#2 happened with Hossa and Ottawa back in 2004. The Hossa/Heatley trade was after Hossa signed a 3yr/$6m deal and got traded literally the day he signed it. It is rare, but it has happened.
- ahjnkn

OK, good example. Yes, rare. But They dealt Hossa for his "replacement" didn't they and likely gained zero cap room.

The people wanting to deal Kruger (because of his new contract) have zero feasible suggestions for how you replace him and not spend as much or close to the same amount you're paying him. Danault was not the answer. Nor was Anisimov in Kruger's role on the PK. Shaw isn't. TT isn't.

Think Pronger/Luongo were two others that this impacted... I don't think (though not 100% sure) Keith's contract would be viable under current CBA but it doesn't have quite the same potential to burn us at this stage (hopefully) as Hossas does but we are def benefitting from Keith's contract
- Frenchy4488

I haven't looked into their contracts to verify, but FWIW this is part of a comment on this article suggesting other contracts in the league that are worse than Bickell's:

Zach Parise and Ryan Suter – twin $7.54M cap hits through 2024-25. Both are on the wrong side of 30, both are showing signs of decline (Parise more than Suter, though the huge minutes Yeo used Suter for probably won’t help in the long run), and both contracts will be massive albatrosses before all is said and done. Not to mention the fact that since the contracts were signed under the prior CBA and are massively front-loaded, if either retires before his contract expires (both will be 40 when their contracts run out) the Wild will be hit with a massive cap-recapture penalty

Shea Weber – $7.86M through 2025-26. Similar boat to Parise and Suter – probably worth it right now, but wrong sign of 30 with some signs of decline and no chance whatsoever that he’ll continue to be worth that kind of cap hit for 5 more years let alone 10. Also signed under the prior CBA and massively front-loaded, so also subject to potential cap recapture penalty is he doesn’t want to play until he’s 40

Next moaning and groaning will be to carry the cap into the playoffs (next CBA). No more Kane/clavical/trades/win cup scenarios. Book it.
- blackhawk24

Not going to happen and had no real influence on the Hawks winning the Cup...
Vermette would have been here anyway.

How many playoff series have Neuvirth or Mason won? Zero?

How many has Crawford won? 10. And two Cups.

Neuvirth may very well continue as he did the last half of the season in Philly. Or not. If I had a young team on the rise and was looking for a big time, credentialled goalie to help me go deep or win a Cup in the next few years, I would trade Steve Mason in a New York minute for a Corey Crawford.

Please stop being so parochial about people (me I guess) dissing the Flyers. This is the NHL, not fantasy hockey.

Mason is overpaid and can't stop a beach ball for long stretches every year. Neuvirth has been a backup his whole career til now. MAYBE he steps up and becomes a goalie you can win a Cup with. Until then, you better start lighting candles. or maybe get a guy on a bargain (for the price of the great Steve Mason), you KNOW can take you there.

And lets be clear, by the judgement of 95% of the anyone who follows hockey, Corey Crawford is a better bet than even Neuvirth—until proven otherwise.

My lazy journalism or your maybe needing to step back and take a broader perspective on NHL goaltending and what it would take for the Flyers to maybe win a Cup?

It is certainly an arguable point, but whatever.
- John Jaeckel

Mason overpaid at a $4.1 million cap hit? Ehhh....

Regardless, you're missing the point. The point isn't if Crawford is better than the Flyers 2 goalies (I'd rather have Crawford), but whether it makes sense for the Flyers to trade assets for a marginal upgrade, if that, and also take his $6 million cap hit. I didn't know where to go research the numbers, but in looking at the last 10 Stanley Cup winning goalies, I'd say that only 2 of them were highly paid at the time they won the cup - those 2 being Crawford and Quick for the 2nd wins. I don't think the rest were TOO well paid at the time of the win. Everybody thought Bryz was great when he played in AZ, but he ended up being a bum and Mike Smith played just as well. I'd much rather have an upgraded defense in front of Mason instead of a downgraded one in front of Crawford.

In the Flyers 6 game series against the Capitals they were shut out twice, twice scored one goal, and twice scored two. Goalie was not the reason they lost. It was lack of scoring. But forget all that - just trade an asset from either the offense or defense for a marginal upgrade that takes up more cap space. I just spoke to 3 sources - the 3 guys sitting near my cube. All my sources agree.

Stan really is stuck between a rock and a hard place. It seems like you would advocate not moving Crawford this summer. So what do you do this summer if you're in Stan's shoes?
- EnzoD

I gave the players 4 players and it could be 2 or 3 of 4 are gone with less expensive replacements. AA/TT/Kruger/Shaw in no particular order...

But if I'm Bowman I'm looking seriously at TT's future and if AA is worth $4.5 mill per under current cap conditions.

The PK to me lost them both games in Chicago when the series came back tied.

Game 3 had a 1 goal lead heading into 3rd, crazy bounce ties it, Kane takes bad penalty, and Schwartz alone in slot rifles it by Crawford.

Game 4, they rally to have a 1 goal lead late in 2nd, Keith gets caught half way, Tarasenko rifles home tying goal, Keith takes bad penalty to start the 3rd, another PP goal against......

Huge turning point in this series. Before those penalties Hawks couldn't add on to lead.

Hawks went 6/19 on PP....31.5%
Hawks went 14/18 on PK....77.7%

Wasn't just the PK goals were scored, but when......that to me and Toews, Kane combining for 1 goal is why this team is done.
- SteveRain

2 things that were bad the entire season cost them the PK as you stated, and being outscored during 5 on 5 play in Games 1-4.

I agree with JJ and some others that a bigger contracts needs to be moved to replace or get back what you need more of from a position of strength.

If they deal for Mason (for example) and allowed him to walk after next season, there would be $1.8 million saved next season, and possibly as much as $4-5 million the following season, when Panarin is due.

Will they deal CC for Mason and a pick? About 4 million other possibilities are out there. So probably not, but . . .

But . . . the money is going to need to come from somewhere.

The team as composed DOES have holes.

It was dreadful 5-on-5 last year. And you could have Patrick Roy in net next year and you will get the same result with Svedberg, Gustafsson, Rundblad, Rozy 2.0 or some 5'9" Swedish rookie in front of him.

You also need to find someone to play on Toews left wing. Maybe it's Shaw, but they will have to pay him as well.

You want to deal Kruger. Great, also likely not happening for several reasons, not least of which they have NO (no one!) replacement at 3C/PK, and it doesn't create that much cap room.

Bolland? Sure, scrape him up off the floor, bag him up and send him to South Bend. Maybe he plays 25 games. AA? He is not a shutdown center. Good player. Doesn't replace what Kruger does. So you wanna deal Kruger? What does his replacement cost realistically. My guess is you "save" nothing or next to it.

Let's stop playing Monopoly and fantasy hockey here.

So if you re-sign Shaw at say $2.5 million per (minimum), you are already at least $500K deeper in the hole—without having done Jack to actually improve the team.

Filling out next year's roster will be tough. The following summer will be very tough, assuming they want to wait that long to get Panarin done.

Panarin's deal is the 800 pound gorilla in the room. Gonna take big money. He is a player they can't afford to lose. If he gets anywhere near RFA, he will get offer sheeted for sure.

So, as I have said all Spring so far, some tough choices are going to need to be made. Someone's "indispensable" player is likely going to be moved. Maybe it's Kruger, I guess. I just doubt it strongly.

So, there ya go.
- John Jaeckel

...and possibly as much as $4-5 million the following season, when Panarin is due.

If Darling starts next season and does well he will make $3-$4 mil the following season, and they have to pay a back-up.

Right now the cap hit on both goalies is $6.6 mill....There isn't $4 mill in savings to be had.

They could accomplish similar or more cap savings by dealing 2/3 of the 4
I mentioned and Bowman will probably sleep better.

I haven't looked into their contracts to verify, but FWIW this is part of a comment on this article suggesting other contracts in the league that are worse than Bickell's:

Zach Parise and Ryan Suter – twin $7.54M cap hits through 2024-25. Both are on the wrong side of 30, both are showing signs of decline (Parise more than Suter, though the huge minutes Yeo used Suter for probably won’t help in the long run), and both contracts will be massive albatrosses before all is said and done. Not to mention the fact that since the contracts were signed under the prior CBA and are massively front-loaded, if either retires before his contract expires (both will be 40 when their contracts run out) the Wild will be hit with a massive cap-recapture penalty

Shea Weber – $7.86M through 2025-26. Similar boat to Parise and Suter – probably worth it right now, but wrong sign of 30 with some signs of decline and no chance whatsoever that he’ll continue to be worth that kind of cap hit for 5 more years let alone 10. Also signed under the prior CBA and massively front-loaded, so also subject to potential cap recapture penalty is he doesn’t want to play until he’s 40
- maria_wyeth

As I understand it, teams are continuing to write front-loaded contracts (in fact, I think Kane/Toews have one). If they are still allowed, why the penalty for those written before the last CBA? Is it a matter of percentage decrease each year that that is the problem (e.g., Hossa's drop from $4MM to $1MM)?

As I understand it, teams are continuing to write front-loaded contracts (in fact, I think Kane/Toews have one). If they are still allowed, why the penalty for those written before the last CBA? Is it a matter of percentage decrease each year that that is the problem (e.g., Hossa's drop from $4MM to $1MM)?
- pdx2ord

Yes....Because those were written to the extreme to allow for a player to not play through the full term and lose little money...Or so the team could buy the player out in the last few years without paying much to do so.

Bottom line is the CBA could have been written a lot better-Like with the addition of one or two lines saying the contract could only drop off a certain %.
But although almost an entire season was lost this part of the CBA was done as if happened the last minute....Which it really was.

Garbage as human beings? Possibly. As hockey players I dont know if you would call them garbage.
- nickmo2699

Both are/were pretty one-dimensional players who never won jack.

...and possibly as much as $4-5 million the following season, when Panarin is due.

If Darling starts next season and does well he will make $3-$4 mil the following season, and they have to pay a back-up.

Right now the cap hit on both goalies is $6.6 mill....There isn't $4 mill in savings to be had.

They could accomplish similar or more cap savings by dealing 2/3 of the 4
I mentioned and Bowman will probably sleep better.
- Al

What about the 4mil. we save on Hossa's contract next year? I say deal TT out of the 3 players being mentioned today and hope we can get some D help back (or a bit more cap space). This team needs strength, not more small'sh Euro players who are allergic to contact. Speaking of Euro players, we just signed Forsling for 3 years.

As I understand it, teams are continuing to write front-loaded contracts (in fact, I think Kane/Toews have one). If they are still allowed, why the penalty for those written before the last CBA? Is it a matter of percentage decrease each year that that is the problem (e.g., Hossa's drop from $4MM to $1MM)?
- pdx2ord

I think Crosby's is pretty front loaded too: 12m a year salary for the first 3 years and only 3m a year by the last 3 years (decreasing from 10.9m to 9 m for the 6 years in between). His cap hit (8.7m) is lower than the salary for 9 of the 12 years of his contract. Is that really so different than Hossa's?

What about the 4mil. we save on Hossa's contract next year? I say deal TT out of the 3 players being mentioned today and hope we can get some D help back (or a bit more cap space). This team needs strength, not more small'sh Euro players who are allergic to contact. Speaking of Euro players, we just signed Forsling for 3 years.
- Murph76

How do we save 4m? His salary goes down but the cap hit is the same

Yes....Because those were written to the extreme to allow for a player to not play through the full term and lose little money...Or so the team could buy the player out in the last few years without paying much to do so.

Bottom line is the CBA could have been written a lot better-Like with the addition of one or two lines saying the contract could only drop off a certain %.
But although almost an entire season was lost this part of the CBA was done as if happened the last minute....Which it really was.
- Al

The difference between any one year high to low is 50% so If you pay 1 mil one year the most you can pay him any other year is 2 MIL. IE k and T being paid 13.5 mil this year but only 6.75 in there last year. If stan does Bick at 5, 5, 2.5,2.5 do you think we would have a hard time getting a taker. I can't blame him for giving the contract but on a team up against the Cap you have to front load to the max to A get them to take a lesser $ amount and B to make it easier for a budget team to take.

the turning points of the franchise were:
Trading leddy instead of Roz, Which made us give up 2 seconds for someone that was horrible.
Not moving, Bick, Steeg, sharp at the draft which forced us to lose SAAD for a guy that is only making 1.5 less and we lose Johns, and Palliota, Danult, because of the problems with the roster. so now we have no depth to move anyone else.

I don't mind trades not working out to our favor but I do mind is having a 100 person front office and looking back and look like they did not have a plan.

How do we save 4m? His salary goes down but the cap hit is the same
- maria_wyeth

That doesn't make any sense, if that is in fact the way the deal was worked out...that's ridiculous and someone should be retroactively b**** slapped for making it. Who cares if he makes less if his cap hit is the same?

That doesn't make any sense, if that is in fact the way the deal was worked out...that's ridiculous and someone should be retroactively b**** slapped for making it. Who cares if he makes less if his cap hit is the same?
- Murph76

That's how the cap hit is lower than it should be...... He makes more salary early in the contract and much less later so that it averages out to an easily affordable cap hit for a star player.

He was making 7.9M dollars for each of the last 7 years. If that was actually his cap hit Chicago would have been screwed.

I gave the players 4 players and it could be 2 or 3 of 4 are gone with less expensive replacements. AA/TT/Kruger/Shaw in no particular order...

But if I'm Bowman I'm looking seriously at TT's future and if AA is worth $4.5 mill per under current cap conditions.
- Al

Who replaces:

AA (maybe Kruger, maybe TT)
TT (a lot of people at least right now, because he's basically a third line RW)
CC (Darling)
Shaw (Hartman, Ross—for all his versatility, Shaw is best suited as a bottom six RW 5-on-5)
Kruger (TT or AA)

There are negative tradeoffs everywhere except probably TT (next year anyway).

Biggest cap savings is CC.

Player "least" replaced is probably Kruger—as much as some refuse to see his role and value in it and how deficient AA or TT would be/have been in trying to do it).

I have laid out the many reasons Kruger will likely not be dealt.

I don't honestly see them dismantling their best scoring line (AA), which leaves CC, TT, Shaw as the chips.

They have mostly quietly "shopped," "dangled" "discussed" all three at times over the last two seasons. Except maybe Shaw.

But they would be completely insane if they are not at least exploring it now (see: Saad last year).

Here's the other thing, who here really believe that the situation they are in today was not pretty much known to them when they signed AA and Kruger to their deals. I will tell you, it was known. They KNEW Panarin was going to be a star. They knew they would have cap issues. Especially next summer.

So again, the notion that this is all a big surprise to the Hawks now and they completely went mentally AWOL when they signed those deals, is a little far-fetched. Which is why they started quietly talking to teams about CC over a year ago. Why they dangled TT briefly this past February (in a very similar manner I might add—I was told to "gauge interest only."

That doesn't make any sense, if that is in fact the way the deal was worked out...that's ridiculous and someone should be retroactively b**** slapped for making it. Who cares if he makes less if his cap hit is the same?
- Murph76

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not...

That's how all the deals are. Cap hit is the same for the entirety of the contract determined by the AAV, but in any given year the salary is almost always above or below that cap hit. Hossa's deal for instance was for 12 years with a AAV/cap hit of $5,725,000, he made/makes 7.9m for the first 7 years, then 4m for 1 year, and then 1m for the remaining 4 years, with the same cap hit for all 12 years

That doesn't make any sense, if that is in fact the way the deal was worked out...that's ridiculous and someone should be retroactively b**** slapped for making it. Who cares if he makes less if his cap hit is the same?
- Murph76

They front-loaded the crap out of the contract at a term that pretty much everyone knew would outlive his career. No matter what the salary of the contract is, the cap hit stays the same. Even towards the end of his contract where he is making 1M per year, his cap hit remains at the 5.??M that it currently is.

Blackhawks agree to 3-year deal with Gustav Forsling

Both are/were pretty one-dimensional players who never won jack.
- John Jaeckel

Always loved the clip that was made parodying Heatley and how he thinks really highly of himself.

"I'm an all-star, I'll drive however the **** I want to"

https://youtu.be/bTaKhw8g7Bc

(sorry -- the embed function isn't working right -- I am missing some HTML code)

My point stands....U save maybe $2 mill the next season and maybe the same afterwards but the risk is high by dealing Crawford.

The MO for the Hawks is they sacrifice role players and keep the core guys...
Is Crawford a core guy? Is Seabrook a core guy?
If so look elsewhere....Is my bet.
- Al

Seems like that MO was set when they expected the cap to get to $76-80MM by now - when there was room to sign Toews/Kane for $21MM cap hit, give Seabrook a nice increase, and add one or two to the core - Saad? Shaw? Kruger? - and still be cap compliant.

The cap next year may be - MAY be - approaching $74MM - IF the players ok the escalator (not a given, IMO).

I think the plan changes if they have $5MM less cap space to work with than in the original plan.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not...

That's how all the deals are. Cap hit is the same for the entirety of the contract determined by the AAV, but in any given year the salary is almost always above or below that cap hit. Hossa's deal for instance was for 12 years with a AAV/cap hit of $5,725,000, he made/makes 7.9m for the first 7 years, then 4m for 1 year, and then 1m for the remaining 4 years, with the same cap hit for all 12 years
- maria_wyeth

Sorry, I should have put some verbiage in there to show that yes...I was being sarcastic. It still sucks though, I like Hoss but don't think he's worth that kind of $ anymore.

http://hfboards.hockeysfu...ead.php?t=2076483&page=12

Couple Quotes on Pokka from people watching, Sounds like a bottom pairing option kind of like TVR.


Originally Posted by QnebO View Post

Kivistö > Lindel

Yeah, I agree.

Lindell-Pokka is easily the worst pairing we have. For some reason both have been awful with the puck the whole tournament.



Quote:


Originally Posted by kmwtrucks View Post

Anybody that is watching the games, how has Pokka looked? Is he almost ready for the NHL?

He has looked very solid, but hasn't shown anything really spectacular. He has been ready for NHL for a while already IMO.