Big Names On The Move...or Not?

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)

asq2 wrote: 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.

You are right...there are no guarantees. But wouldn't you agree Calgary has been consistently competitive for years?

davetherave wrote:

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)

Obviously he and 'Hawks fans are hoping so.

But with the cap going down, I'm not sure I see a big market for Campbell. It's just so much money.

Now, it's not like the 'Hawks are in the Rangers' situation or anything, but Tallon will have to think creatively.

asq2 wrote:Obviously he and 'Hawks fans are hoping so.

But with the cap going down, I'm not sure I see a big market for Campbell. It's just so much money.

Now, it's not like the 'Hawks are in the Rangers' situation or anything, but Tallon will have to think creatively.

Agreed...and we'll see how creative GMs get if and when the cap goes down...

davetherave wrote:

asq2 wrote: 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.

You are right...there are no guarantees. But wouldn't you agree Calgary has been consistently competitive for years?

Well yes, absolutely. But they've only had Phaneuf for 3 1/4 years, and this is the first year they've been paying him big money. Off-hand, I couldn't tell you what their salary structure looked like before then.

Detroit's been consistently competitive for years while putting almost no money into goal-tendng. Nashville's been competitive while putting almost no money into their offence (or anywhere, to be honest). The common theme between those three teams is a strong defence, but then again there's an exception since Carolina won with a pretty non-descript blue-line.

Different GMs have different strategies. Personally, I'd try to build a team around a goalie, defence, and two centremen. But that's what Pittsburgh seems to be trying to do and they haven't been all that successful this year.

I'm of the opinion absolutely that we should be spending more attention on the blue-line. As Nashville and Columbus prove, a strong defence can make your goalies look very good. And Boyle's impact in San Jose proves that they can also boost the stats of your forwards.

But I don't think there's a strict "winning formula." If there was, GMs would be paid a lot less.

ASQ writes=But I don't think there's a strict "winning formula." If there was, GMs would be paid a lot less.

We agree 100% on that... :D

davetherave wrote:ASQ writes=But I don't think there's a strict "winning formula." If there was, GMs would be paid a lot less.

We agree 100% on that... :D

Otherwise, I'd try to get into the GM business.

asq2 wrote:

davetherave wrote:ASQ writes=But I don't think there's a strict "winning formula." If there was, GMs would be paid a lot less.

We agree 100% on that... :D

Otherwise, I'd try to get into the GM business.

Yeah, but it's a lot more fun to play GM... 8)

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 don't know to be honest. I'd have a hard time letting Keith go, I'd probably try to purge a few guys that I could possibly do without. Seabrook probably, Byfuglian, maybe it gets to Sharp, but I'd try to avoid that at all costs.

This is what I meant by a Neil for Barker trade making some sense. I have no idea what they're gonna do with him. Sign and trade this summer - but there will most certainly be a downturn on trades - and if there are trades happening, then I suspect teams will want it to be salary for salary. Should be interesting...maybe in a couple of years the notion of Campbell being traded isn't so out there.

davetherave wrote:
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.

Sharp's the kind of guy that I think the Hawks would loathe to lose. Havlat's a non-factor, he's gone, so is Khabby. If they decide to move Sharp there'll be a lineup for sure (starting here hopefully). As for Huet...I don't see a market opening up for goaltenders for a while, especially when he takes more than 1/10th of the entire cap.

I think Chicago will work it all out. I think Tallon will keep Toews, Kane, Keith, Sharp, Huet (he made the bed, he has to hope for the best) and Campbell. 35 ish on 6 guys though. I don't see how that'll work. Plus there's that Versteeg guy, not sure how much he'll be asking/making.

Interesting though. Chicago's not the first and they won't be the last to face a pending cap crunch. Boston will lose a peg or two this summer I would imagine. Then Washington and Detroit, then San Jose (boy, one year they'll just get diddled) and so on.

asq2 wrote:Obviously he and 'Hawks fans are hoping so.

But with the cap going down, I'm not sure I see a big market for Campbell. It's just so much money.

Now, it's not like the 'Hawks are in the Rangers' situation or anything, but Tallon will have to think creatively.

Oh man, I can't wait to see what happens there. I tell you, there's no way out of it. Waiving 6.5 million dollar guys is not gonna look good on your resume.

504Heater wrote:

asq2 wrote:Obviously he and 'Hawks fans are hoping so.

But with the cap going down, I'm not sure I see a big market for Campbell. It's just so much money.

Now, it's not like the 'Hawks are in the Rangers' situation or anything, but Tallon will have to think creatively.

Oh man, I can't wait to see what happens there. I tell you, there's no way out of it. Waiving 6.5 million dollar guys is not gonna look good on your resume.

You mean you can't wait to see what happens to all GMs who signed big longterm deals?

504Heater wrote:

asq2 wrote:Obviously he and 'Hawks fans are hoping so.

But with the cap going down, I'm not sure I see a big market for Campbell. It's just so much money.

Now, it's not like the 'Hawks are in the Rangers' situation or anything, but Tallon will have to think creatively.

Oh man, I can't wait to see what happens there. I tell you, there's no way out of it. Waiving 6.5 million dollar guys is not gonna look good on your resume.

he he he, mind you, The Rangers aren't the Islanders either, those DiPietro and Yashin deals are working out great for them lol.

504Heater wrote: Sharp's the kind of guy that I think the Hawks would loathe to lose. Havlat's a non-factor, he's gone, so is Khabby. If they decide to move Sharp there'll be a lineup for sure (starting here hopefully). As for Huet...I don't see a market opening up for goaltenders for a while, especially when he takes more than 1/10th of the entire cap.

I think Chicago will work it all out. I think Tallon will keep Toews, Kane, Keith, Sharp, Huet (he made the bed, he has to hope for the best) and Campbell. 35 ish on 6 guys though. I don't see how that'll work. Plus there's that Versteeg guy, not sure how much he'll be asking/making.

Interesting though. Chicago's not the first and they won't be the last to face a pending cap crunch. Boston will lose a peg or two this summer I would imagine. Then Washington and Detroit, then San Jose (boy, one year they'll just get diddled) and so on.

I suppose you will add Ottawa to the list of teams caught in the cap crunch...

Just to set the record straight on Chicago, as everyone seems to be fascinated by them... 8)

Dale Tallon is negotiating with Martin Havlat, and both parties have said they want to find a workable arrangement.

Obviously, keeping a roster together and staying within budget parameters is tough, and will probably get tougher should the cap decrease. Dale Tallon and the Chicago brain trust which includes Rick Dudley, Stan Bowman and the illustrious Scotty Bowman, no doubt understand this, being the clever and well paid hockey men they are.

BTW, hoping other teams will 'lose a peg' is not good for your hockey karma...better to hope your team gains one, and congratulate your rivals on their success.

davetherave wrote:

504Heater wrote: Sharp's the kind of guy that I think the Hawks would loathe to lose. Havlat's a non-factor, he's gone, so is Khabby. If they decide to move Sharp there'll be a lineup for sure (starting here hopefully). As for Huet...I don't see a market opening up for goaltenders for a while, especially when he takes more than 1/10th of the entire cap.

I think Chicago will work it all out. I think Tallon will keep Toews, Kane, Keith, Sharp, Huet (he made the bed, he has to hope for the best) and Campbell. 35 ish on 6 guys though. I don't see how that'll work. Plus there's that Versteeg guy, not sure how much he'll be asking/making.

Interesting though. Chicago's not the first and they won't be the last to face a pending cap crunch. Boston will lose a peg or two this summer I would imagine. Then Washington and Detroit, then San Jose (boy, one year they'll just get diddled) and so on.

I suppose you will add Ottawa to the list of teams caught in the cap crunch...

Just to set the record straight on Chicago, as everyone seems to be fascinated by them... 8)

Dale Tallon is negotiating with Martin Havlat, and both parties have said they want to find a workable arrangement.

Obviously, keeping a roster together and staying within budget parameters is tough, and will probably get tougher should the cap decrease. Dale Tallon and the Chicago brain trust which includes Rick Dudley, Stan Bowman and the illustrious Scotty Bowman, no doubt understand this, being the clever and well paid hockey men they are.

BTW, hoping other teams will 'lose a peg' is not good for your hockey karma...better to hope your team gains one, and congratulate your rivals on their success.

To say that Ottawa isn't in a cap crunch would be a bold faced lie with Alfie, Heater and Spezz eating up around 20 M of cap space, plus with Fish and Phillips up there too, that is probably near 27 or 28 M for 5 players.

As for the hockey karma thing, you are most likely right on that one, but it would be hard for me to congratulate Montreal on any success, Toronto too for that matter, but I will try lol.

SensFan71 wrote:To say that Ottawa isn't in a cap crunch would be a bold faced lie with Alfie, Heater and Spezz eating up around 20 M of cap space, plus with Fish and Phillips up there too, that is probably near 27 or 28 M for 5 players.

As for the hockey karma thing, you are most likely right on that one, but it would be hard for me to congratulate Montreal on any success, Toronto too for that matter, but I will try lol.

I believe the Habs and Leafs may have already messed up their hockey karma beyond repair LOL...