ST. PAUL, Minn. - The Minnesota Wild are offering season ticket holders 10 per cent interest in return if they keep their accounts paid in full during the NHL lockout and don't request a refund.
The Wild announced Monday they'll credit those season ticket holders for any cancelled games, plus 10 per cent interest on the dollar value of tickets for the lost games. That can be applied toward future games or subsequent season renewals. Credit will be issued when a new collective bargaining agreement is reached between the owners and players.
The lockout began late Saturday. The work stoppage is poor timing for the Wild as much as any other NHL team. They've reported the equivalent of about 4,000 new season tickets sold since stars Zach Parise and Ryan Suter were signed on July 4.
In the war to secure talent, agents are going after kids before they even hit their teens. Is it time to curb the chase?
There is a boy playing minor hockey in Toronto you haven’t heard about yet but probably will before too long. Then again, he could be out of hockey in three years or become a marginal player in junior or college hockey. We have chosen to not publish his name. But he’s very, very good. He’s attending an elite hockey academy in Toronto and is thriving a year above his age bracket for one of the top Triple-A organizations in the Greater Toronto Hockey League. He’s big and he’s skilled and he has lots of promise.
He’s also just 12 years old. And his family has been getting calls from player agents. The same agents who represent multimillionaires playing in the NHL have been contacting the parents of a 12-year-old kid. And he’s not the only one. Players, particularly in Canada’s biggest city, have become accustomed to being contacted by agents during their bantam years, (ages 13 and 14) and some of them already have representatives.
“He’s the one people think is ‘The Next One,’” said Anton Thun, a longtime player agent of M-Five Sports, of the player in question. “People think he might be the next Connor McDavid or John Tavares. Numerous agencies have spoken with the family and, quite honestly, we have spoken with the family. We’ve gotten information into his hands to let him know we exist. We’re not going to let other agencies come into our backyard and take the best player.”
Said another agent who requested anonymity, “It’s brutal and it’s getting out of hand. I don’t want to do it, but if I don’t, I’m going to be out of business. Now it’s not about who wins the battle, but who gets there first.”
Whether the NHL Players’ Association, which certifies and regulates player agents, is prepared to do something about it remains to be seen. Setting age restrictions was a hot topic at the NHLPA’s meeting with agents in the summer, and the union has since sent out a missive to agents to determine whether it’s an issue that needs to be addressed. And as the self-appointed pseudo-governing body for agents, it appears the NHLPA is the only institution that can save the agents from themselves on this one.
“The matter of the age restriction regarding recruiting is something that is somewhat on hold while the Hockey Summit discussions regarding draft age, development are ongoing,” said an NHLPA spokesman in an email, referring to the Hockey SENSE meetings that took place this summer, the second of which spent a good chunk of time focused on youth hockey.
As a group, the agents want to have age limits put on them when it comes to contacting prospects. For one, it levels the playing field for everyone. And it also means they can spend their time doing more productive things than chasing bantam players around cold local arenas. And lastly, the agents want this for the same reason Pat LaFontaine and his group are looking into a 19-year-old draft. The longer they give players to develop, the less chance there is for a mistake to be made by everyone involved.
“Back in the 1980s, we recruited 18-year-old kids,” Thun said, “but now I’m being asked to go watch a hockey game where there’s a 13- or 14-year-old kid.”
The only problem is that if one or two rogue agents chase after kids barely in their teens, everyone is forced to do it or risk missing out on the best players. It’s pretty much the same principle that guides the salary cap in the NHL. There’s no age limit on when U.S. college teams can recruit players, and there have been examples of kids barely in their teens committing to programs – albeit making commitments that are not binding when it comes to choosing between major junior hockey and the NCAA. The WHL has a bantam draft, and there is always talk the OHL might follow suit. So young kids are being expected to make monumental decisions, including whether they need an agent or family advisor.
But like so many other things it does well when it comes to dealing with young players, Sweden appears to have come up with a great way of dealing with this problem. There are about 50 agents/recruiters in Sweden, and they have an agreement with the Swedish players’ association that they cannot approach or be approached by any player prior to Jan. 1 of the year he turns 16. That coincides with the first time they have an opportunity to be selected for a national team. Every fall, the country holds its annual TV Puck tournament featuring the best 15-and-under players. That’s basically the first time elite players are identified, and by January, they can make contact with an agent. Agents who directly or indirectly contact players prior to the set date are first warned, then fined, then risk having their licenses revoked.
And the agents are also working with the Swedish Ice Hockey Federation to try to put sanctions in place that penalize players whose (often overaggressive) parents reach out to agents or sign an agreement with one.
“If I get a call from a parent looking for an agent, the first thing I ask, ‘So, you don’t have an agent?’ ”said longtime Sweden-based agent Claes Elefalk of CAA. “The second question is, ‘How old is he?’ And if it’s before Jan. 1 of the year he turns 16, I have to say, ‘Oh, we have a rule that means I need to hang up the phone immediately and you can only call me back the first of January.’ I’m not allowed to even speak for five minutes or send an email or anything. I must say it has been working really well in Sweden.”
Any late season surge in Boston won’t be because of a new coach, it’ll be because a good team finally started getting some bounces.
When a team fires a coach mid-season and the guy barely lasts a week on the unemployment block, they’ve probably just made a huge mistake.
Back in 2011, the Capitals made that mistake. They fired Bruce Boudreau after the team hit a rough patch, and he was subsequently hired just two days later by Anaheim. It took two other coaches and three seasons for the team to find themselves another coach of his calibre, a waste of the their best players’s prime years.
Last week, the Boston Bruins made that same mistake firing Claude Julien. He lasted exactly one week on the market before another team scooped him up. The fact it was the division leading Montreal Canadiens makes matters even worse as it points to how clear of an upgrade they thought Julien was over the guy who led them to the top.
Boston’s decision came down to results and expectations. From that standpoint, it’s clear why they did what they did. After making the Cup final in 2012-13 and winning the President’s Trophy in 2013-14, the Bruins missed the playoffs twice and were sure looking like they would make it three with a 26-23-6 record under Julien. Someone had to take the fall and with this being Julien’s 10th season as bench boss, maybe his voice was getting a bit stale.
I’m not sure I buy that though and it all comes down to what the Bruins are doing under the hood this year. The year after the President’s Trophy win, the team took a step back dropping from third in score-and-venue adjusted Corsi to 12th and then dropped to 17th the year after. This year, they’ve shot all the way back up to first, ahead of the perennial kings of this stat, the Kings. Their mark of 56 percent is the ninth best mark of any team since 2007-08. Ahead of them are two Detroit teams, three Chicago teams, and three Los Angeles teams – and also three Stanley Cups. No fired coaches either.
The team made a remarkable year-to-year jump, the results just weren’t there. The team has the lowest shooting and save percentage among those top teams, and that’s led to a dastardly low 46.3 percent goals ratio, a full 10 percent lower than their shot share and six percent lower than the worst of the eight juggernaut teams above them.
While goaltending is a concern, some of that is a result of how terrible their back-up goalies have been. You’d also figure that a world class goalie like Tuukka Rask will get his groove back. The real big issue is on offense where the team ranks 21st in goals per 60 at 5-on-5. While they may have the ninth best shot attempt rate since 2007-08, they’re also posting the sixth worst shooting percentage since 2007-08.
The obvious answer from most pundits is that the Bruins aren’t actually a good team due to their massive shot advantage because a majority of those shots are coming from the outside. It turns out they have a point. Take a look at this heat map from HockeyViz.com of all the shots the Bruins are taking this year to see for yourself. It might be a lot to take in, but basically, red means “hot spots” where the team shoots more than league average, while blue represents “cold spots” where the team is getting fewer chances.
Just as expected, a lot of red on the outside and a huge blue zone right in front of the –– wait, wrong picture. That’s actually the Bruins 2010-11 season where they won the Cup and had the second highest goal scoring rate at 5-on-5. My bad. Here’s this year.
Yep, there we go. A little better than 2010-11, but still, they’re not really getting to the front of the –– wait, that’s not it. That’s actually the Bruins 2012-13 season where they made it to the Cup final and had the ninth highest goal scoring rate at 5-on-5. My bad. Here’s this year.
Hmm, a lot fewer shots overall, but again, their biggest cold spot is right in front of the –– wait, I did it again. That’s actually the 2013-14 season where the Bruins won the President’s Trophy and had the third highest goal scoring rate at 5-on-5. My bad. Okay, here’s 2016-17, for real this time.
Remember that this offense is the 21st rated offence at 5-on-5. If anyone could point out how it differs from any time the Bruins had a top five or 10 offense the past few years, I’m all ears. There is a bit of a deeper contour in front of the net than other seasons, but not by much, and the red zone in front of the slot is a deeper red and much closer to the front of the net. That should all cancel out, and it does. By expected goals for, here’s how every season under Julien ranks.
This year, the Bruins should be having one of the most prolific offenses they’ve had in years, instead, they’re struggling. The idea they’re “not getting to the front of the net” is a bad excuse because it’s clear they either never really have, it’s never really mattered, or there’s a systemic bias in Boston to record fewer shots there. Whatever the case, it doesn’t hold water.
The Bruins offense hasn’t changed much, but the results have and Julien lost his job because of it. Some might say the Bruins Corsi doesn’t tell the whole story here, but even by expected goals they’re the league’s top team, and those teams rarely struggle to convert like this team has. I normally hesitate to use “luck” as a crutch to describe a team with poor results, but it’s hard to point the finger anywhere else.
If you’re still not convinced, here’s another way to look at it. I plotted every player’s personal shooting percentage (at 5-on-5) this season compared to the the three seasons prior. Unsurprisingly, nearly everyone is having a down year.
There’s a fair number of players here who were reliable scorers in the past that suddenly can’t put it in. These 19 players have 86 goals this year, but if they were as efficient as they were before this season, they’d be at 111 collectively. If you look at expected shooting percentage that number drops a little to 104, but their expected shooting percentage is actually higher than it was in the previous three seasons. It’s hard to imagine all these guys suddenly forgot how to score, but that’s the reality if you think these results have nothing to do with luck.
Eventually, things should revert back to normal and they’ll start scoring at their normal rates again. With the way the Bruins control play, that’ll likely mean more wins down the stretch and it may be enough for a playoff spot (we think they’ve got a 70 percent shot at the moment). If they make it, they’re a dark horse team in the East, especially in a weak Atlantic. That is, if they keep playing as well as they did under Julien.
Whatever happens though, any team success will come back to the coaching change as a turning point. Make no mistake though, they likely would’ve turned it around anyways. Any late season surge won’t be because of a new coach, it’ll be because a good team finally started getting some bounces. The Bruins won’t be a good team now because they fired Julien -- they already were one.
There's no "generational talent" at the top of the draft this season, but there is a nice battle for the top spot between Nolan Patrick and Nico Hischier.
It’s time for draft rankings, people, and it’s getting very interesting out there.
The 2017 draft class has already been pilloried quite a bit this season, but I think we just have to appreciate it for what it is: a chance for teams to get better. We’ve been spoiled by “generational” talents such as Connor McDavid and Auston Matthews lately, but that can’t happen every year. Instead, we have a nice little battle shaping up at the top between Nolan Patrick and Nico Hischier. And don’t be surprised to see even more movement as time goes on.
I have Timothy Liljegren third, but I’m kinda conservative when it comes to moving top players down. Recognize that he may slide as other blueliners make their cases, or if it appears we’ll have another run on centers at the top this summer in Chicago. Whatever happens, here’s the first round as I see it right now.
1. Nolan Patrick, C, Brandon (WHL): Back from injury and from all appearances, not suffering. Patrick has the size, skill and all-around game to be an instant NHLer
2. Nico Hischier, C, Halifax (QMJHL): The high-end skills and smarts are so tantalizing. Hischier is certainly giving Patrick a run for his money and surpassing the Wheat King is not out of the question.
3. Timothy Liljegren, D, Rogle (SHL): Liljegren seems to be back on track after illness and a loan to Timra. His skating and offensive instincts are excellent and he’s getting some nice responsibility with Rogle.
4. Gabe Vilardi, C, Windsor (OHL): Skating is the knock, but scouts are already downplaying it by hyping up his other skills. Vilardi is big, smart and talented and really, the speed isn’t that bad right now.
5. Owen Tippett, RW, Mississauga (OHL): A weaponized winger with size, speed and a big-time shot, Tippett doesn’t have the versatility of Vilardi, but the physical tools are beguiling.
6. Klim Kostin, RW, MVD (Rus.): Surgery ended his nightmare season, but Kostin is enough of a known quantity thanks to earlier international duty. He’s a big, powerful kid with loads of talent.
7. Casey Mittelstadt, C, Eden Prairie (Minn. HS): The Minnesota commit wanted one more shot at a state title, so Mittelstadt is currently laying waste to high schoolers with Eden Prairie. Tons of skill and he put up numbers in the USHL, too.
8. Michael Rasmussen, C, Tri-City (WHL): Starting off with his nearly 6-foot-6 frame, there’s a lot to like about Rasmussen. Naturally his reach is good, but his hands are also pretty sweet and he can play with an edge.
9. Eeli Tolvanen, LW, Sioux City (USHL): A wicked shot in a smaller package. The Boston College recruit is a pure goal-scorer and draws penalties with his skill. Mixed opinions out there on his feistiness.
10. Miro Heiskainen, D, HIFK (Fin.): Smooth-skating defensemen are in and Heiskanen may even challenge Liljegren for draft stock. Some scouts thought he was Finland’s best blueliner at the world juniors.
Alexander Radulov is set to become a free agent and, at 30, he’s looking for a long-term deal. Comparing him to some other recently inked 30-plus year olds, Radulov sure seems worth the investment.
Alexander Radulov entered the season facing his fair share of naysayers. An incredible talent, no doubt, some thought it a head scratcher that the Canadiens would shell out nearly $6 million on a one-year deal for the Russian winger in hopes that his supreme scoring ways from the KHL would translate to the NHL game in a hurry. He hadn’t played in the NHL since 2011-12, yet here Montreal was, paying him like a top UFA on a show-me deal.
Well, show them he has. Through 57 games, Radulov is second on the Canadiens with 42 points and his 28 assists are tops on the team. At 18 minutes a game, Radulov has consistently been a fixture of the top six and he seems a threat to score, or make something happen, every time the puck manages to find him. If it was a signing that was questioned at the time, it’s one that now is far from being scrutinized by even the staunchest of Montreal’s opponents. It was a savvy move, a smart acquisition that has paid immediate dividends.
The only trouble now is Montreal has to find a way to re-sign him. That could be tricky.
Over the weekend, Sportsnet’s Elliotte Friedman and Nick Kypreos reported that Radulov isn’t looking for another one-year deal. Realistically, he isn’t even looking for anything that would be considered short term. Rather, the 30-year-old is looking to cash in on the season he’s had and ink something long-term. With that in mind, one would assume Radulov is looking for a contract that gives him some security for several seasons, and even a four-year deal could be on the low end if he’s really looking to hang around the NHL for the foreseeable future.
The difficulty with that, as Kyrpeos pointed out, is that Radulov’s not exactly a prime-aged player anymore. Players are hitting their stride younger and younger while the league as a whole has gone the way of injecting more youth into their lineups. With that in mind, and with Radulov having as much as a decade on some of the league’s premier players, it calls into question whether a 30-year-old, who will be 31 by the time the 2017-18 campaign begins, is worthy of a long-term deal that stretches into the five-, six- or even seven-year range.
But given what Radulov has shown both in terms of ability and production, it’s hard to say he’s not worth the same kind of long-term, high-dollar contract that other free agents have received in the past few years. In fact, just this past off-season, three 30-plus year old players inked long-term, big-money deals, and it’s hard to say any were as safe a gamble as Radulov appears to be going forward. The trio of high-priced veteran deals went to Andrew Ladd, Loui Eriksson and David Backes, and considering the production out of all three this season, it only seems realistic that Radulov could be set to land himself a deal that’s somewhere in the six-year, $30-plus million range.
Let’s start by looking at Ladd’s deal, which was a mammoth — and some would say ill-advised — seven-year, $38.5-million contract with the New York Islanders. Brought in with the hope that he’d find his fit alongside John Tavares, Ladd, who was 30 at the time of the signing, struggled big time to start the season and he still really hasn’t found his complete offense. The biggest issue to begin with was that Ladd couldn’t seem to catch a break and find the back of the net. Those scoring troubles have since fallen by the wayside and he has 16 goals in 54 games, on pace for 23 markers this season, but only 22 points to his name. If he nets 32 points this season, which is his current pace, he’ll have scored roughly half as much as Radulov.
Likewise struggling to start the season was Eriksson, who was 31 at the time of his signing and went nearly a month into the first season of his six-year, $36-million contract with the Vancouver Canucks without netting a goal. His pace has since increased to a respectable 15-goal, 30-point pace, but Eriksson was brought in to be the 30-goal, 60-point player he was during the 2015-16 season with the Boston Bruins, not the 15- to 20-goal player he was in the three years prior to firing on all cylinders in his final season in Beantown.
Which brings us to Backes, who has been the most consistent of the three after inking a five-year, $30-million deal with the Bruins. It’s harder to measure the full weight of his contributions as he’s as much a defensive contributor as he is an offensive one, but his 12 goals and 26 points have him on pace for a near 40-point year. Backes, who is months away from his 33rd birthday, was brought in to a fixture in the middle-six of the lineup and provide the team the depth they needed to get back into the post-season and Stanley Cup contention.
Considering how Radulov has played compared to the three 30-plus year olds who netted themselves sizeable paydays less than a calendar year ago, one would think he should be in line for a similar cash-in and a similar term. Of course, that doesn’t necessarily have to be the case, and there’s something to be said for each player’s track record. Some GMs might look at a player’s history, and in the cases of Ladd, Eriksson and Backes, all three have proven year over year they can contribute. But overlooking Radulov’s impeccable play in the KHL would be a mistake, and it’s already evident that same talent level has translated to the NHL.
The Canadiens project to have more than $23 million to spend come the end of the season with Radulov, Alex Galchenyuk and Nathan Beaulieu the three most important deals that will need to be renewed for the 2017-18 campaign. That’s more than enough money to get the job done with a bit of scratch left over to add elsewhere, so finding a short-term fit shouldn’t be a gargantuan concern. Long-term viability needs to be taken into account, yes, but the Canadiens’ window is open and keeping Radulov around only stands to increase their odds of chasing a championship.
It would seem a near certainty, then, that Radulov is in line to earn something that’s at the very least comparable to the deals of the aforementioned trio, and it seems increasingly likely that he’s set to earn closer to the high end — $6 million per year — than he is the low end. And given that he’s already earning $5.75 million per season, it’s likely going to take a long-term deal in the six- or seven-year range in order for his cap hit to drop by any significant margin.
It’s not going to be cheap to keep Radulov around long-term, but if his first campaign has been any indication, he could very much be worth the price.