Cap crunch could signal final days for Blackhawks’ Seabrook, Bruins’ Chara

[Irishjim]

The New York Post’s Larry Brooks reports there’s a good chance the NHL salary cap won’t increase for 2015-16. Brooks cites the projected decline in the Canadian dollar and the potential unwillingness of the NHLPA (for escrow reasons) to exercise a five percent escalator for ’15-’16. He also cites front-office sources claiming the struggling Canadian dollar has already affected contract extension talks in at least three cases.

 

read full article to see how this may effect your team:http://www.thehockeynews.com/blog/rumor-roundup-cap-crunch-could-signal-final-days-for-blackhawks-seabrook-bruins-chara/ 

[Old School Hockey]

Funny that Chicago didn't learn the first time they went into cap hell. The resigning of Toews and Kane will put them in the middle of the pack next year when their 21m hits the cap.

[TropicalFruitGirl26]

Last I heard, the salary cap WILL be going up next season (not by a whole lot....speculators were saying 3-4 million), however, the value of the Canadian dollar was certainly a concern and THAT more than a cap increase or no, would be the real concern.

 

Regardless, let's say the cap does go up, given the Hawks' salary numbers with the new mega contracts kicking in, I don't see how an extra 4 mil even comes close to them being able to keep a guy like Seabrook...at least not without dropping off salary elsewhere, and thus overall, weakening the team as a contender.

 

Now, take my information and takes on this stuff with a grain of salt, as salary stuff in pro sports isn't my forte.

I just wish though, some happy medium was reached where a salary cap number can be reached where teams can still spend pretty liberally, yet not be able to gobble up every high priced quality player on the market (like the Wings used to do years ago)....I dunno, something like maybe $80M?

[Old School Hockey]

Last I heard, the salary cap WILL be going up next season (not by a whole lot....speculators were saying 3-4 million), however, the value of the Canadian dollar was certainly a concern and THAT more than a cap increase or no, would be the real concern.

 

Regardless, let's say the cap does go up, given the Hawks' salary numbers with the new mega contracts kicking in, I don't see how an extra 4 mil even comes close to them being able to keep a guy like Seabrook...at least not without dropping off salary elsewhere, and thus overall, weakening the team as a contender.

 

Now, take my information and takes on this stuff with a grain of salt, as salary stuff in pro sports isn't my forte.

I just wish though, some happy medium was reached where a salary cap number can be reached where teams can still spend pretty liberally, yet not be able to gobble up every high priced quality player on the market (like the Wings used to do years ago)....I dunno, something like maybe $80M?

Simply put. Chicago has 65m commited to 15 players next year. 7 are on 5m+ contracts.

They're returning back to the middle of the pack. And Blackhawk fans think Bowman is a great GM? Well we will see how he pulls a rabbit out of his hat on this one.

[jammer2]

  I would think it will cause less stress on the teams championships hopes dealing Hossa or Sharp than to let go of a top 4 d man like Seabrooke.

[Old School Hockey]

I would think it will cause less stress on the teams championships hopes dealing Hossa or Sharp than to let go of a top 4 d man like Seabrooke.

So?????

It's still in your scenario 59m with 17 spots to fill.

[jammer2]

@Old School Hockey  Of course it would not solve the cap crunch, I just think in theory, when faced with parting with a star forward or a star d-man, you should pick the forward to pack up and leave 9 time out of 10.

[B21]

 

@Old School Hockey

Funny that Chicago didn't learn the first time they went into cap hell. The resigning of Toews and Kane will put them in the middle of the pack next year when their 21m hits the cap.

 

So what bad contract or contracts have put the Hawks into this (cough cough) cap hell?  Is anyone on their roster grossly overpaid? 

 

If they were in this predicament because of cap mismanagement you'd be right to take some shots at them.  But they are in this "predicament" because they have drafted well, scouted well and rarely overpaid and/or made a bad free agent acquisition.

 

When it gets to the point where you can't afford to keep all of the players you have drafted and developed (while spending to the cap) then you are doing things right. Not wrong.

[mojo1917]

I think the way the Hawks are built and will now be nickel and dimed apart makes a case for a salary structure similar to the NBA and their "exceptions"  That way a group can be kept together if the GM qualified the contracts properly.  There are mid-level, rookie, Larry Bird...call this the Jonathan Towes and other exceptions that can allow shrewd GMs to keep the players they draft and develop so they can reap the benefits of their acumen.

 

The Hawks situations isn't a result of signing stupid deals the way the Flyers have, but they drafted and developed  (for example) B Saad, he should be paid and the team that put in the work on him should have a crack at keeping the realized player on their team.

[B21]

I think the way the Hawks are built and will now be nickel and dimed apart makes a case for a salary structure similar to the NBA and their "exceptions"  That way a group can be kept together if the GM qualified the contracts properly.  There are mid-level, rookie, Larry Bird...call this the Jonathan Towes and other exceptions that can allow shrewd GMs to keep the players they draft and develop so they can reap the benefits of their acumen.

 

The Hawks situations isn't a result of signing stupid deals the way the Flyers have, but they drafted and developed  (for example) B Saad, he should be paid and the team that put in the work on him should have a crack at keeping the realized player on their team.

 

Good point.  I wouldn't have a problem with a salary structure like that though it would increase the gap between the teams willing to spend and those that aren't.  I'm sure the Hawks could afford to keep a Seabrook or pay a Saad when the time comes if the league's salary structure allowed it.  Would the Panthers? Maybe.

 

It's the same situation the Pens were in with Staal. Shero chose to deal him with a year left to get what he could (which ended up being a lot).  Rutherford was in the same boat this offseason with Paul Martin.  He chose to let it ride with him (I don't think he comes back) knowing he has a Harrington or Pouliot (ironically from the Staal deal) waiting in the wings.

[murraycraven]

So what bad contract or contracts have put the Hawks into this (cough cough) cap hell?  Is anyone on their roster grossly overpaid? 

 

If they were in this predicament because of cap mismanagement you'd be right to take some shots at them.  But they are in this "predicament" because they have drafted well, scouted well and rarely overpaid and/or made a bad free agent acquisition.

 

When it gets to the point where you can't afford to keep all of the players you have drafted and developed (while spending to the cap) then you are doing things right. Not wrong.

 

 

Well said B...

 

To use an example the Flyers are in cap hell from doing the "wront thing" while trying to manage the cap.   Hextall will need a miracle...

[Old School Hockey]

I think the way the Hawks are built and will now be nickel and dimed apart makes a case for a salary structure similar to the NBA and their "exceptions"  That way a group can be kept together if the GM qualified the contracts properly.  There are mid-level, rookie, Larry Bird...call this the Jonathan Towes and other exceptions that can allow shrewd GMs to keep the players they draft and develop so they can reap the benefits of their acumen.

 

The Hawks situations isn't a result of signing stupid deals the way the Flyers have, but they drafted and developed  (for example) B Saad, he should be paid and the team that put in the work on him should have a crack at keeping the realized player on their team.

So let me get this straight?

Tank and play crappy hockey for years. Draft several generational talents. Overpay a few vets while your generational talent are ELC's. Pay generational talent big $$$$ and get into cap hell due overpaid vets.

I'm glad my team hasn't used that model.

[mojo1917]

@oldschoolhockey

 

i'm not sure who you're thinking is a "generational talent" on the Hawks... Keith ? maybe... Kane ? uh no. Towes ?  again maybe.

 I didn't really pay much attention to them prior to the Dale Tallon years so I am not familiar with their version of tanking...( I am aware of the Penguins tanking for Lemieux, so i am familiar with the concept )  I thought the Hawks were poorly run and legitimately sucked at the end of Bill Wirtz's life.  It wasn't until the kid began running things that there was reason for me, an east coast Flyers fan to think about the Hawks. So I don't have years of fandom or hatred to amass the knowledge of their historical douchebaggery I only know what the last 10 years or so have wrought; and that has been good drafting , reasonably good free agent acquisitions and the fact they had to disassemble the first cup team because of the salary cap.  They have a lot of very good players they've drafted and developed and will now have to be really selective about how to pay those players for their performance and I think that it sucks when any entity does well within a system and the system "punishes" it, that seems "unjust'

[radoran]

I'm glad my team hasn't used that model.

 

It's hard to argue with two Cups and two Conference Final appearances in the past six years.

 

There are a lot of teams and fanbases that would love to have a GM that got them into "cap hell" with that record.

 

Likewise the Kings with two Cups and a Finals in the past three years - and in "cap hell" now.

 

And both remain in playoff position this season (with 60+ games to go...)

 

They have a lot of very good players they've drafted and developed and will now have to be really selective about how to pay those players for their performance and I think that it sucks when any entity does well within a system and the system "punishes" it, that seems "unjust'

 

That's what the guys who own the teams themselves absolutely insisted upon.

 

Took a season and a half of hockey away to get it, too.

 

That said, I would never have given Kane that contract. Never in a million, billion years.

 

Like jammer said, you keep the defenceman over the forward.

[Old School Hockey]

@oldschoolhockey

 

i'm not sure who you're thinking is a "generational talent" on the Hawks... Keith ? maybe... Kane ? uh no. Towes ?  again maybe.

 I didn't really pay much attention to them prior to the Dale Tallon years so I am not familiar with their version of tanking...( I am aware of the Penguins tanking for Lemieux, so i am familiar with the concept )  I thought the Hawks were poorly run and legitimately sucked at the end of Bill Wirtz's life.  It wasn't until the kid began running things that there was reason for me, an east coast Flyers fan to think about the Hawks. So I don't have years of fandom or hatred to amass the knowledge of their historical douchebaggery I only know what the last 10 years or so have wrought; and that has been good drafting , reasonably good free agent acquisitions and the fact they had to disassemble the first cup team because of the salary cap.  They have a lot of very good players they've drafted and developed and will now have to be really selective about how to pay those players for their performance and I think that it sucks when any entity does well within a system and the system "punishes" it, that seems "unjust'

They did more than their fair share of overpaying.

 

Hjalmarsson

Campbell (I know he's gone)

Crawford

Hossa

 

People just can't see that you can NOT have 7 player with 5m+ contracts and sustain.  Hence next season they have 66m of 69m with 16 players signed.  If that's NOT cap hell I'll wait for someone to tell me what is?

[B21]

So let me get this straight?

Tank and play crappy hockey for years. Draft several generational talents. Overpay a few vets while your generational talent are ELC's. Pay generational talent big $$$$ and get into cap hell due overpaid vets.

I'm glad my team hasn't used that model.

 

You mean the one that's won 3 of the last 6 Cups? 

[radoran]

You mean the one that's won 3 4 of the last 6 Cups? 

 

Fixed it for you.

[Old School Hockey]

You mean the one that's won 3 of the last 6 Cups? 

Good one!  If it wasn't for the cap and an ultimatum your team would be playing in Kansas City.

[B21]

They did more than their fair share of overpaying.

 

Hjalmarsson

Campbell (I know he's gone)

Crawford

Hossa

 

People just can't see that you can NOT have 7 player with 5m+ contracts and sustain.  Hence next season they have 66m of 69m with 16 players signed.  If that's NOT cap hell I'll wait for someone to tell me what is?

 

Sure you can (have that many over $5M) - as long as they are worth it.  Crawford is maybe overpaid by about $1,000,000 per year.  Hossa is not at all over paid now (though he will be in a few seasons).  Campbell is gone - you answered you own question there.  Hjalmarsson is at $4M per (not $5M) and is not over paid. Which argument are you using him for?

 

Cap hell would be paying guys $5M+ per year who are not worth $5M+ per year then throwing in a NTC or NMC making them inanimate objects.  There really isn't anyone on the Hawks who fits that bill.

 

Then there are those Cup things. 

[B21]

Fixed it for you.

 

De Nada.

[Old School Hockey]

Fixed it for you.

Other than Chicago and Pittsburgh who tanked for picks?

[B21]

Good one!  If it wasn't for the cap and an ultimatum your team would be playing in Kansas City.

 

I think you just took your ball and ran.  

[Old School Hockey]

Sure you can (have that many over $5M) - as long as they are worth it.  Crawford is maybe overpaid by about $1,000,000 per year.  Hossa is not at all over paid now (though he will be in a few seasons).  Campbell is gone - you answered you own question there.  Hjalmarsson is at $4M per (not $5M) and is not over paid. Which argument are you using him for?

 

Cap hell would be paying guys $5M+ per year who are not worth $5M+ per year then throwing in a NTC or NMC making them inanimate objects.  There really isn't anyone on the Hawks who fits that bill.

 

Then there are those Cup things. 

Let these numbers explain it:

 

66 of 69 with 7 players to sign.

[B21]

Let these numbers explain it:

 

66 of 69 with 7 players to sign.

 

No one is disagreeing with you, Meat.  All we are saying is they ain't in this spot because of cap mismanagement.  They simply have too much talent to fit under the cap.  

[Old School Hockey]

I think you just took your ball and ran.  

I truly feel with all of things going on Crosby (behind closed doors) was given to Pittsburgh as I stay chip.  And here’s why.  Without Crosby the team was horrible with horrible attendance.  The next year after the LO suddenly Crosby was with Pittsburgh.  The team still sucked (check the record) and attendance went way up.  So help a struggling team with attendance problems by giving them Crosby and Mario then agrees to stay.  Please don’t say it’s not possible.  Emperor Gary is a dirty man.