Jump to content
Hockey Wilderness
  • Can Bill Guerin Walk A Second Salary Cap Tightrope In 2025?


    Image courtesy of Isaiah J. Downing-USA TODAY Sports
    Tony Abbott

    Just a year ago, the Minnesota Wild had one of the cleanest salary cap pictures in the NHL. Despite having two years of Zach Parise and Ryan Suter's dead money counting against them, Dom Luszczyszyn ranked the Wild as the sixth-most efficient spenders in the NHL. A quick look at their contracts made it obvious why.

    image.png

    Their three best players, Matt Boldy, Joel Eriksson Ek, and Kirill Kaprizov, were their three best contracts, and it wasn't close. Beyond that, almost everyone was either on a contract at a decent value, short-term, or both. When your worst contract is a one-year, $1 million pact with Patrick Maroon, that's an excellent spot to be in.

    There's one fewer year of cap hell from the Parise/Suter buyouts. Still, the Wild have fallen precipitously in Luszczyszyn's rankings. This year, the contracts on the books earned a collective grade of a C, ranking 19th overall in the NHL. They have tumbled 13 places, the biggest year-to-year drop of any team in the league.

    Remember how Maroon was the worst contract on the team last year? Just 12 months later, there are four contracts on Minnesota's books that earn a lower grade. A down year for Freddy Gaudreau bumps his deal from a B-minus to a C-minus. Yakov Trenin, the Wild's biggest free agent this offseason, got a deal that is worth about half as much as his projected value. That deal gets a D-plus grade. Then Marcus Foligno and Jake Middleton's new extensions earned solid D and D-minus grades, respectively.

    It won't surprise anyone who's been reading Hockey Wilderness for the past year or so. Still, seeing the numbers like that should serve as a final slap of reality to anyone who needs it. Bill Guerin just completed a speedrun of blowing up his cap picture

    It sounds counterintuitive, but slapping on those buyout handcuffs seemed to be the best thing for Guerin. Bill Guerin squeezed value out of cheap deals with Ryan Hartman, Foligno, and Gaudreau with aplomb. Moving a soon-to-be $7.8 million winger in Fiala and getting a top-pairing defenseman on an ELC in Brock Faber was a masterstroke. Minnesota's cap crisis undoubtedly influenced discounts on Boldy and Eriksson Ek.

    Limitations can create great, innovative moves. Now that we see Guerin operate a salary cap without handicaps -- remember, many of these deals extend well past the worst of the Parise/Suter buyout penalties fall off -- we have more to point to the idea that these limitations forced Guerin into shrewd moves, rather than Guerin being a particularly shrewd GM.

    Just look at some of these projected shortfalls from these contracts. Despite making only $2.1 million annually, the Wild are poised to get an annual deficit of minus-$1.3 million surplus value over the next four years. Combine that with the deficits projected from Trenin ($1.8 million), Foligno ($2.4 million), and Middleton ($2.9 million), and that adds up to about $8.4 million per year of value those four deals flush away.

    As great as Boldy and Eriksson Ek's contracts are (a combined $7.5 million in surplus for the next five seasons), we see that Guerin's four recent bad deals negate his best ones entirely.

    Perhaps you can say that it's okay if those deals more-or-less offset each other to something close to a break-even point. What that assessment doesn't factor in, though, is opportunity cost. In other words, what would you spend with an extra $7.5-$8.4 million to throw around?

    Turns out, the Wild could get a pretty good player if they had that surplus value freed up. Last offseason, the Detroit Red Wings were able to essentially sign-and-trade for Alex DeBrincat, a two-time 40-goal scorer who put up 27 goals last season. His cap hit comes in at $7.88 million. The Vegas Golden Knights got Tomas Hertl ($8.14 million AAV) and Noah Hanifin (extended for eight years, $7.35 AAV) at the most recent trade deadline.

    Even looking forward, if those Brady Tkachuk trade rumors that are definitely bogus, according to the Ottawa Senators, end up being not-so-bogus, his cap hit would end up being $8.21 million. If the Wild want to make a Nashville Predators-type free agent splash in the 2025 class, that surplus value would sure come in handy.

    Sure, these are all hypotheticals and what-ifs, but part of the reason moves where Minnesota could make a true splash in a post-Parise/Suter Cap Apocalypse world are off the table is because Guerin likely spent his windfall already, and poorly. 

    It's left the Wild in a position where they will rely heavily on Judd Brackett to get this team over the hump. You've got to find surplus value somewhere to contend, and it's going to be on the backs of players on Entry-Level Contracts. The Liam Öhgrens, Riley Heidts, Danila Yurovs, Jesper Wallstedts, and Zeev Buiums of the world are going to have to maximize those ultra-cheap years. While we saw Matt Boldy and Brock Faber deliver big during their ELC years, we've seen that that doesn't always happen, even with players who turn into studs.

    It's possible for this team to break through and enjoy a deep playoff or even Stanley Cup run. However, the most disappointing part of all this is how thin the margin for errors is, thanks to many self-inflicted mistakes. Hopefully, that tendency to work magic while having to shop in the discount bin appears again for Guerin because it's looking increasingly more like he'll need to pull those rabbits out of his hat, even without the Parise/Suter anchors weighing his cap down.

    Think you could write a story like this? Hockey Wilderness wants you to develop your voice, find an audience, and we'll pay you to do it. Just fill out this form.

    • Like 2

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    Featured Comments

    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. 

    • Like 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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.

    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSHibEoNp1OKOgpOuM8LGz

    • Like 5
    • Thanks 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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.

    • Like 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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.

    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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.

    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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. 

     

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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

    Screenshot-2024-07-18-at-4.29.50%E2%80%A

    Last season: 6th

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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. 

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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. 

    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...