Value of: Any bad contract with 3 years term or less to the Blackhawks.
- Thread starter JaegerDice
- Start date
dj Mahoney
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2021
- 1,582
- 844
Most likely a 1st , 2nd , 3rd and good prospect . Hawks could probably do it. Davidson might have to decide between Toronto , Los Angles and Oilers lousy Goalie's
Last edited:
Blackhawkswincup
RIP Fugu
Hawks are not going to take on Campbell at 4 years remaining
His contract is brutal, and no team would want to carry 8 years of dead cap via buyout this summer. Especially not a team that in 3-4 years is hoping to be contender again
| SEASON | INITIAL BASE SALARY | INITIAL CAP HIT | SIGNING BONUS | BUYOUT COST | POST-BUYOUT EARNINGS | SAVINGS | CAP HIT (
|
| 2023-24 | $5,000,000 | $5,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,541,667 | $2,541,667 | $3,458,333 | $1,541,667 |
| 2024-25 | $5,400,000 | $5,000,000 | $0 | $1,541,667 | $1,541,667 | $3,858,333 | $1,141,667 |
| 2025-26 | $4,200,000 | $5,000,000 | $0 | $1,541,667 | $1,541,667 | $2,658,333 | $2,341,667 |
| 2026-27 | $3,900,000 | $5,000,000 | $0 | $1,541,667 | $1,541,667 | $2,358,333 | $2,641,667 |
| 2027-28 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $1,541,667 | $1,541,667 | -$1,541,667 | $1,541,667 |
| 2028-29 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $1,541,667 | $1,541,667 | -$1,541,667 | $1,541,667 |
| 2029-30 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $1,541,667 | $1,541,667 | -$1,541,667 | $1,541,667 |
| 2030-31 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $1,541,667 | $1,541,667 | -$1,541,667 | $1,541,667 |
| TOTAL | $18,500,000 | $20,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $12,333,333 | $13,333,333 | $6,166,667 | $13,833,336 |
TLEH
Pronounced T-Lay
Why not? Hawks need a goalie to usher in either Drew Com or Soderblom, why not get paid out? Next year is a non-contend year, and the following year you hope to be starting to get better. So at worst you have a bad contract for 2 years? To me its not a big deal at all, especially if the pay is right.Hawks are not going to take on Campbell at 4 years remaining
His contract is brutal, and no team would want to carry 8 years of dead cap via buyout this summer. Especially not a team that in 3-4 years is hoping to be contender again
SEASON INITIAL BASE SALARY INITIAL CAP HIT SIGNING BONUS BUYOUT COST POST-BUYOUT EARNINGS SAVINGS CAP HIT ( EDM)2023-24 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,541,667 $2,541,667 $3,458,333 $1,541,667 2024-25 $5,400,000 $5,000,000 $0 $1,541,667 $1,541,667 $3,858,333 $1,141,667 2025-26 $4,200,000 $5,000,000 $0 $1,541,667 $1,541,667 $2,658,333 $2,341,667 2026-27 $3,900,000 $5,000,000 $0 $1,541,667 $1,541,667 $2,358,333 $2,641,667 2027-28 $0 $0 $0 $1,541,667 $1,541,667 -$1,541,667 $1,541,667 2028-29 $0 $0 $0 $1,541,667 $1,541,667 -$1,541,667 $1,541,667 2029-30 $0 $0 $0 $1,541,667 $1,541,667 -$1,541,667 $1,541,667 2030-31 $0 $0 $0 $1,541,667 $1,541,667 -$1,541,667 $1,541,667 TOTAL $18,500,000 $20,000,000 $1,000,000 $12,333,333 $13,333,333 $6,166,667 $13,833,336
Hawkaholic
Registered User
That’s funny. I was worried it was awful for Boston. Three prospects that might never make it for three guys in their mid 20’s that are playing first line/starter minutes.
But I did say it was crazy and never would happen anyway.
Hawkaholic
Registered User
- Dec 15, 2015
- 5,446
- 3,242
I suspect KD is looking for nothing over 2 years. 3 would have to be a massive overpay by the other team as in a couple 1sts or something. Otherwise not sure if that fits his plan keeping a 3 yo stump contract on the books when we already have Seth f***ing Jones.
LOL! Yeah, unrealistic the Hawks give up a 1st prospect from last year's draft and their best G prospect for players that don't fit the timeline.
It really doesn’t matter, so not really worth arguing. I figured Greene and Commesso were unproven, and that a 26 year old wing and 24 year old goalie were pretty good starting pieces for a quick rebuild. Most teams don’t like to rebuild and throw away a few years. But like I said it doesn’t matter anyway.
RogerRoger
Registered User
- Jul 23, 2013
- 5,344
- 3,128
By that point there will be only a year left on a bad contract and getting rid of that would be quite easy and inexpensive. Especially since it coincide with a big (anticipated) cap increase.
Help goes both ways if you want to dump a bad contract
Unless a team desperately needs the money, giving more ammo to Chicago after they lucked their way into Bedard seems foolish.
you dont want to help any team in the league you want to help yourself and if you need to move salary you are giong to have to pay somebody and the thinking would be chicago with so much space this year and next might give you the cheapest sweetner. would you rather give Chicago a 2nd to move a player or give AZ a 2nd and a 3rd?
What a stupid comment. No one is helping but themselves.
If you're contending now, i guess, but stocking up a team that's already loaded for a few years down the road, ESPECIALLY if it's a division or conference rival... I'd rather just find a way to retain, give up less and find another team willing to take on. This is a lazy way out and if you have a good FO there are always options if you're smart enough with numbers.
- Dec 15, 2015
- 5,446
- 3,242
KD had a plan all along compared to Stan Bowman who was generally a shit show GM. Having this space was for this purpose this year and next. Teams that are close but need to clear cap don't really care so much about who but how. They don't have a personal hate towards the Hawks as you do.
I don't have a hate for them at all, but the reality is if Bedard is what they expect, giving the team all the picks and prospects to build a viable team around him the way Edmonton couldn't just to save a few bucks in the foolish attempt at maybe sneaking in as a 7th seed is just a GM trying to save his ass.
They had the third best odds at bedard. So once again if a team wants to dump a contract on a bad team it will cost something. Pay to play on both sides.
No team operates with another team on their mind. All teams operate with based on what will make their team better. Based on your rational, your team should take whoever the hawks were planning to take ahead of you even if they are ranked significantly lower on your board?
- Dec 15, 2015
- 5,446
- 3,242
I am sure there are. But the Hawks have a ton of draft capital with 2 1sts each of the next 3 years. They really don't need teams to 'help' them as you say. It has already been done by this year's trade deadline......proving other teams are interested in winning more than worrying about some other team that has currently cratered.
WTFMAN99
Registered User
- Jun 17, 2009
- 34,121
- 12,254
Just a few ideas:
Edmonton trades Campbell, Broberg/Holloway, 2024 2nd, 2025 3rd to Chicago for the rights to Joey Anderson
Toronto trades Murray, BOS 1st (28th), OTT 7th 24 to Chicago for OTT's 2nd (44th) and Chicago's 7th in 23 - Similar to the Mrazek trade...
Edmonton trades Campbell, Broberg/Holloway, 2024 2nd, 2025 3rd to Chicago for the rights to Joey Anderson
Toronto trades Murray, BOS 1st (28th), OTT 7th 24 to Chicago for OTT's 2nd (44th) and Chicago's 7th in 23 - Similar to the Mrazek trade...
Hawkaholic
Registered User
They aren't doing a quick rebuild. And those aren't good starting pieces for a rebuild, they are basically your scraps.
No on ever wants to help another team, they want to help themselves, but realize transactions have to benefit the other team in some way as well. I promise you, no GM goes in to a trade call with Chicago saying, "screw these guys, they just won the lottery, why would I make a deal with them?"
tear down rebuilds take much longer then people think. even with bedard putting up 70 next year we are bottom 3 on NHL talent for 23-24. GMS are making decision for the next 2-3 years max and our window is way farther out. not sure about 1 year cap dumps but we are proobably one of the few teams that would take 2-3 year cap dumps. Garland peterson hall, there are a few others.
