IN THE MATTER OF SALARY ARBITRATION BETWEEN: CARL GUNNARSSON -AND- THE TORONTO MAPLE LEAFS BRIEF OF THE TORONTO MAPLE LEAFS TEAM 32

Transcription

1 IN THE MATTER OF SALARY ARBITRATION BETWEEN: CARL GUNNARSSON -AND- THE TORONTO MAPLE LEAFS BRIEF OF THE TORONTO MAPLE LEAFS TEAM 32

2 I. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW... 1 A. One Dimensional Player... 1 B. Lack of Contribution to Team Success... 3 C. Injury Prone... 4 II. VALID COMPARABLE PLAYERS... 5 A. Karl Alzner Washington Capitals... 5 B. Jakub Kindl Detroit Red Wings... 7 III. CONCLUSION... 8

3 I. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW Pursuant to section 12.9 of the NHL Collective Bargaining Agreement, 1 this brief will analyze the performance and contributions of the Toronto Maple Leafs Carl Gunnarsson. As will be evident from the analysis, Mr. Gunnarsson s lack of offensive production, inability to significantly contribute to team success and extensive injury history are all concerns for the organization. As such, the Maple Leafs submit Mr. Gunnarsson is entitled to an award below the $3.15 million midpoint figure, and that $2.75 million per season is an appropriate and fair award. A. One Dimensional Player Mr. Gunnarsson s offensive role on the Maple Leafs has gradually been diminishing since beginning his NHL career, in large part due to the lack of development in that area of his game. For example, his average ice time on the powerplay per game has dropped from 1:51 in to 1:20 in , 1:12 in and finally 0:45 in This total ranked 6 th among Leafs blueliners. Furthermore, despite playing a total of 28:07 on the powerplay last season, Mr. Gunnarsson failed to record a single point. 3 Of the 15 points he did manage to score last season, 12 came against an opponent who failed to qualify for the playoffs, and 12 were secondary assists. 4 Furthermore, in his last 50 games dating back over two seasons, Mr. Gunnarsson has scored only one goal. 5 This reduction in playing time in offensive situations and lack of primary points, or even secondary points against quality opponents, is a clear indication Mr. Gunnarsson has failed to develop an impactful offensive game. Given Mr. Gunnarsson s lack of offense, his value as an NHL defenceman must be measured based on his defensive ability. One way this is done is by examining the defensive 1 NHL Collective Bargaining Agreement, 2005, s Ibid Ibid. 1

4 success of the player s team as a whole. When taking this approach with Mr. Gunnarsson and the Maple Leafs, the results are underwhelming. For example, the team was 4 th worst in the NHL in shots given up per game at an average of In fact, Toronto s 21 wins while being outshot by the opponent is by far the most in the league, indicating the team won in spite of their defensive play, not because of it. 7 Furthermore, the high number of shots the team gives up, combined with the few shots they record on offence (ranked 28 th in the NHL), indicates the team s lack of puck possession during a game. 8 This lack of possession is the predominate reason Mr. Gunnarsson recorded relatively high totals for blocked shots and hits last season, at 71 and 78 respectively. 9 Another way to measure the defensive ability of a player is by examining their plus/minus rating. Last season, Mr. Gunnarsson was plus-5, a very respectable total. 10 However, this total is again skewed, this time because of the role Mr. Gunnarsson plays on the Leafs. More specifically, unlike other Maple Leafs defencemen, such as Dion Phaneuf, Mike Kosta, Cody Franson and Jake Gardiner, Mr. Gunnarsson did not play in many pressing offensive situations, such as the last minute of the game with the goalie pulled, where it is easy to incur minuses. Therefore, when compared to other Leafs defencemen who play a similar defensive role, Mr. Gunnarsson s totals are not overly impressive. For example, Mark Fraser finished the season at plus-18, while Ryan O Byrne and Mike Komisarek, two often criticized defensive defencemen last season, finished plus-4 in 8 games and plus-2 in 4 games, respectively. 11 Added to this is the fact Mr. Gunnarsson was a discouraging minus-7 in only 7 playoff games. 12 While Mr. Gunnarsson was a fixture on the 2 nd ranked penalty killing team in the NHL, Ibid. 8 Ibid Ibid. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid. 2

5 this success has more to do with the unit s forwards and goaltending, not its defencemen. For example, in , the Leafs were 28 th in the league on the penalty kill, with Mr. Gunnarsson and Dion Phaneuf leading all defencemen in penalty kill ice time. 13 In , these two players again led all defencemen in penalty kill ice time. However, there was a considerable change in forward personnel on the penalty unit, as ice time leaders amongst forwards, David Steckel, Tim Connolly and Joey Crabb, were replaced in with Jay McClement, Nikolai Kulemin and Leo Komarov. 14 Goaltending was also a reason for the dramatic improvement in the penalty kill, as shown by starting goalie James Reimer s save percentage, which rose from in to in , the highest save percentage in the history of the Maple Leafs organization. 15 These numbers make clear, the leaders on the blueline, specifically Mr. Gunnarsson and Mr. Phaneuf, were not nearly as responsible for the dramatic improvement in the penalty kill as was the complete change in forward personnel and the considerable improvement in goaltending from James Reimer. Therefore, due to Mr. Gunnarsson s negligible offensive impact and less than overwhelming defensive impact, the Toronto Maple Leafs submit he is entitled to an award below the $3.15 million midpoint figure specifically, $2.75 million per year. B. Lack of Contribution to Team Success In his four seasons as a Maple Leaf, Mr. Gunnarsson has failed to contribute to meaningful team success. For example, Mr. Gunnarsson helped the team reach the playoffs only once in his career, that being last season. However, after finally qualifying for the postseason, Mr. Gunnarsson was a disappointing minus-7 in a very closely contested series that was decided in overtime of game seven. In fact, Mr. Gunnarsson s minus-7 rating was the worst rating among Ibid. 3

6 all Leafs blueliners. 16 Furthermore, even when the Leafs won games during the regular season, Mr. Gunnarsson s impact was relatively limited. For example, of the games in which he played more than 22 minutes, the Leafs won only 4 of 12 games. 17 Of those 4 wins, only one came against an opponent that qualified for the playoffs. Conversely, when Mr. Gunnarsson played less than 20 minutes, the Leafs won 8 of 12 games. 18 Even when Mr. Gunnarsson was out of the lineup with an injury, the team managed to win 6 of 11 games. 19 The fact that the Maple Leafs win more when Mr. Gunnarsson plays less shows the limit impact he has on the team s success. Therefore, the Leafs submit his award should be limited to no more than $2.75 million per season. C. Injury Prone Another factor that should reduce Mr. Gunnarsson s award is his extensive injury history. Over the past two seasons alone, Mr. Gunnarsson has missed 17 games due to injuries to his hand, ankle, hip and shoulder. 20 In fact, had Mr. Gunnarsson s shoulder separation occurred earlier than April 3, 2012, when the Leafs failed to qualify for the playoffs, he would have missed roughly six weeks of games instead of only two games. 21 Mr. Gunnarsson also missed 22 games in the season with a hyper extended elbow. 22 During his career, Mr. Gunnarsson has only been able to stay healthy for one season, that being , however that year he missed 14 games as a healthy scratch. This inability to stay in the lineup is a cause for concern for the Maple Leafs and accordingly, should reduce Mr. Gunnarsson s award Ibid. 19 Ibid Ibid. 22 Ibid. 4

7 II. VALID COMPARABLE PLAYERS A. Karl Alzner Washington Capitals In July 2013, Karl Alzner signed a four-year deal worth an average of $2.8 million. 23 Both of these players perform essentially identical roles, namely that of a shut down defenceman. Last season, Mr. Alzner spent an average of 2:34 per game on the penalty kill, nearly duplicating Mr. Gunnarsson s average of 2:35 per game. 24 Their average total ice time was also similar, as Mr. Alzner averaged 20:57 per game, whereas Mr. Gunnarsson averaged 21: The slight difference in these times can be attributed to the fact Mr. Gunnarsson spends an average of 45 seconds per game on the powerplay, whereas Mr. Alzner averages only 5 seconds. 26 However, this disparity does not speak to a difference in offensive ability. In fact, despite spending over 28 minutes on the ice during a powerplay last season, Mr. Gunnarsson failed to register a single point. 27 In all likelihood, Mr. Gunnarsson would not play the powerplay on the vast majority of teams in the NHL, but because the Maple Leafs lack viable powerplay defencemen, he performs this role. Compare this to the Washington Capitals, who iced the most proficient powerplay in the NHL last year, anchored on the blueline by superstars Alexander Ovechkin and Mike Green. 28 Furthermore, both Mr. Alzner and Mr. Gunnarsson contribute marginally to their teams offensive game, scoring 44 points in 263 games and 69 points in 224 games, respectfully. Again, this small difference can be attributed to the fact Mr. Gunnarsson plays in more offensive situations due to the Maple Leafs lack of viable offensive options on the blueline. Despite these similarities, there are stark differences between Mr. Alzner and Mr Ibid. 26 Ibid. 27 Ibid

8 Gunnarsson. To begin, Mr. Alzner does not have a history of injury, whereas Mr. Gunnarsson does. In fact, over the last 3 years, Mr. Alzner has played in all of the Capitals 212 games. On the other hand, Mr. Gunnarsson has only played in 181 of his teams 212 games. 29 Furthermore, these totals do not account for the 22 games Mr. Gunnarsson missed during the season because of a hyperextended elbow. Another major difference between Mr. Alzner and Mr. Gunnarsson is their contributions to team success. During Mr. Gunnarsson s career, the Leafs have qualified for the playoffs only once, where they were defeated by the Boston Bruins in the first round. Mr. Gunnarsson was minus-7 in the series and minus-2 in game Conversely, Mr. Alzner has helped the Capitals reach the playoffs in each of his five seasons in the NHL. 31 Furthermore, the Capitals have advanced past the first round in two of the last three seasons. During Mr. Alzner s five seasons, the Capitals have won the Southeast Division four times, the Eastern Conference twice and the Presidents Trophy once. 32 While the likes of Alexander Ovechkin, Mike Green and Nicklaus Backstrom certainly had a lot to do with this Capitals success, it cannot be argued these players are defensively responsible. This is where Mr. Alzner s invaluable skill set has come into play. Whereas he and his defence partner for the majority of time, John Carlson, have been able to stabilize the Capitals defensive game and help bring the team much success, the same cannot be said for Mr. Gunnarsson and his defence partner Dion Phaneuf. In fact, over the last four seasons, the Maple Leafs have finished 18 th, 29 th, 25 th and 29 th in goals against, whereas the Capitals have finished 16 th, 18 th, 4 th and 16 th. 33 Due to the similarities between Mr. Alzner and Mr. Gunnarsson, as well as the stark Ibid Ibid. 33 Ibid. 6

9 differences in terms of injury history and contributions to team success, the Maple Leaf s submit Mr. Gunnarsson is entitled to an award less than Mr. Alzner s $2.8 million salary. B. Jakub Kindl Detroit Red Wings In June, Jakub Kindl re-signed with the Detroit Red Wings on a four-year deal worth $2.4 million per season. 34 When Mr. Kindl and Mr. Gunnarsson are compared, there are many similarities between the two players. To start, both have a history of injuries, missing significant time over their careers. Another similarity is their point totals in their platform years. In 37 games with the Leafs, Mr. Gunnarsson had 15 points. In 41 games with the Wings, Mr. Kindl had 13 points. 35 However, there is a considerable difference in the significance of these points. While Mr. Gunnarsson recorded the vast majority of his points on secondary assists against nonplayoff teams, 9 of Mr. Kindl s 13 points were recorded against playoff opponents, and 7 of 13 points were either a goal or primary assist. 36 There is also a difference between the two players offensive progression. While Mr. Gunnarsson has failed to develop offensively over the past four seasons, Mr. Kindl has shown a steady offensive progression over his three seasons. Last year he was second among Red Wings defencemen with an average of 2:36 per game on the powerplay. 37 He recorded a goal and two powerplay assists in the regular season, and added another powerplay goal and assist in the playoffs. He also scored four goals last season, including two game-winning goals, and added another game-winning goal in the playoffs. 38 This is in stark contrast to Mr. Gunnarsson who recorded no powerplay points in the regular season and only one in the playoffs. He also scored only one goal all season, including the playoffs Ibid. 39 Ibid. 7

10 While Mr. Gunnarsson played a more significant role on his team s penalty kill, Mr. Kindl had better defensive numbers. For example, while the Red Wings and Leafs had very similar plus/minus ratings as a team (plus-9 and plus-12, respectively), Mr. Kindl had a far better individual rating than Mr. Gunnarsson. More specifically, Mr. Kindl was 2 nd on the Red Wings with a plus-15 rating, behind only Pavel Datsyuk, one of the best defensive players in the NHL. 40 He was also 2 nd on the team in the playoffs with a plus-3 rating in 15 games. 41 Conversely, Mr. Gunnarsson was only plus-5 in the regular season, and a disappointing minus-7 in the playoffs, the worst rating among all Leafs defencemen and 3 rd worst among all Leafs players. There is also a considerable difference between the team success these players have helped achieved over their careers. While Mr. Gunnarsson has helped the Leafs get to the postseason only once in four seasons, Mr. Kindl has helped the Red Wings get to the playoffs in each of his three seasons. 42 He also helped the Wings win their first round series against the Anaheim Ducks last year and get within one win of knocking off the eventual Stanley Cup Champions, the Chicago Blackhawks, in the second round. Given these similarities and differences between the two players, the Maple Leafs submit Mr. Gunnarsson is entitled to an award similar to Mr. Kindl s $2.4 million salary and no more than $2.75 million per year. III. CONCLUSION Mr. Gunnarsson is undoubtedly a valuable hockey player. However, his failure to meet performance expectations, his susceptibility to injury, and the one-dimensional nature of his game present concerns for the organization. When comparing Mr. Gunnarsson to other players in the price range it is evident that he is entitled to an award below the $3.15 million midpoint figure, and that $2.75 million is an appropriate and fair award. 40 Ibid. 41 Ibid. 42 Ibid. 8