Rumor has it, is that hes going to be a player/coach. Kinda like what the sox wanted konerko to do at first. Bruno will insert himself on the first unit power play while drawing up plays for the power play on the bench
- Wowo2282

EDIT: Maybe Brunette would be better at drawing up plays on the white board? He can't be any worse than Kitchen, can he?

July 1st should be a very telling and fun day.
- Beaver-Warrior

IF the Hawks are listening to Bettman, taking part, and not holding back waiting for the new CBA.

Which would piss me off no end.

If they give him a one year deal with a lower salary, with the promise of a huge contract extention after that, then that idea could fly.

I don't see any player, even Suter willing to do somethng like that.
- EKolb13

No player would take that chance - risk a career ending injury this year making peanuts while waiting for a potential payday next year. Aslo, what union whould approve this?

No player would take that chance - risk a career ending injury this year making peanuts while waiting for a potential payday next year. Aslo, what union whould approve this?
- powerenforcer

"I don't see any player, even Suter willing to do somethng like that."

Maybe I wasn't as descriptive as you, but I thought I implied as much.

The cap hit is the total salary divided evenly by the nuber of years on the deal.

For example, if Suter were to sign for 6 years at $36 million, his cap hit would be $6 million.

I'm sure you could spread out the actual salary like you've shown, but the cap hit would be the constant average.
- EKolb13

The whole average salary thing may change with the new CBA. A lot of GM"s are pissed about lowering the cap with crap years at the backend. I would look for the new CBA to have some language about average of the highest 3-4 years or something

It would still be a 6 million dollar cap hit. What someone else suggested is if he signed a one year deal at say 4.5 million to help financially fit/ keep lidstrom around for one more year then the wings would guarantee a 6 year deal after that. Its all about the cap hit and not whether contracts are front loaded or back loaded
- Wowo2282

I'm sure the CBA has rules against this - like the NBA does: several years ago, the Timberwolves did something similar with Joe Smith - signed him to a cap-friendly one year deal with a wink and a nod promise of a big deal later on - the league took away their future first round draft picks for several years, IIRC.

"We've won with these guys in the past and we can win again with them."

Isn't this a loose description of insanity? Trying the same thing over again and expecting different results?
- EKolb13

Are you calling me insane? Eh, I've been called worse, I can live with that.

I just meant that our core is good enough to win with. We don't have to upgrade Sharp or Kane or Bolland. If the opportunity arises to make the team better then I say take it, but I wouldn't actively look to make a change.

I'm sure the CBA has rules against this - like the NBA does: several years ago, the Timberwolves did something similar with Joe Smith - signed him to a cap-friendly one year deal with a wink and a nod promise of a big deal later on - the league took away their future first round draft picks for several years, IIRC.
- StLBravesFan

this is true and i'm reminded of this every time my whiney arse friend (Minny fan) complain that God likes to piss on all Minny sports teams.

The whole average salary thing may change with the new CBA. A lot of GM"s are pissed about lowering the cap with crap years at the backend. I would look for the new CBA to have some language about average of the highest 3-4 years or something
- eburgio

And this relates to explaining how a "cap hit" works? That's what I was trying to explain to someone.

What you're talking about are deals that circumvent the cap. Deals that players like Luongo, Hossa and Kovalchuk recieved. I believe the league has already addressed this matter, and New Jersey got penalized for it.

I'm sure it will come up again during CBA negotiations. I'm sure there will be some kind of fight that comes up about placing a ceiling on how many years a team can give to a player in a contract. What actually comes of it, who knows?

Are you calling me insane? Eh, I've been called worse, I can live with that.

I just meant that our core is good enough to win with. We don't have to upgrade Sharp or Kane or Bolland. If the opportunity arises to make the team better then I say take it, but I wouldn't actively look to make a change.
- DarthKane

No, I'm not really calling you insane. I just saw an opritunity to pick on you a little bit and took it. No harm meant.

• Flatter contracts: Speaking of those front-loaded deals, those have angered some middle- to small-market clubs that feel they're at a competitive disadvantage because they can't shell out that kind of cash up front. We believe the league will try to address this in the next CBA by trying to institute some form of "flat contract" concept, in which the salary is more or less spread evenly across a contract, at least within a more reasonable range in any case. This will nullify front-loaded deals but also put an end to those "cheat deals" such as the contracts signed by Roberto Luongo and Marian Hossa, in which the final years on the deals are pennies in order to bring down the yearly cap hit. The players in turn were not expected to actually play out those final seasons. The "flat contract" concept would take care of these loopholes. But again, the players have a big say in this. They enjoy the benefits of front-loaded contracts for obvious reasons -- such as cash in their pockets right now.

From an ESPN article a few months back.

And this relates to explaining how a "cap hit" works? That's what I was trying to explain to someone.

What you're talking about are deals that circumvent the cap. Deals that players like Luongo, Hossa and Kovalchuk recieved. I believe the league has already addressed this matter, and New Jersey got penalized for it.

I'm sure it will come up again during CBA negotiations. I'm sure there will be some kind of fight that comes up about placing a ceiling on how many years a team can give to a player in a contract. What actually comes of it, who knows?
- EKolb13

I see two possible solutions to this problem.

1.) Make all new contracts starting in 2013 have the cap hit be the actual salary for that year, with the exception of a signing bonus being spread evenly throughout the life of the contract. Like in football. The complications are that then you have to leave the legacy contracts the same since it would really mess with the cap, and that just makes things more complicated. Dale Tallon would be a mess in this scenario.

2.) Have a fluctuation clause in all contracts. Say a players salary cannot change by more than +/- 20% from year to year in a multi year contract. You can still have an increasing or decreasing contract, but it can't be radical like $8MM for four years, then $2MM for two years. It would have to be like $8MM, $8MM, $6MM, $6MM, $5MM, $4MM, $3.2MM, etc.

Is this too simplistic?

I see two possible solutions to this problem.

1.) Make all new contracts starting in 2013 have the cap hit be the actual salary for that year, with the exception of a signing bonus being spread evenly throughout the life of the contract. Like in football. The complications are that then you have to leave the legacy contracts the same since it would really mess with the cap, and that just makes things more complicated. Dale Tallon would be a mess in this scenario.

2.) Have a fluctuation clause in all contracts. Say a players salary cannot change by more than +/- 20% from year to year in a multi year contract. You can still have an increasing or decreasing contract, but it can't be radical like $8MM for four years, then $2MM for two years. It would have to be like $8MM, $8MM, $6MM, $6MM, $5MM, $4MM, $3.2MM, etc.

Is this too simplistic?
- coldsteelonice

Even simpler - limit the length of contracts - to, say, 5 years.

Go back and read JJ's blog. He did mention Helm.
- EKolb13

I know he was...that's why i said i should have included him

A combination of the following:

** Cap going up $4-5M strictly due to big revenue increase
** Escalator clause exercised by NHLPA (cap could hit $72M)
** Amnesty contract (Rocky would likely hate that since he's just got out from under Huet's $5.625M a year for the last 2 years) 'Hawks would essentially 'eat'.

After all is said and done, if the CBA were to "rollback" the cap, the players salaries would be rolled back commensurate with the cap, not penalizing big market teams.

Go ahead and read this from Spector:

http://www.nhl.com/index.php/spector

And believe it or not, this from Ek:

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog.php?blogger_id=1
- blackhawk24

Nice work brother....so the core could conceivably stay in tact and add Suter as well....

Problem with Frolik is his deal. Makes him hard to trade. You have to find a team that believes it can get value out of him at that price. In some ways, he could be worth that to the Hawks if he can consistently bring it like he has in the playoffs.
- John Jaeckel

Exactly....BIG IF though.

The current front office mess isn't going to trade Sharp.
- EKolb13

Why would they ? He led the team in Tazer's absence.

1. Team went 13-9
2. Sharpie had 18 points in those 22 games, DESPITE going pointless the first 5 games of Tazer's absence
3. And he registered 73 shots on goal..

I see two possible solutions to this problem.

1.) Make all new contracts starting in 2013 have the cap hit be the actual salary for that year, with the exception of a signing bonus being spread evenly throughout the life of the contract. Like in football. The complications are that then you have to leave the legacy contracts the same since it would really mess with the cap, and that just makes things more complicated. Dale Tallon would be a mess in this scenario.

2.) Have a fluctuation clause in all contracts. Say a players salary cannot change by more than +/- 20% from year to year in a multi year contract. You can still have an increasing or decreasing contract, but it can't be radical like $8MM for four years, then $2MM for two years. It would have to be like $8MM, $8MM, $6MM, $6MM, $5MM, $4MM, $3.2MM, etc.

Is this too simplistic?
- coldsteelonice

Yes, that's why it'll never get passed!!!

See my post immediately above. All due respect, that is a ridiculous argument. If I'm Suter, I LOVE having Keith and Seabrook around to play with, take pressure off of me and extend my career. PLEASE.

I hear the Preds are on Suter's list. I also hear Papa Bob wants Ryan out of there. FWIW.
- John Jaeckel

I'm sure Ryan would love to play with Keith and Seabrook but I don't think Duncan or Brent are ready to give up being the man. Somebody will have to give up some responsibilities if Suter comes aboard cause he will want to be that guy as well. It is not a ridiculous argument, I asked who thought would move to the 2nd pairing?

FWIW: I would have never moved Campbell in the 1st place if you are bringing in Suter.

Wings will have close to 21 million with 17 players signed while the Hawks have close to 6.9 million with 20 players signed.

I don't get why people on here are wondering if the Wings can afford Suter if Lidstrom retires when they can afford him (at a 7.5 cap hit) even if Lidstrom came back at 6.2 million.

Stuart is gone and that's why they traded for Quincey to replace him. Holmstrom retires imo. Hudler is gone...someone will overpay him like Buffalo did with Leino. Helm won't cost more than 2 million per (i don't think unless it's a long term deal) and Abdelkader isn't worth more than 1.5 million at most. Nyquist should be full time next season and so should Brendan Smith.

It was stated by the media that unless something happens Carle cannot be resigned by Philly until July 1st. Because of a “salary tagging” rule, which precludes teams from exceeding the current salary cap before next season’s cap ceiling is announced.

So if the Flyers want to do anything with their roster before then they basically have to make some sort of moves involving their contracts that extend into next season.

http://www.thehockeynews....288-Pony-up-for-Nash.html
- Steve-B

Good call.

If this is the case, Ryan is better off staying in Nashville.
- slash&smash

Don't underestimate a father's will to be closer to his family.

No, I'm not really calling you insane. I just saw an opritunity to pick on you a little bit and took it. No harm meant.
- EKolb13

I know, I'm just having fun too.

I'm sure Ryan would love to play with Keith and Seabrook but I don't think Duncan or Brent are ready to give up being the man. Somebody will have to give up some responsibilities if Suter comes aboard cause he will want to be that guy as well. It is not a ridiculous argument, I asked who thought would move to the 2nd pairing?

FWIW: I would have never moved Campbell in the 1st place if you are bringing in Suter.
- slash&smash

I don't think is a ridiculous argument either. Lots of players make decisions based on their potential role with a team. Jagr for instance would love to play with Malkin and Crosby...... But he chose Philly cause he wanted 1st line minutes and PP opportunity. 1st pairing dmen get more minutes and get more time against the best players on the opponents team. It's also more prestigious to be the #1 guy on the d. Some guys care about that. Is Suter one, I don't know? Definitely don't think its a ridiculous argument.

Don't underestimate a father's will to be closer to his family.
- Fat_Tony_Amonte

A father's will will never hold a candle to a wife and mother of your children wants and needs. I think this have more bearing than proximity. Hell with Ryan's new contract, he can afford to fly old Bob around the states if need be.