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

[DontToewzMeBro]

Been battling on the boards over:

Toews at 10.5
Or
Bergeron at 6.5

I still say Boston would accept a Toews for Bergeron trade fast.

 

[Callidusblackhawk]

I'm not sure if we should be giving 4th liners like Desi 3 year contracts. It doesn't take much for a good/great 4th liner to become pretty bleh.

 

[Nothingman*]

I'm not sure if we should be giving 4th liners like Desi 3 year contracts. It doesn't take much for a good/great 4th liner to become pretty bleh.

Yeah. 2 years max. If he can get more elsewhere I don't blame him. But you don't lock up 4th liners for three year deals.

 

[hockeydoug]

I'm not sure if we should be giving 4th liners like Desi 3 year contracts. It doesn't take much for a good/great 4th liner to become pretty bleh.

You can bury a player at league minimum +375K.
When he turns bad he gets waived to Rockford if he can't be traded.

I'm not sure if I want him eating the ice time or any cap space as I said before. There are too many moving parts on the roster yet. Generally speaking, I think they would have to gaurantee him at least 2.5 million over a variable term for him to even consider staying. I think there are many scenarios where I would be happy to see him on the roster.

I'm also assuming Rocky will accept further losses by knowingly paying a guy that might be in Rockford as soon as next winter. Shame the Hawks still aren't making Rocky any money. (I wish he would stop being a a#$%*@! about that stuff).

 

[Hawkaholic]

Been battling on the boards over:

Toews at 10.5
Or
Bergeron at 6.5

I still say Boston would accept a Toews for Bergeron trade fast.

I bet they do, what an awful offer.

 

[Taze em]

Does a potential cup win change what anyone does this offseason? I'm like 20% more okay with trading Seabrook in that situation.

 

[zac]

Does a potential cup win change what anyone does this offseason? I'm like 20% more okay with trading Seabrook in that situation.

Everyone should be okay with the idea of trading Seabrook.

I mentioned it in another thread, but the league is DEFINITELY becoming faster IMO. Soon to be gone are the days of the relatively immobile stay-at-home defensmen that simply patrolled and enforced the crease area. While Seabrook doesn't exactly fit that mold, he's definitely not the most fleet of foot and has definitely lost a step in recent years. Seabs has been abused quite a bit defensively this season and I don't expect that to get any better as he ages.

IMO the Hawks need to be exploring trade options for several reasons. One is the one mentioned above: while being a good offensive d-man I don't think he projects well defensively going forward. Two, is that his value will never be higher than it is right now and I think they could (potentially) get a good/great return. The third is that I don't think he is worth re-signing once his contract expires. For how good he currently is and how good he can be expected to be as the new contract goes forward, I think he will be a TERRIBLE value for all of those years. Especially with what the Hawks would have to match with what some idiot team would give on the open market.

This team needs to identify who the true core pieces are as they can ill-afford to misallocate resources going forward. The core at this moment should be Keith, Hammer, Toews, Kane, Saad, and TT. Everyone else is an expendable piece and should be expended if they don't provide value (production vs. expense). Seabrook simply isn't good/great enough, young enough, or provides enough value (going forward) to be in that discussion. If we can get some pieces now we jump on it. If not, we use him for the next year and plan for the replacement strategy when we let him walk. If the latter, hopefully some young guys have stepped up so that we have a ready-made, cheap, internal option.

 

[DisgruntledHawkFan]

You don't move top pairing defenseman unless you must.

Full stop.

 

[BK]

You don't move top pairing defenseman unless you must.

Full stop.

This. Unless we have a top pairing prospect to replace him he should not be moved.

 

[Taze em]

This. Unless we have a top pairing prospect to replace him he should not be moved.

It's not inconceivable or ludicrous for them to maybe think they do.

I'm not advocating selling Seabrook but I'm more intrigued by offers for him if we win.

 

[Sarava]

I really don't see Seabrook being shopped, unless Saad's agent asks for 6-7 mil per and threatens to solicit offersheets if necessary. Then the Hawks might have to decide if they will move Seabs to clear more room, or to move Saad himself at the draft.

 

[Taze em]

I really don't see Seabrook being shopped, unless Saad's agent asks for 6-7 mil per and threatens to solicit offersheets if necessary. Then the Hawks might have to decide if they will move Seabs to clear more room, or to move Saad himself at the draft.

Or if Seabrook wants 8M early in negotiations this summer.

 

[Sarava]

Or if Seabrook wants 8M early in negotiations this summer.

Good point. I imagine Stan probably knows exactly what it will take to lock these guys up. He's going to have so little time to make moves. The draft is only a week and a half after the season ends. Also it should be noted that Seabrook does have a limited NTC.

 

[Foster81]

Posters on the trade fourm are claiming a team will offer sheet Saad 7-8 million per for 6-7 years just to screw the Hawks over. I doubt that will happen, but if it does Stan should take the picks and let him walk. We don't know how much longer the Canadian dollar and thus the cap will be down for.

If he would sign an offer sheet for say 7 million per year and assuming the Hawks don't match, how many picks and what rounds would Chicago be compensated?

 

[Taze em]

Good point. I imagine Stan probably knows exactly what it will take to lock these guys up. He's going to have so little time to make moves. The draft is only a week and a half after the season ends. Also it should be noted that Seabrook does have a limited NTC.

I don't know what Stan is going to do and how quickly. I'd imagine he'd ideally unload Bickell by Friday. Sign Saad by the draft. Then he can get cute with Sharp/Seabrook. I'd personally put Bickell on waivers ASAP. See if you get someone to nibble. Then focus on Saad.

Has to act really quick. If Saad isn't signing he'll be forced to unload Sharp before July 1 to show the league he has money to hopefully head an OS off at the pass.

This is all going to be very tricky when you actually break it down in order on a timeline.

 

[Taze em]

Posters on the trade fourm are claiming a team will offer sheet Saad 7-8 million per for 6-7 years just to screw the Hawks over. I doubt that will happen, but if it does Stan should take the picks and let him walk. We don't know how much longer the Canadian dollar and thus the cap will be down for.

If he would sign an offer sheet for say 7 million per year and assuming the Hawks don't match, how many picks and what rounds would Chicago be compensated?

7M for 7-8 years is 4 1sts. I take them and keep Sharp. But that's so ridiculous, it won't happen.

 

[Sarava]

Posters on the trade fourm are claiming a team will offer sheet Saad 7-8 million per for 6-7 years just to screw the Hawks over. I doubt that will happen, but if it does Stan should take the picks and let him walk. We don't know how much longer the Canadian dollar will be down.

If he would sign an offer sheet for say 7 million per year, how many picks and what rounds would Chicago be compensated?

The Hawks would get a 1st, a 2nd and a 3rd rounder if he signs for 7 mil per.

This goes back to what I was saying about the Hawks having so little time to act after the season. Because the Hawks would need to smell this coming, and if they can't alter the course of it - then move Saad at the draft to a team that has the capspace to match any offsersheets.

Because let's be honest, the compensation will likely not be worth what Sadd is really worth. Especially if a team like Pittsburgh or Anaheim pulls it off (where it would be low round picks). Yeah I know pitt would need to re-acquire their 2nd, but they could do that.

 

[TLEH]

idk about you guys, but if we win the cup, it changes my whole thought process on everything.

 

[Sarava]

7M for 7-8 years is 4 1sts. I take them and keep Sharp. But that's so ridiculous, it won't happen.

Yeah, because of the 5 year rule, a contract at 7 per would not be for more than 5 years.

 

[Kurtosis]

Posters on the trade fourm are claiming a team will offer sheet Saad 7-8 million per for 6-7 years just to screw the Hawks over. I doubt that will happen, but if it does Stan should take the picks and let him walk. We don't know how much longer the Canadian dollar and thus the cap will be down for.

If he would sign an offer sheet for say 7 million per year and assuming the Hawks don't match, how many picks and what rounds would Chicago be compensated?

That would be 2 1st's, a 2nd, and a 3rd round pick plus (I believe) an $8.4 mil cap hit on a 6 year deal for whatever team was stupid enough to do that.

A lot of fans think their GM's are concerned with screwing the Hawks. I think they're more concerned with improving their team, but hey that's just me.

 

[Taze em]

So, I don't know what the rules actually allow (if waivers are available, when trades can be completed, etc.) so someone can correct me but the way this goes down if I'm GM (and I'm not so spare me).

-As early as Thursday I am trading Bickell.
-If noone bites I place him on waivers.
- If no one bites I trade him with something or retain 1M.
- Then I sign Saad by the draft.
-Then I draft dudes at the draft and dangle Sharp there. Hopefully someone bites.

Otherwise you Leddy Sharp. Have to unload salary, like, yesterday. Or you are in some hard times.

 

[JaegerDice]

You don't move top pairing defenseman unless you must.

Full stop.

He's spent less time on the top pair this playoff-run than Hammer.

He's our third best defensemen by a pretty solid gap for the last two seasons, and he's regressing, particularly his speed.

If the Blackhawks win the cup (and maybe even if they don't) you have to consider selling high on Seabrook for the insane return it would bring.

Better to trade a year too early than a year too late. Especially when 'a year too late' means 'locked up to a new, expensive, long-term contract with a NMC'.

 

[Sarava]

Columbus needs a guy like Seabrook. I think they'd be afraid of him bolting after 1 season though. They seem to have issues with guys not wanting to play there. Who else could we potentially move Seabrook too? I would exclude Edmonton...we don't need to help them build around McDavid.

 

[Foster81]

The Hawks would get a 1st, a 2nd and a 3rd rounder if he signs for 7 mil per.

This goes back to what I was saying about the Hawks having so little time to act after the season. Because the Hawks would need to smell this coming, and if they can't alter the course of it - then move Saad at the draft to a team that has the capspace to match any offsersheets.

Because let's be honest, the compensation will likely not be worth what Sadd is really worth. Especially if a team like Pittsburgh or Anaheim pulls it off (where it would be low round picks). Yeah I know pitt would need to re-acquire their 2nd, but they could do that.

Pittsburgh cant, unless they can get there 2nd round pick they traded to Toronto back. And I don't know if Anaheim has that kind of cap space to risk on Saad.

 

[Taze em]

Columbus needs a guy like Seabrook. I think they'd be afraid of him bolting after 1 season though. They seem to have issues with guys not wanting to play there. Who else could we potentially move Seabrook too? I would exclude Edmonton...we don't need to help them build around McDavid.

15 teams out East will want Seabrook. You sit back with your feet up smoking a cigar fielding offers.

I don't want Seabrook gone and he 95% won't be. But, ugh, this sucks.

Seabs+McNeill for Dekeyser+1st+Mantha or something stupid.