Wanna blog? Start your own hockey blog with My HockeyBuzz. Register for free today!
 

Brassard, Kreider, Zuccarello File Over Weekend for Arbitration, Now What?

July 9, 2014, 5:45 PM ET [433 Comments]
Jan Levine
New York Rangers Blogger • RSSArchiveCONTACT
Over the weekend, as was expected, the three Rangers restricted - known as Group II - free agents, eligible for arbitration - Derick Brassard, Chris Kreider and Mats Zuccarello - all filed. In addition, the fourth restricted free agent, who is not eligible for arbitration - John Moore - remains unsigned. Moore should hopefully be the easiest to sign, while the filing by those three players is both good and bad news.

The good news is that by each of those players filing, the Rangers no longer need to worry about a team giving an offer sheet to those players. That gives New York a small bit of cost certainty and comfort to know that for the most part, they control the destiny of each of them. I purposely used the words "small bit of comfort," because this is where the bad news comes in. The Rangers and GM Glen Sather have done an excellent job signing players before they go to arbitration. In addition, if they have gone to arbitration, the awards have been reasonable enough that New York has accepted it and not walked away. The last time that did occur was in 2009, when Nikolai Zherdev was awarded $3.9 million and the Rangers walked away almost immediately. The concern here has to be that one or all three get awards above where the Rangers had budgeted, eating into most of above the $14.6 million of cap room remaining to sign all three, John Moore and bolster the lineup.

Before I go a bit into Brassard, Kreider and Zuccarello, a quick reminder on what is and is not allowed to be used in arbitration cases. I will use some of the below in the discussion on each player. The inadmissible arguments are less relative for each of the three, save for salary cap, but that applies to all, and salary might be more applicable to those who re-signed with a team rather than joined as a UFA. To me, and I think this applies to most teams, going to arbitration is a last resort. This is due to the potential that what a team uses in their argument engenders ill will between the two sides, which at times, permanently alters and damages the relationship. An arbitrator settles the player's salary within 48 hours of the hearing, and the team then has the right to approve the salary or walk away from the player, making him a UFA, as what happened with the Rangers and Zherdev.

The evidence that can be used in arbitration cases:
• The player's "overall performance" including statistics in all previous seasons.
• Injuries, illnesses and the number of games played.
• The player's length of service with the team and in the NHL.
• The player's "overall contribution" to the team's success or failure.
• The player's "special qualities of leadership or public appeal."
• The performance and salary of any player alleged to be "comparable" to the player in the dispute.

Evidence that is not admissible:
• The salary and performance of a "comparable" player who signed a contract as an unrestricted free agent.
• Testimonials, video and media reports.
• The financial state of the team.
• The salary cap and the state of the team's payroll

The Rangers and each player can and will likely negotiate until the respective arb dates, which came out today. Those are: Chris Kreider: July 23, -Mats Zuccarello: July 25 and -Derick Brassard: July 28. Therefore, by the first week of August, we should have a good sense as to the cap room used and what remains to fill in other holes.

Brassard:

Last year with Brassard, the questions were: can Brassard be relied on as the second center or was his performance following his acquisition by the Rangers fools good? The resounding answers to those questions were yes and no. Brassard built of his fine numbers the last 13 games of 2013 and in the playoffs that year to show that what we saw them was the true Brassy and not the player who struggled in Columbus.

Brassard remarked shortly after his acquisition by New York, “I’ve always played with passion and energy, and I kind of lost that in my years in Columbus. I’ve found that again. It’s a great atmosphere for me (speaking about coming to the Rangers).” The challenge for him was to build off that success and not just have it be a momentary blip. Brassard met that challenge, centering what clearly was the Rangers' best line last year, both in the regular season and in the playoffs, scoring 45 points in 81 regular season games, then 12 in 23 postseason contests.

Brassard is coming off a four-year deal that had a $3.2 million cap him per season. If he goes to arbitration, Brassard likely will get the biggest reward of the three players, given his current cap hit, age and overall production, which could easily be in the $4.5+ mil range. In addition, if he ends in arbitration and the Rangers accept the award but are unable to sign him long-term, as this is his third contract, Brassard would be an unrestricted free agent after the season. Last, at worst, he will get 85% of last year's deal in arb, which is unlikely given the type of year he had, so a raise is going to occur, the only question is how high.

So what to do? To me, all the talks of dealing Brassard to get Thornton or Eric Staal is pure ridiculously. While getting one of those is probably an upgrade over Brassard, their cap is substantially higher than Brassard, putting the Rangers in further cap hell, unless someone like Marc Staal is also dealt, which basically is robbing Peter to pay Paul. I would sign Brassard to a three- or four-year deal for escalating salaries with a total cap hit of $ $4.2 million per season. Start at $3.6 mil, then go to $4 mil, $4.4 and $4.8 mil, for a net cap hit of $4.2 million, locking up your first or second center long-term. I also could see going three years, but to do one or two years, given the lack of that level of talent in the pipeline, makes little sense.

Kreider:

If any of the three players go to arb, the one that will probably be the most contentious is Kreider. On break up day, it became fairly clear by what Glen Sather said that Kreider's initial salary request was nowhere near in the range that the Rangers want to pay. Sather, as we know, is a major proponent of using a bridge contract for a player coming off his ELC. The one exception was Ryan McDonagh last year, but I don't foresee that exception becoming the norm, especially in the case of Kreider.

Sather noted that started the year in the minor leagues and intimated that he doesn’t yet have a proven track record of success in the NHL; which is line with one of the arguments that can be presented in arb hearings: " player's length of service with the team and in the NH," paving the way for a bridge deal or lesser contract that Kreider wants. In addition, look for Sather to point out how he is not used in overtime or on 4-on-4 situations due to concerns about his defense. The contra argument that Kreider will present is that the team was 2-5 when he was recalled and his addition coupled with placement on the top line helped the team reach the playoffs. Also, while Kreider was out with his hand injury, New York beat Philly but was down 2-1 to Pitt. His return helped the Rangers get past Pitt and Montreal before losing to LA, which is in line with the " player's "overall contribution" to the team's success or failure" argument that can be presented. Last, he has a rare combination of speed and power, which was evident throughout the season.

The SNYRangers blog noted the Boston Globe column which stated that "Kreider could be in line for a similar contract to what Max Pacioretty got after his entry level contract expired, two-years and a cap hit of $1.625 million, though that was a few years ago, so Kreider could see a bump over that." Kreider's ELC called for a $900k salary and cap hit of $800k last year, so even if he doesn't get what Pacioretty did, he will get a nice bump. I would love to see a longer-term deal, but due to the team's cap constraints, I expect a bridge one for two years, enabling the Rangers to have some cap relief while giving Kreider a deserved raise. Somewhere in the $3.25-$3.75 mil range for two years seems reasonable, though I could see Sather offer $2.75-$3.25 million to Kreider.

Zuccarello:

Last year, I was all over re-signing Zuccarello in general and for more than one year. The Rangers opted to sign him to a one-year, $1.15 million show us you deserve more type of contract. Well guess what, he sure did do that and more. Zuccarello led the Rangers with 59 regular-season points and carried forward that fine play into the playoffs, where his line with Brassard and the departed Benoit Pouliot was the team's most consistent unit.

Zuccarello has expressed his interest to remain with the Rangers and cognizance of their cap situation to take "less" than market value. That less is a rumored, four-year, $20 million deal he is seeking. In actuality, that probably is less than he could get in the open market, but the $5 million hit, assuming the Rangers sign him to that deal. when combined with what Brassard, Kreider and Moore will sign for would eat up most of the $14.6 million in remaining cap room.

Sather will play up that Zuccarello only had one good year and how he went to the KHL and came back, impacting his net service time. The problem with Zucc, as it is with Brassard, is that if he only gets a one-year deal, he becomes a UFA after 2014-15, which is a direction the Rangers can't allow him to go in. Therefore, a longer term deal to lock up MZA from several of his free agent years is a necessity.

The question is how much. It's possible and maybe even probable that Zuccarello will at least triple his salary in arbitration. If that happens, the Rangers would get lucky from a cap perspective, but as noted, if only for one deal, Zuccarello could walk at year end, unless a deal is worked out during the season. But, taking that risk is likely unwise, especially as we have Sather has a tendency to wait too long or possibly overpay to retain a player. So where do the Rangers go? Ideally, I would like to see a four-year deal like the one I proposed for Brassard, similar terms and cap hit. I am sure the Rangers would prefer a shorter length and for less dollars. Brassard may end up with more years and dollars due to service time and historical performance, but in terms of importance to the team, one could easily argue Zuccarello is more or just as important and deserving of similar or more dollars.

John Moore

Moore is the club’s lone Group II free agent without arbitration rights. As Larry Brooks wrote,: "the cap squeeze means the defenseman will be playing on a bridge deal for not all that much more than his $850,500 qualifier. Say, two years at $1.1 million per?" The Rangers would likely be happy with that sort of deal since it's a minimal cap hit, locks in Moore for the next two years and allows for a further contract down the road or trade if one proves necessary. I think Moore will get slightly more, maybe $1 mil this year and either $1.4 or $1.5 million the following season, for a $1.2 to $1.25 cap hit.

If the Rangers went on the high of what I proposed, Brassard and Zuccarello each at $4.2 mil, Kreider at $1.875 mil and Moore at $1.2 million, it would total $11.475, leaving just over $3 mil of cap to fill in holes. That would allow some decent additions as training camp arrives, but the danger is that the arb awards will be higher in many cases, which is why Sather has to get a deal done with the arb eligible players before the arb dates.
Join the Discussion: » 433 Comments » Post New Comment
More from Jan Levine
» Rangers face Avalanche as Ryan Lindgren returns to the lineup
» Rangers clinch playoff berth with barn burner 6-5 OT win over the Flyers
» Rangers face Flyers with chance to clinch playoff berth
» Rangers rally twice to defeat Panthers 4-3 in a shootout
» Rangers ride hat trick from Panarin and play of Quick to 5-2 win over B’s