What's Walt Worth?

(Keith "Walt" Tkachuk has been traded twice at or around the trade deadline, once as rental player, and may be on the trade block once again this year. "Walt" has become a kind of a poster boy for deadline deals : this series of posts has been named in his honor. )

This summary includes trades where the rental player was the only player acquired (72% of total trades): multiplayer trades have several moving parts and I'll try to untangle those trades at a later date.

TOI “Rental” Players 2006-8 Defensemen

6-10 min 3 trades Prospect (4th rd) + DC (7th rd)/ DC (4th rd)/ DC (7th rd)
11-15 min 5 trades DC (4th rd)/DC (4th rd)/DC(5th rd)/Prospect (2nd rd)/Roster player (F)
16-20 min 5 trades DC(2nd rd)/DC (3rd rd)/Roster player (F)/Two Roster players (F (F+D)/DC (3rd rd)
21-24 min 7 trades Roster player( F) + DC (1st rd)/Two DC (2nd, 4th rd)/Roster player(F)/ DC (2nd, 4th rd)/DC (1st rd)/Roster player( F) + DC (1st rd)/Gorges, DC(1st rd)

TOI “Rental” Players 2006-8 Forwards
7-12 min 7 trades DC(2nd rd)/DC (4th rd)/Roster player (F)/DC (5th rd)/Roster player(F)/DC (6th rd)/DC (6th rd)
13-16 min 8 trades DC (3rd rd)/Prospect (2nd rd)/DC (2nd rd)/DC (7th rd)/Prospect (7th rd),DC(2nd rd)/Prospect (2nd rd),DC (2nd rd)/Roster Player (F), Prospect (8th rd),DC(2nd rd)/Roster Player (F)
17-19 min 5 trades Roster Player (F), Prospect (1st rd), DC(2nd rd)/Roster Player (F-UFA), DC (1st,2nd,3rd rd)/Roster Player (F), Prospect (2nd rd), DC (1st rd)/DC (2nd rd)/Roster Player (F)
20-22 min 2 trades Smyth was traded for Roster Player( Nilsson ), Prospect(O'Marra), DC (1st rd)/Forsberg was traded for Roster Player (Upshall), Prospect (Parent), DC (1st, 3rd rd)

Goalies: Huet for DC (2nd rd),Roloson for DC(1st,3rd rd), Aebischer was traded for Theodore (then on IR), Aubin for DC (7th rd).

DEADLINE DAY OR GROUNDHOG DAY?

The NHL trade deadline is a month away but for Mathieu Schneider, Keith Tkachuk, and Doug Weight, Deadline Day may feel a lot like Groundhog Day (the Bill Murray film). All of these players have been traded at least once before on Deadline Day and all of them have been prominently mentioned on lists of potential "rental players" likely to be traded on March 4.

Since 2005 and the new CBA, rental players have swelled the ranks of players traded on Deadline Day: in the past three seasons, 65 players (37 forwards, 23 defensemen, 5 goalies) classified as rental players have been traded on or near the trade deadline. Compare with this with a total of 28 rental players changing hands in the three seasons prior to the new CBA. And the vast majority of these players have ended up being purely "rentals" since only 10 of the 65 have later signed with the acquiring team,

As Schneider, Weight, and Tkachuk and about fifteen to twenty others (usually well-traveled veteran players) contemplate a month or more of living out of suitcases in a strange city, fans of the acquiring teams will be asking whether their team's new acquisition will help solidify an established playoff position or spark a playoff push.

The answer, based on recent history, is a qualified yes: out of 33 team seasons in the last three years, teams acquiring rental players succeeded in making the playoffs 30 times. Of course, almost every contending team makes some sort of deal around Deadline Day, some rental players have little or no impact on the fortunes of the acquiring team,and there's even some evidence that rental players underperform statistically (see below). Still, it's striking that out of 68 teams (over the past three years) that were at least nominally in contention (within 6 points of a playoff spot) on Deadline Day, only 15 of the 35 that did not acquire rental players actually made the playoffs. It may be that teams acquiring rental players are simply better positioned in the playoff race and therefore optimistic enough to trade some part of their future for a short term gain.

18 of the 33 teams acquiring rental players actually improved their winning percentage after a Deadline Day acquisition, a number that is made more impressive by the fact that most of these teams were already winning consistently prior to the trade deadline.

13 of the 33 teams improved their playoff position after acquiring a rental player, 3 of these teams were not in the top 8 in their conference at the trade deadline. 9 teams slipped with 3 acquiring teams falling out of the playoff race.

Of course,there is an "on the other hand": 15 of the 30 teams that made the playoffs survived the first round, no more and no less than would be expected.

After any big purchase, buyer's remorse may set in and fans of acquiring teams may wonder if they gave up too much of the team's future for a short term rental. A total of 49 players changed hands in transactions for rental players: 29 of those players have played in the NHL this season.

46 draft choices changed hands: the jury is still out on most of them, of course, but Milan Lucic, David Perron, Colton Gillies, Wayne Simmonds, Patrick Berglund, and Mikael Backlund were among the players selected by teams involved in trading rental players.

Statistics on how well the rental players performed for their new teams are underwhelming. Keep in mind, though, its a small sample (less than 25% of a full season), there are likely to be issues of adjustment to a new team and system, and players often saw their roles change on their new team.

Forwards PPG 35% increased +/- 62% increased TOI 38% increased
Defensemen PPG 26% increased +/- 52% increased TOI 57% increased

Among the goaltenders traded as rental players, the two starting goalies (Roloson, Huet) made major contributions and saw their statistics improve dramatically. The other three goalies saw little action.

NHL Revenues:Size DOES Matter

Back in May, the Toronto Star published figures which it said showed the average ticket revenue per game for NHL teams. Combining that information with the recently published Forbes list, I thought it would interesting to see which teams generated the most revenue from non-ticket sales sources (tv contracts, corporate sponsorships, marketing etc). Two conclusions: large US cities, even those with mediocre on-ice results and attendance like L.A. and Chicago, can still generate well above average non-ticket revenues, simply because of the sheer mass of advertising and corporate dollars available in those metro areas. The New York metro area generates $173 million between the three teams. A second team in Toronto would only have to generate non-ticket revenues equal to the Islanders ($40 mil)to be in the top ten in total revenues for the entire league. Conversely, the smaller Canadian cities, Calgary and Edmonton, struggle to produce non-ticket revenues. And one of the smallest US metro areas, Columbus, is in dire straits, producing more than a third less non-ticket revenues than the average franchise even before this year's anticipated drop in sponsorship income.
The list is below: if the details of revenue sharing (how much teams paid out and how much other teams received) were known the bottom of the list would surely change. Florida is an anomaly here, even if you assume they received revenue sharing funds, they still generated about as much in non-ticket revenue as Colorado or Minnesota. Again, the sheer size of the corporate market may be a factor in the Panthers' numbers.
1. Toronto $78 mil 2. NYR $75 mil 3. LA $63 mil 4. Boston $60 mil 5. NJ $58 mil 6. Det $56 mil 7. Montreal $56 mil 8. Chicago $55 mil 9. Dallas $55 mil 10. Tampa $54 mil 11. Florida $52 mil 12. Phil $51 mil 13. Anaheim $48 mil 14. Phx $48 mil 15. Wash $48 mil 16. STL $47 mil 17. Van $47 mil 18. ATL $46 mil 19. Car $45 mil 20. Buff $44 mil 21. Pitt $44 mil 22. Col $43 mil 23. Minn $43 mil 24. Nash $42 mil 25. Ott $42 mil 26. NYI $40 mil 27. CGY $37 mil 28. SJS $37 mil 29. CBJ $36 mil 30. Edm $33 mil

KHL Salaries

1. Avangard $30.8 mil 2. Ak Bars $23.7 mi 3. Atlant $20.9 mil 4. Salavat Yulajev $20.6 mil 5. SKA $19.6 mil 6 .Lokomotiv $19.6 mil 7 .Metalurg Mg. $18.9 8. Dynamo Moscow $17.8 mil 9. Serverstal $16.3 mil 10. CSKA $14.5 mil 11. Lada $13.4 mil 12. Torpedo $12.8 mil. 13. Barys $12.1 mil 14. Spartak $9.4 mil 15. Sibirj $8.2 mil 16. Metalurg Nk. $8.2 mil 17. Neftekhimik $8.0 mil 18. Vitjaz $8.0 mil 19 .Traktor $7.9 mil 20. MVD $7.3 mil 21. Amur $7.1 mil 22. Dinamo Rīga $5.8 mil 23. Dynamo Minsk $4.5 mil 24. Khimik $4.3 mil
Division leaders are in bold. Teams in italics are in last place in their division.

Salary figures are from the KHL website (http://khl.ru/news/2008/10/3/4320.html-an earlier news release (Oct 1, 2008) did not include bonuses or salaries for key players ). Currency conversion was done on 10/04/08 at the London Interbank Rate (25.9 rubles to one US dollar).
The league median is $12,5 million per team,which is a little above the minimum announced last June. The total league payroll is about $328 million. About all I can say about a league in which the highest payroll is more than seven times (700%) the lowest is good luck ever achieving parity.

DOES YOUR TEAM NEED IMPROVEMENT? FIRE THE COACH,
LEARN HOW TO PLAY DEFENSE,
AND, BY THE WAY, YOU MIGHT HIRE A NEW BACKUP GOALIE

I looked at 20 seasons, choosing the two teams from each season that improved the most in standings points: the median improvement was 24 points. DEFENSE: Thirty of the forty teams improved their GA totals significantly. The median improvement was 18.5 %, or somewhere north of forty-five fewer goals allowed . Improvements in offense were less dramatic at 9.5 %. COACHES: Not surprising that there were so many coaching changes, the 60% (24 of 30) dovetails nicely with the fact that 65% of these teams had declined in the standings during the previous season. Is there a "Bruce Boudreau effect" at work here? ROSTER TURNOVER: I tried to identify a basic 20 man roster and I don't think I'm far off. Obviously there were more roster movements (injury call-ups, rookie tryouts, veterans acquired in trade at the end of the season) but the median is 6 players out of the hypothetical 20, or 30%. Some teams made wholesale changes: in Mario Lemieux's second season, he had 11 new friends on the Penguins roster. ROOKIES: The median is 2 on the 20 man roster. A few like Lidstrom, Malkin (the Pens did not improve by a single point in Crosby's rookie year) were major contributors, but mostly these teams used rookies as supporting cast. GOALIES: The median is 1: there were a few cases where a number one goalie made a major contribution but most of the goalies added were either backups or junior partners in a shared goaltending arrangement. CONCLUSIONS: Anecdotally, many of these teams had made significant changes the year before their big improvement. So if the Chicago Blackhawks add some more defense this year, look out for them. Alternatively, what was Wayne Gretzky Thinking (he was thinking about Kurt Sauer?) by trading away two solid defensemen?

Draft positon and success

Using 200 NHL games as a standard, 90% of defensemen taken among the top ten picks, have achieved that goal, 65% of those taken in picks 11-20, 59% of those taken in picks 21-30. The most successful drafts in terms of d-men were 1979 (13 of 14) and 1998 (10 of 11).

D-MEN TAKE LONGER...BUT NOT MUCH LONGER

The median age at which the 80 defensemen currently in the NHL who were first round picks played at least half of their team's games: 20.5 years. The median for 85 centers picked in the first round: 20 years. Forty-three or 51% of the centers had played at least 41 games by age 19: by contrast,twenty-two or 28% of the defensemen had achieved this by the age of 19.It's a difference but not that significant when you consider that forwards can break in by playing 4th and 3rd line minutes (think Bryan Little, Martin Hanzal) and top flight defensemen rarely do that.
Measuring the quality defensive play is difficult statistically but I looked at offensive contributions and found that of the 38 defensemen who were picked on the first round and who showed offensive promise, the median age at which they first achieved their career average PPG was 22 years.