Ok, I'm not sure where I can find the aforementioned resource, but I do have a few questions concerning the future of the Blackhawks.  Word has it that they're trying to sign Martin Havlat to a long-term deal.  If that's going to cost as much as I think it is, and if they're still on the hook for Brian Campbell's deal, how do you all see the 'Hawks allocating funds for core guys who should be signed for the future?  My only concern is that they might have less to work with concerning Toews, Kane, Keith, Seabrook, and Sharp if they sign Havlat to a big deal.  Granted, I'd love to see this entire group back as a unit for the future, but I'm just trying to comprehend how some of these deals might go down.

I don't think you can let guys like Toews or Keith go, but it seems hard to let Havlat walk after what he's done this year (career year + postseason clutchness).  Any opinions/thoughts?

---

"That's the beauty of argument. If you argue correctly, you're never wrong."
-Nick Naylor (Aaron Eckhart) in "Thank You For Smoking"

Here is the salary cap for the Hawks this year(may not be exactly right but I doubt you'll ever find the exact numbers)
http://www.nhlnumbers.com/overview.php?team=CHI&season=0809

they're trying to sign Havlat long term to ease the cap hit over the course of the contract instead of over a couple years. They'd rather sign him at 8 years/$40 million than 4 years/$40 million(I don't know the exact numbers just trying to make a point)

It's hard to say with the cap because the NHL could increase it next year(and probably will) and the Hawks have a lot of RFA's after this year and hopefully the ones they want to keep will come cheap.

Khabi's $6.75 million comes off the cap this year and even if he re-signs he's not getting that much.

I think Campbell or Huet will be moved within a couple seasons. If Khabibulan comes back, you sign and bring up Crawford and dump Huet's salary.

Campbell I don't think is long for the Hawks. He's not living up to his hype and rumor has it the organization(read Bowman) does not like him. He can easily be replaced with Hendry from the minors and it'd clear a ton of space.

---

"...I'll find a place to rest my spirit if I can.
Perhaps I may become a highwayman again.
Or I may simply be a single drop of rain,
But I will remain,
And I'll be back again, and again, and again..."

I have heard on the Score 670 AM that they are trying to do a long contract that is front loaded and declines as the contract goes on.  In the NHL, to calculate a cap hit, you average the overall value of the contract and take that average.

SO for example in 2010 he could get paid like 8 million, but it would only hit the cap for 4 million.  Another thing to think about is the NHL is reducing cap space next year (because a lot of teams are doing bad).  This could be a good thing because it will limit the market for Havlat who does have a history of injury.


But I agree with you, I'd rather have Toews, Kane, Versteeg,  and Keith tied up to long contracts.  Havlat is nice, but he is injury prone and we have other pressing needs and we have a lot of young prospect Centers/Wingers in our minors to take his place.

---

Kyle and Rex both brought us great suffering, I venerate neither.

bears857299:

Here is the salary cap for the Hawks this year(may not be exactly right but I doubt you'll ever find the exact numbers)

http://www.nhlnumbers.com/overview.php?team=CHI&season=0809

they're trying to sign Havlat long term to ease the cap hit over the course of the contract instead of over a couple years. They'd rather sign him at 8 years/$40 million than 4 years/$40 million(I don't know the exact numbers just trying to make a point)

It's hard to say with the cap because the NHL could increase it next year(and probably will) and the Hawks have a lot of RFA's after this year and hopefully the ones they want to keep will come cheap.

Yeah - I understand that rationale.  Do you see them signing Toews to a Zetterberg/Franzen-like deal to help with the cap hit, too?  I think they took like...12 year deals or something like that to make the money a bit more managable.  I really think this team could be special for a long time if they keep some of their key guys in order.  I'm just amazed that they're doing so well with all of this young talent; they really do have a legit shot of going all the way this year if they keep it up!

I just hope they're as shrewd with the cap management as the Bears are with Cliff Stein and company.  As a young individual, I can't be any happier to be a fan of all my Chicago teams.  I just turned 22 in January and truly feel fortunate to be part of what some might call a "Renaissance" of Chicago sports.  What with the 'Hawks coming back, the Bears improving offensively, and the Bulls heading in the right direction (for the first time in a long time)...

Though young, I still feel a lot of the older fans' pain with respect to all sports in this area.  To be fair, I never got to see the Bears in their mid- to late-80s heyday; most of my youth memories of the Bears were of them getting destroyed by Green Bay in the '90s and early '00s.  Thus, if you look at how the Bears have fared in my lifetime, it's been mostly bad until now.

I'm also glad that Rocky Wirtz is putting the 'Hawks games back on TV because the last time I saw the 'Hawks on TV was...well the '91 Cup Finals (even then it's hard to remember because I think I was like 4 or 5).  When I was working in high school, I listened to the games on 670 all the time because they happened to be on when I was either driving to or from work, so I guess you can't really say that I'm "jumping the bandwagon" so to speak.

Oh well - thanks for the responses!  I really enjoy seeing how all elements of sport work:  on-field performance, running a franchise (the business part/signing players/etc.), statistical analysis, etc.

Thanks!!

---

"That's the beauty of argument. If you argue correctly, you're never wrong."
-Nick Naylor (Aaron Eckhart) in "Thank You For Smoking"

I'm only 5 years older than you so most of the teams have been crappy as long as I've followed them(Don't follow the Bulls) and I didn't start following the Hawks until like 94 right about the start of their downfall.

The Hawks may try a really long term deal with Toews but that remains to be seen. With Bowman in the organization now though I have little fear about the HAwks losing a ton of players for not wrapping them up.

---

"...I'll find a place to rest my spirit if I can.
Perhaps I may become a highwayman again.
Or I may simply be a single drop of rain,
But I will remain,
And I'll be back again, and again, and again..."

bears857299:

I'm only 5 years older than you so most of the teams have been crappy as long as I've followed them(Don't follow the Bulls) and I didn't start following the Hawks until like 94 right about the start of their downfall.

The Hawks may try a really long term deal with Toews but that remains to be seen. With Bowman in the organization now though I have little fear about the HAwks losing a ton of players for not wrapping them up.

Yeah - that's one thing I always tell the "older" fans.  If you look at proportion of "quality" seasons as it relates to a lifespan, people around your age or my age get screwed.  Yeah, some guys who've followed for 20, 30, 40 years may have seen a whole bunch more bad seasons, but they've also seen things I've never seen in my lifetime yet - championships.  Thus, in my lifetime I've seen a FAR greater % of crappy play than they have given their age(s).

Anyways, I just pray the 'Hawks are smart enough to keep this good thing that they've got going here.  They can't let Toews or Keith (or a few others, but to lesser degrees) go.  With Bowman on hand, I can at least have some sort of faith in their front office moves; everything that man touches turns to gold.  He's got what - like 10 Stanley Cup wins as coach/player/GM/front office man?  Either way, it's great to have hockey back in Chicago and I hope they bring the Cup back really soon.

---

"That's the beauty of argument. If you argue correctly, you're never wrong."
-Nick Naylor (Aaron Eckhart) in "Thank You For Smoking"