More cap mismanagement: With Laperriere on LTIR, the Flyers are broke
Our Geoff Detweiler put together a fantastic look at today's big move -- the Flyers putting Ian Laperriere on long term injured reserve -- and why this severely hurts the team going forward. In a nutshell, according to Geoff, the Flyers cannot call up anybody right now. They don't have the cap space.
The Flyers are effectively as broke as my bank account right now. We'll let Geoff explain, because he's good with numbers.
The Flyers have been spending $4,071 more than the cap every day this year, but were able to do so because they had an LTIR cushion of $8,333 per day, due to Michael Leighton being on LTIR. With Leighton returning and Laperriere going on LTIR, they can now go over the salary cap by $6,272 per day. With the $4,071 in overages continuing - because nobody's contract has been removed - the Flyers now can only increase their daily spending by $2,201.
The NHL's league minimum salary for 2010-11 is $500,000. That's equal to a $2,688 daily cap hit, or $487 more than the Flyers can afford.
With this move, the Flyers have effectively prevented themselves from being able to afford anybody not already on the roster.
There are a lot of numbers in there and it can be confusing, so lets try to boil it down. All of our numbers come from CapGeek.com, for the record.
You're able to exceed the cap by as much money as you have on LTIR. Michael Leighton makes $1.55 million this season. Ian Laperriere makes $1.166 million this season. Notice that Laperriere makes less than Leighton and you can easily see where we're going with this.
Simply put, the Flyers are only cap compliant thanks to the LTIR exception, and as it stands now, they cannot add one extra player. Even if that player makes the league minimum. The Flyers have an extra forward and an extra defenseman on the active roster right now, but if they need to call somebody up at any time, they cannot, as Geoff points out.
With a healthy scratch at each position currently (re: Oskars Bartulis and Nikolay Zherdev or Dan Carcillo), it might not be a problem, but the potential is obviously there. Essentially, they've put themselves between a rock and a hard place for absolutely no reason. That seems to be a theme lately.
As a result, the Flyers are broke. Make sure to read Geoff's piece at SB Nation Philly for a full, detailed take, because there's obviously a lot of nuance here.
59 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Oy. Oy. Oy.
Tell me again, why don’t they get rid of Walker? Trade or otherwise?
Laperriere is my hero
Carcillo's my lover
Bobrovsky's my savior
Hockeys my life
Because Homer’s not good at math.
by Phuck The Penguins on Dec 13, 2010 7:40 PM EST up reply actions
Well, nobody is trading for him. The question is why you don’t just waive him instead.
Visit the BSH Store :: Get us on Twitter :: facebook, too!
Broad Street Hockey - SBN's Philadelphia Flyers blog. 2010 Eastern Conference Champions.
by Travis Hughes on Dec 13, 2010 7:40 PM EST up reply actions
Wow – I read the whole thing, and I’m still confused.
Maybe it should read "reformedpenguinsfan" since I have retired my Lemeiux jersey ... and purchased an Orange and Black Pronger jersey.
to sum:
We lost $2000 of spending money per day by swapping Lappy for Leighton on LTIR.
This difference means we can no longer call up anyone in case of injury, assuming the cap situation stays the same (i.e. no one else goes on LTIR / Walker isn’t waived).
It’s a tenuous non-optimal situation.
Right.
In other words, they’re stuck with these 23 players until actually solving their cap problem (trade/waive/another LTIR).
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Dec 13, 2010 8:09 PM EST up reply actions
So Its basically the same situation. Doesn’t seem like a big deal, besides them not willing to make a real decision.
What can't Giroux do?
But Lappy will be on LTIR indefinitely, meaning the Flyers will be over the salary cap indefinitely. This is bad for many reasons, most importantly 1) They cannot acquire someone at the deadline who makes more money than the player leaving, since they haven’t banked any cap space; and 2) The Flyers have to find a way to fit the bonuses under a much smaller window.
You have to ask: Why would the Flyers keep Laperriere off LTIR all this time? Because it’s not optimal. So why would they do it now?
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Dec 13, 2010 8:41 PM EST up reply actions
Essentially they handcuffing themselves to suffer the pain of reason 2 next year and not even giving themselves the option of reason 1. Unless of course they decide to waive someone in the near future.
What can't Giroux do?
Right.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Dec 13, 2010 8:59 PM EST up reply actions
So its basically passing the problem off until it absolutely rears its ugly head, then make a hasty move, or the only possible move, to solve the problem last minute. AKA Status Quo.
What can't Giroux do?
haha, well, not necessarily. Laperriere and Walker can stay on their respective IR lists until the Flyers have an injury.
This is the Flyers saying: We’re okay with Carcillo/Zherdev filling in for a few games, and we’re okay with Bartulis filling in for a few games. But if there’s a serious injury, we’re just going to keep using LTIR, worry about next year next year, and use Walker if there’s a big injury on defense.
To me, this is them saying: Matt Walker is our 7th defenseman, but we can’t afford him unless he’s playing. At which point, we LTIR the injured top-6 guy, accept the possibility of a cap penalty next year as a result of bonuses, and go all out.
Chris Lanci should be happy.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Dec 13, 2010 9:14 PM EST up reply actions
Great Piece, made it very easy to understand how dumb the front office is. okay so how do we get rid of salary, waiving players does the trick but the flyers seem content to let walker just sit on the shelf, how about shelly, does is homer intrgiued as mucha as i am by a Betts Carbomb NZ93 line. Or does booshe get waived, that would be retarded BTW but it is Homer. And what about trading people does that get salaray removed (Im pretty sure it doesn’t)
Here is my only justifications, feel free to argue:
1. If this is a way of getting Lappy’s contract “Rathje’d” then its not a HORRIBLE move. This team is one of the best in hockey right now and it doesn’t need changing. If it sets us up better for next years cap issues, then at least its a little foresight.
2. Here’s the part that doesn’t bother me entirely. Why would we need a replacement? One of two reasons: 1. Were playing poorly and need to make a change. 2. Injury. I can only speculate on number 2, but as for number one I think we’ll be okay. If we need Wellwood or any other phantom, are we not aloud to send down either JVR or Nodl because they are on 2-way deals? Nodl and JVR both make more than Wellwood, so this would be okay if we “swap” them. Also, we can always move down Zherdev if he continues to get scratched. As for the injury, correct me if I’m wrong, but if we put anyone on LTIR we can compensate their salary… so if Briere gets hurt we can bring up anyone under his cap hit (or his hit less what we are already not aloud to bring up). If that is the case what is the issue.
To me, this prevents us from making trades or pick-ups to our NHL roster… which is okay, considering were playing very well and atop the standings. The only way this move makes sense is is Lappy’s contract comes off the books for next year. If it does, I’m actually in favor of this move. If not, I’m still confused.
PS: Is this a key to Bartullis to start getting some practice time at forward, just in case?
Man Crushin on Bob since 2010
by orangeandblack20 on Dec 13, 2010 8:24 PM EST reply actions
1) If anything, it sets them up worse for next year’s cap. It provides less salary cap space, which leaves less space to pay bonuses, creating a higher probability that the Flyers will face a penalty next year equal to the amount of bonuses they couldn’t fit this year; The problem is that we don’t know how likely those bonuses are to be reached, or even how much they will cost.
2) Being on a two-way contract doesn’t effect waivers, and JVR only has 34 more games of waiver exemption. Either way, forcing yourself to demote a player because you have no cap space is a problem.
Then, Zherdev can’t be “moved down”, he would have to clear waivers. Further, if you put Briere on LTIR, you can spend up to his amount. But what if he gets hurt and has to miss two weeks? You either put him on LTIR and wait 24 days to dress him, or you don’t and go with both Carcillo and Zherdev. What if, at the same time, O`Donnell takes a puck in the face and has some concussion like symptoms. You want to sit him out for a week. You have no healthy scratches now, because you have two guys injured and unable to play, but not injured enough to go on LTIR in order to afford a replacement.
Rather than waive Walker, and have $5,069 in daily cap space (projecting to ending with $598,142 in cap space at the end of the year), the Flyers just said “we don’t need that cap space, we’ll live and die with LTIR”.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Dec 13, 2010 8:57 PM EST up reply actions
Oh how I love the BSH mind meld-phenomenon when you and I are typing extraordinarily similar posts at the same time….
by DragonGirl0583 on Dec 13, 2010 8:59 PM EST up reply actions
haha, creeeepy. I almost let you handle #2, but decided to dance around it instead.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Dec 13, 2010 8:59 PM EST up reply actions
I’m not going to hit every point there, but just to address a few…. First off, Nodl is not waiver exempt. If we want to send him to the Phantoms, we have to risk him being claimed by another team on the way down. Given the way he is playing this year, this is definitely possible. We cannot risk demoting Nodl, just get that idea off the table. Zherdev is also risky, if we send him down, it’s possible for him to get claimed. If he somehow makes it to Adirondack, and we want to call him back up, I don’t see him clearing re-entry waivers where some other team can steal him for half price. This whole swapping players business is both incorrect and unrealistic.
Now, as far as injuries go, a guy can only go on LTIR if they’re going to be out for at least 24 days and 10 games. So if Briere gets the flu and can’t play for two games, we can’t put him on LTIR to pay someone else to play while he’s only sick for a couple of days. LTIR is only for serious injury. If we would have waived Walker instead of putting Lappy on LTIR, we would have had flexibility to handle a theoretical AHL call-up to cover for something minor like a short suspension or a flu epidemic.
And as phinally already pointed out, Lappy’s contract stays on the books next year. It’s not going anywhere.
by DragonGirl0583 on Dec 13, 2010 8:58 PM EST up reply actions
Are you sure Nodl is waiver eligible though? He was 19 when drafted in 2006, but didn’t turn professional until 2007. So was his first year of waiver exemption 06-07 (the year after being drafted), making him waiver eligible this year, or was his first year of waiver exemption 07-08 (the year he played his first NHL game, the year after his AHL debut)?
That’s something I got tripped up on. Never understood 13.4…
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Dec 13, 2010 9:02 PM EST up reply actions
As whacked out as it is, precedent seems dictate that if the player isn’t signed right after the draft, that whole draft age business in Article 13 doesn’t matter, and it will go by their signing age when they finally sign a contract… Since Nodl was signed at 21, and just played NHL game #80, he just became eligible yesterday.
by DragonGirl0583 on Dec 13, 2010 9:06 PM EST up reply actions
HAHAHAHAHA He just became eligible yesterday?
THAT’S CRAZY! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aU-_Q-4Hxoo&feature=related
But seriously, that’s insane. I’ll take your word for it.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Dec 13, 2010 9:16 PM EST up reply actions
Well, if nothing else there’s no ambiguity left after yesterday. I guess people could have argued over the years played part before Saturday (I am of the opinion that he did not meet the criteria based on years); but he hit the games played mark after Saturday night’s game, so there’s no room for any debate over years played criteria anymore. He’s definitely eligible now.
by DragonGirl0583 on Dec 13, 2010 9:21 PM EST up reply actions
It’s 80 games, not 160?
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Dec 13, 2010 9:28 PM EST up reply actions
Because he signed at 21, yes. 160 if signed at 18, 19, or 20; 80 games if signed at 21; 70 games if signed at 22, and 60 games if signed at 23 or 24.
by DragonGirl0583 on Dec 13, 2010 9:30 PM EST up reply actions
Okay. It’s age at signing, not age at draft.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Dec 13, 2010 9:31 PM EST up reply actions
Right, unless they’re signed like immediately after being drafted, then it’s a little sketchy and would require further explanation. But if a guy goes to college and stays on the reserve list as an unsigned draft choice, like Nodl, it’s definitely “signing age”.
by DragonGirl0583 on Dec 13, 2010 9:33 PM EST up reply actions
Following up on that…. This is why it’s taking me so long to make the flowcharts and CBA FAQ be complete and ready to be posted. There’s soooooo many caveats to explain, I can’t give them to the masses until all the bases are covered.
by DragonGirl0583 on Dec 13, 2010 9:35 PM EST up reply actions
This is why you’re awesome. You’re the 13.4 expert. I think you should change your username to “DragonGirl13.4”
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Dec 13, 2010 9:48 PM EST up reply actions
My username is ridiculous enough as it is, I think!
by DragonGirl0583 on Dec 13, 2010 9:54 PM EST up reply actions
Yes. Can you elaborate on any part of it?
Personally I’d like to hear about how you are a dragon.
Mourning Gagne forever.
Didn’t I tell this story before? Oh well, it’s lame but not that embarassing… About a week after I transferred in to college, I had to take over moderating a yahoo group, but I didn’t have a yahoo username. It came about as a joke because I was a total Dungeons and Dragons geek (I used to run games at a comic book store), and I had just transferred to a college where our school mascot is a dragon. So D&D geek + Drexel Dragon + May 1983 birthday = DragonGirl0583. I never planned to use it for anything important… then when I signed up for SBN, I just used my Yahoo account because I didn’t think I would post very often and I was too lazy to come up with anything new. Lame story, I know.
by DragonGirl0583 on Dec 13, 2010 10:10 PM EST up reply actions
I hate that guy, and their dealership. My brother-in-law is a car salesman for Hyundai and was working on a deal with someone. As it turns out, this person had also gone to the Kia dealership and said they were undecided on which one to get. The guy in the commercial then proceeds to basically give my brother the shakedown so the customer will buy the car from Kia. The mild amusement I derived from these commercials is now gone forever…
Remember when we all laughed at the Devils because they could only afford to put ~12 skaters on the ice?
Erm, uh, yeah. So there’s that.
Do you think they could just be buying more time looking for any taker of Leighton, Boosh, Carcillo, Shelley, or Z??? Can we still waive walker even though he is on ir?
Quite possibly and yes.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Dec 13, 2010 8:42 PM EST up reply actions
So long as they were injured during training camp and have spent 30 days on the roster, yes.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Dec 13, 2010 8:57 PM EST up reply actions
Alright thanks. You know how I feel about this whole situation which could be made a lot simpler with the waiving of Walker who has done NOTHING. Idk how many times I can say it.
Me neither. It’s the difference between $5,069 in daily cap space and $2,201 in what Hanrahan wants people to believe is “cap space”, but is really an exception.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Dec 13, 2010 8:59 PM EST up reply actions
so is Homer just being stubborn in so far as his refusal to waive Walker would be an admission that it was a poor trade?
I think it’s more likely that Holmgren is doing what Chris Lanci wanted: Keeping as many guys as possible for as long as possible, even if it screws next year’s cap.
Inherent in that is the implication that the Flyers like Matt Walker as a #6 defenseman more than anybody else in the organization, and are willing to pay him $1.7 million to do just that.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Dec 13, 2010 9:30 PM EST up reply actions
I’m pretty sure Holmgren is Chris Lanci.
Simon Gagne may move between towns, wear new jerseys and call different arenas home, but at the end of the day, he will always be a Philadelphia Flyer.
by PursuitOfLappyness on Dec 14, 2010 2:44 AM EST up reply actions
you never do see them together…
"In fact, it is probably safe to say, the statement "I am a hockey fan" is the same as "I hate gary bettman."- bfrank27
by Mike B on D on Dec 14, 2010 10:00 AM EST up reply actions
Short term thinking
I just think the Flyers are incapable of thinking for the long run. It’s in the culture of the organization, and originates with Snider. Every year, they want to push the pedal to the floor to get to the Stanley Cup. Some years, like last year that works pretty well; a lot of other years, not so much. This is why they never have draft choices.
Of course, this is also why Adirondack stinks.
This is also the attitude many Americans had in 2007, having interest only loans and using their house as an ATM.
It’s also this risk-taking philosophy and “who cares about next year” that would put Lappy on LTIR…this way they get to keep ALL of the players. Despite my .sig, I will be surprised if ANYONE is traded….UNLESS someone is injured. Then, of course, an Umbergerian trade will be forced upon them.
And after all, they think the cap is going up, and there will be plenty of room for both bonuses and locking up Ville….(hockey players are not necessarily good at math).
Thinking about asking my employer for an 11-year contract.
Trade Leighton.
by Bud in TN on Dec 13, 2010 10:16 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
I’m with you. If anything, I think this is them putting all chips down for this year. Yes, that means they think Matt Walker is a crucial depth defenseman who could help win a Stanley Cup.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Dec 13, 2010 10:18 PM EST up reply actions
We always seem to agree…apparently I’m redundant. :-))
But maybe not so much on my next post….
Thinking about asking my employer for an 11-year contract.
Trade Leighton.
You’re not redundant at all. And I do agree with your next post. I like to play it fast and loose.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Dec 13, 2010 10:26 PM EST up reply actions
I’m with both of you, as much as I wish they’d see the light and know that better decisions could be made.
by DragonGirl0583 on Dec 13, 2010 10:23 PM EST up reply actions
Geoff's study habits
I thought about posting this as an addendum to my “short term thinking” post, but I’m hoping it really isn’t in the same vein..but I just graded about 140 papers and I really do think that even though we are in different states and he is in a different grad program that Geoff is one of my students….Geoff are you really Jared A. or Leonard L. in my strategy course?? On BSH 40 minutes before the final???? Yikes.
Thinking about asking my employer for an 11-year contract.
Trade Leighton.
lol I admit, I may have a problem. But if you don’t know it 40 minutes before, how are you going to know it 40 minutes later?
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Dec 13, 2010 10:26 PM EST up reply actions
The next Flyers move
If we have 8 defensemen but only 3 goalies, can another move be far behind to get a mentor for Bob
/jk, I think
Thinking about asking my employer for an 11-year contract.
Trade Leighton.

by 





















