NHL Signing Day

With a $64 million cap and a 23 man roster, the average annual salary for a NHL player in 2011-12 will be just shy of $3 million

When the NHL salary cap came into effect after the lock-out, I began to ruthlessly decry every long-term (6 or more years) and/or big dollar ($6 million plus annually) contract that was signed.

I ridiculed the Rangers for signing Chris Drury, the Flyers for Daniel Briere, the Red Wings for Henrik Zetterberg and Johan Franzen, the Canucks for Roberto Luongo...the list went on and on (just like the actual contracts).

I always believed it was in a team's best interest to avoid those types of contracts at all costs. I understood the thinking behind tacking on years and paying the majority of the total contract at the front of the deal to reduce the cap hit, but I couldn't see the logic in committing more than five years to any player not named Crosby or Ovechkin. Injury, consistency, and complacency were all too much of a concern in my mind. Plus, I am apparently the only person who remembers the mess that was the NBA from 1996 - 2000. (So yes, my credibility took a hit with the 'It Won't Be Jets' and 'Manitoba Time' columns, but I did forsee the current NHL salary crisis a full three years ago.)

I also thought that tieing up as much as 20-25% of your cap space on 2-3 players would not allow a team to surround those top players with the quality depth needed to compete for a Stanley Cup.

I was adamant that teams who offered these types of contracts would regret them in the long run. I was positive that having more than a couple of players with annual salaries north of $5 million would cripple a team. I firmly believed you had to be very careful not to overpay anyone on your roster, and laughed at many contracts for borderline or slightly above average players who were signed to 3, 4 and $5 million contracts (Jeff Finger, Mike Commodore, Tuomo Ruutu, to name but a few).

I was deeply invested in the stockpiling draft picks/developing players/avoid over-paying for free agents philosophy. I believed you needed the roster flexibility that comes with putting together a team in this fashion, and if you didn't, well, at some point it would come back and bite you.

What I didn't see coming was a salary cap that would increase at a pace of almost 10% a year, from $39 million in 2006, all the way to $64 million in 2011. I didn't see the average, yes AVERAGE salary becoming almost $3 million in 2011.

Now when a player like Brooks Laich signs for $4.5 million a year, the sticker shock isn't nearly what it used to be. If the average salary is almost $3 million a year, then a slightly above average player is going to command at least slightly above $3 million a year. Simple logic.

The point is, worrying about fitting large salaries into your cap or slightly over-paying for an average player is suddenly a waste of time for fans and teams alike. Not only does a cap that keeps going up entice rich teams to be stupid, it also means those same teams have unlimited get-out-of-jail-free cards that can be used to give away bad contracts to teams needing to somehow get to the salary cap floor (which is a staggering $48 million for 2011-12).

All of which adds up to a humongous payday for Brad Richards.

I hope he signs with the Leafs.

Bry$galov

Philly will regret this one in the morning

The least shocking part of today's crazy shakeup in Philadelphia was the signing of goaltender Ilya Bryzgalov to nine-year $51 million contract.

On a day when the Flyers may or may not have ripped the soul out of their team by trading Mike Richards, and also moved perennial 30-goal man Jeff Carter, they managed to saddle themselves with a ridiculous contract that became an albatross the second it was signed.

It wasn't shocking because shortly after they were eliminated from this spring's Stanley Cup playoffs, Flyers owner Ed Snider was quoted insisting his team find an established goalie no matter the cost.

"So either one of the goalies we have has to step up in training camp, or we have to make improvements to make sure it happens. But we are never going to go through the goalie issues we've gone through in the last couple of years. If we trade or go for a goalie [through free agency], we'll make it work. We can make anything work, even with the cap."

A few weeks later Philly traded for the rights to the soon-to-be unrestricted free-agent Byzgalov, who had quietly made it well known he wanted a deal in the neighbourhood of seven years and $49 million, and that meant a significant amount of dollars needed to be moved.

With a young Claude Giroux/JVR tandem and two highly skilled and dependable veterans in Daniel Briere and Chris Pronger, plus a pretty solid supporting cast, moving Richards or Carter is somewhat defensible.

But moving both to make room for Bryzgalov is not.

Committing dollars and length to a goalie in the salary cap system is not a good move, even with a cap that only goes up. Goaltenders are the easiest commodity to find. They are plentiful, they continue to flood the market, and therefore, they are cheap.

If I was Paul Holmgren, before finalizing the Bryzgalov contract I would've reached out to the Vancouver Canucks fans and asked them how they're feeling about being stuck with eleven more years of Roberto Luongo, then forwarded all the responses on to Ed Snider.

I would've pointed to Rick DiPietro.

Then I'd point in the other direction at Antti Niemi. And Brian Boucher or Michael Leighton. Corey Crawford. Craig Anderson.

Every year there are goalies who come out of nowhere and win or even steal games. Some get hot for one or two months, some for one or two years, and some prove they've got legitimate staying power. The difference in ability between the 3rd and 43rd best goalies in the world is fractional. You never know where or when you'll find a gem, or how long his game will last.

I'd also point to winning franchises like Detroit, Chicago and San Jose and the cheap and replaceable goaltending model they use.

Then I would've pointed back to DiPietro again.

Manitoba Time?

Chipman's latest comments suggest this team won't be called "Winnipeg"

"We are very honoured by the NHL board of governors' unanimous decision today," Mark Chipman, True North's chairman of the board, said in a statement.

"We know that the fans of this province have an appetite for NHL hockey that is rivalled by few in the league and intend to work very hard to make Manitobans proud of our franchise for years to come."

That was the comment released by True North after the NHL officially approved the relocation of the Atlanta Thrashers franchise to Winnipeg yesterday.

Since I love a conspiracy theory, and have been claiming for weeks that this team won't be called the Jets, it didn't take much for me to read between the lines and determine that whatever this team ends up being called (and I'm still sticking with Falcons, but am genuinely worried about Polar Bears), it will not be preceded by "Winnipeg".

Instead it will be the "Manitoba" somethings, which apparently follows the very successful off the field model of the Saskatchewan Roughriders. While Regina might be where the Riders play their home games, anyone who has ever stepped foot in Saskatchewan knows that the entire province embraces that team, and that is the type of following True North hopes to build for its Winnipeg-based NHL team.