Source: “Chicago most likely candidate for Karlsson Salary” We are inching close to a deal that will send Erik Karlsson out of San Jose. The biggest issue continues to be a third team eating some of the enormous salary cap hit. A source tells me the Hawks are the most likely candidate to help teams out.

I still think a team shouldn't be able to count a player's salary towards the cap floor until they meet the cap floor with rostered players who actually play.

Hopefully Chicago is smart enough to get more than just a 2nd or 3rd for eating 4m+ for 4 years

QUestion ! Does the team that takes salary. Actually pay that amount to the player or do they just agree to give up that much in cap space ?

I still think a team shouldn't be able to count a player's salary towards the cap floor until they meet the cap floor with rostered players who actually play.
- DarthProbert

Management benefits because it promotes roster flexibility. Labor benefits because it promotes an out for higher salaried players. I don't see this rule changing.

This has been common knowledge for at least a month...

Hopefully Chicago is smart enough to get more than just a 2nd or 3rd for eating 4m+ for 4 years
- Glak18

Yeah, if there isn't a 1st involved (I would argue for more personally) for eating that amount for that term, CHI should not-so-politely tell all involved parties to fly a kite.

QUestion ! Does the team that takes salary. Actually pay that amount to the player or do they just agree to give up that much in cap space ?
- Ging72

I believe they pay the current years salary $ and also have the Cap reduced by the Cap Hit amount.

Then something to do with insurance to re-coup the $ spent...

Hopefully Chicago is smart enough to get more than just a 2nd or 3rd for eating 4m+ for 4 years
- Glak18

I'd imagine the Sharks will be eating some ($1.5-2 million in the deal) so I don't expect the third team to eat $4 over 4. How's that for uninformed speculation?

Chicago can also eat salary by picking up a bad contract and still having a player who can play (just on a bad contract) like Petry. That might be a thing.

I'd imagine the Sharks will be eating some ($1.5-2 million in the deal) so I don't expect the third team to eat $4 over 4. How's that for uninformed speculation?

Chicago can also eat salary by picking up a bad contract and still having a player who can play (just on a bad contract) like Petry. That might be a thing.
- coohill

If that's the case, Yager better be coming along with him

If that's the case, Yager better be coming along with him
- GPHawksfan

Yeager is a 0% chance of happening, but a 1st rounder next year is very likely (*maybe Pickering is possible, but I doubt that as well) if CHI takes on Petry + salary. My guess has been something like the following:

CHI: Petry (full cap hit) + 20% of EK cap hit not taken on by SJ + PIT 1st in 2024

PIT: EK at (33% retained by SJ=7.7, then CHI taking 20% of that = 6.17 hit/year)

SJ: conditional PIT 2025 1st if win cup/EK norris or 80pt season (more likely 2nd or 3rd in 2025 as those don't happen - PIT may have some minimum games played tag here too to lower the pick further, if Karlsson misses a combined 35 games in 1st 2 years then it's a 5th rounder or something like that) + POJ + DeSmith

Yeager is a 0% chance of happening, but a 1st rounder next year is very likely (*maybe Pickering is possible, but I doubt that as well) if CHI takes on Petry + salary. My guess has been something like the following:

CHI: Petry (full cap hit) + 20% of EK cap hit not taken on by SJ + PIT 1st in 2024

PIT: EK at (33% retained by SJ=7.7, then CHI taking 20% of that = 6.17 hit/year)

SJ: conditional PIT 2025 1st if win cup/EK norris or 80pt season (more likely 2nd or 3rd in 2025 as those don't happen - PIT may have some minimum games played tag here too to lower the pick further, if Karlsson misses a combined 35 games in 1st 2 years then it's a 5th rounder or something like that) + POJ + DeSmith
- mventres

I highly doubt they take on multiple years of retention for just a draft pick. They have two first in the next three drafts. It's gonna be prospects or no deal

I highly doubt they take on multiple years of retention for just a draft pick. They have two first in the next three drafts. It's gonna be prospects or no deal
- GPHawksfan

I highly doubtful PIT would do 2 1st rounders. Maybe a conditional 1st at the last year of EKs deal if they win the cup at all in the next 4 years, and a 3rd or something mid-range if they don't...or a B+ prospect like Poulin (e.g. Poulin now, and conditional 1st in 2026 if PIT wins the cup 2nd or 3rd if not)

I would be shocked if they deal Yaeger.

I highly doubt they take on multiple years of retention for just a draft pick. They have two first in the next three drafts. It's gonna be prospects or no deal
- GPHawksfan

I agree. The return for taking on $4 mil for years needs to be two assets. Maybe a 1st and one of: an NHL player, an NHL ready prospect, or another early round pick. The first round pick could be top 5 or top 10 protected. The Hawks have quite a few picks in 2024, so the first round pick could be in 2025 or later.

I agree. The return for taking on $4 mil for years needs to be two assets. Maybe a 1st and one of: an NHL player, an NHL ready prospect, or another early round pick. The first round pick could be top 5 or top 10 protected. The Hawks have quite a few picks in 2024, so the first round pick could be in 2025 or later.
- Ztra

In my above proposal it was Petry (for 2 years) and around $1.5M of EK for 4 years...

Yeah, Chicago isn’t taking $4Mil x 4 years!! They would need some serious compensation for that! Let Karlson sit in SJ. Both SJ and EK must have thought it was a great fit when they signed, so there ya go, money was so important to you EK, well you got it…….now you don’t get to change your mind, you have 4 more years of being on a crap team, enjoy.

I still think a team shouldn't be able to count a player's salary towards the cap floor until they meet the cap floor with rostered players who actually play.
- DarthProbert

Unless it's your team, right?

Yeager is a 0% chance of happening
- mventres

Agreed. Breaking the sound barrier doesn't mean you are worth $4mil a year for 4 years to a hockey team. Plus, Chuck died in 2020.

Yeah, Chicago isn’t taking $4Mil x 4 years!! They would need some serious compensation for that! Let Karlson sit in SJ. Both SJ and EK must have thought it was a great fit when they signed, so there ya go, money was so important to you EK, well you got it…….now you don’t get to change your mind, you have 4 more years of being on a crap team, enjoy.
- Bullot

I agree, that would be dumb of CHI...which is why I suggested SJ taking 33% and CHI taking 20% of the remainder (about $1.5M/yr for 4 years).

CHI would also take on Petry for 2 years but they need D anyway, and could use some veteran leadership for the young guys...and Petry isn't finished, he's a decent 2nd pairing guy still...so it's not a "dead" contract they will bury in the minors/etc.

Looking at the rosters again, maybe DeSmith goes to CHI (I forgot SJ picked up Blackwood)...minor tweak, same point.

I agree, that would be dumb of CHI...which is why I suggested SJ taking 33% and CHI taking 20% of the remainder (about $1.5M/yr for 4 years).

CHI would also take on Petry for 2 years but they need D anyway, and could use some veteran leadership for the young guys...and Petry isn't finished, he's a decent 2nd pairing guy still...so it's not a "dead" contract they will bury in the minors/etc.

Looking at the rosters again, maybe DeSmith goes to CHI (I forgot SJ picked up Blackwood)...minor tweak, same point.
- mventres

Possibly. I can see any Karlsson trade leading to an additional trade or two. For example if Hawks take Petry I would think they try to move Petry or Murphy. (In addition to trying to find a taker for Zaitsev, which might be nearly impossible.)

Or, here me out....Grier has to accept that the EK trade ship has sailed and he has no choice but remain a Shark.

I agree, that would be dumb of CHI...which is why I suggested SJ taking 33% and CHI taking 20% of the remainder (about $1.5M/yr for 4 years).

CHI would also take on Petry for 2 years but they need D anyway, and could use some veteran leadership for the young guys...and Petry isn't finished, he's a decent 2nd pairing guy still...so it's not a "dead" contract they will bury in the minors/etc.

Looking at the rosters again, maybe DeSmith goes to CHI (I forgot SJ picked up Blackwood)...minor tweak, same point.
- mventres

They actually don't need any dmen, they have their own kids to start playing in the NHL. They really don't need a 7 million dollar plug for two years in addition to 1.5-2m/year for the next four years. Especially just for picks. They have enough of those already

chicago has $70M in cap spent. they have 14 forwards, 7 D and 2 goalies. They have 5 1st round draft picks in the next 3 years, 8 2nd round picks and 5 3rd round picks. Why would they take on a player?

They still have retained salary of mccabe ($2M for next 2 years)
Buyout of bailey, connolly and borgstrom (total 4M this year and 1.2M next yr)

would they want the draft picks to trade for a player they want on their team that is not a UFA? Maybe they want to offer sheet someone?

Hopefully Chicago is smart enough to get more than just a 2nd or 3rd for eating 4m+ for 4 years
- Glak18

The Hawks have already burned one salary retention slot out of the three available, when they traded McCabe and Lafferty to the Leafs at the last deadline. And they have a number of players on this team who might require salary retention in order to move at the next deadline. So yes, they definitely need to make this one count.

I doubt anything like this could even happen until there is some formal, internal, legal agreement with regards to management based upon the passing of Rocky Wirtz this week.

A better rumour might have been about that being finalised that could actually give Davidson that sort of authority- as I imagine right now, they are in caretaker mode, until that point happens.

Not sure how that exactly works within the Chicago club. But I haven't seen anyone even mention it. And to be clear we are talking about new commitments, not those arranged prior to Rocky's passing.

Feels like it basic legal considerations for any business. Not least something major like an NHL team.