CBC-Sports

Owners, GMs terrified of long-term deals, but Lecavalier could be the exception

January 15, 2009 10:25 AM | Posted by   Elliotte Friedman  

As the Vincent Lecavalier Trade Watch exploded this week, the Canadiens were rumoured to be dealing some combination of Christopher Higgins, a Kostitsyn brother, P.K. Subban, another prospect and draft picks to Tampa Bay for number four.

The general consensus is: the Lightning are dreaming if they think they can get that much.

To many fans, that will sound insane, because Montreal isn’t really giving up a ton if you assume that offer is accurate. (And, by the way, many hockey people don’t.) But, let’s walk through the Lecavalier fiasco together.

Ask yourself the following questions:

1) How many teams in the NHL can actually afford Lecavalier’s 11-year, $85 million contract?
2) How many of those teams historically would be willing to have anyone on their roster making anywhere near that kind of cash?
3) How many of those teams have the kind of cap flexibility to add him?

The last question is crucial, because this is not a situation where the Lightning want to take another team’s big contract in return. So, if, for argument’s sake, the Flyers were interested, it’s impossible to believe that Tampa would take Daniel Briere in exchange, because both deals are similarly front-loaded. (Please understand: I have no reason to believe this has been discussed. It’s just an example.)

So, how many teams are really in this race?

Montreal, for sure. Vancouver definitely could be. It has cap room and prospects. Toronto has cap room, but no prospects. It fits Edmonton’s profile, since the Oilers threw bags of cash at Jaromir Jagr and Marian Hossa. I also wonder about a Colorado, a Dallas, or an LA.

Teams want room to move

The fact is, as a couple different execs were saying, there are only about six or seven teams legitimately able to pull this off.

Lecavalier is a great talent, and a durable one, too. Only twice in his nine seasons has he played less than 80 games - 68 in 2000-01 and 76 in 2001-02. Those two things are extremely attractive to any GM interested in anyone with a long-term deal. But you know what’s become even more important to these GMs?

Flexibility.

Here’s a trivia question: Right now, which NHL team ranks either first or second in salary commitments for the 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 seasons?

Answer: Pittsburgh.

Don’t think what’s happening to the Penguins right now isn’t a cautionary tale to other teams in the league. Who is the East’s other big disappointment? Ottawa, also handcuffed by big contracts and no-trade clauses.

Other execs are wondering what Chicago is going to do with Jonathan Toews, Patrick Kane, Duncan Keith and Brent Seabrook - tough choices despite Nikolai Khabibulin’s $7 million per season clearing this summer.

Even Detroit, the model franchise when it comes to drafting, developing and getting players to take hometown discounts, has team-altering decisions to make. Henrik Zetterberg, Marian Hossa, Johan Franzen and Jiri Hudler (restricted) are all up, and Zetterberg is testing the Red Wings’ limits. (They gave Hossa a one-year deal equal to Nicklas Lidstrom’s $7.45 million, and a 10-year, $75 million offer to Zetterberg has apparently been rejected.) The Lightning themselves are in this situation because of the Stanley Cup gifts awarded to three players, Lecavalier being one.

Think the Wild are disappointed Marian Gaborik turned down a reported eight-year, $64 million offer?

Financial crisis a factor

Then, there is the economic collapse. Teams are under the impression that, at best, the cap will stay the same next season, before decreasing in 2010-11. From Oct. 1, 2007, until the financial lunacy began in mid-September, 37 NHL players signed contracts of at least five years in length. That’s an average of three per month. Since then, there have been three in total .

Those players are Anze Kopitar, Paul Stastny and Matt Greene. By comparison, last year at this time, there were nine.

This is not an insignificant trend. With the economy unstable and NHL cap reality uncertain, both owners and GMs are terrified of long-term contracts.

“If you give anyone five years, you better be sure,” an exec said. “You can’t afford to make one mistake.”

Managers exhibiting buyer’s remorse are recognizing a painful reality - that if you want to trade one of these contracts, you’re going to have to make the kind of deal that is difficult to explain to your fans. What they’re hearing from potential partners is some variation of this:

“If you want me to help you take this contract off your books, well then you’re going to have to take my brutal contract. Oh, you don’t want to do that? Well, you’re going to have to take something else I don’t want - like a middling prospect or a later-round draft pick. You’re not getting anything of value from me for an asset you’re desperately trying to get rid of.”

For months, Maple Leaf fans dreamt the Islanders would take Bryan McCabe from them. In reality, New York was telling Toronto, if you want us to help you, you’ll give us a first-round pick, too. How would that one have gone over in Leafland? Not very well.

Lecavalier may be the exception

As much as Senators fans are making Jason Spezza the scapegoat, how happy would they be if Bryan Murray traded him for a mid-level prospect and a draft pick that wouldn’t be in the first round? A couple of different executives said unless Murray is willing to take on an ugly contract in return - and he probably isn’t - he may not get much more for his best centre. If you believe the whispers, that's why number 19 remains in the nation’s capital.

A harsh reality for the Senators and their fans. But, if you think trading Spezza is going to bring in the players who will start an immediate turnaround, you’re mistaken.

That brings us back to Lecavalier and the Lightning. While there may not be a huge market for him, he’s too good and too reliable a player. Those who can afford him would definitely take him over Spezza. But, if the Lightning think they are going to make a great hockey deal for him, they’re wrong. They aren’t getting Bob Gainey’s best, or anyone else’s for that matter. There might be a slight bidding war, but no one is going to give up too much for a player who - no matter how good - will seriously damage roster flexibility.

Considering some pretty smart hockey people are now saying they knew about the captain’s availability a week ago, chances are the Lightning know all this already. They might as well roll up the sidewalks outside the rink if they screw up this one.

Maybe they can’t afford to keep him. But they can’t afford to trade him for what’s being made available, either.

" Previous Post | Main
  •