Gee Wiz
by Arthur from Anaheim Calling on Oct 11, 2009 7:52 PM PDT
15 comments
The Ducks were out of gas at the end of their road trip, dropping this afternoon's game in Madison Square Garden 3-0. Giguere pitched a gem through two, but was ultimately undermined by two third period penalties, one a roughing call to Whitney for putting Sean Avery in a headlock, the other a token Artyukhin call.
The freshest legs on the ice (other than Giguere's) belonged to Sheldon Brookbank, who dressed in place of a scratched Nick Boynton, and Brendan Mikkelson, who was called up from Toronto. Together, the two players were asked to eat the minutes of recent ice-time gormandizer James Wisniewski, whose shoulder was injured in last night's game against Philadelphia.
Daniel, Wisniewski's on a bit of a trial contract this year. We assume he wants a multi-year at 3M+ per, and the Ducks gave him one year at 2.75M to prove, amongst other things, he could play a healthy and productive season. If he can't stay healthy this season, should the Ducks re-sign him?
DANIEL:
I think the Ducks should consider giving Wisniewski a contract extension. If he is hurt, maybe Bob Murray can muscle him into a pay cut for a short period of time. Wisniewski has demonstrated an ability to eat minutes, connect on the home run pass (...occasionally) and deliver a few big hits. That's definitely worth 1.5-2M a year if he can play 60 games a year. I don't think a 3 year $6 million deal would be a poor investment, considering the prize of next year's free agent class is Duncan Keith. There won't be a lot of defensemen available who can play 23 minutes a night, be physical and are younger than 30. Although, Ruslan Salei might be an option, or we can take a shot at Jordan Leopold.
I'm as frustrated as anybody. Wisniewski had 4 points in our first 4 games. More importantly, I think he's the nastiest blueliner on our team. That might not be saying much, but it's something we desperately need. The absence of it on the free agent market and the need to have a guy who can play 23-25 minutes a night make Wisniewski very valuable. But you can't pay a guy big money to only pay 40-50 games a year. If the Ducks lock up Wisniewski, it better be for less money.
ARTHUR:
I've been very vocal about how much I hate this contract. Paterson has found some quality journeyman defensemen for us over the years, and I just can't justify paying Wisniewski to fill a hole that another player could fill at half the price, especially when we had him set for arbitration. I think Bob Murray has trouble NOT paying the guys he likes. That's why he screwed up the Beauchemin deal, and that's probably why he blinked first heading to arbitration. He's got blueline colored glasses on, and he can't see this guy's a major injury risk.
Granted, this is his shoulder, not his knee, but I think Marian Gaborik proved in Minnesota that, at some point, fragility is unforgivable. Now, if it's a strength and conditioning issue, he really should have taken care of it this year, his trial contract year. If it's a freak luck thing, we should really get him away from our players. And if it's just genetic, my heart goes out to him, but injuries and ailments kept even Super Mario away from the game-- mere mortal athletes can't expect more.
The thing that spells 'don't re-sign him' for me is that he plays a physically taxing game. He likes to hit, he likes to mix it up, he likes to block shots and he likes to take shots on net. His style of play puts him at risk for injury every shift, and Carlyle just added four minutes to his ice time. I mean, injuries will happen to any player, but as a professional athlete, you have to have some sense of what your body can and can't do, and Wisniewski should probably file his physical game under the 'can't do's.' And I think he knows that, but he has to make a choice to either figure out why his body is betraying him and fix it or change his style of play altogether. THAT version of Wisniewski will have earned the contract he wanted this offseason.
0 recs |
15 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
by Anonymous on Oct 12, 2009 6:45 PM PDT reply actions
First, it's not about getting his salary, it's about the giant hole he left in the salary cap for a club that had to financially account for him during those seasons. Don't forget that Gaborik held out prior to the groin injuries and refused to sign some pricey extensions prior to the hip surgeries that would supposedly fix the groin injuries. That's right. If you MISSED that, his groin injuries were caused by a hip problem that, if fixed, should guarantee he never has a relapse of his chronic groin injury.
Now, maybe I'm way off base, but I think a professional athlete is bound to make sure he's physically able to do his job, not for the sake of his employer, but for the sake of his own earning power in the very short window of time that he has to make money playing a sport. And management can expect to be protected by that self-interest.
Gaborik had millions of dollars and access to specialists that could make sure he continued to earn millions of dollars. No injury should ever be a simple injury. Athletes should be checking themselves out thoroughly with every injury and seeing specialists. You can say there's a stigma about going to the doctor, but would you respect a race car driver that never looked under his own hood? Wisniewski should be doing everything in his power to make sure there's nothing physically wrong with him, or he should play to protect himself. He should NOT continue to put himself at peril without improving his health and potentially leave a consistent $3M hole in the Ducks' payroll.
by Anaheim Calling on Oct 12, 2009 9:27 PM PDT reply actions
As a Blackhawk fan
I still hold tons of love for Wiz. As you pointed out, he plays a style of game that completely endeared itself to Chicago fans. When we traded him for Pahlsson (while the right move), it still killed us inside. I don’t think he’s worth 3+ million, as he’s had injury problems here (knee, shoulder). He is worth 2, however.
And you are dreaming if you think we are letting Duncan Keith go.
Oh, I wouldn’t mind him at 2M. Just one healthy contract at 2M/yr., and I agree he deserves what he’s asking for.
The Keith move is a wise cap move if you want to ink Kane and Toews. You use Duncan Keith as the bow to wrap one or two bad contracts and ship them off to a team for Cup contributing one-year contracts at the deadline. Ducks have cap space and some good one year contracts (including Wisniewski), and we have an old ’Hawk doing our wheeling and dealing in Murray.
The alternative is signing Kane and Toews and then talking Duncan Keith down. With Seabrook at 3.5 and Campbell at 7, no way he’ll ask for less than 5 (and he really is worth about 5). I think it’ll be tough for the front office to find ~20M next offseason. They’ve got the Olympic break to negotiate, but who’s gonna absorb toxic contracts to HELP you guys keep Kane, Toews and Keith?
by Arthur from Anaheim Calling on Oct 14, 2009 9:06 AM PDT up reply actions
Oh, btw, that 20M figure is starting from next year’s cap commitments. I think, even with a creative contract, you’d be looking at 6M+, 6M+ and 5M+ for the trio. That would be a total increase of 10M on their current salary, and adding 10M would put you snug near the cap next year before you sign any of your bottom lines/pairing.
by Arthur from Anaheim Calling on Oct 14, 2009 9:15 AM PDT up reply actions
Its all dependant
On whether or not the NHL fixes the “long term” contract issue. There is a way for the Hawks to fit all 3 under the cap with a few moves. Much easier if they can issue out some Hossa/Luongo style contracts. I’d say that Duncan will command around 4.5 mildo per year.
by AirTrafficAJ on Oct 15, 2009 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions
I don’t know if the long term deals apply to these three. Keith, at 26, maybe. But Kane and Toews are 20, 21. They’ll still be playing hockey in 12 years. Why would they sign a contract to be 1-million dollar players at age 33? They will actually have to play out this next contract, and there’s no reason to believe they won’t be worth around 4M after they turn 30.
by Arthur from Anaheim Calling on Oct 15, 2009 1:35 PM PDT up reply actions
Tell that
To Zetterberg and Datsyuk. Besides, by the time Toews and Kane are 30 they can re-negotiate their contracts.
This team was put together to win the cup this year. Some decisions are going to need to be made in the off season, and some folks (like Huet, Sopel, and Barker) may find themselves in different uniforms. The team will do what they have to do to retain those three. After what happened in the “dark days” with Roenick, Belfour, and Chelios, Rocky Wirtz knows better than to ship out popular young talent. The organization can’t afford to pull another stunt like that and piss on all the goodwill created in the past 2 years. Chicago fans may forgive (and there are still some out there who have not even done that), but they sure don’t forget.
Uh, I think you mean Zetterberg and Franzen? as Datsyuk is on a straight ~7M/yr. contract. And Zetterberg resigned at 12 years at age 29 (with Franzen 11 years at age 29), meaning his cheap years start at age 40, and most any 40 year old who hasn’t retired is worth about that much.
The NHL has no problem with “lifetime” deals because if a player agreed to play for less than 1M in his mid 30s, he’d be an idiot. They don’t like “afterlife” deals, where a player agrees to years after 40, when he will certainly retire. Kane and Toews are too young to sign an “afterlife” deal unless it’s for 20+ years. Their next contract will be like Datsyuk’s current contract, where they have to be paid consistently from year to year. On the next next contract, when they’re closer to 30, you can start talking about circumventing the system. Keith would have to sign a 16 year deal to start tacking on superfluous years. The “long term” contract really only applies to people almost 30.
The problem is that management has signed too many 3M+ players, and you can’t easily move them as they’re all slightly overpaid and none of the other GM’s are dying to solve this salary cap problem. Murray’s a friend to the Hawks, and I can’t imagine they won’t get something done, even if it’s not the deal I’m predicting.
by Arthur from Anaheim Calling on Oct 15, 2009 11:47 PM PDT up reply actions
Oh, and if they re-negotiated before the salary fell, I guarantee you the NHL would make a stink. As they said when they investigated Pronger, they were interested in whether or not the parties had discussed a retirement year in negotiations. They’d be just as interested in whether Kane, Toews and the Hawks had discussed a re-negotiation year.
The league already burned you guys on the free agent mistake, do you really think management wants to get caught defrauding the league?
by Arthur from Anaheim Calling on Oct 15, 2009 11:52 PM PDT up reply actions
If they were that serious
About stopping those style of contracts, they would (should) have said something to Vancouver when they signed professional playoff choker Roberto Luongo to a contract lasting approximately the length of the last ice age.
by AirTrafficAJ on Oct 17, 2009 10:13 AM PDT up reply actions
I believe Luongo’s contract is 12 years, just as long as Zetterberg’s (so nothing really groundbreaking in contract length there), and it slowly declines with two final one million dollar years when he’s 42 and 43. The same as the other afterlife deals, basically, and nothing like a long term deal for Kane and Toews.
They were serious about the Pronger investigation because they’d heard that both sides had discussed a retirement year. But “afterlife” deals really only concern the NHL front office. If you start talking about canceling contracts and re-signing 25 year -olds, it will be an issue the NHL AND the owners will raise a stink about.
It’s conceivable that a 30 year-old only has one long term contract left, so what’s the difference for owners if Pronger signs his last contract with Philadelphia using creative mathematics. But Kane and Toews are at least two long term contracts away. The owners will want at least one shot at them as free agents. Anything else would be the end of free agency.
by Arthur from Anaheim Calling on Oct 17, 2009 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions
should have read: “guy in his 30’s has only one lucrative contract left”
by Arthur from Anaheim Calling on Oct 17, 2009 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah
And if Luongo is still playing goalie for anyone when he’s 43 I’ll eat my hat.
Side note: What can you tell us about Andrew Ebbett?
by AirTrafficAJ on Oct 17, 2009 4:56 PM PDT up reply actions
If you’re a college hockey guy, you’ll remember him as the Wolverines captain in 06. He hasn’t changed much.
He’s got some hustle with playmaking ability in fifth gear. He should fit in well with the Hawks north/south game. He’s also strong positionally, but he doesn’t have the size to back it up. Ultimately, he offers scoring depth at rock bottom prices, but he doesn’t really make it easier for you guys to move a 3M+ contract without feeling the sting in the GF column.
by Arthur from Anaheim Calling on Oct 17, 2009 11:32 PM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
CK Photo Galleries
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
