IN THE MATTER OF SALARY ARBITRATION BETWEEN: LARS ELLER - AND - THE MONTREAL CANADIENS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THE MONTREAL CANADIANS HOCKEY CLUB (TEAM 8)

Transcription

1 IN THE MATTER OF SALARY ARBITRATION BETWEEN: LARS ELLER - AND - THE MONTREAL CANADIENS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THE MONTREAL CANADIANS HOCKEY CLUB (TEAM 8)

2

3 I. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW After four seasons of service Lars Eller (Eller) qualifies for arbitration pursuant to section 12.9 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, this brief will analyze the contribution and performance of the center. His consistent weakness on both sides of the puck and dearth of independent contribution to the success of the Montreal Canadiens prove troubling. Considering this, in conjunction with appropriate comparable contracts, the Candiens advance that an award below $3.5 million is appropriate. I. A) DWINDLING OFFENSIVE PRODUCTION Lars Eller s role on the Montreal Canadiens has become increasingly nebulous and unimportant over the past two seasons. The shortened season proves to be Eller s most productive with 0.65 points per game (PPG). The season provided Eller with an opportunity to demonstrate that he can consistently produce offensively with a substantial increase in ice time per game and 31 more games played. Eller was not up to the task, producing 0.34 PPG over the larger sample size and through more minutes on ice. Eller also disappointed when Michel Therrien afforded him 85:22 of the Canadien s power-play (PP) time (12.33%) 1 last season, again Eller was unable to find scoring, even though he was auditioned with a number of different units 2. Eller scored only 4.16% of the team s 48 PP goals and 6.25% of team PP points. The Canadiens tallied.046 goals per minute on their 1048:00 of PP time. This figure was dragged down by Eller s.035 points per minute and 0.24 goals per minute, with the man advantage. Eller recorded the fewest power-play points per minute played, out of every Montreal 1 &viewname=timeonice 2

4 forward and defenseman who contributed 75 minutes of power-play time. 3 Eller has demonstrated that, even with increased opportunities, he fails to pose an offensive threat. Lars Eller NHL Regular Season Career Totals (Source: NHL.COM) SEASON TEAM GP G A P +/- PIM PPP S S% Avg. TOI BLUES : CANADIENS : CANADIENS : CANADIENS : CANADIENS :58 NHL TOTALS Lars Eller NHL Playoff Career Totals (Source: NHL.COM) SEASON TEAM GP G A P +/- PIM PPP S S% Avg. TOI CANADIENS : CANADIENS : CANADIENS :43 NHL TOTALS I. B) POOR DEVELOPMENT DEFENSIVELY The modern game s champions know the importance of centers being defensively responsible and capable. Eller demonstrates both a lack of ability and development defensively. Between the shortened season and last season Eller was awarded the responsibility of more defensive zone starts, both in number and proportion. 4 Eller responded by producing an abysmal season defensively -15 (tied for 823 league wide 5 ) on a team that was +3 overall 6. He failed to develop defensively, in spite of the extra opportunity, Eller s defensive game demonstrated a dearth of growth by the end of the season. He had the team s worst +/- in two months in the latter half of the season. 7 In the vital month of March alone, Eller registered a minus 10, while his penalization caused his teammates to endure 26 minutes of penalty kill. This was not a particularly bad month for Montreal as a whole, as three other forwards were +6. The 3 ( powerplay points / powerplay time) 4 &c= ( and regular season)

5 teammate who produced a +/- closest to Eller was rookie Alex Galchenyuk who recorded twice as many points at -7. These poor + / - numbers over the 77 game season are consistent with each season in which Eller has played over 50 games. Eller s career has not been marred by bad luck and improbable goals against, last year, while on the ice, more shots were directed towards his net than were directed at the opponents 8 and this, his CORSI, was worst on the team, among those who played over 450 minutes, the year before. Since shots directed towards the opposing net / shots directed towards one s own net is a good metric for goals for/against and subsequently plus-minus, as it affords a highly correlated, but larger sample of his control of the game. We see that Eller s +8 in the shortened season; is less useful when understanding the career -14 player and more reflective of Carey Price s career best save percentage. 9 I C) LACK OF CONTRIBUTION TO TEAM SUCCESS I C.1 Playoffs Eller s most recent success has been his 5 goals and 8 assists in 17 Stanley Cup playoffs games, although these numbers undoubtedly assisted Montreal in their Stanley Cup quest, they are not reflective of Eller s overall contribution and ability. First, the miniscule sample size of 17 games (5.5% of the regular season) is less statistically significant on face. If, Eller is truly a better playoff performer, we would expect to see that reflected in his previous playoff campaigns, which we do not. In truth, Eller s 5 playoff goals, although exciting, were lucky. Last season his shooting percentage skyrocketed from 8.8%, after April 11 th, to 21.7% (2.47x higher), between that date and the end of Montreal s playoffs in late May. Since shooting percentages prove fairly consistent for individual players over their career and among players overall 10, it s reasonable to 8 &sort=hartp&sortdir=desc

6 conclude that the Montreal Canadians have already paid Eller for his most productive playoffs. Looking at a more representative sample we can expect Eller s shooting percentage to regress to his career average, somewhere under 10%. Indeed, if the same proportion of Eller s shots found the back of the net in last year s playoffs as the regular season, all other things equal, his goals per game would be 0.15 and 0.16 respectively, which aligns much closer with what we can expect out of Eller over the long-term. I C.2 Face-offs After falling behind 5 Canadians centers in faceoff win percentage in his career season. 11 Eller managed out win 53.2% of face-offs in the season, a statistic the center has steadily improved on over the past 4 seasons. 12 Although some teams feel comfortable allowing certain non-top 6 centers take crucial face-offs, Eller s defensive liability against 3 rd line talent, would dictate that the risk of putting such an underdeveloped 2-way forward in these situations would strongly outweigh the mere potential that he might be able to beat top-end talent on face-offs. Even Eller s areas of development fail to meaningfully contribute to his team because of his glaring weaknesses. I C. 3 Special Teams Eller s penalization has caused the Canadiens to endure 113 minutes shorthanded over the past two regular seasons 13. Last year he led all Montreal centers in penalty minutes. 14 This troubling rate was taken to a whole new level in the most recent playoffs where Eller managed to lead all centers by a factor of two by earning 18 penalty minutes in 17 games. Given his defensive underdevelopment it is unsurprising that The Canadiens have a difficult time finding a Ibid ( , , and ) 13http:// =MTL&viewName=penalties ( 14-13, 13-12) 14 Ibid

7 special teams role for Eller, his uptick from to minutes on the PK has further hindered Montreal s special team struggles. 15 I C. 4 Overall Contribution When we completely isolate Eller s contribution, we see just how little he contributes to team success. While on the ice in even strength situations Eller saw.53 goals per 20 minutes of ice time and.90 goals against over the same period. Meanwhile, his line-mates tallied.69 goals for and.67 goals against per 20 minutes without him. There is no evidence, and certainly no reason to expect, that Eller plays tougher minutes than his teammates, yet they prove much more successful on both sides of the puck without him. After 4 years in Montreal Eller s only season in which more goals were scored per 20 minutes with him on the ice than without, was the shortened season, where the team, as was the case in each of his seasons, conceded more goals with him on the ice than without. 16 This pattern is nearly matched identically over his career in Montreal with respect to shots for and against and when we control for zone starts. 17 This shows that on the largest and most recent sample Eller s contribution is consistently a negative one, on both sides of the puck. II: VALID COMPARABLES II) A. David Desharnais Before the season, Laurier Station Quebec s, David Desharnais signed a 4 year $3,500,000 (AAV) contract with the Montreal Canadiens. Although Desharnais is three years older the Eller, the two cetermen both entered in the NHL with short season in in followed by 4 seasons with the Canadians. In their first season in Montreal together, 1 st round selection Eller was selected to play 77 games, while Desharnais spent 35 games in Hamilton playing in the AHL and scoring 45 points (P) in 35 games. When given the opportunity to play (FF20 FA20 and TMFF20 TMFA20)

8 on the Canadiens, Desharnais ceased it and produced 22 P in 43 games (.51 PPG), emphatically surpassing Eller s total of 17 (.22 PPG). Desharnais continued his stellar performance the following season with 60 P over 81 games compared to Eller s 28 in 79. In the shortened season, Eller outscored Desharnais by 2 P. Desharnais scored two more goals than Eller however. The shortened season remains the only 4-month period during which Eller has produced more points than Desharnais. The most recent season re-established Desharnais as the more dominant center offensively, Desharnais 52 P in games was good for.66 PPG as opposed to Eller s.34. This re-affirms that even when we consider the age difference, Eller is nowhere near the offensive trajectory that Desharnais demonstrated 3 years ago, when at 25 years old, he tallied 60 P 19 (.74 PPG). Desharnais, too, had an impressive playoffs offensively last year, but with a much more sustainable shooting percentage of , nonetheless he was able to create enough chances to tally 8 P over 17 games. The only way a case can be made for Eller over Desharnais offensively is by looking at smaller sample sizes and ignoring the majority of production by the two players. Desharnais has been able to maintain himself as a +18 player over these 4 seasons while Eller registered Desharnais has been responsible defensively over longer minutes 22 and against higher end forwards. Desharnais earns the reward of 3.5 million because he proves that he is a consistently potent offensive threat and reliable 2-way center, while Eller has yet to prove he is anywhere near the path of consistency and excellence of Desharnais. Desharnais has put the Canadians a man down for 86 minutes in the past 4 regular seasons while Eller has been penalized for 235 minutes. 23 This is the only statistic that Eller has Ibid 20 Ibid 21 ( 10-14) MTL&viewName=penalties ( 12-13, 13-14)

9 proven he can consistently lead in and it costs the team scoring, energy and momentum, while providing each to opponents. Desharnais has produced twice Eller s career power-play points 24. Desharnais has beat Eller in takeway/giveaway ratio, in each of the past 4 seasons 25, furthering the case for his far more profound contribution to team play and higher-level compensation. II) B. Kyle Turris Kyle Turris signed a $3.5 million (AAV) 5 year deal with the Ottawa Senators before the season. He and Eller were both drafted in the first round of the 2007 NHL entry draft (3 rd and 10 th respectively), although Turris is 4 months younger. Both centers have spent most of their career behind top-end centers. Turris 163 points in 317 NHL games since the draft, places Turris career production at.52 PPG, dwarfing Eller s production of.36. Turris development offensively is also tangible; he has never scored fewer points than a previous season and his points per game has risen in each season. Only in Eller s career season did he out-produce Turris per game, while in that year Turris scored 4 more goals. Turris capitalized on his success in the shortened season and produced another career year with 58 points and a tremendous.70 PPG. Conversely, Eller s regression saw him score 32 fewer points than Turris, a margin which exceeds Eller s highest career seasonal point total. In head to heard games in their most recent campaign, Eller was a against Ottawa while Turris boasted a against the Habs. This trend carried throughout the season for the two centermen. Turris finished the season with +6 against Eller s -15. After 3 seasons with the Senators, Turris has maintained himself as a plus player, on a team that has, overall, conceded ( 13, 12, 11, 10)

10 more goals than it has scored compared to the Canadiens. 28 Turris also made a more significant contribution to his team s success, in their most recent season, by generating 21 more takeaways and providing a better takeaway/giveaway ratio than Eller. 29 Turris career has created fewer man advantages for opponents than Eller, as Turris has earned 98 fewer penalty minutes 30. Turris has shouldered the burden and responsibility for his team s success on both sides of the puck, while Eller s performance often sees his teammates endure the toll of his unsound defensive play and undisciplined shifts. Turris has proven able to better his offensive contribution while remaining a much stronger 2-way center than Eller. The extent to which Eller can be rewarded for his performance in the playoffs should be tempered with the understanding that Turris registered 9 points in 10 playoff games in the playoffs, a higher rate than Eller s highlight playoff run. Further Turris has been able to to produce the same amount of points as Eller (15) in 4 fewer playoff games. Turris proves to be a far more dominant and consistent player on both sides of the puck. Eller s contribution falls far short to that of Kyle Turris and an award of $3.5 million. III: CONCLUSION Eller shines brightest in small sample sizes with an explicit focus on offensive production and ambivalence to causality and overall development. We see that, on aggregate, Eller is a mediocre and inconsistent offensive producer especially when compared to players who earn the exact reward in dispute. This is a player who is trending downward offensively and has failed to find a defensive game after 4 years of genuine opportunities. A thorough analysis of Lars Eller demonstrates that he deserves short of average of $3.5 million per year (See 14-13, 13-12, and 11-10) ame=penalties (See 14-13, 13-12, and 11-10)