If It Wasn't For That Contract...

You can call me crazy all you want, but I think Rick DiPietro could still be a serviceable goaltender in the NHL....if it wasn't for that pesky long-term contract. Of course, if this leads to some sort of amnesty buy-out, then it may be worth it to take a flier on him as a free agent. 

The onus of DiPietro is the contract and the history of injuries he has had in the past half-decade. Yet, many forget that after signing that contract he had a career year with a 32-19-9 record. Granted, he's been limited to 50 games (including this season) since 2008, but beforehand, he was a decent goalie-- maybe not for the length of contract, but at $4.5M-- the price was right and would probably be right in this climate. 

Yet, it's hard to separate DiPietro the goalie and DiPietro the contract. With another eight years left on the 15 year deal, many teams aren't going to pick that up, especially since he hasn't been able to be effective in those 50 games (14-27-7)-- which may not make him worth that money, either. That's where the amnesty buy-out could be the only way to get around getting DiPietro off the books, though the Islanders would need that to stay at the salary floor. 

Despite the defense of the Islanders not necessarily being the best, DiPietro didn't do himself any favors when it comes to holding down the Islanders net. His performance may also be tied to the coaching, condition, and handling of DiPietro, as well as the on-going revolving door of goalies-- picked up through waivers and stockpiled in the minors-- that the Isles have had. It can't help an already fragile goalie mentally to know that there's five or six guys gunning for his spot-- thus makes him overwork and over-conditioning and leads to injuries. 

Would he be an asset in a better system and a better way of life?? Only without the contract he currently has. That's the only way that DiPietro will get the fair shake he needs to get his career back on track. However, he's also 31-years-old and that contract will continue to weigh him down if the Islanders cannot deal him and it would be another disappointing footnote on a career of a goalie that had so much promise before his debut. 

A King's Ransom or Risk of Regicide??

We've seen it happen with Rick DiPietro, we're seeing it happen with Roberto Luongo, will we see it with Jonathan Quick?? The "it" in question is the pressure of a long-term deal getting to the performance of a goaltender as the contract carries on and the goalie possibly not living up to the potential and money.

Of course, if you hadn't heard and laughed along with Twitter; Quick is going to sign a contract extension with the Kings for 10 years worth $58M. While Quick is coming off of a Conn Smythe Trophy and Stanley Cup winning season, as well as being a very solid performer during the regular season; a raise of that magnitude is one that could make the most harden of Kings supporters scratching their heads.

As the lovely and talented Jen the NHL History Girl tweeted out:

And it's a great point, because, if anything, the goaltending position could be the most volatile as any position on the ice. Hell, I've made a weekly point to show off all the goalies who had a promising upside to them, but were unable to actually get it done when push comes to shove. Not only that-- but the injury rate for goalies could be a little higher than other position players, as they are out there all the time and have to be a little bit more flexible than their teammates. 

Even so, the examples I cited prior are prime examples of how long-term deals not only hurt the team, but could hurt the player's psyche and make the team a little bit of a laughingstock in the end, as they are hamstrung to get rid of the deal.

With the DiPietro deal, we all knew Islanders' owner Charles Wang was a little on the nutty side, but to give a goalie who is oft-injured (putting it lightly) a 15-year deal (albeit at only a $4.5M cap hit) was a bit ridiculous. You can't blame DiPietro for taking the money and running, if it's offered out there-- why not?? But the pressure on him to do something about it is way to high and it wouldn't be as lambasted as it is had DiPietro actually put up a performance.....of any kind. Though, we can probably blame genetics for him only playing 47 games in the past four seasons.

Yet, even the goalies who succeed aren't prone to controversy as we see Roberto Luongo getting the bum's rush out of Vancouver after signing a 12-year extension which started in the 2010-11 season. With his playoff short-comings (sans the 2011 Playoffs, even still with a little help from Cory Schneider) and the play of Schneider-- the Canucks fans seem ready to let Luongo go. Plus, with Schneider signing a three-year extension worth $4M a year-- it seems the Canucks are just waiting for a viable suitor to come along for Luongo and his $5.33M cap hit.

Quick will be on the hot seat next year, as his $1.8M cap hit will go away and people will wonder if the 10 years beyond that will be worth it or not. If he performs as well as he did this year, it could ease some minds. However, watch out if he starts to falter quickly and doesn't seem to regain form. It's a shock that Dean Lombardi, who has looked like a genius when it comes to getting the right personnel on his team to win, would do something with such a lofty expectation for that position which has the most pressure put upon it. For his sake, he better know what he's doing lest he get fired as a result.

Considering that many thought what the Winnipeg Jets gave Ondrej Pavelec was a bit on the crazy side, you have to think that the Kings looked at that as market value and since Quick was better than Pavelec statistically, he was worth the terms given. If anything, Carey Price is licking his lips and wringing his hands when it comes to what he could possibly get for his new contract-- especially if he gets an offer sheet.

While the man between the pipes could be the most valuable on the team, the risk of giving him a long-term extension is very high, even if the reward is there as well. You cannot blame these guys for taking the terms and money-- they are playing a sport where they excel and the general manager is the one who sets the value for their services. However, the pressure to perform is going to be there and if they don't live up to it-- they will be looked down upon-- rightfully or not. It's a double-edged sword they're dealing with, as a lot rests on their shoulders. For Quick, all he has to do is look at those before him and hope he doesn't fall into that same chasm.

Nashville's D-ilemma

It was mentioned on the 11.09.11 episode of the Face Off Hockey Show, which was the unknown topic of the masterful Lyle Richardson's article on The Hockey News' website-- but the Nashville Predators are in a tight spot with the signing of Pekka Rinne last week, but only in terms of trying to re-sign Shea Weber, Ryan Suter, or both.

If you look at the things both bring to the table, you have to wonder who has the edge. The knee-jerk reaction is to say Weber-- if only for the physical force he brings to the table, as well as the cannon of a shot. The fact that the Predators are not a high-offensively minded team and Weber is good for 15 goals on the back-line while Suter has no more than eight in one season (2006-07).

Yet, the Predators have always been know and probably will always be known as a defensive team. That's where I think Suter has the edge. As good as Weber is in the offensive zone, Suter has the edge in his own zone and is probably the more of a shutdown man in comparison. If the Predators want to stick to that same scheme of defense first, Suter has to be the right choice to say around.

Of course, you look at what has happened in situations before. Most notably, the Ottawa Senators when trying to decide between Wade Redden and Zdeno Chara. In the end, the Sens made the wrong choice in picking Redden, as Chara was a monster back then and still is now. That's where the Predators are and this is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. If you let Weber go, you let a physical presence go with a helluva offensive upside. If you let Suter go, there goes a guy who could shutdown a team in a key situation.

Another side of the situation is Ryan Suter being the only one of the two being a UFA in the summer, while Shea Weber is a RFA. The danger in this is that Suter can be left with nothing coming back in return, which will ramp up his trade rumors. With Weber, the Predators could have other team dictate what the Predators have to pay if he is signed to an offer-sheet in the summer.

David Poile is a magician as a GM. If there's anyone who can balance out this situation, it could be Poile. While he's not a guy who will spend over his own means in order to appease the fan base who'd love to have all these guys signed to long-term deals. He won't hand-cuff his team in order to keep some guys who may not be able to pan out to their contractual terms. All eyes will be on Nashville until the trade deadline, then starting up again in June-- and mostly not for the hockey.

"Are Young Guys Worth the Big Deal??" or "Bargain or Bust"

CBC's Hockey Night in Canada's internet king Jeff Marek bought up an interesting point about contracts on his Twitter account. He mentioned the fact that you don't see a second contract anymore, as it just goes from an Entry-Level Deal to big money, long-term contract. Marek said this in response to Nicklas Backstrom signing a ten-year, $67M deal with the Washington Capitals on Monday.

While I brought up the case of Mike Green, who didn't sign a long-term deal with his team; Marek's point is a curious one. While Green will be a restricted free-agent at the end of his term, Marek pointed out how the money for these guys escalate after one deal-- which is a tad presumptuous for most of the guys signing these deals. The likes of Alex Ovechkin, Sidney Crosby, and Evgeni Malkin can be explained because they are elite players at different levels, but when you look up and down the line; the likes of Mike Richards, Patrick Kane, and Jonathan Toews getting the big money after having a so-so start to their career makes you cock your head and wonder if it's for the best.

Sure, each of the ones I named do have a lot of talent and are good for their team and market to associate the face with the team; but to get them a very long-term deal and for that amount of money may seem like a guessing game. While they do have the skill-set in order to succeed, is that skill-set enough to warrant the money and length of deal they are getting from these teams. It almost seems like a panic move on behalf of the General Managers to make sure they don't have a young star make a bold move and hold-out for a bigger or longer deal because they don't want to missed a minute of this kid being on the ice because if he does, then you give him the big deal and he falters; the GM has egg on his face for the deal.

One has to wonder how much offer sheets have to do with this, as well. In an age where there's a possible threat of a rival team snagging your young prospect; maybe GMs have a moment of panic to get these guys signed, which gives the player and his agent the upper hand in demands. Granted, the team will get compensated for the other team poaching the player-- but usually the return does not equal that of what is being given up. Yet, there are times were it breaks even, like in the case of Dustin Penner where nothing lost, nothing gained.

You have to put into the equation of a guy being a one-hit wonder. While the likes of Steven Stamkos, Tyler Myers, and Matt Duchene are going to get their money for their entry level performance; what kind of risk are you taking when you deal with a young player like that who may or may not be able to repeat a performance like that year-in and year-out. One good contract or one good year does not a career make. If a GM puts all his eggs into the basket of a supposed wunderkind who turns out to be a dud, it puts the team in a tight bind to get rid of the contract and start anew.

The interesting thing about this is that people talk about this more often than not now than we have in years past. Is this due to the great talent coming up through the ranks and all or does it have something completely different to do with it. How much is it is talent and how much of it is panic?? Or are the guys coming up being rushed a little too much in certain cases, which makes others look better by comparison, thus skewing the numbers?? The gauge is definitely on a case-by-case basis when it comes to the player and the management and how they see the competition when it comes to going against their team. This is yet another odd thing you can throw into how you value a player.

When you're dealing with a cap-era of sport, you have to be careful and how and where you spend your money. One small miscalculation could cost a team more than just money on other players. It could cost championships, wins, and so on. Plus, if you have too many big name young players getting a lot of money on the same team, you run into have to put yourself at a disadvantage in bargaining a deal because you're in a tight crunch and will do more harm than good to the franchise in the long run. It's a tight-rope walk with too many variables for me to be jealous of some GMs in their position.