Confirmed with Link: Elliott traded to CAL for 35th (& Cond. 3rd)

Brian39

Registered User
Apr 24, 2014
7,135
13,083
I would be surprised if Darling and Condon don't resign with the hawks and sens respectively. I think Kuemper probably resigns in Minn too, but not as certain about that one.

Jon Bernier is an interesting one. He's been outstanding for ANA and looks great behind their D. Have to imagine he'd want a full time starting gig somewhere tho. He may end up being the best signing value-wise out of all these guys if he takes a slight pay cut to be the undisputed #1 on a team...currently making 2.15 mill, I can see him signing for ~4, maybe less in the right situation.

I could see Calgary go either way. Despite 1 rough game, Elliott has been very good for them down the stretch. Management might very well see the situation differently than CAL fans in the trade forum.

Regardless, definitely going to be a big offseason goalie-wise.

I would be shocked if Darling re-signed in Chicago. He outplayed Crawford for a long stretch this season and is still young enough that a non-contender looking to find a true starting goalie oculd try to make him their #1. He's this year's Cam Talbot, but can be acquired without giving up an asset. He should be able to get a 2-3 year deal worth $2.5+ mil pretty easily and that team will guarantee him the chance to be a starter. He can't get close to either of those things in Chicago.

Why do you think Bernier will be looking for a $4 milish deal with a chance to start but think Darling will settle for $1 mil as a backup in Chicago? They are the same age and Darling had a noticeably better season.
 

Celtic Note

Living the dream
Dec 22, 2006
16,931
5,716
I would be shocked if Darling re-signed in Chicago. He outplayed Crawford for a long stretch this season and is still young enough that a non-contender looking to find a true starting goalie oculd try to make him their #1. He's this year's Cam Talbot, but can be acquired without giving up an asset. He should be able to get a 2-3 year deal worth $2.5+ mil pretty easily and that team will guarantee him the chance to be a starter. He can't get close to either of those things in Chicago.

Why do you think Bernier will be looking for a $4 milish deal with a chance to start but think Darling will settle for $1 mil as a backup in Chicago? They are the same age and Darling had a noticeably better season.
You have to wonder if the Hawks look to move Crawford. They need the cap space.
 

stl76

No. 5 in your programs, No. 1 in your hearts
Jul 2, 2015
9,056
8,333
I would be shocked if Darling re-signed in Chicago. He outplayed Crawford for a long stretch this season and is still young enough that a non-contender looking to find a true starting goalie oculd try to make him their #1. He's this year's Cam Talbot, but can be acquired without giving up an asset. He should be able to get a 2-3 year deal worth $2.5+ mil pretty easily and that team will guarantee him the chance to be a starter. He can't get close to either of those things in Chicago.

Why do you think Bernier will be looking for a $4 milish deal with a chance to start but think Darling will settle for $1 mil as a backup in Chicago? They are the same age and Darling had a noticeably better season.

Couple of reasons: 1) Darling is born and raised in Chicago, grew up loving the hawks, and has vocal about wanting to stay there. It's not outside the realm of possibility that he would take a discount and sign on as a backup. 2) I think it's possible that Crawford becomes a cap casualty and is traded. His signing bonuses are all paid out and he is owed 6, 6, and 5 mill in real salary the next three years (6 mill cap hit). He does have a modified NTC, not sure the exact details on it...If the cap goes up the hawks will probably be able to keep Crawford, depends on how the ED plays out too.

Bottom line: my gut says Darling will stay in Chicago.
 

Splatter

Registered User
Sep 13, 2010
1,147
79
St. Louis
You have to wonder if the Hawks look to move Crawford. They need the cap space.

He makes $6 mil a year and has a modified NTC/NMC. It's going to be tough.

Darling meanwhile makes barely above the league minimum salary. As much as he loves playing in Chicago, I find it difficult to believe he'll stay and pass up a big pay raise.
 

EastonBlues22

Registered User
Nov 25, 2003
14,807
10,496
RIP Fugu ϶(°o°)ϵ
Maybe we did keep the right goalie after all.
Who can say how Elliott would have played if he was here this season? He played better for the Blues and took them further in the playoffs than any other goalie in...well, a long, long time. He was unquestionably a good match for the style we played. Shame it didn't work out for him when he moved on.

I don't think anyone is complaining about the play of our current goalie, though. Hopefully Allen continues playing well as long as he's around.
 

GoldenSeal

Believe In The Note
Dec 1, 2013
6,891
6,161
Out West
Who can say how Elliott would have played if he was here this season? He played better for the Blues and took them further in the playoffs than any other goalie in...well, a long, long time. He was unquestionably a good match for the style we played. Shame it didn't work out for him when he moved on.

I don't think anyone is complaining about the play of our current goalie, though. Hopefully Allen continues playing well as long as he's around.

In retrospect, Jake Allen or any other goaltender couldn't have saved the Flames. They were a team who loaded up too many penalties, blew a number of PP chances and had shallow depth. Put that into perspective. Elliott was disappointing and there's a bit he could have done much, much better, but it's simply not all on him. Flames had the same issue as the Hitchcock-era Blues: Not enough offense.

It's easy to hang out a netminder to dry and people tend to talk about the bad when it comes to Elliott. For the role he played and the fact the Flames were trash in their first dozen games, not just him, he ended up having a pretty good season on a team that shouldn't have made the playoffs, yet they did. And he contributed to that when they needed him the most. Without Elliott, they don't make the playoffs.
 

Brian39

Registered User
Apr 24, 2014
7,135
13,083
Couple of reasons: 1) Darling is born and raised in Chicago, grew up loving the hawks, and has vocal about wanting to stay there. It's not outside the realm of possibility that he would take a discount and sign on as a backup. 2) I think it's possible that Crawford becomes a cap casualty and is traded. His signing bonuses are all paid out and he is owed 6, 6, and 5 mill in real salary the next three years (6 mill cap hit). He does have a modified NTC, not sure the exact details on it...If the cap goes up the hawks will probably be able to keep Crawford, depends on how the ED plays out too.

Bottom line: my gut says Darling will stay in Chicago.

I get that he wants to stay there, but he would likely have to leave $6-8 mil on the table to stay. That is a huge amount of money for a guy who has earned less than $1.5 mil in his career by the age of 28. He was making less than $50k a year until he was 25, spent his age 26 season making about $100k until he got called up mid season for league minimum. For the last 2 years he has been making just over league minimum. Unlike most 28 year olds in this league, he is not financially comfortable for life unless he has been incredibly good with his money. A discount deal with the Hawks could very well mean that his career earnings as an NHLer are about $3-4 mil before taxes, escrow, agent/rep fees, etc. That's certainly nothing to scoff at, but it isn't the monopoly money wealth that most people associate with a pro athlete. Goalie is such a fickle position that there is always a chance that a good 28 year old is out of a job 2-3 years later.

Realistically, the Hawks don't have the space to give him much more than he is making now ($585k). They currently have $2.7 mil in cap space (if the cap doesn't rise), but that is before any bonus overages. Panarin hit all $2.575 mil of his bonuses, Campbell hit his $750k bonus, Kempny got $250k of his bonuses and Forsling got $95k. That's about $3.7 mil in bonuses and the Hawks ended the year with $10k of cap space. So they are looking at over $3.5 mil in bonus overage cap hit and currently have negative cap space assuming a cap the same as this year.

The cap is going to go up, but we have no idea by how much. Assuming similar growth to the last couple years (and the players using their escalator), we are looking at a cap of about $75 mil. Assuming that, the Hawks have about $1 mil in space with 20 guys on the roster. A few of the guys projected on the roster right now won't be there, so realistically this number is more like $3.5 mil with 16-17 guys on the roster. Even if they get Vegas to take Kruger, you are looking at about $6-6.5 mil to fill 6-7 roster spots (including finding suitable replacements for Oduya and Campbell). Remember, Panik is an RFA and he had 44 points this year while making $875k. He is due a raise or will need to be moved. How do you give anything close to a fair contract to Darling with so little cap flexibility? Even an AAV of $1.25 is probably pushing it for the Hawks and he should be able to find another team to give him $3+ mil on a 3 year deal. I do believe he would take a big discount to stay in Chicago, but usually a discount for a late 20s player is 10-15%, maybe 25%. He would have to take a 65% (or more) discount just to get into the ballpark of what Chicago can likely afford unless they move a big contract.

I don't see the Hawks being able or interested in moving Crawford. The details of his NTC are unknown, but even a list of 7 teams he can't be traded to would drastically reduce the Hawks' ability to get anything of value for him. How many teams are looking for a $6 mil/year starting goalie without needing to send a few mil in salary back? Assuming Crawford wants to stay and puts those teams desperate for a goalie on his list, how does Chicago move him for close to fair value? Unless the Hawks believe losing Crawford for peanuts is better than losing Darling for nothing, I don't think moving Crawford is realistic. Given the contract they gave Crawford, his performance in the first half of that contract and his known playoff track record, I don't see them moving Crawford at a discount just to save a few million in goal.
 
Last edited:

stl76

No. 5 in your programs, No. 1 in your hearts
Jul 2, 2015
9,056
8,333
I get that he wants to stay there, but he would likely have to leave $6-8 mil on the table to stay. That is a huge amount of money for a guy who has earned less than $1.5 mil in his career by the age of 28. He was making less than $50k a year until he was 25, spent his age 26 season making about $100k until he got called up mid season for league minimum. For the last 2 years he has been making just over league minimum. Unlike most 28 year olds in this league, he is not financially comfortable for life unless he has been incredibly good with his money. A discount deal with the Hawks could very well mean that his career earnings as an NHLer are about $3-4 mil before taxes, escrow, agent/rep fees, etc. That's certainly nothing to scoff at, but it isn't the monopoly money wealth that most people associate with a pro athlete. Goalie is such a fickle position that there is always a chance that a good 28 year old is out of a job 2-3 years later.

Realistically, the Hawks don't have the space to give him much more than he is making now ($585k). They currently have $2.7 mil in cap space (if the cap doesn't rise), but that is before any bonus overages. Panarin hit all $2.575 mil of his bonuses, Campbell hit his $750k bonus, Kempny got $250k of his bonuses and Forsling got $95k. That's about $3.7 mil in bonuses and the Hawks ended the year with $10k of cap space. So they are looking at over $3.5 mil in bonus overage cap hit and currently have negative cap space assuming a cap the same as this year.

The cap is going to go up, but we have no idea by how much. Assuming similar growth to the last couple years (and the players using their escalator), we are looking at a cap of about $75 mil. Assuming that, the Hawks have about $1 mil in space with 20 guys on the roster. A few of the guys projected on the roster right now won't be there, so realistically this number is more like $3.5 mil with 16-17 guys on the roster. Even if they get Vegas to take Kruger, you are looking at about $6-6.5 mil to fill 6-7 roster spots (including finding suitable replacements for Oduya and Campbell). Remember, Panik is an RFA and he had 44 points this year while making $875k. He is due a raise or will need to be moved. How do you give anything close to a fair contract to Darling with so little cap flexibility? Even an AAV of $1.25 is probably pushing it for the Hawks and he should be able to find another team to give him $3+ mil on a 3 year deal. I do believe he would take a big discount to stay in Chicago, but usually a discount for a late 20s player is 10-15%, maybe 25%. He would have to take a 65% (or more) discount just to get into the ballpark of what Chicago can likely afford unless they move a big contract.

I don't see the Hawks being able or interested in moving Crawford. The details of his NTC are unknown, but even a list of 7 teams he can't be traded to would drastically reduce the Hawks' ability to get anything of value for him. How many teams are looking for a $6 mil/year starting goalie without needing to send a few mil in salary back? Assuming Crawford wants to stay and puts those teams desperate for a goalie on his list, how does Chicago move him for close to fair value? Unless the Hawks believe losing Crawford for peanuts is better than losing Darling for nothing, I don't think moving Crawford is realistic. Given the contract they gave Crawford, his performance in the first half of that contract and his known playoff track record, I don't see them moving Crawford at a discount just to save a few million in goal.

I haven't had the time to really dig into the hawks cap situation, so thank you for breaking it down here. Don't want to derail the thread completely, but I still think both sides figure out a deal to keep Darling in CHI. Both sides clearly want it to happen, and knowing what I do about his personal background (Darling had big potential, struggled with alcoholism, fell completely off the prospect map, got his **** together, was given a second chance by CHI his home town team, flourished with them, ect) I think he has a pretty deep sense of connection and debt for lack of a better word to the hawks. They gave him a chance when he had ****ed every other one up.

You're right that 4 mill gross is not "**** you" money and while it's a large sum of money to most people, it's probably not enough to retire on and live comfortably as he is accustomed to. However, I think you're projection of 4 mill is low tbh. Yeah of course it's POSSIBLE he could be out of a job in 2-3 years, but I think it's more likely that he has closer to 5-7 good years left. If another team offered him a contract with significantly higher salary or longer term, then yeah it would be tough to turn down. As has been discussed earlier, this season seems like a buyers market with all the potentially available goalies. Will Darling command a premium significantly higher than CHI can afford on the open market? I don't know. Too many moving parts to say with certainty (in terms of both the league wide goalie market and CHI's cap situation) .

Regardless, with the obviously deep connections between player and team/community, it would make sense for CHI to offer Darling a front office position post-retirement IMO. Pure speculation, but he seems like the perfect candidate to run a community outreach program for the hawks in Chicago...I am certain it's against the rules to explicitly offer such a position as part of contract negotiations, but I think there is probably a very high level of trust between player and organization in this particular case. If the hawks said to him, "we can't pay you what you're worth right now but we will take care of you. Trust us," he may be inclined to trust them. My gut says he will stay in CHI. But my gut has been wrong before so...
 

KingBran

Three Eyed Raven
Apr 24, 2014
6,436
2,284
Couple of reasons: 1) Darling is born and raised in Chicago, grew up loving the hawks, and has vocal about wanting to stay there. It's not outside the realm of possibility that he would take a discount and sign on as a backup. 2) I think it's possible that Crawford becomes a cap casualty and is traded. His signing bonuses are all paid out and he is owed 6, 6, and 5 mill in real salary the next three years (6 mill cap hit). He does have a modified NTC, not sure the exact details on it...If the cap goes up the hawks will probably be able to keep Crawford, depends on how the ED plays out too.

Bottom line: my gut says Darling will stay in Chicago.

He was actually born in Virginia but was in a military family and ended up around the CHI area and grew up a Hawks fan.

Minor detail and me just being nit-pickey. I agree with your post.
 

Chojin

Tiny Panger...
Apr 6, 2011
4,301
573
If I'm Vegas, I'm signing Elliott and then going with Darling or Pickard.
 

MortiestOfMortys

Registered User
Jun 27, 2015
4,740
1,702
Denver, CO
His fault or not, I'm guessing Calgary Isn't going to bring him back and we won't see that 3rd round pick

It feels that way, which is a shame. Always nice to get those extra picks. Still though, it's hard on a team to roll over the goalie corps completely, so I would have to think at least one of Elliott and Johnson might stay. They've got Gillies and now Parsons in their pipeline though, and even Rittich isn't that bad. Without knowing if any of those guys are ready to step in (I very much doubt Parsons would be ready for that next year), and how long of a leash their front office wants to give them, it's just hard to say what they'll do with Ells.

I'd be willing to bet Moose ends up in Dallas though. He had his best years with Hitch, and the Stars need goalie help bad. It makes a ton of sense.
 

execwrite

Registered User
May 4, 2002
3,986
0
Peekskill, NY
Visit site
It feels that way, which is a shame. Always nice to get those extra picks. Still though, it's hard on a team to roll over the goalie corps completely, so I would have to think at least one of Elliott and Johnson might stay. They've got Gillies and now Parsons in their pipeline though, and even Rittich isn't that bad. Without knowing if any of those guys are ready to step in (I very much doubt Parsons would be ready for that next year), and how long of a leash their front office wants to give them, it's just hard to say what they'll do with Ells.

I'd be willing to bet Moose ends up in Dallas though. He had his best years with Hitch, and the Stars need goalie help bad. It makes a ton of sense.

Except Dallas still has one more year of Niemi and Lehtonen and I don't see how you move either of those contracts. ($10.4 million combined).
 

MortiestOfMortys

Registered User
Jun 27, 2015
4,740
1,702
Denver, CO
Except Dallas still has one more year of Niemi and Lehtonen and I don't see how you move either of those contracts. ($10.4 million combined).

Yeah, right. They're in a pickle :shakehead

A few years ago, right around the Spezza trade, I was convinced there wasn't a better GM in the league than Nill. That's proving to be a pretty bad call on my part lol. They just can't put it together.
 

KingBran

Three Eyed Raven
Apr 24, 2014
6,436
2,284
For some reason I can see Elliott going to the Kings to be a backup to Quick. I can't imagine he gets a starting job anywhere. MAYBE Oilers? Maybe the Oilers go all in on Bishop?
 

Brian39

Registered User
Apr 24, 2014
7,135
13,083
For some reason I can see Elliott going to the Kings to be a backup to Quick. I can't imagine he gets a starting job anywhere. MAYBE Oilers? Maybe the Oilers go all in on Bishop?

Why would the Oilers be going after a starter? Talbot is in year 1 of a 3 year deal at $4.1 mil per year and just had a great season. He started 73 games, posted a .919 Sv% and had 7 shutouts for a team that most would agree is at best average defensively.
 

KingBran

Three Eyed Raven
Apr 24, 2014
6,436
2,284
Why would the Oilers be going after a starter? Talbot is in year 1 of a 3 year deal at $4.1 mil per year and just had a great season. He started 73 games, posted a .919 Sv% and had 7 shutouts for a team that most would agree is at best average defensively.

Who says they would have to be starters? Insurance in net is a good thing to have.
 

Brian39

Registered User
Apr 24, 2014
7,135
13,083
Except Dallas still has one more year of Niemi and Lehtonen and I don't see how you move either of those contracts. ($10.4 million combined).

I can't imagine that Dallas still has both of those guys next year. If they can't bribe a team to take one, they can and should use a buyout. Buying out Niemi would be $1.5 mil against the cap for 2 years (his current cap hit is $4.5 mil) and buying out Lehtonen would be $2.57 mil against the cap next year and $1.66 mil the year after (his current cap hit is $5.9 mil). Buying one out allows them to fix the problem this year (assuming they target the right guy).

A buyout frees up $3-$3.3 mil in space for this upcoming season. If they think Elliott, Darling, or Bernier is the answer, they can likely bring that goalie in and wind up spending roughly the same amount in cap space for goaltending next year (including the buyout). The next season, that $1.5-$1.66 mil buyout penalty is insanely manageable because the other current goalie will also be gone and Elliott/Darling/Bernier would be on year 2 of what should be a reasonable deal. Bring in a backup making $1.5 mil and you still have less than $7 mil tied up in goaltending.

I'm not sure if Elliott should be their target given the state of their D, but if there is a UFA goalie who they believe is the answer, a buyout gives them the chance to do it. Even if they want Bishop, they could likely afford him if they buyout a goalie. The buyout saving won't completely cover a contract to Bishop, but it would likely get them about 60% of the way there given Bishop's season.
 

Brian39

Registered User
Apr 24, 2014
7,135
13,083
Who says they would have to be starters? Insurance in net is a good thing to have.

Your post was about him getting a starting job somewhere and you listed the Oilers as the only possibility.

"I can't imagine he gets a starting job anywhere. MAYBE Oilers? Maybe the Oilers go all in on Bishop?"
 

DatDude44

Hmmmm?
Feb 23, 2012
6,151
2,907
I love being right lol. Really liked the elliott trade when it happened, love it even more now with how allen has taken the reigns and kyrou's development this year.... Even if allen sputters over the next couple years (because yes goalies are unpredictable as ****) i am very confident in Ville Husso coming in and being our future starter.

The blues franchise is in a great spot right now. 2nd round of the playoffs, all our young studs signed/will be signed long term, names like thompson, dunn, barbashev, wallman to look forward to for years. As well as two 1st rd picks in the upcoming draft! Now if we can just rid ourselves of the lehtera contract
 

ezcreepin

Registered User
Dec 5, 2016
2,565
2,305
This. Don't be shocked to see him exposed in the draft over Darling.

Really don't know if I buy that. Grubauer is probably going to be the one taken from the Caps in the ED, but I don't see the Hawks leaving Crawford unprotected. Plus the goalie market is oversaturated, so they probably don't have to worry about that situation. I see them putting their cap into centers and then defenseman as opposed to a $6 million Crawford, but who knows
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad