Hawks Match Offer Sheet - Everyone Meets Up at Cap Geek
by Quisp on Jul 12, 2010 1:10 PM PDT
in Capmania, Capaphobia, Capaphilia, Capnesia
24 comments
Add the $3.5MM to Chicago's cap hit and they've got about $48,000 in cap space (over $100K if you figure in their bonus cushion -- oh, go ahead and spend it!), plus the $5.94MM summer overage. And that's for 15 players, one of whom is Cristobal Huet. Yes, he is almost certainly going to be demoted to the AHL or lent to Europe or whatever, but that can't happen until September, so until then his cap hit stays on the books.
Next up on the Chicago calendar is the Antti Niemi arbitration award (or deal, if they agree to one before the hearing). Hawks fans seem to think he'll get around $2MM and everything will be fine. I think he'll get $3-4MM, and everything will be not fine. However, notice that, having absorbed the Niklas Hjalmarsson hit, they now have to get rid of someone no matter what [correction: not if the Hawks fans are right and they can get Niemi back for under $2.5MM; then they're okay.]
For the sake of argument, let's assume that they accept the Niemi award or sign him to a deal at $2.5MM (which is about the lowest I can imagine him getting, to give you a Best Case picture of Chicago's situation).
Let's assume the minimum wage for the minimum number of bodies. That's five players. But: one will be Corey Crawford, who gets $800K. Let's call the minimum $600K to give them some tiny amount of wiggle room. So that's four times $600K plus $800K (Crawford) plus $2.5MM (fantasy Niemi contract) minus the Huet hit, which gives us...
...about $38,000 in cap space, with a bare bones roster of 20, which includes seven guys making between $500K and $850K.
Frankly, I can't tell how much the Hawks like Niemi. Do they think they would be letting another Hasek go? Do they think he's easily replaced? Would they be happy with any one of the dozens of competant but not exciting goalies looking for work this summer?
This is what it looks like to me:
- If they love Niemi and want to keep him, and his deal comes in at less than $2.5MM, they can keep him without getting rid of anyone else. Whew!
- If they are fine with letting Niemi walk, they will sign one of those vets for under $2MM, and they won't have to get rid of anyone else except Niemi! Whew-minus. Or they could get someone even cheaper (e.g. Erik Ersberg) and upgrade some of those $600K guys to...um...$800K guys.
- If they love Niemi and want to keep him, but his deal comes in around $3MM, they will have to get rid of one of Tomas Kopecky or Troy Brouwer and replace him with a guy making $500K.
- If they love Niemi and want to keep him, but his deal comes in around $3.5MM, they will have to get rid of both of Tomas Kopecky or Troy Brouwer and replace them with two guys making nothing. Note that at this point, Chicago's forwards consist of 5 guys from last years' team, six guys making minimum wage and Marty Reasoner.
- If they love Niemi and want to keep him, but his deal comes in around $4MM, they will have to get rid of one of Patrick Sharp, Dave Bolland or Brent Seabrook and replace him with another Marty Reasoner.
- All of this assumes that the Hawks only carry 20 players. Which leaves no room for error whatsoever.
0 recs |
24 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
where do you find the time...
I really hope IK is paying attention to what Chi is being forced to do here…
"It's not illegal. It's frowned upon, like masturbating on an airplane."-Alan Garner
Question:
Once arbitration is decided, are the Blackhawks obligated to pay him that amount NO MATTER WHAT? Or can they let him walk or trade him? If they ARE obligated, what is the point of no return (letting him walk) when heading into arbitration? The day before? The day of?
If arbitration awards him above what the Hawks feel they can afford, they can let him walk UFA and any team can sign him.
However, they cannot re-negotiate at a lower salary after the arbitration has been decided. They either sign him to a deal before the arbitration, accept the award, or let him walk UFA. Usually Arbitration awards last for 1 year, but sometimes they can be 2 years (Jiri Hudler for example)
Tick Tock, Tomas. Tick Tock.
A drinking team with a hockey problem.
by nhlcheapshot on Jul 12, 2010 1:51 PM PDT up reply actions
if the team opts for arbitration they can't walk away
if the player opts for arbitration (as Niemi did), then the team gets to decide whether it wants a 1yr or 2yr deal. If they opt for 1yr, and they don’t like the subsequent award, the team can “walk away”, and Niemi becomes a UFA. However, if they decide they want a 2yr contract, then, if the award is not to their liking, they don’t have the walk away option, but instead have the option of making it only a 1yr deal.
In case I wasn’t clear, the team declares whether it wants to arbitrate a 1 or 2 year deal. This happens two days before the hearing when the team and player both submit their briefs. (if the team is the one electing arbitration, then it is the player who gets to decide whether it’s 1 or 2 years).
chicago can’t afford to be bound to a $4MM 1 year deal. so I assume they will select the 1 year option, so they will have the ability to walk.
Wait till this year.
Yeah, but with the goaltending market going the way it has this summer, high priced goalies ending up in Russia and cheaper goalies getting signed, it would be tough to find a suitor and NOT take money back in return.
http://www.prosportsblogging.com
by Great Ice-Pectations on Jul 12, 2010 2:49 PM PDT up reply actions
I could see 2-3 million being the award coming back from arbitration…and maybe they’ll try to settle it before that point. But eh, even if they do catch a break, this Hjalmarsson business leaves the rest of their lines weaker.
In Dinglebarn We Trust
I would be surprised if it comes in less than $3MM. The guy won the cup for Chicago. That's kind of important.
I’m not saying you’re wrong.
Wait till this year.
Agreed about where Niemi will come in
I’ve always thought that it would take $3-4 mil to bring him back, and the new contracts for Pavelski and Halak only firm up my conviction.
Since you’re using Cap Geek, I assume that you assume that Kyle Beach will not be promoted? They classify him as non-roster, so he doesn’t figure into their calculation of current cap hit. If they don’t promote him, that means they’re spending $1 mil+/year on an AHL player while having to fill out the NHL roster with guys making half as much.
The immortal words of Nelson Muntz apply: Ha ha!
Yes, I assume they can't afford to promote Beach.
I don’t know if he’s ready, either.
Wait till this year.
True, he may not be ready
But if they keep him in the AHL because they can’t afford to promote him, that means they’ll have to fill that spot with someone less qualified than an elite prospect, i.e., a less highly-regarded prospect, or some never-was.
At this rate, the Hawks will have to ice at least two forward lines and one D pair with the practical equivalent of tackling dummies.
Nice summary of the situation
But I have a question – have any NHL rosters ever run on only 20 players? That’s incredibly dangerous for an entire season.
Tick Tock, Tomas. Tick Tock.
A drinking team with a hockey problem.
yes, some of the cap-strapped teams have had minimum rosters in order to comply
calgary two years ago comes to mind. and they even had to go down to 19 (maybe 18, I forget) under emergency circumstances because they couldn’t bring someone up without exceeding the upper limit. i don’t remember the particulars, specifically I don’t remember why they weren’t allowed to bring up someone on an LTIR replacement basis. I guess they hadn’t put the player on LTIR or something, or a cheap guy got hurt and they didn’t have a cheap guy to replace him, just more expensive guys. This will be Chicago’s problem also, if they have a $500K guy who gets hurt and they don’t have any other $500K guys to be promoted. If they have their noses pressed up against the ceiling, they will either have to trade for someone or drop below 20.
Wait till this year.
They should just go with the roster they have and double shift Toews, Kane, and Hossa! Genius.
http://www.prosportsblogging.com
by Great Ice-Pectations on Jul 12, 2010 2:50 PM PDT up reply actions
And Campbell
And if he complains about it, Junior Bowman can say to him, “Whaddya think we’re paying you $7.2 million a year for?”
Haha, his contract would actually make sense then since he’s essentially being paid what two #3 defensemen should be paid combined.
http://www.prosportsblogging.com
by Great Ice-Pectations on Jul 12, 2010 3:01 PM PDT up reply actions
There are some rumblings about shipping him off to the Islanders or something. Dun dun dunnnnn!
I’m not sure if Garth Snow owes them any special favors…
In Dinglebarn We Trust
Yeah good luck on any takers for Campbell. Maybe Russia.
http://www.prosportsblogging.com
by Great Ice-Pectations on Jul 12, 2010 4:47 PM PDT up reply actions
Hmmm
The line of thinking must be that Bowman has embarrassing photos of Snow in his desk drawer….
Or that the Islanders need to reach the cap floor, and in a perverse way, they could use an albatross like that. Except that at this point, Campbell will probably be an albatross for them long after the cap floor ceased to be a problem for them.
I still think the islanders should take souray. He:
a) Almost puts them past the floor by himself. (after re-signing their RFAs.)
b) Makes 1 million less than his cap hit.
c) Will almost certainly get injured and then they won’t have to pay his salary at all.
I still don’t get why they didn’t take him off waivers. Its like they plan to use that money on actual players (doubtful)
On the Mike Weber bandwagon.
Tyler Ennis: Freed from Portland!
They need to make the cap floor in the short term, yes…but six more years of overpaying this guy? Ouch.
It looks like he has a limited NTC to boot. He gets to name eight teams he’d be interested in.
That contract should be an object lesson on why you shouldn’t be so eager to “win” on free agent day.
In Dinglebarn We Trust
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Jewels From The Crown
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
