italianbeef
New member
- Joined:
- May 17, 2015
- Posts:
- 822
- Liked Posts:
- 167
If he does and is, what's the backup plan if CC's contract becomes untenable in 2016/17?
If he does and is, what's the backup plan if CC's contract becomes untenable in 2016/17?
- Joined:
- Sep 28, 2010
- Posts:
- 5,997
- Liked Posts:
- 2,338
- Location:
- Somewhere in Indiana
- Joined:
- Oct 19, 2013
- Posts:
- 7,956
- Liked Posts:
- 829
- Location:
- Wish You Were Here
Is he traded yet?
- Joined:
- Jun 6, 2010
- Posts:
- 15,741
- Liked Posts:
- 7,308
- Location:
- NW Burbs
Chris Kuc @ChrisKuc 8m8 minutes ago
Source says #Blackhawks considering trading Bryan Bickell. Depends on who else they can move. Calls it "50-50" Bickell is traded.
opcorn:
Source says #Blackhawks considering trading Bryan Bickell. Depends on who else they can move. Calls it "50-50" Bickell is traded.
opcorn:
LordKOTL
Scratched for Vorobiev
- Joined:
- Dec 8, 2014
- Posts:
- 8,676
- Liked Posts:
- 3,046
- Location:
- PacNW
My favorite teams
I don't think it will be untenable. A lot contracts are going to be hashed out this summer which means the bar for 2017 moves less--and the only critical signing will be Seabrook. Unlike Saad (who's looking at a big payday), I would be shocked is Seabs makes more than 2M more than he makes now--which means his AAV can go up to about 7.8M...for a 31 year old D-man. I think that's a considerable point; at that age of his I don't think anyone's expecting improvement in his play.
I also find it unlikley that the cap will go down (IMHO the only way Crawford's contract becomes wholly untenable). I think most players/agents know, in spite of the escrow, that their paychecks are going to be directly related to the cap ceiling. Seabs' current deal was 9% of the cap in 2012. Assuming 2016 dollars that's 6.44M. If the cap would drop in 2017 to, say, 70M, Seabs would be looking at 6.3M. If it would rise to, say, 73M, Seabs would be looking at 6.58M. This is significant because it affects every player looking for a new deal--the higher the cap the higher their paycheck. Further, I don't think Seabs would have much justification for taking up much more than, say, 9% of the cap for the 1st year of his deal--again, that points back to taking up no more than 7.8M in absolute cap dollars--and IMHO even that's a stretch.
That being said, I don't foresee any player on the squad looking for a massive payday like Saad's coming up until T²'s in 2018. If we can get through res-singing Saad, we can get to that.
- Joined:
- Aug 23, 2012
- Posts:
- 22,540
- Liked Posts:
- 7,560
- Location:
- Enemy Territory via southern C
Chris Kuc @ChrisKuc 8m8 minutes ago
Source says #Blackhawks considering trading Bryan Bickell. Depends on who else they can move. Calls it "50-50" Bickell is traded.
Color me intrigued. I hope we get Bounty for Sharp and can move Bickell. I'm dieing to know who the "depends on who else we can move" others are.
So its Sharp and then Bickell gone or ... Versteeg or Hossa? Or gasp....Seabrook. Who else has a salary with any type of relief that requires moving?
Probie2429
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Nov 20, 2013
- Posts:
- 3,934
- Liked Posts:
- 2,589
They can always buyout Bickell if there are no takers. But, they can't only move Sharp. It has to be at least one other larger salary. Be it Crawford or Seabrook. Moving Versteeg alone does not do much either. It has to be Sharp and Bickell, or Sharp and one of Crow/Seabrook. Sharp and Versteeg does not create enough room either.
They can't trade Hossa because of the recapture penalty. It would bury the Hawks for a long time.
- Joined:
- Jun 6, 2010
- Posts:
- 15,741
- Liked Posts:
- 7,308
- Location:
- NW Burbs
No way in HELL is #7 going anywhere.
- Joined:
- Aug 21, 2012
- Posts:
- 42,351
- Liked Posts:
- 35,068
The current Hawks team won the Cup.... can't we just keep it the way it is?
- Joined:
- Apr 11, 2009
- Posts:
- 23,605
- Liked Posts:
- 7,413
My favorite teams
I like this logic :elephant:The current Hawks team won the Cup.... can't we just keep it the way it is?
LordKOTL
Scratched for Vorobiev
- Joined:
- Dec 8, 2014
- Posts:
- 8,676
- Liked Posts:
- 3,046
- Location:
- PacNW
My favorite teams
Where are you getting that from?
Right now the 'hawks have 7.354 in cap space and 4 FWD, & 4 D slots to fill, as well as an extra goalie. Move Raanta for AHL depth and you're looking at 8 M among all 4 slots (3 each for FWD/D, as well as a 13th FWD and 7th D). Even if you assume that Saad gets what Sharp did in terms of AAV (5.9), that's still about 1m per free position.
That's assuming Bickell is not moved. if he is it's closer to 1.333M for 9 slots. If you add in Pokka, TVR, Danault, Panarin, and Baun, that's 7.615 over 5 free slots, or now 1.5M per slot. Under that regime, if Richards accepts 2M AAV it's *still do-able.
Not perfect, but do-able.
- Joined:
- Jun 6, 2010
- Posts:
- 15,741
- Liked Posts:
- 7,308
- Location:
- NW Burbs
The current Hawks team won the Cup.... can't we just keep it the way it is?
Bring back Ladd and Byfuglien.....
They don't need to and won't dump #7 or Crow.
Probie2429
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Nov 20, 2013
- Posts:
- 3,934
- Liked Posts:
- 2,589
You also have to consider that Bowman needs to leave a little cap space in reserve for injuries and potential moves at the deadline.
- Joined:
- Aug 23, 2012
- Posts:
- 22,540
- Liked Posts:
- 7,560
- Location:
- Enemy Territory via southern C
Exactly. And so we can conclude something rather odd by the statement if we believe Bowman's initial statement after the cup that you need a winning goalie and Crawford wasn't going anywhere.
So if Bickell is only 50/50 it means Seabrooke is 50/50? That would indeed shock me if its a toss up with Seabrook/Bickell.
- Joined:
- Aug 23, 2012
- Posts:
- 22,540
- Liked Posts:
- 7,560
- Location:
- Enemy Territory via southern C
Exactly. Brickell is 50/50 with who?
If not #7? If not Crow?
Sharp is 100% gone. Bickel is 50% gone. What in the hell is the alternative to trading Bickell? Only Hossa (untradeable) and the rest is guys we would flip out over unless you were able to trade both Versteeg and Shaw or something.
I personally need to see both Richards/Kruger in the fold before I can relax about this thing. We can't lose 3 centers.
If not #7? If not Crow?
Sharp is 100% gone. Bickel is 50% gone. What in the hell is the alternative to trading Bickell? Only Hossa (untradeable) and the rest is guys we would flip out over unless you were able to trade both Versteeg and Shaw or something.
I personally need to see both Richards/Kruger in the fold before I can relax about this thing. We can't lose 3 centers.
ClydeLee
New member
- Joined:
- Jun 29, 2010
- Posts:
- 14,829
- Liked Posts:
- 4,113
- Location:
- The OP
Bicks is just 50/50 as they claim to see it. There are situations they don't "HAVE" to trade Bickell or have serious cap issues for this next season. It's just not exactly likely or ideal.
If Saad truly wants and only accepts a bridge deal, they will have him at a less cap hit that's a factor. If they retain nothing from Sharp and maybe trade Steeger & Raanta they would have a roster that "allows" for Bickell to stay with the club. It's still not really desired even tough they don't have a proven guy of his type, they do have potential big bodied contributors.
If Saad truly wants and only accepts a bridge deal, they will have him at a less cap hit that's a factor. If they retain nothing from Sharp and maybe trade Steeger & Raanta they would have a roster that "allows" for Bickell to stay with the club. It's still not really desired even tough they don't have a proven guy of his type, they do have potential big bodied contributors.
LordKOTL
Scratched for Vorobiev
- Joined:
- Dec 8, 2014
- Posts:
- 8,676
- Liked Posts:
- 3,046
- Location:
- PacNW
My favorite teams
The scenario I had laid out includes a 7th D-man and a 13th fwd. Any major injury also has the LTIR exemption built into it. Further, with any banked cap and the fact that a good chunk of players will be ineligible for waivers and can be sent to Rockford without it impacting the cap there is also room for potential deadline deals--if there are any (this is Bowman we're talking about--this past season was the most spash he's ever made at the TDL).
HawkWriter
New member
- Joined:
- Aug 18, 2011
- Posts:
- 3,491
- Liked Posts:
- 1,341
http://www.tsn.ca/news-and-rumours-hawks-eye-roussel-in-trade-with-stars-1.317510
Blackhawks have interest in Roussel.
Blackhawks have interest in Roussel.
- Joined:
- Oct 19, 2013
- Posts:
- 7,956
- Liked Posts:
- 829
- Location:
- Wish You Were Here
He's got a motor and its always running much like Shaw. A bit more physical perhaps. Certainly somewhat of "dirty" rep. Hated him when we played the Stars. Would probably love him as a Blackhawk.
- Joined:
- Oct 19, 2013
- Posts:
- 7,956
- Liked Posts:
- 829
- Location:
- Wish You Were Here
TSN now quoting Stars "beat writer" that they are not interested in Sharp.