TSN alleges mistakes made regarding Blackhawk RFAs

wprager wrote:Dave and Rooney, guys, please back off. This is getting nowhere. You have both contributed significant amounts of information to this site and I am surely not alone in appreciating this. However this recent stuff has to stop.

I have to second this as well.

marakh wrote:http://www.hockeybuzz.com/cap-central/team.php?team=CHI

http://nhlnumbers.com/overview.php?team=CHI&season=0910

I don't even see what's the debate about cap websites here. Both sites say they are 4M+ over the cap. I don't care what Tallon say, until he finds a way to trade a few guys, they have a problem. I don't see why it is that difficult to admit it, it's just facts.

Next year could be worse, but they can probably still ice a good team even after losing a few pieces.

Let me preface this by saying that I'm not trying to be contrary here. BUT....

I just clicked on your links, and NHLSCAP says CHI is $4.5 mil over the cap, and NHLnumbers says CHI has $2.4 mil in cap space (invoking the bonus cushion). That's a pretty big difference (almost $7 mil, in fact), no?

Neither is actually entirely right, actually, and I can show you the proof on that.

NHLSCAP has Skille and both of Hendry and Hjalmarsson on the roster, bringing the total roster to 25, which is certainly not right. Skille and Hjalmarsson are both on ELC contracts (2-way by definition), and Hendry appears to be on a 2-way deal. Right now, based on last year's performance, I'd say that Hjalmarsson is on this team, but not the other two. That removes $1.9 mil from NHLSCAP's figure (down to about $2.6 mil and change over the cap). Take Hjalmarsson out of the equation (unlikely, but just for the sake of argument, to get most of the 2-way contracts out of the equation and maximize CHI's cap savings) and CHI is now only $2 mil over the cap.

Now, NHLnumbers on the other hand invokes the bonus cushion to get CHI back under the cap. Technically, this can be done, but in practice it would be disastrous for CHI, especially for the coming year. Here's how the bonus cushion works: if your players earn their bonuses and push the team over the cap, you tack on those over-spendings onto next year's cap hit. So, that $3.77 mil that NHLnumbers is wiping out would actually go onto CHI cap next year -- which would be an absolutely disaster from CHI's perspective. With the cap widely expected to fall next year, and with Kane, Toews, and Keith all due for re-signing before the start of that year, Tallon would be putting himself in the worst possible spot. He'd have almost $4 mil lopped off his cap ceiling even before he sat down to start negotiating.

In addition to this, NHLnumbers is (as I said before) NOT including Crawford (their back up goalie, 1-way deal -- NHLnumbers has CHI icing its team with no backup!) or Hjalmarsson into the calculations. That adds about $1.3 mil into the calculations. Even dropping Hjalmarrson (again, 2-way deal, likely to make the team, but for the sake of argument), you still need to add $750K to NHLnumbers's figures. And that puts CHI about $2 mil over the cap, if you take out bonus cushion savings.

The best way to solve this is to slot in CHI's probable roster, keeping the roster number as low as possible (20-22, not 23 players). While doing this, you have to of course keep all players with 1-way deals on the team (mandatory, until Tallon announcing he's willing to eat one of those contracts by burying a player in the minors) and jettison most 2-way deals (like Hjalmarsson) to save cap space. I used CapGeek in the past to do just this (in the other CHI thread I started), and the number I came up with was, I believe, about $2 mil over the cap (about $2.6 mil in you keep Hjalmarsson on the roster) -- which accords with all the calculation above.

To my knowledge, after reviewing all the evidence, CHI is thus a minimum of $2 mil over the cap. That is the best-case, most accurate depiction of CHI's current cap situation that I can possibly muster. I refuse to believe that Tallon will use the bonus cushion to balance things out this year, as NHLnumbers suggests, because of the long-term consequences doing so might have on his deal. If he does do this, then, yes, I certainly think we ought to be questioning his judgment.

As you can see, tho', while each cap site has its benefits, none of them perfect. I trust NHLSCAP the most because it's run by Chip McCleary, who works for the NHL and actually manages the real cap, but in the end we have to evaluate the sources and use our judgment to come up with a more accurate picture of a team's real cap situation. Certainly, I never rest satisfied just because one site or the other, or one person in authority (like a GM), assures me that there's nothing to worry about, when I can see for myself that there most certainly is.

Cheers

SeawaySensFan wrote:I thought the bonus cushion was removed? Aren't all bonuses part of the cap hit now?

The bonus cushion was removed for the 2008-09 season, because the NHL was in the last year of its 3-year contract (the new CBA) with the NHLPA. Both parties agreed to extend the CBA very recently (for another 3 years, I believe), and so now the bonus cushion is now back in effect for this season.

As I just wrote above, however, it's not like that money you spend on the bonus cushion one season just disappears without consequences. Those spent bonuses for one year carry over onto the next if you invoke the bonus cushion. And that, my friend, is the very definition of mortgaging the future for the present.

rooneypoo wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:I thought the bonus cushion was removed? Aren't all bonuses part of the cap hit now?

The bonus cushion was removed for the 2008-09 season, because the NHL was in the last year of its 3-year contract (the new CBA) with the NHLPA. Both parties agreed to extend the CBA very recently (for another 3 years, I believe), and so now the bonus cushion is now back in effect for this season.

As I just wrote above, however, it's not like that money you spend on the bonus cushion one season just disappears without consequences. Those spent bonuses for one year carry over onto the next if you invoke the bonus cushion. And that, my friend, is the very definition of mortgaging the future for the present.

3 year extension on the CBA? That's pretty big news. I don't typically miss stuff like that.

Chicago has an awful lot of 3 million dollar cap hits currently. That's some pretty obvious red flags there. I don't see significant relief next year either aside from maybe Madden.

SeawaySensFan wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:I thought the bonus cushion was removed? Aren't all bonuses part of the cap hit now?

The bonus cushion was removed for the 2008-09 season, because the NHL was in the last year of its 3-year contract (the new CBA) with the NHLPA. Both parties agreed to extend the CBA very recently (for another 3 years, I believe), and so now the bonus cushion is now back in effect for this season.

As I just wrote above, however, it's not like that money you spend on the bonus cushion one season just disappears without consequences. Those spent bonuses for one year carry over onto the next if you invoke the bonus cushion. And that, my friend, is the very definition of mortgaging the future for the present.

3 year extension on the CBA? That's pretty big news. I don't typically miss stuff like that.

Chicago has an awful lot of 3 million dollar cap hits currently. That's some pretty obvious red flags there. I don't see significant relief next year either aside from maybe Madden.

Oops, TWO years:

http://www.hockeywilderness.com/2009/1/23/734591/nhlpa-votes-to-extend-cba

When you're right 52% of the time...

Definitely doesn't seem to be the best way to deal with bonus money unless your plan involves moving out significant salary in the next season.

At this point Chicago looks to have some major Cap issues that need to be dealt with. It's not only Chicago that needs to concern themselves and this is where the GM makes his money. Pittsburgh found a way to deal with their Cap crunch and come out of it with a Cup. I will say that this had more to do with the Coaching change than anything else but it was still managed.

Chicago managed to deal with spending huge dollars on two goalies last year so they probably have a plan in place for dealing with this. Whether it works is another question. One luxury they have is the ability to shop an elite D man without significantly impacting their roster and clearing significant Cap room in the process. Sure Campbell doesn't seem too attractive right now but I suspect he'll look rather nice at the Trade Deadline coming up next year.

Bottom line, Bowman will sort all this out.

Message was edited by: The Name Dropper

Now I feel better. Thanks SSF. Seriously though it is obvious it's an issue that needs to be dealt with. I'm interested to see how. I will wait and see what happens.

Cap'n Clutch wrote:Definitely doesn't seem to be the best way to deal with bonus money unless your plan involves moving out significant salary in the next season.

At this point Chicago looks to have some major Cap issues that need to be dealt with. It's not only Chicago that needs to concern themselves and this is where the GM makes his money. Pittsburgh found a way to deal with their Cap crunch and come out of it with a Cup. I will say that this had more to do with the Coaching change than anything else but it was still managed.

Chicago managed to deal with spending huge dollars on two goalies last year so they probably have a plan in place for dealing with this. Whether it works is another question. One luxury they have is the ability to shop an elite D man without significantly impacting their roster and clearing significant Cap room in the process. Sure Campbell doesn't seem too attractive right now but I suspect he'll look rather nice at the Trade Deadline coming up next year.

Here's the problem with that, though: teams looking to make a run don't often subtract a 5 mil defenseman ( I say 5 because he is in no way a 7 mil player) from their roster just prior to the stretch run. The other issue is that he isn't just some expiring contract... any team dealing for him will be making a major investment in their future and is likely to ask for a little incentive i.e. a young prospect.

Here's another issue: does he have a NTC in his contract that would hamper any attempt at trading him? Even if he doesn't, what would constitute a fair trade? Would some kind of Campbell for Kovalchuk deal be fair? Throw in a prospect from Chicago and the fact that Kovalchuk is unsigned and certainly cannot be re-signed by Chicago...it might be workable. ATL gets an asset locked up long-term and Chicago gets rid of that awful contract.

Well it will definitely be interesting to see how they deal with this situation.

I can't recall if I called it already, but: DIBS ON SHARP.

:excite:

I doubt you see him move SpezD but I'd love him in a Sens uni that's for sure.