Tuesday Editorial: Sometimes the best moves are the ones you do not make

Often times, after the trade deadline has passed, hockey websites will compile a list of “winners” and “losers.” These listings generally involve teams that were active at the trade deadline. While I have no problem with these articles (as they are generally a good read), I always find myself wondering why other general managers, who decided not to pull the trigger, are excluded from the “winners” section. The odd time, teams are criticized for not doing enough and are, therefore, cast as “losers” post trade deadline. On the other hand, you rarely, if ever, see a team cast as a “winner” after doing hardly anything come deadline time.

We do not have to look far for an example of this phenomenon. Last season, Ducks GM Brian Burke decided to add checking forward Brad May at the trade deadline and that was it. He did not acquire a go-to scorer, or another top tier defenseman; instead, he liked his current roster and decided to add a character player such as May as a depth forward. In hindsight, this was a terrific move. Not only did Burke not mortgage the future for a quick fix, but he did not mortgage the future and still went on to win the Stanley Cup. That being said, you did not see any commentator say after last season’s trade deadline that Brian Burke was a “winner.” Though it may seem surprising, sometimes the best move is to do little, if anything, when it comes to player movement.

That brings us to the 2007/08 trade deadline. After the February 26th deadline passed, many were quick to criticize Bob Gainey for not bringing aboard another go-to scorer, and for dealing off his veteran netminder Cristobal Huet. Fans and commentators alike believed that Gainey subtracted from his roster and handcuffed his team’s chances come playoff time. While the playoffs have yet to be played, the Habs have already become one of the first teams to qualify for the big dance. Furthermore, the Habs are currently the number one seed in the Eastern Conference. Is that success attributed to a deadline acquisition like Brad Richards or Marian Hossa? I did not think so. Rather, that success should be attributed to Montreal’s both experienced and youthful roster; a roster that has not seen much change over the course of the season.

It says here that It is about time that Gainey receive some credit for not being active at the trade deadline. His trust in his young players, including but not limited to Carey Price, should be commended. Sometimes the best move is to trust your team, its chemistry and its ability to grow as the season moves along. Gainey’s work proves that you don’t always have to be active to be a “winner.”

For Illegal Curve, I’m Richard Pollock.

Tuesday Editorial: Why is trading so rare in the NHL?

With the NHL trade deadline less than three weeks away and trade rumours at a season-high, hockey fans are all wondering when the first chip will fall. Fans are probably more eager than ever to see a few transactions across the NHL, since, unlike years past, this season has seen little to no player movement. Now, I am not here to provide you with an abundance of trade rumours because there are more than enough websites out there that focus entirely on that topic; rather, I am here to examine why there is such a dearth of player movement in the game today. Looking more closely, I will present the two main arguments you will usually hear as the reasons for this lack of movement. First, I will assess the argument that the lack of NHL trading is due mainly to the $50.3 per team salary cap, which limits player spending and, as a result, doesn’t allow for players to be traded. Secondly, I will examine the argument that parity is the main reason for the lack of movement. Finally, I will decide which of these arguments holds more merit.

First argument: NHL trades are rare because teams have to fit their rosters to a strict $50.3 million cap leaving little or no money for other transactions

After the NHL lost the 2004/05 season to a lockout, the league finally got the hard cap it so desired heading into the 2005/06 season. While the hard cap has rose by more than $10 million since its inception, the cap still limits many teams in their spending ability. The large market teams that were well above the current cap limit prior to the lockout are believed to be close to the salary cap ceiling this season. When these teams head into the season with “allegedly” all their cap room spent, the misperception exists that teams only have the option of trading salary-for-salary in a trade. Salary for salary trades are most common in NBA basketball, and are rarer on the hockey landscape. The rarity of these transactions isn’t difficult to see. Think about how difficult it was to make a trade even pre-lockout; you still had to agree on players, draft picks, etc. With the salary cap, not only do you need to agree on take into account the aforementioned issues, but you also have to take player salaries into account when completing a transaction. Taking all these factors into account, the public may get the impression that trading really looks mighty difficult. However, once you take a closer look at the facts, the picture will appear to be far clearer.

Examining the NHL team-by-team cap numbers (courtesy of NHLSCAP.com) one will realize that only two teams have less than $1 million left: the Maple Leafs and the Flyers. Further, only one team has between $1-$2 million dollars in cap space: the Vancouver Canucks. Therefore, only three teams have less than $2 million dollars in cap space remaining. On top of that, only five teams are between $2-$3 million dollars in cap space. Altogether, that means only one third of NHL teams are within $3 million dollars of the salary cap, while the rest have more space to maneuver. If lack of salary space is such a problem, why do two thirds of NHL teams have enough to make a deal? This leads us into our alternative argument.

Second argument: NHL trades are not so commonplace because most teams are in or close to a playoff spot

As I wrote last week in my Tuesday Editorial, the NHL playoff race is as close as ever. Looking at the race this week, not much has changed. There are only four teams in the entire NHL that are more than six points out of a playoff spot, with just under 30 games remaining for each team. Think about that for a second; 26 NHL teams are in or within a short winning streak of the playoffs.

When trading takes place, the easiest trades to consummate are those between haves and have not’s. That option, however, is less readily present in the parity-ridden NHL. There are hardly, if any, proverbial sellers at this point. Furthermore, if there are only four to six sellers right now, why would any of those sellers deal off their assets before the trade deadline, a time which will most likely result in increased offers? In short, they won’t.

Trades between two playoff teams, or teams striving for a playoff spot, aren’t very common because GM’s generally don’t like to see their former players come back to haunt them. Thus, they generally avoid trading intra-conference. As a result, their options are cut in half, limiting them offers from teams who don’t play in their conference. Small-scale trades like last year’s deal of Aaron Ward for Paul Mara are more likely than intra-conference than a blockbuster.

Which argument is better?

Both arguments have their merits. In fact, some might argue the two arguments are anything but mutually exclusive (seeing as how the salary cap is the reason for parity in the first place). Also, I realize that some teams work within their own self-imposed budget; however, those figures are difficult to obtain from these organizations and, thus, provides me with little, if any, way to have included those numbers in this analysis. Having said all that, examining these two issues separately seems to reveal that NHL teams trade less these days due to their belief that they can compete for a playoff spot, and advance once there, rather than due to the limits that cap constrains place upon them.

For Illegal Curve, I’m Richard Pollock.
illegalcurve@gmail.com

Tuesday Editorial: Does Seeding Even Matter?

With the NHL Playoffs less than three months away, the time has come to start seriously evaluating the playoff race. Prior to the NHL lockout, it was fairly easy to predict the majority of the teams that would qualify for the playoffs in the spring. Now, however, with parity becoming the new catch-word in the NHL, it has become almost impossible to predict who are the haves and have not’s going into the stretch drive of the season.

One needs to just take one look at the Western Conference standings to understand this phenomenon. Aside from the Detroit Red Wings, who are sitting atop the Western Conference at 78 points, seeds two through twelve in the conference are separated by a meagre ten points. Think about that for a second; only ten points separate a strong “playoff favourite” from a team that will be hitting the links in mid-April. With seeds two through eight (eight teams make the NHL playoffs in each conference) only separated by five points right now, if the playoffs were to start today, would any match-up constitute an upset? The only team that, in reality, could be upset is the Detroit Red Wings. While the Red Wings have had their fair share of playoff success over the years, they have also had their fair share of disappointments; an upset of this year’s version of the Red Wings wouldn’t be all that shocking.

If you thought the Western Conference was close, the Eastern Conference is separated from seeds one through eight by a total of twelve points. In fact, if the Southeast Division teams continue their embarrassing seasons to date, it appears one team in the Eastern Conference will be left out of the playoff with more points than the three seed (each division winner is guaranteed a spot in the top three of the conference). Aside from the Ottawa Senators, who are actually coming back to the pack, the conference is extremely close. In fact, only five points separate seeds two through eights. Again, this may sound repetitive but, is seed two really any better than seed eight? Not likely. Further, if seeds nine (New York Rangers) and ten (Washington Capitals) miss the eighth seed of the playoffs by a point or two, and the fifth seed by five or six points, are they that much worse than a “favourite” in their conference. I think not; in fact, the playoff team may have gotten an extra bounce or two over the course of the season and that becomes the difference between a successful and disappointing season for the organization and its fan base. It really is such a fine-line.

With all playoff teams so close together in the standings, does seeding really matter? If the third seed has two more points during an 82 game schedule than the sixth seed, does that make the third seed a better team? It most likely does not. Never mind the inception of the shootout, which taints point totals that “teams accumulate” because it really is an individual competition, that is, of course, gone come playoff time. Many readers may be thinking, “But c’mon these teams get home-ice advantage.” While that point is true, how important is a one game home-ice advantage in a seven-game series, in which the teams facing each other are basically equal? It is somewhat important, but that’s only if the series is extended to seven games, and that didn’t happen all that much in the 2007 playoffs. All in all, when two teams face-off in this fall’s playoffs and you hear the word “favourite” being used, take a second to really consider if that “favourite” is really any better than their opponent.

For Illegal Curve, I’m Richard Pollock.