When you pull up the Carolina Hurricanes on CapFriendly (which is my go-to site for NHL salary stuff), the team ranks dead last in the NHL for salary cap expenditures for the 2016-17 season. CapFriendly shows the Hurricanes final salary cap hit as $56.8 million which is a full $7 million below the next 2 lowest teams, and greater than $16 million below the salary cap maximum.
Outsiders or people who are not aware of the Hurricanes financial situation might thing improvement is just a matter of spending the remaining $16 million and improving a team that was reasonably close to the playoffs in 2016-17. But that is not the reality of the situation. In addition to being last in salary (expenses), the team was also last in attendance (revenue). The team has an interesting chicken and egg situation where it needs a better team to fill the arena and at the same time needs a full arena to justify spending on the players needed to improve.
Fortunately for Ron Francis and the Carolina Hurricanes, it is possible to improve and even push into the playoffs while still spending significantly below the salary cap ceiling and adhering to an internal budget. This is possible because of 2 things. First, the Hurricanes are almost completely devoid of bad contracts that inflate salary cap expenditures without a comparable increase in a team’s level of play. Second, with a number of top half of the roster players (Slavin, Pesce, Aho, Lindholm, Teravainen, and possibly Hanifin) still on either entry-level or second contracts, their role and value is significantly higher than their $1 million-ish (for the entry-level deals) or $2 million-ish (for the second contracts) salaries.
The challenge for Francis will be leveraging the bargain years to build a winner and also time expiration of some expensive contracts to match renewal times at much higher prices for the inexpensive young players mentioned above.
Against that backdrop, here is a first look at the Hurricanes’ salary financials heading into the summer of 2017.
What changes for the Hurricanes salaries?
(All numbers in actual salary not salary cap hit, since the real salary is all that matters to the Hurricanes.)
If you look at the Hurricanes salary committed for the 2016-17 opening day roster, key changes when you look forward to the 2017-18 opening day include:
Deductions for salaries lost — $9.6 million decrease
Ron Hainsey — traded  — Minus $2.5 million
Jay McClement — not likely re-signed — Minus $1.1 million
Bryan Bickell — retired — Minus $4.5 million
Viktor Stalberg — traded — Minus $1.5 million
Increases for salaries gained/increased — $2.2 million increase
Increases for players already under contract — Add $600K
Teuvo Teravainen — estimated increase for new contract — Add $1.6 million
Net salary change for transactions above — $7.4 million decrease
Note: There are a bunch of other depth players who are also coming off contracts this summer, but none should significantly impact the salary math. Most are on inexpensive contracts and are likely to be re-signed or could be replaced for a comparable salary or not too much more.
What holes are created with the net $7.4 million salary decrease?
In short, surprisingly not that many. The bulk of the money saved comes from players who played limited depth roles and can be replaced for less. Ron Hainsey is the exception, but even his slot might be filled by another inexpensive young player.
So when you net it out, the Hurricanes payroll right now is actually about $7 million less than last year’s opening day lineup, but includes the following
7 top 9 forwards: Staal, Skinner, Rask, Lindholm, Stempniak, Aho, Teravainen (re-signed per above).
A good number of potential inexpensive depth forwards: Nordstrom, Nestrasil (if re-signed), Di Giuseppe (to be re-signed), McGinn (to be re-signed) and Ryan (if re-signed) plus a batch of higher-end prospects who could play a role in 2017-18.
At least 4 defensemen: Slavin, Pesce, Faulk, Hanifin.
And again a next wave of prospects: Fleury, McKeown.
2 of 2 goalies at least for now: Ward, Lack.
When you net it out, Francis would have about $7 million to add 1-2 forwards and 1-2 depth defensemen and still be right at what he committed last year to start the season. The hope, and a reasonable expectation, is that Francis’ budget will be a bit higher than it was last year.
If I was Ron Francis…
If I was Ron Francis and had the $7 million gap plus another $3-4 million, my budget goes something like this:
Priority 1: Upgrade the goalie position
If I cannot package Eddie Lack into a deal to add another goalie, I regretfully buy him out. That costs the team $1 million annually for the next 2 years, but actually frees up another $2 million for 2017-18. I then acquire the best goalie I can get in a $3-4 million (so call it $3.5 million) range via trade, expansion draft maneuvering or free agency.
Priority 2: Add one scoring difference-maker at forward
This is going to be challenging and not likely inexpensive in terms of trade value given up or salary. There could be a few good options who cost slightly less, but I budget on the higher end at $6 million.
Priority 3: Add a medium price proven defenseman
Last year, Francis tried to play an inexpensive numbers game adding 2 defensemen from the waiver (Nakladal, Dahlbeck) and a third who was a fringe AHL/NHL defenseman (Tennyson). In short, it did not work. The tea never really did settle on a solid third pairing. This summer, I think Francis will learn from last summer’s gambling/fishing expedition and make a slightly bigger investment to add a proven defenseman who is capable of solidifying a third pairing and also stepping in as a #4 defenseman if there is trouble in that slot as there was last season. The potential prices for this slot are wide, but I think an absolute ceiling is $3 million because of the other higher priorities and the target is more like $2.5 million.
When you add it up, Francis has made a single, sizable upgrade at each position, and spent about $11 million. That fills out 8 of the top 9 forwards, 5 of 6 defensemen and 2 goalies. The remaining slots should be able to be filled internally or with inexpensive free agents. If it goes down like this, the Hurricanes will start the 2017-18 season with a salary commitment that is about $3-4 million than last summer.
Interesting timing issues
The Hurricanes youth movement creates an interesting timing issue with the defenseman position. I think the goalie addition is a long-term addition, and Francis does get another try at the other in the summer of 2018 when Ward comes off contract. Similarly, I think the higher-end addition at forward is a long-term part of the roster. But on defense, the team has 4 young defensemen who hopefully (possible in 2017-18) are the top 4 and a couple more good young prospects on the way. Because of this, Francis will not want to commit many years to whoever he adds on defense. In fact, I think ideal is to add a player whose contract expires at the end of the 2017-18 season such that Francis can reassess how rapidly the youth are developing and if there is a need for veteran depth again for 2018-19 or not.
In addition Francis needs to be careful that he does not overextend himself on salary looking shortsightedly only at the 2017-18 math. In the summer of 2018 all of Slavin, Pesce and Hanifin will be due new contracts likely to far exceed their sub-$1 million entry-level deals, and Elias Lindholm will also be due for a new contract. In the summer of 2019, Aho, Fleury and McKeown will be up for new contracts. Francis might actually be able to get additional budget to play to win in 2017-18 but might also be limited to trying to find a player on a contract that ends after the 2017-18 season so that money can be redeployed.
The chicken and egg race
The other timing thing is winning and boosting revenue necessary to keep the core of the roster intact as their salaries rise. The worst possible scenario for the Hurricanes for 2017-18 is if Slavin, Pesce, Hannifin and Lindholm all have great seasons, but the team does not. That sets up a scenario whereby those players (if not re-signed early this summer) negotiate for significant raises at a time when the team’s revenue is in the doldrums. The math probably works fine if the Canes win, attendance rises and the players get more money. It is not a pleasant situation, but it maybe muddles along okay if the team fails again in 2017-18, but so do the individual players who do not earn big raises because of it. But the perfect storm of a bad team but good individual seasons for contract year players would be problematic.
What say you Canes fans?
Do you think $11 million for 3 key additions, 1 across each position, is enough to build a playoff team?
Do think I am nuts to want to add even a moderately expensive defenseman?
How much does Teravainen’s new contract cost?
Go Canes!
The most important things first. If you are going to invest in a goalie, Cam Ward must go. If he doesn’t go, he becomes our number 1 goalie as managements love affair with him will continue and you have wasted your money on whoever else you bring in. It is absurd to pay a backup goalie (which is what the new fellows will be relegated to) and pay him 3.5 million dollars.
1. About the 11 million: Should be enough, but we need a 1st line scorer and whatever we pay him we will get back in increased revenue from fannies in the seats. Let’s be smart. If a player like Tavares is available and it comes down to whether we will pay him 6 million or 7 million we need to pay the 7 million. Just my opinion.
2. Nothing wrong with your defenseman idea IMO. Just don’t let it interfere with the #1 and #2 priorities (goalie and 1st line forward).
3. Teravainen should come in at around 2.75 – 3 million on a three year deal IMO. At this point in his career he is a good 3rd line forward. You can add adjectives like real, very, etc. in front of good, but it doesn’t change the fact that he is a third line forward at this point in his career.
Informal polling from conversations have more people than I would have guessed preferring Lack over Ward. If it is one or the other (and I think it is), I prefer Ward but get the argument for Lack too.
My adversion to Ward has nothing with Ward. My problem is with management. If Ward is kept I fear management will GIVE him the number 1 goalie slot and any money spent on another goalie will be a waste. When Lack was signed in both preseasons he got to start one game while Ward started all others. That was not competition IMO. The Lack was sat for lengthy periods of time and given no chance to get any sort of playing time. Clearly he was not given any opportunity to be the number 1 goalie. This even though Ward continued to put up mediocre or worse numbers. When Lack finally gets some intensive playing time at the end of last year his statistics were far better than Ward’s. In fact since 1/9/2017 Wards goals per game exceeded 3 per game. That’s over a period of 3 months. Despite this, now I see individuals justifying his poor statistics on the premise that he had to play too many games so it’s Lack’s concussion that caused Ward toperform so miserably. I believe the goalie position needs an upgrade and we need a new fresh face. If we are to retain Ward as a backup, i.e.; the new guy comes in and wins the starting job from him, then I have no quarrel with that. I just don’t want Ward to be anointed with the position. I’m not a Ward hater. I’m a Hurricane fan FIRST and a Ward fan as a result if he is part of the team (as I am with all the other players on the team). The forcefulness of my expressions for a new goalie are intended entirely on encouraging management to recognize that the goaltending position needs serious attention. They are not intended to crucify Ward.
Taking your givens, I think all your points are valid. The challenge is to win in what will be a competitive (real, very, unreasonably–you can choose the adjective) market for talent. The folks who do analytics have pretty consistently shown that high-end free agents are over-paid and often, because they are in, or past, the middle of their careers, see a fall off in production.
So the theory is good–the practice may turn out differently.
On to the questions
I think it is more than enough. From the trade deadline on (at a time all but a few teams were playing hard because they had a chance or wanted to improve positioning) the Canes were as good as any team. Why? The team improved. I think the numbers indicate that Tennyson (and hard to believe) even Murphy were better than Hainsey. I have said before that it pains me, but the truth is that Hainesy had a big negative effect on Faulk and the other 3 skaters when he was on the ice. So the ACTUAL team that was on the ice in March can make the playoffs. I haven’t looked at the numbers, but my guess is that Wallmark and, maybe even Brown, also were slightly better than McClement. What happened in March was just as real as what happened in February. The team became better at the end of the season. We shouldn’t forget that.
A moderately priced D-man would be ideal. But with the expansion draft, I honestly don’t know if there are going to more or less “moderate” options. However, as you mention, the D looks great for the future. IMO, Fleury will be playing next year. And McKeown, Carrick, or Bean in 2018. So this may be a short-term fix.
I think 2.5 million or a little more.
My biggest concern is Very Serious Hockey People (if anyone wants details, let me know). I think Peters might be one. His comments about having to use “AHL-level” players worries me. I hope there is a moneyball type in the organization that can convince him that the AHL-level players last year were the two veterans–Hanisey and McClement. Replacing them with Fleury and Wallmark (or Saarela, or Roy, or Kuokkanen) makes the team better. Not that we couldn’t also use a 25-goal scorer currently on another team, but I am not sure any teams will be giving those away.
In summation, RF should look to upgrade a team that is currently playoff bound. But he shouldn’t fall into the trap of thinking that veterans are somehow magic. Most players peak at 29, while their salary increases. Use this year’s money wisely, because making the playoffs is priority #1. Keeping the key core for the next decade is a close priority #2. Both can be done–choose wisely.
ctcaniac, your thoughts are spot on IMO. Your comments about veterans are generally true and should be heeded by RF and BP. I would just add that not all veteran players are 29 or older. If we can get a veteran like Nathan Mackinnon or John Tavares (both very young), then I would be for making the move. Otherwise, I’m with you and let’s not bog ourselves down with inflated contracts to players who essentially are playing out the string. RF and BP should listen to your last sentence for sure. Keeping the key core makes the way to go if you want to get to priority 1 which is the playoffs. Good writeup!
If we’re saying $11 million is the number, then I’m spending it a little differently.
I’d prioritize a stud goalie over a Top 6 scorer all day long. There really isn’t a team left in the playoffs that doesn’t have one and there aren’t any teams out of the playoffs that do (other than maybe Tampa). I think it’s almost a requirement to have any success – kind of like having a stud quarterback in football. I’d like this to be less true than it seems to be.
With a stud goalie, it wouldn’t be as important to bring in a 4/5 defensemen. It would be nice, but not as required. I’d love to have Tavares as much as anyone, but not scoring enough goals wasn’t our issue this year – allowing too many loose ones was – so I’d focus on that first. Since our skill players are young and will be more skilled next year, I’d rather roll the dice on giving up fewer goals than on scoring more.
All that said and listening to BP, we do need a #1 Center. It would be painful to do, but I think it’s more likely to come in the form of a trade of young players with very high ceilings – think Ryan Johansen for Seth Jones – than through free agency. Kicks the budgets issues down the road a bit to give winning a chance to help fill the treasury.
One other note: #11 was awesome with Nestrasil and Nordstrom last year but couldn’t find the same magic with any set linemates this year until deep in the season. To me, his line is the real wild-card: if his line can become dominant again, it changes our needs everywhere else. It was there this year but not as pronounced. Those linemates, if not on the roster, won’t be nearly as expensive as a Top 6 Center.
I’m just glad I’m not RF – very tough calls to make.
Appreciate your comments and ifferent viewpoint.
I think where I get hung up with the goalie thing is whether spending $6 million really gets you much if at all better than $3.5 million or if it just a pricier lottery ticket with only marginally better odds.
My end game is getting the best $3-4M goalie that money can buy this summer and then doing the exact same thing again next summer. From watching enough high-end goalies fall off the high horse (Ward, Miller, Rinne, Luongo, Fleury, etc.) sometimes to rebound, sometimes not, I just don’t think the extra $3M (and usually longer term) buys enough for the volume of risk.
Definitely more risk in a bigger number – very fair point.
I guess another way to say it is this: we know what $3.3/year gets and, while CW’s contract may have a hometown premium in it, I think we all know we need more than that and I’m not sure $4 gets us there with a UFA.
Doing a deal for a current backup in the Expansion Draft sweepstakes like Raanta or Grubauer and giving them a nice bump to a Rask-like deal might be the way we land the player at the price you’re describing. I would love that outcome.
Miller, your ideas have merit also. Like you have stated on more than one occasion, I’m glad I don’t have to solve the problem.
Good insights Matt. Agree with you entirely.
Wow, Matt… RF has proven that going the cheap route DOESN’T WORK… THE REASON THIS TEAM HAS THE LOWEST REVENUE IS “BECAUSE” THEY SPEND THE LEAST!…duh you have to “at least try” before people will fill those seats! Spend more…make more. Marketing 101!!! AND, guess what… you get better players…and you WIN A
LOT MORE. WHY DO YOU THINK THOSE OTHER TEAMS SPEND CLOSE TO THE CAP? Are they all stupid, and Ronnie is clever? … Even Peters knows you need GOOD PLAYERS TO FILL THE GAP, not AHL WANNABES!
Dmilleravid is right on about getting a stud goalie! I’ve been saying the same thing FOREVER… it is the most important position and going cheap… gets you WHERE WE’VE BEEN FOR THE LAST MANY YEARS! This isn’t rocket science…have to spend money to WIN, GET MONEY!
puckgod, I see right in both Matt’s, your and Miller’s points of view depending on what goalies are available out in the market this summer. I think what you Miller are saying is if a bonafide $6 million dollar goalie is out there, we should be attempting to sign him (ala what Toronto did signing Andersen). I’m not sure Matt is not for this also if that type goalie is available. I think Matt is starting from the premise that there won’t be one of these blue chip goalies available, or if one is, that Raleigh is going to be his career choice to play his hockey. In other words Matt agrees with you in that he thinks an addition must be made (as do I), but doesn’t believe there will be that “golden egg” (Multi-million dollar man)out there whose record will knock our socks off and merit 5 or 6 million dollars. Your point about fans in the seats is appropriate and if we were to sign a recognized top notch goalie, it would probably pay for itself in increased revenue from ticket sales.
Thank goodness. When I posted an article with a modest budget and you didn’t pounce on it by 9am, I was concerned for your well-being. 🙂
I honestly think $11M is enough as long as the goalie added works out (which is not a sure thing even in a medium/high price range.)
Your use of caps lock and complete misunderstanding of what a quote is really drives home how much you understand what’s going on.
Yes good players cost money, but we have good players that will get paid very soon. To think that more money spent will directly correlate to a better team is short sighted. Would signing Anderson for six years been enough to get the team into to playoffs this year? Maybe, but if not we still carry his contract for six years or have to figure out how to move him before we resign Pesce, Slavin, Aho, Skinner, Hannifin and any of the prospects if immediate success doesn’t happen.
Making the playoffs is a goal every year, but drafting well and keeping those players is how you create a successful franchise.
Adding players at a high price that may or not work out isn’t the answer. It’s a trade deadline move when you think you’re a cup contender. The Hurricanes aren’t a cup contender right now. It looks like they might be pretty soon, so why ruin that by overpaying on free agents?
Your comment about the trade deadline is when to think about whether the signing of an additional high end talent to take you from a playoff team to a CUP CONTENDER is worth considering in this matter. After thinking things through in light of your comment I think I am more inclined to be okay with that approach to this. It sure is a refreshing way to look at this. Even that though brings us to the first need and that’s getting to the playoff contender status. To me, that means a number 1 goalie. For this, I really don’t care how we get him (puckgod’s and others MO-spend big dollars, Matt’s-let’s be reasonable with dollars approach), I’m okay with either.
I want to attempt to synthesize all that is going on here. Starting with Matt’s points, then working through RedRyder indicating we should try for Tavares or MacKinnon. And Dmiller bringing up a trade of young players. So where does that get me–well close to a “deal,” the only drawback being it doesn’t involve a true center–but I will try to get to that as well.
One of the “hockey rumors” discussion boards mentions Hanifin. So if we are willing, here goes:
Hanifin and Lack to Winnipeg for Ehlers and Chiarot. Basically this is the Hannifin for Ehlers and convincing them that Lack still has the potential he showed in March and had for two seasons in Vancouver. And Lack is already better than the backup options in Winnipeg. Chiarot give the Canes something back. If this happens before the expansion–it makes things complicated as the Canes must have a goalie to expose. But outside of that, it gives Carolina another excellent scoring forward. Either Ryan would need to be resigned or Teravainen moved to center, also counting on Wallmark or Saarela to be the 4th line C.
The cost is reasonable as Ehlers and Lindholm are both contracted until next year. Chiarot seems like a serviceable 5/6 D. So the extra cap space for 2017-18 can be used for goalie and one more D.
So in review: it adds scoring; opens up space for a goalie; provides a serviceable D so only one is needed. If Winnipeg is willing but demanding, Carolina could even throw in one of their extra picks–a 3rd to start.
Adding scoring will have a cost–don’t know if others agree, but Hanifin might be the bargaining chip that entices a deal.
4th paragraph should say “reasonable as Ehlers and HANIFIN are both contracted”
Anyone interested in mock drafts and the like, I put my top 10 in comments section of Lorentz signing thread…FYI
Good idea. Sure I’m interested. I’ll take a look over at the Lorentz article.