HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Chicago Blackhawks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

2010-11: THE APOCALYPSE (all talk here)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-26-2009, 12:27 AM
  #1
Crazy_Ike
Cookin' with fire.
 
Crazy_Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,605
vCash: 500
2010-11: THE APOCALYPSE (all talk here)

There's a lot of doom and gloomers (including some haters) who believe that the Hawks cap situation for that season is dire if the cap drops as expected to 50-55m. That this will mean the Hawks will have trouble signing their young team.

Want to know the truth?

It's bollocks.

In fact, almost the entire league is in the same boat. Many - perhaps a majority, even - are actually WORSE off. Most of the Hawk players in question will be RFAs, and not subject to poaching without huge compensation, and there are too many other players in exactly the same situation.

The truth is, the Hawks won't lose those players because there's nowhere for them to go!

Expect core players to accept short term deals at MUCH lower than expected salaries. This will be a league wide phenomenon, not just the Hawks. The issue will then correct itself a couple years later when the salary cap shoots back up (probably very fast).

Such a phony issue. It will not be a problem at all.

Crazy_Ike is offline  
Old
05-26-2009, 12:42 AM
  #2
Crazy_Ike
Cookin' with fire.
 
Crazy_Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,605
vCash: 500
Quick and dirty, using numbers not always reliable, but fairly close. Here's the numbers, assuming a 50m cap (worst case scenario) and 22 players.

Players left to sign - money left

Ana: 16 - 28m
Atl: 18 - 37m
Bos: 15 - 19m
Buf: 13 - 13m
Car: 15 - 27m
Cgy: 12 - 13m
Chi: 16 - 25m
Clb: 13 - 28m
Col: 18 - 28m
Dal: 17 - 30m
Det: 12 - 12m
Edm: 11 - 11m
Flo: 13 - 17m
Lak: 10 - 16m
Min: 14 - 23m
Mtl: 16 - 32m
Nas: 15 - 24m
Njd: 13 - 16m
Nyi: 13 - 25m
Nyr: 15 - 14m
Ott: 13 - 11m
Phi: 11 - 7m
Phx: 14 - 26m
Pit: 12 - 12m
Sjs: 15 - 20m
Stl: 15 - 28m
Tbl: 14 - 18m
Tor: 17 - 33m
Van: 16 - 35m
Wsh: 14 - 20m

Crazy_Ike is offline  
Old
05-26-2009, 12:49 AM
  #3
Crazy_Ike
Cookin' with fire.
 
Crazy_Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,605
vCash: 500
As you can see there are some teams that are so tight to a cap that low that they should have no option but to sign minimum wage players to all those slots. Very very few come even close to the 2m per player mark (and recall for a team spending to this 50m cap would be paying an average of 2.27m per player, so not a single team in the league could fill their slots with what we would consider an average lineup today).

The truth is, the Hawks are just fine. A few players may have to "tighten their belt" for a couple seasons. Actually, a lot of players, all over the league. But on the Hawks, they aren't going anywhere. Not for money reasons, at least.

Crazy_Ike is offline  
Old
05-26-2009, 08:20 AM
  #4
rick hawk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 606
vCash: 500
Thanks, Ike. Its nice to finally see an optimistic viewpoint.

rick hawk is online now  
Old
05-26-2009, 10:50 AM
  #5
Hal Incandenza
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 256
vCash: 500
Good post- I agree. Read a post on the Wings board about their salary cap scenario, and they might even be worse off than the Hawks cap-wise. That said, their lineup and cap hits are pretty much a perfect example of how we need to proceed with contracts over the next couple years- while the Hawks could potentially get in trouble, I don't expect it to be too bad cause they clearly saw the oncoming cap issues following the beginning of this season when Barker started down. I think we'll be in good shape, although there will be a lot of message board fodder in the off season with trades/contracts.

Hal Incandenza is offline  
Old
05-26-2009, 02:47 PM
  #6
hawksfan50
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 3,055
vCash: 500
Let me see--UNLESS Patticakes (Kane) ups his points production next season by anout 20 points or more and or improves his +/- to postive territory,I can see the contract going thus:

PK. -you failed to improve your ststs over 3 years-you have plateaued..in fact your +/- has gotten a lot worse-and you think we will give you a raise?
Take the pay cut or we'll ship you off to Buffalo(if they still want you). We can't pay now for production you might only give us to that $$$ level by 5 years or more out when MAYBE you won't be an overall defensive liability.


So P.K. has next season to "improve" -OR ELSE! Hawks would be crazy to hand him willy nilly the $5million+/yr deal when he still is so flawed...He's not Crosby or Malkin or even 2/3 their total impact --yet or if ever...

hawksfan50 is offline  
Old
05-26-2009, 02:49 PM
  #7
heyfolks
Registered User
 
heyfolks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: redwingcenter.com
Country: Costa Rica
Posts: 992
vCash: 500
The Wings are in a bad way this offseason. The excitement of signing Hossa is now fading into the reality that it will cost them too many other players. Some favor trading Rafalski to sing Hossa. That is the ONLY way to limit the roster change to 1 player. Given he is a hometown boy with a NTC that is unlikely. Others have said Cleary and/orFilpulla would be moved. Those types celary had their cable disconnected. and have missed the post season. Hudler is an RFA who is likely lost through arbitration or signing an offer sheet. Sammuelson is a UFA, along with Kopecky, Chelios and, of course, Hossa.

The tide is now turning where Hossa will be "one and done" because the Wings value the current depth over having to count on a sole superstar.

That said, the Huet and Campbell deals are not good ones.

heyfolks is offline  
Old
05-26-2009, 03:10 PM
  #8
massivegoonery
Registered User
 
massivegoonery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 11,403
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawksfan50 View Post
Let me see--UNLESS Patticakes (Kane) ups his points production next season by anout 20 points or more and or improves his +/- to postive territory,I can see the contract going thus:

PK. -you failed to improve your ststs over 3 years-you have plateaued..in fact your +/- has gotten a lot worse-and you think we will give you a raise?
Take the pay cut or we'll ship you off to Buffalo(if they still want you). We can't pay now for production you might only give us to that $$$ level by 5 years or more out when MAYBE you won't be an overall defensive liability.


So P.K. has next season to "improve" -OR ELSE! Hawks would be crazy to hand him willy nilly the $5million+/yr deal when he still is so flawed...He's not Crosby or Malkin or even 2/3 their total impact --yet or if ever...
We get it, you wanted Turris.

massivegoonery is offline  
Old
05-26-2009, 05:27 PM
  #9
Crazy_Ike
Cookin' with fire.
 
Crazy_Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,605
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by heyfolks View Post
That said, the Huet and Campbell deals are not good ones.
The Huet one isn't bad. It's not a ton of money or a ton of years and the alternatives are all much much worse. I cannot imagine the Hawks going into next season with Niemi as their starter and Khabibulin had done nothing to warrant even considering an extention when the signing happened. Yeah, he played poorly on sunday, but given the entire Hawks team that game I think he was placed in an absolutely impossible situation.

The Campbell signing is another story. He is not a bad player, not a great player either, becoming somewhat underrated around here now, but the money and the length were stupid.

Crazy_Ike is offline  
Old
05-26-2009, 06:19 PM
  #10
Hal Incandenza
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 256
vCash: 500
I think Detroit's strategy with regards to goaltending is turning out to be brilliant. Of course, a lot of this is hindsight since Ozzie has been truly a clutch playoff goalie, but if they had to pay a true #1 tender, there wouldn't be room this year for either Hossa a couple of their great depth forwards. Since they know their team is sick enough any goaltender can lead them to the playoffs, why spend money there? We saw what happened for a bit when the D had a bad stretch, and it wasn't pretty, but I think a couple years down the road you've gotta think the Hawks are planning on being in the same situation. Everything happened quickly this season, which makes the contract to Huet a bit worse than it otherwise would seem - but if you could knock a year or two off the contract, wouldn't you feel good about going with Crawford/Niemi/if both suck, then signing random Plan B fringe tender for cheap? This year's main agenda in goal was to not sabotage development of the team by having them play in front of some terrible guy like Andrew Raycroft, even if it cost $12MM. Hopefully either they trade Huet, or one of the Hawks prospects turn out to be a solid #1 in a few years.

If the Hawks did trade Huet, what do you think they'd do? Related question being "how much should they pay for a goalie?"
Who is even available? Somebody like Biron, Nittymaki, or Fernandez? I have seen these names thrown about in various spots although not for sure on anyone's status. on the other side of things...Luongo? Hell no. As our offense and defense get better, the value of having someone like him decreases- whereas a team like Columbus was pretty much dependent on having great goalie play.

I agree 100% on Kane. Unless he produces way more points or adds some level of D, I don't see him being worth that much- I would be disappointed if they give him 6 in this RFA contract, I think 5M is more along the lines of acceptable. If he got an offer sheet in the "four 1st rounders" level of compensation, which would almost have to come from a bad team trying to improve quickly...well I'd apologize to the 13 year old girls and take that deal ASAP.

Guys who are underrated have extra value in a salary cap world.

Hal Incandenza is offline  
Old
05-26-2009, 06:50 PM
  #11
rick hawk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 606
vCash: 500
Having Ozzie does turn out to be brilliant. However, it defies logic that he is probably outplaying, Luongo, Brodeur, Khabby, Thomas and Nabakov in these playoffs. Such is the nature of sports. Hindsight makes the Campbell and Huet signings look bad but they wern't so terrible at the time. A powerplay quarterback is a rare and valued commodity. This was a team need that had been identified last year. The fact that Campbell is having a bad year and Barker is showing signs that he can handle the role in the future make the deal less smart than it was. A steady number one goalie is also an important and valued commodity. The fact that Huet has been mediocre has made that less smart as well . In my opinion the only stupid part of this (without the benefit of hindsight) was signing Huet when they still had Khabby. I can't help but believe that they had a deal in place for him or were sure they could move him.

rick hawk is online now  
Old
05-26-2009, 09:23 PM
  #12
Hawksfan12*
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,563
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawksfan50 View Post
Let me see--UNLESS Patticakes (Kane) ups his points production next season by anout 20 points or more and or improves his +/- to postive territory,I can see the contract going thus:

PK. -you failed to improve your ststs over 3 years-you have plateaued..in fact your +/- has gotten a lot worse-and you think we will give you a raise?
Take the pay cut or we'll ship you off to Buffalo(if they still want you). We can't pay now for production you might only give us to that $$$ level by 5 years or more out when MAYBE you won't be an overall defensive liability.


So P.K. has next season to "improve" -OR ELSE! Hawks would be crazy to hand him willy nilly the $5million+/yr deal when he still is so flawed...He's not Crosby or Malkin or even 2/3 their total impact --yet or if ever...
WOW that was a bad post. Yes i beleive Pat kane should and will get 5 mil. u do realize hes a 20 year old with a calder and had back to back 70 point seasons.

Hawksfan12* is offline  
Old
05-27-2009, 03:19 PM
  #13
Hawkscap
Registered User
 
Hawkscap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,718
vCash: 500
Quote:
Such a phony issue. It will not be a problem at all.
Really? Under Contract for 10-11

SHARP, PATRICK R $3,900,000
Buff R $3,000,000
Brian Campbell D $7,142,875
SEABROOK, BRENT D $3,500,000
Sopel D $2,333,333
Cristobal Huet G $5,625,000
$25,501,208

The big RFAs to sign

TOEWS, JONATHAN
KANE, PATRICK
KEITH, DUNCAN
Barker
BOLLAND, DAVE
Versteeg

and throw Beech's possible $1.7 mil in

Try and make it fit for $50 mill and dont forget 8-10 more players.

You don't think another team will want a drop an offer sheet if DT tries and low balls any of these players.

$4 mill offer sheet might be only a 1st 2nd 3rd. Is Toews Kane or Keith greater than that?

I believe Keith is also arbitration eligible. How many D-man that play his minutes get less than $4 mil with that?

Who cares if other teams have the same problem. All it takes is one offer sheet to really screw this team up. Oh let's say Buffalo and $5 mil for Kane.

Hawkscap is online now  
Old
05-27-2009, 04:20 PM
  #14
massivegoonery
Registered User
 
massivegoonery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 11,403
vCash: 500
Problems will be dealt with as they arise, there's no point in getting worked up over something so far away. Non-essential players will be moved, there will be new kids to work in the lineup and some problems may fix themselves.

Who knows what the cap will look like in two years? Lots of projections are down but projections really don't mean anything at all. The cap could easily be a significant amount higher in two years.

massivegoonery is offline  
Old
05-27-2009, 05:05 PM
  #15
Crazy_Ike
Cookin' with fire.
 
Crazy_Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,605
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by topher42 View Post
Really?
Yeah, really.

Look again at the state of the other teams. No one is going to be giving offer sheets to anyone.

NO one.

The mistake you are making (same mistake a lot of people are making, but it is a MISTAKE) is believing that 2007/8 salaries will be given out in 2009/10. The situation for the next two years (but ONLY the next two) has changed drastically. What was a 4 million player in 2008 salary terms (say, Keith) is not a 4 million dollar player now or next year.

What might get poached by the few teams not in dire shape are UFAs. Why would you give up significant assets for RFAs when the UFAs are so desperate for places to play they will have no choice but to sign for cheap?

The RFAs all across the league will sign for fairly low dollar amounts, but also low durations, probably two years will be common.

So yeah. Read it again. There will not be a cap problem two offseasons from now. Period.

Want to know who is REALLY going to get farked? Teams who have a ton of RFAs/UFAs in 2013. All the short term deals (plus today's long term deals) will be coming off the books at once just as the cap shoots up like crazy again - probably blowing well past where it is today. No one knows which teams will get caught by this, but it will be a severe problem.

Crazy_Ike is offline  
Old
05-27-2009, 05:10 PM
  #16
brtriad
Registered User
 
brtriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: The Loop
Country: United States
Posts: 13,028
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to brtriad
To say there isn't going to be any cap problems at all is a bit preposterous; however, I don't think our issues will be as bad as people are making them out to be. We'll see how things shape up this offseason with Havlat and Bulin. Then we can have a better picture of how much wiggle room we'll have the next year.

brtriad is offline  
Old
05-27-2009, 05:14 PM
  #17
Crazy_Ike
Cookin' with fire.
 
Crazy_Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,605
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by topher42 View Post
Oh let's say Buffalo and $5 mil for Kane.
Ah so they're going to spend 8m on 12 players just so they have Kane?

I hope they enjoy their time in last place in the league.

Teams aren't that stupid. Everyone's going to have so much trouble with their own house, they aren't going to be wasting resources poaching someone else's when so much will be available for free.

The Hawks situation is actually quite good, comparatively. Almost all their free agents are RESTRICTED. They aren't going anywhere.

Crazy_Ike is offline  
Old
05-27-2009, 06:40 PM
  #18
Hawkscap
Registered User
 
Hawkscap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,718
vCash: 500
Still avoided the question,

How would you sign the RFAs plus 10 more players for $25 mil.


Let's see your logic.

Hawkscap is online now  
Old
05-27-2009, 06:50 PM
  #19
Crazy_Ike
Cookin' with fire.
 
Crazy_Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,605
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by topher42 View Post
Still avoided the question,

How would you sign the RFAs plus 10 more players for $25 mil.

Let's see your logic.
They will sign for what the team can afford or they don't play.

Not very difficult, was it?

Crazy_Ike is offline  
Old
05-27-2009, 06:57 PM
  #20
Hawkscap
Registered User
 
Hawkscap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,718
vCash: 500
You come on a claim 10-11 is no worry and back it up with they won't play for what the Hawks can pay. Nice logic.

Hawkscap is online now  
Old
05-27-2009, 07:44 PM
  #21
Crazy_Ike
Cookin' with fire.
 
Crazy_Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,605
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by topher42 View Post
You come on a claim 10-11 is no worry and back it up with they won't play for what the Hawks can pay. Nice logic.
Your reading comprehension is fail. They will sign for what the team can afford. Most the other teams are in the same boat so there is very unlikely to be trades going on and zero chance of RFA offer sheets. They are not going to hold out for money that simply isn't there. It's not like the players are going to be unaware of the cap issue themselves, you know. (or do you?)

Sorry but you completely failed to dent my argument in any way. You just bleated the same doomsday scenario I just disproved. You are, of course, welcome to try again.

Crazy_Ike is offline  
Old
05-27-2009, 08:13 PM
  #22
Hal Incandenza
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 256
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by topher42 View Post
You come on a claim 10-11 is no worry and back it up with they won't play for what the Hawks can pay. Nice logic.
Alright, I will take a shot at some logic if that is what you want.

SHARP, PATRICK R $3,900,000
Buff R $3,000,000
Brian Campbell D $7,142,875
SEABROOK, BRENT D $3,500,000
Sopel D $2,333,333 I expect that Sopel will be gone, one way or another.
Cristobal Huet G $5,625,000

So that gives us $23,167,875 committed to five players. Terrible, yes, but there will be a lot of different ways they can try to get this thing under control. I'll play under your assumption of a $50MM cap. That is a tight cap, no doubt. How badly could it hurt the Hawks?
Toews, Kane, Keith- $5MM each might do it, considering that is more like today's $6MM contract as far as portion of overall hockey salaries are concerned. I'm sure the three won't each command the same salary, but on average it ought to be somewhere in this range- if you start here and work down, we'll see what this leaves.
Bolland - 2.5MM seems reasonable (if other teams fans think I'm waaaay lowballing, let me know and we can discuss the demand for said player, consider it an "offer sheet" from hf boards armchair GMs). Then we have one hole in the top-6, and have Ladd and Versteeg to resign. 4th line as is for cheapish, should total about 2 mill. Backup goalie, also going cheap within the system, maybe a million. This leaves 7 million in this quick and dirty calculation. For $43 million, we're at:
Toews-Kane-Byfuglien
Bolland-Sharp-????
THIRD LINE
Burish-Fraser-Eager, replace with random 4th liners if these guys aren't super cheap.

Keith-Seabrook
Campbell-???
???-???

Huet
Crawford/Niemi/other

...and yeah this would be trouble, although not in the losing superstars scenario everyone mentions. I don't know the entry level contract stuff...how could beach make 1.7? If he does, that could be tough unless he's doing well. But we could throw together something like Ladd (2), Barker (2.5? 3+?), Hjal(1-1.5?), either or both Aliu/Beach, and fill #6 D spot with trash like Walker, but hopefully not him actually.
This would sort of maybe squeeze in at 50, salaries subject to change obviously. This would give a solid top-6, but lose Versteeg- I see him being more than the other guys, but maybe not actually more valuable to the Hawks. Can't really pay more than ~3 for him, in my eyes. Then fill out the third line full of crazy kids and some cheap pure checking grinder, fourth line as is or close to it (eh sadly some of them may end up being 3rd line in this scenario...). On D, we'd have resigned everyone, except THE SOAP has been moved since he has stopped existing. Basically, Campbell's super expensive contract costs a solid forward. If we had a good D-man at like 3-4 mil, it'd still be a solid top-4/5 guys on D, but leave much more room to work.

Obviously, somebody will have to go...but I don't think it's super doomsday either, since all the good teams are close to a $50MM cap anyway. And other teams have internal caps that will DEFINITELY be worse off than the real cap...

Does anyone think one of the "second tier" guys is more important to resign than Toews, Keith, or Kane? Or that other teams might give a lot for someone particular in a trade? Flexibility will be key, really anything could happen I guess. Damn economy.
loosely grouped by appx value:
big3- Toews/Keith/Kane
second tier pieces- Bolland/Versteeg/Barker/Ladd/Hjalmarsson
the crazy kids- Aliu/Beach (help on entry level $, anyone who gets it?)

Wrapping up this lengthy ramble....
One overlooked point of the upcoming cap misery is that those teams that can sign a lot of guys to long-term deals at the "recession market value" are going to look SMART once the cap starts going up again. Hawks could be completely lucking into some contracts like that, where guys take discounts to stay at the right time- or do you think players will shy away from long-term deals? If they can get CHEAP long-term deals, instead of just Campbell's golden handcuffs, teams might wish they had such a "problem" as well. Thoughts?

Hal Incandenza is offline  
Old
05-27-2009, 08:34 PM
  #23
Crazy_Ike
Cookin' with fire.
 
Crazy_Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,605
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hal Incandenza View Post
Sopel D $2,333,333 I expect that Sopel will be gone, one way or another.
He will be traded, waived, or bought out either this offseason or next.

Quote:
So that gives us $23,167,875 committed to five players. Terrible, yes
Actually, as I posted above, its not only not terrible, its pretty much par for course and better than many.

Quote:
Toews, Kane, Keith- $5MM each might do it, considering that is more like today's $6MM contract as far as portion of overall hockey salaries are concerned.
Keith will have to play his heart out to get 5m even at 2008 salary levels next season. I am the biggest Keith fan alive, but he simply doesn't deserve that kind of paycheque from his play to date, again even at 2008 levels.

However, we're going to be talking 2010 levels. 3m a season, two years. Kane and Toews each get 4m.

Quote:
Bolland - 2.5MM seems reasonable (if other teams fans think I'm waaaay lowballing, let me know and we can discuss the demand for said player, consider it an "offer sheet" from hf boards armchair GMs).
Bolland should sign for 2m.

Quote:
This leaves 7 million in this quick and dirty calculation.
Realistically, given the league wide cap situation, more like 12m.

Quote:
I don't know the entry level contract stuff...how could beach make 1.7?
It's all in incentives but I am not sure anyone knows what his cap hit actually is yet.

Quote:
But we could throw together something like Ladd (2), Barker (2.5? 3+?), Hjal(1-1.5?), either or both Aliu/Beach, and fill #6 D spot with trash like Walker, but hopefully not him actually.
Please no Walker! Barker will not get 3m. He would not get 3m even if he wasn't a serious defensive liability, which he still is. If he asks for a shred more than 1.5m in 2010 cap world, he should be shopped. Hjalmarsson will need to have a spectacular year to go over 1m.

As you can see, there actually is plenty of money there, and I am being conservative. The flaw in the "we're going to lose players" argument still remains - the other teams in the league are in exactly the same boat and are in no position to push salaries out at the 2008 level, which is the mistake everyone keeps making.

It's temporary. By 2012 (quite possibly 2011) the cap will have completely recovered and probably surpassed its current level. The players are not stupid. They will not risk their future over cap money that doesn't exist. Short term low payout deals, then negotiate after cap shoots back up for deals closer to current day.

Crazy_Ike is offline  
Old
05-27-2009, 11:11 PM
  #24
Hal Incandenza
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 256
vCash: 500
Wow, I haven't seen a whole lot of people discussing your side, but I can certainly see why the contracts will be forced to drop a ton. Did they just get out of control the last year or two?

Considering the contracts already signed by Hawk RFA players, it seems like you're assuming we will go from offering basically free money, to driving a hard bargain. Since the team will want to stick together mostly and get a fair amount of the total cap, this will probably work, except I do wonder how Campbell will be perceived by the rest of the players. If they are all playing at the amounts you give (Keith just seems super cheap at the numbers you cite but I guess it'd be in line with Seabrook's extension), players would be compensated pretty much fairly with their roles, except for the #3ish D who is set for life making probably double what he'd be worth in that structure. He's basically taking a couple hundred thousand from each player!

Things will definitely get interesting. Look forward to discussing every possible scenario now that we're waiting for next season to start...I don't expect the cap to really go to 50mm though, while possible that would be a big swing and certainly will change things leaguewide.

Hal Incandenza is offline  
Old
05-27-2009, 11:13 PM
  #25
theaub
Lets go Hawks!
 
theaub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Markham, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,821
vCash: 500
I'm sure we'll be trying to sign the core guys (Kane/Toews/Keith) in the offseason so as not to even worry about offer sheets.

theaub is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:58 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.