Trade Rumors and Free Agent TalkTrade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.
I don't mind it, he gets a serious injury goes on LTI and his salary doesn't count against the cap.
I have a much larger problem with the Campbell deal, anyone want him? Maybe Ottawa will still take him.
Yes, but at the start of every season Havlat would (in theory) be healthy, meaning the Blackhawks would need to conform to the CBA on day 1 of the season each year.
These long term deals are ridiculous. Am I the only one who doesn't like the idea of mortgaging your future for a favorable cap hit today?
usually these long term deals GO to the players of your future
- If the contract is signed before he is 35 then if he chooses to retire midway through his contract then his cap hit doesnt count against the cap
- usually these contracts have extra 1-4 million$ years added to them, so your cap hit is only 1-4mill which wont really effect other players signings during the backhalf of the contract
- low cap hit
there are a lot of pros for doing these longterm deals
For every bone head move there are equally good ones too, just look at Denis Wideman's RFA contract signed last year. IMO, Wideman could of gotten a lot more.
Right, but teams like Chicago make those moves much more difficult.
Right, but teams like Chicago make those moves much more difficult.
I find it ironic in the extreme that a poster of the team that signed Chara ($7.5M), Savard ($5M), and Ryder ($4M) which puts the future of home grown talent like Kessel & Krejci at risk is ripping on the Hawks for Campbell & Huet. Especially when Huet will be the #1 next year when Khabibuilin moves on.
This better be with a cap hit under id say around 3.5 mill for that long. Havlat is a great player and worth alot of money but like gaborik, his injury history is too big to ignore. Just when my faith in the hawks organization was restored, this story has to come out. They should be worrying of trying to sign Keith, Toews and Kane.
I find it ironic in the extreme that a poster of the team that signed Chara ($7.5M), Savard ($5M), and Ryder ($4M) which puts the future of home grown talent like Kessel & Krejci at risk is ripping on the Hawks for Campbell & Huet. Especially when Huet will be the #1 next year when Khabibuilin moves on.
Chara is the number 1 defenseman on the best team in the east. He is a back-to-back Norris finalist... Did you just compare him to Campbell? Boston, unlike Chicago, does not have 3 stud defensemen. There was no need for Chicago to bring in a UFA at $7.1+ million and play #4 minutes. That's just stupid.
Marc Savard's contract is one of the best in the NHL.
Michael Ryder would of been 3rd in goal scoring if he played on Chicago, 4th in points while playing in 74 games and averaging 3rd line minutes. He was one of the best UFA signings this offseason.
Wow, I can't believe so many people think this would be a bad deal for the Hawks. I think many people are letting last years admittedly bad signings of Campbell and Huet cloud their vision. The Hawks have made the playoffs now, it's not like trying to get somebody to play in Toronto (couldn't help it). Lets look at a few of the arguments that caught my eye:
1. He will get hurt. While this is always a possibility, I don't see why this makes a re-signing particularly bad. The injury risk is priced into the contract, unless everyone suddenly forgets during negotiations. Havlat looks like the problem really was just that his shoulder needed surgery all along, and trying to rehab it made him extend the injury over another season. I'm not particularly worried. While an injury would hurt the Hawks, as long as it is serious enough for LTIR they are in the same position they'd be in without Marty (note that this year on day 1 of this season, Barker was in the minors due to cap trouble...so conforming to the cap on day 1 of the season could be done several ways in an emergency, although hopefully we learned that lesson...) . I am aware of no better forward the Hawks could sign as cheaply as Marty, normal "when healthy" caveats applied and all.
2. hahaha contract year! This is a complete fallacy. In his last contract year, he played 18 games. While I'm sure he knew this season would impact the value of his next contract, there is no reason to think Havlat is any different than every other player in this regard.
3. The Hawks need to re-sign Toews, Kane and Keith. As the almighty MEAT LOAF once sang..."Two out of three ain't bad." Kane is a really good offensive player, and obviously is a major weapon for the Hawks already at a young age. But as we all know, defense matters. A lot. Kane is currently somewhere between horrible and bad on the defensive scale. In no universe do I ever see him becoming a good defensive player. Maybe he can pull it out of nowhere, but right now he's going to have to work hard and backcheck with a lot more effort just to become decent.
I don't see a $6M offense-only guy being that good of a deal, especially if a guy with the same ability on the offensive side but who is also great on D (Appearance of Havlat's D may have been new this year, don't know if Havlat was ever much on D for Ottawa) can be had for $4-5M per year. Also...Kane is an RFA!! You don't even have to pay him as much due to this...if it comes down to it and teams submit offer sheets, then you can decide. But make him earn those raises, something which Duncan Keith definitely did. Trading Kane would, marketing aside, be a great idea for the Hawks. You know some team would love to add the well-known offensive force, and probably overpay. If someone signed him in RFA, it would at least be worth 2 first rounders, a second, and a third, with an outside chance of reaching the highest RFA comp level which is worth FOUR first rounders. For 4 firsts, I sign every place there is a dotted line and you're in good shape pick-wise for years, which is necessary with how many young players the Hawks will have to give raises to (and lose some to the cap, invariably). I wouldn't be terribly sad at the thought of losing Kane for 2 firsts, 2nd, 3rd, if it came down to it. Could maybe do better than that on the open market at some point.
The Hawks will probably not trade Kane. He brings the 12 year old girls out to the UC, and also makes for good publicity, and ads with him being made fun of for looking young. He will be a good player for a long time, but with his lack of size and only decent speed, I don't see him being a true franchise cornerstone like Toews and Keith are. Sign him if you can, but not at the expense of anyone else.
Back to Havlat....if the Hawks don't re-sign him, they will regret it next year. Bolland and Ladd are perfect counterparts, and I see those guys (esp. Bolland) being significantly worse without Marty- Bolland is still developing offense but having Havlat who can carry it in and then create space for the play to develop seems to help him a ton. Versteeg is good, but he would be a big drop-off to slot into Marty's spot (also...$4M for him? I hope that doesn't happen very soon...he's good but that would make me think twice about him). Versteeg needs to learn how to be patient after carrying it in with his fancy moves, he's sick 1on1 but can't carry a line like Havlat. Versteeg-Bolland-Ladd isn't a good 2nd line really.
SIGN MARTY
ready to rock my #24 jersey to the UC tonight
Also I know I wrote a lot, sorry if you're dragging through the epic length- but would love to hear thoughts on any of my opinions, thanks. Ready for the Hawks to join the Wings in signing all these long contracts to save cap room...we could start here and then hell, might as well give Toews and Keith lifetime contracts before the league closes that loophole. Actually if that happened...it might cause them to close it, haha "toews signs 20 year $100 million contract" HA that would be a sick headline. DO IT DALE
Oh and I am overjoyed to hear Campbell could possibly be moved. He's good at what he does, but if he gets traded without the Hawks sending along much of value then you've gotta think the Hawks are looking good for a while. Take him, NJ or Florida or whomever. That extra $7M will come in handy.
The Islanders would suck whether or not DiPietro was injured, signed, or whatever. His contract is the least of their worries. Why should teams learn from that? I'm guessing they already knew guys could sustain injuries and give you no production for their contract, the contract length is nearly irrelevant.
These types of deals becoming commonplace are only scary for the teams that fail to sign a superstar long-term to such a deal. I'm guessing the policy will see some changes in the future, which could go in any direction, but under the current rules- these contracts are a good idea. You always have a risk when signing a player, the key is to price that risk properly. I don't know if Tallon will, but hopefully he can sign everybody to reasonable deals and not continue to hand out inflated contracts like those gifted to Campbell and Huet.
What I'm hearing / reading is Campbell will be shipped out to New Jersey. It sounds like Jersey fans want him too... I guess they have not watched him play in San Jose or Chicago.
1. Where did you hear this?
2. I hope Chicago likes a big helping of Zubrus.
Chara is the number 1 defenseman on the best team in the east. He is a back-to-back Norris finalist... Did you just compare him to Campbell? Boston, unlike Chicago, does not have 3 stud defensemen. There was no need for Chicago to bring in a UFA at $7.1+ million and play #4 minutes. That's just stupid.
Marc Savard's contract is one of the best in the NHL.
Michael Ryder would of been 3rd in goal scoring if he played on Chicago, 4th in points while playing in 74 games and averaging 3rd line minutes. He was one of the best UFA signings this offseason.
I wasn't comparing the individual's talents or contributions - just that both teams made significant UFA signings to help get the teams turned around that will impact their ability to keep all the young talent that is coming up through both organizations.
Also, who is Chicago's 3rd "stud" defenseman? It's easy to look back with 20/20 hindsight, but going into the year no one could realistically expect the significant progression in both Seabrook and Keith's game.
I wish teams would realize that paying UFAs and impending UFAs a lot of money on long term doesn't go well with the cap. What, next year there will be reports and rumors that they would like to move him (Havlat) like Campbell this year. How many times have we seen that teams want to mvoe players they just signed to long term contracts (Drury, Redden, Khabibulin, Campbell, Briere, Smyth, Brad Richards, Andy McDonald, Penner, Gilbert or Visnovsky, Lecavalier,... Why can't GMs just think before they put pen to paper drolling about big names.
It's easy to look back with 20/20 hindsight, but going into the year no one could realistically expect the significant progression in both Seabrook and Keith's game.
Are you joking? Did you watch the team at all last year?
I'm not even going to respond to all the idiocy regarding Kane, you guys should know better than that by now.
Are you joking? Did you watch the team at all last year?
I'm not even going to respond to all the idiocy regarding Kane, you guys should know better than that by now.
I though both guys were legit top pairing d-men, but didn't think either one should be on the top PP unit. I didn't think that Seabrook would look as good as he has, or that Keith would look like a Norris candidate the first 50-60 games of the season.
Add in Barker turning it around and making huge strides from last year (although he'll still have significant brain cramps), and going into this year, I think that you can make a case for Campbell being at least as valuable as DK or BS.
That obviously is no longer the case, but people acting like they expected Barker to be one of the best power point producer per minuted played are crazy.
Boston, unlike Chicago, does not have 3 stud defensemen. There was no need for Chicago to bring in a UFA at $7.1+ million and play #4 minutes. That's just stupid. 
