5-year extensions for Toews and Kane?
TSN.ca’s Bob McKenzie is reporting Jonathan Toews and Patrick Kane will get five-year contract extensions averaging more than $6 million a season.
The Blackhawks have yet to announce new contracts for Toews, Kane and Duncan Keith and they might not make them official until after the road trip.
According to Canada’s TSN, Keith’s deal could be for as many as 13 years, which would lower the defenseman’s cap hit, likely to less than $6 million.
The NHL is expected to take a hard look at Keith’s extension before giving an OK because of it’s length.
Deputy commissioner Bill Daly warned general managers last week in Toronto about trying to circumvent the salary cap with long-term deals such as the 12-year contract the Hawks gave Marian Hossa that is s till being investigated by the league.
Should Toews, Kane and Keith get deals with $6 million cap hits each, it would give the Hawks 15 players signed for next season with a collective cap hit of roughly $60.4 million.
The NHL’s salary cap presently sits at $56.8 million and isn’t expected to go up.
The Blackhawks currently having over $43 million committed to next season's payroll the projected numbers for the new contract of Kane, Toews (rumored to be $6 million per season each) and Keith (rumored to be around $5 million per) would push the 'Hawks payroll for next season to over $60 million, which exceeds the projected CAP numbers for next season, even if they stay firm.
The 'hawks would have to trade away and or dump salary before officially announcing their re-signings.
These are all rumors for now and we know that the talk could be way off. We should wait and see what actually happens before we believe what people are saying or assuming.
Could we be becoming the new Tampa Bay Lightning? Richards, St.Louis and Lecavalier contracts sunk that team. At least they got a cup. What have we won?
I would have to say the comparison to Tampa isn't AS correct, because they traded Richards for garbage and projection that Smith WOULD BE an solid NHL starter.
There are two lines on TB that are basically terrible due to cap constraints and having seen St. Louis and Lecavalier live last Saturday against LA, they were no where near impact players in the game.
The Hawk roster has more skill in the crucial places for scoring goals.
Vinnie is closely tied to the community and the market but his contract is a weight on the GMs ability, along with all the ridiculous deals that they made and players signed since the Oren Lin show arrived on the scene.
The Hawks can score from all over, and the Lightning just CAN'T.
I see San Jose and Philly tomorrow here in SJ.....
TB were junk before the Richards trade. The overpayment of their core 3 forced them to plug holes in a leaky boat. They traded Richards in the same climate that folks on here call for 51 to be traded. And we'll get nothing for 51 just like Tampa got for Richards.
Another possibility it to have the 5 yr contracts to average 5 to 6 million, but maybe start out with less of a cap it in the first years and then escalates in later years. By the 3rd year Huet is off the books and the remaining part of Campbells contract is possibly movable.
I was born in the 50's. How many times since then have fans been worried or complained about the team ownership overpaying to keep the core together. Most of the last 50 years the core was not worth keeping together. The years we did have a core worth keeping management was trying to get by on one year deals on the cheap. When the players would not take below market deals they were gone. So lets keep this in perspective.
As I recall, those deals totaled like $21 million a season under a much lower salary cap.
Listen, Bowman's in a conundrum here mostly because of some of the deals Tallon handed out, but I think he's trying to do the right thing. Sure, it might cost the Hawks a couple of young players who, in the end, might not really fit what the Hawks are trying to do on the ice anyway.
I posted this on Eklund's blog last night: setting aside how you feel about Campbell, what's so bad about having Kane, Toews, Keith, Campbell and Hossa all locked up through at least 2015 at a total of 29 million a season? When you consider that the cap is twice that now and likely to be possibly 30-40% higher by 2015, it makes a TON of sense over the long term.
I'm fine with the five names you mention through 2015, though I'm still leery of Hossa's deal. The issue to me is that Hossa is now 30 and historically there is a huge dropoff in play of great players after they hit 30. But at that point Campbell's deal won't be the elephant in the room that it is now so even if Hossa drops off the planet at 35 the Hawks won't get killed.
This cap stuff is really an entertaining amusement....though Stan might age 25 years by the time next season rolls around. But much of the work he needs to do he created for himself since there's no way he didn't have say on every deal done since he arrived as the defacto capologist/accountant. Either way he has a lot to do and we'll have a much better idea of who will be tradebait once we see the exact terms of the Big 3 deals.
A GM from another NHL team told ESPN.com Tuesday that he believed Bowman would need to move a player or two before finalizing these three extensions because he may not have enough "tagging room" on next year's salary cap. As per the collective bargaining agreement, tagging room essentially means a team can't have more money committed on next year's payroll than the limit on this season's salary cap.
HA!
The league allows the contract to go through on July 1 and is still investigating, and then Daly gives the GM's warnings not to do this all the while it being perfectly legal within the CBA?
nice.
The NHL has always been run by a bunch of idiots, and always will be.
Much like McDonough to announce anything when he can market it how he wants to, so I expect any signing announcement to come after the team finishes the road trip. At home, with all the local media exposure.
Of course the other GMs are going to cry foul when it comes to the Hawks. How many teams sell out their building every night? The Hawks are making money. Not every franchise can claim that.
The Hawks must, in my opinion, honor their contracts in an honorable way. If they don't they risk jeopardizing any future FAs that might want to come here. This is the way it should be. The NFL, again in my opinion, is very unfair. They can cut a guy and get rid of his contract, but the player does not have an option if he feels he came into a bad deal.
I kind of like the salary cap like the NBA has with the "luxury tax" for a team that exceeds the cap. I do think that the cap needs a little flexibility.
Let's not pretend to be GMs. We are fans. We now have a team that is exciting to watch, has some of the premier young players in the league, and has created a buzz about hockey that has been void in Chicago for years. Be happy that the guys are getting paid and that you can even watch them on tv. Rocky is doing a great job. The franchise is in the top 10 for value. Think of what Bill W gave you and be glad you're a Hawks fan. Players want to play in Chicago and the shameful days cheap contracts are over. Every team has issues and I'm just as dizzy watching Campbell spin-o-rama those turnovers into goals, but I'd rather have that issue than a prehistoric-visioned owner leading a cut-rate team with an empty arena.
Well Said. I'm so tired of "trade This guy and trade that guy". Yes some contracts are horrible and too long, Yes we are over paying some players. But it is so nice to finally have a team that competes every night and not just lays down like they use to in the past. ALL players are going to go thru times when they are not playing to their best. This team has shown that not even playing their best game they can still win.
I am glad to see every game on TV. I am glad to see a team that has a chance to make the playoff every season. I am glad to see the United Center packed for every game. I am glad to see my team trying to keep it's best players. I am glad to see a team that is in the upper half of the league instead of the bottm half.
Does everyone forget that a few short years ago this team and management STUNK. If Toews, Kane and Keith were on this team 7 years ago at least two if not all three are traded away or not resigned.
From an Organization that use to let their stars walk, it's a welcome sight to see them locking up Toews, Kane & Keith. God, it's remarkable how fast a little success wipes out decades of memories of letting our best players go because we didn't want to fork over the $$$$.
There are some complete morons on this blog. At least there hasn't been the fantasy GM proposal where every team would be williing to take on Campbell's contract and the Hawks in return would land a top 6 forward/center.
Man DMAAD, who pissed on your cheerios?
Chastising a blogger yesterday, calling bloggers morons today.
There are different kinds of fans. There will always be those who ring their hands and think the sky is falling and there are those who are lost in the euphoria of a good team and dream up unrealistic moves and trades.
Not everyone has an aptitude for GM'ing a team or can discuss the nuances of positional play. I just stop reading the the posts if I start to perceive them as ridiculous.
I'm enjoying the fact that interest is back up and that so many people are talking about this team and the possibilities.
dhbdad
I too ignore a lot of the stuff that is written on this blog but there is some stuff that needs to be called out, hence it being a blog. I believe the author himself has called out some of the stuff that has been said on here. My Cheerios are still swimming in milk...as I too think it's great this team is getting a lot of attention. But when someone objects to signing Toews, Kane & Keith to long term deals because they don't have the superstar quality that Ovechkin and Crosby possess (which is still yet to be proven), those Cheerios become hard to swallow.
Dude chill a bit :)
I totally agree it is awesome that this team is willing to dish out coin for our core players. No one objects to signing Kane, but you really have to ask if Kane at $6MM a year for 5 years is worth it when he isn't one of the top 30 players in the entire league right now. He has all the tools to emerge as an elite player, but this isn't baseball where you can just say ooops if he is overpaid in 3 years and move on.
I understand. I wasn't calling you out, just having a little fun with you. Enjoy those cheerios
Tim posted earlier in the year that the Hawks could send Huet to Rockford and if no one claimed him his cap hit comes off our books, but the Hawks still have to pay him.
Do the Hawks have the balls to do this to both Campbell and Huet at some point and get these contract off the books? It seems like Rocky is willing to spend money so it is not out of the question.
So, who takes the ice time Campbell has? He isn't playing as well now as the end of last season, granted, but I don't see anyone right now who is going to be as effective at what he does.
Same question with Huet? Who's your # 1 goalie if Huet is gone for no return player?
Why do this? Either way, the Hawks would be on the hook for half their salaries for the terms of their contracts. The only way it makes sense is of you can find/sign a comparable player to each for less than half what you're paying each.
Plus, you risk giving a division rival an absolute cap bargain for a good player.
As much heat as each takes, that's not so easily done. If Huet reverts to his form of a few games early on this year for a long period, then maybe.
But I absolutely don't see that being an answer with Campbell.
The other thing to consider is the message that doing something like this sends to the players, both current and future. If a team did this they are basically taking zero accountability for the deal that they agreed to with the player. They are also setting a slippery policy. What if Hossa has 2 goals and is -14 at Christmas next year. Are they going to send him to Rockford? Or Toews? The NFL can flush out decisions that don't work out but the NHL doesn't have this option. That's why they need to be very careful about who they give 8-10 year deals to.
The team might be able to trade Huet at some point if he plays well, but even if Campbell turns into Paul Coffey tomorrow there is nobody that is going to take on that contract until there is only a year or two remaining so he ain't going anywhere anytime soon if ever. Yes he is overpaid as a 2nd pairing defenseman but he hit the jackpot before people started figuring this cap stuff out and what's done is done. Stan will just need to work around it like the many other teams that have overweight contracts on their roster.
But I think they are only on the hook for half if they are taken on re-entry waivers. I'm not saying send them down. I'll have to double check, but I think if they are taking on waivers on the way down, the team taking them takes the entire contract.
I recall reading the same thing regarding who has the contract liability
dhbdad
When Huet was struggling first part of the year Tim said they were rumblings the Hawks were considering sending him to Rockford:
1. If another team picked him up the Hawks were off the hook for his entire contract.
2. If no one picked him up, the Hawks still owed him his full salary, but the entire amount came off the cap as long as he was in Rockford.
The Hawks have allowed the forth fewest total goals in the entire NHL.
1. No one's claiming him for his entire salary.
2. True, and who plays goalie? Niemi? Biron? What if one of them gets hurt? Who do the Hawks replace him with? Crawford? Yeah, we're supposed to be competing for a Cup this year. Huet? Well, then if someone claims him on re-entry, they get him at half price.
You have been all over the place with some ridiculous statements today. Are you serious?
Good news for Hawks fans, but we have to ask if our core of Toews, Kane, Keith and Hossa are true elite players that can take this team to a Cup since that is all we can afford for a long time.
I love to watch Kane play, but I'm not sure if he is a true superstar yet who deserves $6MM a year for the next 5 years when the best players in the game like Crosby, Iginla, Ovechkin, Zetterberg, Malkin, Lidstrom, etc. all make less than $9million. I guess he is still a great signing if you look at what you would get for about the same money through free agency.
We had to watch the franchise struggle for decades when teams like the Wings and Rangers could spend whatever they wanted to win a Cup. Finally with championship quality talent, the franchise is going to lose key players due to the cap while making a fortune off the ice.
That's what kills me also. The old man kicked the bucket only a couple years after a salary cap was put in place. Imagine all those lean years, but instead with Rocky Wirtz instead of William Wirtz Jr. We likely could have had a couple of Cup victories had the tightwad's son been in charge instead. And starting as far back as when Bobby Hull walked away for more $$$ in 1972.
I know one thing: all the guys leaving have a lot more value than when they were coming in & all will bring picks or promise besides lower contracted guys.
The important thing to remember is there are still guys out like Keith who will play for less to play with other winners.
Let's hope there are guys on this roster willing to sign for less.
The higher contracts of Campbell (7.12mil), Sharp (3.9 mil), Bolland (3.75mil), Versteeg(3.067mil), Buff (3 mil), Barker (3.083 mil), & even Seabrook (3.5 mil) along with Sopel (2.33) and Huet's hefty (5.65 mil) are the ones that constitute the belt tightening. It astounds me that I had to include Seabrook in the group but if the recent Ottawa talks are real, he is out of the Core thinking if they can't find enough takers for the real guys they want to launch.
One think is for certain the lower Rockford farm boys & the first round Cap set players might be where you are filling in for the guys you are losing.
They may just have to send a first or second rounder along with Campbell (if he waives his no trade)or Huet to make space.
Just as we want to see players improve,Bowman will get his chance to do so.
Lots of Bickell, Dowell, Aliu, Skille and fill ins.
Agree: Skille gone before then. If he stopped being a selfish player -- maybe he has to some extent-- but likely he's gone too long being selfish and Bowman's will move him when the time is right. This year, at least up to the deadline, he is an insurance policy/recall when injuries occur in Chicago. I also agree with the post that mentioned time to let Rockford players cut their teeth. It may be a longer wait for Aliu -- "the puck's on his stick/sort of like saying the ball's in his court? -- because he could advance sooner if he wants to learn the way to play the game. I thought he looked slower than in the summer camp, but truly I need to see him closely a couple of games to say if that is correct. Maybe he is overly muscle up. My gosh, Beech a goal/game pace but we know he has to improve in a couple areas of his game. I'd look for Bois before Aliu. I'm intrigued by Connelly -- need to watch his entire game closely. How he competes against larger sized opponents. Here's a thought: Could this Krueger use a tune up in Rockford, then be a call up next year? Time to give Makarov a shot next year as well. Sweat would be a fast skater and is NHL third line projection.
Maybe this summer either Huet or Campbell could be given away for next to nothing in a trade. They have to agree to trade. It would cost Rocky millions, but it may give Bowman's enough wiggle room to re-assemble a playoff team for the following season. Agreed you cannot risk assigning a top free agent signing to farm club, since then other players are wary of signing with us. That is why the only other alternative appears to be a give away trade. Ironic, isn't it, after decades of Montreal's fleecing others and getting all the top young talent, that despite a nice pipeline of young talent last summer, they went out and paid for high salary guys Gomez and Cammalarri.
But I think Skille's a goner before then
The salary cap has definitely changed the landscape of hockey although I still have reservations that it has or is doing what it was intended to do. Regardless, what the Hawks are gearing up to do is what Pittsburgh, Detroit, Washington and others have already done and is the best way to succeed in today's league. You can't win without superstar players so they need to be signed no matter what once they have made themselves known. That doesn't leave much room for the good but not great players though, especially the guys in the 2-4 million dollar a year range. So you'll also need a constant influx on 20-23 year old guys too or go the other route and sign a few veterans for small money....the Sami Pahlsson type players. But youth is much preferred due to the cap rules. Either way it looks like Kane and Toews will be Hawks for a long time to come.
kind of like chicago politics, richie calls the shots , not his department heads. okay here comes the trade campbell comments. tim please explain the element campbell brings to the table, yes it is a less than stellar contract, but now our D is the best in the league, some money options for next year, think these out. 55# concussion history, 37# major knee surgery, 36# back surgery, great player but another daze? 5 and 25# trade bait?what do you do? beach and aliu coming?yes we know about huet's money also. how about the corey patterson byfuglien 3 mill a year? is sharp worth 4 mill a year? these are the things that got dale in trouble. i am sure scotty/stan will figure it out. as a fan lets just sit back and enjoy this season and let themworry about it! as agm what would you do within reason and you can't waive or buy out campbell either! if campbell was 6'2 and blasting people through the boards and skating like the wind you wouldn't be posting this stuff. you're looking for dave manson again. give4# some time to mature. brian need someone to watch his back like he had in buffalo! way to go 88,19, and 2!and to all you young hawks, look what happened to mark bell, if you ain't scored by midnite,stop at 7-11 and get a gallon of milk and the trib and go home! and enjoy your money!
So there are no rules (for limits) in the CBA about contract lengths or averages. It appears the Flyers did the same thing recently with Pronger, though to a lesser extent the 'Hawks did with Hossa. It started with the Wings in Zetterberg and Franzen.
This is another situation when a league being run by a clown commish is embarrasing themselves by taking a decent salary cap model (don't forget the floor is $16M less than the cap), not putting in long-term limits and then crying when several teams with the financial means take advantage. It'll be a hot topic next CBA discussion. But like MLB, it won't be players vs owners. It'll be larger market owners vs small market owners.
Speaking of MLB, Everyone cries about the Yankees' spending spree. But they operate within the confines of the CBA and league rules. There should be crying about the KC's, Pgh, TB, Fla, Oak etc where they get millions and millions of revenue sharing money but don't put all of it into players salaries. Too bad the rules do not state it must be only player salaries.
It's really going to be interesting to see how Bowman fixes this mess. Getting by with the huge dollars owed to Campbell (that can't be lowered in any way except by buyout) and the RFA/Tallon fiasco with Barker, Versteeg & Bolland this last summer is going to be tricky. We'll really see what he's made of now. I will be happy if JT, Kaner & DK are all here for some time.
I guess the NHL is doing with contracts what it does with "supplemental discipline."
Change standards depending on which team is involved.
Detroit? No problem.
Chicago? Gosh, we have to investigate.
If the contract conforms to the language of the CBA, then it is, or should be legal. If the league doesn't like the language, well, the CBA is up for negotiation soon.
All the league is doing, as it always does, is respond to whining from media, fans and GMs in other markets.
I don't see the problem with 10-13yr contract for any of those 3 guys .They are all young enough that as long as they don't get injured will be playing 10-15 years easy. If the NHL give them a hard time about this it's a joke. If they are concerned about teams doing this then they need to add something in teh CBA that states after a certain age players can not receive more than a 9yr contract. But if guys are 22,23, even 25years old it's not a strecth to say they will play 10-12years still at the minimum. Guys are playing into their late 30's and early 40's so there should be no problems. God forbid a team actually be able to keep their core players long term, you would hate to see a team be able to build a dynasty with their own developed players long term (can you feel the sarcasam there?). Kane is 20, Toews is 21 and Keith is 26. Duncan Keith will play until he's 40yrs old if he wants too with the way he keeps himself in shape. The Hawks should lock up Toews and Kane for 10-12 yrs also if possible they would make them 32-33 at the end of their contracts and would probably have another few years of productive play as well as long as they are healthy. I think the NHL should applaud these teams for wanting to keep their players that are the faces of their franchises and players the fans have come to love. No body wants a revolving door on their roster.
Looks like the buzz over these negotiations is making the Blackhawks front page news yet again.
The normally reliable Mr McKenzie, not citing any sources for his 'information', has now successfully stoked the vivid imaginations of hockey fandom.
The rest of us will wait and see.
The good news, though, seems clear...that Toews, Kane and Keith are going to form the core of the resurgent Blackhawks.
Excellent.
Yea, what's up with the warning? Is it not legal to do? This just sounds like scare tactics.
As for the contracts and salary cap....manoman. There's still 7 players to sign and they're at 60 million? Its too bad Chicago brass can't somehow get rid of Campbell's (7.1) and Huet's (5.6) fat contracts. If they were able to then it wouldn't be a problem getting the rest signed.
What sucks is keeping overpriced players and getting rid of ones who actually earn their wage.
Crud.
Campbells hit is much harder to swallow than Huet's. There are not a lot of legit #1 goalies just floating around waiting to be signed, Huet is over paid but the Hawks weren't the only ones after him at the time either so they over paid. The Campbell contract is far worse, he is not worth that money. Since he's become an everyday player in 2002-03 and not counting this year he's averaged 5 goals and 28 assists a year. His point total last year of 52 was the highest of his NHL career. He scored the 2nd highest number of goals last year and the most assists of his career last year, sorry that's not a 7 million dollar d-man because he's not a shutdown defenseman either. I am not sayin Huet is worth his money either but his contact at least is up in another year and he hasn't been horrible either. Some of the wrath directed at him is unwarranted, he gives up softies yes but he's also shown that when he's on he is one of the better goalies in the game. I don't know of a free agent goalie that was out there that was/is that much better than Huet and don't say Khabibulin either look at the numbers and they aren't that far off from one another. Khabibulin has been around longer but their numbers project out very similar. Not a lot of people were happy with Khabibulin either until he was gone then suddenlty he was one of the greatest to ever step on the ice. He's not doing so hot in Edmonton right now either and it's a bad team but how many more wins do the Hawks have with him in net vs. Huet this year maybe two? They guy has only lost 4 games in regulation.
Still being investigated? What does that mean exactly? What is there to find out?
They were looking for an arbitrator to supervise the investigation. I think it's a tempest in a teapot though.
You can't arbitrarily throw an age out that is the magical cut-off for contracts you're going to investigate which is exactly what Bill Daly did, when he said "40" was the determinant in why they investigated Hossa's deal, but not Zetterberg and Franzen's.
This league is run by the Beverly Hillbillies. Hey, guess what, Keith's deal? Ends when he's 39. (HA!)
Are they going to adjust their criterion downward now? Good luck with that.
That's the new 30, eh?
The NHL does play favorites, no question. Among teams and individual players.
What's really stupid is that Chicago is a major market, and unnecessarily ticking people off there does the league no favors.
>It is creating a shuffling of players around the league -- but not elite players
>A few players will get nice raises, the rest are left scrambling for jobs on teams they don't want to play for
>A cap range is a much better idea -- with a much higher upper range ($70 million?)
>The NHL shot itself in the foot in '94 when the Rangers won the Cup and the NBA was on strike -- with the owners' lockout -- and this Cap is helping the NHL shoot itself in the foot again
>The NHL needs its large market teams to be strong to be successful as a league -- why penalize teams for smart player choices and force them to have to dismantle part of their teams all the time?