Sharks sign CHI's Hjalmarsson to offer sheet

SpezDispenser wrote:

CockRoche wrote:

Perfect fit! In every aspect.

Cap-wise - $1,000,000
Style-wise - makes the first save, just let's the puck hit him. Good positional goalie. That is all Chicago needs.
Personality-wise - Team player in every aspect of the game. Somewhat of a local boy as well, close to home.

Yeah, I think so too. And not just for Chicago, that could go for Ottawa if they could shed Leclaire's salary. I'd take Elliott, Clemmensson and open up the cap room for Savard over Elliott and Leclaire, but that's probably because I don't trust Leclaire in the least.

These career backups like Clemmensson are (IMO), the perfect solution for teams in transition/close to the cap. They can make saves and are nice and cheap. Like Leighton, Boucher, Biron etc. etc. Good time to be looking for netminding in the NHL.

i'd rather keep leclaire to be honest.what he showed us in the playoffs is that when he's going he's got the ability to be "the guy" for us. he was amazing in some of those games. i tell you if that injury didn't set him back a month last year we very well might have been wistling a different tune going into the playoffs last year. might have beaten pittsburg. i understand elliott had his first playoff apearances but so did leclaire. and he stood on his head. there are other ways to clear space if we want to bring in savard,(and i do want him here) but leclaire shouldn't be one of them.

we all know both our goalies will be looking for a new deal after this year. IMO, if pascal played well, we go and sign them both to 2 year deals agin and see if lehner can push one out of the job from bingo. i'd much rather have leclaire(if he's hot) mentor lehner and good to average elliott.

CockRoche wrote:
[1] Chicago wanted their Top 4 D to remain the same though and for good reason. They know that their goaltending is not up to snuff whether it be Niemi or Crawford. You can't let Hjalmarsson go and have 3 of your Top 6 D be John Scott, Jordan Hendry and Brian Connelly. That is a recipe for disaster. They know what they have with Keith, Seabrook, Campbell and Hjalmarsson. Sure they are a lot of money those four guys, but they are worth it.

[2] Even if you put Campbell on waivers (not a sign of respect) no one is taking him. Re-entry waivers kills your cap hit to not have him play for you. I'd rather have him help the team at full price, than another team at half price.

[3] That will happen.

[4] That's the price you pay for winning the Cup. They were very aggressive with their contracts, they had a one-year window to win the Cup and they did it. Good for them I say.

I'm not trying to pick your post apart even though it may seem that way, I just see things a bit differently I guess and wanted to express my thoughts.

Why a one year window? They certainly didn't need to sign Cam Barker to a 3 million dollar deal, same with Versteeg, same with Bolland, same with Byfulglien. They made a terrific mistake with Huet, but they found they could win with just sturfy goaltending.

I think if they had handled their pending RFAs better, they'd still be a powerhouse, possibly losing only Versteeg and possibly one other piece. But they chose to pay every Tom, D and Harry 3 million or over and that left them in this mess.

This is all really Tallon's fault. The team won the Cup, which is obviously the main goal and can never be taken away, but now the Hawks will pay for it.

CockRoche wrote:

Kovalfie wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:

CockRoche wrote:

Hoags wrote:I don't think they'll keep Niemi if his asking price is that high. It really seems to have started a trend to have low-paid starting goaltenders.

Yeah, I can't see this being settled pre-arbitrator. It will be up to the arbitrator to figure out Niemi's worth and I can see Chicago not accepting the awarded amount.

Niemi will walk, Huet to the minors or traded for nothing of consequence. Crawford will be the starting goalie, in my opinion.

We will see though.

Yeah, Crawford's been pushing for a while. If I were Chicago, I'd get a nice, veteran backup to go with Crawford. Someone like Clemensson for example who can step in if needed.

I agree. I think the whole depletion of the Hawks' roster this off-season could have been avoided.

[1]I would have happily taken the picks for Hjalmarsson. Not qualifying him would have helped Chicago with their cap situation and would have ensured that they don't take money back on a trade. The decision to qualify him only deepened their cap problems, forcing them to likely trade Sharp for what I think will be less of a return than the picks.

Niemi will become a UFA and lost for nothing if they decide against the arbitration ruling, which is a definite possibility right now. I said it before but [2]Chicago should have put Campbell on waivers and[3]buried/loaned Huet. They've lost half of their roster when over $12 million (roughly 4 players) could have been saved by acting proactively and moving two overpaid assets. [4]Instead they will be middle of the pack next year.

I'm calling it now, if Kovalchuk signs in LA, they will win the West with Vancouver as a close second.

[1] Chicago wanted their Top 4 D to remain the same though and for good reason. They know that their goaltending is not up to snuff whether it be Niemi or Crawford. You can't let Hjalmarsson go and have 3 of your Top 6 D be John Scott, Jordan Hendry and Brian Connelly. That is a recipe for disaster. They know what they have with Keith, Seabrook, Campbell and Hjalmarsson. Sure they are a lot of money those four guys, but they are worth it.

[2] Even if you put Campbell on waivers (not a sign of respect) no one is taking him. Re-entry waivers kills your cap hit to not have him play for you. I'd rather have him help the team at full price, than another team at half price.

[3] That will happen.

[4] That's the price you pay for winning the Cup. They were very aggressive with their contracts, they had a one-year window to win the Cup and they did it. Good for them I say.
I'm not trying to pick your post apart even though it may seem that way, I just see things a bit differently I guess and wanted to express my thoughts.

i expect a few more teams to go that way in the future. it might be what NJD is trying to do with kovy. besides in this league there is always a few teams that are more then willing to aquire players via trades since not many FA will go there. all and all if chicago hadn't gone out there and signed all these players would they have won the cup? very questionable.
what they did is come back down to the level most teams are at, BUT have aquired a number of picks and prospects in the process. they won on all sides.

If we beat the Ducks in the SCF we wouldn't be in such a mess would we ? :-)

SpezDispenser wrote:

CockRoche wrote:
[1] Chicago wanted their Top 4 D to remain the same though and for good reason. They know that their goaltending is not up to snuff whether it be Niemi or Crawford. You can't let Hjalmarsson go and have 3 of your Top 6 D be John Scott, Jordan Hendry and Brian Connelly. That is a recipe for disaster. They know what they have with Keith, Seabrook, Campbell and Hjalmarsson. Sure they are a lot of money those four guys, but they are worth it.

[2] Even if you put Campbell on waivers (not a sign of respect) no one is taking him. Re-entry waivers kills your cap hit to not have him play for you. I'd rather have him help the team at full price, than another team at half price.

[3] That will happen.

[4] That's the price you pay for winning the Cup. They were very aggressive with their contracts, they had a one-year window to win the Cup and they did it. Good for them I say.

I'm not trying to pick your post apart even though it may seem that way, I just see things a bit differently I guess and wanted to express my thoughts.

Why a one year window? They certainly didn't need to sign Cam Barker to a 3 million dollar deal, same with Versteeg, same with Bolland, same with Byfulglien. They made a terrific mistake with Huet, but they found they could win with just sturfy goaltending.

I think if they had handled their pending RFAs better, they'd still be a powerhouse, possibly losing only Versteeg and possibly one other piece. But they chose to pay every Tom, D and Harry 3 million or over and that left them in this mess.

This is all really Tallon's fault. The team won the Cup, which is obviously the main goal and can never be taken away, but now the Hawks will pay for it.

I will never argue with you that Huet was anything but a mistake. But who is to say that Barker, Versteeg, Bolland, Byfuglien would have signed with Chicago had they offered $1,000,000 less than what they were offered? If Barker doesn't sign, maybe others don't either. You never know.

All I know is they aggressively went after the players they thought would help them win the Cup and they did just that. All these headaches they are having now with the salary cap, could just be a long hangover from their Stanley Cup Party.

This is just one mans opinion. Take it for what it is worth (in your opinion). Haha

Hoags wrote:If we beat the Ducks in the SCF we wouldn't be in such a mess would we ? :-)

I'd still be drunk!

Flo The Action wrote:

CockRoche wrote:

Kovalfie wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:

CockRoche wrote:

Hoags wrote:I don't think they'll keep Niemi if his asking price is that high. It really seems to have started a trend to have low-paid starting goaltenders.

Yeah, I can't see this being settled pre-arbitrator. It will be up to the arbitrator to figure out Niemi's worth and I can see Chicago not accepting the awarded amount.

Niemi will walk, Huet to the minors or traded for nothing of consequence. Crawford will be the starting goalie, in my opinion.

We will see though.

Yeah, Crawford's been pushing for a while. If I were Chicago, I'd get a nice, veteran backup to go with Crawford. Someone like Clemensson for example who can step in if needed.

I agree. I think the whole depletion of the Hawks' roster this off-season could have been avoided.

[1]I would have happily taken the picks for Hjalmarsson. Not qualifying him would have helped Chicago with their cap situation and would have ensured that they don't take money back on a trade. The decision to qualify him only deepened their cap problems, forcing them to likely trade Sharp for what I think will be less of a return than the picks.

Niemi will become a UFA and lost for nothing if they decide against the arbitration ruling, which is a definite possibility right now. I said it before but [2]Chicago should have put Campbell on waivers and[3]buried/loaned Huet. They've lost half of their roster when over $12 million (roughly 4 players) could have been saved by acting proactively and moving two overpaid assets. [4]Instead they will be middle of the pack next year.

I'm calling it now, if Kovalchuk signs in LA, they will win the West with Vancouver as a close second.

[1] Chicago wanted their Top 4 D to remain the same though and for good reason. They know that their goaltending is not up to snuff whether it be Niemi or Crawford. You can't let Hjalmarsson go and have 3 of your Top 6 D be John Scott, Jordan Hendry and Brian Connelly. That is a recipe for disaster. They know what they have with Keith, Seabrook, Campbell and Hjalmarsson. Sure they are a lot of money those four guys, but they are worth it.

[2] Even if you put Campbell on waivers (not a sign of respect) no one is taking him. Re-entry waivers kills your cap hit to not have him play for you. I'd rather have him help the team at full price, than another team at half price.

[3] That will happen.

[4] That's the price you pay for winning the Cup. They were very aggressive with their contracts, they had a one-year window to win the Cup and they did it. Good for them I say.
I'm not trying to pick your post apart even though it may seem that way, I just see things a bit differently I guess and wanted to express my thoughts.

i expect a few more teams to go that way in the future. it might be what NJD is trying to do with kovy. besides in this league there is always a few teams that are more then willing to aquire players via trades since not many FA will go there. all and all if chicago hadn't gone out there and signed all these players would they have won the cup? very questionable.
what they did is come back down to the level most teams are at, BUT have aquired a number of picks and prospects in the process. they won on all sides.

Good input. But I still stand my argument.

I still think you get the picks for Hjalmarsson and/or put Campbell on waivers. Hell even trade Campbell for Souray. I dunno, but paying that much money for your 3-4 defencemen is ludicrous. It's my understanding that you can put a player on waivers but as long as he's not sent down you don't have to put him on re-entry waivers? I could very well be wrong here (please correct me if I am). If that's the case, then I retract my statement. Still though, this could have been handled better IMO

Kovalfie wrote:

Flo The Action wrote:

CockRoche wrote:

Kovalfie wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:

CockRoche wrote:

Hoags wrote:I don't think they'll keep Niemi if his asking price is that high. It really seems to have started a trend to have low-paid starting goaltenders.

Yeah, I can't see this being settled pre-arbitrator. It will be up to the arbitrator to figure out Niemi's worth and I can see Chicago not accepting the awarded amount.

Niemi will walk, Huet to the minors or traded for nothing of consequence. Crawford will be the starting goalie, in my opinion.

We will see though.

Yeah, Crawford's been pushing for a while. If I were Chicago, I'd get a nice, veteran backup to go with Crawford. Someone like Clemensson for example who can step in if needed.

I agree. I think the whole depletion of the Hawks' roster this off-season could have been avoided.

[1]I would have happily taken the picks for Hjalmarsson. Not qualifying him would have helped Chicago with their cap situation and would have ensured that they don't take money back on a trade. The decision to qualify him only deepened their cap problems, forcing them to likely trade Sharp for what I think will be less of a return than the picks.

Niemi will become a UFA and lost for nothing if they decide against the arbitration ruling, which is a definite possibility right now. I said it before but [2]Chicago should have put Campbell on waivers and[3]buried/loaned Huet. They've lost half of their roster when over $12 million (roughly 4 players) could have been saved by acting proactively and moving two overpaid assets. [4]Instead they will be middle of the pack next year.

I'm calling it now, if Kovalchuk signs in LA, they will win the West with Vancouver as a close second.

[1] Chicago wanted their Top 4 D to remain the same though and for good reason. They know that their goaltending is not up to snuff whether it be Niemi or Crawford. You can't let Hjalmarsson go and have 3 of your Top 6 D be John Scott, Jordan Hendry and Brian Connelly. That is a recipe for disaster. They know what they have with Keith, Seabrook, Campbell and Hjalmarsson. Sure they are a lot of money those four guys, but they are worth it.

[2] Even if you put Campbell on waivers (not a sign of respect) no one is taking him. Re-entry waivers kills your cap hit to not have him play for you. I'd rather have him help the team at full price, than another team at half price.

[3] That will happen.

[4] That's the price you pay for winning the Cup. They were very aggressive with their contracts, they had a one-year window to win the Cup and they did it. Good for them I say.
I'm not trying to pick your post apart even though it may seem that way, I just see things a bit differently I guess and wanted to express my thoughts.

i expect a few more teams to go that way in the future. it might be what NJD is trying to do with kovy. besides in this league there is always a few teams that are more then willing to aquire players via trades since not many FA will go there. all and all if chicago hadn't gone out there and signed all these players would they have won the cup? very questionable.
what they did is come back down to the level most teams are at, BUT have aquired a number of picks and prospects in the process. they won on all sides.

Good input. But I still stand my argument.

I still think you get the picks for Hjalmarsson and/or put Campbell on waivers. Hell even trade Campbell for Souray. I dunno, but paying that much money for your 3-4 defencemen is ludicrous. It's my understanding that you can put a player on waivers but as long as he's not sent down you don't have to put him on re-entry waivers? I could very well be wrong here (please correct me if I am). If that's the case, then I retract my statement. Still though, this could have been handled better IMO

You are right. I have a pretty good handle on the CBA and can explain more of how waivers work anytime you want, but to stay on this direct topic of discussion, I want to add a couple things.

First, like I said, you are right. Campbell obviously qualifies to be placed on waivers as he has reached the exemption numbers of years and/or games played in the NHL.

Second, when placed on waivers, if picked up by another team, the new team is now responsible for the entirety of the existing contract. Depending on what day, Campbell in this case, gets placed on waivers that will determine the timeline that the other 29 teams have to make a claim.

Next, if no team claims Campbell, yes he can be sent to the minors where his full salary would have to be paid, but it is off the NHL books.

Lastly, if Chicago then tries to recall Campbell, essentually putting him through the re-entry process, any other team may claim said player for 50% of his cap hit and salary, with the team attempting to recall taking the other 50% of each as well.

In saying all that, and this is key, Chicago can't put Campbell on waivers yet because Section 13.2 of the CBA states that “The “Playing Season Waiver Period” shall begin on the twelfth (12^th) day prior to the start of the Regular Season and end on the day following the last day of a Club’s Playing Season”. This means that Chicago can’t even waive Campbell to free up cap space until 12 days before the start of the season. This hardly helps them sign FA's as they can only go over the cap by so much before the season starts. After this deadline, then maybe re-entry could provide a means to some useful cap flexibility going forward in the season for Chicago. They are handcuffed right now though.

There are an unlimited amount of rules I could get into, but I wanted to just get the basic facts out to clear up yours and my understanding of what Chicago may or may not want to do with Campbell.

Hope this helps.

Kovalfie wrote:

Flo The Action wrote:

CockRoche wrote:

Kovalfie wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:

CockRoche wrote:

Hoags wrote:I don't think they'll keep Niemi if his asking price is that high. It really seems to have started a trend to have low-paid starting goaltenders.

Yeah, I can't see this being settled pre-arbitrator. It will be up to the arbitrator to figure out Niemi's worth and I can see Chicago not accepting the awarded amount.

Niemi will walk, Huet to the minors or traded for nothing of consequence. Crawford will be the starting goalie, in my opinion.

We will see though.

Yeah, Crawford's been pushing for a while. If I were Chicago, I'd get a nice, veteran backup to go with Crawford. Someone like Clemensson for example who can step in if needed.

I agree. I think the whole depletion of the Hawks' roster this off-season could have been avoided.

[1]I would have happily taken the picks for Hjalmarsson. Not qualifying him would have helped Chicago with their cap situation and would have ensured that they don't take money back on a trade. The decision to qualify him only deepened their cap problems, forcing them to likely trade Sharp for what I think will be less of a return than the picks.

Niemi will become a UFA and lost for nothing if they decide against the arbitration ruling, which is a definite possibility right now. I said it before but [2]Chicago should have put Campbell on waivers and[3]buried/loaned Huet. They've lost half of their roster when over $12 million (roughly 4 players) could have been saved by acting proactively and moving two overpaid assets. [4]Instead they will be middle of the pack next year.

I'm calling it now, if Kovalchuk signs in LA, they will win the West with Vancouver as a close second.

[1] Chicago wanted their Top 4 D to remain the same though and for good reason. They know that their goaltending is not up to snuff whether it be Niemi or Crawford. You can't let Hjalmarsson go and have 3 of your Top 6 D be John Scott, Jordan Hendry and Brian Connelly. That is a recipe for disaster. They know what they have with Keith, Seabrook, Campbell and Hjalmarsson. Sure they are a lot of money those four guys, but they are worth it.

[2] Even if you put Campbell on waivers (not a sign of respect) no one is taking him. Re-entry waivers kills your cap hit to not have him play for you. I'd rather have him help the team at full price, than another team at half price.

[3] That will happen.

[4] That's the price you pay for winning the Cup. They were very aggressive with their contracts, they had a one-year window to win the Cup and they did it. Good for them I say.
I'm not trying to pick your post apart even though it may seem that way, I just see things a bit differently I guess and wanted to express my thoughts.

i expect a few more teams to go that way in the future. it might be what NJD is trying to do with kovy. besides in this league there is always a few teams that are more then willing to aquire players via trades since not many FA will go there. all and all if chicago hadn't gone out there and signed all these players would they have won the cup? very questionable.
what they did is come back down to the level most teams are at, BUT have aquired a number of picks and prospects in the process. they won on all sides.

Good input. But I still stand my argument.

I still think you get the picks for Hjalmarsson and/or put Campbell on waivers. Hell even trade Campbell for Souray. I dunno, but paying that much money for your 3-4 defencemen is ludicrous. It's my understanding that you can put a player on waivers but as long as he's not sent down you don't have to put him on re-entry waivers? I could very well be wrong here (please correct me if I am). If that's the case, then I retract my statement. Still though, this could have been handled better IMO

Correct. There's nothing to lose, but Campbell, if you put him on waivers -- no consequences whatsoever if no one claims him, except maybe a soured relationship between him and management.

CockRoche wrote:

Kovalfie wrote:

Flo The Action wrote:

CockRoche wrote:

Kovalfie wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:

CockRoche wrote:

Hoags wrote:I don't think they'll keep Niemi if his asking price is that high. It really seems to have started a trend to have low-paid starting goaltenders.

Yeah, I can't see this being settled pre-arbitrator. It will be up to the arbitrator to figure out Niemi's worth and I can see Chicago not accepting the awarded amount.

Niemi will walk, Huet to the minors or traded for nothing of consequence. Crawford will be the starting goalie, in my opinion.

We will see though.

Yeah, Crawford's been pushing for a while. If I were Chicago, I'd get a nice, veteran backup to go with Crawford. Someone like Clemensson for example who can step in if needed.

I agree. I think the whole depletion of the Hawks' roster this off-season could have been avoided.

[1]I would have happily taken the picks for Hjalmarsson. Not qualifying him would have helped Chicago with their cap situation and would have ensured that they don't take money back on a trade. The decision to qualify him only deepened their cap problems, forcing them to likely trade Sharp for what I think will be less of a return than the picks.

Niemi will become a UFA and lost for nothing if they decide against the arbitration ruling, which is a definite possibility right now. I said it before but [2]Chicago should have put Campbell on waivers and[3]buried/loaned Huet. They've lost half of their roster when over $12 million (roughly 4 players) could have been saved by acting proactively and moving two overpaid assets. [4]Instead they will be middle of the pack next year.

I'm calling it now, if Kovalchuk signs in LA, they will win the West with Vancouver as a close second.

[1] Chicago wanted their Top 4 D to remain the same though and for good reason. They know that their goaltending is not up to snuff whether it be Niemi or Crawford. You can't let Hjalmarsson go and have 3 of your Top 6 D be John Scott, Jordan Hendry and Brian Connelly. That is a recipe for disaster. They know what they have with Keith, Seabrook, Campbell and Hjalmarsson. Sure they are a lot of money those four guys, but they are worth it.

[2] Even if you put Campbell on waivers (not a sign of respect) no one is taking him. Re-entry waivers kills your cap hit to not have him play for you. I'd rather have him help the team at full price, than another team at half price.

[3] That will happen.

[4] That's the price you pay for winning the Cup. They were very aggressive with their contracts, they had a one-year window to win the Cup and they did it. Good for them I say.
I'm not trying to pick your post apart even though it may seem that way, I just see things a bit differently I guess and wanted to express my thoughts.

i expect a few more teams to go that way in the future. it might be what NJD is trying to do with kovy. besides in this league there is always a few teams that are more then willing to aquire players via trades since not many FA will go there. all and all if chicago hadn't gone out there and signed all these players would they have won the cup? very questionable.
what they did is come back down to the level most teams are at, BUT have aquired a number of picks and prospects in the process. they won on all sides.

Good input. But I still stand my argument.

I still think you get the picks for Hjalmarsson and/or put Campbell on waivers. Hell even trade Campbell for Souray. I dunno, but paying that much money for your 3-4 defencemen is ludicrous. It's my understanding that you can put a player on waivers but as long as he's not sent down you don't have to put him on re-entry waivers? I could very well be wrong here (please correct me if I am). If that's the case, then I retract my statement. Still though, this could have been handled better IMO

You are right. I have a pretty good handle on the CBA and can explain more of how waivers work anytime you want, but to stay on this direct topic of discussion, I want to add a couple things.

First, like I said, you are right. Campbell obviously qualifies to be placed on waivers as he has reached the exemption numbers of years and/or games played in the NHL.

Second, when placed on waivers, if picked up by another team, the new team is now responsible for the entirety of the existing contract. Depending on what day, Campbell in this case, gets placed on waivers that will determine the timeline that the other 29 teams have to make a claim.

Next, if no team claims Campbell, yes he can be sent to the minors where his full salary would have to be paid, but it is off the NHL books.

Lastly, if Chicago then tries to recall Campbell, essentually putting him through the re-entry process, any other team may claim said player for 50% of his cap hit and salary, with the team attempting to recall taking the other 50% of each as well.

In saying all that, and this is key, Chicago can't put Campbell on waivers yet because Section 13.2 of the CBA states that “The “Playing Season Waiver Period” shall begin on the twelfth (12^th) day prior to the start of the Regular Season and end on the day following the last day of a Club’s Playing Season”. This means that Chicago can’t even waive Campbell to free up cap space until 12 days before the start of the season. This hardly helps them sign FA's as they can only go over the cap by so much before the season starts. After this deadline, then maybe re-entry could provide a means to some useful cap flexibility going forward in the season for Chicago. They are handcuffed right now though.

There are an unlimited amount of rules I could get into, but I wanted to just get the basic facts out to clear up yours and my understanding of what Chicago may or may not want to do with Campbell.

Hope this helps.

Exactly. Waivers are only for the NHL season, and any buyout periods.

Well, Souray was waived in the non-NHL season period... they just can't get him off the books yet.

rooneypoo wrote:

Kovalfie wrote:

Flo The Action wrote:

CockRoche wrote:

Kovalfie wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:

CockRoche wrote:

Hoags wrote:I don't think they'll keep Niemi if his asking price is that high. It really seems to have started a trend to have low-paid starting goaltenders.

Yeah, I can't see this being settled pre-arbitrator. It will be up to the arbitrator to figure out Niemi's worth and I can see Chicago not accepting the awarded amount.

Niemi will walk, Huet to the minors or traded for nothing of consequence. Crawford will be the starting goalie, in my opinion.

We will see though.

Yeah, Crawford's been pushing for a while. If I were Chicago, I'd get a nice, veteran backup to go with Crawford. Someone like Clemensson for example who can step in if needed.

I agree. I think the whole depletion of the Hawks' roster this off-season could have been avoided.

[1]I would have happily taken the picks for Hjalmarsson. Not qualifying him would have helped Chicago with their cap situation and would have ensured that they don't take money back on a trade. The decision to qualify him only deepened their cap problems, forcing them to likely trade Sharp for what I think will be less of a return than the picks.

Niemi will become a UFA and lost for nothing if they decide against the arbitration ruling, which is a definite possibility right now. I said it before but [2]Chicago should have put Campbell on waivers and[3]buried/loaned Huet. They've lost half of their roster when over $12 million (roughly 4 players) could have been saved by acting proactively and moving two overpaid assets. [4]Instead they will be middle of the pack next year.

I'm calling it now, if Kovalchuk signs in LA, they will win the West with Vancouver as a close second.

[1] Chicago wanted their Top 4 D to remain the same though and for good reason. They know that their goaltending is not up to snuff whether it be Niemi or Crawford. You can't let Hjalmarsson go and have 3 of your Top 6 D be John Scott, Jordan Hendry and Brian Connelly. That is a recipe for disaster. They know what they have with Keith, Seabrook, Campbell and Hjalmarsson. Sure they are a lot of money those four guys, but they are worth it.

[2] Even if you put Campbell on waivers (not a sign of respect) no one is taking him. Re-entry waivers kills your cap hit to not have him play for you. I'd rather have him help the team at full price, than another team at half price.

[3] That will happen.

[4] That's the price you pay for winning the Cup. They were very aggressive with their contracts, they had a one-year window to win the Cup and they did it. Good for them I say.
I'm not trying to pick your post apart even though it may seem that way, I just see things a bit differently I guess and wanted to express my thoughts.

i expect a few more teams to go that way in the future. it might be what NJD is trying to do with kovy. besides in this league there is always a few teams that are more then willing to aquire players via trades since not many FA will go there. all and all if chicago hadn't gone out there and signed all these players would they have won the cup? very questionable.
what they did is come back down to the level most teams are at, BUT have aquired a number of picks and prospects in the process. they won on all sides.

Good input. But I still stand my argument.

I still think you get the picks for Hjalmarsson and/or put Campbell on waivers. Hell even trade Campbell for Souray. I dunno, but paying that much money for your 3-4 defencemen is ludicrous. It's my understanding that you can put a player on waivers but as long as he's not sent down you don't have to put him on re-entry waivers? I could very well be wrong here (please correct me if I am). If that's the case, then I retract my statement. Still though, this could have been handled better IMO

Correct. There's nothing to lose, but Campbell, if you put him on waivers -- no consequences whatsoever if no one claims him, except maybe a soured relationship between him and management.

Correct. I alluded to this earlier, it is not something that some players take kindly to. Not to mention perspective FA's.

I also maintain that Chicago is happy with their Top 4 D as crazy as that sounds cap-wise.

They are starting to sign some young players to < $1,000,000 which they have to do. Skille was signed recently to a one-way deal.

rooneypoo wrote:

CockRoche wrote:You are right. I have a pretty good handle on the CBA and can explain more of how waivers work anytime you want, but to stay on this direct topic of discussion, I want to add a couple things.

First, like I said, you are right. Campbell obviously qualifies to be placed on waivers as he has reached the exemption numbers of years and/or games played in the NHL.

Second, when placed on waivers, if picked up by another team, the new team is now responsible for the entirety of the existing contract. Depending on what day, Campbell in this case, gets placed on waivers that will determine the timeline that the other 29 teams have to make a claim.

Next, if no team claims Campbell, yes he can be sent to the minors where his full salary would have to be paid, but it is off the NHL books.

Lastly, if Chicago then tries to recall Campbell, essentually putting him through the re-entry process, any other team may claim said player for 50% of his cap hit and salary, with the team attempting to recall taking the other 50% of each as well.

In saying all that, and this is key, Chicago can't put Campbell on waivers yet because Section 13.2 of the CBA states that “The “Playing Season Waiver Period” shall begin on the twelfth (12^th) day prior to the start of the Regular Season and end on the day following the last day of a Club’s Playing Season”. This means that Chicago can’t even waive Campbell to free up cap space until 12 days before the start of the season. This hardly helps them sign FA's as they can only go over the cap by so much before the season starts. After this deadline, then maybe re-entry could provide a means to some useful cap flexibility going forward in the season for Chicago. They are handcuffed right now though.

There are an unlimited amount of rules I could get into, but I wanted to just get the basic facts out to clear up yours and my understanding of what Chicago may or may not want to do with Campbell.

Hope this helps.

Exactly. Waivers are only for the NHL season, and any buyout periods.

Not technically, but I know what you mean in this context.

shabbs wrote:Well, Souray was waived in the non-NHL season period... they just can get him off the books yet.

Yep, that is what I was alluding to with my last post to Rooneypoo. There are other dates, but they have come and gone. Edmonton took advantage of one of the windows with Souray.

Hoags wrote:If we beat the Ducks in the SCF we wouldn't be in such a mess would we ? :-)

Who the **** would have cared though. I would have been in 7th heaven, they could have traded the whole team and no one could ever have taken away that Cup from me.

SpezDispenser wrote:

Hoags wrote:If we beat the Ducks in the SCF we wouldn't be in such a mess would we ? :-)

Who the **** would have cared though. I would have been in 7th heaven, they could have traded the whole team and no one could ever have taken away that Cup from me.

And that is exactly what Chicago fans, players and management feel like now. Chicago is not in as much trouble this season as some are letting on. They just won a Cup and will ice a competitive team again this season. They met their goal last season and nobody will ever take that away from them.

shabbs wrote:Well, Souray was waived in the non-NHL season period... they just can get him off the books yet.

That was during the buyout period, which opens up around June 15th and lasts something like two weeks.

You'll notice that there was no talk of demotion or re-entry waivers with Souray at the time, either. That's because there was no minor-league affiliate playing during that time to demote him to, or recall him from.

CockRoche wrote:

shabbs wrote:Well, Souray was waived in the non-NHL season period... they just can get him off the books yet.

Yep, that is what I was alluding to with my last post to Rooneypoo. There are other dates, but they have come and gone. Edmonton took advantage of one of the windows with Souray.

Yes, the NHL's buyout period, and a few other small windows (i.e., for a few days after an RFA on the team is awarded a contract by an arbitrator). Otherwise, I don't think there are any waivers during the off-season.