I haven’t written much about Markus Niemelainen since his draft day and I expect this will be the last time we focus on him. They used to call it “a numbers game” but it really means Niemelainen is in a tough spot with the Edmonton Oilers. He’s blocked by players who are better and players who are younger and a player who was a top-10 overall selection by the current management is also blocked so that’s a lot of blockage for Markus Niemelainen.
DNB: Connor McDavid’s top-5 moments from another awards-laden season
Lowetide: Oilers’ Jayden Grubbe and his organizational importance
DNB: 10 questions with director of amateur scouting Tyler Wright
MARKUS NIEMELAINEN
Niemelainen’s spot on the depth chart? I’ll say No. 8, first recall, but it would be more accurate to say ‘to be determined’ because the Bakersfield Condors have several possible recall options.
What is the current depth chart for the Oilers? Nurse-Ceci; Ekholm-Bouchard; Kulak-Broberg/Desharnais and no one agrees with this depth chart but it’s July and that’s how things work on an Oilers blog mid-summer.
And for the Condors? Tough to say, there are many new names on the roster. I’ll say Gleason-Kemp; Niemelainen-Wanner; Dineen-Hoefenmayer.
Are you sure he’s in trouble? I think he’s about where William Lagesson was when Edmonton traded him. I could see Niemelainen getting dealt in preseason, or certainly at the deadline (as was the case with Lagesson in the deal for Brett Kulak).
Is Niemalainen going to have an NHL career? He has played 43 so far, and he’s 25. I’ll say his outer marker is Martin Marincin (227 NHL games) and it’s extremely likely Niemelainen plays at least some NHL games before he moves along.
If the Oilers move him in preseason, will it leave the team exposed? Niemelainen is a shutdown type, so even though Vincent Desharnais is a RH shot, that’s the depth role (5-7D) Niemelainen is applying for on an NHL roster. I don’t see Desharnais going anywhere.
What about injury? Among the players I’ve listed as Condors, Phil Kemp and Max Wanner are the only defense-first types, so you have a point. However, if Ken Holland could sign Nick Holden or Libor Hajek to a reasonable deal, then Niemelainen becomes expendable.
Does he have huge trade value? I think you could get a similar player in a different position, or a depth draft pick. Niemelainen is blocked here, I’m not sure how he gets in front of Nurse-Ekholm-Kulak-Broberg even if one of them gets an injury.
What is your order of recall? For shutdown blue, it’s Niemalinen and Kemp. I don’t think Wanner gets callup this season.
What about puck movers? I’ll say Gleason, Dineen and then Hoefenmayer but it may be in the exact opposite order. We don’t really know these player at all.
Can we talk about Raphael Lavoie? Sure. Is this about the Leavins verbal?
Yeah, it sounds like he’s being selfish. Well, first of all Mr. Leavins article reveals he got the information from a good source and that source was no doubt someone from the Oilers. So you have to view it through that lens.
What do you mean? Why would the Oilers send that information to media? Answer: To get the message out. Lavoie sent a shot across the bow, Oilers respond. It also may serve to suppress this kind of behaviour from other players in the future. You can see the reasoning from the Oilers side. Lavoie bet on himself. He isn’t being selfish, he’s being calculating. No law on the books about that one, although the team will win and has won the PR war going back to Paul Coffey. Oilers fans side with the team 145 percent of the time. I wish it weren’t the case but it is the case.
Will it impact Lavoie making the team? No. I think he gets extreme playing time in preseason to show what he can do. If he plays as well as he did post-Christmas when healthy, Lavoie makes the team and is the talk of the town in preseason. If he plays a lot and is meh? I think the Oilers will have no trouble sending him down and getting this player through waivers. It’s up to Lavoie.
Guys like Lavoie pass through waivers all the time. It’s not a worry. People keep saying that because they forget about the very good players who have been lost. It’s fairly rare but can and does happen, leaving management looking like fools. Oilers examples of players lost include Anton Forsberg, Ray Whitney, Norm MacIver,Willy Lindstrom and others.
Yawn. Lavoie is a player I can see getting claimed and having a good career. I think Holland and Woodcroft will give him a full opportunity, though. It’s up to the youngster, he has plenty to offer but needs to bring it consistently. I saw him spike during the 20221-22 season, he lost it at the start of 2022-23 due to rust from an injury, and then lit the AHL on fire. 25 goals is alot.
Does a 25-goal AHL season guarantee an NHL job the next season? Lavoie scored .41 goals-per-game in 2022-23. Oilers prospects since 2010 to do it in entry level deals include Linus Omark (.5 goals-per-game), Iiro Pakarinen (.44 goals-per-game), Ryan McLeod (.5 goals-per-game).
That’s a trash list. All of those men scored at impressive rates. Now, Omark and Pakarinen were a little older, and McLeod did it in the pandemic season, but that should put Lavoie’s numbers in an even better light.
Should we bring it back to Niemelainen? Sure. Both men could get claimed on waivers, I don’t think the Oilers will be especially worried about either man.
Why? It’s the run for Stanley this season. I’m a fan of the prospects and specifically Lavoie, and if this was 2011-12 I think Lavoie would make the team without a throw.
You mean like Teemu Hartikainen did? Edmonton doesn’t change general managers like you change your underwear these days. Holland was on the floor at the draft when Lavoie was chosen.
It’s part of his legacy? Yes, but Stanley is a bigger get. Lavoie will have to earn it, maybe even over-earn it because he buggered up Holland’s cap plan for the opening night roster.
Yeah, Lavoie took bad advice. Never tell another man his business. You’re liable to get a sock in the jaw.
The Oilers should reconsider the team's free-agent options based on what remains available. Right now. https://t.co/x7jVJlrT9t
I wonder if Dom has fixed all the horrendous problems his model had last season on the value of player contracts? They were catastrophic.
And your opening statement should have the qualifier, “based on Dom’s model”. Your making the statement like it is some sort of fact. Do you believe it to be a fact?
Well the conclusions he reached off of last year’s faulty calculations are suspect. If he hasn’t fixed those problems, then yeah his conclusions would be based on more bad calculations. Without having access to the full model, I don’t know that a proper assessment can be done.
I also continue to disagree with his main premise that value is heavily based on expected results with very little regard for actual results. He doesn’t have access to enough of the right data to make that assessment properly for individual player’s contributions to team success.
In response, nor do uou have any idea what Redbird has access to or knowledge of either. At the very least, he has access to common sense and a semblance of objectivity, unlike the person peering back at you when you look in the mirror.
Last edited 9 months ago by Fuhr and Lowething in Vegreville
Seems like I know way more about it than you. He publishes his data sources with the articles. He used Capfriendly and Evolving Hockey (EH). EH sources the bulk of its source data from the NHL website and is available to anyone who can write the code to scrape it. EH, then applies theories similar to war on ice to come up with expected goal probabilities to shots based mostly in the shot location provided by the NHL website. The NHL does yet publicly provide meaningful enough data and variables to be able accurately and fully asses the quality and chances of an individual shot going in.
Pretty clear you either don’t understand what the word denigrate means, or if you do, are willfully misusing it. Either way you’re starting to bore me. Have a nice night!
You told Redbird that he had no idea what data Dom has access to, and when he told you, you started getting oddly defensive. It really comes across like you simply don’t understand why you agree with Dom, so instead, you just repeat your mantra of “Dom said it, so it must be true!”
HH just chooses whatever bit of info helps is his pursuit of trolling Oiler’s fans. There is no honesty in his discourse. Just ignore the troll.
Redbird62
July 24, 2023 4:50 pm
For the entirety of the 22/23 season, 29 players were claimed off waivers. Well actually 26 different players were claimed off waivers, since Magnus Hellberg was claimed 3 times (he went Seattle – Ottawa – Seattle – Detroit – was he really wanted or not wanted?) and Jonas Johansson was claimed by Arizona from Colorado, who then reclaimed him 12 days later.
Over the season, ~360 players cleared waivers so in total about 390 were placed on waivers. Of the 29 players claimed, 10 occurred by the end of training camp as teams set their roster. From the start of camp to the start of each teams’ season, approximately 250 players were waived. So for 22/23, 10 in 250 players waived before the start of the season were claimed and 19 of 140 players waived in season were claimed.
So if last season is typical, the risk certainly appears to be greater in season (~1 in 7) than through the end of camp (=1 in 25). This result is probably not surprising given the vast number of players waived at the start of the year who just aren’t good enough yet, any longer or ever for the NHL. Players waived in season come from a narrower pool of players that at least briefly are deemed worthy of an official NHL roster spot. The risk of waiving Lavoie at the end of camp is not the same as Brad Malone, Seth Griffith, Cam Dineen or Philip Kemp. He appears to be a lot closer to being a current NHL player than they are.
If they get DeAngelo, that may mean they are giving up on the Karlsson deal. Sure they could move on from Pesce to create room on the right side, but I am not sure they’d want a right D of Burns, Karlsson and DeAngelo.
That would likely result in Petry getting moved out. No way their paying Petry $6.25 million to be their 3rd pair D. Where does he land and what do they get back? He has a 15 team no trade list and I’d be surprised if San Jose wasn’t on it right now given their record the last few seasons.
One difference with Lavoie from some of the others with getting claimed is he’s a big right shot scorer that skates well enough and has edge. GM nirvana. I think he gets claimed if exposed
Klim Kostin was on a one way deal that paid him $750,000 in the minors too. He had a total of 46 games NHL experience, the assessment of which probably didn’t help him much given that he’d scored 5 goals in those games. And its not like he ever lit the AHL on fire either. He never had a season in the AHL like Lavoie did last year. As for pedigree, he was chosen 31st overall compared to Lavoie’s 38th overall in their respective drafts. In average pre-draft rankings from MacKenzie, Kostin was 18th and Lavoie was 19th. Not much difference in their pedigrees.
Lavoie is an unknown commodity as of yet, did well AHL and addressed concerns about his game, and also not Russian which carries other various issues. I’d claim him especially if I lacked what he has
Placing players on waivers is always a risk. Since the Sather days, Forsberg may be the only player the Oilers have lost on waivers (at least the other 4 mentioned above were all Sather era) and that was the result of a series of last minute goalie injuries, the effects of the taxi squad and pandemic, and possible the concern over whether Lagesson might get claimed if he was waived.
Lavoie may be good enough that even if he can’t crack the top 12 or 13 on the Oilers to break camp, he could be good enough for some other teams. But they also would have to have NHL roster room for him. Many mention the Habs, but if healthy they have a lot of forwards on their roster they want to have a look at already.
The Oilers have lost a few players in the past weveral years to waivers but nobody you’d miss. Nathan Walker, Valentin Zykov, Pontus Aberg, Anton Forsberg, Troy Grosenick going back to 2016. Pontus Aberg was probably the last one lost during training camp. He put up 25 points in 59 games that season and then played 5 more for Toronto before heading to Europe. If Lavoie plays well enough in camp to play in the NHL either with the Oilers or another team, I doubt he gets waived. If he doesn’t, he probably won’t turn into Kunitz or Grabner and suddenly start scoring
Thanks I should have interpreted LT’s point as 5 players of consequence lost to waivers instead of total. It is interesting when looking up Aberg, that he was claimed by Anaheim in October 2018, then a week later they waived him and it seems the Oilers did not exercise their right to reclaim him and send him to the minors. Clearly not a loss at all. It’s like they were happy Anaheim took him off their hands.
Yeah, there were a couple of times they mentioned “off-ice issues” in the press but never specified. Todd McLellan said “He came out for reasons beyond his play . . . it’s serious. The coaching staff isn’t pleased, the organization isn’t pleased and I’m sure his teammates aren’t pleased.” when they sat him in the press box for a game. Seems he did something else the next training camp and that was it.
Not a great example, IMO, because if they could go back in time many GMs would probably have claimed Kostin. So wouldn’t Kostin’s success be more reason to claim Lavoie?
What is the risk if, say, the Habs claim him? Nothing. Lavoie is also younger and has outproduced KK in the AHL (81 pts in 136gp compared to 92 points in 207gp). Lavoie is a better prospect now than Kostin was.
Some will say, “but every team has a Lavoie.” Sure. But is there a rule that says you cannot have more than one? Drafting and developing is a numbers game, right? The more prospects you have, the better chances you have of developing NHL players? So it seems like a no-brainer for a GM to claim him.
Yes, if GMs could go back they would claim him but, at the time he was waived, not a single GM claimed him – not one.
Over the years there are lots of players that clear waivers that, in hindsight, shouldn’t have.
In real life, GMs don’t get to manage with hindsight.
Can’t say that Lavoie was a better prospect – Klim Kostin had actually played NHL games and scored goals in the NHL.
Of course teams can have “more than one Lavoie” but what organizations generally do not due, is claim a player off waivers that would require them to waive/demote their internal similar prospect.
I’ve been very clear that, while I don’t think he’d get claimed (cut again at 23 years old), the risk is not zero.
cowboy bill
July 24, 2023 10:43 am
They might be able to sign a couple veteran defensemen to PTO’s, like Patrick Nemeth & Nick Holden. Holden is a local guy & Nemeth is another Swedish defenseman.
Both defensive stalwarts.
Last edited 9 months ago by cowboy bill
innercitysmytty
July 24, 2023 9:51 am
Question for the group more knowledgeable on the CBA – how are the Leafs allowed to go over the additional 10% in off-season cap space? Is there going to be a penalty allocated to them, or is the 10% just guidance but not enforced? My understanding is that there is no off-season LTIR, so the Muzzin contract should still count as of today.
I agree that it will solve the issue. But as of the moment they are over the 10% so there should be a penalty in my estimation. I would have assumed that knowing this arbitration would put them over the 10%, they would have been forced to make a move in advance, and not after the fact.
I think if Toronto and it’s doctors currently believe that Jake Muzzin will not be available for at least the first 10 games of the 23/24 season, they can, in the off season, put his cap hit onto LTIR. Muzzin’s salary is enough that if they can go that route and don’t use the buyout window, they will be below the 110% ceiling. Obviously this just buys them more time to sort out their cap before the start of the season.
Capfriendly lists Jake Muzzin as being on LTIR, and Toronto has never activated him off LTIR since he went on last October. Seems to me the NHL does not consider Toronto to be in violation here, so I imaging that is the case.
Based on my reading of the CBA, the second buyout provision is likely not available to the Leafs anyway. The team can only use that provision if it had two players file for arbitration in a given season and I believe Samsonov was the only player on the Leafs who filed.
One wrinkle I was not aware of is that there actually has to be an arbitration ruling to trigger the buyout period. So if McLeod and Bouchard (for example) agree to terms prior to the hearing there would be no buyout window.
Edit: OK, reading further on the linked Capfriendly FAQ regarding 2 players. If 1) the arbitration is club-elected, and 2) the player was not issued a QO, THEN there need to be 2 arbitration filings/rulings.
Yes, I had only read section 11 of the CBA and hadn’t jumped to the reference of section 13 of the SPC where the 2 requirement was linked to club-elected. It can be difficult jumping back and forth between sections to see what they mean sometimes. I should have looked for the Capfriendly summary which is usually pretty good. Thx.
I haven’t found anything in the CBA that specifically states that there is grace period from an arbitration award for the team to use a buyout to get cap compliant. But clearly, the idea of a second buyout window is to give the team the opportunity to get cap compliant after getting an arbitration award that the team would have the 5 days to get its accounts in order (3 days tll the window opens and 48 hours to do a buyout) if that is the teams plan.
I’d suspect that the end result of an arbitration award putting a team over the off-season 10% is not specifically written into the CBA as it is essentially out of the team’s hands how big an award can be and the owners would not want to be specifically boxed in on that issue and the players would not want anything to directly or indirectly reduce the amount a player gets in arbitration.
The CBA specifically states that the Arbitrator cannot be presented any evidence on the team’s cap/salary situation and it is not to be included in the arbitration decision regardless of what it does to the teams cap. But it would still make sense that the team is given a grace period to remedy a cap overage under the circumstances since that is why that second buyout window exists.
One wrinkle I was not aware of is that there actually has to be an arbitration ruling to trigger the buyout period. So if McLeod and Bouchard (for example) agree to terms prior to the hearing there would be no buyout window.
Unless they made a change, I don’t think this is true and the buyout window opens regardless of settlement before or arb award.
Buyouts Outside of the Regular PeriodClubs whom have 1 or more arbitration filings may be permitted to perform a buyout outside of the regular window. This gives teams another opportunity to become cap compliant following an arbitration case.
Clubs are permitted to perform a buyout outside the regular period during the 48 hour period beginning on the third day after the final of [CBA 13(c)ii]:
Settlement of the Club’s final arbitration case, or
Receipt of the Club’s last arbitration award
Requirements:
A buyout can only be performed on a player who was on the clubs reserve list at 3:00pm on the most recent trade deadline
The player must have a cap hit of at least $4,000,000 for the 2023 offseason
There is an exception to this buyout period (CBA Reference: Section 11.18; 12.3) if the arbitation was Club-elected (as opposed to player-elected) and the player did not receive a qualifying offer. In this case, a minimum of two arbitration cases are necessary to trigger the buy-out period outside the regular window.
Its because of how the off-season cap is calculated and its not just taking the straight cap hit of the players signed – there are nuances for players that ended the prior season in the AHL (or spent part of the season in the AHL) where only a portion of their AAV is counted.
Seems like it states in there that they are using LTI pool to be cap compliant which is effectively Muzzin’s salary.
OriginalPouzar
July 24, 2023 9:49 am
That Kurashev arb award is not good for the Oilers at all. I think it could push McLeod in to the $2.5MM range if it goes the distance and an arbitrator is making the decision.
If McLeod does get something in that range and we are looking at something approaching $6.5MM for the two RFAs, its going to be tight just for 21 players and 12F on the roster.
That will certainly be a fly in the ointment. That just means they will need to rely on the youngsters. We still could see a 3rd pair of Broberg & Desharnais, with Neimelainen #7. Or that would ensure Holloway & Lavoie make the team, one or the other. Then they will need either Stasny or Staal to sign for the league minimum so they can raise the average age of the team.
Trading Foegele, allowing a PTO/vet at league min to grab a spot and getting McLeod under contract for more than a year would be a valuable thing to do.
McLeod might still turn into the missing top 6 winger. If he is, it’d be nice to have a longer deal in place and is worth the risk lower in the lineup.
The problem is that the window for trading Foegele for value – or even for nothing – is probably pretty much closed now that the money has run out for almost all the teams.
Its why I wanted to move him earlier in the summer when he would have been in demand and brought a return.
I know you’re not a Ceci fan, but he played a full 200 minutes more vs. elites than Kulak did last year (493 to 289 minutes; 37.4% to 23.2% of their ice time). His results against elites were better than Kulak’s as well.
Even their overall numbers (% of corsi, shots, expected goals, DFF) were nearly identical save for a few goals difference (this despite different usage).
I like Kulak a ton, but I do not think he’s a better defenseman than Ceci.
Agreed. My and other’s issue with Ceci is that he’s a poor fit with Nurse and what he’s not good at is what the modern game demands. Ceci is more like injury cover for first pair. Not good but not incapable. Second pair with the right partner probably can be helpful
Yeah, well the hope/expectation is that, in addition to Ceci being healthy again, Ekholm allows them to run an even top 4D rather than Nurse-Ceci taking on ALL of the difficult minutes.
And a reminder that Nurse-Ceci to this point have been a break even pair despite leading the NHL in difficult minutes.
The Oilers have 12 players over 2.5M and they will likely do what they did last year. Play a terrifying game of chicken to the end of training camp and then demote someone (or several someones) that are unexpected if the team stays healthy or use some LTIR space for the extra players.
That Kurashev arb award is not good for the Oilers at all. I think it could push McLeod in to the $2.5MM range if it goes the distance and an arbitrator is making the decision.
Agree that it doesn’t help the Oilers, though I’m optimistic McLeod wouldn’t come in higher than Kurashev’s $2.25M even if it did go to a hearing.
McLeod did have a higher points per game this past season (0.40 to 0.36), though in fewer games. However, their career points per game numbers are almost identical (0.326 to 0.325).
Where Kurashev comes out ahead is in TOI. He was 4th among Blackhawks forwards this season at 17:25 while McLeod played considerably less, only 14:11 a game.
We’ll see soon enough though. Hopefully McLeod agrees to something more like $2.0M before it gets to the hearing.
What are the Oilers more concerned with: 23/24 or 24/25? If Kurashev is a really good comp for McLeod, and the Oilers are worried that the arbitrator would award a similar amount, ie 2 yeaar x $2.25 million or worse, the Oilers could still elect to go for a 1 year deal in arbitration. All things being equal, a 1-year deal at McLeod’s stage should be a lower AAV. Having room to get Bouchard done may be more important that getting McLeod dealt with for 2 seasons. They have until the 30th to come to a settlement or to make their submission to the Arbitrator.
Good point on 2 vs. 1 year. Obviously it would be nice to have McLeod at a known rate for more than 1 year, but certainly getting Bouchard signed is more important. And likewise, if one of them is going to get a 2 year instead of 1 year deal, I sure hope it’s Bouchard.
Lets not forget that, if we are talking about TOI, Kurashev got over 2 min/game on the PP and still produced less per game (and much less toi/game on the PK as McLeod).
Well McLeod also played 1 minute/game on the PP (0:56), and Kurashev about the same on the PK (0:51 is memory serves). Their special teams usage was pretty similar in an overall sense.
I’ve got to wonder also whether the arbitrator would take team environment into account to some degree as well. Points are a lot easier to come by on a team that scored 325 goals than one that scored 202 goals.
Anyway, we will see. As I said, I’m optimistic.
OriginalPouzar
July 24, 2023 9:45 am
Lavoie bet on himself. He isn’t being selfish, he’s being calculating.
I don’t think he’s being selfish but I think he’s being the opposite of calculating. I don’t see any way the extra $100K helps him be on an NHL roster and there are definite scenarios where it not only hurts his NHL roster chances but could preclude it.
He’s “betting on himself” – I guess but, again, I come back to the fact that I see no scenario where this helps him and I don’t see why he can’t have the exact same attitude, swagger, confidence, etc. while guaranteeing $200K-$300K (as opposed to $70K) that the Oilers offered.
No. I think he gets extreme playing time in preseason to show what he can do. If he plays as well as he did post-Christmas when healthy, Lavoie makes the team and is the talk of the town in preseason. If he plays a lot and is meh? I think the Oilers will have no trouble sending him down and getting this player through waivers.
Oh,, yes, Holland even says he’s going to play a ton. I fully expect him to have a very solid preseason and camp and I do expect he makes the team.
We are trending towards a 21-player roster and, if that’s the case, there likely isn’t an issue fitting his cap hit in as 12F. That would be more of an issue if they were trying to fit in a 13th forward. With that said, with recent arb awards, there is a chance McLeod is awarded something well over $2MM, even up to $2.5MM and that could make things tight even with only 12F and 21 players.
Also, lets not forget that, even if he scores 5 goals in exhibition, it doesn’t really mean all that much, right? It would solidify his spot on the opening night roster and a chance to prove he is ready when the season starts but we know exhibition production means all but zero when the regular season starts, right?
Guys like Lavoie pass through waivers all the time. It’s not a worry. People keep saying that because they forget about the very good players who have been lost. It’s fairly rare but can and does happen, leaving management looking like fools.
Players like Lavoie do pass through waivers all the time. Sometimes players like Lavoie are claimed.
Both those statements can be true.
I think he likely clear if he’s cut again but its definitely not zero risk.
I am somewhat confidant that, if Holland thinks the “best team” to start the year does not have Lavoie on it, he will have no hesitation to waive him, even knowing there is a risk.
Unless there is another signing of a more established player, its tough to see him not on the opening roster – Pederson has the “NHL experience” and is a “right shot center” but I can’t see him making it over Lavoie to start.
The money isn’t the thing Lavoie wants. It’s the NHL. This is a calculating move. I can’t understand how anyone would disagree. He HAS money and will earn more.
Totally agree. As I mentioned the other day his agent had weeks to sniff around the league to determine if there was a team interested in claiming him on waivers if the Oilers try to send him down. I would be shocked if that wasn’t part of the decision he made.
I understand that he wants the NHL but I don’t understand how this contract helps him make the NHL. It likely doesn’t hurt but it could and it definitely doesn’t help – unless I’m missing something.
I don’t understand how this is a positive calculating move as far as making an NHL team goes.
Lavoie wants the NHL and I fully expect him to come in a compete as hard as he possibly can – I’m not sure why he wouldn’t do that with a guaranteed $200K-$300K gross comp.
I would suggest that the difference $70K and $200K has a bigger effect on standard of living than the difference between $775K and $875K, right?
I think a 200-300k AHL salary makes him less likely to be claimed by another team. If a low cap team that spends by an internal budget claims him, then they would only be on the hook for 70k if he doesn’t work out. In terms of taking a higher cap amount, I think he’s looking to an NHL future where his current NHL salary affects the starting point of negotiations on his next contract and the one or two after that. If he believes he is an NHL player, that’s potentially $400k (100k per year) of his RFA money.
A claiming team wouldn’t care about his AHL salary – they would need to keep him on their NHL roster or put him right back on waivers (and the Oilers would claim him back and place him in the AHL).
After 30 days on their roster or having played in 10 games, the claiming team can then attempt to waive and assign the player their AHL farm team. If he is not claimed off waivers at this time, the acquiring team would then be on the hook for the full AHL salary. There’s a chance the player could get claimed again at this time, including by the original team, which no longer has priority rights, but it is not certain. Probably not a big factor if they want the player, but not nothing either.
Some team has a forward go down with an injury in camp and will be out for 6 weeks or so to start the season. They claim someone off waivers to fill that hole, but only until the injured player is scheduled to be back. Plans can change, (more injuries, player does better than expected, etc.), but off the pre-season waiver wire, between two otherwise comparable players, the AHL salary could be a meaningful factor in their plans.
I don’t see any scenario where the Oilers wouldn’t claim him back so, to my point, a claiming team wouldn’t care about his AHL salary as he would almost assuredly not be playing on their AHL team.
Yeah I agree that if he were claimed, then later waived, the Oilers would basically 100% claim him back. Lavoie’s low AHL salary will not benefit anyone other than the Oilers (and if things go according to plan, it will not benefit them either).
So just because you can’t see it, you assume no other team would imagine that after having Lavoie for 1 or 2 months that the Oilers wouldn’t have moved on.
Remember, if the other team waives Lavoie more than 30 days or 10 games after originally claiming him, if the Oilers are successful in claiming him, he has to stay on their NHL roster with that claim, they can’t just send him to the minors.
I can’t see the Oilers claiming him back. If they did, they’d have to keep him on the roster or waive him to send him down. Realistically, if they didn’t have money and a roster spot to keep him the first time, why would they have money to keep him the second time?
That’s not quite true – if the Oilers were to (successfully) claim him back, they can assign him directly to the AHL without having to expose him to waivers again. That’s the one ‘benefit’ of this type of scenario – any OTHER team that puts in a claim has to expose him to waivers before assigning him to the AHL
I could see the Oilers claiming Lavioe back, unless of course, they felt his time with the organization had run it’s course, in which case, he’d become and AHL player for his new team
What you say is true if the other team puts him on waivers within 30 days/10 games, and the Oilers reclaim him. If its more than 30 days/10 games, then Lavoie becomes like any other player on waivers, and the Oilers would have to keep him on the roster if they are able to claim him.
13.22 When a Club claims a Player on Regular or Unconditional Waivers, and, subsequently, in the same season it requests Waivers on the same Player and the original owning Club is the successful and only Club making a Waiver claim, then the original owning Club shall be entitled to Loan such Player to a club in another league within thirty days without further Waivers being asked; provided that such Player has not participated in ten or more NHL Games (cumulative) and remained on an NHL roster more than thirty days (cumulative) following such successful claim.
Thank you. I still feel like that’s a bit vague. Which is the ‘such successful claim’, the first claim or the second one?
‘successful’ is used to refer to the second claim earlier in the paragraph, but then the thirty days in the last underline part would be redundant with the ‘within thirty days’ immediately before it.
It is confusing isn’t it?. My second read had me think that the successful claim at the end was referring to the original team and that my interpretation was incorrect. But when I go look at the real life example in the NHL last season: Magnus Hellberg, it gets muddy again. Hellberg was claimed by Ottawa from Seattle on October 3, is shown as having played 1 game, then on Nov 9 was placed on waivers by Ottawa and claimed by Seattle. He is shown as having played no games for Seattle, and was placed on waivers by Seattle on November 22 (less than 30 days), then claimed by Detroit. If Seattle as the reclaiming team could send him to the minors no problem, it would beodd that he had to be placed on waivers by them and lost to Detroit.
The language in the rule says in 10 games and 30 days. While Magnus isn’t shown playing 10 games, he was on Ottawa’s roster for more than 30 days. Hellberg is a goalie however, so he may have been dressed for the 10 games in Ottawa, which may count. If this were true, then my original interpretation may be correct. I didn’t go look at Ottawa’s actual game rosters for October last season to see if Hellberg was dressed as back up for at least 9 games to go with his 1 game played.
We may just have to wait and see how it plays out to really be sure.
Yes, it is confusing for sure. There’s also the wrinkle about if “the original owning Club is the successful and only Club making a Waiver claim”. It’s conceivable in the Hellberg example that Detroit also put in a claim, but that only came into effect once Seattle tried to send him down (since Seattle would I think have had higher waiver priority than Detroit to start last season).
Yeah, clear as mud. You may be right that we won’t know with certainty until/unless it happens. In any case, thanks for the info, such as it is.
Lavoie is signalling his commitment to play good hockey #carpediem and do whatever it takes by pissing on Holland and Woodcroft’s lawns.
He sees no reason to leave his $100K on the table this year, and another $100K on his QO next year. He sees no reason to make it easier for Holland and Woodcroft to send him to the AHL.
He sees no reason why he has to give the $100K to the guy who has already won the lottery (i.e. Bouchard).
1) He’s not signaling anything. Any “message” that he sends re: being ready will be shown by his performance on the ice, end stop.
2) Taking the extra $100K makes it easier to send him down not harder.
3) If he doesn’t earn a real raise over league min on his 3rd contract, well, sail on Ralph Lavoie – he was likely in the AHL most of the season.
4) Its not about giving $100K to the next guy, its about (a) ensuring he’s in the NHL making close to a million (and this does not help those chances) and (b) guaranteeing himself a a couple hundred grand. If J. Toews decides he’s willing to play for the Oilers for $775, or even $875 – Lavoie is waived, end stop.
5) On that note, his cap hit in the NHL on his 2nd contract is more than Ryan McLeod’s last season and Ryan McLeod was an established NHL player and was also better in the AHL.
EDIT: I see this got caught in the owner’s name restriction that I posted just before heading for brunch. I didn’t realize his name was still on the list of prohibited words.
You don’t understand it because you think it is about money. It isn’t about money as LT said.
The real question in all of this is why didn’t the Oilers offer a one way contract at league minimum to a high 2nd round pick who just potted 25 goals last season.
After all the difference between the rumoured AHL money and the NHL money might be huge to we mere mortals but it is really a nothing burger to the owner’s standard of living and that would be the only impact it would have to anybody other than Lavoie.
If you follow the bread crumbs – and, again, LT dropped them a few days ago – that is pretty much code in the league for marking you as a tweener. Not a legitimate threat in the NHL. Now I have no idea how they came to think that but the message within the industry would be pretty clear if it is as uncommon as LT indicated the other day.
For some reason the Oilers do not see Lavoie as part of their future other than maybe as an injury callup etc.
At this point Lavoie wants a second opinion. He is angling for a trade imo but a waiver pickup will work for him as well. The Oilers told him how important he was to them when they offered the two way. He wants out to pursue his dream of playing in the NHL.
The Oilers didn’t offer a one way contract to Lavoie coming off of the ELC because it is bad precedent. Everyone with no NHL games on an expiring ELC will want one.
What Godot says is basically true. Pretty much every player signing their first post ELC contract who has played no NHL games yet gets a two way deal. No NHL team this year seems to have signed a one way deal with any players that had no prior NHL games under their ELC. Because of the CBA rules, unless they get into substantial NHL games during their ELC, they have little leverage to negotiate a 1 way deal for a one season contract. Lavoie’s leverage to get a one way deal was limited to giving up $100,000 of NHL salary, and that was only enough to get a $200,000 ish AHL offer apparently, which was way more generous than what Benson or Marody were offered on their first post ELC deals.
That quote is merely an opinion. And it is probably true that a very high number of players who play no games in the NHL prior to the expiration of their ELC are unlikely to have a meaningful NHL career. But every situation is unique. Very good NHL teams are more likely to have players in the minors that could potentially make other NHL rosters, but have trouble getting a shot in a deeper line up. That’s why the waiver wire exists.
If he was angling for a trade or a waiver pick up, he did himself a disservice by accepting his QO as opposed to signing for $775K.
He wasn’t offered a one-way contract because he’s a 23 year old with zero NHL games and not assured to make the team – GMs don’t hand out one-way contracts to those players.
The thing is OP it’s his analysis that matters not yours.
He may have information you aren’t privy to including someone from MTL saying yah we’d claim him. It doesn’t mean they will but it would affect his analysis.
OriginalPouzar
July 24, 2023 9:33 am
What is the current depth chart for the Oilers? Nurse-Ceci; Ekholm-Bouchard; Kulak-Broberg/Desharnais and no one agrees with this depth chart but it’s July and that’s how things work on an Oilers blog mid-summer.
I would suggest that most likely agree that is Woody and Manson’s depth chart and what we’ll see for game 1 (s/t health) but some opine that should be the depth chart – some believe that an upgrade on Ceci in the top 4 is needed, end stop, and others think a rejig and Broberg up the lineup (right side) is prudent.
Good arguments can be made for (and against) both opinions, in my opinion.
OriginalPouzar
July 24, 2023 9:30 am
Niemelainen’s spot on the depth chart? I’ll say No. 8, first recall, but it would be more accurate to say ‘to be determined’ because the Bakersfield Condors have several possible recall options.
Yup, I would have to agree with this – he’s clearly behind Broberg and Deharnais.
I’m not even positive he would be the first call up – I mean, I think he would be competing with each of Gleason, Hofenmayer and Kemp for that first recall.
I would suspect he’s a the top of that list but it the recall will be determined by style/need and how those 4 are playing.
Yes, I have specifically not included Cam Dineen in the group.
Ceci is the player that Niemelainen has to beat out to get into the top 7. Ceci has to be dumped next season for cap reasons, so the Oilers should hope they can keep Niemlainen around.
Although Kemp is likely stiff competition for being the Ceci replacement next season.
I wonder if it’s a combination of recency, face punching, and handedness. We haven’t seen Niemelainen here for a bit, Desharnais is more likely punch someone in the face as opposed to blowing them up with a hit, and he’s also RH.
It’s the results. His AHL results at even strength and on the PK are outstanding. Niemelainen’s are good but there’s some wobble (his expected are not as impressive as actual) and he is often seen out of position to make a big hit.
Unless Desharnais suffers injury, or derails as a player, I don’t see Niemelainen ahead of him in the future.
Niemelainen looked like the more “polished” player to me. His skating and puck handling is a little smoother. Desharnais has more snarl to his game. Niemelainen definitely threw some monster hits, but they always seemed a little more sneaky.
It’s really close between these players imo. Desharnais has an X-factor that is keeping him ahead of Niemo at the moment. I hope the coaches go into camp with the mindset that Niemelainen has a chance to beat out Desharnais for that last spot.
Some NHL statistical evidence in support of Desharnais’ better performance at the NHL level:
As it happens, over the last 2 seasons in total, Niemelainen and Desharnais have played very similar minutes for the Oilers at 5 on 5 (43 GP, 441 minutes vs 36 GP 402 minutes). In pretty much every statistical possession/results category on Naturalstattick, Deharnais appears to have a clear edge:
Both have similarly poor numbers against elites on puckiq. I won’t bother adding that link. The only statistical edges Niemelainen seems to have are hits and, surprisingly, taking less penalties.
Desharnais’s main partner has been Kulak (~240 min), with some time with Nurse (~72) and a little time with Broberg (~40). For Niemelainen, he had his most time with Barrie (~170), followed by Bouchard (~123), then Ceci (~50).
I would re-iterate that his right handedness given the what the Oilers have on that side currently also gives Vinnie a significant leg up on Niemelainen as well. Added to that, he plays a more predictable game than Niemelainen, which is what Woodcroft/Manson want in a 3rd pair shutdown player anyway.
I’d be curious to know what the tale of the tape from CoH would be on on the two’s relative performance on contributions/mistakes on scoring chances for and against. That’s probably a little better than the Naturalstattrick info as in hones in on individual impact.
Niemelainen had the edge from 2021-22 to early 2022 but was not able to outperform what Desharnais did in the AHL in late 2022 and when he was called up at the end of 2023. I think Desharnais has the edge in handedness as well. Niemelainen may end up being the extra defenceman for 2024-25 as Desharnais is a UFA at the end of this season.
While I do think that Deharnais is a bit over-rated by Oil Country as a whole, the difference between the effect of the two players on the PK is marked.
Niemo got killed on the PK – only Tyson Barrie was worse, both years, as far as GA rate, expected GA rates and SA rates. I suspect that was with alot of PP2 time as well (while Deharnais had much better results and saw alot of PP1).
I am a bit concerned that Deharnais won’t get away with nearly as much stick work this coming season – he uses his stick on body ALOT and I was shocked he didn’t get called more. I think he needs to develop his ability to cause “pain” with his body more than his stick.
In any event, they both need to be solidly behind Broberg on the depth chart (here is hoping the coaching staff agrees).
The top 10 value contracts in the league.
https://theathletic.com/4687006/2023/07/24/nhl-best-contracts-tkachuk-hughes-makar/?source=user_shared_article
”The Golden Age of Defensemen”
I wonder if Dom has fixed all the horrendous problems his model had last season on the value of player contracts? They were catastrophic.
And your opening statement should have the qualifier, “based on Dom’s model”. Your making the statement like it is some sort of fact. Do you believe it to be a fact?
I would have a very tough time arguing against any of his conclusions.
Would you?
Well the conclusions he reached off of last year’s faulty calculations are suspect. If he hasn’t fixed those problems, then yeah his conclusions would be based on more bad calculations. Without having access to the full model, I don’t know that a proper assessment can be done.
I also continue to disagree with his main premise that value is heavily based on expected results with very little regard for actual results. He doesn’t have access to enough of the right data to make that assessment properly for individual player’s contributions to team success.
You have no idea what his access to data is.
In response, nor do uou have any idea what Redbird has access to or knowledge of either. At the very least, he has access to common sense and a semblance of objectivity, unlike the person peering back at you when you look in the mirror.
If he has access to other data, he could present it.
Seems like I know way more about it than you. He publishes his data sources with the articles. He used Capfriendly and Evolving Hockey (EH). EH sources the bulk of its source data from the NHL website and is available to anyone who can write the code to scrape it. EH, then applies theories similar to war on ice to come up with expected goal probabilities to shots based mostly in the shot location provided by the NHL website. The NHL does yet publicly provide meaningful enough data and variables to be able accurately and fully asses the quality and chances of an individual shot going in.
Let’s see your analysis then.
I’m all ears.
Redbird could present data and you would move the goal post to
“Well, why haven’t you published it then!”
No. Since he is denigrating the analysis of others, I would love to see his.
Pretty clear you either don’t understand what the word denigrate means, or if you do, are willfully misusing it. Either way you’re starting to bore me. Have a nice night!
You told Redbird that he had no idea what data Dom has access to, and when he told you, you started getting oddly defensive. It really comes across like you simply don’t understand why you agree with Dom, so instead, you just repeat your mantra of “Dom said it, so it must be true!”
HH just chooses whatever bit of info helps is his pursuit of trolling Oiler’s fans. There is no honesty in his discourse. Just ignore the troll.
For the entirety of the 22/23 season, 29 players were claimed off waivers. Well actually 26 different players were claimed off waivers, since Magnus Hellberg was claimed 3 times (he went Seattle – Ottawa – Seattle – Detroit – was he really wanted or not wanted?) and Jonas Johansson was claimed by Arizona from Colorado, who then reclaimed him 12 days later.
Over the season, ~360 players cleared waivers so in total about 390 were placed on waivers. Of the 29 players claimed, 10 occurred by the end of training camp as teams set their roster. From the start of camp to the start of each teams’ season, approximately 250 players were waived. So for 22/23, 10 in 250 players waived before the start of the season were claimed and 19 of 140 players waived in season were claimed.
So if last season is typical, the risk certainly appears to be greater in season (~1 in 7) than through the end of camp (=1 in 25). This result is probably not surprising given the vast number of players waived at the start of the year who just aren’t good enough yet, any longer or ever for the NHL. Players waived in season come from a narrower pool of players that at least briefly are deemed worthy of an official NHL roster spot. The risk of waiving Lavoie at the end of camp is not the same as Brad Malone, Seth Griffith, Cam Dineen or Philip Kemp. He appears to be a lot closer to being a current NHL player than they are.
rank Seravalli
@frank_seravalli
Hearing #Canes are closing in on an agreement with free agent Tony DeAngelo on a 1-year deal in the $1.6 million range.
If they get DeAngelo, that may mean they are giving up on the Karlsson deal. Sure they could move on from Pesce to create room on the right side, but I am not sure they’d want a right D of Burns, Karlsson and DeAngelo.
Yeah..I would think so.
Looks like Pittsburgh is the leading contender.
That would likely result in Petry getting moved out. No way their paying Petry $6.25 million to be their 3rd pair D. Where does he land and what do they get back? He has a 15 team no trade list and I’d be surprised if San Jose wasn’t on it right now given their record the last few seasons.
Detroit?
He’s from there.
One difference with Lavoie from some of the others with getting claimed is he’s a big right shot scorer that skates well enough and has edge. GM nirvana. I think he gets claimed if exposed
I think his agent already told him which team or teams would claim him if he goes on waivers before he made his decision to accept his QO. 😎
Klim Kostin 2022.
Big, one-shot scorer that can skate, hits, fights, has higher pedigree, had real NHL experience, made the league min – waived and cleared
Klim Kostin was on a one way deal that paid him $750,000 in the minors too. He had a total of 46 games NHL experience, the assessment of which probably didn’t help him much given that he’d scored 5 goals in those games. And its not like he ever lit the AHL on fire either. He never had a season in the AHL like Lavoie did last year. As for pedigree, he was chosen 31st overall compared to Lavoie’s 38th overall in their respective drafts. In average pre-draft rankings from MacKenzie, Kostin was 18th and Lavoie was 19th. Not much difference in their pedigrees.
So it comes down to righty versus lefty and righty is worth more. 😉
Unless Bob’s not my uncle Lavoie gets claimed with Holland and Woody already knowing this.
Lavoie is an unknown commodity as of yet, did well AHL and addressed concerns about his game, and also not Russian which carries other various issues. I’d claim him especially if I lacked what he has
Placing players on waivers is always a risk. Since the Sather days, Forsberg may be the only player the Oilers have lost on waivers (at least the other 4 mentioned above were all Sather era) and that was the result of a series of last minute goalie injuries, the effects of the taxi squad and pandemic, and possible the concern over whether Lagesson might get claimed if he was waived.
Lavoie may be good enough that even if he can’t crack the top 12 or 13 on the Oilers to break camp, he could be good enough for some other teams. But they also would have to have NHL roster room for him. Many mention the Habs, but if healthy they have a lot of forwards on their roster they want to have a look at already.
The Oilers have lost a few players in the past weveral years to waivers but nobody you’d miss. Nathan Walker, Valentin Zykov, Pontus Aberg, Anton Forsberg, Troy Grosenick going back to 2016. Pontus Aberg was probably the last one lost during training camp. He put up 25 points in 59 games that season and then played 5 more for Toronto before heading to Europe. If Lavoie plays well enough in camp to play in the NHL either with the Oilers or another team, I doubt he gets waived. If he doesn’t, he probably won’t turn into Kunitz or Grabner and suddenly start scoring
Thanks I should have interpreted LT’s point as 5 players of consequence lost to waivers instead of total. It is interesting when looking up Aberg, that he was claimed by Anaheim in October 2018, then a week later they waived him and it seems the Oilers did not exercise their right to reclaim him and send him to the minors. Clearly not a loss at all. It’s like they were happy Anaheim took him off their hands.
Yeah, there were a couple of times they mentioned “off-ice issues” in the press but never specified. Todd McLellan said “He came out for reasons beyond his play . . . it’s serious. The coaching staff isn’t pleased, the organization isn’t pleased and I’m sure his teammates aren’t pleased.” when they sat him in the press box for a game. Seems he did something else the next training camp and that was it.
He missed practice.
Not a great example, IMO, because if they could go back in time many GMs would probably have claimed Kostin. So wouldn’t Kostin’s success be more reason to claim Lavoie?
What is the risk if, say, the Habs claim him? Nothing. Lavoie is also younger and has outproduced KK in the AHL (81 pts in 136gp compared to 92 points in 207gp). Lavoie is a better prospect now than Kostin was.
Some will say, “but every team has a Lavoie.” Sure. But is there a rule that says you cannot have more than one? Drafting and developing is a numbers game, right? The more prospects you have, the better chances you have of developing NHL players? So it seems like a no-brainer for a GM to claim him.
Yes, if GMs could go back they would claim him but, at the time he was waived, not a single GM claimed him – not one.
Over the years there are lots of players that clear waivers that, in hindsight, shouldn’t have.
In real life, GMs don’t get to manage with hindsight.
Can’t say that Lavoie was a better prospect – Klim Kostin had actually played NHL games and scored goals in the NHL.
Of course teams can have “more than one Lavoie” but what organizations generally do not due, is claim a player off waivers that would require them to waive/demote their internal similar prospect.
I’ve been very clear that, while I don’t think he’d get claimed (cut again at 23 years old), the risk is not zero.
They might be able to sign a couple veteran defensemen to PTO’s, like Patrick Nemeth & Nick Holden. Holden is a local guy & Nemeth is another Swedish defenseman.
Both defensive stalwarts.
Question for the group more knowledgeable on the CBA – how are the Leafs allowed to go over the additional 10% in off-season cap space? Is there going to be a penalty allocated to them, or is the 10% just guidance but not enforced? My understanding is that there is no off-season LTIR, so the Muzzin contract should still count as of today.
There is a buyout window currently open. That will solve the issue, either via trade or Murray buyout. Won’t be long and we’ll know.
Guess this is relevant to the potential buyout (ie – not yet).
———-
Chris Johnston@reporterchris·4m
There is no NHL waiver activity today.
Guess the arbitration buyout windows only open 3 days after the award though, so it isn’t actually open yet.
I agree that it will solve the issue. But as of the moment they are over the 10% so there should be a penalty in my estimation. I would have assumed that knowing this arbitration would put them over the 10%, they would have been forced to make a move in advance, and not after the fact.
I think if Toronto and it’s doctors currently believe that Jake Muzzin will not be available for at least the first 10 games of the 23/24 season, they can, in the off season, put his cap hit onto LTIR. Muzzin’s salary is enough that if they can go that route and don’t use the buyout window, they will be below the 110% ceiling. Obviously this just buys them more time to sort out their cap before the start of the season.
If this is available, I would agree with this – but have they already made this move? If not, as of the arbitration ruling they are over the 10%.
Capfriendly lists Jake Muzzin as being on LTIR, and Toronto has never activated him off LTIR since he went on last October. Seems to me the NHL does not consider Toronto to be in violation here, so I imaging that is the case.
Based on my reading of the CBA, the second buyout provision is likely not available to the Leafs anyway. The team can only use that provision if it had two players file for arbitration in a given season and I believe Samsonov was the only player on the Leafs who filed.
Are you sure it’s two players needing to file?
I haven’t read the actual CBA, but Capfriendly implies (“a player”) and Puckpedia explicitly states (“one player”) that only one is necessary to open the window.
(https://www.capfriendly.com/buyout-faq and https://puckpedia.com/salary-cap/buyouts).
One wrinkle I was not aware of is that there actually has to be an arbitration ruling to trigger the buyout period. So if McLeod and Bouchard (for example) agree to terms prior to the hearing there would be no buyout window.
Edit: OK, reading further on the linked Capfriendly FAQ regarding 2 players. If 1) the arbitration is club-elected, and 2) the player was not issued a QO, THEN there need to be 2 arbitration filings/rulings.
Yes, I had only read section 11 of the CBA and hadn’t jumped to the reference of section 13 of the SPC where the 2 requirement was linked to club-elected. It can be difficult jumping back and forth between sections to see what they mean sometimes. I should have looked for the Capfriendly summary which is usually pretty good. Thx.
I haven’t found anything in the CBA that specifically states that there is grace period from an arbitration award for the team to use a buyout to get cap compliant. But clearly, the idea of a second buyout window is to give the team the opportunity to get cap compliant after getting an arbitration award that the team would have the 5 days to get its accounts in order (3 days tll the window opens and 48 hours to do a buyout) if that is the teams plan.
I’d suspect that the end result of an arbitration award putting a team over the off-season 10% is not specifically written into the CBA as it is essentially out of the team’s hands how big an award can be and the owners would not want to be specifically boxed in on that issue and the players would not want anything to directly or indirectly reduce the amount a player gets in arbitration.
The CBA specifically states that the Arbitrator cannot be presented any evidence on the team’s cap/salary situation and it is not to be included in the arbitration decision regardless of what it does to the teams cap. But it would still make sense that the team is given a grace period to remedy a cap overage under the circumstances since that is why that second buyout window exists.
Unless they made a change, I don’t think this is true and the buyout window opens regardless of settlement before or arb award.
This is from CapFriendly
Buyouts Outside of the Regular PeriodClubs whom have 1 or more arbitration filings may be permitted to perform a buyout outside of the regular window. This gives teams another opportunity to become cap compliant following an arbitration case.
Clubs are permitted to perform a buyout outside the regular period during the 48 hour period beginning on the third day after the final of [CBA 13(c)ii]:
Requirements:
There is an exception to this buyout period (CBA Reference: Section 11.18; 12.3) if the arbitation was Club-elected (as opposed to player-elected) and the player did not receive a qualifying offer. In this case, a minimum of two arbitration cases are necessary to trigger the buy-out period outside the regular window.
Yes, exactly what I stated – the buyout window opens even if they don’t actually go to arbitrations – even if they settle.
Yes, my mistake, I misread.
Its because of how the off-season cap is calculated and its not just taking the straight cap hit of the players signed – there are nuances for players that ended the prior season in the AHL (or spent part of the season in the AHL) where only a portion of their AAV is counted.
Thanks for this.
Jean Francois C. is a phenomenal resource:
Here is the Leafs current cap calcuation – you’ll note that guys like Knies do not count their total AAV:
https://twitter.com/MtlfanSakic/status/1683195676715372546
If you reach out to JFC, he will answer questions.
Seems like it states in there that they are using LTI pool to be cap compliant which is effectively Muzzin’s salary.
That Kurashev arb award is not good for the Oilers at all. I think it could push McLeod in to the $2.5MM range if it goes the distance and an arbitrator is making the decision.
If McLeod does get something in that range and we are looking at something approaching $6.5MM for the two RFAs, its going to be tight just for 21 players and 12F on the roster.
Then Holland will have to trade Kulak or Foegele. McLeod should push for $3 million if he can get it.
That will certainly be a fly in the ointment. That just means they will need to rely on the youngsters. We still could see a 3rd pair of Broberg & Desharnais, with Neimelainen #7. Or that would ensure Holloway & Lavoie make the team, one or the other. Then they will need either Stasny or Staal to sign for the league minimum so they can raise the average age of the team.
Trading Foegele, allowing a PTO/vet at league min to grab a spot and getting McLeod under contract for more than a year would be a valuable thing to do.
McLeod might still turn into the missing top 6 winger. If he is, it’d be nice to have a longer deal in place and is worth the risk lower in the lineup.
The problem is that the window for trading Foegele for value – or even for nothing – is probably pretty much closed now that the money has run out for almost all the teams.
Its why I wanted to move him earlier in the summer when he would have been in demand and brought a return.
Ceci, not Kulak, but probably Foegele.
I know you’re not a Ceci fan, but he played a full 200 minutes more vs. elites than Kulak did last year (493 to 289 minutes; 37.4% to 23.2% of their ice time). His results against elites were better than Kulak’s as well.
Even their overall numbers (% of corsi, shots, expected goals, DFF) were nearly identical save for a few goals difference (this despite different usage).
I like Kulak a ton, but I do not think he’s a better defenseman than Ceci.
Agreed. My and other’s issue with Ceci is that he’s a poor fit with Nurse and what he’s not good at is what the modern game demands. Ceci is more like injury cover for first pair. Not good but not incapable. Second pair with the right partner probably can be helpful
Yeah, well the hope/expectation is that, in addition to Ceci being healthy again, Ekholm allows them to run an even top 4D rather than Nurse-Ceci taking on ALL of the difficult minutes.
And a reminder that Nurse-Ceci to this point have been a break even pair despite leading the NHL in difficult minutes.
The Oilers have 12 players over 2.5M and they will likely do what they did last year. Play a terrifying game of chicken to the end of training camp and then demote someone (or several someones) that are unexpected if the team stays healthy or use some LTIR space for the extra players.
Agree that it doesn’t help the Oilers, though I’m optimistic McLeod wouldn’t come in higher than Kurashev’s $2.25M even if it did go to a hearing.
McLeod did have a higher points per game this past season (0.40 to 0.36), though in fewer games. However, their career points per game numbers are almost identical (0.326 to 0.325).
Where Kurashev comes out ahead is in TOI. He was 4th among Blackhawks forwards this season at 17:25 while McLeod played considerably less, only 14:11 a game.
We’ll see soon enough though. Hopefully McLeod agrees to something more like $2.0M before it gets to the hearing.
What are the Oilers more concerned with: 23/24 or 24/25? If Kurashev is a really good comp for McLeod, and the Oilers are worried that the arbitrator would award a similar amount, ie 2 yeaar x $2.25 million or worse, the Oilers could still elect to go for a 1 year deal in arbitration. All things being equal, a 1-year deal at McLeod’s stage should be a lower AAV. Having room to get Bouchard done may be more important that getting McLeod dealt with for 2 seasons. They have until the 30th to come to a settlement or to make their submission to the Arbitrator.
Good point on 2 vs. 1 year. Obviously it would be nice to have McLeod at a known rate for more than 1 year, but certainly getting Bouchard signed is more important. And likewise, if one of them is going to get a 2 year instead of 1 year deal, I sure hope it’s Bouchard.
Lets not forget that, if we are talking about TOI, Kurashev got over 2 min/game on the PP and still produced less per game (and much less toi/game on the PK as McLeod).
Well McLeod also played 1 minute/game on the PP (0:56), and Kurashev about the same on the PK (0:51 is memory serves). Their special teams usage was pretty similar in an overall sense.
I’ve got to wonder also whether the arbitrator would take team environment into account to some degree as well. Points are a lot easier to come by on a team that scored 325 goals than one that scored 202 goals.
Anyway, we will see. As I said, I’m optimistic.
I don’t think he’s being selfish but I think he’s being the opposite of calculating. I don’t see any way the extra $100K helps him be on an NHL roster and there are definite scenarios where it not only hurts his NHL roster chances but could preclude it.
He’s “betting on himself” – I guess but, again, I come back to the fact that I see no scenario where this helps him and I don’t see why he can’t have the exact same attitude, swagger, confidence, etc. while guaranteeing $200K-$300K (as opposed to $70K) that the Oilers offered.
Oh,, yes, Holland even says he’s going to play a ton. I fully expect him to have a very solid preseason and camp and I do expect he makes the team.
We are trending towards a 21-player roster and, if that’s the case, there likely isn’t an issue fitting his cap hit in as 12F. That would be more of an issue if they were trying to fit in a 13th forward. With that said, with recent arb awards, there is a chance McLeod is awarded something well over $2MM, even up to $2.5MM and that could make things tight even with only 12F and 21 players.
Also, lets not forget that, even if he scores 5 goals in exhibition, it doesn’t really mean all that much, right? It would solidify his spot on the opening night roster and a chance to prove he is ready when the season starts but we know exhibition production means all but zero when the regular season starts, right?
Players like Lavoie do pass through waivers all the time. Sometimes players like Lavoie are claimed.
Both those statements can be true.
I think he likely clear if he’s cut again but its definitely not zero risk.
I am somewhat confidant that, if Holland thinks the “best team” to start the year does not have Lavoie on it, he will have no hesitation to waive him, even knowing there is a risk.
Unless there is another signing of a more established player, its tough to see him not on the opening roster – Pederson has the “NHL experience” and is a “right shot center” but I can’t see him making it over Lavoie to start.
The money isn’t the thing Lavoie wants. It’s the NHL. This is a calculating move. I can’t understand how anyone would disagree. He HAS money and will earn more.
What doesn’t he have? An NHL job.
Totally agree. As I mentioned the other day his agent had weeks to sniff around the league to determine if there was a team interested in claiming him on waivers if the Oilers try to send him down. I would be shocked if that wasn’t part of the decision he made.
His agent currently has 4 clients in the Montreal system so is very likely well attuned to their thinking.
With Price on LTIR they have the cap room.
I understand that he wants the NHL but I don’t understand how this contract helps him make the NHL. It likely doesn’t hurt but it could and it definitely doesn’t help – unless I’m missing something.
I don’t understand how this is a positive calculating move as far as making an NHL team goes.
Lavoie wants the NHL and I fully expect him to come in a compete as hard as he possibly can – I’m not sure why he wouldn’t do that with a guaranteed $200K-$300K gross comp.
I would suggest that the difference $70K and $200K has a bigger effect on standard of living than the difference between $775K and $875K, right?
I think a 200-300k AHL salary makes him less likely to be claimed by another team. If a low cap team that spends by an internal budget claims him, then they would only be on the hook for 70k if he doesn’t work out. In terms of taking a higher cap amount, I think he’s looking to an NHL future where his current NHL salary affects the starting point of negotiations on his next contract and the one or two after that. If he believes he is an NHL player, that’s potentially $400k (100k per year) of his RFA money.
A claiming team wouldn’t care about his AHL salary – they would need to keep him on their NHL roster or put him right back on waivers (and the Oilers would claim him back and place him in the AHL).
After 30 days on their roster or having played in 10 games, the claiming team can then attempt to waive and assign the player their AHL farm team. If he is not claimed off waivers at this time, the acquiring team would then be on the hook for the full AHL salary. There’s a chance the player could get claimed again at this time, including by the original team, which no longer has priority rights, but it is not certain. Probably not a big factor if they want the player, but not nothing either.
Some team has a forward go down with an injury in camp and will be out for 6 weeks or so to start the season. They claim someone off waivers to fill that hole, but only until the injured player is scheduled to be back. Plans can change, (more injuries, player does better than expected, etc.), but off the pre-season waiver wire, between two otherwise comparable players, the AHL salary could be a meaningful factor in their plans.
I don’t see any scenario where the Oilers wouldn’t claim him back so, to my point, a claiming team wouldn’t care about his AHL salary as he would almost assuredly not be playing on their AHL team.
Yeah I agree that if he were claimed, then later waived, the Oilers would basically 100% claim him back. Lavoie’s low AHL salary will not benefit anyone other than the Oilers (and if things go according to plan, it will not benefit them either).
So just because you can’t see it, you assume no other team would imagine that after having Lavoie for 1 or 2 months that the Oilers wouldn’t have moved on.
Remember, if the other team waives Lavoie more than 30 days or 10 games after originally claiming him, if the Oilers are successful in claiming him, he has to stay on their NHL roster with that claim, they can’t just send him to the minors.
I can’t see the Oilers claiming him back. If they did, they’d have to keep him on the roster or waive him to send him down. Realistically, if they didn’t have money and a roster spot to keep him the first time, why would they have money to keep him the second time?
That’s not quite true – if the Oilers were to (successfully) claim him back, they can assign him directly to the AHL without having to expose him to waivers again. That’s the one ‘benefit’ of this type of scenario – any OTHER team that puts in a claim has to expose him to waivers before assigning him to the AHL
I could see the Oilers claiming Lavioe back, unless of course, they felt his time with the organization had run it’s course, in which case, he’d become and AHL player for his new team
What you say is true if the other team puts him on waivers within 30 days/10 games, and the Oilers reclaim him. If its more than 30 days/10 games, then Lavoie becomes like any other player on waivers, and the Oilers would have to keep him on the roster if they are able to claim him.
I expect you’re correct but would you happen to have any online verification of this?
I tried to look for some last night without luck, but that certainly is an exception that wouldn’t normally be mentioned.
From the CBA regarding players reclaimed:
13.22 When a Club claims a Player on Regular or Unconditional Waivers, and, subsequently, in the same season it requests Waivers on the same Player and the original owning Club is the successful and only Club making a Waiver claim, then the original owning Club shall be entitled to Loan such Player to a club in another league within thirty days without further Waivers being asked; provided that such Player has not participated in ten or more NHL Games (cumulative) and remained on an NHL roster more than thirty days (cumulative) following such successful claim.
Thank you. I still feel like that’s a bit vague. Which is the ‘such successful claim’, the first claim or the second one?
‘successful’ is used to refer to the second claim earlier in the paragraph, but then the thirty days in the last underline part would be redundant with the ‘within thirty days’ immediately before it.
Anyway, you are probably correct.
It is confusing isn’t it?. My second read had me think that the successful claim at the end was referring to the original team and that my interpretation was incorrect. But when I go look at the real life example in the NHL last season: Magnus Hellberg, it gets muddy again. Hellberg was claimed by Ottawa from Seattle on October 3, is shown as having played 1 game, then on Nov 9 was placed on waivers by Ottawa and claimed by Seattle. He is shown as having played no games for Seattle, and was placed on waivers by Seattle on November 22 (less than 30 days), then claimed by Detroit. If Seattle as the reclaiming team could send him to the minors no problem, it would beodd that he had to be placed on waivers by them and lost to Detroit.
The language in the rule says in 10 games and 30 days. While Magnus isn’t shown playing 10 games, he was on Ottawa’s roster for more than 30 days. Hellberg is a goalie however, so he may have been dressed for the 10 games in Ottawa, which may count. If this were true, then my original interpretation may be correct. I didn’t go look at Ottawa’s actual game rosters for October last season to see if Hellberg was dressed as back up for at least 9 games to go with his 1 game played.
We may just have to wait and see how it plays out to really be sure.
Yes, it is confusing for sure. There’s also the wrinkle about if “the original owning Club is the successful and only Club making a Waiver claim”. It’s conceivable in the Hellberg example that Detroit also put in a claim, but that only came into effect once Seattle tried to send him down (since Seattle would I think have had higher waiver priority than Detroit to start last season).
Yeah, clear as mud. You may be right that we won’t know with certainty until/unless it happens. In any case, thanks for the info, such as it is.
Lavoie is signalling his commitment to play good hockey #carpediem and do whatever it takes by pissing on Holland and Woodcroft’s lawns.
He sees no reason to leave his $100K on the table this year, and another $100K on his QO next year. He sees no reason to make it easier for Holland and Woodcroft to send him to the AHL.
He sees no reason why he has to give the $100K to the guy who has already won the lottery (i.e. Bouchard).
1) He’s not signaling anything. Any “message” that he sends re: being ready will be shown by his performance on the ice, end stop.
2) Taking the extra $100K makes it easier to send him down not harder.
3) If he doesn’t earn a real raise over league min on his 3rd contract, well, sail on Ralph Lavoie – he was likely in the AHL most of the season.
4) Its not about giving $100K to the next guy, its about (a) ensuring he’s in the NHL making close to a million (and this does not help those chances) and (b) guaranteeing himself a a couple hundred grand. If J. Toews decides he’s willing to play for the Oilers for $775, or even $875 – Lavoie is waived, end stop.
5) On that note, his cap hit in the NHL on his 2nd contract is more than Ryan McLeod’s last season and Ryan McLeod was an established NHL player and was also better in the AHL.
McLeod wears a white hat. Lavoie wears a black hat. The hat colour for each was likely the reason each slid in the draft.
A team is probably stronger have a few white hats and a few black hats around. After all, diversity is strength.
Can Jay coach black hats?
EDIT: I see this got caught in the owner’s name restriction that I posted just before heading for brunch. I didn’t realize his name was still on the list of prohibited words.
You don’t understand it because you think it is about money. It isn’t about money as LT said.
The real question in all of this is why didn’t the Oilers offer a one way contract at league minimum to a high 2nd round pick who just potted 25 goals last season.
After all the difference between the rumoured AHL money and the NHL money might be huge to we mere mortals but it is really a nothing burger to the owner’s standard of living and that would be the only impact it would have to anybody other than Lavoie.
If you follow the bread crumbs – and, again, LT dropped them a few days ago – that is pretty much code in the league for marking you as a tweener. Not a legitimate threat in the NHL. Now I have no idea how they came to think that but the message within the industry would be pretty clear if it is as uncommon as LT indicated the other day.
For some reason the Oilers do not see Lavoie as part of their future other than maybe as an injury callup etc.
At this point Lavoie wants a second opinion. He is angling for a trade imo but a waiver pickup will work for him as well. The Oilers told him how important he was to them when they offered the two way. He wants out to pursue his dream of playing in the NHL.
The Oilers didn’t offer a one way contract to Lavoie coming off of the ELC because it is bad precedent. Everyone with no NHL games on an expiring ELC will want one.
From Lowetide’s post on July 15. The quote is part of a history lesson on how players get from the minors to the NHL.
“If you can’t negotiate a one-way deal after your first pro contract you are a de facto minor league player.”
What Godot says is basically true. Pretty much every player signing their first post ELC contract who has played no NHL games yet gets a two way deal. No NHL team this year seems to have signed a one way deal with any players that had no prior NHL games under their ELC. Because of the CBA rules, unless they get into substantial NHL games during their ELC, they have little leverage to negotiate a 1 way deal for a one season contract. Lavoie’s leverage to get a one way deal was limited to giving up $100,000 of NHL salary, and that was only enough to get a $200,000 ish AHL offer apparently, which was way more generous than what Benson or Marody were offered on their first post ELC deals.
So where did I misunderstand the quote from the July 15th post?
That quote is merely an opinion. And it is probably true that a very high number of players who play no games in the NHL prior to the expiration of their ELC are unlikely to have a meaningful NHL career. But every situation is unique. Very good NHL teams are more likely to have players in the minors that could potentially make other NHL rosters, but have trouble getting a shot in a deeper line up. That’s why the waiver wire exists.
I don’t buy any of that in the least.
If he was angling for a trade or a waiver pick up, he did himself a disservice by accepting his QO as opposed to signing for $775K.
He wasn’t offered a one-way contract because he’s a 23 year old with zero NHL games and not assured to make the team – GMs don’t hand out one-way contracts to those players.
The thing is OP it’s his analysis that matters not yours.
He may have information you aren’t privy to including someone from MTL saying yah we’d claim him. It doesn’t mean they will but it would affect his analysis.
I would suggest that most likely agree that is Woody and Manson’s depth chart and what we’ll see for game 1 (s/t health) but some opine that should be the depth chart – some believe that an upgrade on Ceci in the top 4 is needed, end stop, and others think a rejig and Broberg up the lineup (right side) is prudent.
Good arguments can be made for (and against) both opinions, in my opinion.
Yup, I would have to agree with this – he’s clearly behind Broberg and Deharnais.
I’m not even positive he would be the first call up – I mean, I think he would be competing with each of Gleason, Hofenmayer and Kemp for that first recall.
I would suspect he’s a the top of that list but it the recall will be determined by style/need and how those 4 are playing.
Yes, I have specifically not included Cam Dineen in the group.
Ceci is the player that Niemelainen has to beat out to get into the top 7. Ceci has to be dumped next season for cap reasons, so the Oilers should hope they can keep Niemlainen around.
Although Kemp is likely stiff competition for being the Ceci replacement next season.
I wonder if it’s a combination of recency, face punching, and handedness. We haven’t seen Niemelainen here for a bit, Desharnais is more likely punch someone in the face as opposed to blowing them up with a hit, and he’s also RH.
Bruce McCurdy on departures and arrivals.
https://edmontonjournal.com/sports/hockey/nhl/cult-of-hockey/have-edmonton-oilers-moved-on-from-the-right-players-this-summer
I honestly do not understand the Desharnais love, I see very little difference with Niemelainen. Markus is younger and has played more NHL games.
It’s the results. His AHL results at even strength and on the PK are outstanding. Niemelainen’s are good but there’s some wobble (his expected are not as impressive as actual) and he is often seen out of position to make a big hit.
Unless Desharnais suffers injury, or derails as a player, I don’t see Niemelainen ahead of him in the future.
Niemelainen looked like the more “polished” player to me. His skating and puck handling is a little smoother. Desharnais has more snarl to his game. Niemelainen definitely threw some monster hits, but they always seemed a little more sneaky.
It’s really close between these players imo. Desharnais has an X-factor that is keeping him ahead of Niemo at the moment. I hope the coaches go into camp with the mindset that Niemelainen has a chance to beat out Desharnais for that last spot.
Niemalainen shoots the wrong way.
And as LT said, Desharnais had extremely strong numbers in Bakersfield (and Edmonton). That included surprising even strength scoring.
IMO Desharnais is the better defenseman, in addition to having the positional advantage.
Some NHL statistical evidence in support of Desharnais’ better performance at the NHL level:
As it happens, over the last 2 seasons in total, Niemelainen and Desharnais have played very similar minutes for the Oilers at 5 on 5 (43 GP, 441 minutes vs 36 GP 402 minutes). In pretty much every statistical possession/results category on Naturalstattick, Deharnais appears to have a clear edge:
https://www.naturalstattrick.com/playercompare.php?fromseason=20212022&thruseason=20222023&stype=2&sit=5v5&score=all&stdoi=oi&rate=y&p1=8479338&p2=8479576&loc=B&gpfilt=none&fd=&td=&tgp=410&lines=single
Desharnais also has a significant edge on the PK, both getting twice as much time on ice in that category, but also better results:
https://www.naturalstattrick.com/playercompare.php?fromseason=20212022&thruseason=20222023&stype=2&sit=pk&score=all&stdoi=oi&rate=y&p1=8479338&p2=8479576&loc=B&gpfilt=none&fd=&td=&tgp=410&lines=single
Both have similarly poor numbers against elites on puckiq. I won’t bother adding that link. The only statistical edges Niemelainen seems to have are hits and, surprisingly, taking less penalties.
Desharnais’s main partner has been Kulak (~240 min), with some time with Nurse (~72) and a little time with Broberg (~40). For Niemelainen, he had his most time with Barrie (~170), followed by Bouchard (~123), then Ceci (~50).
I would re-iterate that his right handedness given the what the Oilers have on that side currently also gives Vinnie a significant leg up on Niemelainen as well. Added to that, he plays a more predictable game than Niemelainen, which is what Woodcroft/Manson want in a 3rd pair shutdown player anyway.
I’d be curious to know what the tale of the tape from CoH would be on on the two’s relative performance on contributions/mistakes on scoring chances for and against. That’s probably a little better than the Naturalstattrick info as in hones in on individual impact.
Niemelainen had the edge from 2021-22 to early 2022 but was not able to outperform what Desharnais did in the AHL in late 2022 and when he was called up at the end of 2023. I think Desharnais has the edge in handedness as well. Niemelainen may end up being the extra defenceman for 2024-25 as Desharnais is a UFA at the end of this season.
While I do think that Deharnais is a bit over-rated by Oil Country as a whole, the difference between the effect of the two players on the PK is marked.
Niemo got killed on the PK – only Tyson Barrie was worse, both years, as far as GA rate, expected GA rates and SA rates. I suspect that was with alot of PP2 time as well (while Deharnais had much better results and saw alot of PP1).
I am a bit concerned that Deharnais won’t get away with nearly as much stick work this coming season – he uses his stick on body ALOT and I was shocked he didn’t get called more. I think he needs to develop his ability to cause “pain” with his body more than his stick.
In any event, they both need to be solidly behind Broberg on the depth chart (here is hoping the coaching staff agrees).