Report: Rangers appear hesitant to give Brandon Dubinsky $5M per year

4 Comments

When you consider the absolutely bonkers money that the New York Rangers hand out to unrestricted free agents, it seems a bit odd that they end up using unthinkable measures such as “care” and “discretion” with their restricted guys. Wouldn’t you expect them to spend more on guys they know rather than blind gambles … or are they instead seduced by hypothetical gains?

Either way, the Rangers still have two crucial restricted free agents headed for possible salary arbitration hearings: Brandon Dubinsky and Ryan Callahan. If GM Glen Sather cannot come to terms with Dubinsky soon, he might be the first NHL player “on trial” this summer; the two-way forward’s hearing is set for Thursday, July 21.

Larry Brooks of the New York Post breaks down the impasse in the simplest of terms: it’s all about money. Simply put, the Rangers aren’t totally comfortable with giving Dubinsky the a five or six-year contract worth $5 million per year. Brooks reports that they’re offering a $4.5 million average annual salary.

The 25-year-old winger is two years away from the unrestricted age of 27, although Brooks points out that a new Collective Bargaining Agreement could change that scenario. Brooks makes an interesting comparison to two other restricted free agents who recently signed deals.

For the sake of comparison, Winnipeg winger Andrew Ladd just signed a five-year deal worth $4.4 million per year. The Rangers would not trade Dubinsky for Ladd. On the other hand, Anaheim winger Bobby Ryan is entering the second year of a five-year deal worth $5.1 million per. The Ducks would not consider dealing Ryan for Dubinsky.

Brooks notes that fellow heart-and-soul winger Callahan might make the discussions a bit more complicated, too. While Callahan isn’t quite as prolific as Dubinsky, he’s considered nearly as valuable because both players impact games in ways that go beyond traditional box score numbers.

Brooks provides an estimate of what Dubinsky might receive in arbitration and some of the other effects.

The Rangers, whose case will be presented by newly installed assistant general manager Jeff Gorton, should be careful not to make their presentation an attack on Dubinsky. Indeed, the best plan would be to submit their numbers and comparables while otherwise remaining silent. The 25-year-old winger is, after all, an integral part of the team and the program.

It is believed Dubinsky will earn between $3.8 million to $4.4 million through arbitration in a system where the arbitrator generally comes as close as possible to splitting the difference between the team’s and player’s submissions. The absence of either/or baseball-style arbitration allows the respective parties to be unrealistic in their submissions. Neither side should take it personally.

The Rangers have the option of electing a two-year award, but there is a sense the club may go for a one-year award, though it is unclear what advantages this strategy would yield.

Obviously, that $3.8-$4.4 million range would provide short-term savings for the Rangers, but they might risk losing Dubinsky for nothing if he becomes an unrestricted free agent once the shorter deal expires.

Perhaps this is an example of oversimplification, but would the two sides be satisfied if they took the “King Solomon” approach and split the difference? Maybe a six-year, $28.5 million deal with a $4.75 million per year cap hit would do the trick.

For all the hubbub about adding Brad Richards (and how he might resurrect Marian Gaborik’s career), Dubinsky and Callahan were the team’s most valuable forwards in 2010-11. If the Rangers hope to be a contender, they need to keep both of those spirited wingers in the fold.

If all else fails, maybe someone can hypnotize Sather into thinking that they’re both unrestricted free agents with a ton of hype. My guess is that they’d have new contracts by the end of the business day if that happened …

It’s Washington Capitals day at PHT

Getty
Leave a comment

Imagine having a hangover without the party.

That’s how some in the Washington Capitals organization felt during the off-season. It was bad enough that they fell – again – to the Pittsburgh Penguins in a second-round series, even with home-ice advantage thanks to their run to the Presidents’ Trophy.

As Brian MacLellan would say, they suffered the losses you’d normally see after a team went all-in and won it all. Kevin Shattenkirk is gone and Karl Alzner also left via free agency, while Nate Schmidt was scooped up by Vegas. Keeping Evgeny Kuznetsov and T.J. Oshie at hefty prices played a big role in Marcus Johansson being traded. Justin Williams won’t bring his clutch credentials to the Caps any longer, either.

Pretty brutal stuff.

Even so, there’s still some serious talent on the Capitals roster.

Braden Holtby ranks as one of the best goalies in the NHL. Alex Ovechkin, even at 31, remains an elite sniper. Washington boasts a great trio of centers in Kuznetsov, Nicklas Backstrom, and Lars Eller. Alex Burakovsky could be on the rise, there are still some nice defensemen, and the Capitals still have an experienced, respected head coach in Barry Trotz.

If you weren’t preoccupied with the surplus of talent from recent seasons, that would be the sort of group that plenty of teams would envy, especially if they somehow find a way to remain absurdly healthy once again.

It’s plausible that the Capitals could still find a way to run away in the standings even after all of these painful losses. There’s the remote chance things instead go sideways in a drastic fashion.

The most realistic scenario might be Washington drawing a middle or even lower seed in the playoffs, and that might not be such a bad thing. All things considered, we’ll likely learn a lot about this group (and Trotz as a coach) based on how they fare in 2017-18.

PHT breaks down the many factors heading into next season for the Capitals on Wednesday.

Months after falling to Penguins, Capitals work to move past playoff letdown

Getty
12 Comments

Sometimes, when a team falls short in a playoff run, it feels a bit melodramatic to throw around words like “devastation.” In the case of the Washington Capitals falling to the Pittsburgh Penguins – yet again – during the 2017 Stanley Cup Playoffs, a little melodrama almost seems appropriate.

Still, it’s been months since they couldn’t complete a full rally from a 3-1 deficit, ultimately falling to the Penguins 2-0 in what must have been a deeply frustrating Game 7.

NHL.com’s Tom Gulitti caught up with a number of Capitals to reflect upon the past and look to the future, and while one must credit Nicklas Backstrom and others for saying the right things, you could also tell that the wounds haven’t fully healed just yet.

“I think that when it comes to the playoffs it shouldn’t be about individuals,” he said. “It should be about the team and how we lose as a team. How we acted in Game 7, I think that’s telling everything. They absolutely outplayed us in Game 7 at home. That shouldn’t be the case.”

Personally, it seemed like the Capitals seemed to carry significant chunks of play in that contest before running out of gas. There are fancy charts to back up such thoughts, but Backstrom is right in feeling disappointed. How could he not when he’s experienced setback after setback?

Speaking of setbacks, Capitals such as Evgeny Kuznestov and Dmitry Orlov also emphasized to Gulitti that they believe that this team can still compete in 2017-18.

“I don’t like when people say we’re a bad team right now,” Kuznetsov said to Gulitti during the European Player Media Tour on Thursday. “That’s bull to me. It’s not about the names. It’s about the guys when they come together.”

Some of that is soaked in cliche-speak, but you get the picture. It’s something that PHT and Capitals GM Brian MacLellan both argue to certain degrees: although there have been significant losses, there are also plenty of quality players in the meat of their primes.

The difference in 2017-18 may be that, after a couple years of seemingly having their division/the Presidents’ Trophy locked up weeks before April, this time the Capitals might just need to scrape and claw just like most other teams.

Considering how hard you need to fight to win most playoff series, that might not be such a bad thing for this group.

Just ask them how being the heavy favorites worked out in the past.

Eichel on Sabres: ‘We think we can be a playoff team’

Getty
6 Comments

This deep into the salary cap era, it feels like it’s generally easier to identify which teams are contenders and which teams need to rebuild. Things seem fairly “stratified” in the NHL.

That said, there’s still that murky middle class of teams that could either slip into the cellar or fight their way into the bubble. With a cleaner bill of health, a management shakeup, and some off-season tweaks, the Buffalo Sabres stand as one of those tough teams to peg.

So, some might snicker at Jack Eichel thinking big while discussing the Sabres’ outlook with NHL.com’s Dan Rosen, but the rest of us might not be so sure that he’s totally off the mark.

“We think we can be really good,” Eichel said. “We think we can be a playoff team. That’s what’s important. We have to go into training camp with the right mindset, get the season off and running, put our best foot forward.”

(Hey, for what it’s worth, almost 70 percent of voters in a PHT poll leaned toward Buffalo making the playoffs.)

If the Sabres make a big push, just about everyone expects the 20-year-old to be a central figure in such a turnaround. With Connor McDavid‘s meteoric rise and the Sabres’ struggles in mind, it’s easy for casual fans to forget that Eichel is trending toward stardom in his own right. But he clearly is.

It can’t hurt that Eichel and some other key Sabres are approaching contract years, even if Eichel could very well sign an extension in the near future.

Even if Eichel does, both goalies (Robin Lehner and Chad Johnson) need new contracts, while Evander Kane, Benoit Pouliot, and others also enter seasons that could make a huge impact on their futures in Buffalo or elsewhere.

One would expect at least some improvement in Buffalo, but will the Sabres make the sort of leap that, say, the Toronto Maple Leafs managed in 2016-17?

It’s difficult to say, but Eichel sure seems happy about getting a clean slate.

Under Pressure: Chuck Fletcher

Getty
Leave a comment

This post is part of Wild Day on PHT…

The Minnesota Wild have employed two GMs in their history: Doug Risebrough, the franchise’s architect, and Chuck Fletcher, who’s been in charge – somewhat startlingly – since 2009.

In that time, the Wild have spent a lot of money, particularly in landing local stars Zach Parise and Ryan Suter. Even if you dismiss John Torchetti since he was interim head coach, Fletcher’s had plenty of opportunities as far as hiring coaches goes, as the franchise has gone through Todd Richards, Mike Yeo, and now employs Bruce Boudreau.

Fletcher deserves some credit for the fact that the Wild ‘s active playoff streak of five seasons, particularly since they missed the postseason from 2008-09 through 2011-12. Still, this team has peaked with two second-round trips and hasn’t ever won a division title under his watch.

It’s almost become a tradition in Minnesota: whatever happens during the regular season – and it seems, whoever’s behind the bench – the end result is always disappointment … and even so, Fletcher preaches patience.

Still, you wonder how much patience remains above Fletcher, particularly when you consider how Wild owner Craig Leipold regretted the bold move to land Martin Hanzal at the trade deadline.

“In hindsight, geez, I wish we wouldn’t have done that,” said Leipold, per the Minneapolis Tribune. “I supported that decision at the time, and I’m willing to live with it.”

Yeesh, how long is Leipold “willing to live with” Fletcher’s teams falling short of the mark, though? It had to cut deep for Leipold to see his former team, the Nashville Predators, come two wins short of a Stanley Cup before his own team even made a conference final.

(Leipold said he was happy for the Predators … but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t jealous.)

For years, the Wild have produced some mild results on the ice, though Boudreau’s 2016-17 edition finally pushed for something bigger. That underdog status doesn’t parallel the team’s spending, however, and you have to place some of the blame on Fletcher.

After all, the two constants since 2009 have been seasons ending in disappointment and Fletcher being the GM.

There’s a lot of pressure to change that in 2017-18, and that ultimately falls on him.