What Should Brian Burke Do (Part IV)?

Editor's Note: Here is the fourth part of The '67 Sound's analysis of what moves Brian Burke should make beginning tomorrow. Part I looked at the basis on which he was evaluating the Leafs' roster, part II he looked at the current, established NHLers on the roster, and part three tried to project out what the Leafs' have in terms of their top prospects. Now it's up to the question of What Should Brian Burke Do?

Having looked at what the Leafs have, and what they need, here without further ado are my humble suggestions for how to go about filling those holes.

The name of the game in a salary-capped world is efficiency.  You need to maximize production and minimize cost for every player.  So what exactly is an efficient player?  I calculated this by figuring out what a team needs, what they have to spend, and dividing the two.

Since I'm using GVT as my primary sorting tool, I need to know what "team GVT" will make you a contender.  The "threshold" in "goals versus threshold" is what a team of marginal NHL players would produce.  The worst team in the NHL this year, the Oilers, were -70 in goal differential.  They were better than a threshold team, which would be composed exclusively of players readily available from the AHL or waiver market.  The Oilers weren't that bad--so let's set the bottom limit at 150% of the Oilers, or -105.  By how much does a contender need to exceed that?  The top 8 teams this year in goal differential had an average of +44.  Our team therefore needs to have a GVT of 150 - 150 better than the threshold of -105, not a +150 goal differential, mind you - to be a contender.  As a reality check, last year the Canucks were 170, the Sharks 165, and the Devils 145.  150 sounds about right for "legitimate contender".  The Leafs, by the way, were 67.  There's a long way to go.

The question of what a team has to spend is easier: $59.4MM.  What about "versus threshold"?  I figure a "threshold" player makes $750,000-a little above league minimum.  So salary floor aside, I am estimating that a hypothetical team of "threshold" players, making $750,000/player, would make $17.25MM and be outscored by 105 goals.  A contender needs to get a GVT of +150 (or put differently, a goal differential of +45, which is 150 above the threshold of -105) out of the $42.15 it has to spend above the minimum threshold.  In simplest terms, you need 3.5 GVT/$1MM above threshold.  Remember the threshold: this means that a player with a 3.5 GVT should be worth $1MM plus the $750,000 threshold salary.

This gives us a sorting tool for potential UFAs.  I've gone through the lists, and come up with several players with solid GVTs for their salaries last year.  I've also indicated their "efficient salary", meaning they satisfy the 3.5GVT/1$MM test I outlined above.

And just for fun:

Disclaimer: I do not claim the "efficient salaries" I have listed are the right number for these players.  It is a crude tool, and much more sophisticated analysis of scouting reports and advanced stats would be necessary to figure out a player's actual value.  To give one example, Anton Volchenkov's GVT of 5.1 last year would suggest an "efficient salary" of $2.2MM.  Given the hard minutes he plays, he's obviously worth more (though not anything close to $5MM I would argue).  I came up with "efficient salary" just to get a ballpark figure that will be appropriate for most players.

There are risks with all these players.  Malhotra is coming off a career year and probably is not as good as he looked.  Torres is aging in dog years.  Belanger played with the Capitals so his statistics may be inflated.  Sim has been terrible in previous years.  Hendricks and Nystrom only have one good year under their belts.  The only two relatively reliable bets here are Lombardi and Armstrong, and both are likely to cost significantly more than the "efficient salary" figures I have indicated.

The riskiness of UFA signings is enhanced by looking at past experience.  I looked at UFA signings from two years ago, and was not surprised to see that the overwhelming majority of the signings have been disappointments (the four top signings that year? Brian Campbell, Wade Redden, Cristobal Huet and Brian Rolston.  Four of the worst contracts in the NHL).  The only signings from that year that I would call successes (other than re-signings, which tend to be less risky), are Mark Streit, Cory Stillman, Niklas Hagman, Glen Metropolit, Ty Conklin and Brian Boucher.  Six out of 40.

So the question is, do you want to play UFA roulette with Colby Armstrong or Matt Lombardi?  My answer is no.  If I am going to overpay, I want it to be for a difference maker.  I want it to be for someone who will play over 20 minutes per game.  I want it to be for someone who will make everyone around him better, both by his play on the ice, and by shifting everyone else down in the depth chart so that they can play softer minutes.  I want it to be for as close to sure thing as you can get.

Let me show you three more names that have been associated with the Leafs:

Kovalchuk will probably cost between $6.5-8.0MM, depending on how long a tail you can put on his contract.  While he's arguably overpaid compared to the "efficient salary", particularly if you consider some of the advanced stats Gabe Desjardins has recently posted indicating that Kovalchuk plays relatively soft minutes, recall that UFAs will always be relatively overpaid, and ELCs relatively underpaid, with RFAs around the middle.  He's also about as close to a sure thing as you can find.  For six straight years he's posted a GVT of 14.5 to 21.7, played at least 76 games, and scored at least 41 goals.  Frankly, I do not mind overpaying an elite player like Kovalchuk by a million or two. 

For Savard, his GVT was actually 7.6 in 41 games; I doubled it for a full season total.  His previous four years he averaged 16.5.  Savard's cap hit is $4MM.  He is exceptional value, though there are risks given his age and injury history. 

Ribeiro's figure is based on normalizing last year's figure to 82 games (he played 66) and averaging with 2008/2009.  This is to be generous to him given his relatively poor 2009/2010.  Still, his $5MM salary makes him overpaid compared to his "efficient salary".  Less overpaid than Kovalchuk is likely to be, but here is where statistics yield to philosophies of how to build a team.  I would rather overpay a 27 year old elite talent than a 30 year old second-tier talent, particularly because acquiring the latter ties up cap space and harms your chances of ever getting the former.

Here's the bottom line.  As Mirtle pointed out in the Globe this morning, 18 of the 30 highest scorers in the league last year are locked up through at least 2013/14.  24 of 30 are still with the team that drafted them.  Elite offensive talent simply does not become available very often.  This is one of those times.  Ilya freaking Kovalchuk is available, in his prime.  Moreover, unlike Savard and Ribeiro, you give up nothing to get him.

If Kovalchuk can't be signed and Savard can't be traded for, I would effectively sit out free agency until the initial flurry is done, and then try to fill holes with short-term contracts for players who slipped through the cracks.  Bargains are never found at the outset of free agency.  As Duhatschek quoted George McPhee this morning, "You're almost always better off sitting back and being smart about it.  Almost all of us have experienced that signing where you sign the guy and six months later, you're going, 'Why did we do that?'"  Leafs fans should be nodding vigourously now.  Save your cap space for a trade, or next year's UFA market.  Do not, please for the love of God do NOT throw around $3MM+ contracts to glorified third liners.

***

So here is the bottom line.  We do not have that many holes to fill.  The defence is relatively set, and we have 11 serviceable NHL forwards.  Adding a third liner will have no noticeable impact on the team.  A third liner, at best, can expect to have a GVT around 5.  We need to improve by about +80 compared to last year (from our +67 up to +150 for "contender" status).  Probably +40 of that can be made by substituting .915 goaltending (worth about +20 GVT) for the -18 we received combined from Toskala, Gustavsson and MacDonald.  A big "if", but not inconceivable.  Another +10 can come from improvements by a young roster, a bounceback from Komisarek, and the introduction of a player like Kadri.  Again, conceivable.  This alone could push us to bubble status.  The other +30 will not be made up by Colby Armstrong or Raffi Torres.  It can be made up by Ilya Kovalchuk and Marc Savard.

Make it happen, Burke.