Adjusted Plus/Minus

[X. Benedict]

The worst plus/minus players in the league.

This was addressed on Kuklas Korner. A very good blog.

 

http://www.kuklaskorner.com/index.php/psh/comments/worst_20_adjusted_-_ratings/

 

Basically, the plus minus is useful to a point, but with the adjusted weights - it evens it out some.

 

Not shockingly, Tyler Bozack and Phil Kessle near the top of this list tells you why Toronto signed Tim Connolly.

 

This method also significantly hurts the single zone players, especially when they don't score. Kovalchuk (for example). Curious to me is Chad Larose - who tends to leave his position to go headhunting for the hit.

 

No Buffalo players here:

 

Sv Pct Against

Rank Name Team Adj. +/_ Sv%for Sv%against

1 David Booth Flo -26.0 .889 .931

2 Tyler Bozak Tor -24.6 .904 .934

2 Chris Phillips Ott -24.6 .901 .931

4 Cam Fowler Ana -23.6 .917 .941

5 Daniel Carcillo Phi -23.0 .901 .964

6 Jack Johnson LA -22.2 .915 .927

7 Dennis Wideman Flo -21.0 .893 .924

8 Zach Bogosian Atl -20.4 .911 .941

9 Ilya Kovalchuk NJ -20.0 .897 .926

10 Chad Larose Car -19.6 .905 .943

10 Erik Karlsson Ott -19.6 .905 .934

12 BJ Crombeen StL -19.4 .896 .936

13 Rene Bourque Cal -17.4 .911 .921

13 Olli Jokinen Cal -17.4 .900 .922

15 Tomas Kopecky Chi -17.2 .885 .923

16 Andy Greene NJ -17.0 .903 .943

17 Todd Marchant Ana -16.4 .928 .968

18 Filip Kuba Ott -15.6 .883 .935

18 Tyler Seguin Bos -15.6 .945 .939

18 Phil Kessel Tor -15.6 .906 .923

[Braedon]

I like his write up on Carcillo. It exposes the pitfall with +/- not accounting for the players role. I'm guilty of taking the +/- at face value when comparing players.

[Weave]

I used to be a regular reader of KuklasKorner but for some reason stopped. I always enjoyed the articles and insight.

 

Snooping around the site I found this tidbit on FA signings.

 

Terry Pegula is not a miracle owner in Buffalo. His exuberance as an owner led to some ridiculous contracts for Christian Ehrhoff and Ville Leino. Both of which are strong candidates to be contracts that will be regretted in a few years.

 

Ouch. I hope the author is wrong here.

[thesportsbuff]

 

 

Ouch. I hope the author is wrong here.

 

U needed this guy to tell you those are risky contracts?

[BetweenThePipes00]

I used to be a regular reader of KuklasKorner but for some reason stopped. I always enjoyed the articles and insight.

 

Snooping around the site I found this tidbit on FA signings.

 

 

 

Ouch. I hope the author is wrong here.

 

 

U needed this guy to tell you those are risky contracts?

 

Actually, I think the way they Ehrhoff's is structured makes it LESS "risky" ... the guy can hate it because it circumvents the cap and maybe is bad for the league, but the cap hit is not out of line for his performance, and if he declines in his late 30s they just buy it out cheap .... the only "risk" is the out-of-pocket cash the first two years, and that's not an issue for TP ...

Even Leino's deal isn't a HUGE risk ... it's a little riskier than Ehrhoff's because if he sucks the buyout would be a lot more, but even if he just keep scoring 50-60 points a year and doesn't break out the way they expect, it probably turns out like Pomminstein's deal ... not a "good" contract but it will not put them in cap jail.

 

To me, "risky" deals fall into two categories ... those that kill you cap-wise so you can't make changes to get better, or those that kill you money-wise because you are working on a budget ... neither contract fits those categories. Maybe only because our owner is willing to pay for the mistakes, but still ...

[FogBat]

Ouch. I hope the author is wrong here.

So do I. However, at least we can take solace in one thing: he's not Eklund.

[Braedon]

U needed this guy to tell you those are risky contracts?

 

He said 'ridiculous' contracts, which to me doesn't imply risky. Rather, the author has already passed judgment that these two players aren't worth the contracts. Pretty myopic, seeing that both could end up being steals at the price we paid. The riskiness comes in with the possibility that they won't earn the contracts, but that doesn't make the contracts ridiculous yet.

 

 

I too hope he's wrong.

[Weave]

He said 'ridiculous' contracts, which to me doesn't imply risky. Rather, the author has already passed judgment that these two players aren't worth the contracts. Pretty myopic, seeing that both could end up being steals at the price we paid. The riskiness comes in with the possibility that they won't earn the contracts, but that doesn't make the contracts ridiculous yet.

 

 

I too hope he's wrong.

 

 

That was my take as well. You *might* convince me that the gamble Darcy took on Leino could be classified under "ridiculous" but that also assumes the move to center is a flop. Not a given here. I don't know how you call the Ehrhoff contract ridiculous though. It's relatively cap friendly afterall.

[Iron Crotch]

The worst plus/minus players in the league.

This was addressed on Kuklas Korner. A very good blog.

 

http://www.kuklaskorner.com/index.php/psh/comments/worst_20_adjusted_-_ratings/

 

Basically, the plus minus is useful to a point, but with the adjusted weights - it evens it out some.

 

Not shockingly, Tyler Bozack and Phil Kessle near the top of this list tells you why Toronto signed Tim Connolly.

 

This method also significantly hurts the single zone players, especially when they don't score. Kovalchuk (for example). Curious to me is Chad Larose - who tends to leave his position to go headhunting for the hit.

 

 

Interesting that Tony Lydman was #1 on the list of best 20 players (with Brian Campbell #4). If I remember correctly, Pegula was quoted as saying something about how he thought letting Lydman and Tallinder go was the Sabres biggest recent personnel mistake... probably explains why we targeted defense in the off-season...

[thesportsbuff]

That was my take as well. You *might* convince me that the gamble Darcy took on Leino could be classified under "ridiculous" but that also assumes the move to center is a flop. Not a given here. I don't know how you call the Ehrhoff contract ridiculous though. It's relatively cap friendly afterall.

 

IDK. To me, no matter what Leino does this season, his contract is ridiculous. If he moves to center and puts up 90 points I'll appreciate it more and certainly be happy with it, but it wouldn't really change the fact that we gave him ridiculous $ and an unusually long term based on a tiny sample size-- to me this is repeating the same mistakes management made with Hecht and Pominville and Stafford (even tho it looks like he's finally panning out). To me, that is ridiculous. I hope he works out.

 

As for Ehrhoff, his cap hit is certainly reasonable, but remember when the Islanders signed DiPietro to a 15 year deal and the whole league laughed at them? Now it seems like they were just several years ahead of the game. 10 years is a long commitment. Granted he has a pretty consistent track record, so personally I don't view it as as much of a risk as Leino... but I still understand why he would refer to it as ridiculous, based solely on the length. In comparison, I wouldn't say that Kovalchuk isn't worth the money he got, but it's definitely a RIDICULOUS contract... I think that's all he meant.

 

Always the chance the Leino is just another Jochen Hecht making twice his salary, and combined with Ehrhoff who, let's say his NTC kicks in (i haven't read any actual details about his NTC) right away, suddenly we don't have the cap space to sign Myers or Ennis long term -- and because nobody will take on Leino's contract and Ehrhoff can't be moved, it's going to be a more important player we move to make room for Myers.

 

Anyway, on a second read through, I do agree maybe the author was overly critical of Pegula and the contracts. I don't know if it was intended or not.

[BetweenThePipes00]

IDK. To me, no matter what Leino does this season, his contract is ridiculous. If he moves to center and puts up 90 points I'll appreciate it more and certainly be happy with it, but it wouldn't really change the fact that we gave him ridiculous $ and an unusually long term based on a tiny sample size-- to me this is repeating the same mistakes management made with Hecht and Pominville and Stafford (even tho it looks like he's finally panning out). To me, that is ridiculous. I hope he works out.

 

As for Ehrhoff, his cap hit is certainly reasonable, but remember when the Islanders signed DiPietro to a 15 year deal and the whole league laughed at them? Now it seems like they were just several years ahead of the game. 10 years is a long commitment. Granted he has a pretty consistent track record, so personally I don't view it as as much of a risk as Leino... but I still understand why he would refer to it as ridiculous, based solely on the length. In comparison, I wouldn't say that Kovalchuk isn't worth the money he got, but it's definitely a RIDICULOUS contract... I think that's all he meant.

 

Always the chance the Leino is just another Jochen Hecht making twice his salary, and combined with Ehrhoff who, let's say his NTC kicks in (i haven't read any actual details about his NTC) right away, suddenly we don't have the cap space to sign Myers or Ennis long term -- and because nobody will take on Leino's contract and Ehrhoff can't be moved, it's going to be a more important player we move to make room for Myers.

 

Anyway, on a second read through, I do agree maybe the author was overly critical of Pegula and the contracts. I don't know if it was intended or not.

 

First of all, let me preface this by saying I agree Leino is no sure thing to take off and be a #1 center or even a #2B center like Roy ... BUT ....

 

Leino is not making anywhere near TWICE Hecht's salary, in real dollars or in relation to the cap. In real dollars, it's $1 million more. In terms of the cap, Hecht's deal was a $3.525 million cap hit and was signed when the cap was $56.8 million ... that's 6.2% of the cap. Leino's deal is a $4.5 million hit in a $64.3 million cap year ... or 6.9% ... so they are very similar. So while it would suck if Leino plaeteaus like Hecht did, the deal should not handcuff the Sabres and prevent them from getting deals done with Myers or Ennis any more than the bad Hecht and Pominville and Boyes cap hits prevented them from signing Leino and Ehrhoff.

 

Again, I am not 100% sold on Leino definitely being great at center, but I find it funny that many, many analysts had him as the No. 2 free agent forward ... and he got less than half the total money of the No. 1 guy and his cap hit is more than $2 million less. So how is that so bad? The Sabres were not bidding against themselves ... maybe the 6 years was what put it over the top, but if The Skill got $4.75 million a year, someone was giving the No. 2 forward on the market $4 million-plus. When he played for the Wings and the Flyers he was a guy everyone wanted, and now suddenly he is being picked apart.

[LastPommerFan]

I'm pretty sure that he was referring to the contracts as being risky. He's statement that they will come to regret them can only mean one thing: bad cap hit. It CAN'T mean wasted money, because clearly Mr. I bought the Team with 13 Month's Interest at 5% on My Cash, doesn't care about the money, and a buy-out in 2 years puts Leino's cap hit at 1.5M. Not exactly cap jail. I call shinnanagans.

[carpandean]

Always the chance the Leino is just another Jochen Hecht making twice his salary, and combined with Ehrhoff who, let's say his NTC kicks in (i haven't read any actual details about his NTC) right away, suddenly we don't have the cap space to sign Myers or Ennis long term -- and because nobody will take on Leino's contract and Ehrhoff can't be moved, it's going to be a more important player we move to make room for Myers.

With an owner like Pegula, the difference between a NTC and a NMC is HUGE! NTC means that the player could be waived and sent to the minors, taking his cap hit off of the books. With a NMC, you're stuck. Not sure which Leino or Ehrhoff got.

[BetweenThePipes00]

With an owner like Pegula, the difference between a NTC and a NMC is HUGE! NTC means that the player could be waived and sent to the minors, taking his cap hit off of the books. With a NMC, you're stuck. Not sure which Leino or Ehrhoff got.

 

Actually, one could argue that with an owner like Pegula there is little difference ... if you can't send him to the minors, you just buy him out. Granted, there is a bit of a cap hit there, but Pegula's willingness to spend makes buyouts much more of an option than with most owners.

[carpandean]

Actually, one could argue that with an owner like Pegula there is little difference ... if you can't send him to the minors, you just buy him out. Granted, there is a bit of a cap hit there, but Pegula's willingness to spend makes buyouts much more of an option than with most owners.

But having an owner like Pegula means that you don't have to settle for a buyout, which costs less in total cash, but more in cap hit. "A bit of a cap hit" is actually an understatement in many cases. For front-loaded contracts, there is a big cap hit. For example, if they buyout Ehrhoff after 7 years, the cap hit for the next three years is still $3.33M (vs. $4M before the buyout), followed by three years of minimal ($0.33M) hit. If they demote him, his cap his is 0. Likewise, if the reported salaries for Leino are correct ($6M, $6M, $4M, $4M, $3.5, $3.5), then buying him out after three years gives cap hits of $1.72M, $2.22M, $2.22M, then $1.22M for 3 years. Again, sending to minor means 0. For many teams, buyouts are bad enough (in terms of real $), so demotion is not an option. With Pegula, both are options, but demotion is much better from a cap standpoint. Thus, NMC vs. NTC is big.

[BetweenThePipes00]

But having an owner like Pegula means that you don't have to settle for a buyout, which costs less in total cash, but more in cap hit. "A bit of a cap hit" is actually an understatement in many cases. For front-loaded contracts, there is a big cap hit. For example, if they buyout Ehrhoff after 7 years, the cap hit for the next three years is still $3.33M (vs. $4M before the buyout), followed by three years of minimal ($0.33M) hit. If they demote him, his cap his is 0. Likewise, if the reported salaries for Leino are correct ($6M, $6M, $4M, $4M, $3.5, $3.5), then buying him out after three years gives cap hits of $1.72M, $2.22M, $2.22M, then $1.22M for 3 years. Again, sending to minor means 0. For many teams, buyouts are bad enough (in terms of real $), so demotion is not an option. With Pegula, both are options, but demotion is much better from a cap standpoint. Thus, NMC vs. NTC is big.

 

Ah true ... my bad ... I was thinking the cap hit after buyout was based on the lower salary at the end of the deal ... no idea why, that would make no sense.

 

But once you actually put it all in front of me like that, I feel all the more like all the whining from around the league about these deals is sour grapes ... yeah Ehrhoff's stretches the limits of the spirit of the cap, but there IS risk and penalty for buying a guy out ....

 

Thanks for setting me straight.

[carpandean]

Ah true ... my bad ... I was thinking the cap hit after buyout was based on the lower salary at the end of the deal ... no idea why, that would make no sense.

 

But once you actually put it all in front of me like that, I feel all the more like all the whining from around the league about these deals is sour grapes ... yeah Ehrhoff's stretches the limits of the spirit of the cap, but there IS risk and penalty for buying a guy out ....

 

Thanks for setting me straight.

No problem. The actual cash for all years and the cap hits of those extra years are based on the low salary years, but the cap hits of the remaining contract years make up for the fact that the years already served had a higher average salary than the actual average cap hit. It's a very common misconception that the front-loaded contracts are made to be bought out; they're actually made for retirement, demotion, or trades (barring NMC/NTCs.) Still a tool for the haves that puts them at an advantage of the have nots. Glad to be one of the haves for once.

[dudacek]

So with you on the sour grapes comment.

Out here in Canuck land people are dismissing the Ehroff contract as pure stupidity.

But they focus only on the $40million, not the cap hit.

Ehroff is bargain at $4million per, and should continue to be one for five or six years.

When starts becoming dead weight he's gone at zero cost to the cap.

With all the money being paid up front he also becomes reasonable trade bait after year three.

This is the competitive advantage of Pegulaville.

Nice job by Darcy.

[Taro T]

So with you on the sour grapes comment.

Out here in Canuck land people are dismissing the Ehroff contract as pure stupidity.

But they focus only on the $40million, not the cap hit.

Ehroff is bargain at $4million per, and should continue to be one for five or six years.

When starts becoming dead weight he's gone at zero cost to the cap.

With all the money being paid up front he also becomes reasonable trade bait after year three.

This is the competitive advantage of Pegulaville.

Nice job by Darcy.

Assuming the rules of the salary cap don't change under the new CBA.

 

I don't expect to see adjustments to how the cap is handled for trades, but wouldn't be surprised to see teams lose the 'retirement get out of cap jail free card.' There also could be an adjustment to how salaries are handled when players get sent down.

 

I expect the players to fight those pretty hard, but I wouldn't be remotely surprised to see an adjustment to how retirement is handled in the next CBA. Retirement effects on the salary cap simply weren't addressed in the current CBA. I'd expect more pushback from the players on the no cap hit for players getting sent down, but I might be reading that backwards. I'm looking at it, expecting players to take the view that by modifying those 'outs' from the cap that players won't get as much up front money as they are now starting to get - so they'll oppose them; but they may look at it from the other way, that the $'s shelled out in any given year are postdetermined by how much money came into the league that particular year and heavily front loaded deals give a particular player a disproportionately large cut of that pie and lower everybody else's salary (in reality, due to adjustments to escrow payouts). I just don't see them looking at it the 2nd way, they haven't to date.

[tom webster]

First of all, let me preface this by saying I agree Leino is no sure thing to take off and be a #1 center or even a #2B center like Roy ... BUT ....

 

Leino is not making anywhere near TWICE Hecht's salary, in real dollars or in relation to the cap. In real dollars, it's $1 million more. In terms of the cap, Hecht's deal was a $3.525 million cap hit and was signed when the cap was $56.8 million ... that's 6.2% of the cap. Leino's deal is a $4.5 million hit in a $64.3 million cap year ... or 6.9% ... so they are very similar. So while it would suck if Leino plaeteaus like Hecht did, the deal should not handcuff the Sabres and prevent them from getting deals done with Myers or Ennis any more than the bad Hecht and Pominville and Boyes cap hits prevented them from signing Leino and Ehrhoff.

 

Again, I am not 100% sold on Leino definitely being great at center, but I find it funny that many, many analysts had him as the No. 2 free agent forward ... and he got less than half the total money of the No. 1 guy and his cap hit is more than $2 million less. So how is that so bad? The Sabres were not bidding against themselves ... maybe the 6 years was what put it over the top, but if The Skill got $4.75 million a year, someone was giving the No. 2 forward on the market $4 million-plus. When he played for the Wings and the Flyers he was a guy everyone wanted, and now suddenly he is being picked apart.

 

 

Not so hard to understand some negative judgements when the negativity falls into an agenda of comparing your favorite departed Sabre against the guy replacing him.

 

Like you, I'm not sold on Leino but I respect the conviction that both nRuff and Reiger have expressed for this guy and what they think he can bring to the team. It is nothing like Hecht, Pominville and Connolly were you were operating and negotiating from a position of weakness and trying to placate an owner and his own agenda.

 

Reiger has stuck his neck out for a player he believes in and isn't that the kind of risk taking we have wanted? By some accounts he had to convince Pegula that walking away from Richards was the thing to do and I for one applaud both his conviction and the fact that there was a legitimate plan B.

[SabresFan526]

Assuming the rules of the salary cap don't change under the new CBA.

 

I don't expect to see adjustments to how the cap is handled for trades, but wouldn't be surprised to see teams lose the 'retirement get out of cap jail free card.' There also could be an adjustment to how salaries are handled when players get sent down.

 

I expect the players to fight those pretty hard, but I wouldn't be remotely surprised to see an adjustment to how retirement is handled in the next CBA. Retirement effects on the salary cap simply weren't addressed in the current CBA. I'd expect more pushback from the players on the no cap hit for players getting sent down, but I might be reading that backwards. I'm looking at it, expecting players to take the view that by modifying those 'outs' from the cap that players won't get as much up front money as they are now starting to get - so they'll oppose them; but they may look at it from the other way, that the $'s shelled out in any given year are postdetermined by how much money came into the league that particular year and heavily front loaded deals give a particular player a disproportionately large cut of that pie and lower everybody else's salary (in reality, due to adjustments to escrow payouts). I just don't see them looking at it the 2nd way, they haven't to date.

I have a feeling that teams are going to get punished somewhat if a player retires mid-contract and there will be a cap hit. It might be like a buyout cap hit, but something where a player's cap hit might be 1/3 his salary for the years remaining on the contract if he retires early. I could see that happening to prevent some of these cap circumvention that's been happening. Specifically, if you look at a Kovalchuk or Pronger deal, I could see the NHL making it 2/3 of a player's salary being a cap hit if they retire after 40 for each year remaining on the contract when the player retired. That will really hit teams on these cap circumvention deals. We'll see if the players and owners are willing to go with it, but the NHL in general seems to hate these contracts, especially for the purpose of lowering the cap hit.

[Taro T]

I have a feeling that teams are going to get punished somewhat if a player retires mid-contract and there will be a cap hit. It might be like a buyout cap hit, but something where a player's cap hit might be 1/3 his salary for the years remaining on the contract if he retires early. I could see that happening to prevent some of these cap circumvention that's been happening. Specifically, if you look at a Kovalchuk or Pronger deal, I could see the NHL making it 2/3 of a player's salary being a cap hit if they retire after 40 for each year remaining on the contract when the player retired. That will really hit teams on these cap circumvention deals. We'll see if the players and owners are willing to go with it, but the NHL in general seems to hate these contracts, especially for the purpose of lowering the cap hit.

To me, the best way to handle retirements under the salary cap, would be to handle them similar to buyouts - in that I'd let clubs clean up over 2x the remaining years from the contract. But I would have the entire amount of cap / actual $'s off-setting be recouped.

 

For example, suppose a player has a 4 year deal that pays him $4, $4, $2, $2 (for an average hit of $3/yr) and the player retires after 2 years. He's been paid $8, but the cap hit has only been $6 ($3 each year). There are $2 left to be recouped. There were 2 years left on the deal, so I'd give the club 4 years (2 x 2 remaining years) to give back that extra cap space they took during the 1st part of the contract. So their cap would be reduced by $0.5 for each of the next 4 years. ($2 total / 4 years)

 

Since the player wouldn't be paid the money for the last 2 years (he retired, so he doesn't get that money) that money doesn't factor into the cap calculations. If a player retires due to injury, he would still get paid that money, but I would handle that money the way it is handled now - it doesn't count against the cap but it does count against total leaguewide player compensation.

 

I could see teams wanting to trade for players that they know are going to retire to get themselves to the cap floor. I would put in a clause that those players either can't get traded, or the extended cap hit goes back to the team the player played for, to minimize the cap shenanigans. (That could get dicey for a guy that gets traded a few times over the course of his contract; but that sort of player probably won't get the frontloaded megacontract that this would be addressing.)

 

I could see where in the future, that injury retirement money doesn't count against the player's share of the total pie - that might be what the league gives the player to get them to agree to fixing the retirement cap glitch.