Not Oilers Talk

Brian Burke and Darryl Sutter

There's been a lot to talk about the Oilers lately, but nothing other blogs haven't covered.  The past few days with no games for the Oilers have given me time to take a closer look at the league at large and especially the standings.  There are many ways a team can end up at the bottom of the standings - injuries, a flat-out bad roster, and mental reasons (morale, locker room attitude, players quit on the coach, etc.)  Most often, over an 82 game season, to truly plumb the depths of the NHL standings, it has to be a combination of many reasons.  With 30 teams and a season that's half a year long, simply losing your starting goaltender or being poorly built is not enough.  Many bad teams are riding on someone who should be a backup goalie (Tampa this year, Edmonton last year), or are without their star player (the Wild in their Gaborik era), or have a bad atmosphere in the locker room; you have to mix and match to become the worst of the worst.

That's why it's interesting to watch bad teams.  It takes an exceptionally lucky and sometimes even skilled general manager to build a team that wins the Cup.  By that logic, it shouldn't be as difficult to get out of the basement as it is to get in.  After all, if it takes such a combination of qualities to become a bottom feeder, a simple change in luck should turn things around.

Of course, it doesn't quite work that way.  The new CBA has really changed things around for general managers and I really feel for them.  Trades are pretty much gone, except at the trade deadline and in the off-season - and then usually only for expiring contracts.  Salary considerations for impact players on contending teams trump all.  Due to the Penguins, Capitals, and Blackhawks, bad teams want to get high draft picks and stockpile picks, not improve.  Due to the cap, good teams rarely have enough cap room available to get impact players.

So what do you do if you're Brian Burke or Darryl Sutter, two GMs sitting in two very hot seats?

Let's look at our close neighbour in Calgary today.  To put ourselves in the proper mindset, we need to imagine we're in the position of trying to run the Calgary Flames.  You have Jarome Iginla, now showing slight but consistent signs of decline yet still capable of taking over a game as your centerpiece.  Throw in Bouwmeester, Regehr, and Kiprusoff, you have a core of good players and you chose this past summer to build around them rather than blow it up.

In 2006-2007, Jim Playfair's only season as head coach in Calgary, the Flames ended up 8th in the West and were knocked out in 6 games by Detroit in a very strong Western Conference - they were the only team to make the show with less than 100 points.  Even the Minnesota Wild had 104.  Mike Keenan more or less reproduced these results over the next two years, with some minor touch-ups (the key difference being a significantly worse goal differential in the Keenan era).  After Darryl's brother Brent took over behind the bench in Calgary, the wheels basically came off the wagon.  The Flames arguably lost their playoff position in 2009-2010 with a 9-game losing streak in January, but they also padded their record by getting to stomp on an injured, uninspired, and small Oilers squad for six wins.

We are now Darryl Sutter.  What do we do?

There are the emotional and loyalty elements to consider - three of the four players you're building around are career Flames.  This matters.  It's not just a good story if loyal players in a small market like Calgary, in a hockey crazed country like Canada to boot, win the Cup.  As a GM or coach, you believe in your players.  Players, as often as we can regard many of them as mercenary and simply after the biggest contract they can find, do get attached to cities, homes, friends, neighbours, and even their organizations.  These bonds strengthen teams, they build connections with the fan base and make for great legends for decades down the line.  Putting business above all is bound to create a bad rep for a franchise, the way a player who just wants the stats in order to get a better contract creates his own problems.

Then you have the rational thinking.  Jarome Iginla is no spring chicken, and neither are Robyn Regehr or Miikka Kiprusoff.  Jay Bouwmeester had some nice seasons in Florida, but isn't the elite franchise defenceman that we believed him to be, but he has the third-highest cap hit among defencemen in the league.

The only time Darryl Sutter had a choice was in the off-season, when he might have traded two or even all three of his core, the career Flame players.  During the season itself, he'll have to wait for the deadline if he hopes to move anyone.  Regehr is speculated to be on the trade block, and with Calgary's latest 3-game losing streak, rumours are the team is about to be blown up.

So who do you trade, where do you trade them, and what do you get back?  Almost any team in need of an aging but skilled veteran is close to the cap, so you'll be taking back salary, and since the team you're trading with is contending, that salary will be under-performing and over-paid, especially if packaged with a high draft pick or blue chip prospect.

The LA Kings have been in the market for a while now, and would doubtless love to get their hands on Iginla, and would likely settle for Regehr.  With $4.4m in cap space, the Kings would need to shed salary in order to bring in either Iggie, but not Regehr.  The Flames might want Justin Williams and would love Dustin Brown back if they want an NHLer, but if the Kings are taking on Iginla they're going for a run and they won't give up a producers like those, especially not the just-hitting-his-prime Brown.  Handzus is in the last year of his contract and isn't doing well, but has a no-trade clause.  Alexei Ponikarovsky is the most likely contract to go, with $3.2m left, should Iginla be involved.

LA would have to give up several first rounders to get Iginla back, but that's betting a lot that he can help take them to the promised land.  Calgary would expect nothing less, but the Kings might not be so keen on giving up even two mid-late first rounders, who might end up being affordable roster players on ELCs in the future as Kopitar is in his prime.  It's a risky move for both sides, which simply adds to the difficulty of making a trade.

Forum speculation has listed the Rangers and Stars as possible destinations, but the former have little to offer Calgary in terms of tradeable contracts (the struggling Chris Drury has two more years left and has a NMC.)  The Stars have the cap room, but not the money, and Iginla has two more seasons left after this one at $7m.  Any contract the Stars can deal back that might ease the pain has a NTC attached to its name, with the possible exception of Mike Ribeiro, who doesn't help ease Calgary's situation that much.

For all the trade talk we fans like to make on forums, on the radio, at work, and at the bar, there are precious few options available, unless one side is really willing to take a gamble that their "overpayment" is going to work out.