| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Tiller33
PickupHockey Pro
389 Posts |
 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. |
Edited by - Tiller33 on 07/15/2010 11:51:33 |
 |
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
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.
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
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
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
Tiller33
PickupHockey Pro
389 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
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 |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
Tiller33
PickupHockey Pro
389 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
Tiller33
PickupHockey Pro
389 Posts |
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. |
Edited by - Tiller33 on 07/16/2010 14:06:08 |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
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.  |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Chicago's Next Move? 
