Did Chiarelli screw the pooch?

Let me preface this by saying that by no means am I a Chiarelli-basher nor am I an doom-and-gloom troll as are (sadly) so common in Bruins forums. I generally agree with the moves Chiarelli makes and understand that not every move he makes will be perfect (Schaeffer, Nokelainnen) and that a GM should be judged by the total body of his work (Wheeler, Ryder, Lucic, Krejci, Savard, Chara). However, he really seems to have messed up by signing Thomas to a 4yr, $20M deal, a slight change from previous contract rumors.

The reason I say Chiarelli screwed up is not in the signing itself... the merits of which are definitely debatable but can easily be defended. No, my issue is with his apparent misinterpretation of the CBA. This quote is taken from the Bruins Blog Friday afternoon:

According to a source in the Bruins front office, part of what was driving the club to get the deal done now is that fact that Thomas will turn 35 years old on April 15.

When a player signs a new deal after his 35th birthday, per the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), although he can be bought out (at a two-thirds reduction in pay), his cap number can not be deleted from the club's salary commitments.

For next year, and for either two or three more years, Thomas will be on Boston's books for some $5 million a year. But because he has signed the deal before age 35, the Bruins have the safeguard -- that they would want to execute it -- to be able to buy him out at any time, cut their dollar commitment by one-third, and be able to spread the payments over twice the remaining term of the deal. It is a significant safeguard.

Now we are clearly led to believe by SOMEONE in the front office that the timing of this extension is key and provides the Bruins with some insurance against struggles and/or retirement. However, this is NOT the case as was pointed out by Larry Brooks and James Mirtle via Stanley Cup of Chowder. Curious as to what the disconnect was, I attempted to find answers in the CBA... no easy task for those unfamiliar with legalese such as myself. Here is what I found (transcribed from the CBA):

Actual Club Salary shall be calculated as follows:
All player salary and bonuses earned in a league year by a player who is in the second or later year of a multi-year standard contract which was signed when the players was age 35 or older (as of June 30 prior to the league year in which the contract is to be effective)...

The 'league year' in question is 2009 as the extension goes into effect next season. Therefore, the signing counts as 35+ and his cap-hit can NOT be affected by retirement. Only way to lose the 5M cap-hit is via trade or the ever-unappetizing buyout.

Now someone in the front-office was KPD's source and they clearly do not understand how the CBA works. My question is this... was this information allowed out to make the signing look better or was it a mis-interpretation by Chiarelli? Unfortunately, there is no positive answer for this... the former means Chiarelli (responsible for the front-office) lied to the fans... the latter means Chiarelli doesn't comprehend the CBA. Simply put, no good.

Thomas Extension - Ramifications

The Boston Globe is reporting that Tim Thomas signed an extension with the Bruins for 3 years at $5.2M per (the same amount as Brodeur). Needless to say, this has some MAJOR ramifications for the future of the team, not all of which are of a positive nature. As much as I love Thomas and everything he has done for this team, I have very mixed feelings about this contract and here is why:

Timing - One of the positive aspects of the deal actually. Per the new CBA, a player's contract can be bought-out for 2/3rds the value with the cap hit being 1/3rd the value spread out over double the remaining length. (Example: Player A has 2 years left on his contract with a cap hit of $3M per. If he were bought-out, he would have a $1M cap hit for the next four years.) However, while players signed after the age of 35 may still be bought-out, there is no cap relief allowed. Tim Thomas turns 35 on April 15th. Had he not been signed til the offseason, the Bruins would not have the insurance of cap relief via buy-out should Thomas struggle at the end of his contract.

Duration - What does this mean for Tuukka Rask, the goaltender of the future? People have already been clamoring for him to take over for Manny and back-up Tank after his impressive 35-save shutout earlier this year. The plan has been to get him up next season as a backup and get him used to NHL life before having the responsibility of starting thrust upon him. A one or two year extension for Thomas would have made sense as Rask could have backed up next season (25 games?) and then swapped the following season (50 games?). With three years of Tank, the question becomes when does Rask assume the starting role and will he get frustrated waiting for it?

Monetary - Not gonna lie, $5.2M a year is an awful lot for an older goalie, especially when there is someone like Rask waiting in the wings. I would have very much preferred his deal top out around $4M but nothing to be done about it now. This will make the upcoming offseason that much more critical as Boston has three RFA's who will all be demanding a raise. Currently, Kessel, Krejci and Hunwick combine for a $3.8M cap hit... my guess is they will require at LEAST $10M next season to retain all three. At best, Boston will have $8M in cap space (assuming the cap ONLY drops $1.7M to $55M) meaning someone will have to be moved. It may also prove difficult the following offseason with four RFA's needing to be signed (Rask, Wheeler, Lucic, Stuart). Mind you, when I say that these seven need to be signed, I mean NEED... these are the kind of players you build a franchise around. It will take some impressive work from Chiarelli to keep this group together in light of the Thomas signing.

My hope for the cap next year? It has a slight drop to the aforementioned $55M giving Boston the most room possible. With the CBA securely installed, the rookie contract bonus structure will return, meaning that Rask and Wheeler will see their cap hit drop from a combined $5M to ~$1.6M (I need to do more research into this matter to better understand the specifics of the cap and how bonuses are applied but this is my current understanding.) Should the bonuses be removed from cap consideration and Glen Murray win his appeal (thus taking his $1.4M buy-out off the cap next season) Boston would have 15 players under contract for $44.4M (8 F, 5 D, 2 G). This is assuming PJ, Hnidy and Yelle are not re-signed for next season.

Problems arise when you attempt to add in the hopeful $10M for the three RFAs as the Bruins have $600K in cap room with only 18 players (10 F, 6 D, 2 G) under contract! Should Ward retire (a definite possibility given his age and frequent injuries) the Bruins would save another $2.5M giving $3.1M to sign three forwards and two defenseman. Would be very difficult to say the least. One possibility would be PJ, Yelle and Hnidy returning for a combined $2.25M ($750K a pop seems legit) meaning two spots still need filling with $850K and thats just not happening! Looks like Kobasew, Sturm or Bergeron will be trade bait with Kobasew being the best asset due to his health and lower contract. Unfortunately, it is for those very qualities that I would want to keep the man in a Boston uniform!

Oh, and let's not forget... the cap is expected to drop even further the following off-season! The same off-season that Rask, Wheeler, Lucic and Stuart will be RFAs. This is going to require some impessive massaging of contracts and cap-hits for PC to make this all work... and that is with a number of beneficial assumptions all going in Boston's favor!

In all honesty, this signing may have just killed the future of the Bruins...

Edit: Apparently the extension is actually 4 yrs, $20M. Goodbye Tuukka. Goodbye Phil. Send us letters from your future ASG appearances!