PHR Mailbag: Robertson, Wild, Flames, Goalies, Kings, Bruins, CBA

Topics in this edition of the PHR Mailbag include Minnesota’s tough start to the season, discussion on if there’s a path for Calgary to retool instead of rebuild, and much more.  If your question doesn’t appear here, check back in our mailbag from three weeks ago (apologies for the delay in getting this back half posted).

jacl: What’s happened to Jason Robertson? It seems that you don’t hear his name called during a game at all. You never hear his name called in big situations this year. Am I expecting too much from him this year after his last couple of years?

Expectations should rightfully be quite high for Robertson.  You don’t fluke into back-to-back 40-plus-goal seasons which is what he has done the last couple of years.  Now, he finished tied for sixth in NHL scoring last year which is a lot harder to repeat, especially on a Dallas team that has a fair bit of balance offensively.  If you were expecting 40 goals again from him, I think that would be fair.  If you were hoping for another jump in points, then I’d suggest you might have aimed too high.

Robertson has been a bit quiet this year but he’s still hovering around the point-per-game mark.  His shooting percentage is still above the NHL average but is a bit below his career average.  If you’re looking for a reason for optimism, another percent or two on that front as the season progresses could still give him a shot at a 40-goal pace.

I Wander Off: Dear all-knowing and wise mailbag answer person.

Is it just me or is Murphy’s Law in effect for the Wild this year?

I.e. we all know about the cap struggles but it just seems like every pass, shot, hit, block, blocked shot, or save somehow someway always doesn’t seem to A) connect for a goal or B) goes right into the back of the net.

Sincerely, a diehard Minnesota Wild fan and frustrated State of Hockey resident.

Things certainly look a little better now following the recent coaching change at least.  Yes, they’ve had some misfortune but there were some risks heading into the season.

Filip Gustavsson had a great year last season.  No question about that.  But before that, he was struggling to establish himself at the NHL level.  They had no choice but to re-sign him but there was always going to be the risk that he went back to his previous form which is what has happened so far.  I think he’ll get better but luck or no luck, they’re not going to have the same level of goaltending as a year ago.  Marc-Andre Fleury just turned 39 and had to slow down at some point.  Again, I think he can be better but perhaps he’s not a quality platoon piece anymore.  There was always going to be some risk between the pipes as a result so it’s not just Murphy’s Law on that front.

They also didn’t do much to upgrade their offense over the summer.  (Yes, their cap situation played a big role in that.)  But they had a mediocre attack last year so them being near the bottom of the league on that front wasn’t entirely unforeseeable either.  Matt Boldy struggling stung and Kirill Kaprizov got off to a slow start which didn’t help things but this is where the lack of depth hurt them.

For me, Minnesota is a bubble team.  I don’t think they’re as bad as their record but they’re also probably not a 103-point group either.  Is that all Murphy’s Law?  Maybe a bit but after getting some best-case results last season, it could also be things normalizing a bit.

Zakis: What was GMBG thinking with the Hartman, Mats, and Foligno extensions?

Also, what are the chances the Wild sign Kirill to another extension, and what would that look like with the cap purportedly going up?

And why won’t the Wild play their highly touted youngsters?

When GM Bill Guerin signed Ryan Hartman, Mats Zuccarello, and Marcus Foligno to new deals, it was a case of GM believing in his core group a little too much.  Remove any possibility of in-season uncertainty and just get them done.  He thought this was a 103-point squad once again and with that logic, getting some important veterans locked up made a lot of sense.  Of course, the mistake was believing that last season was repeatable and possibly even built upon.

Having said that, I’m not going to pile on too much.  I have no issue with the Zuccarello signing from a value perspective.  Hartman’s, in a vacuum, is defensible if you think he can get back to his form from a couple of years ago.  Even if he’s in the 40-45-point range, it’s not bad and he’s a center, a spot they don’t have much depth at.  So I can’t criticize those a ton.  Foligno’s on the other hand, that one felt like an immediate overpayment.

A lot can happen between now and the time that Kaprizov is even eligible to sign an extension which isn’t until July 2025.  If they’re in contention and use the cap room created by the high buyout costs going away, I think there’s a reasonable chance he’d consider it.  I’ll say 40% for now as testing the market could be tempting.  I’m not as bullish on the revenue projections as the NHL is in its public proclamations (attendance is down in quite a few buildings and a lot of teams are facing reduced regional TV rights which will hurt HRR) but maybe the trailing years in the lag formula (which is how the cap will be set moving forward) are stronger than I think.  At this point, I think Kaprizov would be targeting something above Artemi Panarin’s $11.643MM AAV, assuming he remains a top-end player.  Let’s say $12.25MM for, well, as many years as he’s willing to sign for.

As for not playing the highly-touted youngsters, I don’t see that.  Marco Rossi is playing top-six minutes most nights.  Brock Faber is over 23 minutes a night on the back end.  Boldy is a regular in the top six.  Liam Ohgren and Danila Yurov are under contract overseas and aren’t quite NHL-ready.  Carson Lambos is just getting his feet wet in the pros and counting on a 21-year-old goalie in Jesper Wallstedt would be highly risky.  The ones that aren’t playing are either not available or not quite ready.  There are concerns that I have with this roster but not playing the top youngsters isn’t on that list.  Their time is coming soon but not yet.

kyzr: How could Calgary avoid a total teardown and retool to be competitive? If Hanifin and/or Tanev are moved, who could the Flames trade for to be the replacement? Thanks!

This is a scenario that doesn’t come up too often anymore as player-for-player shakeup moves don’t happen too often.  The fact that both players are pending unrestricted free agents doesn’t help either as these types of swaps typically involve pieces that are either signed or at least under club control for a while.  That can be managed by allowing early extension discussions though and, in Hanifin’s case, perhaps a sign-and-trade to allow for the eighth year.

I suppose the other way would be to move the veterans for future assets and then flip those or other future pieces for win-now help.  But even that doesn’t happen.  Generally, when teams are in the middle, they’re either loading up or selling off, not making moves to try to hang around the middle.

But I’ll play along.  The Islanders feel like a team that could do something like this with Noah Hanifin with someone like Alexander Romanov being part of the return.  Romanov is hovering around the 22-minute mark for ice time, a career high and could slot into Calgary’s top four.  I could see the Blues having interest in something like that with one of their $6.5MM blueliners (likely Torey Krug) being involved but that might not be a good idea for the Flames.  Maybe Seattle with Jamie Oleksiak coming back who has another year left?

The problem for Calgary or really any team entertaining a scenario like this is that the teams that want a player like Hanifin or Chris Tanev don’t want to subtract anyone of consequence from their roster.  They want to add that extra piece or two, not make more of a lateral swap which is what your idea entails.  If the Flames wind up moving those two – and I think they will – I suspect it will be more of a traditional seller type of move, not a half-in, half-out type of approach.

Ripper Magoo: How many goalies would you give a 7 x 7 contract to?

This is a tough one that really made me think.  There aren’t many goalies who are safe bets to have seven straight above-average seasons which means there’s a case to be made that none of them should get one.  But there are a handful I think I’d take the chance on.

Jake Oettinger (DAL) – He’s already in the top ten at least for goalies and a seven-year deal in July would bring him to 32, more than young enough to still play at a top level.  I think the Stars would love to get him at this price but it’s going to cost more than that when his deal is up for real in 2025 when he’ll be an RFA with arbitration rights.

Igor Shesterkin (NYR) – If he was a free agent this summer, seven years takes him to his age-35 season.  Lots of goalies are still going strong at that age.  He’s a high-end netminder that’s young enough to build around.

Ilya Sorokin (NYI) – There would be a bit more risk here as he’s a year older than Shesterkin but his track record is big enough to show me that he’ll be a high-end starter for at least most of that deal.  Plus, that’d be an upgrade on his current contract.

The other one I’ve flip-flopped on is Boston’s Jeremy Swayman.  The track record isn’t there yet but at the same time, if the Bruins wanted to sign him to a long-term deal this summer, I think the asking price would be in this range so I have to seriously consider him for this scenario.  I know Connor Hellebuyck just got more than that but I’d be leery at seven years at this price point with the workload he has carried over the years.

rpoabr: The Kings are rolling and don’t appear to have any real weaknesses. Also have Arvidsson coming back in the 2nd half hopefully. What do they need to do at the deadline?

A backup goalie upgrade isn’t necessarily going to move the needle much for the playoffs but Pheonix Copley has struggled considerably this season.  Getting someone who can take a bit of the regular workload away from Cam Talbot to keep him fresher for the playoffs should certainly help.  That’s one move I’d like to see them make but it’ll almost certainly be restricted to someone on an expiring contract.

I don’t think they’ll be able to do much more than that though.  When Viktor Arvidsson returns, they’ll be cutting down their roster so they’re not even going to be in a spot where they could look to add a depth piece or two.  If they do, it’d have to be a low-cost player with the other team retaining salary.

I suppose one move they could look to make is replacing Matt Roy.  It’s unlikely they’ll be able to afford him beyond this season but is there another blueliner they could trade for (likely with retention again) that could permit them to flip Roy?  If they can do that and save some money in the process, then maybe it opens up another move.  But admittedly, this is a stretch.  Beyond upgrading on Copley, I don’t think there’s much of anything the Kings necessarily need to do.

SkidRowe: Without Lucic and, to a lesser extent, Greer, the Bruins lack muscle. How much will they have to overpay to get a Deslauriers or Johnston?

Is that the need the Bruins really need to fill?  Nicolas Deslauriers carries a $1.75MM AAV for two more years after this one.  To fit him on the salary cap, Boston would likely have to lose two players from its current group (and that’s with Milan Lucic on LTIR, what happens if that changes later in the year?).  When I saw this question, my initial thought for Deslauriers was that a second-round pick might move the needle.  Of course, Boston doesn’t have one of those until 2026.  A first-rounder makes no sense so perhaps this isn’t the right fit.

Johnston is a little more feasible.  At $1.1MM (through 2025-26), that’s a bit easier to fit in on the cap and considering he was a waiver claim, Anaheim could be persuaded to part with him to get something for a player they paid nothing but a waiver fee to get.  If the Bruins are really desperate, maybe their 2025 third-round pick gets it done?  That’s not a move I’d make though.

Personally, my focus if I was GM Don Sweeney would be shoring up their center situation.  With Matthew Poitras starting to slow down, there’s a real need to add a middle-six center (if not a top middleman in a perfect world).  I’d be saving my top trade chips for that need.

Gmm8811: Do teams and players have options to have a club or player option regarding contracts under the CBA like they have in baseball?

There used to be option years in contracts but those went out the window when the salary cap came in since those would have presented some challenges with regards to AAV calculations.

For example, let’s say option years existed and a player signed a three-year, $12MM deal with a $5MM player option.  What’s the AAV?  Is it $4MM, the amount of the guaranteed money?  Is it $4.25MM which includes the option year?  If it’s $4MM with $5MM being the final-year charge if the option is picked up, could the team elect to make it $4.25MM to smooth over the cap?  If it’s $4.25MM and the option isn’t picked up, are the cap numbers for the preceding three years adjusted down to $4MM?  I think both the NHL and NHLPA decided that this wasn’t a battle worth pursuing so the option years were dropped.

In MLB, there’s another factor that would further complicate things if it was implemented and that’s the buyout option.  If that $4.25MM option had a $500K buyout on it, how would that affect those questions above?  I’m a numbers guy and I’m not even sure I want to go down a rabbit hole like that.

I’d like to see option years come back myself and the easy solution if they want to do it is that the salary in that season must be for the AAV of the contract.  Using our example again, if the option was for $4MM (and no buyout option), the cap hit is the same if it’s exercised or declined.  I’m all for contract creativity, especially in a system that is quite restrictive.  I think bringing options back with that limitation would give players and teams another option at their disposal and that’s not a bad thing.

Photo courtesy of USA Today Sports Images.