Friday, January 12, 2007

The Tough Decisions Are Arriving . . . Sooner Than We Expected?

In his fine roundup to last night’s game at Japer’s Rink, JP makes an important point:

“ . . . the difference between [the Caps and the Lightning] - $14 million. Without question, the $14m difference in payroll between the squads was the difference tonight. A defenseman (or two), a second-line center or winger - it wouldn't have taken much for this to have been a Caps win rather than a loss. Now that's two straight one-goal losses to Tampa. Three one-goal losses to Atlanta. Eleven one-goal losses on the year. These points get harder and harder to give up knowing that the Caps are simultaneously so close and yet so far away.”

Juxtapose this with what Tarik El-Bashir posted on December 28th in his “Capital Insider” blog in the aftermath of losses to Buffalo and Montreal:

“The Capitals will tell you that they didn't come ready to play against Buffalo. That a couple of defensive zone breakdowns led to Montreal's first two goals.

“And they are right.

“But take a step back and look at the bigger picture. What I saw was two $43 million dollar teams show the Capitals exactly how much an extra $13 million in salaries buys these days.”

In between, there was this from The Man, himself, in his January 9th “Owner’s Corner” column . . .

“Mention of the playoffs leads people to ask if we’re going to “make a move” – as if it were as simple as crossing something off a shopping list. That’s not to dismiss the importance of improving your team when you have the opportunity, and we will do that – if it’s the right opportunity. I know you’ve heard me say this before, but we won’t do it just for the sake of ‘making a move,’ or if it will unduly cost the franchise down the road.

“Could we make a trade? Of course. One of the reasons we stockpiled draft picks and focused on our farm system was to create value. And we’ve been strategic in our approach to the salary cap so that we are not handicapped in that regard, as some other teams are. Simply having room under the cap, however, is not reason to spend it.

“It was written recently, after we lost back-to-back games, that ‘You Get What You Pay For.’ In the NHL nothing could be further from the truth. I don’t want to pick on individual teams, but a quick glance at the standings will prove the fallacy of that headline. Some of the highest payroll teams occupy the bottom of the standings. Trust me, if anyone knows that you don’t always get what you pay for in this business, it’s me.

“There are strategic reasons why we need to manage our payroll now too. In 2003-04 I promised you that we would build a team that you could watch grow. But we aren’t going to be hockey’s Montreal Expos, developing stars to make their marks with other teams. To keep the Ovechkins, Semins, Backstroms and Greens into the prime of their careers, we will need to have flexibility under the salary cap. It’s an important fact of life in the ‘new NHL,’ especially with players eligible for free agency at younger ages.”

The discussion suggests that the Caps are arriving at a critical juncture in their rebuild. Given the dire predictions at the start of the year, one would have to conclude that the Caps are ahead of schedule in their return to competitiveness. You would not have thought when the season started that the Caps would be buyers in any trading market this year.

But now? That’s a hard question to answer. The arguments . . .

As JP points out, the Caps have 11 one-goal losses this year, five of them to Atlanta and Tampa Bay, combined. If the Caps managed to steal an additional point in five of those contests – less than half – they’d be seventh in the conference with 50 points. If they’d managed to steal two of those points from their conference foes (say, one each from Atlanta and Carolina, and denying them a point in the process), the Caps would be just a point behind Carolina and within striking distance of Atlanta (six points down with a game in hand). Could a mid-range salaried center have contributed to such a result? A similarly compensated defenseman? We’re not talking Daniel Briere money or Zdeno Chara money . . . a mid-salary range center, particularly, would likely be an improvement over the revolving door on the second line. The problem, as always, is what do you give up?

There is, though, the longer view as expressed by Ted Leonsis. And this gets into the strategic management of the cap. Right now, Alex Ovechkin, Alexander Semin, and Mike Green (three of the players specifically identified by Leonsis and currently under contract) account for a combined cap hit of $5.967 million. Ovechkin alone would command more than that (and will, when eligible) as a free agent. One could argue that Semin could command, say, Simon Gagne money -- $5.25 million – as a free agent. Green, even if he develops into no more than a 3-4 defender, could command the same $3,000,000 a year Filip Kuba is pulling down with the Lightning. So, for these three players, we could be looking at an outlay of $17.05 million (in 2007 cap dollars) to keep them in the fold. The difference is $11.8 million of the $13 million Tarik El-Bashir spoke of in his commentary. And we’re not even up to Nicklas Backstrom yet.

I’m not advocating a quick-fix/trade during this season any more than I’m advocating keeping the powder dry to see how the kids develop or to test the free agent market next summer. This is why George McPhee has a harder job than fans normally give general managers credit for. What I am saying is that a decision point that was inevitable is arriving sooner than many might have thought – a product of the Caps being ahead of schedule in their development. Does the club start using some of those picks/prospects stockpiled in the sell off as trading assets?

Sports being what they are – difficult to predict in terms of future performance – there are no clear criteria on which to base a decision. That the Caps would have sacrificed points that could cost them a playoff spot this year could end up being equal parts frustrating and heartbreaking for fans. The associated effect of that could be sufficient frustration that some full/partial season ticket holders will not renew, thinking that the club is more serious about not losing money than about winning hockey games.

On the other hand, if the gamble on youth pays off next year or the year after, and a solid foundation is established to compete year after year – a core of players like those Leonsis mentioned with role players being swapped in and out as opportunities arise – then the gamble will likely payoff with more fans in the stands, more money to invest in players, scouting, and infrastructure, and a winning team.

But it is a gamble, and not an insignificant one. It could be no less than a gamble on hockey as we know it in Washington. The Caps invested in high-priced free agents in an effort to establish a “brand” and saw that strategy explode in their faces as losses -- on the ice and on the balance sheet -- and disgruntlement piled up. Then, the Caps tore out the walls right down to the studs to go with a youth movement. If that doesn’t work, what’s Plan C?


Tyler said...

Of course, GMGM has already failed for 06-07. What's Yannic Perreault making? $600K on a one-year deal? With him this team is a top-six seed.

Also: Green/Backstrom/Semin have ~6 years before they hit free agency money.

Steven said...

Peerless, a well-thought out blog, per usual. I think what Washington is doing is great - they are building a team for which players - good players - will want to play. The team hasn't always been respected, and Washington hasn't always had that reputation to players wanting to be here.

The question becomes, are we trying to get to the playoffs this year, or are we trying to build a team that can win the Cup? They are not mutually exclusive goals (obviously, you have to make the playoffs prior to winning the Championship), but I make the point to drive home the idea that there are a number of moves that can be made for the sake of getting the Caps to the playoffs, that will prove counter-productive to the goal of winning the Cup. Tyler mentions one. Yannic Perreault is clearly the second-line center if he's on the Caps. But he isn't a long term solution for two or three primary reasons. First, he's on in years, 35 or so. Even if he stays here for three years, he's occupying a spot that at some point is going to have to be occupied by a younger player, of which the Caps have an abundance in their system. Second, as Tyler mentioned, he makes us a top 6 seed. If you go by seedings, without assuming an upset, that gets the team bounced in the first round. At some point you need the experience of making the playoffs, but the players that are going to be here when the next level is attained are the ones that need the experience - not the guys you'll be somewhere else next year. Jakub Klepis, a 22 year-old pivot, while overwhelmed now, can use the experience he's gaining here and now, and will get better. He's a guy that experience will help. Perreault's best days are passed, and he is on the downward side of his career. Three, I don't think he's the player that's going to put you in position to win the Cup as a second line center. So for however long he is here, just that long have we delayed the pursuit of the ultimate objective, and delayed getting those players the experience needed to compete for the Cup.

Acquiring Eric Brewer seems far more in line with both goals. He's the #1 defenseman on the Caps (if acquired), and make the Caps better immediately. And he's young enough to fit into the long-term plans, while pushing a place-holder such as Heward or Muir into a lesser role. Immediate improvement that fits into the Caps long-term plans.

The Peerless said...

I've not been much of a fan of Perreault -- he's spent his career being too much of a one-trick pony (faceoffs) for my tastes, but he's having a good stretch in Phoenix, to his credit.

The balancing act in which the Caps find themselves is really typified by Klepis (to a lesser extent, Beech). The club wants to give these kids a long look in NHL situations after their achievements in Hershey. But growth isn't a continuous process; there are stumbles and pitfalls along the way. Klepis has seen that in spades. The problem for management is in how much time you give the kids until you shorten the leash and make a push for the playoffs (if that's the possibility in which you find yourself).

That argues for waiting -- to see if the kids (Eminger, Green, Ovechkin, Semin) can put the club on their backs over the next 15-20 games in the way Kolzig has done it for years.

Does that mean this season might be "sacrificed" in terms of the playoffs? Yes, that's a possibility. But, look at the improvement of Semin from his first year, of Eminger since his, of Green, who is still just 21. Their being tempered in this "playoff" push is a part of their development, and bringing in a vet (perhaps a rental) for the purpose of making the playoffs this year could delay their progress.

I don't know that such action is part of the game plan. I'm very much ambivalent on this matter. On the one hand, fans (this one included) are starved for seeing a playoff game. On the other hand, I want to see this team compete every year. As Steven points out, these are not necessarily mutually exclusive objectives. But by the same token, great care needs to be exercised in balancing them.

That's why McPhee's job is more difficult than I think fans appreciate.

Insanity said...

While I see the point about a 1 trick pony, Perrault would help this team in many areas, even if he is here next year.

There is no center the young centers can lean on for advice. As much as Perrault is a "one trick pony" it is the one trick that I would say Zubrus would be missing to be a complete center. Or the one trick pony they are missing from having a significantly better power play and penalty kill.

As far as playoff experience. There's a number of players that went through the calder cup playoffs. It isn't exactly the same, but it isn't insignificant either.