Thanks again for all the questions submitted for the March reader mailbag. There were a few concepts — relating to subjects such as long-term injured reserve and potentially tweaking the playoff format — that I want to tackle with a deeper look, so watch for those responses next week. In the meantime, here’s part 2.
Please note: Some questions and answers have been slightly edited for clarity and style.
GO DEEPER
Trade leaks, tanking, suspensions and which wild card will make a run? Duhatschek mailbag
Once the playoffs and the draft are over and attention turns to re-signing and roster construction, which team is going to have the most difficult summer? — A. M. P.
Vegas. And I’ll begin by repeating something I wrote a few weeks ago. I love the unconventional, aggressive way the Golden Knights go about their business. I wish more teams did it. It shakes up a very conservative, risk-averse industry. And adding Tomas Hertl from San Jose for a long time at a discounted salary of $6.75 million per season is good business. But once the cap resets and Mark Stone recovers from his spleen injury, they’ll have $37.15 million tied up in five forwards (the aforementioned two, plus Jack Eichel, William Karlsson and Ivan Barbashev), $14 million committed to two defensemen (Alex Pietrangelo and Shea Theodore) and $4.9 million to a starting goalie, Adin Hill. If my math is correct, that’s $56.05 million for eight players.
The cap is estimated to be rising next year to $87.7 million. Let’s say the Golden Knights carry a 21-player roster. That leaves them with roughly $27 million to pay 12 players — and will force some more tough offseason calls. Jonathan Marchessault, Alec Martinez, Chandler Stephenson and William Carrier plus trade deadline acquisitions Anthony Mantha and Noah Hanifin are among the players on expiring contracts. Martinez might take a pay cut to stay (he’s currently at $5.25 million) and Marchessault may accept $5 million again because of his age, but the others will almost certainly be looking for raises; in Hanifin’s case, a substantial raise. Shoehorning everybody onto the roster will be a job. Vegas took great pride in essentially returning last year’s Stanley Cup roster virtually intact (minus Reilly Smith). That doesn’t seem likely next year, no matter how the remainder of the season and playoffs unfold.
There’s often talk heading into the trade deadline about how a team is “showcasing” a particular player, e.g. by playing the backup goalie more, moving a guy up the depth chart or giving him special teams time. With the obvious exception of players who are just coming back from injuries, where other GMs would really want to see what he looks like now, how much does this really happen, and how much difference does it make? Are other GMs really putting much weight on what a player has done in the last week or two versus his long-term performance? — Jim B.
The short answer is no. Teams shopping for help aren’t fooled when a bottom-six forward suddenly appears on a power play, or his time magically ticks up approaching the trade deadline. Over years, teams develop extensive professional scouting reports on most opposing players. When it gets down to crunch time at the deadline, they obviously pay extra attention to the few they’re focusing on, especially if they’re just looking at rentals, to assess their current form. As your question implies, that matters more if a player’s been out because of an injury. Is he playing again, but at only 90 percent capacity? Even less? That’s when getting eyeballs on a player late does matter. Because you can get all the medical reports you want, but you can often better tell, when watching, if a player is laboring through an injury. Trying to plump up a player’s worth by giving him extra responsibility at the 11th hour? If that fools a professional hockey organization into overpaying, shame on them.
Theory: The upcoming “auction” in…
This article was originally published by a theathletic.com . Read the Original article here. .