Flo The Action wrote:
Hoags wrote:I don't think they'll keep Niemi if his asking price is that high. It really seems to have started a trend to have low-paid starting goaltenders.
Yeah, I can't see this being settled pre-arbitrator. It will be up to the arbitrator to figure out Niemi's worth and I can see Chicago not accepting the awarded amount.
Niemi will walk, Huet to the minors or traded for nothing of consequence. Crawford will be the starting goalie, in my opinion.
We will see though.
Yeah, Crawford's been pushing for a while. If I were Chicago, I'd get a nice, veteran backup to go with Crawford. Someone like Clemensson for example who can step in if needed.
I agree. I think the whole depletion of the Hawks' roster this off-season could have been avoided. I would have happily taken the picks for Hjalmarsson
. Not qualifying him would have helped Chicago with their cap situation and would have ensured that they don't take money back on a trade. The decision to qualify him only deepened their cap problems, forcing them to likely trade Sharp for what I think will be less of a return than the picks.
Niemi will become a UFA and lost for nothing if they decide against the arbitration ruling, which is a definite possibility right now. I said it before but Chicago should have put Campbell on waivers
. They've lost half of their roster when over $12 million (roughly 4 players) could have been saved by acting proactively and moving two overpaid assets. Instead they will be middle of the pack next year.
I'm calling it now, if Kovalchuk signs in LA, they will win the West with Vancouver as a close second.
Chicago wanted their Top 4 D to remain the same though and for good reason. They know that their goaltending is not up to snuff whether it be Niemi or Crawford. You can't let Hjalmarsson go and have 3 of your Top 6 D be John Scott, Jordan Hendry and Brian Connelly. That is a recipe for disaster. They know what they have with Keith, Seabrook, Campbell and Hjalmarsson. Sure they are a lot of money those four guys, but they are worth it.
Even if you put Campbell on waivers (not a sign of respect) no one is taking him. Re-entry waivers kills your cap hit to not have him play for you. I'd rather have him help the team at full price, than another team at half price.
That will happen. That's the price you pay for winning the Cup. They were very aggressive with their contracts, they had a one-year window to win the Cup and they did it. Good for them I say.
I'm not trying to pick your post apart even though it may seem that way, I just see things a bit differently I guess and wanted to express my thoughts.
i expect a few more teams to go that way in the future. it might be what NJD is trying to do with kovy. besides in this league there is always a few teams that are more then willing to aquire players via trades since not many FA will go there. all and all if chicago hadn't gone out there and signed all these players would they have won the cup? very questionable.
what they did is come back down to the level most teams are at, BUT have aquired a number of picks and prospects in the process. they won on all sides.
Good input. But I still stand my argument.
I still think you get the picks for Hjalmarsson and/or put Campbell on waivers. Hell even trade Campbell for Souray. I dunno, but paying that much money for your 3-4 defencemen is ludicrous. It's my understanding that you can put a player on waivers but as long as he's not sent down you don't have to put him on re-entry waivers? I could very well be wrong here (please correct me if I am). If that's the case, then I retract my statement
. Still though, this could have been handled better IMO
You are right. I have a pretty good handle on the CBA and can explain more of how waivers work anytime you want, but to stay on this direct topic of discussion, I want to add a couple things.
First, like I said, you are right. Campbell obviously qualifies to be placed on waivers as he has reached the exemption numbers of years and/or games played in the NHL.
Second, when placed on waivers, if picked up by another team, the new team is now responsible for the entirety of the existing contract. Depending on what day, Campbell in this case, gets placed on waivers that will determine the timeline that the other 29 teams have to make a claim.
Next, if no team claims Campbell, yes he can be sent to the minors where his full salary would have to be paid, but it is off the NHL books.
Lastly, if Chicago then tries to recall Campbell, essentually putting him through the re-entry process, any other team may claim said player for 50% of his cap hit and salary, with the team attempting to recall taking the other 50% of each as well.
In saying all that, and this is key, Chicago can't put Campbell on waivers yet because Section 13.2 of the CBA states that “The “Playing Season Waiver Period” shall begin on the twelfth (12th
) day prior to the start of the Regular Season and end on the day following the last day of a Club’s Playing Season”. This means that Chicago can’t even waive Campbell to free up cap space until 12 days before the start of the season. This hardly helps them sign FA's as they can only go over the cap by so much before the season starts. After this deadline, then maybe re-entry could provide a means to some useful cap flexibility going forward in the season for Chicago. They are handcuffed right now though.
There are an unlimited amount of rules I could get into, but I wanted to just get the basic facts out to clear up yours and my understanding of what Chicago may or may not want to do with Campbell.
Hope this helps.