Salary Cap: Salary Cap Crunch Part 3: Cap and Trade Economics

[Hawksfan2828]

Do you think Richards would want to come back? Is he going to retire? Would we want him back? At what costs would it be?

I say yes for 2 mil again.

I think he will be back.

 

[Pepe Silvia]

Do you think Richards would want to come back? Is he going to retire? Would we want him back? At what costs would it be?

I say yes for 2 mil again.

I'd do it if they could fit him under the cap after re-signing Saad, Kruger, and Oduya in that order.

I don't know if he'll want to sign for that cheap again, or for only a year again. It helps that he has all that buyout money though. He's only 35 so I can't see him retiring.

 

[CourtneyDagger50]

If Vermette doesn't ask for the moon, I could see him coming back.
His lack of scoring with us certainly dampers his chances of receiving a much larger paycheck

 

[Hawksfan2828]

I'd love to see the Hawks land Mike Green on a Richards type deal while still retaining Oduya its but I doubt that will happen.

Let's wait and see what the cap is.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

Eh, I still expect him to get paid more on the market than he could with us as we're going to be tight up against the cap regardless of our roster moves this offseason. This'll likely be his last chance to get a nice payday, unless we don't win the Cup and he's hungry for a championship before it's all said and done, I don't see him resigning with us.

Edit: And that was in reference to Vermette, though I think the same's also true for Richards, though he's already won a Cup.

 

[Kaners PPGs]

I'd love to see the Hawks land Mike Green on a Richards type deal while still retaining Oduya its but I doubt that will happen.
.

What? Why would Mike Green do that? He's going to sign some stupid contract with Edmonton or Detroit paying him to be a #1 dman when he is barely a top 4 dman. No reason for him to sign an undervalued contract to come to Chicago. If he was going to do that, he should just stay in Washington where he probably would have a better chance at winning the cup.

 

[Hawksfan2828]

What? Why would Mike Green do that? He's going to sign some stupid contract with Edmonton or Detroit paying him to be a #1 dman when he is barely a top 4 dman. No reason for him to sign an undervalued contract to come to Chicago. If he was going to do that, he should just stay in Washington where he probably would have a better chance at winning the cup.

A better chance at winning a cup in Washington?

I don't think the Caps have any interest in bringing him back.

I'd take him for a year at 2 per.

 

[LordKOTL]

We all talk about trading Sharp, Bickell, and possibly Crawford. Couldn't each of them just invoke their "no trade" clause?

Why do we think we can trade any of them wherever we want?

If I remember properly Crawford has one of the most restrictive NMC's there is--it's been awhile since I last saw it when Capgeek (moment of silence.........) was in existance.

I think Crawford can name 5 teams he's willing to accept a trade to. From there Stan has to make those 5 teams work. Couple that with the fact that there are very few teams out there that aren't already set in their netminding tandems/trios, and the bulk of those either would have to unload a costly netminder, or are banking on a young prospect and want to save cash for them. So, the "Crawford to Edmonton" probably won't work. They might want a netminder like him, but who player in their right mind would want to go there? In other words, as purely a cap dump Crawford is improbable. If he's traded, chances are something's coming back.

I forgot the details of Sharp & Bickell's NTC's. It could be 15 teams they refuse to go to but still, they have more teams on their list and there are more slots avaliable for both of them per team (i.e. With Crawford you're pretty much looking at a starting netminder--outside chance of a backup. Sharp and Bickell have between 2 and 3 LW slots they can fill in--and Sharp can play any FWD position). It would be much easier for stan to make a deal for them work--especially with very little or no salary coming back.

Seabrook though? I can see long term between 5 and 5.5 for the duration. 6+ if it's a shorter duration. Either way unless Johns or someone esle makes a ginourmous leap there's no way to mitigate his loss.

Crawford? Potentially. Bickell? Potentially. Sharp? Saad for skill and Seabs for leadership already make him redundant.

 

[dbridge]

I doubt Richards will be back, but you never know. I would've bet anything last offseason that Iginla would've been the one to take a massive discount for a contender and Richards would've chased the money, but we saw how that played out. But despite having just said you never know what happens, I'm 99.9999% sure Mike Green won't take a huge discount to come here. I'd have to imagine he'll get a hefty payday and I keep thinking Detroit is where he'll go.

I'm all aboard the idea of trading Sharp. Even if that weakens the team more than trading Bickell/Versteeg in the short-run, Sharp's value is only going to get worse going forward given his age. Ideally I'd like to see Sharp and Bickell traded. Versteeg certainly wouldn't break my heart if he's moved, but if he's not preventing you from keeping someone like Kruger, then it never hurts to have a veteran top 9 forward at only $2.2 million. I'd also like to see Oduya brought back if the price is right and only have to go into next year with 2 rookie D. I feel much more comfortable with a glut of rookie forwards than rookie defensemen.

 

[CourtneyDagger50]

I'd love to see the Hawks land Mike Green on a Richards type deal while still retaining Oduya its but I doubt that will happen.

Let's wait and see what the cap is.

NO. Absolutely not.
No thank you.

 

[Hawkscap]

Are we still assuming the escalator will not be used?

No, when push comes to shove in the NHLPA, they will fold and use the 5%.

 

[HockeySauce]

If I remember properly Crawford has one of the most restrictive NMC's there is--it's been awhile since I last saw it when Capgeek (moment of silence.........) was in existance.

I think Crawford can name 5 teams he's willing to accept a trade to. From there Stan has to make those 5 teams work. Couple that with the fact that there are very few teams out there that aren't already set in their netminding tandems/trios, and the bulk of those either would have to unload a costly netminder, or are banking on a young prospect and want to save cash for them. So, the "Crawford to Edmonton" probably won't work. They might want a netminder like him, but who player in their right mind would want to go there? In other words, as purely a cap dump Crawford is improbable. If he's traded, chances are something's coming back.

With new management, including Lowe out of the way, a new coach and a shiny new McDavid, Edmonton doesn't look that bad. Give them 2 years, with Klefbom and Nurse learning the ropes and they'll compete - especially if they land a guy like Crow.

 

[Kurtosis]

No, when push comes to shove in the NHLPA, they will fold and use the 5%.

I agree. It was more of a response to Sophist's (or whatever his name is) contention that the cap being $68 million is likely.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

Eh, Edmonton looks awful until proven otherwise. I don't see anybody waiving their NTC for them at least this offseason.... maybe a defenseman that'd be guaranteed a line promotion or a backup goalie that could find a starting gig, but that's about it. Don't see Sharp, Bickell, or Crow (who I still don't see getting traded) as being on board with moves there.

Good team and/or fun market, that's what players are willing to be traded to. You can be one, the other, or both and be attractive to players, not so much for neither.

 

[dbridge]

If Crawford does have a NTC that involves submitting a list of 5 teams he'd approve a trade to as mentioned above, then he's not leaving unless he chooses to. All he has to do is make those 5 teams the Rangers, Kings, Canadiens, Predators, and Bruins and he's not going anywhere.

As for Edmonton, I doubt anyone will waive their clause to go there. There's a difference between waiving to go to a bad team in Florida/California and waiving to go to Edmonton.

 

[HockeySauce]

Difference being that Edmonton is on a massive upswing right now and Florida will never be able to afford a contending team.

 

[Pepe Silvia]

Idk even with Nurse for the future, Edmonton really needs to get a top pairing/top 3 defenseman. And if they get a legit starting goalie, I think they'll be legit.

 

[HockeySauce]

Idk even with Nurse for the future, Edmonton really needs to get a top pairing/top 3 defenseman. And if they get a legit starting goalie, I think they'll be legit.

No doubt. They're not there yet. But McDavid and a legit goaltender and suddenly they're close.

Their biggest mistake was not focusing at all on D with their any of their first round picks prior to Hall/The Nuge. It's also a shame they didn't hold on to Petry until the summer. I have no doubt the new regime and McDavid would've got him to re-sign.

Nurse - Schultz
Klefbom - Petry

That's a very good top-4 in ~2-3 years.

 

[Taze em]

It's pretty clear to m you want a wave of D first then a wave of forwards.

Keith Seabrook THEN Toews Kane
Hedman THEN Johnson/paaul at/Kuucherov
Zadorov/risto THEN eichel etc.

D take too long if you do it in reverse

 

[AmericanDream]

No doubt. They're not there yet. But McDavid and a legit goaltender and suddenly they're close.

Their biggest mistake was not focusing at all on D with their any of their first round picks prior to Hall/The Nuge. It's also a shame they didn't hold on to Petry until the summer. I have no doubt the new regime and McDavid would've got him to re-sign.

Nurse - Schultz
Klefbom - Petry

That's a very good top-4 in ~2-3 years.

Petry is in Montreal now...edit. ...just saw what you posted...ignore my post...haha

 

[Ace Rothstein]

Guys I don't want to see on the Hawks next year.

Versteeg
Nordstrom
Bickell
Rundblad

Guys I don't care either way.

Sharp

 

[Hawkscap]

Bettman said $71.5 with escalator or $68 without

ha now they are reporting $71

 

[LordKOTL]

With new management, including Lowe out of the way, a new coach and a shiny new McDavid, Edmonton doesn't look that bad. Give them 2 years, with Klefbom and Nurse learning the ropes and they'll compete - especially if they land a guy like Crow.

Much like the 'hawks were in 2008 & 2009, the Oil will need to start having sucess before they become a destination. New management doesn't many anything. Most of the people were cautiosly optimistic when WWW died and Rocky removed Pullford, but it wasn't until the summer before the 2010 year before anyone really considered Chicago a destination without overpaying.

A shiny new coach that never won a cup and a shiny new GM don't mean anything until Edmonton can right the ship--and that might take a couple of years.

If Crawford does have a NTC that involves submitting a list of 5 teams he'd approve a trade to as mentioned above, then he's not leaving unless he chooses to. All he has to do is make those 5 teams the Rangers, Kings, Canadiens, Predators, and Bruins and he's not going anywhere.

As for Edmonton, I doubt anyone will waive their clause to go there. There's a difference between waiving to go to a bad team in Florida/California and waiving to go to Edmonton.

For the record, I don't know if that's the actual details of Crawford's NMC...I believe I read it somewhere on capgeek this past summer--a significant time ago--but the point still stands. This contract is not going to be Crawford's last and he will want some return on his next one--as such I doubt he would waive his NMC to go to a bottom feeder--specially one that hasn't invested in a passable D.

And even those 5 teams aren't the limit of places Crawford could name. There are very few teams that would be open to a wholesale goalie chance without sending salary back.

Even with a cap in the ballpark of 71M--give or take, I think Bickell is the 1st to go. We need the money for Saad and ZOMGYOUCANNOTTEACHSIZEBBQ is still prevalent in the minds of some GM's. Sharp is probably second since he's redunant (even though I like Sharpie and still think the trade that brought him here is he de favcto definiton of highway robbery). He's got leadership and can help a young team that's right on the doorstep. From there I think it's all opportunity. If Crawford goes he goes but only for a deal beinging something inexpensive back that can help in the long run. If he stays he stays and most likley will see a few less games as we see more of Darling.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

Difference being that Edmonton is on a massive upswing right now

For literally any other team in the NHL that was about to get McDavid, I'd agree with you.... but this is yet another supposed start to their inevitable upswing that's been predicted to be just around the corner for years, and so far all it's done is won them lottery selections. Even their incompetent ownership and management couldn't possibly **** this up now, but if anybody could it's them.

For that reason, I think that Edmonton is still a wait and see franchise for any free agent or trade candidate that has the ability to be choosy.

 

[RCDeltaFixer]

Difference being that Edmonton is on a massive upswing right now and Florida will never be able to afford a contending team.

Except that Florida's owners have said repeatedly that they have no problems spending on the team, and that they've already proven that with the contracts they've given out/trades they've made.