Ton
New member
- Joined:
- May 14, 2010
- Posts:
- 3,991
- Liked Posts:
- 124
- Location:
- Park Ridge, IL
It sounds crazy, but <strong class='bbc'>Marian Hossa[/b] could be one of two Chicago Blackhawks amnesty buyouts before the 2014-2015 season.
It’s easy to argue against it: Hossa is clearly a fan favorite when it comes to Chicago hockey, he is still playing at an elite level, and his cap hit is fairly friendly thanks to the work of <strong class='bbc'>Stan Bowman[/b] and company. However, after the NHL and NHLPA came to an agreement Sunday morning regarding a new CBA, more information has surfaced, particularly information that effects the Blackhawks directly.
The NHL will allow every team to use two amnesty buyouts over the next two summers under the new CBA. Basically, this means that the Blackhawks will be able to buyout two players without it counting against their salary cap. There are a few obvious choices for Chicago to consider: For one, they could take a look at axing <strong class='bbc'>Rostislav Olesz[/b]’s contract, although he is only signed through next season. Same with <strong class='bbc'>Michael Frolik[/b]. With that in mind, <strong class='bbc'>Steve Montador[/b] might be better to pawn off than someone like Olesz.
Taking a look at the talents mentioned, with all due respect, none of them come close to making an impact on the ice like <strong class='bbc'>Marian Hossa[/b], so why is he even being discussed? The big issue with Hossa has nothing to do with his playing ability, it’s determining whether or not he will retire before his contract ends. This is a particular problem due to the newly installed cap benefit recapture formula (CBRF), confirmed by James Mirtle. Here is the definition of CBRF as of December 12th:
<em class='bbc'>“All years of existing long-term contracts in excess of five (5) years be counted against a Club’s Cap regardless of whether or where a Player is playing. While such contracts (and Cap charges) can be traded during their terms, in the event a Player subsequently retires or ceases to play, the effective Cap charge would revert to the Club that originally entered into the contract.”[/i]
Although the definition in the new CBA was slightly tweaked (instead of five years it will be six and the cap charge would be spread among all teams that owned the contract — via Mirtle) the definition above certainly highlights the overall point. The table below represents the penalties the Blackhawks would pay each year until his contract ends if they decided to keep Hossa and he did retire early.
<p class='bbc_center'><span rel='lightbox'>
</span></p>
So, for example, lets say Hossa decided to retire after the 2018 season when he is 39 years old — the Blackhawks would incur a cap hit of $4,275,000 over the next three years.
This is a dangerous situation they have put themselves in, but with every stern penalty, the NHL always finds a way to let teams off the hook. Dig a little deeper and you can see for all intents and purposes, the amnesty buyout was created to opt out of larger, longer term contracts… take <strong class='bbc'>Scott Gomez[/b] in Montreal for example, or perhaps <strong class='bbc'>Rick DiPietro[/b] on Long Island. Ultimately, the Blackhawks have signed two particular players that exceed six years remaining on their contracts: <strong class='bbc'>Marian Hossa[/b] and <strong class='bbc'>Duncan Keith[/b]. Both of which are signed to retirement.
As far as <strong class='bbc'>Duncan Keith[/b] is concerned, he should have no issues playing out his days in Chicago. He will be 37 when his contract expires and may even want to stick around for a couple more years. Hossa will be 42 by the time his contract ends, and while the intent could have been there when he signed that contract it’s very rare that a player not named <strong class='bbc'>Chris Chelios[/b] or <strong class='bbc'>Gordie Howe[/b] maintain their passion for the game after 40 years old.
Is buying out Hossa really the only option to avoid the the retirement penalty? The answer, unfortunately, is yes. Now, if you're thinking ahead, you'll say "Well, why don't the Blackhawks buyout Hossa, then re-sign him at a fraction of the cost?"
I'm one step ahead of you.
If the Blackhawks did decide to buy out Hossa, they could not acquire him for one year. This means they could not sign him, pick him up on waivers, or trade for him over the course of that year… so unless Marian is planning on taking a year off from 2014-15, the Blackhawks either have to say goodbye completely or take the risk and hope that he honors his contract instead of retiring early.
<strong class='bbc'>Stan Bowman[/b] and <strong class='bbc'>Rocky Wirtz[/b] have a big decision to make that can really effect the future of the team. The best case scenario would be if the Blackhawks decide to keep Hossa (or trade him) and he finishes his contract. Neutral case scenario, the Blackhawks trade Hossa, he retires, and the Blackhawks share the retirement penalty with another team. Worst case scenario, Hossa retires in 2017 or 2018 as a Blackhawk.
Although there is a huge case built for buying out <strong class='bbc'>Marian Hossa[/b], there is one fact that many people have failed to mention: If the Blackhawks buyout Hossa after the 2014 season, although it doesn't count against the salary cap, it will still cost Rocky Wirtz $15,866,667 total over a course of 14 years, which means Rocky will need to <em class='bbc'>pay an average of $1,133,333 per year until 2027-2028[/i]. That is insane. Of course the cap relief is crucial, but the bottom line is this is a business, and I highly doubt Rocky Wirtz will commit nearly $16 million to a player that isn't on the roster. The only way this would make sense for Rocky is if they suspect Hossa will retire after the 2017-2018 season or prior, which if that is the case, it will save the Blackhawks a total of $1,233,333 or more.
That last paragraph alone should be enough to prove that the Blackhawks will keep <strong class='bbc'>Marian Hossa[/b]. As a salary cap move, it may make sense, but from a business and pure hockey perspective this move would be a disaster. Put this rumor right back in the mouth it came from. It's debunked.
<p class='bbc_center'>***</p>
<em class='bbc'>Thanks to James Mirtle and Elliotte Friedman for their extensive knowledge and help on the details of the CBA’s amnesty buyout along with the cap benefit recapture formula. James Mirtle is an editor and reporter for The Globe and Mail, covering details of the lockout extensively. Elliotte Friedman is a sports journalist and commentator for Hockey Night in Canada on CBC Sports.[/i]
<center>You should follow me on twitter here or click the button below.
<iframe allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"
src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets/follow_button.html?screen_name=TonDeFra"
style="width:300px; height:20px; margin: 0 auto !important; display:block;"></iframe></center>
Click here to view the article
It’s easy to argue against it: Hossa is clearly a fan favorite when it comes to Chicago hockey, he is still playing at an elite level, and his cap hit is fairly friendly thanks to the work of <strong class='bbc'>Stan Bowman[/b] and company. However, after the NHL and NHLPA came to an agreement Sunday morning regarding a new CBA, more information has surfaced, particularly information that effects the Blackhawks directly.
The NHL will allow every team to use two amnesty buyouts over the next two summers under the new CBA. Basically, this means that the Blackhawks will be able to buyout two players without it counting against their salary cap. There are a few obvious choices for Chicago to consider: For one, they could take a look at axing <strong class='bbc'>Rostislav Olesz[/b]’s contract, although he is only signed through next season. Same with <strong class='bbc'>Michael Frolik[/b]. With that in mind, <strong class='bbc'>Steve Montador[/b] might be better to pawn off than someone like Olesz.
Taking a look at the talents mentioned, with all due respect, none of them come close to making an impact on the ice like <strong class='bbc'>Marian Hossa[/b], so why is he even being discussed? The big issue with Hossa has nothing to do with his playing ability, it’s determining whether or not he will retire before his contract ends. This is a particular problem due to the newly installed cap benefit recapture formula (CBRF), confirmed by James Mirtle. Here is the definition of CBRF as of December 12th:
<em class='bbc'>“All years of existing long-term contracts in excess of five (5) years be counted against a Club’s Cap regardless of whether or where a Player is playing. While such contracts (and Cap charges) can be traded during their terms, in the event a Player subsequently retires or ceases to play, the effective Cap charge would revert to the Club that originally entered into the contract.”[/i]
Although the definition in the new CBA was slightly tweaked (instead of five years it will be six and the cap charge would be spread among all teams that owned the contract — via Mirtle) the definition above certainly highlights the overall point. The table below represents the penalties the Blackhawks would pay each year until his contract ends if they decided to keep Hossa and he did retire early.
<p class='bbc_center'><span rel='lightbox'>
So, for example, lets say Hossa decided to retire after the 2018 season when he is 39 years old — the Blackhawks would incur a cap hit of $4,275,000 over the next three years.
This is a dangerous situation they have put themselves in, but with every stern penalty, the NHL always finds a way to let teams off the hook. Dig a little deeper and you can see for all intents and purposes, the amnesty buyout was created to opt out of larger, longer term contracts… take <strong class='bbc'>Scott Gomez[/b] in Montreal for example, or perhaps <strong class='bbc'>Rick DiPietro[/b] on Long Island. Ultimately, the Blackhawks have signed two particular players that exceed six years remaining on their contracts: <strong class='bbc'>Marian Hossa[/b] and <strong class='bbc'>Duncan Keith[/b]. Both of which are signed to retirement.
As far as <strong class='bbc'>Duncan Keith[/b] is concerned, he should have no issues playing out his days in Chicago. He will be 37 when his contract expires and may even want to stick around for a couple more years. Hossa will be 42 by the time his contract ends, and while the intent could have been there when he signed that contract it’s very rare that a player not named <strong class='bbc'>Chris Chelios[/b] or <strong class='bbc'>Gordie Howe[/b] maintain their passion for the game after 40 years old.
Is buying out Hossa really the only option to avoid the the retirement penalty? The answer, unfortunately, is yes. Now, if you're thinking ahead, you'll say "Well, why don't the Blackhawks buyout Hossa, then re-sign him at a fraction of the cost?"
I'm one step ahead of you.
If the Blackhawks did decide to buy out Hossa, they could not acquire him for one year. This means they could not sign him, pick him up on waivers, or trade for him over the course of that year… so unless Marian is planning on taking a year off from 2014-15, the Blackhawks either have to say goodbye completely or take the risk and hope that he honors his contract instead of retiring early.
<strong class='bbc'>Stan Bowman[/b] and <strong class='bbc'>Rocky Wirtz[/b] have a big decision to make that can really effect the future of the team. The best case scenario would be if the Blackhawks decide to keep Hossa (or trade him) and he finishes his contract. Neutral case scenario, the Blackhawks trade Hossa, he retires, and the Blackhawks share the retirement penalty with another team. Worst case scenario, Hossa retires in 2017 or 2018 as a Blackhawk.
Although there is a huge case built for buying out <strong class='bbc'>Marian Hossa[/b], there is one fact that many people have failed to mention: If the Blackhawks buyout Hossa after the 2014 season, although it doesn't count against the salary cap, it will still cost Rocky Wirtz $15,866,667 total over a course of 14 years, which means Rocky will need to <em class='bbc'>pay an average of $1,133,333 per year until 2027-2028[/i]. That is insane. Of course the cap relief is crucial, but the bottom line is this is a business, and I highly doubt Rocky Wirtz will commit nearly $16 million to a player that isn't on the roster. The only way this would make sense for Rocky is if they suspect Hossa will retire after the 2017-2018 season or prior, which if that is the case, it will save the Blackhawks a total of $1,233,333 or more.
That last paragraph alone should be enough to prove that the Blackhawks will keep <strong class='bbc'>Marian Hossa[/b]. As a salary cap move, it may make sense, but from a business and pure hockey perspective this move would be a disaster. Put this rumor right back in the mouth it came from. It's debunked.
<p class='bbc_center'>***</p>
<em class='bbc'>Thanks to James Mirtle and Elliotte Friedman for their extensive knowledge and help on the details of the CBA’s amnesty buyout along with the cap benefit recapture formula. James Mirtle is an editor and reporter for The Globe and Mail, covering details of the lockout extensively. Elliotte Friedman is a sports journalist and commentator for Hockey Night in Canada on CBC Sports.[/i]
<center>You should follow me on twitter here or click the button below.
<iframe allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"
src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets/follow_button.html?screen_name=TonDeFra"
style="width:300px; height:20px; margin: 0 auto !important; display:block;"></iframe></center>
Click here to view the article
