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

I'd really like to get final confirmation of what the issue is with retiring before the contact is up.

Again, it seems to me the whole thing is about:

a) what direction they think the cap will go,
b) Hossa's health after this year and next, and
c) What they estimate as far as potential decline in his skills
d) if he still wants to play (and can) if they buy him out, does he strengthen a rival

Point by point:

a) it likely goes up—so Hossa's cap number becomes more favorable even as his skill declines
b) Can't predict, but I honestly don't think he is any more concussion prone than a number of players in whom teams have (and WILL) invest large dollars in
c) His game seems predicated on three things: strength, speed, and how he thinks/anticipates. Speed and strength are the ones that will marginalize somewhat—but, anecdotally and non-scientifically, he strikes me as a guy who will work out like a madman and is a superior natural athlete to boot
d) I think he will want to get to 500 goals and I suspect, based on the original structure of the deal, he wants to play until age 38 at least

But the issue then becomes what is the dead cap hit cost if he chooses to retire early. It is a tough one.

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.
- blackhawk24

I agree, not pissed off, seems to me that is the issue—but I'm not clear on what the actual costs are if he retires. Seems there are varying theories on this board.

I just want to take a second and laugh at the Vancouver Canucks...

@ the Schneider Luongo fiasco... By signing Luongo to that crazy deal and by signing Schneider for too much before they delt Luongo...

@ the Kassian trade ! Hahahahaha.

@the constant diving and hockey arrogance that has resulted in 0 Stanley Cups. Hahahahahah





Thats all. Carry on fellas.

I just want to take a second and laugh at the Vancouver Canucks...

@ the Schneider Luongo fiasco... By signing Luongo to that crazy deal and by signing Schneider for too much before they delt Luongo...

@ the Kassian trade ! Hahahahaha.

@the constant diving and hockey arrogance that has resulted in 0 Stanley Cups. Hahahahahah





Thats all. Carry on fellas.
- mrpaulish

You should read Esplen's thread.

I agree, not pissed off, seems to me that is the issue—but I'm not clear on what the actual costs are if he retires. Seems there are varying theories on this board.
- John Jaeckel

I know man, its a big variable. I'm not advocating Hoss retire. And its scary to think the 'Hawks have to address it and soon too (next 15mos).

I can't see how CapGeek's calculation is correct. Not to slam them but look at the consequence to the team of one of these big contracts if the guy were to retire during the last few years of his deal. Would the NHL BoG really approve of such a thing -- A ten million dollar cap hit for a year or two -- for any team? It would almost force a compliance buyout in some cases or put a hurting on that team's cap budget if not compliance bought out.

EDIT: The whole thing had me spooked after I saw what the $4.1M carry-over bonus did to the 2010-11 cap budget. Granted that was with a lower overall cap number, so the damage was conceivably worse than what the 'Hawks could face with Hoss -- CapGeek calcs not withstanding.

I will take a stab at this.

If Hossa were to retire after:

Benefit Penalty
2013 10,500,000 1,312,500/year through 2021
2014 13,125,000 1,875,000
2015 15,750,000 2,625,000
2016 18,375,000 3,675,000
2017 18,375,000 4,593,750
2018 18,375,000 6,125,000
2019 18,375,000 9,187,500
2020 18,375,000 18,375,000


Benefit = excess of salary over cap hit
No credit where cap hit exceeds salary per capgeek

I am with JJ in thinking Hossa will be a productive player relative to his cap hit for years to come and as time goes by his cap hit will become a smaller and smaller percentage of the total cap.

In addition, after the 2018 season the penalty is 6.125M/year vs. a cap hit of 5.275M if Hossa were to retire really becomes onerous. Maybe all the silver stick business will persuade Hossa to claim injury (I am not hoping he gets injured) as oppose to retiring. The Hawks have a cap hit of 5.275M (placed on LTIR), Hossa collects 1.0M per year, which Rocky will not mind paying and everybody is happy.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/...ine-too-inflationary.html

Elliotte Friedman makes some interesting points regarding the trade deadline and next years cap adjustment.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opinion/2013/03/30-thoughts-many-gms-feel-trade-deadline-too-inflationary.html

Elliotte Friedman makes some interesting points regarding the trade deadline and next years cap adjustment.
- ArlingtonRob

He just walked by my office... I should have questioned him on some of these.

I will take a stab at this.

If Hossa were to retire after:

Benefit Penalty
2013 10,500,000 1,312,500/year through 2021
2014 13,125,000 1,875,000
2015 15,750,000 2,625,000
2016 18,375,000 3,675,000
2017 18,375,000 4,593,750
2018 18,375,000 6,125,000
2019 18,375,000 9,187,500
2020 18,375,000 18,375,000


Benefit = excess of salary over cap hit
No credit where cap hit exceeds salary per capgeek

I am with JJ in thinking Hossa will be a productive player relative to his cap hit for years to come and as time goes by his cap hit will become a smaller and smaller percentage of the total cap.

In addition, after the 2018 season the penalty is 6.125M/year vs. a cap hit of 5.275M if Hossa were to retire really becomes onerous. Maybe all the silver stick business will persuade Hossa to claim injury (I am not hoping he gets injured) as oppose to retiring. The Hawks have a cap hit of 5.275M (placed on LTIR), Hossa collects 1.0M per year, which Rocky will not mind paying and everybody is happy.
- factchecker

I'm with you through 2016. Per the calcs I saw outside of CapGeek, this number goes down. To 17.1, 12.285, 8.55 and 4.275 in the remaining years because the savings goes down. The savings goes down because the salary is then lower than the cap hit.

Again, CapGeek's calc gets to that max number and holds it there. I believe that number ($18.375M) is incorrect after 2016.

EDIT: If you take the total salary vs total cap hit YoY, you'll see how I get those other numbers after 2016.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opinion/2013/03/30-thoughts-many-gms-feel-trade-deadline-too-inflationary.html

Elliotte Friedman makes some interesting points regarding the trade deadline and next years cap adjustment.
- ArlingtonRob

This is a great read, thanks.

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

More than one what? Anti-socialist? Realist? Or simply ones who see Krugman as the true lying hack his career evidences? No wonder the Krugman sycophants have to post in code.

I know man, its a big variable. I'm not advocating Hoss retire. And its scary to think the 'Hawks have to address it and soon too (next 15mos).

I can't see how CapGeek's calculation is correct. Not to slam them but look at the consequence to the team of one of these big contracts if the guy were to retire during the last few years of his deal. Would the NHL BoG really approve of such a thing -- A ten million dollar cap hit for a year or two -- for any team? It would almost force a compliance buyout in some cases or put a hurting on that team's cap budget if not compliance bought out.

EDIT: The whole thing had me spooked after I saw what the $4.1M carry-over bonus did to the 2010-11 cap budget. Granted that was with a lower overall cap number, so the damage was conceivably worse than what the 'Hawks could face with Hoss -- CapGeek calcs not withstanding.
- blackhawk24

The Board of Governors already screwed the deal - by doing "ex post facto" legislation thru the new CBA, they screwed teams that signed deals that were in compliance at the time they were signed, without any "retirement penalty".

How can the now say, no, you guys will be penalized, even though under the agreement in place at the time the contract was made, there was no 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

This is the way Capgeek is calculating their hits:

It is based on the total number of $$ paid out when the salary is less than the cap hit. In Hossa's case, it starts in 2016/2017:

Year--------Salary--------- Cap Hit
16/17----4,000,000-----5,275,000
17/18----1,000,000-----5,275,000
18/19----1,000,000-----5,275,000
19/20----1,000,000-----5,275,000
20/21----1,000,000-----5,275,000

The total value for these years is 18,375,000.

They then divide this total value by the number of years left on the contract when the player retires. That gives the scary cap hits:

Year retired--------cap hit per year
2013/2014-------$2,625,000
2014/2015-------$3,062,500
2015/2016-------$3,675,000
2016/2017-------$4,593,750
2017/2018-------$6,125,000
2018/2019-------$9,187,500
2019/2020-------$18,375,000

I'm thinking that this may not be correct. If Suter and Parisie were to both retire a year early, it would cost the Wild 20 mil a year each.

The Board of Governors already screwed the deal - by doing "ex post facto" legislation thru the new CBA, they screwed teams that signed deals that were in compliance at the time they were signed, without any "retirement penalty".

How can the now say, no, you guys will be penalized, even though under the agreement in place at the time the contract was made, there was no penalty.
- StLBravesFan

Don't disagree on "some" penalty. But how much? Some of these CapGeek calcs have a season or two penalty over $10M for some players, including Hossa.

This is the way Capgeek is calculating their hits:

It is based on the total number of $$ paid out when the salary is less than the cap hit. In Hossa's case, it starts in 2016/2017:

Year--------Salary--------- Cap Hit
16/17----4,000,000-----5,275,000
17/18----1,000,000-----5,275,000
18/19----1,000,000-----5,275,000
19/20----1,000,000-----5,275,000
20/21----1,000,000-----5,275,000

The total value for these years is 18,375,000.

They then divide this total value by the number of years left on the contract when the player retires. That gives the scary cap hits:

Year retired--------cap hit per year
2013/2014-------$2,625,000
2014/2015-------$3,062,500
2015/2016-------$3,675,000
2016/2017-------$4,593,750
2017/2018-------$6,125,000
2018/2019-------$9,187,500
2019/2020-------$18,375,000

I'm thinking that this may not be correct. If Suter and Parisie were to both retire a year early, it would cost the Wild 20 mil a year each.
- Tanuki

EXACTLY. Look at the insanity of the last 2 years of Hoss's situation. Let's face it guys, the CapGeek God made a mistake.

More than one what? Anti-socialist? Realist? Or simply ones who see Krugman as the true lying hack his career evidences? No wonder the Krugman sycophants have to post in code.
- tredbrta

Krugman is a great 4th line center.......future number 2. As far as your opinions on other matters outside of hockey I really don't care.

Krugman is a great 4th line center.......future number 2. As far as your opinions on other matters outside of hockey I really don't care.
- UnnamedSource

Who the hell is Krugman?

I'm with you through 2016. Per the calcs I saw outside of CapGeek, this number goes down. To 17.1, 12.285, 8.55 and 4.275 in the remaining years because the savings goes down. The savings goes down because the salary is then lower than the cap hit.

Again, CapGeek's calc gets to that max number and holds it there. I believe that number ($18.375M) is incorrect after 2016.

EDIT: If you take the total salary vs total cap hit YoY, you'll see how I get those other numbers after 2016.

I was just going by the note at the bottom of the recapture calculator on Capgeek.

IMPORTANT NOTES: Teams do not receive a credit for seasons with negative cap benefit (where cap hit exceeds salary)

More than one what? Anti-socialist? Realist? Or simply ones who see Krugman as the true lying hack his career evidences? No wonder the Krugman sycophants have to post in code.
- tredbrta

So - another one who uses is rational and uses logic to make a case instead of personal attacks.

Love you guys.

Who the hell is Krugman?
- blackhawk24

Marcus "Krugman" Kruger....board nickname.

So - another one who uses is rational and uses logic to make a case instead of personal attacks.

Love you guys.
- StLBravesFan

I'd really like to get final confirmation of what the issue is with retiring before the contact is up.

Again, it seems to me the whole thing is about:

a) what direction they think the cap will go,
b) Hossa's health after this year and next, and
c) What they estimate as far as potential decline in his skills
d) if he still wants to play (and can) if they buy him out, does he strengthen a rival

Point by point:

a) it likely goes up—so Hossa's cap number becomes more favorable even as his skill declines
b) Can't predict, but I honestly don't think he is any more concussion prone than a number of players in whom teams have (and WILL) invest large dollars in
c) His game seems predicated on three things: strength, speed, and how he thinks/anticipates. Speed and strength are the ones that will marginalize somewhat—but, anecdotally and non-scientifically, he strikes me as a guy who will work out like a madman and is a superior natural athlete to boot
d) I think he will want to get to 500 goals and I suspect, based on the original structure of the deal, he wants to play until age 38 at least

But the issue then becomes what is the dead cap hit cost if he chooses to retire early. It is a tough one.
- John Jaeckel

AGREE.....

But from what I can tell there is a lot of risk to the emlpoyer, not only because of retirement but also in the case of being forced from the game due to injury.

The only reason I brought it up today is because others have pounded the table on this recently....NHL Network yesterday had Hossa one of fiev most likely to be bought out....

And when I looked at the Getzlaf/Perry deals together I couldn't help think about Kane/Toews next deal.

There are many reasons having Hossa on the club benefits Rocky....Not only because of wins and losses but also his merchandising draw is big.

I wrote a comment here a few weeks ago....

The many memebers of the Euro media contigent that are in the press box writing, talking and sending tape overseas after every home game aren't there for Kane and Toews.

Looking at it this way JJ...

Without knowing every spec of salary cap minutia.....It's an arithmetic problem and there is more risk attached the longer Hossa plays due to his age.

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

AGREE.....

But from what I can tell there is a lot of risk to the emlpoyer, not only because of retirement but also in the case of being forced from the game due to injury.

The only reason I brought it up today is because others have pounded the table on this recently....NHL Network yesterday had Hossa one of fiev most likely to be bought out....

And when I looked at the Getzlaf/Perry deals together I couldn't help think about Kane/Toews next deal.

There are many reasons having Hossa on the club benefits Rocky....Not only because of wins and losses but also his merchandising draw is big.

I wrote a comment here a few weeks ago....

The many memebers of the Euro media contigent that are in the press box writing, talking and sending tape overseas after every home game aren't there for Kane and Toews.

Looking at it this way JJ...

Without knowing every spec of salary cap minutia.....It's an arithmetic problem and there is more risk attached the longer Hossa plays due to his age.
- Al

This may sounds stupid but if Hossa retires are the Hawks still on the hook for that money?

My guess is you will see a lot of these players on the LTIR the last year or two of these deals. Teams will figure a way out of this hit, just like they figured how to get this contract under the last CBA.

Talking about trading roster players while this team is rolling is silly. This Hawks as they are right now can win the cup this year. Moving Bolland, Sharp or even Frolik (who I don't like) isn't going to help you win now.

Add a depth player or two at the deadline and hope everyone can stay healthy.

Deal with the lower salary cap and all the players that you guys love to trade, after the season. Quit trying to mess with it now. The Hawks are the most complete team in the league and they've played that way for more than half the year. Roll with it.
- AceRatbang

Amen!

Add the little piece and figure things out after the agenst and players have decided whether they want to stay and play here...
It is really simple, and doesn't involve Bobby Ryan, Steve Ott, or Evander Kane....