Blackhawks GM admits mistake on late offers

Section 313 wrote:

<quoted text>
First off, the $50 million cap is at the extreme end of the estimated cap for 10-11. We'll see what it actually drops to.
I don't think the Hawks did anything to mortgage their future. They made their team better for this season. Obviously there are going to be some decisions to make going into next offseason, but Kane and Toews will be resigned. The team will have a different look to it, but Kane and Toews will be part of it. Other players such as Buff, Sharp, Versteeg, Barker, may not be a part of it, but the team is going to continue moving forward even after this coming season. The sky is not falling!
Lastly, everyone needs to keep in mind that although Kane and Toews current salaries may be under $1 million, their current cap hits are significantly higher ($3.725 M and $2.8M, respectively). Obviously there will be a significant increase in their cap hit after this season, but not as large perhaps as everyone thinks.

How would a $4M drop be on the extreme end?(Remember the 5% inflator the NHLPA exercised is gone making the phantom cap this year at 53.96M). Season ticket and corporate suite sales are significantly down more this year across most of the NHL. But suppose you are right and the cap only drops to 52M (a 2M decrease or less than 5%), that still means 5.9M to sign 8 guys (3 of which will demand large raises)--that's a problem. This problem is compounded by the fact that '10-'11 will be a hard cap year (no 7.5% bonus inflator since no CBA after Sept 2011). Compounded further by the fact that bonuses earned this year in excess of 1.4M count against the cap next year ($5M is possible).
Secondly, when you talk about losing 4+ players to resign 2 players that is about mortgaging the future.
Lastly, who cares what their actual salary is when you have a cap issue. Do you think they aren't going to ask for comparable money? Keith's number is 1.475M--will he command more money than Cam Barker? Than that's about 2M more. Will Kane get at least $1M more? Ladd will command at least 1.5M more. Toews will want around 1.5M. That's 6M for 4 guys based on significant hometown discounts and long term agreements. This means they have negative cap space to sign 4 more players which is not possible under the CBA.
Enjoy now, but realize this is a one year window to keep everyone.
Think I am wrong...show me number-wise how you keep everyone on the 1st and 2nd line and the top 4 defenders (can't trade Campbell or Huet's contracts esp next year for anywhere near equal value).

Jacqueass

Since: May 09

Chicago suburbs

gameon63 wrote:

Huet is going to make people long for Khabibulin.

Ahhh, short memories. Remember that Khabi was awful to average during the two years before last? That's why they signed Huet.

Huet will do fine, and if he doesn't there are two good kids waiting for their chance.

In3yrsTheyAreUFA s_notRFAs

Section 313 wrote:

Assuming no other team was planning on tendering offers to Barker and Versteeg as RFAs, then yes, the Hawks overpaid for them for THIS season. The qualifying offers would have kept these guys in the fold for one more year and then to get these guys back would have most likely cost more money than what they were signed for. TSN estimated Barker's worth as a UFA at upwards of $5 million per season. The Hawks signed him for $3 million per season for 3 years, after which he (and Versteeg) is still a RFA. I think this worked out ok.

Nope, the NHLPA is still taking the UFA vs RFA argument to an arbitrator since he and the others will be < 27 yrs old (with less than 7 yrs in the league) when the next contract finishes. The argument is that he was technically an UFA after July 1 and chose to resign. The 'hawks just acted quickly to resign them to avoid losing them for nothing. It didn't keep him as a RFA by signing. It might not show it yet, but the case hasn't been heard yet. The NHLPA is in the business to make the most money for the players not to play hometown favors.

As you point out this makes a difference in three years as well (but not expected to be as much since they commanded essentially the salaries of UFA this year).

Hawk fan

Lake Forest, IL

hmmm. He says it has never happened in the past. That signals to me that someone new was to be handling it and their secretary screwed up. hmmm who is new in the organization? JM, JB, AMcI.....Who sounds like he is taking the fall like a good soldier?

KirkBlackHawk

Corner Brook, Canada

Talon supporters...blah./......slowl y...talon supporters are changing...thank god....Bowman is the expert...hecame to chitown to help his son win a cup...his son is a survivor of cvancer I believe...?/ Anyway, let the bowmans win the cup...talon signed this campbell fiasco...talon is lettinmg skille slip awaywhile he plays .... fraser???? Whats up with THAT?

We are cap strapped and in danger...so...what about we dont win this years cup...?? Aftera;lll, we will NOT be the underdog but the topw three favourited team to win it all. Pressure now, new goalie (in a way) and a goalie who has not won and not proven. If we win fine, great, then what...still cap strapped and lose all these great youbng players. If we dont win we lose them too....so who orchestrated this mess...talon...campbell...late in sending mail...come on....blame the underlings all you want...this is the ONE time of year you gotta have your homework done!!!!!!!!!!

Fire Talon, or promote him to assistent VP of something another...but get Bowman as your GM, and then, you will win.

Great White North Fan

Millet, Canada

Jacqueass wrote:

<quoted text>
Ahhh, short memories. Remember that Khabi was awful to average during the two years before last? That's why they signed Huet.

Good point. It wasn't that long ago that Khabi was being referred to as "Crappybulin". If Versteeg and Barker continue to develop by the time they hit the 3rd year of their contracts, they will be a bargain. They're all back and they will have a legit run at the Cup next year. Who can ask for anything more?

Since: Jun 09

Lake Zurich

In3yrsTheyAreUFAs_notRFAs wrote:

<quoted text>
Nope, the NHLPA is still taking the UFA vs RFA argument to an arbitrator since he and the others will be < 27 yrs old (with less than 7 yrs in the league) when the next contract finishes. The argument is that he was technically an UFA after July 1 and chose to resign. The 'hawks just acted quickly to resign them to avoid losing them for nothing. It didn't keep him as a RFA by signing. It might not show it yet, but the case hasn't been heard yet. The NHLPA is in the business to make the most money for the players not to play hometown favors.
As you point out this makes a difference in three years as well (but not expected to be as much since they commanded essentially the salaries of UFA this year).

Isn't this assuming that the arbitrator rules that, because of the offer sheet snafu, these players were UFAs when signed? Like you said, the case hasn't been heard yet.

Since: Jun 09

Lake Zurich

This isnt a video game wrote:

<quoted text>
How would a $4M drop be on the extreme end?(Remember the 5% inflator the NHLPA exercised is gone making the phantom cap this year at 53.96M). Season ticket and corporate suite sales are significantly down more this year across most of the NHL. But suppose you are right and the cap only drops to 52M (a 2M decrease or less than 5%), that still means 5.9M to sign 8 guys (3 of which will demand large raises)--that's a problem. This problem is compounded by the fact that '10-'11 will be a hard cap year (no 7.5% bonus inflator since no CBA after Sept 2011). Compounded further by the fact that bonuses earned this year in excess of 1.4M count against the cap next year ($5M is possible).
Secondly, when you talk about losing 4+ players to resign 2 players that is about mortgaging the future.
Lastly, who cares what their actual salary is when you have a cap issue. Do you think they aren't going to ask for comparable money? Keith's number is 1.475M--will he command more money than Cam Barker? Than that's about 2M more. Will Kane get at least $1M more? Ladd will command at least 1.5M more. Toews will want around 1.5M. That's 6M for 4 guys based on significant hometown discounts and long term agreements. This means they have negative cap space to sign 4 more players which is not possible under the CBA.
Enjoy now, but realize this is a one year window to keep everyone.
Think I am wrong...show me number-wise how you keep everyone on the 1st and 2nd line and the top 4 defenders (can't trade Campbell or Huet's contracts esp next year for anywhere near equal value).

Hey, I'm no cap expert, but I was merely making a rebuttal to the point that the Hawks have mortgaged their future to play for the Cup this season. I never said that they were going to be able to keep rolling year after year with the exact same team. There will be some tough decisions and changes that have to be made, but top priority is keeping this "core" together, which definitely includes Kane, Toews, and Keith. There are going to have to be moves made to make this happen, but if you think the Hawks have a one year window, that's just crazy. One year window to keep the same team, then yes. That is true every single season. No team ever goes completely unchanged year to year. We'll probably see the departure of at least a couple of the following, Ladd, Sharp, Buff, Sopel (hopefully), even Versteeg and/or Barker, but that will not destroy the team when the top guys are resigned. Huet and Campbell are not going anywhere, and, despite their large contracts, that is a good thing.

Since: Jun 09

Lake Zurich

This isnt a video game wrote:

<quoted text>
This problem is compounded by the fact that '10-'11 will be a hard cap year (no 7.5% bonus inflator since no CBA after Sept 2011). Compounded further by the fact that bonuses earned this year in excess of 1.4M count against the cap next year ($5M is possible).

I understand that there is no bonus inflator after this season, however, as I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong), the bonuses earned this year will only count against the cap next year to the extent that they put the Hawks over the cap this season. Perhaps I'm missing something here, but as the roster stands now, the Hawks are exceeding the cap this year by just under $1M, and that is assuming that Kane and Toews hit all their bonuses. If this happens, and no other moves are made by season's end, I thought the charge to next year's cap number would only be just under $1M (the same amount they are over the current cap at season's end).

If it becomes apparent that these guys are going to hit their full bonuses and no other moves are possible, simple solution - waive Sopel and you are back under the cap.

dcd

Section 313 wrote:

<quoted text>
I understand that there is no bonus inflator after this season, however, as I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong), the bonuses earned this year will only count against the cap next year to the extent that they put the Hawks over the cap this season. Perhaps I'm missing something here, but as the roster stands now, the Hawks are exceeding the cap this year by just under $1M, and that is assuming that Kane and Toews hit all their bonuses. If this happens, and no other moves are made by season's end, I thought the charge to next year's cap number would only be just under $1M (the same amount they are over the current cap at season's end).
If it becomes apparent that these guys are going to hit their full bonuses and no other moves are possible, simple solution - waive Sopel and you are back under the cap.

The hawks have $5M in bonuses possible for the '09-'10 season according to what I am seeing (Kane's total is $2.85M and Toes has $2.15M--both are in contract years so they be playing for them) and 23 man roster with 1.43M in cap space left. So that a potential hit of $3.57M (like you said everyone would have to hit the bonus clause and that doesn't always happen).

Hockey contracts are guaranteed so to waive a player you would have to eat the contract value left over double the years left and there's cap consequences to it. If it was Sopel (after the season) that would mean a cap charge of $1.16M for the 2 years.

In addition if you waive a player just prior (or when it becomes apparent that they will meet their bonus) you are setting yourself up for an NHLPA grievance.

dcd

Section 313 wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey, I'm no cap expert, but I was merely making a rebuttal to the point that the Hawks have mortgaged their future to play for the Cup this season. I never said that they were going to be able to keep rolling year after year with the exact same team. There will be some tough decisions and changes that have to be made, but top priority is keeping this "core" together, which definitely includes Kane, Toews, and Keith. There are going to have to be moves made to make this happen, but if you think the Hawks have a one year window, that's just crazy. One year window to keep the same team, then yes. That is true every single season. No team ever goes completely unchanged year to year. We'll probably see the departure of at least a couple of the following, Ladd, Sharp, Buff, Sopel (hopefully), even Versteeg and/or Barker, but that will not destroy the team when the top guys are resigned. Huet and Campbell are not going anywhere, and, despite their large contracts, that is a good thing.

Here's my rebuttal to that...
I think you have a difference of opinion on the words 'exact' and 'core'. To me, core refers to more than 3 players--I consider it the 1st and 2nd lines, top 4 defensemen, and starting goalie. Depth means you can role 4 lines. Afterall, why would every team that didn't win want the exact same team--unless they don't care about winning or were bitten by injuries? How about exact core with similar role players...otherwise have to change your style of play.
3 players don't make a team (with the possible exception for a team with a goalie on an incredible role--Hasek in Buffalo during their one year cup run--but that only furthers the point)
Detroit has been so good post cap-era because they have controlled their spending on goalies so they could spend on depth elsewhere (in '06 Legace 1.16M, Osgood 0.9M...'07 Osgood 0.9M, Hasek $0.75M, MacDonald 0.55M...in '08 Hasek 2M, Howard 0.85M, Osgood 0.8M)...the 'hawks can't do that because of Huet.
3 players as a core doesn't win cups...just ask the Blues about their cup with the team of Hull, Gretzky, Al MacInnis, plus depth players like Chris Pronger, Fuhr, Glenn Anderson, and Craig Mactivish
more recent examples like...Calgary with Iginla, Phaneuf, and Kiprusoff
...even San Jose with Boyle, Marleau, Thornton, Nabokov...they have been long time cup contenders with not even a conf finals appearance post lockout.
When you give up the depth or 'core' players, the 2nd and 3rd liners especially--you don't last long in the playoffs (unless you have top prospects waiting/being held back by veterans) that's mortgaging the future. A great recent example of this is Ottawa (played for the cup in '07). Ottawa was a young team and only lost 5 players the year afterwards with the only big name being Mike Comrie. But they made sure they resigned their core 3 are they pushing for the cup still?

dcd

Here's why a small core doesn't work:
You need depth (and luck with injuries) to win a cup...for example Detroit was missing it's two top players (its MVP candidate-Datsyuk and its Norris candidate-Lidstrom) for the last two games and still beat the 'hawks in 5 (and that was with an experienced proven goalie playing well--unlike Huet) yet the year before Pitt had the sick/injured superstars. But you can over come sick/injured superstars as Chicago learned against Detroit this past playoff and it was done in 5 games-Detroit's depth players were the difference.
Once you get to a certain level every team in the league guns for you. That makes for a long season with greater injury potential. Making that depth important (or wearing down your team).
No one knows how the young 'hawks will respond to the shortened off-season (Stanley Cup hangover). Both Pitt and Detroit had problems getting going during last year. Need depth stepping up in those cases.
Plus most teams need cap space to sign depth at/near the trade deadline to finalize a cup run(ie Brad Stuart in '08 and Bill Guerin in '09 both helped their teams to the cup).
So yea it's mortgaging the future and has them set up for 1 Stanley cup yr run...they simply don't have the cap room to keep their depth especially given the fact most of their talent is coming off their entry level contracts and the fact Chicago is still paying the price for having overspent to get free agents or soon to be via trade to come there when they weren't that good (Havalat, khabibulin, Lalime, Smolinski, Campbell, Handzus, etc)...but that's a chicken and egg problem.
so my point comes down to having a quality GM that avoids these issues and that is something the 'hawks are lacking (at least until Bowman takes over).

dcd

Section 313 wrote:

<quoted text>
...making a rebuttal to the point that the Hawks have mortgaged their future to play for the Cup this season...

Since: Jun 09

Lake Zurich

ISP: Lake Zurich, IL

dcd wrote:

<quoted text>
The hawks have $5M in bonuses possible for the '09-'10 season according to what I am seeing (Kane's total is $2.85M and Toes has $2.15M--both are in contract years so they be playing for them) and 23 man roster with 1.43M in cap space left. So that a potential hit of $3.57M (like you said everyone would have to hit the bonus clause and that doesn't always happen).
Hockey contracts are guaranteed so to waive a player you would have to eat the contract value left over double the years left and there's cap consequences to it. If it was Sopel (after the season) that would mean a cap charge of $1.16M for the 2 years.
In addition if you waive a player just prior (or when it becomes apparent that they will meet their bonus) you are setting yourself up for an NHLPA grievance.

I wasn't talking about buying out Sopel's contract, since that would still put the Hawks on the hook for half of the remaining dollars of his contract. I was talking about putting him on waivers.

Since: Jun 09

Lake Zurich

ISP: Lake Zurich, IL

dcd wrote:

<quoted text>
Here's my rebuttal to that...
I think you have a difference of opinion on the words 'exact' and 'core'. To me, core refers to more than 3 players

Right. I was just pointing out that those 3 guys were a part of the core that also includes guys like Bolland, Seabrook, Hossa (obviously), etc.

Since: Jun 09

Lake Zurich

ISP: Lake Zurich, IL

dcd - Great discussion. Helping me through my offseason depression!

dcd