• By Brian, July 13, 2010 @ 9:19 am I think that the main reservation that Gm’s have in giving OS’s is that the team that was offer sheeted can turn around and do the same to you. This happened in 2008 when Vancouver gave an OS to Backes only to have it matched by by StLouis who then turned around and gave one to Bernier of Vancouver who likewise was matched. Nothing accomplished except for the fact that two teams both paid more for a player then they had otherwise anticipated – both teams lose. Besides, in most cases the OS’s are matched anyway, so all that the GM has accomplished in this case is to piss off a rival GM. Such is the case with Hjalmarsson. Doug Wilson doesn’t care because Chicago is San Jose’s primary rival to get to the Cup so anything that makes it difficult for Chicago to repeat is good for him. It’s not as if they were going to be trading partners anyway. For the OS route to work you have to offer a contract that you think will be so high that the other team will simply walk away and take the draft picks. If this is the case then you run the risk of overpaying for a player. This was the case of Dustin Penner who was OS’d by Edmonton. The contract was too high (Penner didn’t play up to expectations either) and now not only is Edmonton handcuffed by a an expensive contract but they lost a 1st round draft pick + in the process. Loss for Anaheim, big loss for Edmonton. In the grand scheme of things Offer Sheets tend to only drive up salaries w/o getting much accomplished in terms of acquiring players. jurgenno88 Reply: July 13th, 2010 at 9:30 am i agree and disagree with your reply. Penner was an overpyament at the time yes, but you dont place an OS for someone looking for a short term fix – otherwise yes the picks given up are wasted. However look at Penner this past year. 63 points, 30+ goals; he became what Anaheim thought he could be. If Edmonton had a better team (and Hemsky wasnt injured)Penner would look great right now. and i appreciate the Backes/Bernier situation but thats about preperation. Nucks should have got their own house in order before they sent out OS’s. Bernier was rightly fair game like Backes. And what Wilson did to Chicago was ‘playing the game’. He wanted Hjalmarsson but either way he wins because of cap issues for Hawks. But that is exactly why Gm’s should use the tool. They compete against each other and their jobs depend on success so why not use a tool more often such as the OS? Who cares if you piss off a guy on occasion? Success is what counts. jurgenno88 Reply: July 13th, 2010 at 9:33 am to add to that; I appreciate pissing people off may risk working relationships for trades etc but supply, demand, needs and wants will always dictate if a trade happens not whether you go golfing with a fellow GM or not. Anaheim and Ducks have dealt with each other since the Penner incident. jurgenno88 Reply: July 13th, 2010 at 9:34 am sorry i meant Anaheim and Edmonton have dealt with each other since…. Brian Reply: July 13th, 2010 at 10:22 am You and I may not care about pissing off other GM’s, but owners and GM’s work together when league wide matters such as the CBA etc. come up. Maybe GM inter-relationships shouldn’t effect OS’s but I do think it has a role in the lack of OS’s being given. I concede your point regarding Penner, maybe he wasn’t worth his contract his first two years, but he certainly is now. If he continues at last season’s pace then this OS will look like a steal. My question to you Jurgenno is thus: If Penner was such a bargain and GM’s don’t concern themselves with inter-organizational quibbles then why has there been only 5 OS’s in total and only one in which a player wasn’t matched since 1997? How do you explain that as of right now any team with a halfway decent amount of cap space (about ten give or take) can jump in and hand an OS to two of the more attractive guys in the league (Bobby Ryan and Marc Staal) w/o the risk of giving up any current roster players. I think it’s because A: offer sheets are almost always matched, leading to B: drives up salaries unnecessarily (which I believe is a concern of most owners) and finally C: creates bad blood which in turns exposes the team that originally made the OS to have the same exact thing done to them when they are vulnerable to a RFA OS. Dave Reply: July 13th, 2010 at 10:41 am Generally teams that have that kind of cap room are in the bottom of the league. If the Islanders were to offer sheet Staal, they would be giving up top-5 picks in each round. Also, once you offer sheet one guy, you don’t have the compensation to offer sheet another, so you can’t. jurgenno88 Reply: July 13th, 2010 at 10:51 am Brian, I completely agree that most OS would get matched. But it’s a win-win for the GM submitting the OS as the Sharks proved. You either get the player or you force the other team to pay more as we agree. That right there is an effective tactic to use against rival teams. I don’t think GM’s have to be/are specifically concerned about driving up individual salaries. If they are how do you explain the vast amount of terribly overpaid players in the league? If the pressure from owners was intense a lot of these deals wouldn’t happen. It’s about hockey decisions first and foremost, then economic decisions. Even the Isles have handed out crazy deals (Yashin, Di Pietro etc). Therefore I’d suggest the amount submitted (or driving salaries up) is less of a factor in submitting OS’. You think Dolan would be worried if Sather offered 5.5m for Bobby Ryan when he’s already willing to foot 13.5m for Drury and Redden? I do agree that submitting OS could/does lead to teams beings susceptible to receiving an OS themselves but my initial point was, if I were a GM I’d make sure I wasn’t in a position to be a target. After all, you do have periods of time when you still have exclusivity to negotiate and no OS can be submitted. And finally, why do I think it’s so underutilized? I don’t know. Maybe squabbles are a big part of it as you suggest; I just think that the friendship of another GM wouldn’t be my priority and shouldn’t be theirs. I do believe needs and wants, supply and demand dictate dealings. Brian Reply: July 13th, 2010 at 11:47 am I think the point Dave made is a great one, the teams that are truly in a position to benefit from an OS tend to be the ones that are in the bottom half of the league and thus their draft picks are more valuable. Combined with the salary it’s a no-go. Additionally, GM’s typically work hand-in-hand with owners if they don’t run the entire show outright (ie Lou Lamoriello). Therefore, league-wide escalating salaries, may be a consideration. It’s not just one salary to consider because agents use existing contracts to generate a cost market analysis to provide a reasonable representation of what they feel their client is worth. One expensive contract may set the bar for several more later on. Yes, there are absolutely some ridiculous contracts, I think the Rangers may even have one or two, but they tend to be given by the bigger market teams – NYR, Philly, Chicago etc. The Islanders? Well You have me there. But they aren’t exactly the epitome of a well-run franchise. For instance, Wang discussed the possibility of putting a sumo wrestler in goal because he would be big enough to obscure most of the net. No doubt that Bobby Ryan’s 5.5 mil would be worth the draft picks and much better value than Redden and Drury. But then get ready to also pay Marc Staal 5 mil per until his first year of UFA eligibility comes up, because that is what Anaheim’s OS to Staal may look like. In the end, like most things the lack of OS’s is most likely due to a combination of factors and not simply just one or two. After all, it seems that most teams have their hands full just dealing with their own RFA’s to begin with. Dave Reply: July 13th, 2010 at 12:20 pm Finally! Someone else that understands the concept of market value, and how previous contracts set the market. There are so few of us out there.

• By Dave, July 13, 2010 @ 9:40 am People aren’t targeting Staal because his price tag ($5 million on an offer sheet) eliminates most teams, and the other teams with the cap room don’t want to sacrifice a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round pick at that price. FYI, compensation for RFAs can be found at http://www.blueseatblogs.com/understanding-the-cap jurgenno88 Reply: July 13th, 2010 at 10:04 am good point. His price may be prohibitive but OS’ are still vastly under used. Brian Reply: July 13th, 2010 at 10:28 am Agreed, if you can find a comparable player on the UFA market, why give up a 1st, 2nd and 3rd in addition to an expensive contract. Dave Reply: July 13th, 2010 at 10:43 am Teams that need to hit the cap floor might do it, but as I said above, those teams are generally lottery pick teams who don’t want to give up a top-five pick. Brian Reply: July 13th, 2010 at 10:59 am Good point.

Other links to this post