Big Names On The Move...or Not?

Montreal would have to give up too much for Vinny that they wouldn't be a very competitive team, but I think they'd still do it.

Dash wrote:Montreal would have to give up too much for Vinny that they wouldn't be a very competitive team, but I think they'd still do it.

for sure they would do it, Gainey may be forced into complete desperation this year after possibly missing the playoffs or another early playoff exit, anything short of the cup this year is disappointment for Montreal and I am sure he knows it. he is not dealing from a position of bargaining strength here.

Dash wrote:Montreal would have to give up too much for Vinny that they wouldn't be a very competitive team, but I think they'd still do it.

My point is, in Montreal's case, overpaying is a bargain for a francophone superstar. They can undo a lot of stupidity with that move. Let's face it, their recent success is an anomaly when you look at the last decade.

I have a feeling Montreal, or rather Gainey will go balls out this off-season and in turn shoot himself and put his organization back a year or three in the process.

Cronie wrote:I have a feeling Montreal, or rather Gainey will go balls out this off-season and in turn shoot himself and put his organization back a year or three in the process.

I will be standing there clapping as they do that as well, or lighting up a cuban with Shabbs, either way, it will be time to celebrate that as a not so polite Diddle you to the Habs, who must have the most arrogant and hated fans in the entire NHL.

SensFan71 wrote:

Cronie wrote:I have a feeling Montreal, or rather Gainey will go balls out this off-season and in turn shoot himself and put his organization back a year or three in the process.

I will be standing there clapping as they do that as well, or lighting up a cuban with Shabbs, either way, it will be time to celebrate that as a not so polite Diddle you to the Habs, who must have the most arrogant and hated fans in the entire NHL.

HA HA! Wicked...

asq2 wrote:Columbus can't afford a big contract. They're going to have a number of them with Brassard, Filatov, Voracek, Mason etc.

Also, the Hawks could have some issue in the future when trying to re-sign Keith, Kane and Toews.

I'm not sure the one goalie, one d-man, one forward-type system is tried and true. Calgary's had it for a while with Phaneuf, Kiprusoff and Iginla, and only this year are they having success with that model, and that's with several high-priced forwards: Iginla, Cammalleri, Jokinen.

ASQ, with all due respect, I must take issue with your statements. :KJK:

Columbus does indeed have room to make a significant acquisition, with just 40MM committed next year, and 23MM the following year--plenty of money when the time comes, to sign Nash and their young talent. If they move Huselius, they have more wiggle room.

Chicago is also in a better position than you claim. They have 36MM committed next year, and 25MM in 10/11. Lots of fiscal flexibility for Dale Tallon.

Calgary is perhaps the best example of the strategy I cited. With Iginla, Phaneuf, and Kipper, they have a high ticket core that keeps them competitive year after year. This means they can add short term pieces like Bertuzzi, Cammalleri and Jokinen.

You might want to look at a spreadsheet done by Scot Loucks, a blogger from Maple Leafs Hot Stove, that IMHO provides a pretty good snapshot of who is spending what going forward:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pFHFDcknPFlKYq57Adk5iWQ

DTR,

I think the perception of Chicago is that it will cost a minimum of 16M to resign Keith, Kane and Toews in 2010/11. That would put Chicago at about 41M for 9 players signed. If the cap drops to 50M, it leaves about 8M to sign 12-13 other players.

The nine players would be formidable, but still leaves questions in goal and secondary scoring. Sounds sligthly familiar.

Signed for 2010/11
Huet
Campbell
Seabrooke
Sopel
Byufiglien
Sharpe

davetherave wrote:

asq2 wrote:Columbus can't afford a big contract. They're going to have a number of them with Brassard, Filatov, Voracek, Mason etc.

Also, the Hawks could have some issue in the future when trying to re-sign Keith, Kane and Toews.

I'm not sure the one goalie, one d-man, one forward-type system is tried and true. Calgary's had it for a while with Phaneuf, Kiprusoff and Iginla, and only this year are they having success with that model, and that's with several high-priced forwards: Iginla, Cammalleri, Jokinen.

ASQ, with all due respect, I must take issue with your statements. :KJK:

Columbus does indeed have room to make a significant acquisition, with just 40MM committed next year, and 23MM the following year--plenty of money when the time comes, to sign Nash and their young talent. If they move Huselius, they have more wiggle room.

Chicago is also in a better position than you claim. They have 36MM committed next year, and 25MM in 10/11. Lots of fiscal flexibility for Dale Tallon.

Calgary is perhaps the best example of the strategy I cited. With Iginla, Phaneuf, and Kipper, they have a high ticket core that keeps them competitive year after year. This means they can add short term pieces like Bertuzzi, Cammalleri and Jokinen.

You might want to look at a spreadsheet done by Scot Loucks, a blogger from Maple Leafs Hot Stove, that IMHO provides a pretty good snapshot of who is spending what going forward:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pFHFDcknPFlKYq57Adk5iWQ

I can't argue with numbers, but almost every Columbus fan I've talked to says that the team can't afford Spezza (thus, a big contract) going forward because they'll soon have to re-sign: Nash, Mason, Brassard, Voracek, Filatov. They won't have room to do that if they add a big contract, especially if the Cap goes down.

RobbyJ outlined the concern for Chicago.

Finally, as far as Calgary goes, I think their recent success this year somewhat skews the perception of the model. They've been competitive enough to make the playoffs, but they haven't won a series post-lock-out.

Personally, I don't think there's a set formula that guarantees competitiveness. It depends on the players and system that you have.

100% a solid, well disiplined defense core is where success starts. Look no further than Nashville. They have no one up front and yet have managed to stay in the playoff race and will more than likely get there, again.

Defense is where you need to start to be successful along with goaltending.

asq2 wrote: I can't argue with numbers, but almost every Columbus fan I've talked to says that the team can't afford Spezza (thus, a big contract) going forward because they'll soon have to re-sign: Nash, Mason, Brassard, Voracek, Filatov. They won't have room to do that if they add a big contract, especially if the Cap goes down.

RobbyJ outlined the concern for Chicago.

Finally, as far as Calgary goes, I think their recent success this year somewhat skews the perception of the model. They've been competitive enough to make the playoffs, but they haven't won a series post-lock-out.

Personally, I don't think there's a set formula that guarantees competitiveness. It depends on the players and system that you have.

Well, nobody can afford Spezza LOL.

RobbyJ's comments re: Chicago...Tallon has no real issues at this point. Not to say it isn't challenging. Sopel will probably be moved. Because the Hawks have balance across the roster, and because the players he has signed have strong trade value, Tallon has several options. He may succeed in signing all his core players without having to deal any big salaries. Or he may sign Toews and Keith--trade Kane--and see what the market is for, or keep, Campbell and Huet. Or deal Campbell, and keep Kane, Toews and Keith. He might choose to deal Campbell and/or Huet (and promote Niemi, Crawford or Fallon). He might try to sign Pronger as part of a Top 4 D with Seabrook, Campbell and Keith. He might make a pitch for Franzen. There are lots of kids in the pipeline, like Hjalmarsson, Beach and others. Byfuglien has trade value as well. The bottom line in Chicago is that the Blackhawks are trying to create a 'winning culture' that encourages players to stay for less than what they might make as free agents. How the Havlat negotiations play out will influence a number of decisions.

You are right about Calgary not winning a series post lockout...of course they were playing the Ducks, Wings and Sharks, all #1 or #2 seeds, and if you watched those series, you know they weren't exactly lay-downs...that qualifies them as competitive, doesn't it?

8)

Anyway, as we are talking about how who might move...or not...this aspect of the subject, and the points you, Robby, and everyone else here, raises, make for excellent discussion.

PS did you look at the spreadsheet? Interesting stuff, no?

PS here's an excellent article from TSN's Scott Cullen on the 2009 Free Agents (as they stand now):
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=271061

davetherave wrote:PS here's an excellent article from TSN's Scott Cullen on the 2009 Free Agents (as they stand now):
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=271061

Thanks. Oof, Karlsson probably won't come over next season but if he did Scott Niedermayer would be one helluva mentor to learn from.

davetherave wrote:

asq2 wrote: I can't argue with numbers, but almost every Columbus fan I've talked to says that the team can't afford Spezza (thus, a big contract) going forward because they'll soon have to re-sign: Nash, Mason, Brassard, Voracek, Filatov. They won't have room to do that if they add a big contract, especially if the Cap goes down.

RobbyJ outlined the concern for Chicago.

Finally, as far as Calgary goes, I think their recent success this year somewhat skews the perception of the model. They've been competitive enough to make the playoffs, but they haven't won a series post-lock-out.

Personally, I don't think there's a set formula that guarantees competitiveness. It depends on the players and system that you have.

Well, nobody can afford Spezza LOL.

RobbyJ's comments re: Chicago...Tallon has no real issues at this point. Not to say it isn't challenging. Sopel will probably be moved. Because the Hawks have balance across the roster, and because the players he has signed have strong trade value, Tallon has several options. He may succeed in signing all his core players without having to deal any big salaries. Or he may sign Toews and Keith--trade Kane--and see what the market is for, or keep, Campbell and Huet. Or deal Campbell, and keep Kane, Toews and Keith. He might choose to deal Campbell and/or Huet (and promote Niemi, Crawford or Fallon). He might try to sign Pronger as part of a Top 4 D with Seabrook, Campbell and Keith. He might make a pitch for Franzen. There are lots of kids in the pipeline, like Hjalmarsson, Beach and others. Byfuglien has trade value as well. The bottom line in Chicago is that the Blackhawks are trying to create a 'winning culture' that encourages players to stay for less than what they might make as free agents. How the Havlat negotiations play out will influence a number of decisions.

You are right about Calgary not winning a series post lockout...of course they were playing the Ducks, Wings and Sharks, all #1 or #2 seeds, and if you watched those series, you know they weren't exactly lay-downs...that qualifies them as competitive, doesn't it?

8)

Anyway, as we are talking about how who might move...or not...this aspect of the subject, and the points you, Robby, and everyone else here, raises, make for excellent discussion.

PS did you look at the spreadsheet? Interesting stuff, no?

Obviously you're much more versed in the 'Hawks than I am, but I really get the feeling that Campbell's contract is going to hurt them. I don't know what team would take him at that money if the 'Hawks wanted to move him.

As for Calgary, the fact that they were only low seeds is testament to the fact that the model isn't a guarantee. Other teams have consistently made the playoffs each year with a different model: Nashville and Minnesota investing mostly in defence, Pittsburgh investing mostly in offence, Montreal not really paying any elite players (apart from Markov) but having great depth.

We'll see. Obviously we're not putting enough into our D, though.

It's simple:

The Hawks have 3 guys worthy of 7 million bucks a piece. They'll probably settle for less, but anyone who's watched Keith knows he's worth it. In the next 2 years, they'll have Kane, Toews and Keith making bare minimum of 6 million per - added to that they'll have: Campbell (7.3), Sharpe (4), Huet (5.6), Seabrook (3.5), Byfuglian (3). I assume Byfuglian will be moved, Sopel waived, but that still ties up ~ 38 million on 7 players. If the cap is at 50 million, that leaves 12 million for 13 roster player and 2 extras - so 15 players @ 12 million.

I don't like the odds of that working out.

If you have to choose between Toews, Kane and Keith, who do you get rid of?

I suspect it would have to be Keith. But what a player to let go.

We're frustrated that Murray wasn't able to get a puck-moving defenceman this off-season, but I suspect that the main guys who did get moved (Boyle and Campbell) are going to be head-aches from a cap perspective later on in their careers.

504Heater wrote:It's simple:

The Hawks have 3 guys worthy of 7 million bucks a piece. They'll probably settle for less, but anyone who's watched Keith knows he's worth it. In the next 2 years, they'll have Kane, Toews and Keith making bare minimum of 6 million per - added to that they'll have: Campbell (7.3), Sharpe (4), Huet (5.6), Seabrook (3.5), Byfuglian (3). I assume Byfuglian will be moved, Sopel waived, but that still ties up ~ 38 million on 7 players. If the cap is at 50 million, that leaves 12 million for 13 roster player and 2 extras - so 15 players @ 12 million.

I don't like the odds of that working out.

Wow, what a great discussion this is. I love it!

OK, first of all looking ahead two years is a stretch...but first off, assuming that Toews, Kane and Keith will all get 6MM contracts is a major assumption. These kids are going to be RFAs, not UFAs.

And again, what happens in the playoffs and in 2009-10 will tell Tallon what moves he needs to make IF the cap drops to 50MM.

The key factor is that the Hawks have a solid core of young players and balance across the roster, as well as talent in the pipeline, that makes it much easier for them to adjust to potential roster changes.

For example, they've been without both Sharp and Havlat this year, and keep winning.

To address the question about Campbell's contract handcuffing Tallon, the fact is there just aren't very many top flight PMDs...there are plenty of teams that wanted Campbell, and many will continue to want him.

Cristo Huet has been getting better every year...I have watched him regularly, and as a Hab, a Cap and as a Hawk he has improved his game consistently. A quality goaltender is always a tradeable asset.

When you've got the kind of depth Dale Tallon has, you're always dealing from a positon of strength.

So the odds of things working out are better than even.

asq2 wrote:If you have to choose between Toews, Kane and Keith, who do you get rid of?

I suspect it would have to be Keith. But what a player to let go.

We're frustrated that Murray wasn't able to get a puck-moving defenceman this off-season, but I suspect that the main guys who did get moved (Boyle and Campbell) are going to be head-aches from a cap perspective later on in their careers.

I suspect Tallon won't have to make that choice... 8)