Salary Cap Crunch Part 2- The Capocalypse

[Hawkscap]

I'm curious, for those of you cap experts, if it's within the CBA to structure salary based on percentage of the cap. Say for instance we had been able to sign Kane and Toews for 13% of the team cap figure. That would put them in the 9 million range for the first few years, but likely higher as the cap (conceivably) continues to rise. This guarantees 2 things: one is your players are making "market value" as the cap changes, while it also protects the team (short term especially) if the cap unexpectedly goes down.

No on has structured a contract like this to my knowledge, but it seems like it would be something that would work. I'm just not sure if it's allowable or not.

Toews, Kane and Bowman really screwed us. 9-9.5 million would have been more than fair while also giving this team much needed money. With the amount of exposure (sponsorship $$) they receive here, the that extra 1-1.5 million per was much more valuable to the team than it was for them.

It is not legal. This topic comes up every few months in the Hockey Business Section.

 

[Kawzee]

Ben Smith is a interesting one. I like Ben, barely puts a foot wrong, but can we get some one who does what Ben does, but on a much cheaper contract?

 

[Hawkscap]

It really comes down to Bickell + one of Shaw, Kruger, Versteeg.

 

[bwana63]

It really comes down to Bickell + one of Shaw, Kruger, Versteeg.

I think you're right. FWLIW, odd man out should be Shaw IMO.

 

[hisgirlfriday]

Ben Smith is a interesting one. I like Ben, barely puts a foot wrong, but can we get some one who does what Ben does, but on a much cheaper contract?

I don't know if we can get someone who brings exactly what he does for what he gave us at 550k last season. It's possible/probable we might not get exactly what he brings by replacing him with a IceHogs call-up or cheapo UFA 4th line vet at a lower price point, but if the cap is flat Ben Smith's a guy who I would have zero problems with the Hawks moving even though I like him a lot.

And if the cap is flat, sorry guys it's gonna take more than Bickell + one of Shaw/Versteeg/Kruger.

 

[Hawkscap]

If it is flat then it looks to be Sharp + one of Shaw, Kruger, Versteeg, Bickell

 

[Taze em]

Dislike.

http://nhlnumbers.com/2015/1/31/eyes-on-the-dollar-chicago-blackhawks

Dumbest article I've ever read on the subject. He thinks we will trade Bickell, Sharp AND Seabrook + lose all the UFA.

Are we trying to barely be above the cap floor .

There are going to be alot of really stupid peope saying alot of really stupid things about the Hawks and what they "have" to do.

 

[AmericanDream]

I give him credit for a nice looking article, but outside of that he needs to relax on the panic button as we know we will lose 2-4 players at the most, and a combo of Seabrook and Sharp is the least likely unless someone very very good is coming back our way.

 

[Hawkscap]

Holy crap that is all kinds of wrong.

 

[Toews2Bickell]

Cap will go to 70M and the Hawks will move some role guys. I don't see anybody from the core moving, and I also think Saad will resign for less than 3M. And he should with Schwartz getting only 2.35M/yr for 2 years. That's his comp imo. I can't see anybody giving us fair value for Sharp and losing Sharp to keep Bickell would be a disaster, and I'm sure most agree with that.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

So.... this is potentially terrifying....

Morgan Stanley sees the loonie dropping to 60 U.S. cents by next year, the most bearish forecast in a Bloomberg survey. HSBC Holdings Plc is calling for a 65 cent Canadian dollar while Macquarie Group Ltd. forecast Monday the currency would reach a bottom near 69 U.S. cents. Royal Bank of Canada and Credit Suisse Group AG last week lowered their forecasts to 66 cents.

http://www.thestar.com/business/2015/02/02/loonie-could-drop-as-low-as-60-cents-us-analysts-say.html

Meep.

 

[Taze em]

So.... this is potentially terrifying....



http://www.thestar.com/business/2015/02/02/loonie-could-drop-as-low-as-60-cents-us-analysts-say.html

Meep.

Yea, I brought that up before... $.60. The more news like this come out, the more I think Crawford needs to be traded and soon.

If Darling, Raanta, Nilsson are only 80% as good as Crawford it's still an awful lot better than the alternative.

This is just becoming a disaster. St Louis, LA, Chicago, NYR, Pitt, Montreal, Tampa, Boston... we are in store for a wholesale change in the power of the NHL. Things are working out great for teams like Buffalo and the Islanders. Their timing couldn't be better.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

Again, as I always ask, and have never gotten an answer:

1) What contender has the cap space or need for Crawford?
2) What mediocre team is a Crawford away from contention?
3) What bad team needs to spend money on a netminder?
4) If you have an answer for 1, 2, or 3, please advise as to how much of Crow's cap hit do you think we'd be expected to retain in such a trade?

If we find somebody that would take Crow and if we only have to retain a modest portion and if the guys you mentioned are only 80% as good as Crow, do you really think that a downgrade, even a slight one, in net would be worthwhile if all it got us was maybe a medium level guy or a few middling guys?

Like it or not, Crow's going to be part of this team for the remainder of his deal, barring a scenario where we either sink a significant chunk of his salary by waiving him or retain half or more of his hit in a trade and essentially invalidate the purpose of having a few million in extra cap space but a significant downgrade in net. And, as we've seen with goaltender contracts across the league, his salary has already become the new norm for quality starters. Granted, the new new norm might be a few million bucks less in two or three years, but we won't be the only team stuck with a suddenly costly netminder contract my a long shot.

That being said, I do agree with you regarding the timing being beneficial for the lower cap teams. Anaheim, Nashville, and the Islanders should particularly benefit, and teams that are looking for a potential quick rebound, like Calgary (I'm hesitant to put them here versus the previous category, but I have doubts about them replicating this success moving forward without some key pickups), Phoenix, and Buffalo, could very likely reap the benefits of a number of teams needing to do minor to major firesales. In the next two years, we are going to see a seismic shift in the standings.

 

[Taze em]

Again, as I always ask, and have never gotten an answer:

1) What contender has the cap space or need for Crawford? none
2) What mediocre team is a Crawford away from contention? Minnesota, San Jose
3) What bad team needs to spend money on a netminder?Almost all of them... this is where you find a home for him. Edmonton, Philly, Buffalo
4) If you have an answer for 1, 2, or 3, please advise as to how much of Crow's cap hit do you think we'd be expected to retain in such a trade?

If we find somebody that would take Crow and if we only have to retain a modest portion and if the guys you mentioned are only 80% as good as Crow, do you really think that a downgrade, even a slight one, in net would be worthwhile if all it got us was maybe a medium level guy or a few middling guys?

Like it or not, Crow's going to be part of this team for the remainder of his deal, barring a scenario where we either sink a significant chunk of his salary by waiving him or or eat a huge chunk of his contract and essentially invalidate the purpose of having a few million in extra cap space but a significant downgrade in net.

Eat a million off that cap number if you have to, you still save 4M against the cap by playing the young guys.

The alternative is 2016/2017 you have a roster of Toews, Kane, Saad, Keith, Hjalmarsson, Crawford and all sub $1M contracts. That's $41M caught up in those 6, 17 spots to fill in a 65-70M cap. 17 spots for 24-29M. That isn't even factoring in Hossa who will have a 5.9M cap hit but will be playing for $1M. If he retired (more likely than not) you are looking at 4 more million in recapture making it 17 spots with 19-25M to fill them.

It's a disaster. Either way it's a disaster.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

I think we'd have to eat more than a million in a trade, tbqh.

As for the team options you mentioned.... San Jose and Minnesota are both plausible, but these are teams that have been burned in the past in this realm with goaltending and likely would want more flexibility with lower cap hit vets or rookies and play it by ear and hope one of them develops into a solid starter while improving the team in from of him, thereby delaying worrying about paying a guy until later. Makes more sense for San Jose, though, I'll give you that. Philly's going to be in cap hell like the rest of us, so they're a no go. Edmonton and Buffalo are still, best case scenario, a number of years away from being true contenders, so not really seeing the point in them spending big on netminding now. Regardless, I'm guessing that we'd have to eat more of his contract than you're thinking.

As for the cap situation, there's no denying that we're in for a world of hurt. Maybe not as bad next year as it could be, but 16/17 if the $0.60 Canadian turns out to be true? Whoa yeah, especially as you're forgetting Hossa's contract, who I think still has another two or three years in him before he wants to pull a Pronger. And that's ignoring the potential hammer of the players not using the escalator.

 

[Taze em]

I think we'd have to eat more than a million in a trade, tbqh.

As for the team options you mentioned.... San Jose and Minnesota are both plausible, but these are teams that have been burned in the past in this realm with goaltending and likely would want more flexibility with lower cap hit vets or rookies and play it by ear and hope one of them develops into a solid starter while improving the team in from of him, thereby delaying worrying about paying a guy until later. Makes more sense for San Jose, though, I'll give you that. Philly's going to be in cap hell like the rest of us, so they're a no go. Edmonton and Buffalo are still, best case scenario, a number of years away from being true contenders, so not really seeing the point in them spending big on netminding now. Regardless, I'm guessing that we'd have to eat more of his contract than you're thinking.

As for the cap situation, there's no denying that we're in for a world of hurt. Maybe not as bad next years as it could be, but 16/17 if the $0.60 Canadian turns out to be true? Whoa yeah, especially as you're forgetting Hossa's contract, who I think still has another two or three years in him before he wants to pull a Pronger.

On your Edmonton and Buffalo comments... I'd regularly agree that they wouldnt be ready to contend but now, I mean with the cap eating a $.60 Canadian dollar... Buffalo might be a dynasty starting as soon as 2016/2017.

They will have McEichel/Reinhart in soph season, Zadorov and Ristolainen who will be experienced but still not expensive, prime Myers + all us teams destroyed by the cap will be leaking good players to teams like them.

I don't know wtf the league is going to do. The best teams now are the prestige teams. We are asking the likes of Buffalo, Arizona, Carolina, Florida, Ottawa, Edmonton, Calgary to be CAP TEAMS to swallow up all these contracts the prestige teams will have to lose. AND Ottawa, Edmonton and Calgary will be in bad shape BECAUSE of the brutal exchange rate.

From the Hawks perspective it's looking like you might need to just dismantle this team completely sooner rather than later and hope you beat all the other teams to it, or else you might be stuck.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

Eh, a bit early to anoint Buffalo, ain't it?

But yeah, a whole lotta powerhouses are in for a whole lotta hurt soon.

 

[Taze em]

Eh, a bit early to anoint Buffalo, ain't it?

But yeah, a whole lotta powerhouses are in for a whole lotta hurt soon.

Yes it's early, but any team who has a clean cap sheet with little money tied up long term becomes a big threat. I single them out because they have complete cap flexibility and the best prospect pool (i.e. impact players making sub $1M for 3 years while all this hits).

 

[No Fun Shogun]

Fair point. Buffalo clearly tanked at the right time and in a smart way, as opposed to a certain other very cold market that will remain nameless but ironically involve the very same industry that's wrecking shop with the Canadian dollar.

 

[Taze em]

Just remembered the way this all gets fixed and now I feel dumb.

Expansion. That's where all this dead weight throughout the league will go, 2 new teams. That's where you can shed Crawford down the line. A SC goalie for 8% of your cap to market in a new market.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

Just remembered the way this all gets fixed and now I feel dumb.

Expansion. That's where all this dead weight throughout the league will go, 2 new teams. That's where you can shed Crawford down the line. A SC goalie for 8% of your cap to market in a new market.

I honestly hadn't considered that.

Go, Vegas, go!

 

[No Fun Shogun]

That being said, I don't think anyone's expecting an expansion team to join for another 4 or 5 years minimum, so not likely a reliable hope for us.

 

[hisgirlfriday]

That being said, I don't think anyone's expecting an expansion team to join for another 4 or 5 years minimum, so not likely a reliable hope for us.

The Las Vegas arena will open in early 2016 and there is talk of that franchise joining, even on its own, for the 2016-17 season.

 

[Bubba88]

We undervalue Craw a bit here IMO

 

[bwana63]

Just remembered the way this all gets fixed and now I feel dumb.

Expansion. That's where all this dead weight throughout the league will go, 2 new teams. That's where you can shed Crawford down the line. A SC goalie for 8% of your cap to market in a new market.

If Armageddon truly hits, the league will make an adjustment.