moves to go from ‘very good’ team to ‘excellent’ team, there is just as often the team that feels no need to go out and make sweeping changes. A dynamic move between two clubs of the same conference often occurs when both teams are willing to experiment to get to the upper stratosphere. 

   Both of these teams are already there, which is why a blockbuster like this may not even be sought out for discussions by Tampa in the first place… EVEN IF Stamkos does actually want out of Tampa AND approves of Broadway for relocation.

   The only other quirky reasoning that comes to mind is this: both players, coming off of admirable postseason runs in the Eastern Conference, have their highest-paid forwards receiving criticism for lack of postseason scoring. Nash scored “just” 0.74 points-per-game, while Stamkos notched 0.69. Both teams swapping “underperforming” juggernauts could have merit, if the belief is a dual change in scenery would be mutually beneficial to both teams and players. No, not an enthralling argument, but an interesting footnote to observe.

   You never know, wilder trades have happened unexpectedly...

   Here’s a look at both teams’ guesstimated lines for next season if a straight-up Nash/Stamkos trade actually happened:

TAMPA BAY

Killorn -------- Filppula --------- Nash

Palat --------- Johnson ----- Kucherov

Brown -------- Boyle -------- Callahan

Drouin ----- Pacquette - Marchessault

NEW YORK

Kreider --------- Stamkos ------ Fast

Zuccarello ----- Stepan ------ Hayes

Hagelin ------- Brassard ----- Miller

Glass ----------- Moore ------ ??????

   

Does Henrik Lundqvist's Contract HURT or HELP the NY Rangers?

   There's some debate that Henrik Lundqvist's league-leading salary of $8.5 million per year is too much. More specifically, some Rangers fans feel it hurts the team's chances at a Stanley Cup since all that money is not allocated towards forwards nor defensemen. So with the 2014-15 NHL regular season statistics locked in the books from now to eternity, I thought I'd spend this summer day snooping around this theory. Here we go...

   First I took all goaltenders who faced a minimum of 328 shots in the regular season (or faced a minimum of 4 shots on goal per team game during the season). This narrowed the field to 61 NHL goalies from which to extrapolate our data. Then I looked at their total Goals Saved Above Replacement, a nifty stat meant to compare a goaltender to the theoretical average goalie in the given season. I also jotted down their time on ice (rounded to the nearest minute) & 2014-15 salary cap (Average Annual Value).

   Here's the spreadsheet in case anyone would like to check my work.

   When tabulating the averages of this data, we arrived at:

   - The average NHL goalie stopped 1.037377 Goals Above Average in 2014-15
   - The average NHL goalie played 2,267 minutes in 2014-15
   - The average NHL goalie had a cap hit of $3,011,066 in 2014-15

   Taking these three findings into account, we can bundle them into a single, concise "going rate" of the average NHL goalie in 2014-15:

   - The typical NHL goalie stopped 0.027525 Goals Above Average per 60 minutes, paid at a $3,011,066 cap hit

   So...

   How does King Henrik compare relative to that clearinghouse rate?

   - Lundqvist stopped 10.43 Goals Above Average in 2014-15
   - Lundqvist played 2,743 minutes in 2014-15
   - Lundqvist had a cap hit of $8,500,000 in 2014-15

   Therefore...

   - Lundqvist stopped 0.228144 Goals Above Average per 60 minutes, paid at a $8,500,000 cap hit

   How does Lundqvist directly contrast against our mean findings?

   - Lundqvist's GSAA/hour rate was 8.29 times the NHL's average goalie rate
   - Lundqvist's salary cap hit was 2.82 times the NHL's average goalie cap hit

   In essence, Lundqvist performed over 8.3 times the market rate for only 2.8 times the price!

   If you go to a supermarket to purchase frozen TV dinners... but they have a special offering 8.3 times the amount you intended to get, but for less than triple the price you were expecting to pay... kinda hard to categorize that as anything but a good deal.

   Why did I make frozen TV dinners the example? Because a frozen meal purchased today will likely expire right around the time Lundqvist's play will [historically] decline. Do we see Lundqvist becoming anything less than an above-average goalie at any point in the next few years? It seems highly unlikely, barring a massive injury and/or drop-off. While year-to-year subtle regression is the historical norm, HockeyGraphs analysis suggest at least 3 years before major regression.

   So even with his league-leading super-hefty cap hit, Lundqvist was still an absolute bargain in the 2014-15 season, the 1st year of his 6-year contract.

   Let's look at a few graphs to evaluate Lundqvist's legitimacy as a top-paid netminder in the post-post-salary-cap era:

 

   - Lundqvist has had 10 consecutive seasons of either accumulating 30 wins and/or leading the NHL in wins during a shortened season.
   - Lundqvist, compared to the top dogs of the past decade, has yet to have a below-average season.

    - Lundqvist's first 9 years saw him win the Vezina once (2012), where he received 80% of the votes, smashing the record for most-lopsided Vezina voting result since votes were made public in 1981-82.
   - Though his streak may very well end in a few weeks, Lundqvist has gone 9 consecutive seasons while placing no worse than 6th in yearly Vezina votes. In other words, there has yet to be a season where Lundqvist was not voted one of the Top-6 NHL goalies by the league's general managers
   - Lundqvist has never gone a season without receiving votes for at least 1 NHL trophy.

 
   Lundqvist's contribution to the NY Rangers last multi-round playoff runs the past 4 seasons undoubtedly suggest value, even at the steepest price in the land:

   So, while Lundqvist's heavy cap hit will ultimately depreciate in terms of bang-for-buck, as he is contracted until his late 30's... it is not a liability yet. In fact the numbers suggest that it unbelievably remains a bargain, at least in this point in time. In fact, until we see significant regression, there is no way someone can honestly claim Lundqvist (or his plump contract) has actually hurt the Rangers' chances at winning it all.

   Recent goalies to remain extremely productive and valuable to their team, even north of their 35th birthdays, include...

   Tim Thomas

Dominik Hasek

Patrick Roy

   Has Lundqvist not earned the right to be compared to Thomas, Hasek or Roy? While all these players went on to win a Cup (which Lundqvist obviously hasn't...yet?)... he is inarguably one of, if not the, best goalie of his era. 

   Thomas & Hasek also poke holes in the theory "If Lundqvist hasn't won a Cup by now, he never will!" That contention, plus the absolute myth that Lundqvist himself has cost the Rangers a Cup, is irrefutably flawed. Who can genuinely believe it was Lundqvist's contract which cost the Rangers the 2015 postseason, instead of, oh I don't know... The injuries to Mats Zuccarello, Ryan McDonagh, Dan Girardi, Keith Yandle, & Jesper Fast? 

   If 10 consecutive coinflips are all heads, how logical is it to conclude "since there hasn't been any tails before, their never will be in the future!"

   ... That logic simply doesn't hold water.

   Speaking of injuries... other than a few weeks in 2006, a few games in 2013, and the freak vascular injury suffered last February... Lundqvist's healthiness in his career has been absolutely remarkable. No torn ligaments, no broken bones, no concussions, no major or relevant surgery... in a decade! His high-quality production aside, surely his abnormally high attendance in regular season & playoff games also validate his contractual worth.

   Quality, quantity, relativity... they all point towards Lundqvist being a resounding "positive" on the New York roster.

   We'll be posting more goaltender analytical evaluations throughout the summer, including league-wide goaltender stats we've personally created here at SatherOnWaivers. Follow us on Twitter (@HockeyStatMiner ) to receive further updates, and feel free to leave feedback as well.

   All hail the [now economically validated] King!

How Bonuses & Retained Salary Affect Big & Small Market NHL Teams

July 6, 2013 - Jerome Iginla signs a 1-year deal with the Boston Bruins. Contract has a base pay / cap-hit of $1.8 million… but contains an additional $4.2 million in potential performance bonuses

July 23, 2013 - Jaromir Jagr signs a 1-year deal with NJ Devils. Contract has a base pay / cap-hit of $2 million… but contains an additional $2 million in potential performance bonuses

June 15, 2014 - Kimmo Timonen signs 1-year deal with Philadelphia Flyers. Contract has a base pay / cap-hit of $2 million… but contains $1.5 million in potential performance bonuses

   As the NHL prepares for a stagnantly minor increase in the 2016 salary cap… teams that are already up against its ceiling will look to maneuver economically this summer. Of course, the New York Rangers are no exception. There are two particular methods of cap-friendly methodology that big-payroll clubs like Broadway will especially explore (and probably patronize). They are:

• Signing free agents to short-term contracts with small cap-hit base salaries, but hefty performance bonuses

• Acquiring a player in a trade in which that team wouldn’t especially pursue, but does this summer so long as the team they’re trading with retains salary

PERFORMANCE BONUSES

   The NHL bonus cushion is defined as 7.5% of the given salary cap ceiling. This means a team can dish out a set amount of money in performance bonuses. If bonuses exceed the bonus cushion, they are counted against the team’s cap directly for the following season (aptly called “bonus overages”). 

   Thanks to the wonderful website RangersUnlimited, we see Kevin Hayes’ potential performance bonuses he is eligible to unlock in the 2015-16 campaign. Each category would earn Hayes $212,500 in bonuses, with $850,000 being the max payout (he stops getting paid after four categories are achieved).

   $212,500 if Top-Six in NYR forward ice time per game (minimum 42 games)

   $212,500 if Top-Six in NYR forward ice time total (minimum 42 games)

   $212,500 if 20 goals scored

   $212,500 if 35 assists made

   $212,500 if 60 points scored

   $212,500 if .73 points-per-game (minimum 42 games)

   $212,500 if Top-Three in NYR forward +/- rating

   $212,500 if selected to/plays in NHL All-Star Game

   $212,500 if named NHL All-Star Game MVP

   Then there is a maximum of $2 million total in attainable performance bonuses for the following end-of-season achievements:

• Top Five voting/placement for Hart, Selke and/or Rocket Richard Trophies
• Top Three voting for Lady Byng award
• Winning Conn Smythe Trophy
• Being named to 1st or 2nd NHL All-Star team by hockey writers
• Finishing Top 10 in NHL goals, assists, points or points-per-game

   So, while Hayes can earn up to $2.85 million in performance bonuses next season… It’s very likely his actual bonuses earned will fall under $850,000... unless Hayes has a breakout season and actually unlocks the league-elite $2 million bonuses. So for all intents and purposes, we’ll treat Hayes’ maximum performance bonus for 2015-16 at $801,000.

   Many of New York’s prospects on their entry-level contracts have performance bonuses as well, yet its unlikely anyone other than Brady Skjei to make the jump to the pro roster next season. (It’s currently unknown what Skjei’s max performance bonuses may be, but its extremely likely they exist on his contract).

   If next season’s NHL salary cap is $71.5 million, then 7.5% of that (the bonus cushion) would be $5,362,500.

   So if we treat Hayes’ estimated performance bonus “threat” as $801,000… then:

   $5,362,500 - $801,000 = $4,561,500 

   That’s just north of $4.5 million theoretically available in performance bonuses to be expended on the free agent market this summer for the Rangers. Or, should we take Hayes’ chances at a seriously impressive season into more liberal account, plus Skjei’s unknown… Perhaps a figure of $4 million is a more realistic figure.

   Should the Rangers sign coveted free agent defensemen Mike Reilly or Robbie Russo, it would almost assuredly include performance bonuses akin to Hayes’ contract. Since the new Collective Bargaining Agreement mandates a maximum entry-level base salary of $925,000 per year, the league wide bidding war for such assets will come down to bonuses.

   So… 

   Looking over our guesstimated NYR salary cap spreadsheet, the team (at first glance) looks like this:

   If next year's salary cap is indeed approximately $71.5 million... this team simply won't fit.

  However, as we’ve noted in previous article, we predict Kevin Klein & Cam Talbot to be traded away to accommodate the cap. We’ll theoretically assume this once again, replacing them with cheaper players at their respective positions…

   Now this roster is coming in snugly at $71.5 mil (Skjei could be 7th D, or a UFA signed for $925k cap hit).

   How could the Rangers taking advantage of performance bonuses affect the buildup of this team?

   Well…

   “A backup goalie for 1-year, $750,000? Isn’t that a massive downgrade?”

   Talbot had a spectacular season, and it’ll be hard to replace his quality as a backup in any event. But… what the Rangers sign a veteran free agent goalie to a 1-year, $750,000 contract… with additional hundreds of thousands of dollars in bonuses? Broadway has all the bonus room in the world to sign a $1 million/yr goalie for only 75% of the (cap-hit) price.

   “Are you suggesting singing a 4th line winger to a $925,000 contract with bonuses?”

   This is unlikely. Usually forwards on the 4th line are so replaceable that it almost never makes sense to include performance bonuses. But… what if instead of a 4th liner getting a $925k deal with bonuses attached… we go after a 3rd line forward.

   In this regard, a pertinent question is “Does New York rely on Kevin Hayes being the team’s 3rd center going forward? Or is it better to revert him to his natural position as winger?” Looking over the impending list of Unrestricted Free Agents this summer, how about targeting a veteran centerman?

   Brad Richards, Mike Ribeiro & Mike Fisher are all 35 years old. Matt Cullen is 38. Fan-favorite (/sarcasm) Olli Jokinen is 36. 

   What if we sign one of the centers to a 1-year, $925,000 contract with performance bonuses, and slide Hayes to the 3rd line wing? Now the team could look like…

... or ...

RETAINED SALARIES IN TRADES

   Under the new Collective Bargaining Agreement, teams can now acquire players in trades, with the trading team retaining up to 50% of an asset’s actual salary & cap hit. The NY Rangers exercised this liberty twice in the 2014-15 season: Arizona retained half of Keith Yandle’s remaining salary, and Minnesota retained $100,000 of James Shepherd’s contract. Both were imperative moves for Broadway to acquire these players while barely staying below the salary cap ceiling.

   We’ve seen other teams do it as well, particularly with big-payroll teams doing business with low-payroll teams. 

   And there’s the rub.

   Now that players full services can be imported at cap discounts, the new CBA has carved out a brand new aspect of trade compatibility. Suddenly a team with low payroll can literally use their vast cap space as an advantage against big-market teams whom have little or none. An interesting concept, as that disconnect had historically provided small-market teams a distinct disadvantage against the big boys.

   As the Rangers seem to have little cap room for maneuverability this offseason, this concept allows for the Rangers (or any team) to fit players they normally shouldn’t be able to fit, perhaps by paying a little extra for the incoming player to come along a tad cheaper. Franchises which previously had little leverage in these matters suddenly find themselves with actionability, just as teams which had little chance at acquiring big-name players in a tight payroll can now do so feasibly.

   Instead of a 4th line winger making $700,000 per year (which would probably be a low-value asset to sign)… what if the Rangers acquire someone with a $1.4 million cap hit for a 50% retention? Suddenly Fast or Miller could be put on 4th line, and a 3rd-line-or-better player can be brought on board for the price of a 4th line plug!

   CONCLUSION

   With performance bonuses & retained salaries now in play for NHL teams, the off-season potential for moves, signings and trades have taken on an expanded realm of possibility. Major teams (like the Rangers, Blackhawks, Flyers, Maple Leafs & Bruins) can still impose their big-market advantages on free agents with that of bonuses. And yet, the teams unlikely to win bidding wars or make competitive offers find themselves holding the cards when major teams are looking to save cap space via retained salary.

   For better or worse, we find ourselves in the post-post-salary-cap-era NHL.

   

Talbot Trade Tinkering: Hudler/Russell for Talbot/Klein/Lindberg/Glass/McIlrath?

   In our previous article, we predicted Cam Talbot & Kevin Klein would be traded by the NY Rangers this summer, largely for salary cap reasons. In today’s article, we’ll analyze a hypothetical trade with the Calgary Flames involving both players. We’ll try to figure if this is a realistic trade or not. 

   NY Rangers acquire:

* = 50% of Cap Hit retained by Calgary

   Calgary Flames acquire:

• Calgary Flames could be in the market for Talbot. Like any team currently interested in Talbot, they’ll likely make a pitch to Devan Dubnyk, should he hit the open market. Otherwise, the team could logically look to trade for Talbot. In their playoff run, Calgary rotated Jonas Hiller & Karri Ramo in net. If acquiring Talbot, Calgary would have both goalies with expiring contracts next July, making the 2015-16 season a true audition for the big payday. (While prospect goalie Joni Ortio continues to knock at the door, the restricted free agent could very well remain in the AHL for another season until Hiller's contract expires).

• Much like the Rangers, Calgary has six (multi-million-dollar) defensemen already under contract through the 2015-16 season. So, if packaging Klein into the mix, it is all but essential to have a defenseman coming back on Calgary’s end. Russell is a good defenseman, but quite likely a pure rental, as his contract expires next summer, and Calgary will almost definitely offer Mark Girodano big money for his oncoming extension. In short: the Flames’ chances at re-signing Russell are akin to that of New York’s chances at re-signing Talbot; slim.

• A large question for Glen Sather & co. is to figure out if Kevin Hayes is the team's optimal 3rd-line center, or should he be reinstated on the natural wing? If the latter, importing Hudler makes sense. Hurdler, much like Russell, will also be an unrestricted free agent next summer, and with the budding plethora of young centers… could a long-term contract offered to the then-33-year-old Hudler be competitive against the market? If both teams determine a “no” answer, it furthers the case for a trade such as this to make amicable sense

• Calgary would seem to fit the bill on this swap, as they’d have to pay Hudler & Russell a combined $3.3 million against the cap in retaining 50%. Since New York is pressed against the cap, and the Flames enjoyed a 2nd round exit in the postseason despite having oodles of cap space… the element of “small market team retaining salary to accommodate large market team’s payroll” ought to come into play. New York simply cannot afford this trade unless both players’ salaries are 50% retained by Calgary. Even in retaining a couple of salaries in a trade such as this, Calgary is set to have plenty of cap space for offseason maneuvering. The NY Rangers are the exact opposite.

• Glass & Klein have 2 and 3 years remaining on their contracts respectively. Talbot only has 1, but along with Ramo, he will be given every opportunity to ensure a large contract by July 2016. If Calgary believes Talbot could realistically be worthy of the team's starting goaltender position for the next several years, their prerogative in acquiring Talbot (even with Hiller's cap hit at $4.5 million for one more season) makes sense.

• Lindberg and McIlrath are restricted free agents (without the right of salary arbitration). They’re guaranteed multi-year value as long as tendered qualifying offers. The salary cap hit figures listed above are roughly their respective minimum qualifying offers.

• Hudler & Russell are probably rentals. If Stepan, Kreider, Hayes & Yandle are retained in Summer 2016, it seems unlikely Hudler or Russell would be re-signed. Yet, importing a quality center (to join a pair of already-capable centers), along with a big-minute defenseman for half price… well… like the trades that rented Nik Antropov, Ryan Clowe or Martin St. Louis… Sather has shown a propensity to “gamble” or “overpay” on rentals. The “win-now” philosophy embodied in Lundqvist’s age-vs-contract dynamic would certainly qualify a rental trade (perhaps such as this) to be made. I'm not sure if this is "overpayment" or "underpayment", but a trade like this (discount rentals in exchange for quality players with more easily 'guaranteed' or 'likely' future years) is right up Sather's alley.

   So...

   Let’s take a look at the NY Rangers salary cap situation should this trade be made:

   What we see in New York packing the team to the brim for 2015-16, and having 9 to 14 contracts expire in July 2016. However, the team would have over 22 million in cap space available to make the big decisions. 

   The Rangers would improve their depth at center; should Stepan, Brassard, Hudler or Moore get injured... NY would have Hayes or Miller as available substitute centermen. While Russell-for-Klein-and-McIlrath is an improvement in the Top-6 defensive reserve... the depth of better 7th & 8th blueliners (ready to step in adequately in case of injury) remains unchanged. The big difference heading into next year in that regard wouldn't be this trade, but rather D Brady Skjei, and what he may have to offer as a 7th man.

   Don't count out soon-to-be Unrestricted Free Agent ex-collegiate defensemen Mike Reilly or Robbie Russo either, as the Rangers are sure to make a pitch at each prospect. While Reilly is considered the better bluechip, it is Russo the righty who would make more sense in signing. Russell, McDonagh, Staal, Yandle & Skjei are all left-handed (and in this hypothetical we are assuming McDonagh or Russell play on the right side).

   We’d also see Calgary renting out a couple of quality skaters whom they’re less likely to re-sign next summer, thus renting them out for a crack at a franchise goalie and contracted years of depth players. Even though the 2015 Unrestricted Free Agent market appears to be underwhelming, the Flames appear to be in position to be shoppers, with or without this hypothetical trade.

   I'm not sure if this is a realistic trade (it would depend  greatly on how Calgary would view the value of Cam Talbot, Kevin Klein & Oscar Lindberg)... but conceptually, it seems a logical place to tinker.

   I won't elaborate upon this aspect, but if Hayes were somehow involved in a Talbot/Hudler/Russell trade... don't ya think Calgary would love to reunite Hayes with Johnny Gaudreau? (They were linemates at Boston College).

   To make this hypothetical more viable, perhaps the Rangers have to replace D Dylan McIlrath with a younger prospect who may actually have potential upside. Or, trade away even more future draft picks to secure in-the-moment NHL talent fruitful towards winning the 2016 Stanley Cup. Perhaps take out McIlrath and insert the rights to unsigned prospects such as Pavel Buchnevich, Brandon Halverson, or Ryan Mantha?

   McIlrath is largely a throw-in. He's purely interchangeable with any other non-roster asset New York could potentially offer. IN the mid-season onslaught of NYR defensemen injuries... Dylan McIlrath, along with Connor Allen, Mike Kostka and Mat Bodie, failed to make the leap from the AHL and establish any competition with Matt Hunwick as the team's 7th D. No, none of those names will make Calgary's top-7 next season (with Tyler Wotherspoon likely ahead of all of them on Calgary's depth chart). Thus... McIlrath may need to be replaced with an asset of far more substance.

   If Calgary is apt to rent out Hudler & Russell on the trade market, New York's offer would have to be competitive with other fielding offers. While giving Calgary the chance at giving Talbot a chance a starting gig is good, and 3 years of moderately-priced Klein is also valuable... this deal may need more spice on New York's end for it to be closer to realistic. How much more? Hard to determine without insight of the two organizations' opinions.

   As for New York's backup goalie if Talbot is traded away? Even though our estimated salary chart only lends $625,000 for a backup goalie to replace Cam... The Rangers will also have upwards of $2.5 million in performance bonuses available to dish out. Signing a veteran back-up to a small cap hit ($625k) but bonus-levied contract is not only an option, but a great way to ensure quality goaltending in case Lundqvist suffers another freak injury, without being burnt for pinching pennies.

   Later this month, I'll tinker with similarly hypothetical Talbot trades involving other suitable candidates for his departure; my shortlist (in addition to Calgary) is Buffalo, Edmonton, Minnesota & San Jose. The secondary Talbot acquisition candidates would be Arizona, Dallas & Toronto. But... who knows? The market breathes in and out with Dubnyk's impending choice where to sign. Talbot's trade value will be much more defined immediately following Dubnyk's summer contract, whenever that may be.