Article: Can Bill Guerin Walk A Second Salary Cap Tightrope In 2025?

[Tony Abbott]

View full article

[UncleWalt]

I just don’t understand the plan. How many third line wingers do the Wild need?

 

On a positive note, Dom’s model sees a bounce back from Gus! The rating is top 15-17 for goalies. Average goaltending. That would be amazing. 

[Imyourhuckleberry]

I fail to see how Marcus Johansson produced positive value. Of 327 NHL forwards who played over 11 even strength minutes per game for more than 11 games, he ranked 269th in points/60. He routinely played top 6 minutes, but produced bottom 6 value.

If he provided anything else on the hockey rink that is useful, like checking, defensive acumen, creative puck distribution, or won faceoffs at a high rate, I could maybe see a case for positive value. I don't know how he's valued at $2.5M. That's ahead of Foligno who provides defense, checking, and general toughness that goes well above his point value, and Foligno's point per 60 even strength ranked 169th among that list of 327 forwards.

His model has issues. I don't disagree with the overall assessment that the Wild have overspent for players who ideally play outside of their top 6, but I disagree with how his model values players given those details.

Foligno had 10 goals and 22 points in 55 games(finishing +10 on the season), playing fewer minutes per game. Johansson had 11 goals and 29 points in 78 games(finishing -15 on the season). He rates Foligno at $1.6M in value but has Johansson at $2.5M in value.

[UncleWalt]

2 hours ago, Imyourhuckleberry said:

His model has issues. I don't disagree with the overall assessment that the Wild have overspent for players who ideally play outside of their top 6, but I disagree with how his model values players given those details.

It’s gotta be his age curves. Foligno was valued at $4M at the end of last season. Johansson was at $2.5. Apparently it’s predicting Foligno falls off the table over four years while Johansson only has the year left. 
Trenin was at !3M at the end of last year. Maybe his drop is QoT? I’m not sure. 

[WHockey]

Yeah 2025 is still gonna be tight unless they unload Spurgeon or get really creative.  Billy tied himself into 2025 with those NMC's.  After 2025 they can start to create more space though. 

I agree with the take that for the Wild to go anywhere in 2025 it is gonna have to come from the young guys.  It would have been nice to be more free and clear after 2024.  Let's hope those Vets make Billy look like the smartest GM ever.

[Patrick]

7 hours ago, Imyourhuckleberry said:

I fail to see how Marcus Johansson produced positive value. Of 327 NHL forwards who played over 11 even strength minutes per game for more than 11 games, he ranked 269th in points/60. He routinely played top 6 minutes, but produced bottom 6 value...

 

It's amazing to me how many people perceive value based on whether a player performs higher or lower than their skill set.  Foligno is choppy and ham fisted with a BLOATED salary but because he LOOKS like he is overachieving people love him.  Johansson is the opposite. He is buttery smooth with a very appropriate contract but because he LOOKS like he should be a 30 goal scorer people hate him.  Make it make sense.

[Imyourhuckleberry]

2 hours ago, Patrick said:

Johansson is the opposite. He is buttery smooth with a very appropriate contract but because he LOOKS like he should be a 30 goal scorer people hate him.  Make it make sense.

I don't like Johansson much because the only above average skill he has is skating. Everything else he does below average and the results are often losing hockey. Foligno doesn't have incredible skill, but he strong defensively and makes the game more difficult for his opponent.

In general, Johansson makes the game easier for the opposition. I'm not even suggesting that Johansson's contract is terrible, but I'd put his value closer to $1, and I just don't see any surplus value as opposed to what the model says.

I'd rather play all other forwards the Wild have signed ahead of Johansson. He isn't high skill, he was never a physical forward, he's bad on defense, and he's the 2nd oldest forward on the roster. There's no upside.

[Patrick]

8 hours ago, Imyourhuckleberry said:

I don't like Johansson much because the only above average skill he has is skating. Everything else he does below average and the results are often losing hockey. Foligno doesn't have incredible skill, but he strong defensively and makes the game more difficult for his opponent.

In general, Johansson makes the game easier for the opposition. I'm not even suggesting that Johansson's contract is terrible, but I'd put his value closer to $1, and I just don't see any surplus value as opposed to what the model says.

I'd rather play all other forwards the Wild have signed ahead of Johansson. He isn't high skill, he was never a physical forward, he's bad on defense, and he's the 2nd oldest forward on the roster. There's no upside.

You are literally making my point. One plays "above" his skill set but is 2x overpaid and you like him. The other plays "below" and is appropriately paid but you value him at zero.

[Tony Abbott]

I think the hard part of evaluating Johansson is separating the impact he has on the team from the frustration I feel watching him play. I think he's worse than some of his analytics have him at, but also, I get frustrated watching him play.

[Will D. Ness]

Value isn't exclusive to dollar bills. 

The value as I see it is the impact they bring in their respective roles.  

I think people hate NoJo because he plays a top 6 role, and is ineffective both offensively and defensively and plays with lackluster effort.  The opportunity lost here is more valuable than his salary.

I guess you could argue that the fault lies with the coach in continuing to put him in that role and the GM continuing to give him a contract.

[Up North Guy]

1 hour ago, Tony Abbott said:

I think the hard part of evaluating Johansson is separating the impact he has on the team from the frustration I feel watching him play. I think he's worse than some of his analytics have him at, but also, I get frustrated watching him play.

It's ok for both, no?

[Dean]

Great article! 

[Imyourhuckleberry]

3 hours ago, Patrick said:

You are literally making my point. One plays "above" his skill set but is 2x overpaid and you like him. The other plays "below" and is appropriately paid but you value him at zero.

I'm not sure you have a point. If you do, I'm sure not making it for you. You're arguing that the offensive player is worth his lower level contract, but he isn't. He is a replacement level player making over double replacement level contracts.

Outside of penalty kill(where he played just 27 minutes and had one of the highest scoring rates against on the team), Johansson played 1212 minutes and recorded just 11 goals and 9 primary assists along with 10 secondary assists. Those minutes included about 147 PP minutes and one of the lower scoring rates on the PP. That's .99 primary points per 60 when not on the PK. In the 147 PP minutes, he had 1 goal and 5 assists, which is almost the entirety of the scoring difference.

Outside of penalty kill(where he played about 117 minutes and an average scoring rate against), Foligno played just 680 minutes and recorded 10 goals and 8 primary assists with 4 secondary assists. Foligno played only 28 minutes of PP hockey, and we can assume none of that was with line 1.  That's 1.59 primary points per 60 when not on the PK.

The strong defensive player here scores far more frequently despite much worse situations for scoring. Foligno post points about 30% more frequently. Johansson plays on scoring lines and adds next to nothing.

If you want to argue both are overpaid by $1M, I could live with that argument, but to suggest that Foligno is grossly overpaid while Johansson is earning his check is simply false and a ridiculous notion.

Foligno is hard to play against, scores at a higher pace, and defensively is near elite while Johansson is near the bottom of the barrel. I don't even like calling him out for it that much since he's only around for 1 more season, but your argument just doesn't hold water.

If the model is promoting Johansson's salary simply for minutes played, that's the only thing that makes sense, but his minutes led to one of the worst goal differentials on the team. Foligno did miss a lot of time, but when he's on the ice, he was basically worth his contract serving his role better than most of the other players on the Wild can while Johansson was very replaceable. The Wild collected 59% of even strength goals with Foligno(+9) on the ice even strength while they collected just 44% of the even strength goals with Johansson(-10).

Gaudreau was the only forward with a worse even strength +/- than Johansson. Most of the players lower than Johansson are already off the team, and we know Gaudreau was playing hurt most of the year. I'm not going to argue Gaudreau was better, but I wouldn't be surprised if Gaudreau is better in the upcoming season. Khusnutdinov is the only other forward lower than Johansson in even strength goal % still on the team, and he was just getting his first taste of NHL action on a minimum deal.

[mnfaninnc]

23 hours ago, Imyourhuckleberry said:

I fail to see how Marcus Johansson produced positive value. Of 327 NHL forwards who played over 11 even strength minutes per game for more than 11 games, he ranked 269th in points/60. He routinely played top 6 minutes, but produced bottom 6 value.

In looking at the chart above, the chart is for coming into the season last year. So it would have been an August '23 chart. I don't know why Tony didn't give us a chart for '24 but maybe he can provide one?

Now, based on the lousy years some of the vets had, they have fallen in value. But look at what is interesting:

• Hartman was valued at $5.4m, we signed him for $4m
• Zuccarello was valued at $7m, we signed him for $4.XXm
• Johansson was valued at $2.8m, we signed him for $2m
• Freddy was valued at $2.1m and that's what we signed him for
• Spurgeon was still valued about $400k above his salary, yet what did we get out of him

I think this whole chart shows that on paper, we looked to be in great shape, but injuries had a real bad effect on this roster in '23-24. Even the last year of the Foligno contract doesn't look that bad. 

Now, with Guerin, I think what he paid was for past performance instead of performance ahead. Most GMs end up paying for past performance, not projected performance. We will be paying Kaprizov based on what he's done, not on what he's going to do. The contract resignings that Guerin made look to be very much in line with their market value. Also, Foligno was out injured in '22-23 lowering his value number, which may come in closer to $4m had he played a full season. 

Look at Goligoski who wasn't even worth vet minimum last season, yet they have him listed at $2.2m. This is probably an exercise in futility for older players, because when you're in decline, you just can't put up numbers like you did the prior year. What would be an interesting study is what someone thinks (this year) our roster will put up. And then at the end of the season see how close they came to the predictions and how close that came to their salary value. 

We can certainly see that actual contract value, due to injury, took severe hits last season, the biggest probably being Spurgeon. 

 

[Imyourhuckleberry]

4 minutes ago, mnfaninnc said:

In looking at the chart above, the chart is for coming into the season last year. So it would have been an August '23 chart.

He linked the 2024 chart, but it would be behind a paywall for anyone that doesn't have a subscription for The Athletic. I've been commenting based upon the 2024 chart, but realize that not everyone would have access to it.

19. Minnesota Wild

Last season: 6th

[mnfaninnc]

4 hours ago, Will D. Ness said:

I guess you could argue that the fault lies with the coach in continuing to put him in that role and the GM continuing to give him a contract.

Until Dino and Ohgren came over, Heinzy had little choice with his depleted lineup. It's not like he could have elevated Lucchini or Lettieri. The kids in Iowa didn't look good either. So, what do you do? Heinzy put all his eggs in one basket. He prayed the other lines could stay even.

[mnfaninnc]

6 minutes ago, Imyourhuckleberry said:

He linked the 2024 chart, but it would be behind a paywall for anyone that doesn't have a subscription for The Athletic. I've been commenting based upon the 2024 chart, but realize that not everyone would have access to it.

Thanks, this makes way more sense. Why don't they rank the guys on ELCs?

Also, how far does anyone think that Zuccarello contract is going to fall this year if he's off Kaprizov's line? I see why Foligno is so low, this model does not account much for injury, in fact, you are penalized if you are injured. Well, that's what it looked like to me until I saw Spurgeon's number where he wasn't penalized. I'm very confused with the model, to me, it doesn't fully value certain aspects that players bring.

[Pewterschmidt]

22 hours ago, Will D. Ness said:

and is ineffective both offensively and defensively and plays with lackluster effort.

…and he avoids contact to the point that he takes himself out of a play…..it’s the off season so I’m having trouble mustering up some mojo hate. 

[nonameprovided]

This model completely devalues defensive contributions as well as experience. JEE valued at 8.8M while Boldy is 11M? Then you look at Fleury at 800k? This model can be fun for teams who have a young team that doesn't play defense, but there is value to stacking your bottom 6 with gritty vets who can limit their minutes while allowing ELC players to develop in the top 6 and eat up minutes. It's like this site just wants to whine about everything. 

[WheelSnipeCelly]

On a separate yet more optimistic note, Ranks Stats has the Wild's pipeline ranked #3 in the NHL despite Rossi and Faber graduating, and has the prospects graded as such:

1. A- Zeev Buium, LHD 
2. A- Jesper Wallstedt, G
3. A- Danila Yurov, RW/C
4. B- Liam Öhgren, LW
5. B- Riley Heidt, LW
6. B- Marat Khusnutdinov, C
7. C+ Ryder Ritchie, RW
8. C Aron Kiviharju, LHD
9. C Daemon Hunt, LHD
10. C- Carson Lambos, LHD
11. C- Mikey Milne, LW
12. C- Graeme Clarke, RW
13. C- Rieger Lorenz, LW
14. C- Charlie Stramel, RW

I know this is kind of counting chickens before the eggs hatch, but I do appreciate the change in mentality from Chuck Fletcher to Billy Guerin with actually having a decently stacked prospect pool vs. a depleted one. Also interesting that O'Rourke, Peart, and Spacek didn't even crack the top-14. 

[Up North Guy]

16 hours ago, WheelSnipeCelly said:

On a separate yet more optimistic note, Ranks Stats has the Wild's pipeline ranked #3 in the NHL despite Rossi and Faber graduating, and has the prospects graded as such:

1. A- Zeev Buium, LHD 
2. A- Jesper Wallstedt, G
3. A- Danila Yurov, RW/C
4. B- Liam Öhgren, LW
5. B- Riley Heidt, LW
6. B- Marat Khusnutdinov, C
7. C+ Ryder Ritchie, RW
8. C Aron Kiviharju, LHD
9. C Daemon Hunt, LHD
10. C- Carson Lambos, LHD
11. C- Mikey Milne, LW
12. C- Graeme Clarke, RW
13. C- Rieger Lorenz, LW
14. C- Charlie Stramel, RW

I know this is kind of counting chickens before the eggs hatch, but I do appreciate the change in mentality from Chuck Fletcher to Billy Guerin with actually having a decently stacked prospect pool vs. a depleted one. Also interesting that O'Rourke, Peart, and Spacek didn't even crack the top-14. 

Worrisome that there are only three defensemen on the list besides Buium and they areal middle of the pack.

[TheGoosesAreLooses]

On 7/28/2024 at 9:01 AM, nonameprovided said:

Then you look at Fleury at 800k?

Yep. Based on his play this is what Fleury is worth. He was bound to have an age based decline at some point and it happened. We overpaid based on pedigree not on play and that is on our front office. I think we would have been better to hire him on as a goalie coach and run with a Wall/Bus tandem but i digress. 

[Pewterschmidt]

1 hour ago, TheGoosesAreLooses said:

Yep. Based on his play this is what Fleury is worth. He was bound to have an age based decline at some point and it happened. We overpaid based on pedigree not on play and that is on our front office. I think we would have been better to hire him on as a goalie coach and run with a Wall/Bus tandem but i digress. 

We might need to consider Fleury part of the apathetic old core problem here, but I won't do that because I believe Guerin value's him as a tutor for Wallstedt and eventually a suit wearing Wild employee.  Difficult to measure Fleury's value.  But he's another contract that doesn't really make a difference during hockey games.  5 years ago, sure?  His years with the Wild, not really a difference maker.  Again Yurov has to come over and be 97 2.0 or Guerin's bad decisions begin to compound.