Yahoo!! Hockey is back on

[Ton]

James Mirtle‏@mirtle

Can 100% confirm the new CBA will include the cap benefit recapture formula. It will apply to existing deals "in excess of six years."





James Mirtle ‏@mirtle

@IHN_DeFrancesco @FriedgeHNIC wrote about this last night; both teams will be penalized

In case anyone hasn't been paying attention, this means the Blackhawks must buyout Hossa in order to shed themselves of his contract completely if he plans on retiring before finishing his contract. They will still be penalized if he is traded.

 

[LordKOTL]

Supra, I can't back that as an absolute. Shaw could be another Hossa, or he could be another Bickell. Likely his numbers will probably be like Bolland's (when relatively healthy).



I think this shortened season will tell a lot. If Hossa comes back and is anywhere near top-2 in goals for the team (and top-2 in shorties), and leads the team in assists, PPG, and points; then IMHO it would be assinine to cut him loose unless you have someone or a small group of players that near 100% *can* make those numbers up, or mitigate the offensive loss by shoring up the D (which as of this point is an even darker prospect).



Now, if Hossa is struggling, by all means try to find someone better, but if not there has to be contingencies in place and really, I don't see any gamebreakers of his caliber in the pipeline--cap hell or not.



Consider how much losing Campbell hurt us defensively.

 

[PatrickShart]

Maybe this summer...buyout Olesz



Then next summer...buyout Hossa (He'll be 35 at that point)?



So they can get this and next year out of Hoss

 

[Variable]

In case anyone hasn't been paying attention, this means the Blackhawks must buyout Hossa in order to shed themselves of his contract completely if he plans on retiring before finishing his contract. They will still be penalized if he is traded.

I can the see reasoning with that, but I don't know why it's like that to begin with? Why does a team have to continue to have a cap hit on them?

 

[Ashor-redtribe]

IMO with all this talk of buy outs and trades, I believe it will be more then Hossa gone from the core if this year is a one and done again. I think they will want to push the youth in for next year, shed some cap and start over. Again this is the way I see it. There are to many question marks on this team, after last year I don't know where the arrow is pointing up or down. As far as our goalie situation goes, if he looks like last year and shits the bed again, I hope he is show the door. There are alot of teams with better back ups then our starting goalie. one being L.A.

 

[PatrickShart]

I don't think it would be a "one and done" rebuild.



Hossa will be 35 (if they wait until after next summer to buy him out).



They'll still have -

Toews 26

Kane 26

Bolland 28 (if resigned)

Sharp 33

Stalberg 28 (if resigned)

Kruger 24

Leddy 23

Seabrook 29

Keith 31

Oduya 33

Shaw 23



Not to mention prospects like Olsen, Teuvo, McNeil, Daneault, Morin, Hayes x2, Smith.....

 

[Ton]

I can the see reasoning with that, but I don't know why it's like that to begin with? Why does a team have to continue to have a cap hit on them?

I'm not sure I understand the question. The Blackhawks wouldn't have a cap hit against them unless Hossa retired.



The numbers I posted wouldn't be paid to Hossa, for all intents and purposes, it is merely a punishment to the club that signed the contract.



The only way out of it "scott-free" is a buyout.

 

[Ashor-redtribe]

I don't think it would be a "one and done" rebuild.



Hossa will be 35 (if they wait until after next summer to buy him out).



They'll still have -

Toews 26

Kane 26

Bolland 28 (if resigned)

Sharp 33

Stalberg 28 (if resigned)

Kruger 24

Leddy 23

Seabrook 29

Keith 31

Oduya 33

Shaw 23



Not to mention prospects like Olsen, Teuvo, McNeil, Daneault, Morin, Hayes x2, Smith.....

What I ment was they will want to push the youth we saw last year in a full time role, with rebuild meaning let some of guys like Bolland, Bicks, Myers, ect. With the spark we saw from the youth last year I would like to see that and with more players.

 

[Ton]

Well, here you have it...

[font=Arial, sans-serif]

James Mirtle ‏@mirtle[/font][font=Arial, sans-serif]

@IHN_DeFrancesco no you can't re-sign after buyouts[/font]

Looks like it's either we buy out Hossa or we keep him.

 

[Variable]

I'm not sure I understand the question. The Blackhawks wouldn't have a cap hit against them unless Hossa retired.



The numbers I posted wouldn't be paid to Hossa, for all intents and purposes, it is merely a punishment to the club that signed the contract.



The only way out of it "scott-free" is a buyout.

I guess why would there have to be cap hit punishment would be the question.

 

[supraman]

I guess why would there have to be cap hit punishment would be the question.

Yeah why would you be stuck with something if you trade a player. That's fucking dumb.

 

[Variable]

Even if the player wasn't traded, he just retired. Like let's say Hossa retired after that hit. Why the hell do the Hawks or any team have to be "punished" for the remainder of his contract through having a cap hit.

 

[dlrob315]

Maybe this summer...buyout Olesz



Then next summer...buyout Hossa (He'll be 35 at that point)?



So they can get this and next year out of Hoss

Olesz would be a wasted use of the amnesty clause because the Hawks do not need cap relief for 13/14. They will need to use the amnesty on any player that is on the roster for 14/15.

 

[PatrickShart]

Yeah...good call.

 

[Ton]

I guess why would there have to be cap hit punishment would be the question.

Because we are the team that signed him to that contract. They want to punish the teams that circumvented the cap to begin with... it's just proving that the player had no intention of honoring his contract and that the team purposely tacked on those extra years to get a lower cap number (also partly the reason we had a lockout) so it's more of an eff you to the owners who decided to **** the system.... if Hossa is traded to another team, we will share the penalty with that team if he retires.



Philly is fucked because of this. Hartnell, Pronger, Bryzgalov... not to mention Carter and Richards

 

[Variable]

But wouldn't that also affect any other "non-circumventing" contract as well and any circumstances that come up with those players who retire before their contract is done with? The same rule would apply for those too?

 

[Ton]

But wouldn't that also affect any other "non-circumventing" contract as well and any circumstances that come up with those players who retire before their contract is done with? The same rule would apply for those too?

Any contract that has over 6 years remaining or anyone that is signed over 35.

 

[EspoForever]

Nope, it's part of the new CBA via James Mirtle:





In response to the league's call for such an alteration, the NHLPA devised something called a "cap benefit recapture formula," which would punish teams with players who retired early on long-term deals by putting the money they saved over the term of the deal on their cap after they've retired.



This notion has been around for a while, but the change that came last week was that the PA offered to apply this formula to any new contracts that are seven years or longer OR existing deals with seven years or more remaining.

This CBA signed this year should not affect Hossa as he was signed under that LAST CBA, should it?

 

[EspoForever]

I'm not sure I understand the question. The Blackhawks wouldn't have a cap hit against them unless Hossa retired.



The numbers I posted wouldn't be paid to Hossa, for all intents and purposes, it is merely a punishment to the club that signed the contract.



The only way out of it "scott-free" is a buyout.

Right, and watch him go back to Detroit.

 

[Variable]

god the NHL is just goddamn dumb. Just fucking dumb.