Where The Leafs Want To Be
July 30th, 2008 by Steve
On Wednesday, Valtteri Filppula was signed to a $15 million, 5 year contract by the Detroit Red Wings. He’s 24 years old; he plays Left Wing and Centre; he has oodles of talent and upside; and he’s only going to become more well rounded as he grows into his future role with the Stanley Cup Champs. He has played 2 seasons with the Red Wings, registering 29 goals and 54 points in 155 games (0.19 gpg, 0.35 ppg). In the playoffs he already has 8 goals and 16 points in 40 career games. Prior to his time in the NHL, he had 1 full season with the Grand Rapids Griffins of the AHL, scoring 20 goals and 70 points in 70 games. He also played 2 full seasons with Jokerit Helsinki in the Finnish Elite League, scoring 15 goals and 48 points in 104 games over 2 seasons.
Most of that should sound relatively familiar to Leafs fans. Alex Steen played 2 and a half full seasons with Frolunda, and another year with Modo in the Swedish Elite League, scoring 24 goals and 59 points in 169 games (the Modo season was during the lockout year, so the competition was a bit stiffer in the SEL). Rather than playing in the AHL when he came over, Steen jumped right to the NHL and scored 18 goals, and 45 points as a rookie. He has put up 48 goals and 122 points in 233 total NHL games (0.20 gpg, 0.52 ppg). Unfortunately he has never played in an NHL playoff game.
Basically the two are relatively similar players, though Filppula projects to be a bit more of a goal scorer, and Steen a bit more of a play maker. The divergence arises in the type of contract the Leafs have handed Steen, and the type of deal just signed by Filppula and the Wings. Steen is signed to a two year $3.4 million dollar deal; Filppula is now signed to a 5 year $15 million dollar deal. Filppula is making an average of $3 million a year, Steen is making $1.7 million a year.
Just to illustrate the different directions the two clubs are taking with their future players, Filppula is now the 3rd highest paid forward on the Red Wings (he’ll be making more than Zetterberg, Holmstrom, and Franzen next season). Steen is the 7th highest paid forward on the Leafs, behind Jason Blake, Nik Hagman, Mark Bell, Alexei Ponikarovsky, Nik Antropov and Matt Stajan. The irony here is, Filppula ranked 8th amongst the Red Wing forwards in his point production last season, while Steen ranked 4th amongst the Leafs forwards in point production. It should also be noted that Mats Sundin is currently NOT under contract to the Leafs, so of the forwards on the current roster, Steen actually ranked 3rd in points. If Steen continues to improve his production, in 2 years he’ll be one of the Leafs top two or three scorers, and he’ll be due almost $5 or 6 million a season if they are forced to negotiate at market prices. At that point, the Leafs will be paying more than double what Detroit is for a fairly equivalent player.
Detroit will obviously give Henrik Zetterberg and Johan Franzen sizable raises a year from now. But at that point, Marian Hossa and Kris Draper will be coming off the roster (unless Hossa decides to return for another year at a discount). Pavel Datsyuk and Tomas Holmstrom will still be under contract.
Toronto has Hagman and Blake locked in until 2012-’13. No other forwards on the roster are signed beyond 2009-’10. If they had foresight, I would think locking up Steen makes perfect sense, especially if you can sign him at a discount down the line. Overpay a bit immediately and bank on his continued improvement and growth so that in 4 or 5 years you are UNDER-paying the player. That is what Detroit does fairly successfully over and over again. Consider that Pavel Datsyuk is signed for $6.7 million for the next 6 seasons, and Dan Cleary is locked up for $2.8 million a year over the next 5 years. Rafalski, Stuart, and Kronwall are all signed to reasonable deals through the 2011-’12 season.
In the end, I suppose the Leafs can’t lock players in to long term deals at a discount until they prove to said players that they’re improving on the ice. Here’s hoping they make the right moves to go in that direction long term. Let’s avoid over-paying veteran free agents so we can push to lock up the players we develop locally into stars.
Posted in Uncategorized
16 Responses to “Where The Leafs Want To Be”
By eyebleaf
on Jul 30, 2008
you think steen would have benefited from a full season in the minors?
By Steve
on Jul 30, 2008
Not particularly. His year with Modo basically served the same function.
I think the main issue is, the Leafs should have locked him up for a bit more than 2 years, and I think he should be making more than $1.7 mill a year. The fact that Stajan is making more than Steen is a bit of a joke frankly.
By LeaferSutherland
on Jul 31, 2008
I think you can attribute his deal with the swinging door up top. Fletch really couldn’t hand over a long term deal (the first deal he managed to get done) and then step aside for the next guy to come in, could he?
You might recall that back when Steen was signed, Fletch was still considered an interim.
By Jordy
on Jul 31, 2008
I think any long term deal for an as-yet unproven player would have been seen as another disaster by leaf nation.
I think Detroit has built up a system where they can make deals like this due to their crop of players and team. Detroit has Zetterberg, Holmstrom, Franzen, Datsyuk, Cleary, Draper and now Hossa. Filppula will thrive with those players…and if he doesn’t, can be unloaded.
Toronto has no such crop of talent and unfortunately has a recent history of ‘take-a-chance’ contracts that do not pan out. I think Steen’s contract will be reasonable in the long run. He may not develop fully for another couple of years in which case they still might get him at a bargain. The worse that can happen as far as I see it is they pay him what he’s worth which, for the current Leafs, would be better than what they have now.
By Chemmy on Jul 31, 2008
Isn’t Steen an RFA at the end of this contract? You don’t need to overpay for an RFA, since if someone else wants to pay more than $3m a year we’ll take their first rounder.
By Marco
on Jul 31, 2008
I like Steen a lot, you get kids complaining about his lack of points but he brings nice solid defensive play and a solid effort every night.
I would definitely love to see Steen here long term.
By Steve
on Jul 31, 2008
Steen and Filppula were in exactly the same boat. 24 years old, and both were RFA’s. Difference is, Detroit locked Valteri up for his first couple of UFA years, while Steen will be an RFA heading for unrestricted free agency in another season or two.
Basically the Leafs are setting themselves up for a potentially acrimonious arbitration down the line. Also it should be noted that the longer they leave signing Steen long term, the higher his value is likely to be when they do try to lock him up.
By Steve
on Jul 31, 2008
Chemmy - if we take a first rounder in 2 seasons for Steen, we’re idiots. Letting a proven commodity go in exchange for draft picks that won’t develop for another 2-5 years into an equivalent player is organizational suicide.
Steen IS a first rounder, and he’s developing quite solidly. The reason you lock up players like that is to keep them happy and convince other players around the league that Toronto treats players appropriately.
Unfortunately, the Leafs overpay for players who don’t deserve it, and underpay for those that do. They seem to do most things ass backwards.
Look at Kaberle vs. McCabe… or Steen vs. Stajan. Both are prime examples of the lesser player receiving more money. Why? Because they’re Canadian? Fans like them more? Who the heck knows… basically it’s like the lunatics running the nut house around here.
By bkblades
on Jul 31, 2008
Well, since Steen has a two year contract, I like to think if Steen does show a noticeable trend upwards in production and potential next year (and there’s no reason why he shouldn’t), the Leafs have an opportunity next year to extend Steen long term. Obviously, it wouldn’t be quite as cheap if the Leafs did it this year, but they do have a bit of leeway.
Besides, no matter how similar Filppula is to Steen, Detroit is still taking a chance he outperforms his new contract. There’s still risk involved, and let’s be honest, Filppula hasn’t proved a whole lot yet in the NHL. I think a great point was made by another poster stating that Detroit has a greater luxury to pay for potential because they pay so little for goaltending due to an all-time great d-man playing half the game. Of course, Detroit does a masterful job of contract and asset management, but there are certain factors in play here.
By Steve
on Jul 31, 2008
Here’s why I don’t buy that argument.
Detroit is paying it’s top 4 D men a combined $20.2 million dollars next season. Toronto is paying it’s top 4 D men a combined a combined $18.5 million.
Detroit is paying it’s top 6 forwards a combined $23 million next season. Toronto is paying it’s top 6 forwards a combined $14.6 million next season.
Detroit is paying it’s goaltenders $2.167 million next year. Toronto is paying it’s goaltenders $4.7 million next year.
For it’s top 12 players, Detroit is paying out $45.367 million, Toronto is paying out $37.8 million. A lot of Toronto’s cap space is chewed up in overpaid, “average” players. The one place they SHOULD be paying is at the premium positions. Top 6 forwards, top 4 D, and Goalies. Yes the Wings pay less for their goal tending, but the reason they do is because they’re paying for top end talent in front of it. It also becomes more skewed when you consider that they are currently UNDER-paying for Zetterberg, Holmstrom, and Franzen. Really Detroit’s top 12 players should be worth closer to $56 million.
Toronto basically has no real skill up front because they aren’t paying for it. Mats Sundin was their only premiere forward, and he was also the only forward making over $4 million last year. There’s a correlation here. On the back end they actually have a decent top 6, and they aren’t particularly over-paid.
The Leafs end up over-paying for mid-level forwards like Tucker, Blake, and Stajan, but they can’t find or keep talented forwards in the prime of their career (other than Sundin - who exited his prime about 2 or 3 years ago).
They need to anticipate where things are going, rather than constantly playing catch up.
By bkblades
on Jul 31, 2008
But that’s the point isn’t it? Both Zetterberg, and Franzen are currently underpaid because Detroit did exactly what they did with Filppula’s extension today. They’re paying a lot short-term for potential long-term savings. And they’re able to do that because their top D, Lidstrom, plays about 30 minutes a game and is one of the NHL’s all time best. Detroit’s model is unique and not easily duplicated because their team relies so heavily on Lidstrom to cover a lot of ground. As a result, Detroit is able to skim in other areas and pay large now for top 6 forwards. I don’t think there is another contender in the NHL that has only about $2 million tied up in goaltending.
Other teams with their extra cash will sign elite goaltending at upwards of $3.5 million and above, rather than spend the extra cash and overpay to lock up players who haven’t peaked yet, like Detroit.
Other teams are forced to play catch up because their hands are limited. You feel that Detroit can pay little for goaltending because they spend it on their top 6 forwards and top 4 D. I feel that Detroit is able to spend it on Top 6 forwards and fill out their Top 4 D because a hall of fame defenceman allows them to spend less than market value on 3rd line/4th players and especially, goaltending.
By bkblades
on Jul 31, 2008
^^
I should clarify that when I say, “I feel that Detroit…”, it isn’t exactly my opinion, so I can’t shamelessly take credit. While I happen to agree with it, it was an assessment from another poster that I’m relaying here.
By Steve
on Aug 1, 2008
Ok, I just can’t make the connection necessary with the sentiment that Detroit pays less for some of its players because it isn’t paying as much for goal tending. There’s no causation there. I pay less for goal tending so I can pay less for other stuff too? Is that the argument? If so, I’m not following it.
Also, I don’t think they’re paying substantially less for the goal tending than it is worth. I honestly don’t think Chris Osgood is worth $4 million dollars a year. His numbers that are so dominant are mainly a result of the team he has played for, and not of his personal talent or skill level.
In his 4 years without the Red Wings (2 on the Island, and 2 in St. Louis), his save percentage was a relatively pedestrian .905, and his GAA was a similarly typical 2.51. Not horrible numbers, but certainly far from Vezina Trophy calibre, and not nearly enough to convince me (or hopefully anyone) of a need to ensconce Osgood in the HHOF. (Does anyone else remember that lunacy from last season?)
The Red Wings have one of the best D men of all time in Lidstrom. They have a lot of other solid players including Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Holmstrom, Franzen, Rafalski, Kronwall, etc.
I guess my problem with the argument about how the Wings are successful because they can “afford to be” is that I think my entire point when I wrote this posting is that I want the Leafs to get to the same spot. You can evaluate future talent and under-pay for it early on, whether or not you have an All-Time calibre D man. That part of the equation is irrelevant. Evaluating players before they reach their prime and locking them in long term is just how you should build your team… it’s LOGICAL. I don’t think Lidstrom has much to do with that.
You’re arguing an entirely separate point when you talk about how the Wings can afford to pay more talented players because they don’t pay for goalies, or because they have Lidstrom… that doesn’t affect what I’m saying. Under-paying young talented players is not a result of paying less for Chris Osgood or having a 7 million dollar Nik Lidstrom. I feel they are mutually exclusive situations. That is just my opinion though. If you think Zetterberg was signed to a multi-year $2.6 million dollar deal, and they had Franzen locked in for under a million, just because Lidstrom and Osgood let the Wings do so, by all means, think that way. I just don’t see how the two are connected.
By HP
on Aug 1, 2008
Bottom line is Detroit does not overpay for players because they refuse to. Veterans like Osgood and Draper make almost nothing compared to what they’d make if they were on the leafs.
Detroti knows how to evaluate players, develop them and fit them into the team and salary structure.
All Leafs (or rather JFJ) did was go with the status quo by giving stupid contracts to Tucker,McCabe, Blake amoung others. They have no clue in evaluating or developing players. They could’ve had Finger for almost nothing a year ago in a trade but to get him now they had to give another stupid contract. Leafs payroll should be no where near the cap. Instead they should spend at least 10-15M below the cap for the next five years and use that savings on scouting and player development.
By bkblades
on Aug 1, 2008
Well, I don’t think my opinion, or at least the opinion I share with, isn’t flawless. But I do think Detroit’s model is not easily followed. When you have an all-time defenceman a team relies that heavily (main pp, pk, even strength player), a team can get away with doing things out of norm. Maybe you know this better than I do, but is there another team that consistently locks up players far before they do anything substantial at the NHL level other than Detroit? The NHL is such a “show me what you can do” system, most teams often pay after the fact. The Leafs are certainly guilty of it, but so have other teams. But when you have Lidstrom, who has been the best defenceman in the league for close to a decade now as the main fulcrum of your defensive system, Detroit only has to pay for above average goaltending. They don’t need elite production there because Lidstrom and whoever he plays with can cover so much ground.
While it seems logical to do what Detroit has been doing, laziness aside, I can’t think of another team that operates their team-building like Detroit does. As you said, it should be simple for teams to lock-up young talent early on. But rarely do teams do this. Why is that? While it is rather simplistic to say Lidstrom is one of the main reasons why Detroit can lock up young stars early on, I think it does play a huge part. Even if the players Detroit signs doesn’t turn out to be stars, Detroit’s assured of having a solid team because they have a Hall of Fame fall back on defence who controls nearly half the game in every possible way. There’s not much fear Detroit will bottom out with Lidstrom on the team and thus, the Red Wings can outlast a bloated contract and try again with another young player to hit stardom.
Now I know you’re likely done with this conversation, but I just wanted to say my final word before I move on.
By Chris
on Aug 2, 2008
If the leafs had signed steen for 3 mil a year the media would be all over them. If detroit does it to a similar player, its a great deal. Thats the kind of respect the wings organization has earned…if only we had that. I guess we gotta win something first eh?