The Six Million (plus or minus) Million Dollar Man

Bryan McCabe has reportedly signed a five-year deal with the Leafs, which includes a no-trade clause. The details beyond that are a bit sketchy (how great is it that the Leafs own web-site doesn't have any "official news" but does have a wire story from Bristol Connecticut that cites an ESPN report on the McCabe signing?)

Spackling togethter the various rumours, it's reported that McCabe will be earning somewhere between $5 million and $5.8 million a season for the next five years (there’s so much suffering in this world). Other reports have mentioned a non-movement clause, which would prevent McCabe from being waived (or part of an extraordinary rendition?).

When you consider that JFJ didn’t deal McCabe at the deadline and is widely reported as needing to make the playoffs next season in order to keep his job, the fact that he capitulated on all fronts to sign McCabe is about as surprising as Lindros suffering a catastrophic mid-season injury the Sens choking each Spring.

Did JFJ overpay? We’ll have a better sense of that once the other big free agent defensemen are signed this July. Until that date rolls around, here are a few things to consider before we can heap scorn further assess JFJ’s ability to misread the market:

1. If next season’s cap is in the mid to low-40s, the Leafs will have tied up nearly 25% of their salary room in Kaberle and McCabe.
2. Given the status of RFAs and UFAs it’s not a perfect comparison, but let's compare the Leafs salary structure with the four teams that made the semis this year. The salaries of the top 3 Leafs eats about 35% of an estimated mid-40s salary cap; the top 3 Ducks 30%; top 3 Hurricanes 28%; top 3 Oilers 27%; top 3 Sabres 16%.
3. In 2005-2006, teams spent about 39% more time on the power play – a facet of the game at which McCabe excelled.
4. The Leafs had one of the best power plays in the league and still missed the playoffs – clearly this is a team that has to do better at five on five hockey if there’s to be any measure of success in 2006-2007.
5. NHL revenues are largely driven by gate receipts. This season, the average attendance rate was 92%. In 2003-2004 it was 89% and in 2002-2003 it was 90%. There’s no new mega-TV contract on the horizon and ticket prices can only increase a few points a year. It will be interesting to see how GMs with top-loaded payrolls (Hello Mr. Feaster, Mr. Ferguson) adjust in the event that attendance/revenue drops off by 3% or more and the cap shrinks accordingly. Escrow may take care of existing contracts, but those near the cap will have little room to move...

Link

Quelle Suprise

Paul Maurice (268-299-99-16; .484%) was named the 26th coach of the Leafs today.

Plenty of people who know far more about hockey than I do think this hiring is a very good thing. I just look at that winning percentage and his ratio of post-season appearances to tee times (3 for 9) and wonder how Maurice stacks up against the other available coaches who are out there…I also wonder if there’s a multi-syllabic German word for “Hope the coach succeeds and the GM fails.”

Top 5 questions I trust were asked of JFJ at the newser:

1. What did the delay between Quinn’s firing and Maurice’s hiring allow the club to achieve?
2. How many other candidates did you personally interview and why was Maurice the big winner?
3. Do you think that if Maurice were given the same player personnel that you provided Quinn last season, the Leafs would have made the post-season?
4. What the heck does “respect the process” even mean?
5. After watching nearly two complete rounds of playoffs, what would you say is the key to the Leaf's success moving forward and the single biggest asset the Leafs need to acquire - speed, depth, better goaltending, a qualified knowledgeable President of hockey operations, or a longer-term deal for the lame-duck GM?

Link

4 Days Late and a Match-up Short

This email exchange took place last week, but a number of issues on the home and work front kept me from posting it...it's a bit stale now and the Sharks may have sewn up their series before we even discussed it...

Buffalo v. Ottawa

Mike (BLF)

Buffalo has given the world chicken wings and, um, the Goo Goo Dolls? There may be the nightly fires, the deserted core and the rust-belt ambience, but there's also the beautiful Darwin Martin house and the Pearl Street Brewery aint bad either. Their old ball park is where they filmed one of my favourite movies, the Natural. Oh, and they have a Target (which Torontonians long for, like a bad student longing for summer break).

Ottawa, hmm, what can you say about the City that fun forgot? There's the Manx and beautiful weather for 3 months of the year, but it's also the birthplace of Tom Green.

If we weren't talking hockey, I'd suggest the best thing that could happen to either of these cities is that they be paved over and converted to parkland.

But back to hockey. Here are two clubs built on speed, both with goalies who shook off their critics in the first round, with near identical records (Sabres: 52-24-6/ Sens 52-21-9) and a one game differential in the season series (won by Ottawa 5-3). There's not a lot to choose from here.

I think it will go seven and the Sens additional game breakers will be the difference. But I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see the series go the other way.

Bonus prediction: the Sens will need to utilize their additional depth when Havlat is suspended for:

1. kicking (5-3 odds)
2. biting (8-1 odds)
3. surprise chair-shot on Thomas Vanek during the pre-game skate (50-1 odds)
4. distracting Mick McGeough while Jimmy "mouth of the south" Hart ties an unsuspecting Ryan Miller's skate laces together during OT (100-1 odds)
5. careless use of his stick resulting in some poor sabre getting whittled like a cheap piece of kindling (even)

Keith

Ahhhhh, Mike. Never let a moment pass to take a poke at the Nation's Capital (it may be the land that fun forgot, my friend, but it's no Buffalo).

Hockeywise, I don't think these cities are that evenly matched either. The season series is tight, but the all but one of the games that Buffalo won came later in the year when the Sens didn't have a full lineup.

If you look at earlier in the year when Ottawa had everyone playing there's just one shootout win and some pretty ugly blowouts:
Oct. 8: at Senators 5, Sabres 0
Nov. 2: Senators 10, at Sabres 4
Nov. 12: at Senators 6, Sabres 1
Feb. 4: at Sabres 2, Senators 1 (SO)
Mar. 18: at Senators 4, Sabres 2
Mar. 24: Senators 3, at Sabres 1
Apr. 5: at Sabres 5, Senators 4 (OT)
Apr. 8: Sabres 6, at Senators 2

Of course, we throw all of that out now and have to focus on what's new.

In my opinion, this has the potential to be one of the most exciting, high-scoring, hard hitting and fast-skating series of the second round if not the whole playoffs. That said, I don't think ANYONE can gun with Ottawa (as you said Mike, there's just too much skill). I know my opinion counts less because I'm a fan, but I'm voting for Beaver Tails and Manx brunch over chicken wings and urban blight.

Sens in six.

Dave
Well, I can't say I've had the pleasure (?) of ever visiting Buffalo, and since Ottawa has been my home for nearly the past 17 years, you have to figure I like it here. So I'll skip the burg-bashing in which my friend from the Centre of the Universe indulged (OK, that might have been a slight diss right there) and stick to hockey.

After all that, Mike, I pretty much agree with you. The speedy Sabres proved to me with their domination of the slow-footed Flyers they have what it takes to be a force in these playoffs. Ryan Miller has been solid in goal and with the likes of Briere and Dumont up front, Buffalo can put the puck in the net too.

Still, Ray Emery demonstrated he's no slouch between the pipes either, and Martin Havlat might be the most explosive player in this little Stanley Cup tourney.

I think this will be a very tight, fast-paced, entertaining series that the Senators will ultimately win because they have just a bit more depth and a stronger blueline.

It could take seven, but I'm going with Ottawa.

Carolina vs. New Jersey

Mike
Could the Devils have had an easier time dispatching the rangers in the first round? After watching much of that series, thanks to OLN, I have a feeling the Albany River Rats could have beaten Jagr and his mates in four straight.

Even though the Devils are on a roll (what is it, 15 straight now?) I think their win over the rangers was more indicative of a crappy, injured, Rangers club than it was of an emerging, dominant team from the Meadowlands.

Carolina bounced back nicely against the Habs, winning four straight to bring a close to that series (and proving that my brain was smarter than my gut for a change).

So what's going to happen when these two teams collide? A lot of close 2-1 or 3-2 games.

You could flip on a coin on this one, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say Canes in six.

Bonus Prediction: All but one game in this series will go into overtime.

Keith
I see a re-run of the Eastern conference final of a few years back.

Sure the Rangers blew up, but the 'Canes were doing the same thing until they put Cam Ward in net. Read that sentence again. Does anyone think that Cam Ward is better than Marty Brodeur? (You in the back with your hand up, you're LYING!...Oh, sorry Mrs. Ward.)

The question then becomes: How long can he keep it going? Or, perhaps more importantly, is the team in front of him good enough to stay alive with a rookie backstop.My answers are, "Not long enough" and "No."

Jersey in seven.

Dave
Keith, I couldn't agree with you more.

Carolina rebounded to get past the Habs, thanks in no small part to Saku Koivu's injury and the suddenly white-hot Cam Ward. But no matter how much you argue the Rangers sucked (and boy, did they ever) against the Devils, that 15-game winning streak is no mirage. (It's not like they played the Rangers all 15 times.)

Cam Ward has been a great story, no question. But Marty Brodeur was winning Cups when the 22-year-old Ward was still probably playing with Power Rangers, not against New York Rangers.

Brodeur's experience makes all the difference in this series.

Devils in six.

Colorado – Anaheim

Mike
Out in the west, I wish the series were reversed. Maybe I'm underestimating or undervaluing the Ducks, maybe I'm getting ahead of myself, but it seems to me San Jose - Edmonton should be the conference finals.

I'm still stunned that Colorado beat Dallas. I watched a fair bit of that series and it seemed the outcome had far more to do with Dallas shooting themselves in the foot (repeatedly) and the bounces going Colorado's way than with Colorado running away with it. Afterall, three of Colorado's four wins came in overtime.

Meanwhile, Anaheim looked very solid against the Flames - even though that series went the full seven.

I think Anaheim may have a bit of rust/bruises on them in game 1 but they'll prevail over the course of the series.

I like the Ducks in 6.

Keith
I would have written this before I game 1 (really!) but now that the duck's mauling of the Avalanche has happened, I feel even more confident about it.

The Ducks are going to dismantle these guys.

Theodore's been average at best and Dallas played terrible, TERRIBLE hockey in the first round. Anaheim has been playing tight, disciplined smart hockey over the last couple of weeks. I made a mistake in underestimating the Ducks in the last round, I won't again.

Anaheim in five.

Dave
It seems my gut feeling about the Ducks in the last series was right on the money after all. They played Calgary's game better in Game 7 than Calgary, frustrating the offensively challenged Flames and generating scoring chances with their own strong forechecking.

Neidermayer and Selanne led the way, but got plenty of help from their friends, in particular that Russian goaltender whose name I can't pronounce.

Even before last night's opener, I figured there was no reason why they couldn't do it again against Colorado. The Avalanche looked great against a listless Dallas team, but Randy Carlyle has his Ducks playing with a take-no-prisoners attitude that was good enough to beat the ultimate playoff-style team and will be more than good enough to beat the Avs.

Sakic, Blake, etc. might have enough heart to cajole a couple of wins out of their team, but Anaheim will prevail.

Ducks in six.

Link

Truthiness and JFJ

Mat at Toronto Truthiness has written a three part piece on JFJ’s tenure as GM of the Leafs. It’s really worth the read, although, after reviewing the record it's clear that Mat and I have both different starting and end points when it comes to JFJ.

My main issue with the 3 part series at Toronto Truthiness (TT) is that it doesn’t address JFJ’s fundamental flaw - he has misread every NHL level event during his tenure. Consider:

• He completely misread the impending labour stoppage, presuming it would be a shortened season
• He completely misread the emerging market once the CBA was signed – resulting in the Leafs having to acquire a number of high-risk players (who did not pan out)
• He compounded his errors in points 1 and 2 by then mis-allocating those scarce salary dollars by overpaying for marginal players

But let’s have a look at what TT has to say…I think his article can almost be summarized by one early sentence:

“Has [JFJ] proven he is a qualified GM? Not yet, but he has also not proven he is unqualified.”

I could stop here - this is not the descriptor I want for the GM of a team I have cheered for, worried about, over analyzed since the days of Saginuk and Boschman. Unfortunately others, namely those with an actual say in the matter, are clearly willing to give JFJ the benefit of the doubt.

According to TT:

The largest cause for this attack on the Leafs GM has been for the free agent signings he made last summer. Eric Lindros, Jason Allison, Jeff O’Neill and Alexander Khavanov were each, to one degree or another, a disappointment this season, but going into the year we all knew each of them was a gamble. With the limited cap space available and the large number of holes in the lineup to fill, for the team to have a chance at being competitive these gambles were necessary.

I have a couple of problems with this take on JFJ and the Leafs situation.

First of all, I don’t think there’s an attack on JFJ. People are questioning his decisions and rightly so. The guy has continually made puzzling choices, is a terrible communicator, and – while I can’t speak for other Leaf fans – he doesn’t exactly instill any sort of confidence, credibility, vision – you name it.

Secondly, sure there were roster holes on the Leafs, but that’s completely immaterial - there were nearly 400 free agents available at the signing of the CBA. This may have been the best time in the history of hockey to have roster holes.

Thirdly, there’s a very clear reason why the Leafs had limited cap space available and the reason for that lies at the feet of none other than JFJ, consider:

• JFJ tendered an enormous contract to Belfour
• Commitments to Sundin, Belfour and McCabe tied up around $15M or nearly 35% of the salary dollars available and opted not to buy any of these players out.
• JFJ overpaid on a number of marginal players, paying in excess of $1M/yr for Domi, Antropov, Khavanov, Berg and nearly $700K for Belak.

One other thing: of the big-spending, pre-CBA teams, the Leafs and the St. Louis Blues were the only clubs that did not buy out a single player and the only reason St. Louis didn’t bite on any of their hefty contracts was the team was up for sale.

Cap space was certainly available to the Leafs, they just decided not to pursue it. To suggest otherwise is misleading.

As for the Belfour contract, TT positions it as follows:

Belfour was resigned before the lockout began following a playoff in which he nearly single-handedly defeated the heavily favoured Ottawa Senators in the first round. He was rewarded with a two year deal in a summer when there were very few quality free agent goalies available. At the time, nobody expected the lockout to last an entire season and the Leafs were gearing up for one final run in what they expected to be a shortened year with the veteran core they had established.

There were clearly two schools of thought on the lock-out - one predicted a shortened season and the others clearly expected at least an entire season to be lost. Just go back and look at coverage from September/October of 2004: here, here, here and here. I recall people saying the lockout could last two years.

Furthermore, if JFJ thought there was going to be a shortened season, why did the Leafs head into the lockout with so few players under contract? My take is JFJ cleared the decks so MLSE could absolutely minimize salary commitments during the lock-out.

More importantly, at the end of the day if JFJ was so clearly in the shortened season camp he was, once again, very wrong. (Anyone else seeing a trend here with JFJ's ability to read the tea leaves?)

TT's take on Belfour continues:

While age might be expected to slow him down a bit, there was no reason to believe that Belfour would post the worst numbers of any starting goalie in the league, and if he had continued to play as well as he had in previous years the Leafs would be in the playoffs today.

I agree that no one could have foreseen Belfour’s massive decline. Having said that, I’m still puzzled as to:

• JFJ’s urgency to sign Belfour
• the fact that Belfour did not have to undertake a physical
• the overall terms of the contract – the length, the cost, the no-trade clause and the buy-out.

This is a goalie with known back problems who was about to undergo surgery, the season is about to shut-down, yes he had a good preformance against Ottawa, but he followed it up with an average series against Philly. In short, what’s the rush?

TT also minimizes the impact of the much-discussed Belfour buyout:

The only issue I have is with the buyout required to pay Belfour for not exercising his option year, however the consensus seems to be the following scenario: the $2 million buyout was effected by the rollback now making it $1.52 million, which is payed over two seasons resulting in $760,000 being sent (and likely taken from the cap) to Eddie each year. Yeah it sucks, but $760k, in reality is not that much especially considering the abundance of money available for the Leafs to spend this summer combined with the increase in the cap next season.

To my mind, JFJ can’t have it both ways. One can’t complain of cap constraints and then defend a buy-out as only $760K. That’s nearly double the league minimum salary and, in a competitive cap environment it's why you end up with guys like Czerkawski. The buy-out stinks, there’s no need to sugar coat it.

TT on JFJ at the Trade Deadline:

Now that the Leafs have missed the playoffs, a lot has been made of Ferguson’s decision to not hold a fire sale at the trade deadline, particularly his choice not to trade McCabe. At the time though the Leafs still had a shot at making the playoffs. Imagine if JFJ had traded the defender and the Leafs had finished in the same position they did now, two points out of the playoffs? Everybody would be calling for his head saying that Toronto could have made the post season if they hadn’t traded the third highest scoring defenceman in the league for draft picks and prospects.

The Leafs did have a shot at making the playoffs, but it was the longest of long-shots. Considering they went nearly undefeated down the stretch and still missed out, the prudent course of action for JFJ and the health of the club was to identify those players who would not be returning in the following season and trade them at the deadline. Any return on those players is a bonus. Now those players will leave (or have already left) the organization and the Leafs will get nothing for them.

If JFJ’s plan (first rule of the plan is not to talk about the plan; second rule of the plan is not to talk about the plan) is to build from within, his paralysis at the trade deadline becomes an even bigger tactical error – he could have acquired more picks/prospects to feed the system and failed to do so. Sixth or seventh rounder for Berg? Done. Low first round pick for McCabe – bring it on, he’s a UFA this summer and there’s nothing to stop the Leafs from massively over paying him as part of a stupidly long-term contract resigning him. Pylons and sock tape for Belfour? Thanks for making us not have to pay out his option.

None of these players will be back with the Leafs and yet the Leafs will have nothing to show for holding on to them and in the case of Belfour, will be on the hook for his buy-out.

In addition to re-stocking the larder (don’t forget JFJ’s plan) moving these players at the trade deadline would also have cleared the deck and allowed the Leafs to get a better read on how their prospects fared against NHL caliber competition.

I’m really not seeing the downside of trading away these players. When you factor in the opportunity cost of their AHL players not getting a sniff of the NHL, JFJ’s approach makes even less sense.

TT’s take on JFJ’s trades - there's not much I disagree with here. JFJ hasn't exactly been active on this front.

The Leetch deal is the biggest and was unfortunately a bust due to the lockout erasing the last year of Brian’s contract, resulting in him only playing the final 15 games plus the playoffs of the 2003-2004 season. This deal was made with the expectation that there would not be a full year lost to the CBA negotiations. Still, it is not as bad as the Owen Nolan deal as some have said. The 1st and 2nd round draft picks are the biggest pill to swallow as Maxim Kondratiev and Jarkko Immonen are both middling prospects with little value who could quite possibly never be regular NHL players.

I’m torn on this one. I understand why the deal was made. The Leafs had a really limited window to make a stab for the cup. But with the lockout looming it was another high-stakes gamble and once again, JFJ got burned.

As for comparing it with the Nolan deal, it doesn’t make it any better…it's like defending the loss of your left arm in routine surgery and saying it wasn’t as bad as when you lost your right arm in that run-in with the industrial meat grinder.

PROSPECT DEVELOPMENT

TT has an excellent – in fact one of the best I’ve seen – summaries of the Leafs moves in terms of prospect development, scouting, AHL coaching, etc.

While this is great news and I too applaud JFJ for these decisions and actions, it should be noted that this is usually the jurisdiction of the Assistant GM.

TT on ALTERNATIVE METHODS of acquiring players:

Ferguson has inherited a prospect pool that is far from overflowing due to years of neglect. As a result of this the Leafs have been required to sign many UFA’s in the last few years to fill holes in their roster that prospects were unable to adequately.

Ok, recognizing that these holes exist, for the life of me I can’t figure out why JFJ stood pat at the trade deadline. Seriously. Has JFJ even read his secret plan?

In summary:

Given the frequency of JFJ’s errors:

• the Leetch trade in light of the cancelled season
• re-signing Belfour to that goofy contract
• thinking the lock-out would be short term
• not buying-out Belfour
• being caught flat footed post-CBA
• all of his post-CBA player acquisitions being uniformly busts
• whiffing at the trade deadline
• failing to recognize that the Leafs may have had the talent on-hand to win all year (but continued to deploy the plodding Allison, the creaky Belfour and the shaky Khavanov)

I have very little faith that this is the guy that will lead the Leafs anywhere.

Not to get all philosophical, but I'll give the last words to Albert Camus (whom I'm sure would be a Leaf fan, afterall he did write the Plague) when considering our current GM, we should remember: "We are defined not by our ambitions but strictly by our acts. "

Link