Let's Go Blues

According to NHL.com. EDIT

Kane and Toews will reportedly receive identical 5-years deals worth $31.5 million ($6.3 million per season) and Keith will earn a 13-year extension for $72 million ($5.54 million per season).

Hawks Cap Hit

Hopefully NHLnumbers.com will crunch the salaries so we can see the Hawks basically AT the cap for next season, thus forcing them to let go everyone who has a contract due up

SOURCE

How the puck...

They'll be fine. Some guys will be gone next season when these contracts kick in. As much as I would hate to lose Sharp, that might have to happen. Versteeg and Byfuglien are probably gone, which wouldn't really hurt my feelings all that much. They'll figure something out.

13 years....

lawlz.

ViPeRx007 wrote:13 years....

lawlz.

13 years is a long time, but Keith is one of the two players on the roster that I would think of giving that contract to. One, he's young but has been in the league long enough to have a good gauge on how his career is going to turn out. Knock on wood, he's proven to be very durable. Second, they had to structure the contract that way due to cap purposes. On the open market, Keith is a maximum contract player. The NHL can complain all they want about that loophole, but they signed the same contract that the NHLPA did.

Ruutu15 wrote:They'll be fine. Some guys will be gone next season when these contracts kick in. As much as I would hate to lose Sharp, that might have to happen. Versteeg and Byfuglien are probably gone, which wouldn't really hurt my feelings all that much. They'll figure something out.

It really pains me to say this, but if it's true, then the Hawks GM should get GM of the year, that's all I gotta say.

As long as the Hawks keep the cheap, young depth guys rising through the system to the big club, they can afford to do what they're doing. Still pissed though

Please ban these long term contracts... 13 years? C'mon...

Ruutu15 wrote: They'll figure something out.

Yeah, they'll figure something out alright - they'll figure out just what the Wings have this season.

Steve Levy Sucks wrote:

Ruutu15 wrote: They'll figure something out.

Yeah, they'll figure something out alright - they'll figure out just what the Wings have this season.

That smoking pole for money doesn't pay what it used to?

So what teams have screwed with the rules like this now?

The Hawks twice and the Wings once? Who else?

This is some crap if you ask me. It completely screws with the intent of the salary cap. I don't really blame the teams for doing it, but at the same time I'm pissed about it. It ****s up the competition for free agents, it ****s up the intent of the cap, and it ****s up competition.

It's really just not fair and it's blatantly spits in the face of the entire concept of the cap. There are rules and then there are loopholes, but this is a loophole big enough to drive a truck through and I do consider it borderline cheating.

Every other owner in the league should make an example of these fools and publicly make a pact to not make any deals of any kind with any team that so brazenly violates the spirit of the salary cap like this. F*** Em. F*** em in the ass.

kodos wrote:So what teams have screwed with the rules like this now?

The Hawks twice and the Wings once? Who else?

This is some crap if you ask me. It completely screws with the intent of the salary cap. I don't really blame the teams for doing it, but at the same time I'm pissed about it. It ****s up the competition for free agents, it ****s up the intent of the cap, and it ****s up competition.

It's really just not fair and it's blatantly spits in the face of the entire concept of the cap. There are rules and then there are loopholes, but this is a loophole big enough to drive a truck through and I do consider it borderline cheating.

Every other owner in the league should make an example of these fools and publicly make a pact to not make any deals of any kind with any team that so brazenly violates the spirit of the salary cap like this. F*** Em. F*** em in the ass.

I'll give you Hossa, I can understand how that can be seen as circumventing the cap. However, I disagree completely with Keith. 13 years is a long time, but he's also a young cornerstone of the franchise. If he wants to essentially take less money and be loyal to his team (there's a concept), who is to say that he shouldn't be able to do that? In the end, it's Duncan Keith who is losing money on the deal.

The loophole is there. How can you really tell a player that he can "ONLY" sign for 5 years? If a guy wants to take less money to play somewhere, who's to tell him that he shouldn't be able to do that? I understand both sides of the issue, but both sides signed the same CBA.

You change the rule to make it so players have to make the same amount every year, no more of this 7,7,7,3,1,1,1,1,1,1 bull****. It's 3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3 and that's it. No more frontloading anything.

And any player who signs a deal that goes over his 37th birthday and goes on to retire will have his salary continue to count against the cap of the team he signed for. (barring injury)

So if you are 35, and sign a 5 year deal, and retire after 2 years, your team will still have your salary counting against the cap for 3 years.

kodos wrote:So what teams have screwed with the rules like this now?

The Hawks twice and the Wings once? Who else?

This is some crap if you ask me. It completely screws with the intent of the salary cap. I don't really blame the teams for doing it, but at the same time I'm pissed about it. It ****s up the competition for free agents, it ****s up the intent of the cap, and it ****s up competition.

It's really just not fair and it's blatantly spits in the face of the entire concept of the cap. There are rules and then there are loopholes, but this is a loophole big enough to drive a truck through and I do consider it borderline cheating.

Every other owner in the league should make an example of these fools and publicly make a pact to not make any deals of any kind with any team that so brazenly violates the spirit of the salary cap like this. F*** Em. F*** em in the ass.

At the same time- a team can REALLY get burned by signing retarded long term deals.

Alexei Yashin's contract is STILL being paid off by the Isles and Rick DiPietro is really looking like that paid off.

If the owner doesn't care about spending millions for no good reason other than paying off a player that is no longer the "cornerstone of the franchise" when he has 3 concussions in two seasons, then fine. There's no way around it- these contracts are a risk- especially for the first 8 years or whatever it is.

AND- even if the owner of the Hawks/Wings/etc are okay taking those risks, other teams might not. In other words, if the Hawks want to move Campbell, Keith or Hossa tomorrow- who in the FRANK is going to trade for those guys? Not many. It's a double edged sword, the team gets the benefit of the salary hit but can get royally f*cked if things don't go "according to plan," or if something happens where they have to suddenly move a massive contract.

Is everyone here going to be upset when we sign EJ to one of those "crazy" contracts? We'd be foolish to not take advantage of the loophole.

Sweetred95ta wrote:Is everyone here going to be upset when we sign EJ to one of those "crazy" contracts? We'd be foolish to not take advantage of the loophole.

Exactly.

kodos wrote:So what teams have screwed with the rules like this now?

The Hawks twice and the Wings once? Who else?

This is some crap if you ask me. It completely screws with the intent of the salary cap. I don't really blame the teams for doing it, but at the same time I'm pissed about it. It ****s up the competition for free agents, it ****s up the intent of the cap, and it ****s up competition.

It's really just not fair and it's blatantly spits in the face of the entire concept of the cap. There are rules and then there are loopholes, but this is a loophole big enough to drive a truck through and I do consider it borderline cheating.

Every other owner in the league should make an example of these fools and publicly make a pact to not make any deals of any kind with any team that so brazenly violates the spirit of the salary cap like this. F*** Em. F*** em in the ass.

Forget Chris Pronger's deal with the Flyers?

Sweetred95ta wrote:Is everyone here going to be upset when we sign EJ to one of those "crazy" contracts? We'd be foolish to not take advantage of the loophole.

By the time the Blues sign EJ, the NHL will have changed the rules and the Blues will end up getting screwed. EJ will then go win a cup with New Jersey.

Sweetred95ta wrote:Is everyone here going to be upset when we sign EJ to one of those "crazy" contracts? We'd be foolish to not take advantage of the loophole.

I was thinking the same thing...I see Ej signed for atleast 10 years...Others like Oshie, Perron, and Backes will also garner long term contracts...so ( hope I don't chock on this) GOOD ON the Hawks for having the balls to sign Duncan Keith to an extra long term contact...They will have to live with it if it doesn't work out, but hey...name of the game...

I BLEED BLUE, DO YOU>>??

Oh, for the record, I definitely agree that all of these contracts are pure bullshit. I like the idea of a salary cap. It keeps the entire league competitive and keeps guys from being overpaid. I just made my previous post, because it's something that could become a realistic situation.

I understand why you're frustrated. You just watched your rival cement its roster long term. We can all argue whether or not the loophole should be closed, or even if the NHL should penalize teams for finding a legal workaround to a contract that THEY agreed to. Frontloaded contracts are nothing new, and the only person who could possibly be hurt by it is the player himself. If anyone on the team is worth locking down for 13 years, it's Duncan Keith (and Toews as well). This obviously adds protection of sorts if he gets injured or slows down in the future. Keith obviously has no problem for playing for what will likely amount to be peanuts 10 years from now, or he wouldn't have signed it.

You don't want teams to lock down their young players? For all of the Keiths, Kanes, Toews, and Seabrooks, I've had to endure the Vorobievs, Babchucks, and Radulovs. Why should the Hawks not be able to keep the guys that they've drafted, should they show the desire to sign long term?

Want some of your own Duncan Keiths and Patrick Kanes? Here's an idea, hire better scouts and draft better.