One of the things that gets bandied around about the new ownership and leadership group is whether or not it is cheap. In going in house for the majority of the coach and staffing hires, the team definitely saved money. And it is also true that the Hurricanes currently sit at the bottom of the NHL in terms of salary cap committed and will enter the 2018-19 season either in that slot or at most a couple higher. And the team did dump salary this summer trading Jeff Skinner for prospects, passing on re-signing a couple unrestricted free agents and also trading away two young players due raises in Elias Lindholm and Noah Hanifin.
On the spending side of the ledger, there really is not a whole bunch so far. The team did sign Calvin de Haan for $4.5 million per year, but otherwise has completed more cost-cutting than spending. And the potential biggest sign that the team will spend when appropriate is still in limbo with Sebastian Aho still not inked to his next deal.
So at least theoretically there is evidence that the team under Tom Dundon is cheap or I guess more kindly, extremely frugal.
Today’s Daily Cup of Joe will leave the coaching and organizational stuff to the side, as I believe that deserves its own separate analysis and will consider the player part of it. The burning question is whether the cost-cutting this summer is just plain cheap or if instead it represents a series of individual decisions that make sense in the realm of making sound risk versus reward type decisions on individual players and salary considerations.
From order of highest salary to lowest
Jeff Skinner
I am on record as saying that I thinking that Jeff Skinner’s departure has Rod Brind’Amour’s finger prints all over it. I believe that the brain trust made a decision early in the offseason that Jeff Skinner was not part of the long-term plan and instead was part of the changeover the needed to happen to reset in terms of mindset, attitude, leadership, etc. As such, I do not view Skinner’s departure and the salary cut that came with it as a cost-cutting move, but rather as a change in direction type of decision. I would feel better about that if some of the salary shed was redeployed, but that could still happen if Justin Faulk is traded for a forward.
Noah Hanifin
In a span of a few short days, rumors swirled about the Hurricanes having issues re-signing Elias Lindholm and Noah Hanifin for favorable prices, and then all of a sudden both were gone in one swoop in a trade with Calgary. Just day, Noah Hanifin signed a new deal with Calgary for $4.95 million per year for 6 years. His deal is in the same ballpark as the deals that Jaccob Slavin ($5.3 million) and Brett Pesce ($4.0 million per year) signed last summer and also the two new Canes top 4 defensemen’s deals with Dougie Hamilton at $5.75 million and Calvin de Haan at $4.55 million.
Right now, Calgary fans are still in the honeymoon phase with Hanifin and just like Hurricanes fans for three years are enamored with the potential ceiling that Hanifin could reach.
But here’s the thing…As of right now, Noah Hanifin is not in same category of the players listed above who have all established themselves as top 4 NHL defenseman. As of last April, Noah Hanifin was a #6 defenseman. Might be convert his potential into something much more? Certainly. If he does, he might be worth what? $6 or $6.5 million which is a modest discount. But because that is what he is right now, the possibility exists that Calgary just signed a third pairing defenseman to a nearly $30 million deal at about $5 million per year for a whopping 6 years. The upside seems minimal. The good version of Hanifin looks like maybe…Dougie Hamilton? Who is already proven and signed for $5.75 million per year? But the downside sees the Flames overpaying a depth defenseman by $3-5 million per year for 6 years.
Only time will tell, but I think there is a good argument to be made for trading Hanifin as being sound risk versus reward decision-making and not just being cheap.
Elias Lindholm
Though not as extreme, I think Lindholm’s situation is somewhat similar to Hanifin’s He also signed long-term for just under $5 million per year (6 years at $4.85 million per year). Lindholm had played his way a bit higher up the depth chart, but because he has yet to put it all together offensively, I view as a capable two-way top 9 forward but not really much more. At a mid-40s level for points thus far, and suddenly entering his sixth year, I think it is fair to consider that maybe Lindholm just is what he is right now. And I am not sure that is a player who is worth a long-term commitment at almost $5 million per year. Rather, I think Calgary again made a fairly expensive bet that Lindholm can reach a higher level than what he has thus far. As with Hanifin, the question is whether the Hurricanes were cheap or just cautious in terms risk versus reward for contracts, especially of the expensive long-term variety.
One could say that the 2018-19 season is an important one for Hanifin and Lindholm in terms of taking the next step. But in terms of salary, that really is not true. Calgary has already committed to six years of play at level that assumes the transition goes smoothly and both players not only match their 2017-18 season but (especially in the case of Hanifin) significantly exceed it.
Cam Ward
The Hurricanes did cut a bit of salary when the team decided to part ways with Cam Ward and replace him with Petr Mrazek. But as with Jeff Skinner, I think this transition was more about moving forward and aiming for as much of a reset as possible for 2018-19. Increasingly, it seemed like maybe the presence of Cam Ward contributed to the struggle to find another goalie who could perform. And he also represented a part of the past the team seemed to be trying to put in the rear view mirror. As such, I do not view the departure of Cam Ward as a financial decision but rather as a change of attitude, leadership, culture, etc. type of decision.
Seeking more evidence
Though I do think the moves detailed above were born more out of evaluation of various possibilities for each individual situation, at some point the team does need to make a move or two to suggest that the new regime will spend when the risk versus reward metrics suggest that it makes sense.
I see two near-term opportunities to do so. First, re-signing Sebastian Aho to lock in a core part of the forward group long-term seems like a no-brainer. In this regard, I will be looking to see if the team can get a deal done and also if it goes all in for a maximum term type of deal at a premium price. Second is that I think a Justin Faulk trade that nets a forward with a similar salary would also be a sign that the team is not so much looking to cut costs no matter what but rather make sound risk versus reward type decisions.
What say you Canes fans?
1) What is your assessment of Dundon and Company financially on the player side thus far? Do you see him as cheap as some say? Do you think my risk/reward explanation holds water? Or do you think the truth is somewhere in between?
2) What do you think about the long-term deals of Elias Lindholm and Noah Hanifin?
3) How does your crystal ball say it ends for Hanifin and Lindholm as they play out their new six-year contracts?
Go Canes!
1) I do see them as cheap. The risk/reward explanation is really challenged by the de Haan signing. I have read (would appreciate it if someone can confirm it) that the organization was unable to get insurance on the contract due to de Haan’s injury history. Insurance is what I do for a living. Not being able to get it on a $18M investment is a risk beyond any reward. It makes me wonder what type of analysis was made–perhaps the team knowing that Skinner was going to be traded wanted enough salary to keep them above the salary floor.
2) Both contracts are reasonable. As Canes fans we may want to cry “overpaid, overpaid!” However, the market for similar players indicates that the Flames are the organization making sound risk/reward decisions. Three other players with very similar careers to Lindholm signed this offseason:
Jason Zucker–after years of 23 and 47 points broke out at age 25 for 64 points. Signed for 5 years $27.5M
Thomas Hertl–drafted one year before Lindholm has career high of 46 points. Signed for 4 years $22.5M.
Christian Dvorak–drafted one year after Lindholm has career high of 37 points. Signed for 6 years $26.7M.
There is really no way to argue that Lindholm’s contract is somehow too much.
3) Hanifin makes some more progress and becomes very similar to Hamilton from a production standpoint two-three years from now.
Lindholm becomes a 60 point winger with Gaudreau/Monahan or a 55 point center on the second line in Calgary. In either case, the Flames made the correct risk-reward decision. Finally, as much as I think the future for the Canes is a line with Necas/Svechnikov, Lindholm centering Svechnikov this season would have been a much better idea. Necas likely is going to struggle in the face-off circle. I also think Lindholm’s defensive responsibility would have benefitted Svech.
Now if the management team trades Faulk (and other assets) for a veteran similar to Lindholm who can play LW with Necas/Svechnikov, then several of my concerns will be assuaged.
None of this tempers my excitement about the incoming prospects. The Canes have two top-end talents about to take the ice (Necas, Svechnikov) and possibly three other rookies (from among Zykov, Foegele, Kuokkanen, Roy, Saarela, Maenalanen) who can improve the team. As I said when RF was let go, the new management team doesn’t have to be particularly good/smart, they just have to not mishandle a very promising situation that was made immensely more promising by gaining the second pick.
I believe, as you do Matt, that the Lindholm and Hanifin deals are all about gambling on potential. Both contracts seem fair if you assume that one or both players reach said potential. I’m not convinced, certainly in Hanifin’s case.
Only time will tell….but I’m happy with the trade, especially if we can sign Fox.
While I believe the team still has at least one more move to make, I’m just optimistic enough to think we’ll be more competitive this season than last. Much of that rides on goaltending. That said, there are contracts for Aho and Teravainen that need to get done, so saving a bit of coin this season fully knowing that it will get spent next season is the likely culprit for the Hurricanes’ current salary situation.
1) I do not see Dundon and company as cheap on the player side, and do agree with the risk/reward approach. However, I believe they do not use point production as “reward” but rather point differential.
For example, Hanifin has impressive offensive skills. What is that worth? Well it depends on his defensive skills. Hanifin finished -20 as a third pairing defenseman, playing mostly with TVR, who finished +9. How could they possibly be 29 points apart in goal differential? It doesn’t seem possible. Team Dundon got an absolute bargain in signing TVR for less money than his partner when he is currently playing +29 better.
Dougie Hamilton on the other hand is a career plus player (+1 last year) playing in a top 4 role against better competition. While Hamilton and Hanifin may be similar on the offensive end, they are completely different at the defensive end now. Calvin de Haan was +11 last year in 33 games. I will take Hamilton (+1), TVR (+9), de Haan (+11) every day over Hanifin (-20). The risk/reward (or value) of the contracts vary dramatically when considering goal differential.
Skinner’s -27 is well documented.
Lindholm is the most interesting. Although he was -8, it may have had a lot to do with line mates. He is the only one of the traded players that I think a significant improvement in goal differential is possible.
While Ferland led Calgary in +/-, that may also have had much to do with line mates if you believe Calgary message boards. However if he was being lifted by others, how did he finish ahead of them?
Matt, I agree that Calgary gambled on potential in a way that’s unwise and I’m glad that it was the Flames instead of the Canes who did so on Lindholm and Hanifin. I would like to see the Canes spend to the cap on a combination of players who can consistently make the playoffs. I don’t think Lindholm and Hanifin were going to be part of a consistent playoff team in Raleigh.
It’s too soon to tell whether Dundon is going to be a cheap owner. Spending to the cap for mediocrity would be the worst possible strategy. We won’t know for a while whether individual spending decisions by the Canes are to save money or avoid tying up assets that can and will be better spent when opportunities present themselves.
The contracts for Hamilton and de Haan combined are about $10 M a year, about the same as the Lindholm and Hanifin contracts combined, but for three or four more years instead of six. In this case, I’d rather see the $10 M a year spent on Hamilton and de Haan and not tied up for six years.
I also agree that Skinner and the Canes needed to part ways and I’d rather see the Canes give a big contract to Aho than Skinner.
A question looming in the background is what the Canes should do if the season starts badly. I’d rather see them tank and find out which prospects can play in the NHL than trade prospects or draft picks on expensive short-term players who might give the Canes a slim chance to squeak into the playoffs this year.
Matt, I agree with your assessments of Skinner, Hanifin and Lindholm. Skinner was gone no matter what. You can say it was Brind’Amour, or maybe he was the guy Staal was talking about who wasn’t “all in.” Either way Skinner wasn’t coming back.
You can come up with names of guys who “break out” after signing a deal, but you can name guys that don’t as well. I see little offensive upside in either Lindholm or Hanifin. Hanifin shows little offensive smarts. Sure, he looks pretty skating in open ice, but he was pretty useless on the PP. If you can’t set up guys from the point on the PP you aren’t much of an offensive d-man, IMO. Lindholm looked like a robot most of the time. I don’t see that changing under the same HC in Calgary. Paying unproven players big money is a huge risk for a small market team. Good trades.
When it gets down to “cheap” it has more to do with the coaches and staff to me. Rod Brind’Amour fell into Dundon’s lap, IMO. I think he will be a great coach and he was already here and willing to take the small dollars offered. Waddell and Daniels were hired under the same conditions, but if Dundon would even pay league average he could have gotten much better men, at least on paper. Dundon spent all spring getting laughed at offering a reported $400K to get a GM. Throw in the rumors about how the rank and file employees who work for the Canes are being treated and that qualifies as cheap. It’s how you treat the little guys, not how you treat the big guys.
This question should be asked from the (different) perspectives of who was signed and who was not signed for primarily contract reasons.
We only signed a few, and I am on record (and still believe that on the margin we were cheap where we didn’t need to be cheap and where being less cheap by a few hundred thousand would have gone a long way to letting players know we like them and want them here. When an owner gets noted for getting an “absolute bargain” on a player like TvR the larger picture is being missed in my opinion and the important miss is by O/M. Create an environment where young players feel rewarded and wanted and don’t have to scratch, claw, and stress over a couple of hundred thousand dollars in salary and you go a long way. It works that way not just in sports but in any professional – and I speak from my personal professional experience as much as anything.
Anyway…
Interesting comment by ct on CdH’s contract – until it is confirmed I don’t want to go further in the discussion but it may be something worth going back to if it proves accurate.
As to who we didn’t sign (or who we traded) – I am very surprised at the combination of salary/term for both Lindholm and Hanifin.
First, I really don’t think either Ward (not being signed) and Skinner (being traded) had anything to do with being cheap so I totally agree with you on those two, Matt.
I also don’t think that Hanifin was necessarily moved purely for financial reasons. I had heard that TD had him marked primarily for removal for culture/attitude reasons. I had heard that Hanifin wanted something similar to what he signed with CGY and there is no way you make that type of commitment to someone you have that type of concern about. I no longer see Hanifin developing into a D-man worth that type of money – although by the end of his contract inflation in the salary cap and roster salary structure may not make him look overpaid. But his improvement has only been gradual – marked improvement in his skating and shot, but his defense remains limited. I think his highest potential is as a PP specialist – is that worth a 6×5??
Lindholm is a different one – he isn’t getting paid for his potential as measured by a growth path; he has been very consistent in his annual stats for his 5 years and really isn’t showing growth. Other than 4 months at the end of the 2016-17 season where he stepped up a notch he has been pretty static – playing now with more of an edge but it is not showing up in his stats or the stats of the players with him. Otherwise his edge is an intangible – and I don’t see a 5×5 as a good contract for that.
I like both guys and I wish them success in CGY but I think we are better off as a team without either than paying either at the salary/term that CGY signed them.
TVR is overpaid in my opinion. He’s a 16 point 3rd pairing guy who probably is knocking down $300,000-$500,000 more than he should. My understanding is that they actually gave him the extra money because they had other priorities to address and given the available cap space, it is less of an issue….this season.
That said, you cannot consistently pay guys “a few hundred thousand” more than they are worth. It sets a bad precedent AND it adds up. I guarantee teams like Edmonton and Toronto wish they’d saved a few hundred grand here and there.
I’m in the camp that does not think Skinner/Ward had anything to do with money. I think it’s interesting we paid up for de Haan, who many were reluctant to sign because of his injured shoulder: to me, that’s a calculated risk.
As for Hanifin/Lindholm, I think CGY is certainly betting on one of two things happening: they will grow nicely as players; or, as the league continues to improve financially and the Cap grows, the out years aren’t going to look that expensive for the production they’re getting even if their growth is modest from here. I think there are better bets to make than on these long-term deals (though I still hated to lose Lindholm).
A discussion about whether Tom Dundon is a cheapskate when it comes to player moves and acquisitions seems always to be answered by subjective statements like he should have done more or what he did do was done to save money. Therefore, I would like to address Matt’s request for discussion a littler differently.
What specific moves did TD do OR not do that smacks of saving money. I the do side I see none. He brought on DeHaan, he traded for an expensive Hamilton, he gave Zykov a good deal, and he is negotiating with Aho. What’s cheap about that? On the did not do side the only real evidence we have is that he has retained Faulk and his sizeable salary for expected third pairing role. He did dispose of Skinner, but that move was more or less forced upon him by the wonderful contract Rutherford gave Skinner. Now I know I will hear rom some that he didn’t go after any big name scoring forwards. My answer to them is which particular forwards are you talking about? Tavares! Do you really think he was looking to come to Raleigh at any price? VanReimsdyck? Same as Tavares. Panarin? He is already stated where he would prefer to go. Oh, you could say why didn’t he trade for Nugent-Hopkins? Do you know whether they even tried to make a deal? If he did try, what were the particulars? Do you know?
My view when it comes to player moves (which Matt wanted covered here) is there is no evidence of cost cutting that I can see as being the motivating factor for making the move. It appears to me that if I wanted to take the view that TD is a cheapskate, I would just have to decide to do so without any real evidence to support my view. In other words I would do so just because I don’t like TD for some reason or I just want to look at the glass from a half empty point of view.
In summary, IMO all of the above comments made by others above have merit because each of the contributors has looked at the empirical evidence to reach their conclusions. They may have evaluated the same evidence differently, but at least they “stayed in the real world” in considering the evidence.
My 2 cents.
I was extremely excited when TD bought the team. A billionaire that said he was willing to put money into the team to be successful.
A far cry from PK and his mentality… Yes PK authorized the spending briefly after the cup.. But that was a failure because we missed the playoffs and since then went bottom of the league in spending. In turn that affected the product on the ice… which affected success.. which affected community support…. JR’s patchwork and gambling on retread projects and missing on top picks put us in a deep hole.
Thank RF for building up our prospect pool. He didn’t hit on every pick but had solid picks… But again Potential and hope doesn’t make us a winning franchise. It sets us up for sustained success in the future only if these players reach their potential.
All of that being said.. TD/DW have made changes. Without breaking down the details of each move that we all know… End of the day, there is an upgrade in player personnel.
Its not wise to spend big $ in Free Agency. Unless you are certain that guy is the difference maker in making the playoffs. I didn’t need TD to spend big $ right off the hop.
All of this said is to get to the point. I’m loosing a little confidence. I can see how its a process so I can and will be patient… But long term success is not viable without spending more $. I’m starting to feel as though we are being cheap but I will wait a little before I loose hope. Its not my $ so he has the right to build his ideal business model. I’m far in this as a fan with my emotional attachment… But I am tired of being the Browns. Don’t let us down TD.
It doesn’t inspire confidence though.
To answer the “cheap or not” question…I’m leaning one way, BUT IT SEEMS UNFAIR, NOW! Dundon hasn’t been given even a full season to start the process, and the team has SUCKED FOR YEARS! Please let him have a fair shot before judgment is passed! Eh?
What kind of magic can you expect?
Pro sports deals with $$ most of us can’t really comprehend, and hockey isn’t a simple game to analyze (even by experts)!
Every move that the O/M has made was done for a reason! Maybe we can criticize them in a year or two (FAIRLY)…not now. IMO!
Now, that said…I’ll play the blame game.
My 2 cents on Hanafin / Lindy trade – Hans could improve a lot, but I didn’t sense that happening, and Lindy probably is “what you see is what you get”. I am happy with the move, though after training camp I’ll be able to see if I’m right, (maybe)??
Now that goalie situation…WTF?? Does anybody know what you have to do to get a “DECENT GOALIE”? Nobody in the Canes organization has been able to accomplish this EVER! …OK, Shady-80, Irbe, and Wardo – at times, but NOT GREAT…!
The new owner of the Hurricanes is different from perhaps most NHL owners. He is not from a hockey background and has no use for the traditional way of doing things. For me it has been awesome to watch. Draft pedigree or time with the team did not prevent players from getting shipped out if the owner and management thought the player needed to go.
The new leadership is not cheap, frugal or money savvy in player moves from my perspective. They want players who will work hard in every facet of the game. The coach is the embodiment of that. The owner loves that philosophy and the GM is trying to make both happy. No issues from this Canes fan.
I understand fans are frustrated after so many years of missing the playoffs. Yet the team is building the right way. Young players, smart FA signings and making trades that help the team in the present and future is smart. (Skinner trade has its own dynamics.) The payroll will go up as young players get new deals. I am glad we don’t have albatross contracts preventing the team from signing Aho and TT long term.
On the new deals for Hanifin and Lindholm, good luck to them both. If Calgary wants to pay close to 5 million for a guy whose career high in goals is 17- great. If they want to pay close to 5 million for a defenseman who struggles mightily in the defensive zone- knock yourself out. I’m glad those contracts are not on the books in Raleigh.
I like Lindholm as a player. He is a solid two way forward who has his strengths. Hanifin lacks the commonly termed “hockey IQ” to be what everyone hoped he would be. The new deals may work out but either way it’s Calgary’s issue to worry about.
JM97, well said. Real good writeup IMO.
Agree, great write up Jim!
Grr spellcheck. Great write up jm97
Thanks RR and Asheville Caniac. The great thing about Canes&Coffee is that all the posters can have different views and not worry about someone trolling or getting personal. I notice I usually disagree with a few posters but the different perspectives or interesting to consider. Kudos to Matt for a great site where people can disagree without being disagreeable.
I think my position is quite well known *grin*.
In a free market you get what you pay for. If you purchase lower quality assets (well cheaper assets) than your competitors you should receive less value or production from those assets.
The canes are bottom of the league in the salary cap and the rumors, reliable or not, have it that the owner is offering well below expected level salaries for staff, and there is the chuck Kaiten story which does not need repeating here, but clearly TD cut Kaiten off because of a pretty small sum of money (he said half a million, I doubt it, but to be fare TD has more info on the cost than do I).
That being said, it is very hard to evaluate or put a price on human performance, and there are a lot of intangibles like hard work, teamwork, persistance that can win championships over individual skills, after all with the exception of a few stars, there is a lot of parity between NHL players and there are hundreds of other players who could’ve might’ve made it.
But a team that spends as little as possible will never be a desireable destination. Instead of pointing out that, no way would Tavares or Max P or James Neal or JvR Rick Nash or whoever ever come to Carolina we should ask ourselves why not.
As for individual deals. I think the Skinner deal was a salary dump. I cannot buy that skinner could not have been traded for an NHL forward or a prospect ready to enter the NHL.
I actually agree on LIndy and Hannifin. I think it was about an even hockey trade, both guys needed a fresh start and we got assets and salary coming back, with Fox the potential icing on the cake if he continues to be as advertized and can be convinced to sign in Carolina.
The Ward situation looked like penny pinching to me, not that he wasn’t re-signed but more that the team opted for the cheapest yet viable option.
And I am glad the canes did not sign derek Ryan to a 3 and a half mill deal, as much as I like him as a person and an a hardworking good guy.
I will lean cheapskate on TD until I see signs of commitment to the future, primarily good deals for Aho and TT, even more if he can trade Faulk for a quality forward.
I am not just willing but would be happy to be proven wrong about this view, because I want to see a winning team in Carolina.
I don’t care about TD’s other business practices or how he came by his money, not because I condone aggressive business practices or whatever, only because I care about the team, not about the reputation of the owner, I don’t have energy to be bothered about it.
So I have set my doubts aside and just focus on looking forward to an interesting season.
Prudent is spending your money wisely. Cheap is someone else not spending their money on something you want. The difference is simply POV. The Canes are a low budget team because they have so many players on entry level contracts and a bunch of rookies. The Canes are still in the early stage of an intentionally slow rebuild of the entire organization. As a writer stated above, it’s too early to judge the question. Either may be the case as both paths would start this way. This time next year we will be able to answer the question with more clarity.
1. Not sure I care for the new owner, but I don’t like change and I know how unreasonable that is! However, the more I think about it and thanks to the many insightful comments from you guys(gals?), I don’t see the player moves as cheap. As much as I hate it, change was needed. Yes skinny needed to be gone. The fact that in my opinion he was not managed properly is another topic. Also Cam. I can see the reason for him being gone. TD has cleaned house. I think all these moves has not been because he is cheap but because these players were not worth the value for the team. Or at least TDs version of that. Which is really all that matters cause it’s his team.
2. For Hanny and Lindy, good for them. I hope they thrive and do well. I don’t think either we’re worth what they got. I think Lindy could have been, but another case of mismanagement. Hanny, I was never really that high on him. He tried, but he looked lost trying to carry the puck up ice. He could never make the right read and seemed to like himself too much. And I apologise for that assessment because I have no way of really knowing. Just my opinion. Lindy could have been stronger,but I think he was sucked into the culture problem.
3. I am also warming to not trading faulk. There is a chance in a reduced role he can get back to a a scoring threat and his defensive liabilities can be limited.
I do not think we should bring in another forward. We need to know what we have. Wallmark and others like him need a chance to show what they can do. I know we will be young, but that’s just the way it is. I think it is smart we did not over pay for a free agent who would block what we may have.
On a related topic, Toronto’s goalie excess troubles continue (http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Mike-Augello/Carrying-three-goalies-waiver-exemption-may-factor-in-Leafs-roster-choices/120/94562).
I am still hoping the Canes can work out a deal for Nylander plus Sparks for Faulk (maybe Faulk + Rask or one of the prospects).
I am on the fence about Faulk for Sparks + Kapanen.
I even think Kadri might be available, given that Tor has some seriously awesome first and second line centers who will eat up a lot of minutes.