Which would be $13.375 million
- John Jaeckel

Not if you are talking about the last year of his deal.

His salary is broken down as follows:

09-10 - $7.9MM
10-11 - $7.9MM
11-12 - $7.9MM
12-13 - $7.9MM
13-14 - $7.9MM
14-15 - $7.9MM
15-16 - $7.9MM
16-17 - $4.0MM
17-18 - $1.0MM
18-19 - $1.0MM
19-20 - $1.0MM
20-21 - $1.0MM

Total Contract: $63.3 MM

His cap hit for each year of his deal is $5.275MM, so if he were to play 11 seasons he would earn $62.3 MM and have a cap hit figure of $5.275MM times 11 ($58.025MM). The difference between those two numbers is $4.275MM, not $13.375MM.

Not if you are talking about the last year of his deal.

His salary is broken down as follows:

09-10 - $7.9MM
10-11 - $7.9MM
11-12 - $7.9MM
12-13 - $7.9MM
13-14 - $7.9MM
14-15 - $7.9MM
15-16 - $7.9MM
16-17 - $4.0MM
17-18 - $1.0MM
18-19 - $1.0MM
19-20 - $1.0MM
20-21 - $1.0MM

Total Contract: $63.3 MM

His cap hit for each year of his deal is $5.275MM, so if he were to play 11 seasons he would earn $62.3 MM and have a cap hit figure of $5.275MM times 11 ($58.025MM). The difference between those two numbers is $4.275MM, not $13.375MM.
- QStache

That's good!

Come on JJ , give us a

"This just in...." type of report !

That's good!
- John Jaeckel

And based on my calculations, basically you are talking about a $4.275MM cap hit penalty for each year he retires after the 2016-2017 season. It is about $700K less per season through 2020-2021 if he retires before the $7.9MM contract years end (so about $3.6MM in cap hit penalty).

And based on my calculations, basically you are talking about a $4.275MM cap hit penalty for each year he retires after the 2016-2017 season. It is about $700K less per season through 2020-2021 if he retires before the $7.9MM contract years end (so about $3.6MM in cap hit penalty).
- QStache

Would you know if signing bonuses are hit against the cap?

Seriously, over 50% of the players in the league have "concussion" issues. Crosby has them—worse than Hossa.

Toews has them, and by the definition you're probably using, WORSE than Hossa's. So you're gonna chuck one guy in order to pay the guy with more concussions and games missed $9 million a year.

Not buying it.

And then, say you make the genius move and buy Hossa out next year. What if he turns around and signs with LA, San Jose or Vancouver? You just cut off your nose to spite your face.

Again, if the guy can still play, which it appears he can, a buyout does not make a ton of sense other than being a very frightened organization that's iust really pulling in its horns and anticipating lower league revenues and poor performance by the team itself.
- John Jaeckel

As always, excellent points. No way I want to see Hossa in another sweater. However, we have seen 2-3 hits this year result in him missing time (we will see on last night's hit)... that has to be a concern.

Hopefully, they can find a way to circumvent the cap circumvention penalty.

Not if you are talking about the last year of his deal.

His salary is broken down as follows:

09-10 - $7.9MM
10-11 - $7.9MM
11-12 - $7.9MM
12-13 - $7.9MM
13-14 - $7.9MM
14-15 - $7.9MM
15-16 - $7.9MM
16-17 - $4.0MM
17-18 - $1.0MM
18-19 - $1.0MM
19-20 - $1.0MM
20-21 - $1.0MM

Total Contract: $63.3 MM

His cap hit for each year of his deal is $5.275MM, so if he were to play 11 seasons he would earn $62.3 MM and have a cap hit figure of $5.275MM times 11 ($58.025MM). The difference between those two numbers is $4.275MM, not $13.375MM.
- QStache

Well here's what I got from a different site (can't remember the link). If you copy & paste, space delimited txt file you can see it easier in Excel. Savings 2 date column is critical. It varies as does salary vs cap hit. CapGeek uses the Max which for Hoss is $18.375M, regardless of what year he'd retire.

CY ended Yrs left Salary Sal 2 date Cap hit Tot cap hit Savings 2 date Retired cap hit
2010 11 $7.9M $7.9M $5.275M $5.3M $2.625M $.239M
2011 10 $7.9M $15.8M $5.275M $10.6M $5.250M $.525M
2012 9 $7.9M $23.7M $5.275M $15.8M $7.9M $.875M
2013 8 $7.9M $31.6M $5.275M $21.1M $10.5M $1.313M
2014 7 $7.9M $39.5M $5.275M $26.4M $13.1M $1.875M
2015 6 $7.9M $47.4M $5.275M $31.7M $15.8M $2.625M
2016 5 $7.9M $55.3M $5.275M $36.9M $18.4M $3.675M
2017 4 $4.0M $59.3M $5.275M $42.2M $17.1M $4.275M
2018 3 $1.0M $60.3M $5.275M $47.5M $12.8M $4.275M
2019 2 $1.0M $61.3M $5.275M $52.8M $8.6M $4.275M
2020 1 $1.0M $62.3M $5.275M $58.0M $4.3M $4.275M
2021 0 $1.0M $63.3M $5.275M $63.3M $0.000M $0.000M

11 wins no losses and you want to get a new backup?
- paulr

All I said is I would try Karlsson for a couple of games...would that be so bad?
Wins are not everything. Would you start Emery in a playoff game? We can agree to disagree if you would.

I say he is an average Goalie at best.

I knew I would get pasted for the post.

Well here's what I got from a different site (can't remember the link). If you copy & paste, space delimited txt file you can see it easier in Excel. Savings 2 date column is critical. It varies as does salary vs cap hit. CapGeek uses the Max which for Hoss is $18.375M, regardless of what year he'd retire.

CY ended Yrs left Salary Sal 2 date Cap hit Tot cap hit Savings 2 date Retired cap hit
2010 11 $7.9M $7.9M $5.275M $5.3M $2.625M $.239M
2011 10 $7.9M $15.8M $5.275M $10.6M $5.250M $.525M
2012 9 $7.9M $23.7M $5.275M $15.8M $7.9M $.875M
2013 8 $7.9M $31.6M $5.275M $21.1M $10.5M $1.313M
2014 7 $7.9M $39.5M $5.275M $26.4M $13.1M $1.875M
2015 6 $7.9M $47.4M $5.275M $31.7M $15.8M $2.625M
2016 5 $7.9M $55.3M $5.275M $36.9M $18.4M $3.675M
2017 4 $4.0M $59.3M $5.275M $42.2M $17.1M $4.275M
2018 3 $1.0M $60.3M $5.275M $47.5M $12.8M $4.275M
2019 2 $1.0M $61.3M $5.275M $52.8M $8.6M $4.275M
2020 1 $1.0M $62.3M $5.275M $58.0M $4.3M $4.275M
2021 0 $1.0M $63.3M $5.275M $63.3M $0.000M $0.000M
- blackhawk24

Your numbers are consistent with mine. Looking at what CapGeek is doing there is something wrong with their methodology. Basically, what I think is happening is that they subtracting the difference between the cap number for the first 7 years of the deal without factoring in any of the payments or additional years played by the player on the lower salary.

Based on the numerous articles I've read, I think CapGeek's methodology is wrong. But if they are correct, that would have a horrifically negative effect on any team having signed a star to a backloaded deal.

All I said is I would try Karlsson for a couple of games...would that be so bad?
Wins are not everything. Would you start Emery in a playoff game? We can agree to disagree if you would.

I say he is an average Goalie at best.

I knew I would get pasted for the post.
- PEIHawkFan

I'm not opposed to the idea. On the off chance he's needed in the playoffs, it would be nice if it wasn't his first game playing with the team. Maybe down the stretch run if a top 2 seed is all wrapped up, give Karlsson a start or two.

Your numbers are consistent with mine. Looking at what CapGeek is doing there is something wrong with their methodology. Basically, what I think is happening is that they subtracting the difference between the cap number for the first 7 years of the deal without factoring in any of the payments or additional years played by the player on the lower salary.

Based on the numerous articles I've read, I think CapGeek's methodology is wrong. But if they are correct, that would have a horrifically negative effect on any team having signed a star to a backloaded deal.
- QStache

Knowing the NHL, Capgeek is probably right and this is an unintended/mis-understood consequence of the new CBA.

All I said is I would try Karlsson for a couple of games...would that be so bad?
Wins are not everything. Would you start Emery in a playoff game? We can agree to disagree if you would.

I say he is an average Goalie at best.

I knew I would get pasted for the post.
- PEIHawkFan

The best thing for Karlsson right now is to stay in Rockford, where he will be splitting the workload with Hutton. This gives Karlsson consistent playing time, something he wasn't getting playing behind Kiprusoff in Calgary.

He may be just an average goalie, but he hasn't looked bad at all in Rockford. He's a big guy that takes up a lot of the net. He gives up more rebounds than I would like, but not any worse than Hutton.

What good does it do to bring Karlsson up for a couple of games to see what he can do?

Knowing the NHL, Capgeek is probably right and this is an unintended/mis-understood consequence of the new CBA.
- Ogilthorpe2

It is possible. It would require nearly a dozen hockey writers completely misunderstanding the new CBA provision and CapGeek being the only one who understands it though ...

Well here's what I got from a different site (can't remember the link). If you copy & paste, space delimited txt file you can see it easier in Excel. Savings 2 date column is critical. It varies as does salary vs cap hit. CapGeek uses the Max which for Hoss is $18.375M, regardless of what year he'd retire.

CY ended Yrs left Salary Sal 2 date Cap hit Tot cap hit Savings 2 date Retired cap hit
2010 11 $7.9M $7.9M $5.275M $5.3M $2.625M $.239M
2011 10 $7.9M $15.8M $5.275M $10.6M $5.250M $.525M
2012 9 $7.9M $23.7M $5.275M $15.8M $7.9M $.875M
2013 8 $7.9M $31.6M $5.275M $21.1M $10.5M $1.313M
2014 7 $7.9M $39.5M $5.275M $26.4M $13.1M $1.875M
2015 6 $7.9M $47.4M $5.275M $31.7M $15.8M $2.625M
2016 5 $7.9M $55.3M $5.275M $36.9M $18.4M $3.675M
2017 4 $4.0M $59.3M $5.275M $42.2M $17.1M $4.275M
2018 3 $1.0M $60.3M $5.275M $47.5M $12.8M $4.275M
2019 2 $1.0M $61.3M $5.275M $52.8M $8.6M $4.275M
2020 1 $1.0M $62.3M $5.275M $58.0M $4.3M $4.275M
2021 0 $1.0M $63.3M $5.275M $63.3M $0.000M $0.000M
- blackhawk24

JJ you said this summer he was considering hanging them up if his mind wasn't right. Now obviously it is and he's been great and continues to look great, but if they can somehow manage to win another cup soon, he'll hit 1000 points and 500 goals in the next two years, that he retires after the 16 season to help the Hawks a little. Again they'd have to be successful, but he could have 2 cups and 1200 points at age 37, and he seems to be such a great guy knowing he can help the club is there a chance he'd do it

The best thing for Karlsson right now is to stay in Rockford, where he will be splitting the workload with Hutton. This gives Karlsson consistent playing time, something he wasn't getting playing behind Kiprusoff in Calgary.

He may be just an average goalie, but he hasn't looked bad at all in Rockford. He's a big guy that takes up a lot of the net. He gives up more rebounds than I would like, but not any worse than Hutton.

What good does it do to bring Karlsson up for a couple of games to see what he can do?
- EKolb13

When I talked about average I was referring to Emery

The best thing for Karlsson right now is to stay in Rockford, where he will be splitting the workload with Hutton. This gives Karlsson consistent playing time, something he wasn't getting playing behind Kiprusoff in Calgary.

He may be just an average goalie, but he hasn't looked bad at all in Rockford. He's a big guy that takes up a lot of the net. He gives up more rebounds than I would like, but not any worse than Hutton.

What good does it do to bring Karlsson up for a couple of games to see what he can do?
- EKolb13

Goalies are funny animal and there isn't a consistent way to gauge how good they will be. Karlsson may be considered sub par right now but all we have to do is look at Anaheim and their goalie Farth (sp?) and see how that can change. As far as giving him a shot this year?......if it was a normal season maybe you could give him a game or two but this year is a sprint and rhythm is important to a goalies success so I wouldn't want to mess with it this year.

Goalies are funny animal and there isn't a consistent way to gauge how good they will be. Karlsson may be considered sub par right now but all we have to do is look at Anaheim and their goalie FASTH and see how that can change. As far as giving him a shot this year?......if it was a normal season maybe you could give him a game or two but this year is a sprint and rhythm is important to a goalies success so I wouldn't want to mess with it this year.
- UnnamedSource

If they really wanted to have a look at Karlsson, why didn't they give him a start when he was backing up Emery while Crawford was out?

Management should have a good enough idea as to what Karlsson can bring based on his play in Rockford.

sigh....there is always one in the crowd.
- UnnamedSource

Unfotunately, on this board there's more than one.

If they really wanted to have a look at Karlsson, why didn't they give him a start when he was backing up Emery while Crawford was out?

Management should have a good enough idea as to what Karlsson can bring based on his play in Rockford.
- EKolb13

Hard to say but more than likely it was because Emery was and still is undefeated. Karlsson was brought in before the season started due the Hawks lack of confidence in both goalies. Obviously that is no longer an issue. In my opinion after Emery gets his riches this off season Karlsson will be the back up next year.

Unfotunately, on this board there's more than one.
- ArlingtonRob

......I am quite aware my friend

Let's figure that one out.

I hear the argument for why they might buy him out. But now, let me present the other side (and any blogger or writer who tries to co-opt this, WILL be publicly called out):

Very simply, it's entirely a cap space issue, not so much what Wirtz actually pays Hossa.

Hossa's actually salary is (and has been) $7.9 million a year until 2016, at which point, it goes DOWN to $4 million a year for a year, then $1 million a year for the last 4 years of the deal.

OK, so the cap goes down next year, that's a given. But the Hawks are in pretty good shape vis a vis the cap next year (with Hossa's $5.275 million against it).

Where it potentially becomes a problem is in the summer of 2015, when you can no longer make a compliance buyout.

From 2005-06 to 2011-12, the cap went up every year, going from $39 million the first year to 64.3 million last year, $70 million, if you count this season.

The cap adjusts to $64.3 million next season. Based on average growth in the cap, you can estimate that the cap for 2015-2016, the first year of a Kane/Toews extension, the cap will be about $70 million or more.

So how is Hossa's likely fairly reasonable $5.275 cap hit (and Keith's) going to pre-empt re-signing Kane or Toews?

Again, I'm not sure what the cap ramifications are of Hossa retiring at age 39 or 40. But it seems to me the best scenario for the Hawks is for him to keep playing, especially if he can past 2016.
- John Jaeckel

Well Wirtz saves a portion of the salary owed if bought out but the biggest reason would be a cap space issue imo, like yours, and the fact that Hossa is getting to an age where skills can decline quickly from year to year has to be considered as retirement isn't a good thing either.

The part about the cap going up....If for the fact that it isn't going down next year compared to this year wasn't a reality that would buy more time.

Maybe instead of the cap being $70 mill in two years it would be closer to $75 mill....or higher.

Factor in others who could be ready for big increases and that's why many keep bringing up a compliance buyout.

If the cap ceiling were to exceed expectations and go higher those owed a big contract increase like Kane and Toews may get more than Getzlaf and Perry, that's pretty much as it has gone in the past.

I agree with you on that it isn't so much the cost to Wirtz as it is a chance to get out from under a really long term larger cap hit.

Getzlaf/Perry's new contracts and now Rocky better knows the cost of doing business-Kane-Toews- Hossa and more..http://bit.ly/15mp83V

Your numbers are consistent with mine. Looking at what CapGeek is doing there is something wrong with their methodology. Basically, what I think is happening is that they subtracting the difference between the cap number for the first 7 years of the deal without factoring in any of the payments or additional years played by the player on the lower salary.

Based on the numerous articles I've read, I think CapGeek's methodology is wrong. But if they are correct, that would have a horrifically negative effect on any team having signed a star to a backloaded deal.
- QStache

Which is why I was challenging this $18.375M spread across any number of years sort of argument.

The key to the spreadsheet I have is the "savings to date" column. For Hoss, it maxes at $18.375M after the 15-16 season; not a coincident, his last year of $7.9M salary. The following season, the savings goes down ($5.275M cap hit - $4M salary) $1.275M to $17.1M. And it goes from there. It's this calculation that's made me make comments that's pissing off JJ. That the 'Hawks have to seriously look at the effects of a Hossa retirement NOT as part of a compliance buyout.

Knowing the NHL, Capgeek is probably right and this is an unintended/mis-understood consequence of the new CBA.
- Ogilthorpe2

Where have I heard that before??

Well Wirtz saves a portion of the salary owed if bought out but the biggest reason would be a cap space issue imo, like yours, and the fact that Hossa is getting to an age where skills can decline quickly from year to year has to be considered as retirement isn't a good thing either.

The part about the cap going up....If for the fact that it isn't going down next year compared to this year wasn't a reality that would buy more time.

Maybe instead of the cap being $70 mill in two years it would be closer to $75 mill....or higher.

Factor in others who could be ready for big increases and that's why many keep bringing up a compliance buyout.

If the cap ceiling were to exceed expectations and go higher those owed a big contract increase like Kane and Toews may get more than Getzlaf and Perry, that's pretty much as it has gone in the past.

I agree with you on that it isn't so much the cost to Wirtz as it is a chance to get out from under a really long term larger cap hit.

Getzlaf/Perry's new contracts and now Rocky better knows the cost of doing business-Kane-Toews- Hossa and more..http://bit.ly/15mp83V
- Al

Now go back and recompute if the cap in 2 seasons (14-15) is $65M and not $75M...

In my opinion after Emery gets his riches this off season Karlsson will be the back up next year.
- UnnamedSource

I think you're on to something here...