TSN alleges mistakes made regarding Blackhawk RFAs

davetherave wrote:

PKC wrote:

davetherave wrote:

PKC wrote:I'll take a Versteeg please!

Will that be credit or debit? Air Miles card?

Throw that one on the corporate card...this one's on Melnyk.

PS would you like me to send Kris a message via Twitter?

Is Facebook out of style now?

PKC wrote:

davetherave wrote:

PKC wrote:

davetherave wrote:

PKC wrote:I'll take a Versteeg please!

Will that be credit or debit? Air Miles card?

Throw that one on the corporate card...this one's on Melnyk.

PS would you like me to send Kris a message via Twitter?

Is Facebook out of style now?

Yup. Twitter is it.

davetherave wrote:Slow day today for UFA news...

If this is such an issue, why didn't it surface until now?

As Tallon said, the offers were mailed in a timely fashion and copies sent by fax to the League office.

yeah everything will be fine, there will be no drama in Chicago, and Tallon will never make this mistake again, if there was indeed a mistake, I am not certain there was, it was just someone grasping to make a little excitement.

Very interesting:

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=283914

And Tallon isn't getting just a little worried?

What do you think DTR?

Cap'n Clutch wrote:Very interesting:

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=283914

And Tallon isn't getting just a little worried?

What do you think DTR?

Thanks for asking.

Mr. Darren Dreger loves gossip. Hockey expertise, well, we're not sure about him. Dreger is like Garrioch in that respect...among others.

All those RFAs are now signed except for Versteeg, whose agent said today that Kris wants to do a deal with Chicago.

As for the cap, nobody cares what your cap hit is if your team makes it to the Final Four. I seem to remember the Pens and Wings were pretty 'squeezed' last year cap-wise, and so what?

BTW both those teams currently have less cap room than the Hawks.

You spend what you have to spend to win, and figure the rest out later. That's part of why GMs get paid. Dale Tallon is no more or less worried, I suppose, than Ray Shero or Ken Holland. But what do I know? You'd have to ask Dale.

There is no 'cap hell' if your team is winning. 'Hell' for a team, is missing the playoffs.

davetherave wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:Very interesting:

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=283914

And Tallon isn't getting just a little worried?

What do you think DTR?

Thanks for asking.

Mr. Darren Dreger loves gossip. Hockey expertise, well, we're not sure about him. Dreger is like Garrioch in that respect...among others.

All those RFAs are now signed except for Versteeg, whose agent said today that Kris wants to do a deal with Chicago.

As for the cap, nobody cares what your cap hit is if your team makes it to the Final Four. I seem to remember the Pens and Wings were pretty 'squeezed' last year cap-wise, and so what?

BTW both those teams currently have less cap room than the Hawks.

You spend what you have to spend to win, and figure the rest out later. That's part of why GMs get paid. Dale Tallon is no more or less worried, I suppose, than Ray Shero or Ken Holland. But what do I know? You'd have to ask Dale.

There is no 'cap hell' if your team is winning. 'Hell' for a team, is missing the playoffs.

Dave,

I have them about 200K below the cap without Versteeg signed. Having said that, if they want to "borrow" against next years cap with the Toewes and Kane bonus money, they would have about 5M available.

davetherave wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:Very interesting:

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=283914

And Tallon isn't getting just a little worried?

What do you think DTR?

Thanks for asking.

Mr. Darren Dreger loves gossip. Hockey expertise, well, we're not sure about him. Dreger is like Garrioch in that respect...among others.

All those RFAs are now signed except for Versteeg, whose agent said today that Kris wants to do a deal with Chicago.

As for the cap, nobody cares what your cap hit is if your team makes it to the Final Four. I seem to remember the Pens and Wings were pretty 'squeezed' last year cap-wise, and so what?

BTW both those teams currently have less cap room than the Hawks.

You spend what you have to spend to win, and figure the rest out later. That's part of why GMs get paid. Dale Tallon is no more or less worried, I suppose, than Ray Shero or Ken Holland. But what do I know? You'd have to ask Dale.

There is no 'cap hell' if your team is winning. 'Hell' for a team, is missing the playoffs.

I would positively LOVE to see you work out the math on that one to the satisfaction of everyone here. It would provide entertainment for everyone, to say the least.

CHI is somewhere between $150,00 and $300,000 under the cap. This is a fact. After Versteeg signs, they'll have to move significant salary. This is also a fact.

Rooney, as you're much smarter than I am, and have the benefit of a fine university education (which I do not), I'll let you do the entertaining.


The numbers I cited come from NHLNumbers.com as of yesterday.

And like I said, it's the results on the ice that matter in the end more than the numbers in the salary cap.

Hmm...I understand Versteeg has signed, or is about to sign, a deal.

Have a great day!

davetherave wrote:Rooney, as you're much smarter than I am, and have the benefit of a fine university education (which I do not), I'll let you do the entertaining.


The numbers I cited come from NHLNumbers.com as of yesterday.

And like I said, it's the results on the ice that matter in the end more than the numbers in the salary cap.

Hmm...I understand Versteeg has signed, or is about to sign, a deal.

Have a great day!

Ah, more evasion. Can't get any results on the ice if your cap situation means that you can't ice your team, Dave.

As I have been advocating for well over a year now, NHLnumbers.com blows, and no one should be using them as an authority. They always get Dung wrong -- they are especially bad for leaving numbers out of the equation. Look at what they have for CHI their right now: not only are they missing Versteeg's new deal (as is everyone at the moment, granted), they are also missing the $ figures for Johnson, Crawford, and Niemi (the first two being 1-way deals) as well as for Hjalmarsson (2-way ELC, granted, but I'm guessing he's on that team). That's about $2.7 mil or so in contracts missing. Add those in to NHLnumber's current total, and you'll see that CHI is currently pressing the cap -- and that Versteeg's new $3 mil deal puts them well over it.

I'd recommend using CapGeek.com (run by respected hockey journalist Matthew Wuest) in conjunction with NHLSCAP.com (run by NHL employee and cap wiz Chip McCleary). If McCleary can ever get NHLSCAP.com updated to do the things he's promised it will be able to do, it will be far and away the best authority. This new CapGeek source is, I gotta say, remarkably good, but McCleary will always be the #1 authority because he's the guy who, literally, manages the cap for the NHL.

Anyway, the long and the short of CHI's cap situation is that, with bonuses, they are now about $2.8 mil over the cap. If I were CHI, I would look into moving Campbell now, and I'd give Crawford or Niemi some playing time to see if moving Huet sometime in the next calender year is feasible. That would allow them to keep all their young stars now, and create space for keeping the young superstars next year. Unless Hossa deals are worked out all around, re-signing Kane, Toews, and Keith is going to be an $18 mil proposition, minimum.

The good news for you is that, as a team on the rise, FAs should be willing to take paycuts to come play for CHI, ala PIT.

yeah i can't see them keeping campbell especially now with them over the cap by 2.8 orr so. i just don't see any teams taking cambell with that contract either...

Campbell won't be going anywhere. They want a cup and he is a key cog. Look for Bfyufglien to be moved for no money coming back.

wprager wrote:

RobbyJ wrote:Campbell won't be going anywhere. They want a cup and he is a key cog. Look for Bfyufglien to be moved for no money coming back.

They could lose Campbell and hardly miss a step.

In my opinion you are undervaluing Campbell's importance to that club. They will probably have to move him next summer but I will bet he stays put this year.

Mr. Rooney accuses me of being 'evasive'...amusing. :^^^^:

Amusing, because, unlike him, I do not feel compelled to fire off salvoes of opinion until I have the facts.

And as brilliant as Mr Rooney is, his assumptions and deductions are deductions based on assumptions, having no more and no less value than the opinions of anyone else.

Mr Rooney is a hockey amateur. As are, to the best of my knowledge, all of us gathered here.

Being amateurs, our access to information is admittedly, limited. In terms of salary numbers, the Members at GM Hockey have agreed in a previous poll that NHLNumbers is their preferred source.

Mr Rooney can dismiss NHLNumbers if he likes, and if he feels passionately about this, he is entitled to make his feelings known.

The facts are these: the Blackhawks have signed their players (including the RFAs), and are right now, as of July 8, within the NHL cap parameters. This has been verified by Mr. Dale Tallon, Hawks' GM, in an interview today with Mr. Tim Sassone of The Chicago Daily Herald.

As to Mr Rooney's belligerent barb about 'icing a team'...rather than my opinion on the matter, I will offer Mr. Tallon's statement from The Daily Herald: "We can play right now with this team, and this is with 23 players. We're basically going to carry 22 or 21."

If Mr Rooney thinks he knows more than Dale Tallon about managing player assets, then perhaps he should apply for the job as General Manager of the Chicago Blackhawks.

Wishing a pleasant evening to Mr Rooney and to all our GM Hockey Members, and thanking everyone for an excellent discussion.

davetherave wrote:Mr. Rooney accuses me of being 'evasive'...amusing. :^^^^:

Amusing, because, unlike him, I do not feel compelled to fire off salvoes of opinion until I have the facts.

And as brilliant as Mr Rooney is, his assumptions and deductions are deductions based on assumptions, having no more and no less value than the opinions of anyone else.

Mr Rooney is a hockey amateur. As are, to the best of my knowledge, all of us gathered here.

Being amateurs, our access to information is admittedly, limited. In terms of salary numbers, the Members at GM Hockey have agreed in a previous poll that NHLNumbers is their preferred source.

Mr Rooney can dismiss NHLNumbers if he likes, and if he feels passionately about this, he is entitled to make his feelings known.

The facts are these: the Blackhawks have signed their players (including the RFAs), and are right now, as of July 8, within the NHL cap parameters. This has been verified by Mr. Dale Tallon, Hawks' GM, in an interview today with Mr. Tim Sassone of The Chicago Daily Herald.

As to Mr Rooney's belligerent barb about 'icing a team'...rather than my opinion on the matter, I will offer Mr. Tallon's statement from The Daily Herald: "We can play right now with this team, and this is with 23 players. We're basically going to carry 22 or 21."

If Mr Rooney thinks he knows more than Dale Tallon about managing player assets, then perhaps he should apply for the job as General Manager of the Chicago Blackhawks.

Wishing a pleasant evening to Mr Rooney and to all our GM Hockey Members, and thanking everyone for an excellent discussion.

DTR, I don't appreciate this condescension, especially masking it under all these pretensions to politeness and decorum. A polite Diddle you is still a Diddle you all the same, and I register it as such.

Of course I'm an hockey amateur, in the sense that I'm not employed with any NHL team, just like anyone else here. There's no need to bring it up because it doesn't prove anything.

The truth is that you have been consistently "belligerent" when it comes to the cap situation in CHI. I'm sure I'm not the first to notice this.

The facts are out there for anyone willing to see them; I didn't create or "assume" them. I have presented them to you, numbers and all. I've given you concrete reasons why NHLnumbers sucks -- facts that everyone can see and analyse for themselves, but which you refuse to engage -- and why places like NHLSCAP and CapGeek are superior sources of information. In the instance of CHI, I've pointed out how NHLnumbers is missing or failing to take certain contracts into consideration, calculated the cap figure of the team pretty much precisely, and shown where the discrepancies lie between NHLnumbers's view of the situation and those of other sites which have consistently proven themselves to be more up to date and more reliable, and whose information is, right now, more complete and accurate.

I'm not aware of anyone on this site being advocating NHLnumbers over either site, and certainly not of any poll to that effect. If there were, I certainly would have chimed it. In any event, neither would change the fact that both sites I'm citing are more accurate, and have a better sense of the contract positions of the teams, than NHLnumbers. That's not an assertion or an assumption. It's fact. In my 14 months or so at this site, I've shown this very point again and again.

Nobody on this site follows this stuff more religiously than I do. If I can say so without sounding too arrogant, in fact, I have helped to bring a heightened sense of cap issues, and sites like NHLSCAP and CapGeek, to the attention of this site and its membership. I have helped contribute, in this regard in particular, to the responsible speculation regarding trades, roster configurations, etc., etc., that goes on at this site. I feel like many members would back me on that one.

Everything you say to discredit and belittle me, however elegantly put and phrased in the sham language of politeness and decorum, means ABSOLUTELY JACK until you actually engage the numbers and evidence I'm providing and start poking holes. Have I made some mistakes? Quite possibly. The math on this stuff is not always simple or straightforward, I agree, and I am just an English major after all. But this hostile, ad hominem stuff that doesn't engage with my points or information at all, and just dismisses it all as "assumption" without providing one shred of evidence why that might be the case, has to stop.

OK, I'm done. Yes, I'm steamed. Time to ride the bike.

DTR,

While I appreciate that Chicago is "technically under the cap", anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the Cap rules can see that their situation is difficult. Dale Tallon put himself in a bad situation with the QO gaffe and was forced into signed his key RFAs at a higher price that he wanted to.

Chicago probably has around 2M in cap space with a 22 man roster. Unfortunately, for Tallon this includes the Bonus Cushion. All this does is put off the pain until next year when they can least afford it.

Dibs on Sharp. :excite:

wprager wrote:Dave and Rooney, guys, please back off. This is getting nowhere. You have both contributed significant amounts of information to this site and I am surely not alone in appreciating this. However this recent stuff has to stop.

I second this!

TheAvatar wrote:

wprager wrote:Dave and Rooney, guys, please back off. This is getting nowhere. You have both contributed significant amounts of information to this site and I am surely not alone in appreciating this. However this recent stuff has to stop.

I second this!

And I third it.

Look back over this thread, tho', or even the one on RFA signings. I don't see what I said that was so awful that deserved that last condescending, belittling response from DTR.

Hey, my team's in cap trouble too -- well, not quite so bad, but you know -- so join the club. The first step to recovery is acceptance.

rooneypoo wrote:
DTR, I don't appreciate this condescension, especially masking it under all these pretensions to politeness and decorum. A polite Diddle you is still a Diddle you all the same, and I register it as such.

Of course I'm an hockey amateur, in the sense that I'm not employed with any NHL team, just like anyone else here. There's no need to bring it up because it doesn't prove anything.

The truth is that you have been consistently "belligerent" when it comes to the cap situation in CHI. I'm sure I'm not the first to notice this.

The facts are out there for anyone willing to see them; I didn't create or "assume" them. I have presented them to you, numbers and all. I've given you concrete reasons why NHLnumbers sucks -- facts that everyone can see and analyse for themselves, but which you refuse to engage -- and why places like NHLSCAP and CapGeek are superior sources of information. In the instance of CHI, I've pointed out how NHLnumbers is missing or failing to take certain contracts into consideration, calculated the cap figure of the team pretty much precisely, and shown where the discrepancies lie between NHLnumbers's view of the situation and those of other sites which have consistently proven themselves to be more up to date and more reliable, and whose information is, right now, more complete and accurate.

I'm not aware of anyone on this site being advocating NHLnumbers over either site, and certainly not of any poll to that effect. If there were, I certainly would have chimed it. In any event, neither would change the fact that both sites I'm citing are more accurate, and have a better sense of the contract positions of the teams, than NHLnumbers. That's not an assertion or an assumption. It's fact. In my 14 months or so at this site, I've shown this very point again and again.

Nobody on this site follows this stuff more religiously than I do. If I can say so without sounding too arrogant, in fact, I have helped to bring a heightened sense of cap issues, and sites like NHLSCAP and CapGeek, to the attention of this site and its membership. I have helped contribute, in this regard in particular, to the responsible speculation regarding trades, roster configurations, etc., etc., that goes on at this site. I feel like many members would back me on that one.

Everything you say to discredit and belittle me, however elegantly put and phrased in the sham language of politeness and decorum, means ABSOLUTELY JACK until you actually engage the numbers and evidence I'm providing and start poking holes. Have I made some mistakes? Quite possibly. The math on this stuff is not always simple or straightforward, I agree, and I am just an English major after all. But this hostile, ad hominem stuff that doesn't engage with my points or information at all, and just dismisses it all as "assumption" without providing one shred of evidence why that might be the case, has to stop.

OK, I'm done. Yes, I'm steamed. Time to ride the bike.

Awesome! :n:

Just outstanding...

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/cap-central/team.php?team=CHI

http://nhlnumbers.com/overview.php?team=CHI&season=0910

I don't even see what's the debate about cap websites here. Both sites say they are 4M+ over the cap. I don't care what Tallon say, until he finds a way to trade a few guys, they have a problem. I don't see why it is that difficult to admit it, it's just facts.

Next year could be worse, but they can probably still ice a good team even after losing a few pieces.

davetherave wrote:Rooney, as you're much smarter than I am, and have the benefit of a fine university education (which I do not), I'll let you do the entertaining.


The numbers I cited come from NHLNumbers.com as of yesterday.

And like I said, it's the results on the ice that matter in the end more than the numbers in the salary cap.

Hmm...I understand Versteeg has signed, or is about to sign, a deal.

Have a great day!

You're absolutely right that the players that were at risk of becoming UFAs were all signed. My question to you was actually too vague so I'll try again.

After this story came out Tallon acted swiftly to sign Barker and now Versteeg. Both are making 3 plus million per year. Based on the dollar figure and the speed at which these deals were consumated it definitely gives the appearance that Tallon was getting worried about the outcome of the NHLPA grievance. Was he concerned? If not then why the rush to sign them?

I thought the bonus cushion was removed? Aren't all bonuses part of the cap hit now?

wprager wrote:Dave and Rooney, guys, please back off. This is getting nowhere. You have both contributed significant amounts of information to this site and I am surely not alone in appreciating this. However this recent stuff has to stop.

I have to second this as well.

marakh wrote:http://www.hockeybuzz.com/cap-central/team.php?team=CHI

http://nhlnumbers.com/overview.php?team=CHI&season=0910

I don't even see what's the debate about cap websites here. Both sites say they are 4M+ over the cap. I don't care what Tallon say, until he finds a way to trade a few guys, they have a problem. I don't see why it is that difficult to admit it, it's just facts.

Next year could be worse, but they can probably still ice a good team even after losing a few pieces.

Let me preface this by saying that I'm not trying to be contrary here. BUT....

I just clicked on your links, and NHLSCAP says CHI is $4.5 mil over the cap, and NHLnumbers says CHI has $2.4 mil in cap space (invoking the bonus cushion). That's a pretty big difference (almost $7 mil, in fact), no?

Neither is actually entirely right, actually, and I can show you the proof on that.

NHLSCAP has Skille and both of Hendry and Hjalmarsson on the roster, bringing the total roster to 25, which is certainly not right. Skille and Hjalmarsson are both on ELC contracts (2-way by definition), and Hendry appears to be on a 2-way deal. Right now, based on last year's performance, I'd say that Hjalmarsson is on this team, but not the other two. That removes $1.9 mil from NHLSCAP's figure (down to about $2.6 mil and change over the cap). Take Hjalmarsson out of the equation (unlikely, but just for the sake of argument, to get most of the 2-way contracts out of the equation and maximize CHI's cap savings) and CHI is now only $2 mil over the cap.

Now, NHLnumbers on the other hand invokes the bonus cushion to get CHI back under the cap. Technically, this can be done, but in practice it would be disastrous for CHI, especially for the coming year. Here's how the bonus cushion works: if your players earn their bonuses and push the team over the cap, you tack on those over-spendings onto next year's cap hit. So, that $3.77 mil that NHLnumbers is wiping out would actually go onto CHI cap next year -- which would be an absolutely disaster from CHI's perspective. With the cap widely expected to fall next year, and with Kane, Toews, and Keith all due for re-signing before the start of that year, Tallon would be putting himself in the worst possible spot. He'd have almost $4 mil lopped off his cap ceiling even before he sat down to start negotiating.

In addition to this, NHLnumbers is (as I said before) NOT including Crawford (their back up goalie, 1-way deal -- NHLnumbers has CHI icing its team with no backup!) or Hjalmarsson into the calculations. That adds about $1.3 mil into the calculations. Even dropping Hjalmarrson (again, 2-way deal, likely to make the team, but for the sake of argument), you still need to add $750K to NHLnumbers's figures. And that puts CHI about $2 mil over the cap, if you take out bonus cushion savings.

The best way to solve this is to slot in CHI's probable roster, keeping the roster number as low as possible (20-22, not 23 players). While doing this, you have to of course keep all players with 1-way deals on the team (mandatory, until Tallon announcing he's willing to eat one of those contracts by burying a player in the minors) and jettison most 2-way deals (like Hjalmarsson) to save cap space. I used CapGeek in the past to do just this (in the other CHI thread I started), and the number I came up with was, I believe, about $2 mil over the cap (about $2.6 mil in you keep Hjalmarsson on the roster) -- which accords with all the calculation above.

To my knowledge, after reviewing all the evidence, CHI is thus a minimum of $2 mil over the cap. That is the best-case, most accurate depiction of CHI's current cap situation that I can possibly muster. I refuse to believe that Tallon will use the bonus cushion to balance things out this year, as NHLnumbers suggests, because of the long-term consequences doing so might have on his deal. If he does do this, then, yes, I certainly think we ought to be questioning his judgment.

As you can see, tho', while each cap site has its benefits, none of them perfect. I trust NHLSCAP the most because it's run by Chip McCleary, who works for the NHL and actually manages the real cap, but in the end we have to evaluate the sources and use our judgment to come up with a more accurate picture of a team's real cap situation. Certainly, I never rest satisfied just because one site or the other, or one person in authority (like a GM), assures me that there's nothing to worry about, when I can see for myself that there most certainly is.

Cheers

SeawaySensFan wrote:I thought the bonus cushion was removed? Aren't all bonuses part of the cap hit now?

The bonus cushion was removed for the 2008-09 season, because the NHL was in the last year of its 3-year contract (the new CBA) with the NHLPA. Both parties agreed to extend the CBA very recently (for another 3 years, I believe), and so now the bonus cushion is now back in effect for this season.

As I just wrote above, however, it's not like that money you spend on the bonus cushion one season just disappears without consequences. Those spent bonuses for one year carry over onto the next if you invoke the bonus cushion. And that, my friend, is the very definition of mortgaging the future for the present.

rooneypoo wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:I thought the bonus cushion was removed? Aren't all bonuses part of the cap hit now?

The bonus cushion was removed for the 2008-09 season, because the NHL was in the last year of its 3-year contract (the new CBA) with the NHLPA. Both parties agreed to extend the CBA very recently (for another 3 years, I believe), and so now the bonus cushion is now back in effect for this season.

As I just wrote above, however, it's not like that money you spend on the bonus cushion one season just disappears without consequences. Those spent bonuses for one year carry over onto the next if you invoke the bonus cushion. And that, my friend, is the very definition of mortgaging the future for the present.

3 year extension on the CBA? That's pretty big news. I don't typically miss stuff like that.

Chicago has an awful lot of 3 million dollar cap hits currently. That's some pretty obvious red flags there. I don't see significant relief next year either aside from maybe Madden.

SeawaySensFan wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:I thought the bonus cushion was removed? Aren't all bonuses part of the cap hit now?

The bonus cushion was removed for the 2008-09 season, because the NHL was in the last year of its 3-year contract (the new CBA) with the NHLPA. Both parties agreed to extend the CBA very recently (for another 3 years, I believe), and so now the bonus cushion is now back in effect for this season.

As I just wrote above, however, it's not like that money you spend on the bonus cushion one season just disappears without consequences. Those spent bonuses for one year carry over onto the next if you invoke the bonus cushion. And that, my friend, is the very definition of mortgaging the future for the present.

3 year extension on the CBA? That's pretty big news. I don't typically miss stuff like that.

Chicago has an awful lot of 3 million dollar cap hits currently. That's some pretty obvious red flags there. I don't see significant relief next year either aside from maybe Madden.

Oops, TWO years:

http://www.hockeywilderness.com/2009/1/23/734591/nhlpa-votes-to-extend-cba

When you're right 52% of the time...

Definitely doesn't seem to be the best way to deal with bonus money unless your plan involves moving out significant salary in the next season.

At this point Chicago looks to have some major Cap issues that need to be dealt with. It's not only Chicago that needs to concern themselves and this is where the GM makes his money. Pittsburgh found a way to deal with their Cap crunch and come out of it with a Cup. I will say that this had more to do with the Coaching change than anything else but it was still managed.

Chicago managed to deal with spending huge dollars on two goalies last year so they probably have a plan in place for dealing with this. Whether it works is another question. One luxury they have is the ability to shop an elite D man without significantly impacting their roster and clearing significant Cap room in the process. Sure Campbell doesn't seem too attractive right now but I suspect he'll look rather nice at the Trade Deadline coming up next year.

Bottom line, Bowman will sort all this out.

Message was edited by: The Name Dropper

Now I feel better. Thanks SSF. Seriously though it is obvious it's an issue that needs to be dealt with. I'm interested to see how. I will wait and see what happens.

Cap'n Clutch wrote:Definitely doesn't seem to be the best way to deal with bonus money unless your plan involves moving out significant salary in the next season.

At this point Chicago looks to have some major Cap issues that need to be dealt with. It's not only Chicago that needs to concern themselves and this is where the GM makes his money. Pittsburgh found a way to deal with their Cap crunch and come out of it with a Cup. I will say that this had more to do with the Coaching change than anything else but it was still managed.

Chicago managed to deal with spending huge dollars on two goalies last year so they probably have a plan in place for dealing with this. Whether it works is another question. One luxury they have is the ability to shop an elite D man without significantly impacting their roster and clearing significant Cap room in the process. Sure Campbell doesn't seem too attractive right now but I suspect he'll look rather nice at the Trade Deadline coming up next year.

Here's the problem with that, though: teams looking to make a run don't often subtract a 5 mil defenseman ( I say 5 because he is in no way a 7 mil player) from their roster just prior to the stretch run. The other issue is that he isn't just some expiring contract... any team dealing for him will be making a major investment in their future and is likely to ask for a little incentive i.e. a young prospect.

Here's another issue: does he have a NTC in his contract that would hamper any attempt at trading him? Even if he doesn't, what would constitute a fair trade? Would some kind of Campbell for Kovalchuk deal be fair? Throw in a prospect from Chicago and the fact that Kovalchuk is unsigned and certainly cannot be re-signed by Chicago...it might be workable. ATL gets an asset locked up long-term and Chicago gets rid of that awful contract.

Well it will definitely be interesting to see how they deal with this situation.

I can't recall if I called it already, but: DIBS ON SHARP.

:excite:

I doubt you see him move SpezD but I'd love him in a Sens uni that's for sure.