RUMOUR: Ottawa and Chicago talking trade

What's done is done, no sense arguing over what he makes. Fact is, he is playing a better overall game, learning a new aspect which is obviously having an adverse effect on his offensive game, but at some point, yes we all hope soon, he will find a happy medium.

Dash wrote:What's done is done, no sense arguing over what he makes. Fact is, he is playing a better overall game, learning a new aspect which is obviously having an adverse effect on his offensive game, but at some point, yes we all hope soon, he will find a happy medium.

Will he find that balance? I think he will but he might not. If he doesnt its not unreal to think he could be traded in the off season especially if The Sens miss out on the playoffs.

If Spezza doesnt have the ability to play that overall game and produce at a somewhat decent level then he's in trouble as a hockey player in the NHL.

Can anyone explain the tagging issue clearly? I'm struggling to really understand it.

Imagine how much better these Hawks will be when Hossa returns and actually plays a game for them?

Damn...

N4L wrote:Ya, I question why on earth Chicago would even think of tinkering with their lineup right now. They are the best team in The West (whether the standings say so or not) and if Huet plays decent hockey the cup is more then likely theirs. After the season I see it, they might even add a guy along the way to help bolster the lineup, but no way do they subtract.

As for getting Seabrooke, if Ottawa somehow got him without trading one of their young 3 D or Lehner, I'm all for it, dont care who or what is going the other way.

Again, the tagging issue might force their hand. If the Toews, Kane, and Keith re-signings pushes them over the limit on CHI's contracts for next year, they will be forced to make a move by or before the signings are made official. The NHL won't let you ice a team that's in violation of the cap.

shabbs wrote:Can anyone explain the tagging issue clearly? I'm struggling to really understand it.

It's a lot more simple than I thought - and I'm not Rooney when it comes to the CBA. The tag rule is:

No team can spend money that equals more than the current cap for the following year.

So, Chicago has something like 43 million spent next year - and with the Kane, Toews and Keith extensions, they would go up so much that they'd be close to going over the cap next season at this date - which is not allowed.

SpezDispenser wrote:

shabbs wrote:Can anyone explain the tagging issue clearly? I'm struggling to really understand it.

It's a lot more simple than I thought - and I'm not Rooney when it comes to the CBA. The tag rule is:

No team can spend money that equals more than the current cap for the following year.

So, Chicago has something like 43 million spent next year - and with the Kane, Toews and Keith extensions, they would go up so much that they'd be close to going over the cap next season at this date - which is not allowed.

I don't think it's as simple as that as the current amount of cap space, or cap space coming off the books etc... factors in to the equation as well, hence the tagging... I'll have to do some digging.

Another example of it:

If Kane and Toews both carry a 6 million cap hit - minimum - that would be approximately 55 million to next year's cap which would leave them under 2 million to sign Keith before they go over the 56.7 cap next year.

shabbs wrote:I don't think it's as simple as that as the current amount of cap space factors in to the equation as well, hence the tagging...

Huh...well that could be moot because Chicago is at the cap ceiling I believe. I didn't realize that though.

Are you sure those are bonuses that have been deferred to next year? That's gonna cause some real issues as well.

shabbs wrote:Can anyone explain the tagging issue clearly? I'm struggling to really understand it.

It's fuzzy to me, too. All I know is that, if you have too much money allocated in contracts NEXT year, the 'tagging' issue will force you to move money THIS year. It was the reason why ANA had to move Andy McDonald a few years back, for instance.

However, if you want the full answer, consult NHL capologist extraordinaire, Chip McCleary:

http://www.nhlscap.com/tagging_rule.htm

Don't say I didn't warn you about how complicated this issue is, tho'

NHLSCAP.com has an outline of the tagging rule:

http://www.nhlscap.com/tagging_rule.htm

EDIT: I see Rooney beat me to the punch. The CBA has some examples that help to clarify but it's still pretty complicated.

All of these problems could have been avoided if Hossa wasn't signed. I know that it's a long-term contract, so his cap hit remains relatively low, but was it really necessary. They seem to be doing quite alright with their current roster without him. I would have just rode the young guns through their development. Now it will cost them someone moving forward.

So, Bob McKenzie has a "quick paragraph" on how it's supposed to work...

From: http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=299097

Tagging room is calculated by totaling the dollar values of the contracts that will expire at the end of the season plus the club's available salary cap space that exists today. Whatever that figure is becomes the maximum amount a club may commit to contract extensions for next year.

He goes on to say the "available" number seems to be around $18M and the total amount of the extensions (Kane, Toews and Keith) seems to be around $19M. So, they have to "fix" it so that those two numbers match. If it's that close, it should not be a problem. And they just may have to wait a bit before announcing it.

To be honest, the tagging thing seems silly. I say let them sign whatever extensions they want, even it they go over the cap for next season, just make sure they're under the cap at the start of next season.

But that's just me.

SDH89 wrote:All of these problems could have been avoided if Hossa wasn't signed. I know that it's a long-term contract, so his cap hit remains relatively low, but was it really necessary. They seem to be doing quite alright with their current roster without him. I would have just rode the young guns through their development. Now it will cost them someone moving forward.

I suppose we could remedy the situation by trading one $5 million dollar man, whose contract length is much shorter?