|
Meltzer's Musings: Carter fallout, Leino's decision week |
|
|
|
|
|
UPDATE 11 AM EDT
The Flyers have officially announced the re-signings of Andreas Nodl and Tom Sestito (who tweeted a couple weeks ago that he had agreed to a new deal). Terms not disclosed yet, but probably right about at their respective RFA qualifying offers.
****
Amidst the frenzy of moves on Thursday and the entry draft over the weekend, I was not able to discuss one of the more interesting aspects of the whole he said/he said controversy between the Flyers and Jeff Carter. Frankly, no one but Paul Holmgren, agent Rick Curran and Carter himself truly know what dialogue was exchanged in the days leading up to the trade.
Here's the most revealing part: Curran asserted that, when Carter was finished his entry-level contract in 2008, the agent had an offer sheet already in hand for the player but Carter turned it down and re-signed with the Flyers. The agent, of course, was trying to curry public favor for his client. In so doing, though, he unwittingly revealed being guilty of an unethical business practice that everyone knows goes on regularly throughout the entire NHL but no one ever admits to doing themselves.
Carter officially signed his second Flyers' contract -- a three-year, $15-million deal -- on June 27, 2008. Note the date: That's several days BEFORE he was to become a restricted free agent. To already have an offer sheet in hand from another team (or even allow other teams to contact you about their interest) is a blatant violation of the NHL's tampering rules.
Curran is hardly the only agent who has done this. Most agents and, correspondingly, most teams have flouted the tampering rules at one time or another. That's how so many complicated multi-year contracts for free agents magically get announced on the first day or two of free agency. But it's always done in a "wink, wink" sort of way and such deals are never publicly acknowledged to have been hammered out in advance lest it force the NHL's hand to take disciplinary action.
At any rate, getting back to whatever assurances the Flyers allegedly gave the Carter camp, I will say this: Holmgren was in a tough spot, which he probably could have handled a little better given the vehemence of the player's reaction after the fact.
When a trade involving a key player is being discussed -- especially when said player recently signed an 11-year contract extension at a cap-friendly price -- it is awfully hard to answer truthfully when asked if he is going to be traded.
Think about it: Even if he answers "Yes, there are teams calling and we owe it to our team to at least hear what they have to say" (the only 100 percent truthful answer), the player feels like management is trying to get rid of him. That's a bad situation even if a trade doesn't happen.
On the flip side, anything other than a straight answer will be considered a lie if a trade DOES happen, up to and including saying, "Teams have called but unless someone blows us away with an offer we can't possibly refuse, there's no way we trade you, because we think you are too important to our team."
I don't know if the deal made with Columbus exactly qualifies as an offer the Flyers couldn't refuse, but it may very well prove to help the Flyers in the long-term between the acquisition of Jakub Voracek and the selection of Sean Couturier with the 8th pick in the draft. But whether or not the Flyers made a great trade or a lousy one (or somewhere in between) really doesn't matter until the team is on the ice playing hockey again. The key issue here is honesty or dishonesty, and the fact that there are plenty of shades of gray in the middle when it comes to employee relations and the court of public opinion.
It would be wrong if Holmgren told the Carter camp (first Curran, then Carter) an outright "No, Jeff will not be traded" and then traded him for essentially the same package that had been rumored for at least two weeks. That's what Curran claims, and there's really no way to know how it was phrased by Holmgren.
It certainly does appear that Carter himself was totally convinced he was staying put, so I think it's fair to say that the Flyers at least led him to believe that a deal was unlikely and the rumors of an imminent trade were untrue.
I know it was a brutal situation for all sides (one which could also adversely affect the Flyers' ability to lock up young core players before they are NTC eligible and before they reach restricted free agency in the offseason). But honesty -- or a reasonably soft-soaped facsimile -- would have been the best policy here, since we all know now that there was fire burning under all the smoke about a potential deal to Columbus.
*********
Here is my gut feeling on Ville Leino's status with the Flyers: It will up to the player himself whether he is back in Philadelphia next season or goes elsewhere as a free agent.
There is no longer a cap space hurdle in the way, nor do I think there is a chasm between asking and offering price that can't be bridged. Leino may get more money on the open market, but not so much more that it would be a no-brainer to take another club's offer. Nor do I think Leino is being pressured by his agent to go for the most money he can get.
It's up to Ville himself, and I'm not convinced he really wants to stay in Philadelphia to the degree that some have said he does. Yes, I know that he gave his blessing to the Kris Versteeg acquisition (allegedly with an understanding that Versteeg's contract would not affect his own negotiations once tagging space was no longer an issue). But I also think Leino's having all the "what if" thoughts that cross through the mind of most every player who knows he's in line for a big pay day somewhere.
I suspect Leino would like to return -- may even prefer to return -- but is intrigued by the thought that he may be a better fit somewhere else. Personally, I think Leino has a great situation for himself on Danny Briere's line, but I can also see where the player himself might think there's something better out there elsewhere.
Leino's play, which was consistently excellent in the playoffs last year and in the first half of this past season, tailed off markedly in the second half of this season. He had a few brilliant nights but more games where he was utterly invisible. And it wasn't just that he was creating fewer scoring chances in an average game. His backchecking work (which I thought was extremely underrated in the 2010 postseason and first half of this year) also went south. He was just as inconsistent in the playoffs as he was down the stretch.
OK, so why did this happen? I had assumed that it was a combination of fatigue and lingering hip issues that caused a dip in his energy level. Leino had hip surgery last summer. He was taking injections and had a maintenance day off or two this season around the time the consistency of his play dipped. His skating appeared off to me in the second half. Leino was falling down a lot when untouched -- almost as much as linemate Scott Hartnell -- and was much easier to take off the puck. Those factors would seem to point toward some combination of lower body weakness or fatigue.
But Leino and the Flyers both insist he was OK physically and that he was no more worn down physically than most of his teammates. He only missed one game and he didn't need any sort of surgical procedure again this summer. If it's true that there were not physical causes for his downturn in play, there had to be other reasons.
If you read between the lines of things that Leino has said publicly -- that he got off on the wrong foot with Peter Laviolette last year, that he still strongly prefers to play a freelancer's style on the ice and that he thinks there was a little too much tinkering with power play personnel -- I think there are implications that give pause for reflection.
Leino basically did things Laviolette's way to finally get in the lineup last year and stay in his good graces in the first half of the season. He worked like a man possessed. At a certain point, perhaps he felt like he'd proven himself and could do more things his own way. In the second half of the season, there appeared to be a bit of a push-pull dynamic between Laviolette and Leino, especially a situation where the player found himself benched during critical third period junctures of a nationally televised game.
Although he's very personable and easy-going, Leino is also a player who possesses, shall we say, a reputation for being extremely self-confident. I have no doubt that Ville views himself as a bonafide top-six forward on any club in the NHL (even if Danny Briere isn't on his line).
Am I reading too much into all of this? Quite possibly. We'll find out in the days to come. If we get to July 1, though, I think Leino is a goner. If that proves to be the case, I think it will be solely his own choice.
***
Coming tomorrow: A look at whether the Flyers should pursue a desirable (but expensive) player like Brooks Laich or try to make one more huge move.
Philadelphia Flyers Blogger •NHL.com • 
Join the Discussion:
»