mc79hockey.com

This clip is close to the end of my list of good memories featuring Ethan Moreau. It’s been a long four years. That little look and shared smirk with Staios…good stuff. When I finally succeed in blacking everything after June 5, 2006 from my memory, I’m glad that I’ll still have this.

Read the rest of this entry »

Elliotte Friedman has a lot of discussion about “expiring contracts” in his otherwise excellent 30 Thoughts today. I don’t get the fascination with the idea. Here’s the gist of it:

To understand why Olli Jokinen is so valuable right now, you must understand this: former Toronto Raptor Tracy McGrady makes $23 million US this season. He played just six games before being sent home, Houston basically labelling him a cancer.

But, as the NBA trade deadline approaches, the Rockets would have no problem dealing McGrady, although they also would be perfectly happy to keep him.

Why?

Because he’s got an enormous expiring contract. Whichever team drops McGrady at the end of the season will have $23 million US worth of cap room. That’s a lot of freedom to fix your problems. That’s why he’s a valuable asset, even though he’s having zero impact on the court.

The New York Knicks benched a player named Larry Hughes, who wants to be traded. Probably won’t happen, because his expiring contract is worth $14 million.

I haven’t paid much attention to the NBA since the late 1990’s, so I have no idea what goes on there. My last recollection of thinking about it was when the NBA had its lockout and there was some discussion amongst friends of mine as to having a pool in which we attempted to predict what charges which NBA player would face as a result of the spare time - one guy wanted “Allen Iverson, for treason.” The NBA might have had some image problems at the time. In any event, I’m not familiar with the intricacies of the NBA salary cap but am vaguely aware that it’s a soft cap and that there’s a luxury tax threshold. It’s quite different from the NHL’s arrangement.

Anyway, back to my main point. The thrust of Elliotte’s piece is that fellows like Jokinen, whose deals are expiring at the end of the season, have some value because they disappear at the end of the year. This doesn’t make any sense. If a team like the Rangers could add Jokinen without having to clear other salary, well, then they already have that salary cap room. The Rangers aren’t getting cap relief because Jokinen’s contract is expiring - they’d be getting cap relief because Darryl Sutter is eager to spend his savings on Phaneuf on Ales Kotalik. I’m hardpressed to understand how this makes Jokinen a valuable commodity - he’s bringing in something that the Rangers are desperate to give away anyway. The cap relief doesn’t come from his contract expiring, it comes from Sutter inexplicably deciding he wants to pay Kotalik.

This might seem like semantics but the distinction matters. Jokinen isn’t extra valuable because his contract is expiring. The cap space will be cleared because Calgary would take on a lousy deal.