Avalanche Roundtable: Colorado Free Agent Questions

 

The Avalanche Roundtable returns! This week the staff gets together to talk about some of Colorado’s own free agent quandaries before we begin shifting focus to who the Avalanche should be looking to acquire from the outside. As was the case last time, I propose the questions and let the rest of the staff do the hard work!

Free agency opens just four days after Day Two of the NHL Draft so it’s time to start talking about the Avs players who might leave and who should stay. Let’s begin with the biggest question mark, Jan Hejda. The team did not move him to at the trade deadline despite speculation they would and Hejda has been vocal about his desire to stay in Colorado. What do you think is the best resolution to the situation with Hejda?

Cheryl: I’d like to see Hejda retire with the Avs. I think that he’s still a solid choice for a second-pairing defenseman for another year and will provide a reliable transition for the Avs’ prospects (i.e., Duncan Siemens, Mason Geertsen, and Chris Bigras) to step up and take that responsibility. When that happens, having Heja on the bottom pairing would be a sign that things have changed on the Avalanche blueline for the better. Of course, this is all predicated on the Avs getting a top-pairing left D to partner with Johnson sooner rather than later.

Expecting Hejda to take first pairing minutes again is a mistake.

Given how vocal Hejda’s been about wanting to stay in Colorado, it’s reasonable to assume he’ll take a cap-friendly deal to make it happen. Outside of Johnson and Barrie, Hejda was the Avs’ strongest defenseman. It’s clear he’s slowing down, but he’s still a solid blueliner who can provide a strong foundation for a guy like Barrie to push the play more and generate scoring. Long story short, if we can get Hejda at a 2-year, $4.5M or less contract, I’d be all for it.

Austin: I agree with all of your sentiments on Hejda, Cheryl. To me, Hejda feels like an Av, and in an ideal world, it would be great to see him retire with the Avalanche.

The reality of making that happen, while also improving the Avalanche blueline, doesn’t seem realistic. If I had the choice of signing Jan Hejda or Brad Stuart for two more years this summer, I’d choose Hejda. Unfortunately, the Avalanche already made their bed with Stuart, and I only see room for one of these guys in Denver over the next two seasons.

I fear Hejda’s effectiveness is trending toward bottom pairing, and we won’t see the same player we saw over the last four years. Stuart’s possession numbers indicate he is lucky to still be in the NHL, despite alleged grit and toughness he brings to the table. To me, the Avs have an overabundance of bottom-pairing and depth guys, and bringing Hejda back only compounds this issue.

The Avalanche’s biggest priority is finding a left-handed defenseman to hold down big minutes with Erik Johnson, and making sure the path is clear for Chris Bigras and company to start their ascent to the Mile High. If UFA hunting proves to be a bust for the Avs, and Hejda is still unsigned and willing to come back for a year, then I’d say go for it. Otherwise, I think the Avs are best to move on. I’m perplexed why they weren’t more earnest in their efforts to trade him at the deadline.

Surely a team like Chicago would be loving a little Jan Hejda insurance on their blueline right now, and in a deep draft, an extra pick or two would be all gravy for the Avalanche.

One of the other interesting free agents for the Avalanche is defenseman Stefan Elliott. It’s clear the team isn’t sold on him but he’s still a Restricted Free Agent after an AHL All-Star season last year. Is he done in Colorado or do they qualify him and the Elliott training camp storyline rides again?

Cheryl: They have to qualify him. It would be a stupid waste of an asset not to. Qualify him at the minimum, see what he does in camp and preseason, and take it from there. At this point, whatever happens to Elliott is up to him. If he can get past the mental bruising he’s taken by mismanagement that started with Sacco, he could have an excellent NHL career. It’s hard to imagine it being in Colorado, though, as sad as that is to say.

Barrie has that second-pairing spot secured, and unless we see a major fall off the cliff from Barrie, Elliott will be slotted into that third-pairing role. I think that’s a disservice to his talent. Selfishly I’d like to see him stay with the Avs, but for him, I think it’d be best to start anew. That said, the Avs would be foolish to give up what could be a strong trading piece for nothing.

Austin: Not too much to add here, other than Cheryl is absolutely right — the Avalanche have to qualify Elliott. Even if Roy isn’t sold on him having a future on the Avalanche blueline, you can’t let assets like him walk for nothing. He’s valuable depth, and a valuable trade-chip, if the Avalanche wish to go that direction.

Casey: Coming into year three of Sakic and Roy’s front office, I like to think they will tighten up the somewhat questionable asset management we saw earlier in their tenure. It makes sense to qualify Elliott and no sense whatsoever to let him walk. Even if the team didn’t want to continue developing him, they were able to move Karl Stollery in a favourable way–acquiring a borderline bottom six NHL talent for what they saw as a dead-end prospect.

There’s no reason to let Elliott walk when they’ve shown they can make good trades with assets that don’t have a future with the Avalanche. (Ed. note: Except for Paul Stastny and now, potentially, Jan Hejda)

The final Avalanche free agent of real interest is Calvin Pickard. It’s not that he isn’t going to be re-signed, but more what kind of contract he signs. Pickard is already pushing for the backup goaltender job. What kind of contract would you give him?

Cheryl: Lock that boy up. I have full faith that Calvin Pickard will have, at minimum, a long career as a backup in the NHL. He’s just too talented not to.

Of course, the Avs want to get a deal on their end, but Pickard has to know his value right now. The Avs went all in with Reto Berra, yet Pickard got the starts when Semyon Varlamov went down with injury. Repeatedly. Moreover, he more than held his own during his time in net for Colorado, posting a very respectable .932 save percentage and 2.35 GAA. He also is the clear #1 with the Avs’ AHL affiliate.

Go big or go home: give him $1.25M for 5 years, two-way contract. BOOM.

Austin: Reto Berra sits on the books for another two years, at a $1.45M dollar cap-hit. His presence is worth noting, and makes what you do with Calvin Pickard a bit tricky.

I don’t see Pickard taking Cheryl’s proposed deal, because he is going to want to keep his options open. Five-year, two-way contracts are unheard of, at least as far as I know.

I see two directions the Avalanche can go. The first option is they sign Pickard to a one-year, two-way deal worth $1M. The Avs’ pitch would be, “hey, we want you on a two-way deal so you can get playing time in San Antonio, but… we don’t exactly trust Reto Berra either *wink-wink*.” A two-way deal allows the Avalanche to do what they did this past season, and regularly fly Pickard back-and-forth as needed, without exposing him to waivers. (Ed. note: one-way and two-way contracts are different only in compensation. Waivers are irrelevant)

The other option would be to give Picks a two or three year, one-way deal worth a bit more cash — the $1.25M Cheryl suggested works. Then they have open competition for the back-up position at training camp, and the Avalanche bite the bullet and eat the salary of having other guy in the minors. This is the more expensive path, since Pickard earns significantly less money while playing in the minors on a two-way deal.

I think something similar to option one is what we are more likely to see happen. I don’t think the Avs want to give up on Berra just yet, and regular playing time is still a good thing for Pickard at this point in his career. Plus it saves money. The pressure is on Berra to perform though, because there’s no doubt Pickard is really close to forcing the Avalanche’s hand on this.

Casey: I don’t like the idea of Pickard on a one-way deal. The Avalanche have invested in Berra, for one. But also there’s the question of Pickard’s development. Roy mentioned repeatedly that he wanted Pickard to play in the AHL during the 2014-15 season because it’s more valuable to him as a developing player to play games versus sitting on the bench in the Pepsi Center. A healthy Semyon Varlamov plays 60 games or more, and if Picks is on a one-way contract, that means he spends a lot of time not playing hockey.

Austin: I’m going to follow up on Casey’s comment, and say I agree with preferring Pickard on a two-way deal. From the Avalanche perspective, it is overplaying their hand a bit to give him a one-way deal and pay him good backup money. After all, Pickard showed great promise last season, but he is still young and relatively unproven.

As Casey pointed out, a promotion to the back-up position does equate to a lot of time on the bench, granted his time on the ice would be against the world’s best competition with excellent coaches which may help his development in some regard.

The thing is, Pickard has a say in all this too. He is coming off a solid season in Lake Erie, and had a tremendous impact during his time in an Avalanche sweater. These guys want to pounce on their opportunities, and Pickard has an opportunity to secure a lot more financial stability and an NHL-gig. Patience has virtue, but with athletes, you want to strike while the iron is hot. If I were Pickard’s agent, I’d certainly have my eye on a one-way deal for my 23-year-old client.