| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| polishexpress |
Posted - 07/13/2010 : 13:01:34
Wanted to ask what you would do as GM of the Hawks to relieve cap issues, especially after matching the Hjarmalsson offer sheet?
Be specific!
Would you move Huet, Campbell, Sharp, or maybe dangle a big name?
Or would you bury someone in the minors at risk of losing them for nothing on waivers?
Maybe you would skip signing Niemi, and trade him for picks?
Either way, find a way to get rid of the cap issues. |
| 40 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 07/16/2010 : 20:41:33
Hey, don't get me wrong. I am not suggesting that tearing apart the Keith/Seabrook tandem would be my first choice either. However, IF Campbell is so hard to move then other options have to be brought forward.
Really, I think that when Chicago does what ever they are going to do to fix there isse I have a feeling we will be saying, "I never saw that coming."
I also bet my shorts that Seabrooks best guest friend will be completely clueless about what they will do.  |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 07/16/2010 : 17:07:04
quote:
So, are people saying that Seabrook is the guy to keep because he is a better player than Campbell or because he plays better with Keith???
I think the Campbell issue has very little to do with Seabrook, and more to do with Keith.
Keith and Campbell are largely the same type of defenseman. When they signed Campbell to that deal, I think they didn't realize how fast Keith would develop into what he is now - 2 years ago Keith had 32 points, last year he had 55 and 17 more in the playoffs. Keith has developed into Campbell - only 4 years younger and 2M cheaper, and signed for the next 12 years - he is the #1 dman that CHI will be built around until he retires.
So, with Keith having emerged, I don't think CHI has a need anymore for Campbell. Or at least, the ability to keep a Campbell at 7M per year for the next 6 years.
As well, I do think that Keith and Seabrook have a chemistry, and play well together and compliment each other. They are widely regarded as one of the best 1/2 pairing in the league, if not the best. CHI will want to keep them forever if they can.
However - the reality is that no matter what, CHI cannot keep all 3 of Keith/Campbell/Seabrook. Seabrook is a monster, at 6'3/220 and playing 30 minutes a game, he is one of the premier shutdown dmen out there. He would certainly command significant attention if CHI were forced to put him on the block, just to get under the cap for next year. I don't think it will come to that, but it must be lingering in the back of Bowman's mind. |
| Tiller33 |
Posted - 07/16/2010 : 14:03:17
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Beans15[/i]
[br]So, are people saying that Seabrook is the guy to keep because he is a better player than Campbell or because he plays better with Keith???
I agree with what Tiller is saying, however of those listed $10+ million shut down pairs, how many are paying their #3 defensemen $4million??
I would suggest not very many.
Aside from Boston they're all pushing $4
Tor: Beauchemin - $3.8 million (I didn't include Kaberle at $4.25 million because he is probably going to have a new home but goddamn Jeff Finger is at $3.5 million)
Cal: Sarich - $3.6 million (Giordano likely to get a big bump if he plays like last year)
Det: Stuart - $3.75 million
Mon: Spacek- $3.84 million
NYR: Girardi - $3.35 million (Staal's new contract will probably be in Hjalmersson range)
I get what you're saying Beans and on most of the bottom 20 teams in the NHL Campbell would be a welcomed player, but as nuxfan said this isn't a matter of Campbell's talent outright. It's his talent vs. Seabrook and Keith coupled with the attrocious contract/term he brings. He is the 2nd highest Cap Hit amongst Defencemen in the league with only Chara ahead of him.
Despite the increased return for Seabrook its not worth breaking up that pairing if there is the slightest chance of moving Campbell. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 07/16/2010 : 13:36:08
So, are people saying that Seabrook is the guy to keep because he is a better player than Campbell or because he plays better with Keith???
I agree with what Tiller is saying, however of those listed $10+ million shut down pairs, how many are paying their #3 defensemen $4million??
I would suggest not very many. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 07/16/2010 : 10:04:22
Seabrook did come to mind, but you have to think that CHI would want to keep Seabrook over Campbell. I think one of the big reasons for wanting to get rid of Campbell is so they have the scratch to sign Seabrook next year. They cannot possibly support all 3, and Campbell would be the most expensive one of the 3.
However, they would likely get more takers with Seabrook, he is priced better (or will be) and is younger. That would be a huge sacrifice IMO, I think CHI would explore every option with Campbell before going down that road.
I agree Seabrook will probably end up in the 5M range, same as Keith. |
| Tiller33 |
Posted - 07/16/2010 : 09:57:53
If there is any chance of shedding Campbell's salary then you don't even consider losing Seabrook. Keith/Seabrook has the potential to be the League's best shutdown pair for the next decade. For argument's sake say Seabrook signs $5-$5.5 million a year you would have $11 million invested in your top pair.
Compare that to
Detroit: Lidstrom/Rafalski = $12.2 mil
NY Rangers: Redden/Rosival = $11.5 mil
Montreal: Markov/Hamrlik = $ 11.25 mil
Toronto : Phaneuf/Komisarek = $11 mil
Boston: Chara/Seidenberg = $10.75 mil
Calgary: Bouwmeester/Regehr = $10.6 mil
Lidstrom and Rafalksi are the only comparable combo and with both getting on in age Keith and Seabrook at $1.2 mil less would be a much better option. After their upcoming extensions Doughty/Johnson will be in that category and in my opionon will be the only comparable pairing to Keith and Seabrook.
I paired these players by salary not by ice time together. By matching the Hjalmersson offer keeping Campbell would have a 2nd defensive pairing making 10+ mil. Trading Seabrook would be the absolutely last ditch effort for Chicago in my opinion. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 07/16/2010 : 09:14:47
Just because Campbell has not moved yet does not mean no one wants the deal. There are still a number of solid UFA's that need to be signed and will impact the rest of the summer. I agree with Slozo in that once Kovalchuk signs or announces he is KHL-bound, then the frenzy will begin.
Something else came to mind recently. What about Seabrook?? I mean, he is going to be looking for some large scratch next season. More than likely in the $5 million range. Although Keith and Seabrook play brilliantly together, can you afford both even with Campbell out of the picture??? Maybe he is the one on the market and Campbell will be staying??
I just think that the obvious choices are the biggest contract but that doesn't always make sense. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 07/15/2010 : 21:59:27
Tiller - Campbell has a NTC, not a NMC. He can be put onto waivers without consent.
Yes, I believe you do have to put onto waivers first. If you don't, you should - if you're ready to buy someone out, you may as well see if anyone else wants him for nothing and save yourself a few bucks.
Slozo - I agree, there would be a taker on waivers I think. Perhaps Campbell has not been traded because no one can agree on what to return the other way - CHI wants nothing, but other teams might be trying to unload an unfavourable one themselves. But if Campbell were free to grab for nothing back, some team would take him. I think anyway, he is still a very good defenseman. |
| n/a |
Posted - 07/15/2010 : 20:06:54
I can't see there not being any takers for Campbell, and if I was GM of Chicago, I'd go after a team like the NY Rangers, for example.
Yeah, they'd obviously have to move someone to make room, but . . . this is the team where big contracts go to die.
But I repeat: you will get hardly anything back (to Chicago), which is why it's very tempting . . . you overpay for a very productive offensive d-man, yes - but you give up nothing dear to get him.
At least one team should be tempted, and all you need is one. At the right price.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Tiller33 |
Posted - 07/15/2010 : 18:09:01
In order to buy out a player don't you first have to waive them? And with a NMC wouldn't Campbell have to consent to that?
If that isn't the case then I would think the better course of action would be to just waive him outright. If there are no taker's, there definately would be on re-entry giving them $3.5 million in relief. As a GM I'd rather have a $3.5 million cap hit for 6 years, than $2.4 million for 12 years. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 07/15/2010 : 15:17:00
quote:
Why do poeple think that no one wants Campbell's contract??
because he hasn't moved yet.
No one is downplaying Campbell's skills, who is giving him a bad rap as a defenseman? Its his contract that is hard to stomach. Even as a #1 defenseman it is on the high side, and for the next 6 years too. All of Campbell's skills and assets are overshadowed by the fact that his contract is very difficult to move - nearly impossible when you consider that all the teams that want him are unlikely to make his list of teams for which he would waive his NTC.
Giving this some more thought, perhaps the Hawks are really considering a buyout at this point (waivers first, and then a buyout), it might be their only recourse. I still think they simply have to get that contract off the books for next year. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 07/15/2010 : 14:32:15
Why do poeple think that no one wants Campbell's contract??
I mean, what has he done wrong in the past 2 years to deserve such a bad rap?? He was a UFA just 2 years ago and signed for $7 million/seasons when he has said there were better offers availble.
Prior to his big contract he was a 40+ point D-Man and one of the smoothest skates in the NHL.
Since his signing he has a 52 point season and a 38 point season playing only 68 games due to boarding by Ovechkin, was supposed to be out for 6-8 weeks but came back early.
So what is Campbell guity of?? Oh, that's right. He is guilty of playing on the same team as the Norris winner.
Seriously, ANY NHL team who does not have a player like Campbell will pay the $7 million a year for him because he is a legitimate #1 defensemen.
The only issue is Chicago getting value back in a deal and Campbell agreeing to the deal. But don't talk about Campbell as if he is an overpaid goomer. He is producing at the rate of a #1 defenseman playing #3 minutes. Last season, injured for 14 games and playing #3 he was in the top 30 in defensemee scoring. The year before, playing behind Duncan Keith, Campbell was in the top 10 in scoring for defensemen.
|
| nuxfan |
Posted - 07/15/2010 : 13:00:46
quote:
No way EDM would take Campbell, his contract is way too big and too long for EDM to take. Souray is off the books within two years, Campbell has a contract until 2015/2016.
Besides, why should EDM upgrade their defense through expensive salaries, instead of drafting? Remember, the EDM rebuild is through the draft, not through trades, like Burke's in TO.
Good points. Why do you think other teams are thinking any differently?
I didn't say EDM would take him, only that they could, and there are not many teams that can. The reality is no one wants this contract, but if teams can swing something that makes sense, they will.
|
| Tiller33 |
Posted - 07/15/2010 : 11:50:06
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Beans15[/i]
[br]Here is a look at teams with the most salary cap room remaining.
Does anyone see any takers for Campbell??
NYI - $27.8 million
ATL - $27.2 million
COL - $26.2 million
STL - $ 24.5 million
TB - $ 19.4 million
LAK - $ 17.5 million
ANA - $ 16.9 million
NASH - $ 16.9 million
DAL - $15.6 million
PHO - $ 15.4 million
Tampa definately not because int he coming years they have the extensions of Stamkos, Hedman and if Ellis pans out he'll be in for a raise, so adding 7 mil to their blueline probably isn't in Yzerman's best interest. Alos the financial situation of the Lightning have been in unrest for a few years, little more steady now but still not concrete.
Colorado, Dallas and Pheonix unlikely for similar reasons. That is unless Bettman wants to donate some of his $7 million salary to get Campbell.
The Kings problems are upfront not on the back end. And they're going to make their mistake on Kovalchuck not Campbell.
Nashville would have just kept Hamhuis if they wanted an overpaid D-man and they still have ridiculous depth at D.
St. Louis still has to resign David Perron and Erik Johnson which will take a considerable chunk out of their remaining cap room, A campbell move is possible but I can't see it.
Anaheim is possible but If they truthfully want to keep Bobby Ryan (and why wouldn't they) then a great deal of that $ will go towards that, Also drafting Cam Fowler makes them less desparate defensively.
The Islanders and Thrashers are the only teams that I could see bringing in Campbell. Both have big needs on the blueline and immense cap room to boot. |
| polishexpress |
Posted - 07/15/2010 : 11:12:43
Of course Beans left EDM off the list. There reason Souray is still an Oiler is because management didn't want to take significant salary in return. This was shown in them putting Souray on waivers.
No way EDM would take Campbell, his contract is way too big and too long for EDM to take. Souray is off the books within two years, Campbell has a contract until 2015/2016.
Besides, why should EDM upgrade their defense through expensive salaries, instead of drafting? Remember, the EDM rebuild is through the draft, not through trades, like Burke's in TO. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 07/15/2010 : 11:10:06
quote:
I think Campbell will play anywhere he has a chance to win.
I do too. Which eliminates many of the teams on your list  |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 07/15/2010 : 11:09:07
it is a no trade clause. Campbell can provide a list of up to 8 teams that he could be moved to, and the team has a 45-day window to accomodate a trade to one team on the list. He can be waived as well. He could be bought out with either a NTC or NMC
Also, the buyout option, I found clarity. For Campbell, he could be bought out at 60% of remaining deal over double the remaining term. He has 42M and 6 years remaining on his contract. So buyout would be 25.7M, spread over 12 years, would be 2.14M per year.
Not as bad as I thought, but still not good. 2.14M for the next 12 years...sheesh. Is that worse than Yashin's buyout? |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 07/15/2010 : 09:55:34
Is it a no trade clause or a no movement clause. Big difference.
If it's a no movement clause, I believe it means they can not put him on Waivers either. He would have to agree to it.
Scary.
I think Campbell will play anywhere he has a chance to win. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 07/15/2010 : 09:40:14
Also to consider - Campbell has a NTC, so that will limit where he goes for the next 5 years. While I can't see him handcuffing the team in this situation, I also can't see him OK'ing a deal to NYI or ATL. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 07/15/2010 : 09:38:09
NYI and ATL are the logical destinations for Campbell, due to the cap hit. They both have enough cap space to sign Campbell and still sign other players that they need to this year and next. However a closer look at your teams (because my morning is slow today):
COL (yes) - they also have to sign Peter Mueller and Christ Stewart (both RFA this year), as well as keep enough money in the bank for TJ Galiardi and Craig Anderson next year. They have also indicated that they will not spend to the cap this year (at least) due to declining revenues at home. I'm not sure how much they want to get that #1 dman as well (at that price anyway), I think they want to see if Liles can get back in form.
STL (yes) - they still have to sign Johnson, Perron, Hensick this year. Next year they need to re-sign David Backes, TJ Oshie, Patrick Berglund, Crombeen. Except for Backes, all of them are going to get significant raises off of entry level deals, and no doubt they'll want to hang onto them all. They do however have a need for a puck moving dman.
TB (no) - they only have 16 players under contract so far, so they still need to sign 7 more just to field a team. So we'll be generous, say it takes 7M to do that, we're down to 12M in cap space (one of those is Downie, but the rest could be fillins). Apart from Stamkos they don't have any large looming free agents coming up, but Stamkos is going to get a significant raise. As long as they kept enough in the kitty to sign him, they could then add Campbell. I'm not sure how much they need that #1 though - they have Kubina, Ohlund, and Hedman as their future (yes, I know none of them are #1's)
LAK (no) - still 7 players to sign this year, and if one of them is Kovy their cap space will fill up fast. Also looming next year - Doughty, Johnson, and Simmonds, 3 guys that are going to eat up the rest of the cap space they have and then some (thankfully Handzuz and Williams are UFA after this season). I'm also pretty sure they have their #1 dman situation figured out - how could they pay Doughty less than Campbell next year?
ANA (yes) - Anaheim would be a good destination as well, they have 16M to sign 3 guys, have most of their big pieces locked up for the forseeable future. The biggest deciding factor on the direction of ANA is what they do with Ryan, and what they do with Selanne. If they resign both, say bye to 7M in cap space. They would just be able to fit Campbell under the cap in that case. Then they would have to do some dealing, because they would only have 5 dmen and a boatload of forwards
NSH (no) - I don't see it. They will resign Weber next year, he is their #1, they'll fill in other bits. NSH is another team that has vowed not to spend to the cap.
DAL (yes) - I could see this happening too - again, most of the big bits are locked up now, they have to sign 3 players and have 16M. And they could use a Campbell-style player on their roster. Also not willing to spend to the cap, so they'd probably look to moving one of their forwards to make some money room (not necessarily to CHI).
PHO (maybe) - less likely, unless they looked at Campbell as a replacement for Jovo (he is UFA after this season). They have a lot of bits to sign next year as well, including Bryzgalov, Yandle, Fiddler, Upshall, Vrbata. Notoriously cheap too, they won't spend to the cap.
Beans, did you leave EDM off your list on purpose? They have 13M in space and only need to sign one player. If they drop Souray, they would have even more room to accomodate Campbell, and one might argue they would have a need - unless you think Gilbert/Whitney is enough. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 07/15/2010 : 08:13:29
Here is a look at teams with the most salary cap room remaining.
Does anyone see any takers for Campbell??
NYI - $27.8 million
ATL - $27.2 million
COL - $26.2 million
STL - $ 24.5 million
TB - $ 19.4 million
LAK - $ 17.5 million
ANA - $ 16.9 million
NASH - $ 16.9 million
DAL - $15.6 million
PHO - $ 15.4 million
I never realized that Atlanta has that much cash left. They could comfortably take Campbell and have a legitimate #1 defender that they may never have had. Plus, ATL has a track record of doing nothing with draft picks anyway.
|
| n/a |
Posted - 07/15/2010 : 07:50:35
I think you may have convinced me Beans - maybe Hossa won't move, in fact, it's not very likely at all. But a good argument can be made for Sharp not being moved for the reasons you also mention - he's a viable top line player on the second line, he's relatively cheap right now, and he's younger. Yeah, he doesn't have quite the production that Hossa has, but he's half the price - and as expensive players go, Hossa would definitely get you the best return for all the reasons you mention.
But you're right, more likely that Sharp goes, and Hossa stays. But I bet Chicago listens to any offers out there . . .
The real problem is who might be willing to bite on Campbell's big contract, especially in this tight market. He could go for very, very little.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 07/14/2010 : 21:53:51
Beans, I'm pretty sure the Hawks don't want to move Hossa either - you're right, he's an elite player with a very cap-friendly contract, a top-line forward on any team in the league. They don't come around often.
I threw Hossa into the mix as a tangent on what other teams might try to extract out of CHI in order to take on Campbell (or Huet I suppose). What if NYI came along and said they would take Campbell, but only if Hossa was part of the deal - in return for young prospects/draft picks. I think I threw out Okposo and 1st/2nd round picks next year, but maybe its more than that, whatever. Maybe its not Hossa (he has a NTC), maybe its Seabrook. Or Kane.
That solves a lot of problems for CHI fast...albeit at a deep cost. As a silver lining, that probably allows them to keep Sharp and Bolland, who they need for depth, and fill in the rest of the team with 12M in cap space.
As leafsfan says, the closer they take this to training camp the more drastic the move(s) will have to be. Its pretty awe striking how deep CHI has dug this hole for themselves. I think its getting more likely that one of those big forwards is going to get moved. |
| leafsfan_101 |
Posted - 07/14/2010 : 21:36:53
Based on the math, Chicago needs to sign at least 5 more players to meet the minimum requirement of 2 goalies and 18 players. IF they sign them all at the league minimum (which is impossible) they will need to clear up roughly 3 mil AT LEAST.
Factor in that they need to sign a goalie, 3 forwards and a defenseman, I would figure that they would need to clear at least 10 mil to remain competative with relative depth. They also need to get rid of large contracts (ie Campbell, Huet, Hossa, Kane, Toews, Sharp) to make the necessary moves.
I think that the players will need to force Chicago's hand here, and people will be dealt. Huet will be gone and Crawford will be called up, Niemi will be resigned, and the rest will need to be signed from the FA pool at small contracts.
I would not be suprised to see a blockbuster to not only keep them cap complient for next season, but to set themselves up for years down the road. Could Seabrook be moved with his RFA status after next season? |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 07/14/2010 : 21:21:20
I really don't see Hossa being part of any deal. Wasn't Bowman involved in the deal to bring him there last season?? Why sign a guy to a 12 year deal one year only to move him out a year later?? That does not make any sense.
Here's the deal with Hossa. He does nothing but produce. He plays anywhere, any line, any time, with any team mates and still produces. He has been a PPG player for virtually the past decade playing with 4 different teams.
You can't find players like that every day, they are rare, rare, super rare.
Take nothing away from Sharp and Bolland, but if it's my choice I am keeping Hossa over both of those guys.
And to anyone who will talk about age, don't. The three years difference between Sharp and Hossa is insignificant. Furthermore, Sharp will be a UFA in 2 years and will be looking for Hossa like money anyway. He doesn't and has never produced like Hossa has.
Ultimately, Sharps value is higher, which might be difficult to apprecaite as I just went on about how much I prefer Hossa. However, a less than $4 million cap hit for a potential #1 line players and definately one of the league's best 2nd line players is a complete steal for the next 2 years.
I see Hossa as important to that Hawks team as Keith, Kane, and Toews. Because of those three, Sharp becomes expendable. Very similar to Calgary moving Phaneuf. It's not that he is a poor player or the team does not want to keep him. But the asset with the highest value will move when you have a plie of assets.
The only question is which team will produce enough picks and prospects to get Sharp. The issue with TO being involved is their shortage of a 1st round pick next season.
I see FLA and Tallon getting his hands back on Sharp. |
| Tiller33 |
Posted - 07/14/2010 : 17:57:17
quote:
[i]Originally posted by nuxfan[/i]
[br]In order to have arbitration rights, a player must:
* Between 18 and 20 with at least four years of professional experience
* 21 years old and have played at least three years of professional hockey
* Ages 22 and 23 with at least two years experience in the pro ranks
* 24 or older with at least one year of professional experience
If an RFA is qualified, that simply means that the team has preserved their rights to that player. In the case of a player with arbitration rights, the team extends its rights to the time of the arbitration hearing. In the case of an RFA without arbitration rights, it is indefinate.
If an RFA is not qualified, the player becomes a UFA on July 1.
There is an exception that rule, but I'm not sure what it is. I mentioned in another thread that Bill Sweatt (prospect picked up by TOR as part of the Versteeg package) falls into this category. He is an RFA, but will become UFA in August if TOR cannot sign him. I'm not sure why.
Thanks for the breakdown nuxfan.
Ya the Sweatt situation is what I was having trouble understanding, also I thought Christian Hanson did not have arbitration rights but I guess he does. One thing I don't understand is how would it be possible for someone 18-20 to have 4 years professional experience? Do they count European Elite Leagues as professional experience under NHL Collective Bargaining?
(Sorry that this is off topic) |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 07/14/2010 : 17:22:00
In order to have arbitration rights, a player must:
* Between 18 and 20 with at least four years of professional experience
* 21 years old and have played at least three years of professional hockey
* Ages 22 and 23 with at least two years experience in the pro ranks
* 24 or older with at least one year of professional experience
If an RFA is qualified, that simply means that the team has preserved their rights to that player. In the case of a player with arbitration rights, the team extends its rights to the time of the arbitration hearing. In the case of an RFA without arbitration rights, it is indefinate.
If an RFA is not qualified, the player becomes a UFA on July 1.
There is an exception that rule, but I'm not sure what it is. I mentioned in another thread that Bill Sweatt (prospect picked up by TOR as part of the Versteeg package) falls into this category. He is an RFA, but will become UFA in August if TOR cannot sign him. I'm not sure why. |
| Tiller33 |
Posted - 07/14/2010 : 16:18:06
anyone know how it is decided if a player has arbitration rights?
I know that for some RFA's if they are qualified they and unsigned before a certain date they become a UFA because they don't have arbitration rights. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 07/14/2010 : 16:00:22
arbitration awards will stipulate contract length and total amount. The only deals I can recall that were more than one year in recent memory are:
- In 2007, Cammarelli was awarded a 2yr/6.7M deal
- In 2009, Hudler was awarded a 2yr/5.75M deal
Also according to arbitration rules, the arbitrator cannot take into account salaries signed as UFA's in that same year - so Halak's deal will not weigh into things. So Beans, your comparable list might be accurate - although I would remove Leighton, he's been in and out of the NHL for about 8 years now. Quick/Rask/Gustavsson would be comparables.
With that in mind, the arbitrator might go lower than Niemi values himself - 2.5-ish? |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 07/14/2010 : 13:41:33
Don't quote me on it, but I don't believe that the arbitration sets the length of the contract but only the annual salary.
Also, I am thinking that the Halak comparison will not be as big a factor in the signing of Neimi as one might assume. Remember, Neimi was a rookie last year and has all of 42 regular season games and a total of 64 regular and playoff games. No legal, 3rd party arbitrator is going to give an elite level contract to a guy who has played less than one season of hockey. I don't care if he won the Cup, it's not going to be a Halak sized deal.
I would suggest that some comparable contracts the arbitrator will use would be similar to Michael Leighton, Jonas Gustovsson, John Quick, and Tuuka Rask. All of which have been signed recently, all have playoff experence(except for one guy ) and all seem pretty similar in regards to performance and production.
They might go a bit higher than the average of these guys but not by much. If he does not sign prior to the arbitration, I will be absolutely gobsmacked if the deal is higher than $2.25M per season. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 07/14/2010 : 12:45:25
Turning focus from those that will be leaving CHI, how about Niemi?
His arbitration date is July 29. His agent is trying to work out a long term deal, and according to the Tribune he does not want to go to arbitration - he's worried the arbitrator will undervalue Niemi and not give as long a deal either.
One can only think that the bar for Niemi was set with the Halak signing, but I can't think of an arbitration award ever that has been more than 2 years... |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 07/14/2010 : 12:38:35
quote:
This is why I was so shocked to see the Hawks match Hjarmalsson. I mean, good player and all but that contract really forces the hand.
Yup, agreed. I too think something must be in the works for other large players, but nothing as of yet...
I think CHI would rather have Huet go play in Europe to get his salary off the books. Long-term injury is difficult to show, and it also forces the player to not be able to play anywhere (even Europe). Its in both of their interests to have Huet play - if he regains form in Europe then perhaps he becomes tradable for something later in the year or this time next year. |
| Tiller33 |
Posted - 07/14/2010 : 11:47:54
This is definately the worst case of cap mismanagement since the current CBA was put into place.
Slozo I wish I could share your optimism about Sharp or Bolland. As a Leaf fan I would love to see Sharp in Blue and white, but I have to think if he is one of the next Blackhawks to leave there are other teams that will be able to offer a more competitive package for him.
I would think Chicago would be looking for an NHL ready forward on an entry level contract along with another prospect or high pick. For the Leafs that would leave Tyler Bozak, Nazim Kadri, Luca Caputi, and Brayden Irwin. You can argue that neither Kadri or Irwin are NHL ready that decision can't be made until training camp, so you're left with Caputi and Bozak. I would be reluctant to trade Bozak because I believe he has the most promise of any Leaf prospect, perhaps even more so than Kadri.
If Chicago would be interested in a trade such as:
Caputi
Gunnarsson (I like Gunnarsson and hope he isnt moved)
3rd round 2011
for
Sharp
5th 2011
Then maybe, but like I said I believe there are other teams capable of tabling a more competitive offer. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 07/14/2010 : 10:40:03
This is why I was so shocked to see the Hawks match Hjarmalsson. I mean, good player and all but that contract really forces the hand.
You have to think that Stan Bowman(and his daddy) would not make a move like this without something in the works. The only logically thinking I can come up with is that Campbell is on his way out of town and they did not want to lose a very capable and legitimate #3 guy in Hjarmalsson.
Still, even moving Campbell out, Bolland or Sharp have to go as well as Huet for them to have a fighting chances and icing any kind of team within the framework of the CBA.
Did anyone else wonder if there might be some 'medical' claim against Huet. If he can not play because he is 'hurt' long term, the number comes off the cap.
There has to be something deeper that we are missing because the people leading this team are far too successful to make this kind of mess of this situation. |
| n/a |
Posted - 07/14/2010 : 09:43:24
You know Tiller, that is a good point about Burke being outspoken on those contracts . . . crap. That kills THAT dream.
You have to think though that of either Sharp or Bolland, one of these guys will find themselves in Toronto - there isn't a more desperate or determined team looking for top 6 (potential top 6 IMHO for Bolland) guys than the Leafs.
I really do wonder how desperate the Chicago situation will get, and if waiting long enough, for how little they might receive back. Which is why if I was Chicago GM, I'd be very active right now, and take whatever I could get before having to give away players for absolutely nothing . . . which may happen if the current GM holds on for too long.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 07/14/2010 : 09:41:50
Slozo, research turns up very little, but what I can find as possible penatlies are pretty severe (from a posting on HFBoards):
Until the team gets under the cap:
- suspension of team employees
- forfeiture of games
- also, the league can "help" the team get under the cap by voiding contracts starting with last one signed, until the team is under the cap. Players with voided contracts would become UFA
Added penalties:
- forfeiture of draft picks
- Fine from 1M to 5M for the team
Apparently outlined in Article 26 of the CBA, and can be applied at the discretion of the commissioner.
I recall a couple of years ago the Flames had to play the last 10 games or so of the year short some players (only 9 forwards, or something like that) due to cap issues - had they played a full team they would have been over the cap. They lost nearly every game and it cost them a berth in the playoffs. |
| Tiller33 |
Posted - 07/14/2010 : 07:30:34
quote:
[i]Originally posted by slozo[/i]
they really are up chit creek without a paddle. Makes me anxious about the possibility of Toronto getting a Sharp, or even a Hossa . . . yes, Hossa...
move Hossa for a bunch of very cheap, good prospects.
I'll agree on one thing that The Blackhawks are "up chit creek". I give a Hossa to Toronto move 0% chance of happening (can you have negative percent?). Without arguing his skills or merits as a player, Burke absolutely will not add a player with a contract term of 11 years, the majority of which he is making $2.5 million above his cap hit. Brian Burke has been one of the most outspoken GM's against these ludacris contracts, so I see no chance of him bringing one to his team. |
| n/a |
Posted - 07/14/2010 : 05:36:35
Wow, they really are up chit creek without a paddle. Makes me anxious about the possibility of Toronto getting a Sharp, or even a Hossa . . . yes, Hossa. But that's for later - what would I do as Chicago GM?
1) Party with the Stanley Cup and hundreds of hot, scantily clad strangers in bikinis, sitting in my hot tub time machine sipping $5,000 cognac.
2) Take said time machine back to when I was about sign Campbell for 8 mil and stop myself.
Sorry, let me start again.
I agree with Irvine - move Hossa for a bunch of very cheap, good prospects. Trade Campbell away for almost nothing, unfortunately, but get a cheap 3rd rate d-man back. And lastly, try to keep Sharp, but if still not under the cap, trade him for two prospects of decent value, one of which can be inserted in the line-up right away.
Argh, I forgot about Huet . . . trade him to the GM who is married and who I have compromising photos of with the scantily clad ladies in aforementioned hottub!
Scratch it all . . . seriously, I just drink the $5,000 cognac and wait for what "fine" or discipline the NHL will give me for being over the cap.
I am half serious here . . . what are the penalties?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| irvine |
Posted - 07/13/2010 : 23:12:44
It's crazy to think about Chicago moving all of these players. But mathematically speaking at this point, it almost seems like what they have to do.
A couple of big contracts must go, and some more smaller ones too. In order to ice a full roster, and to ice one with atleast some actual depth. Not a roster full of entry level contracts.
They have a lot of work to do. A lot more than meets the eye at a glance.
Irvine/prez. |
| polishexpress |
Posted - 07/13/2010 : 22:49:14
My only question is, who is willing to pick up $7mil for Brian Campbell?
Only a few teams can pick it up.
But how many teams want to, especially since his contract runs through to the 2015/2016 season?
How about high value contracts with little difference trades to lose cap space?
i.e. Campbell for Souray (I use it as an example only, Oilers are not taking on high individual salaries, but trying to lose them)
Maybe Ribeiro for Campbell with some picks on both sides, with a savings of 2mil?
|
|
|
