Salary Cap increase by $2.84M to $59.64M

[Guest]

[quote name="puckjim"]



I would also like to see teams have the ability to trade a player, but eat some of his salary, if necessary.



Huet is going to get buried in the minors because of his salary. If we were allowed to eat a couple million of that, we could likely find a trading partner. It would be better for the Hawks and even better for Huet.[/quote]



You can. Except you eat it on the Cap, which is they way it should be.



Once Huet passes through waivers down, he can not be recalled without hitting "re entry waivers". Once he hits re entry waivers other teams have a chance to take him at HALF the Salary. Meaning Wirtz would pay him 2.8 mil for the next two years. And have 2.8mil deducted right off the top of the cap for EACH of those years. We can't afford that. As it is right now there is like 9 mil to sign 8 players.



Losing Steeg will make that 11. I guarantee some team will take him for 2.6 mil as a back up.

 

[puckjim]

[quote name="R K"]



You can. Except you eat it on the Cap, which is they way it should be.



Once Huet passes through waivers down, he can not be recalled without hitting "re entry waivers". Once he hits re entry waivers other teams have a chance to take him at HALF the Salary. Meaning Wirtz would pay him 2.8 mil for the next two years. And have 2.8mil deducted right off the top of the cap for EACH of those years. We can't afford that. As it is right now there is like 9 mil to sign 8 players.



Losing Steeg will make that 11. I guarantee some team will take him for 2.6 mil as a back up.[/quote]



I get all that. But in baseball, for example, a team like the Cubs can trade a player, let's say Zambrano, to the White Sox, and eat 12 million of his 18 million dollar salary, making him more attractive to more buyers. It would be nice if we could trade Huet, eat some of his salary, but not have to go through the sending him down to the minors excercise.



I really don't see doing anything else with Huet other than KHL or Rockford.



Scooter says we don't have to trade Versteeg for salary cap reasons. Not sure how all this cap stuff works, so I'm going to take some advice I got from Stuy's boards: I'm gonna put on my Stanley Cup Champions hat and let the Blackhawks worry aboot it.

 

[Guest]

Thats one of the reasons the MLBs Cap sucks.



Just like the over the cap tax. Just ways around the cap.

 

[puckjim]

[quote name="R K"]Thats one of the reasons the MLBs Cap sucks.



Just like the over the cap tax. Just ways around the cap.[/quote]



Agreed. The luxury tax was supposed to level the playing field in the smaller markets. But all that happens is the Pirates and Royals just keep the money sent to them by MLB. The Tampa Bay Rays are the exception because they actually have a quality front office that drafts well, develops talent, and then signs that talent to long-term deals when they are young and affordable. See Evan Longoria.



In Major League Baseball, the rich just get richer.

 

[IceHogsFan]

[quote name="puckjim"]



I would also like to see teams have the ability to trade a player, but eat some of his salary, if necessary.



Huet is going to get buried in the minors because of his salary. If we were allowed to eat a couple million of that, we could likely find a trading partner. It would be better for the Hawks and even better for Huet.[/quote]



Two good posts

 

[E Runs]

[quote name="R K"]Thats one of the reasons the MLBs Cap sucks.



Just like the over the cap tax. Just ways around the cap.[/quote]

MLB doesn't have a cap it does have the luxury tax though.



And Brian Burke has been lobbying for years for what Jim is propsing.

 

[Guest]

[quote name="E Runs"]

MLB doesn't have a cap it does have the luxury tax though.



And Brian Burke has been lobbying for years for what Jim is propsing.[/quote]



The Luxury Tax is their Salary Cap. So in fact they do have something in place similar to a Salary Cap. While certainly not the same I agree and not quite a Salary Cap, which in baseball would NEVER fly.



I didn't say what Jim suggested was a bad idea, just that it is another way to circumvent the Cap.



There will be changes in the next CBA. For hockey's sake I hope they are smooth.

 

[E Runs]

[quote name="R K"]



Yea BCS sucks more but the Cap has issues.



The fact we get hit by the 1.3 mil for the Con Smyth is a bunch of fucking bullshit. There is NO WAY that number should go against us, or ANY team that has a Con Smythe winner.



The Cap as a whole brings parity, other than the fact teams have "skirted" around it with front end loaded contracts.[/quote]

Was Toews' Smythe win a "performance bonus" paid by the Hawks or an award paid by the League? If it's the former then it absolutely count against the Cap and it was pretty smart of his agent to include that in his contract.



I have to disagree that the Cap brings parity. Except for the first team to win the Cup out of the lockout, every champ has been scraping the celiening: Hawks, Pens, Wings, Ducks. And then suffered the consequences EEE-mediatly after winning it. Thanks to the Cap Buffalo had to lose Drury, Briere and Campbell. Look at what the Cap did to Tampa Bay. Now maybe the owner wouldn't have opened up the purse string anyway but even if he wanted to, he couldn't. In fact I'd argue the Cap floor forces teams to spend more than they can. The floor was the primary factor Atlanta traded for Mathieu Schneider and his $6M cap hit two years ago. Who know, maybe that's part of what motivated Dudley to take Byfuglien AND Sopel? Sure Phoenix was a feel good story this year making the Playoffs but it took Don Maloney's & Dave Tippett's genius to do it, not the Cap. The Cap floor is currently more than the Cap limit was coming out of the lockout and while that means revenues are up overall, I doubt they are up that much in ATL, PHX, EDM, NYI, TBL, etc to help those organizations spend that much. Theoretically the Cap puts all 30 teams on the same level playing field but the reality is the organization who couldn't spend the big money pre-Cap, still can't.

 

[JOVE23]

[quote name="puckjim"]



I get all that. But in baseball, for example, a team like the Cubs can trade a player, let's say Zambrano, to the White Sox, and eat 12 million of his 18 million dollar salary, making him more attractive to more buyers. It would be nice if we could trade Huet, eat some of his salary, but not have to go through the sending him down to the minors excercise.



I really don't see doing anything else with Huet other than KHL or Rockford.



Scooter says we don't have to trade Versteeg for salary cap reasons. Not sure how all this cap stuff works, so I'm going to take some advice I got from Stuy's boards: I'm gonna put on my Stanley Cup Champions hat and let the Blackhawks worry aboot it.[/quote]



I'd eat all of Zambrano's salary to get him the hell out of here.

 

[Guest]

[quote name="E Runs"]

Was Toews' Smythe win a "performance bonus" paid by the Hawks or an award paid by the League? If it's the former then it absolutely count against the Cap and it was pretty smart of his agent to include that in his contract.



I have to disagree that the Cap brings parity. Except for the first team to win the Cup out of the lockout, every champ has been scraping the celiening: Hawks, Pens, Wings, Ducks. And then suffered the consequences EEE-mediatly after winning it. Thanks to the Cap Buffalo had to lose Drury, Briere and Campbell. Look at what the Cap did to Tampa Bay. Now maybe the owner wouldn't have opened up the purse string anyway but even if he wanted to, he couldn't. In fact I'd argue the Cap floor forces teams to spend more than they can. The floor was the primary factor Atlanta traded for Mathieu Schneider and his $6M cap hit two years ago. Who know, maybe that's part of what motivated Dudley to take Byfuglien AND Sopel? Sure Phoenix was a feel good story this year making the Playoffs but it took Don Maloney's & Dave Tippett's genius to do it, not the Cap. The Cap floor is currently more than the Cap limit was coming out of the lockout and while that means revenues are up overall, I doubt they are up that much in ATL, PHX, EDM, NYI, TBL, etc to help those organizations spend that much. Theoretically the Cap puts all 30 teams on the same level playing field but the reality is the organization who couldn't spend the big money pre-Cap, still can't.[/quote]



I'm pretty sure it was a league bonus that the team ate.



I think the Parity is clear in the standing, end of season, and closeness of many teams. I hear what you are saying but feel it eliminated teams from spending what ever they want, while other teams don't. There are some problems no doubt but the CBA will be reopened next year

 

[E Runs]

[quote name="R K"]

I'm pretty sure it was a league bonus that the team ate.

[/quote]

That's some big bullshit thwn.



Big bullshit.

 

[Maiden]

After playing around with the numbers last night with RK, this is my first attempt at figuring out what our roster might look like in October. I'm still short 1 player for a 22 man active roster. My conclusions are:



a. No room for Versteeg or Ladd at the inn if we want to keep Sharp.

b. Either this summer or next summer Campbell has to be moved to free up space to keep Seabrook and Sharp.

c. Beach and Lalonde will make the opening roster as their cap hits are user freindly.

d. Players with a ** are not signed as of yet and those numbers are my estimates.



Possible line combinations



Kopecky-Toews-Hossa

Beach-Bolland-Brouwer

??????-Sharp-Kane

Bickell-Dowell-Burish



Seabrook-Keith

Hammer-Campbell

Lalonde-Boynton





Player P 2010-11

- -

Bolland C $3,375,000

Dowell C $525,000

Reasoner C $1,150,000

Towes C $6,300,000

Campbell D $7,142,875

Boynton D $700,000 **

Lalonde D $596,667

Hendry D $700,000 **

Hjarmelsson D $3,000,000 **

Keith D $5,538,462

Seabrook D $3,500,000

Crawford G $750,000

Huet G $0

Niemi G $3,300,000 **

Beach LW $1,200,000

Hossa LW $5,275,000

Bickell LW $750,000 **

Ladd LW $0

Sharp LW $3,900,000

Brouwer RW $1,025,000

Burish RW $950,000 **

Kane RW $6,300,000

Kopecky RW $1,200,000

Versteeg RW $0



Smythe AW $1,300,000



Total $58,478,004



Cap $59,640,000



Left $1,161,996

 

[IceHogsFan]

Crawford as backup..... Ugggghhhh



And how dare you assume that neither Lalonde nor Beach

start in Rockford!!!!



:lol:

 

[Maiden]

[quote name="IceHogsFan"]Crawford as backup..... Ugggghhhh



And how dare you assume that neither Lalonde nor Beach

start in Rockford!!!!



:lol:[/quote]



I hear ya IHF............I told RK after seeing Lalonde play on a few occasions I don't think he is ready for the parent club quite yet. I think the Hawks have no choice but to put Beach in the lineup right away.



I also agree with you on Crawford but our cap situation is so tight they dont have much choice but to have a cheap backup on the roster.

 

[the canadian dream]

And you guys still like the Cap?



Blows my mind. You do see how it hurts aqnd screws over teams that draft well and groom THEIR OWN PLAYERS!!



I hate you all. Im going to the O boards.





Maiden...nice run down of the numbers and good roster prediction. The harsh realities for me are setting in that Ladd will be elsewhere next season. Good work you have gone and shattered the last remaining hopes I had for Ladd to return. You truely are a mood killer.

 

[Guest]

I still think it will be one or the other, not both. Not quite sure Crawford will be the back up yet.



Not sure Lalonde won't get a year in Rockford verses them picking up an inexpensive 5/6 D man with some experience UFA or via trade still.



Beach I think will prove himself in Camp. I suspect he will replace Buff. Skille, who knows but he's RFA so one they'll have to qualify him and two have no other offers. I can't see him wanting more money verses a chance to play with the SC Champs but to this date he's done very little to prove he belongs here OR has the talent to play here.



I also believe these questions will not be enough to hamper this team on not only trying but having a very good chance at repeating.



As for the Cap there are aspects I like and aspects I dislike. I do believe it causes parity with those team willing to spend for a winner. Those teams will have no advantage and or disadvantage with one another. You will always have those teams spending the minimum. Most if not ALL will never have a chance at the final prize with that level of payroll.