Montreal Exploring Trade With Chicago Surrounding Toews?

MassHavoc

Moderator
Staff member
Joined:
May 14, 2010
Posts:
17,576
Liked Posts:
2,626
Unfortunately since it is him, we already know this has no chance.
 

dreadpirateroberts

Well-known member
Joined:
Nov 29, 2013
Posts:
1,886
Liked Posts:
726
Location:
Planet Earth
Don’t see this happening, but what would Montreal even give up?
 

LordKOTL

Scratched for Vorobiev
Joined:
Dec 8, 2014
Posts:
8,604
Liked Posts:
3,088
Location:
PacNW
My favorite teams
  1. Portland Timbers
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
If this was remotely close to possible, and I doubt it is, Stan should be Hung, Shot, Stabbed, Electrocuted, Disemboweled, & Drawn and Quartered if he even thinks about this.

Why?

The only two guys on their squad who come anywhere close to making the money Toews does is Weber and Price, and both are signed through 2026.

Even if Crawford is 100% done, do we really want 10.5M on the books for not just 5 more years, but 8 more years? And Weber just extends out the Seabrook problem. Price is good (in spite of a bad year) but 4.5M better than Crawford? I don't think so. Ditto with Weber vs. Seabrook or Keith.
 

anotheridiot

Well-known member
Joined:
Jul 15, 2016
Posts:
5,935
Liked Posts:
799
If this was remotely close to possible, and I doubt it is, Stan should be Hung, Shot, Stabbed, Electrocuted, Disemboweled, & Drawn and Quartered if he even thinks about this.

Why?

The only two guys on their squad who come anywhere close to making the money Toews does is Weber and Price, and both are signed through 2026.

Even if Crawford is 100% done, do we really want 10.5M on the books for not just 5 more years, but 8 more years? And Weber just extends out the Seabrook problem. Price is good (in spite of a bad year) but 4.5M better than Crawford? I don't think so. Ditto with Weber vs. Seabrook or Keith.

are you going to be able to replace Crawford with another 6 million dollar goalie though? Darling got to 4.5 and well, was not the million dollar guy. There are not rules where salaries have to match like the NBA are there? I mean I have not heard many of these moves

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/spo...w-salary-trading-system-works/article7033878/

that allow teams to keep the overpaid portion of the bad deals and regain some cap room to fill the roster with an up and coming player, but I have not really heard of teams using this.
 

LordKOTL

Scratched for Vorobiev
Joined:
Dec 8, 2014
Posts:
8,604
Liked Posts:
3,088
Location:
PacNW
My favorite teams
  1. Portland Timbers
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
are you going to be able to replace Crawford with another 6 million dollar goalie though? Darling got to 4.5 and well, was not the million dollar guy. There are not rules where salaries have to match like the NBA are there? I mean I have not heard many of these moves

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/spo...w-salary-trading-system-works/article7033878/

that allow teams to keep the overpaid portion of the bad deals and regain some cap room to fill the roster with an up and coming player, but I have not really heard of teams using this.
I don't believe RSA salary can be traded away...so like when we had RSA for Rob Scuderi, we were stuck with his cap hit until his contract expired. The 'hawks in that case would also have to figure in contract length if they retain salary on a deal. So, hypothetically, we find a taker for seabrook and we eat half his contract. That's almost 3.5M in dead cap on the 'hawks books until 2024 unless he retires....and we can't trade it away.

As for Crawford, Crawford over his career is a top-10 (well, top-6) goalie in the league. Those don't come cheap and right now the going rate is about 6M AAV. The makeup of the 'hawks team since about 2015 based on the team D numbers necessitates a very, very high caliber goalie. I think the only one that might hit the market is Holtby, and I think he pulls in about 7M+.

Now, next season Price starts a 10.5M contract for 8 years. I think Weber in on a 7M+ deal that is 8 years long and they both expire around 2026. The habs can't move that kind of salary without taking on similar salary. So, hypothetically let's say Crawford is done, and the Habs trade out Price and Weber for Toews and Seabrook. The 'hawks would have added salary, and instead of Toews 10.5M expiring in 2023, Price's expires a few years later. With Weber you're upping the cap hit *and* pushing the expiry out.

Weber is not prime Weber, and Price is not 4.5M *better* than Crawford was. Plus, you're losing the only center we got capable of winning a faceoff. At best you break even, but you got huge salary on the books for longer, which by that time instead of the contracts expiring when the next batch is ready for their payday, you might have an old and decrepit Weber/Price preventing us from signing/resigning a young player with promise.

IMHO the window with this core as the driving force is done. Toews hasn't been elite since 2015. Seabrook fell off the cliff a long time ago. Keith fell off the cliff this year and was on a downward trend since 2015. Only Kane and Crawford were playing at an elite level since 2016, and given all of their ages them returning to their old form is highly unlikley. If we get another cup before Keith/Seabs retire, it's not going to be on their backs, it's going to be on the backs of guys like Debrincat, Jokiharju if he pans out, our upcoming 8th overall, etc. Toews, Keith, Seabs? They'll likely be in a support role much like Campbell and Madden were for our 1st run. No shame in that, but what that means is that we have to start grooming the next guys right now, and making sure if any of them stick (like Debrincat has the chance to), we got the money to pay them, and right now Toews, Kane, Keith, Seabrook, Anisimov, Saad, and Crawford are taking up a vast chunk of that...with only Kane and Crawford actually playing at the level of their contracts.

Kicking the can down the road isn't going to help the 'hawks. They need to get high-price cap off the books, but not by stretching it out longer. That means no buyouts unless a compliance one comes along, and since we are in cap hell--don't have dead cap like RSA's or recaptures.

My $0.02
 

anotheridiot

Well-known member
Joined:
Jul 15, 2016
Posts:
5,935
Liked Posts:
799
I dont know either, just says they can do it 3 times, so a few million on Scuderi is not worth wasting a bullet.

I never knew about this rule, just seeing if salaries HAD to match to make a deal. We know Florida took Soup and his 7 million off our hands for nothing before. I really am not sure if anyone used this before.
 

LordKOTL

Scratched for Vorobiev
Joined:
Dec 8, 2014
Posts:
8,604
Liked Posts:
3,088
Location:
PacNW
My favorite teams
  1. Portland Timbers
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
I dont know either, just says they can do it 3 times, so a few million on Scuderi is not worth wasting a bullet.

I never knew about this rule, just seeing if salaries HAD to match to make a deal. We know Florida took Soup and his 7 million off our hands for nothing before. I really am not sure if anyone used this before.

The rules of RSA contracts are this:
  • The retained salary on on the teams books until the contract expires - it can't be traded away.
  • The percentage retained cannot exceed 50 percent of the player’s salary (including all bonuses) and Salary Cap Hit.
  • The same percentage must be retained for both the player’s salary and Salary Cap Hit, and cannot be modified.
  • All teams are limited to a maximum of 3 retained salary contracts per season.
  • Teams cannot retain an aggregate amount of more than 15 percent of the Salary Cap Upper Limit.
  • Players’ contracts are limited to 2 retained salary transactions per contract.
  • A team cannot reacquire a player whom they have retained salary from for a minimum of one year after the date of the transaction, or unless the player's contract expires or is terminated prior to the one-year date.
  • All teams involved in a retained salary transaction will have cap implications if the contract is bought out or terminated.
  • Teams who retain salary on a players contract, will have the full value of the cap hit act against the teams salary cap total, regardless of whether the player is reassigned to the minors by their current team.
What does this mean for the 'hawks and, say, one of our übercontracts?
For one, no matter what happens, the 'hawsk are on the hook for that dead cap space until the contract expires--so for Toews, Keith, and Kane--2023. For Seabs? 2024.

The 'hawks can retain only up to 50% of the cap hit. They can't retain more. Also, even if the actual salary changes with respect to the cap hit, the RSA percent has to remain--so if Seabs is RSA's at 50%, the 'hawks are on the hook for 1/2 his salary per year--so in 2021 they'd be on the hook for 2.5M in real salary, and 3M in 2022 due to Seabs' contract structure. For a team looking to reach the cap floor at minimum salary cost, this can be a dealbreaker.

As you brought up--a team can only retain salary on 3 contracts/season. This hasn't been reached to my knowledge by any team, but if hypothetically speaking, the 'hawks retain on Saad, Seabrook, and Anisimov, they cannot RSA another contract until one of them expires--so 2022. So, if hypothetically Murphy falls off the cliff and the only way he could be moved is if we retained salary, we're SOL.

The most the 'hawks can retain is 15% of the cap limit. So, if hypothetically the 'hawks RSA's Toews and Kane at 50%, the most for their 3rd contract they could RSA would be 750k (at 2018 cap dollars).

If a player has been RSA'ed on a current contract, they can only be RSA'ed once more. So if Phaneuf (who was RSA'ed) gets traded with another RSA on his deal, and the team he goes to wants to RSA him, they can't.

If the 'hawks RSA'd Seabrook, and wanted to require him at the TDL of the same year they RSA'ed him, they couldn't.

The "cap implications" is very vague, but I'd imagine the results would be like if a team broke a recapture: so if we RSA Seabrook and the receiving team buys him out or he retires, I'd expect some cap penalty imposed.

And, if we RSA Seabrook to, say Vancouver, and they decide to send him down to Utica, We are still on the hook for his RSA money.

~~~

IMHO RSA deals work the best on contracts about to expire--not ones that are long-term out there. Hypothetically, if the 'hawks are complete sellers at the 2020 TDL, and another team wants an elite goalieand is willing to send out prospect (and he waives), by all means RSA Crawford, since after that his contract expires ands the 'hawks aren't on the hook. But Keith, Seabrook, Toews, and Kane? that could be a mistake we're paying for for a long time especially with a lot of youth coming up who will be looking for a deal. Would you want to lose out on resigning, say, Debrincat because we got dead capspace? I wouldn't.
 

Raskolnikov

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Aug 23, 2012
Posts:
22,240
Liked Posts:
7,739
Location:
Enemy Territory via southern C
I think we would be less fucked with Weber/Price than we are with Crawford/Toews if Crawford can’t go for at least 75% of his remaining contract.

At the end of the day probably role with our own guys who have won it before, yeah?
 

anotheridiot

Well-known member
Joined:
Jul 15, 2016
Posts:
5,935
Liked Posts:
799
I thought it read 3 times period.

But still, you are stuck with the cap hit, but you get a player making 3 million that is producing or fitting your team. So, just for argument, you did this with Toews, and kept Andrew Shaw at 4 million per year. You did it with seabrook and allowed TVR, Nick Leddy or say, Hammer to stay here for the 4 million?

I never knew this existed, it seemed like the GM's were going to love this, but nobody seems to have used it. Maybe allowing them to dump contracts that might be suited for this in the expansion draft held them off a while, I dont know, but say you get Weber or Price and do it to them?
 

LordKOTL

Scratched for Vorobiev
Joined:
Dec 8, 2014
Posts:
8,604
Liked Posts:
3,088
Location:
PacNW
My favorite teams
  1. Portland Timbers
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
I thought it read 3 times period.

But still, you are stuck with the cap hit, but you get a player making 3 million that is producing or fitting your team. So, just for argument, you did this with Toews, and kept Andrew Shaw at 4 million per year. You did it with seabrook and allowed TVR, Nick Leddy or say, Hammer to stay here for the 4 million?

I never knew this existed, it seemed like the GM's were going to love this, but nobody seems to have used it. Maybe allowing them to dump contracts that might be suited for this in the expansion draft held them off a while, I dont know, but say you get Weber or Price and do it to them?
It's been used a few times. When Versteeg came back in 2014? Half his cap his was retained. I think by Florida but I'm trying to block Verturnover from my mind.

Mike Smith has ~2.2M retained by Arizona going into next year. Lou has 800k retained by Vancouver through 2022. Those were the two I could find out west. They have been done before, but I think because of the clauses on them, GM's won't use them much for larger, long-term RSA's because it would be like a high-priced buyout. The fact that the RSA cannot be transferred, it applies if the player is sent down, and that the actual salary still applies have to also be factors.

The crux is that that dead cap is dead cap; Seabrook is still salvageable as an NHL defenseman. No, he's not 6.875M but he can play within his physical limits. When you buy someone out or RSA them, that cap turns 100% dead. Irrespective of what kind of player we get for, say, the 3.4M in RSA cap relief, half of that is stuck on the books. Given that Seabs is signed through 2024, that's 3.4M in cap that cannot under any circumstances be used--so it could mean the difference between signing and losing, say, Debrincat (irrespective of whether or not the other 3.4M is used towards a useful or useless player). Now if the 'hawks RSA'ed Crawford, it wouldn't affect the El Gato resigning--his deal expires when El Gato comes due. That's why I think it's bad for that 'hawks in their position. I think that the 'hawks won't RSA any of their top-end contracts unless it's a small, reasonable amount (think like Vancouver with Luongo) simply because of how long the contracts are pushed out. Saad or Anisimov? Maybe...but even then we are still paying for them for 3 years. When it comes to Toews, you're looking at 5 and Seabrook you're looking at 6 years. I think if the 'hawks go the RSA route with players like them it will either be when their contracts are a year or two from expiring, or it will be a low number (like < 1.5M) so the long-term cap impact is not affected.
 

anotheridiot

Well-known member
Joined:
Jul 15, 2016
Posts:
5,935
Liked Posts:
799
yeah, I get that, its just getting someone like Joker here that plays like a 7 million dollar defenseman when you are paying him a small percentage of that should be what allows you to do that with the seabrook contract. Eat 3.5, still get a player contributing at the worth of the terrible deal. If you can string one along like that for the duration of the deal, and if you get the cap increases along the way it works out.

I am not sure about the examples. I remember back when the Panthers took Soup and his 7 million per deal monstrosity part of the reason was just so they could get to the cap floor. That was how I thought one of these bad deals would go, but I think the league put this in place to make sure the teams that gave the deal paid some of the price for their bad decision.

Its too bad for Seabrook since he was really a fan favorite when he was in the 3 mil range. I have heard many hockey "experts" said how can anyone blame seabrook for taking the wheelbarrow full of money? But when it became evident that Seabs was only the great D man when he played with the best d man, it all went down hill. He can use a fresh start.
 

LordKOTL

Scratched for Vorobiev
Joined:
Dec 8, 2014
Posts:
8,604
Liked Posts:
3,088
Location:
PacNW
My favorite teams
  1. Portland Timbers
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
yeah, I get that, its just getting someone like Joker here that plays like a 7 million dollar defenseman when you are paying him a small percentage of that should be what allows you to do that with the seabrook contract. Eat 3.5, still get a player contributing at the worth of the terrible deal. If you can string one along like that for the duration of the deal, and if you get the cap increases along the way it works out.

I am not sure about the examples. I remember back when the Panthers took Soup and his 7 million per deal monstrosity part of the reason was just so they could get to the cap floor. That was how I thought one of these bad deals would go, but I think the league put this in place to make sure the teams that gave the deal paid some of the price for their bad decision.

Its too bad for Seabrook since he was really a fan favorite when he was in the 3 mil range. I have heard many hockey "experts" said how can anyone blame seabrook for taking the wheelbarrow full of money? But when it became evident that Seabs was only the great D man when he played with the best d man, it all went down hill. He can use a fresh start.

Seabs was still a fan favorite in his 5.9M range. I blame Stan for the contract, not Seabrook.

While there are teams who will still accept Cap Floor contracts, RSA doesn't enter into them much...and you're still playing the crapshoot of finding a player making peanuts and playing like an all-star. That doesn't last. Right now, if they RSA'd Seabrook at 50%, We'd be stuck with about 4M of RSA for 6 more years. That's the issue right there--players playing above their cap hit tend to be younger and on the cusp, meaning that they are ELC's and RFA's, not UFA's. Players who are that good hitting UFA will be making what they're worth. Much like Seabrook before 2012, a 7M defender right now on a UFA is going to be asking for 7M for the duration. RFA's won't be signed that long and ELC's are going to be capped at three years--so if the 'hawks are up against the ceiling, come 2021 guys like Debrincat, Joker, etc.? Yeah, we can't afford them because there's that 4M in dead cap space taken up by Seabrook. Cycling out potential new core players like that? No GM wants that.

Realistically if we RSA'd Seabrook, we'd be getting a UFA D-man worth and ~3.5-4M...which means you're trading Seabrook for a Murphy clone. Does that make us *that* much better? I don't think so. You're not getting a Hjammer clone for 4M anymore--just like you're not getting a Keith/Hossa clone for 5M and change.

I think if the core is RSA'ed, it's closer to the end of their deals. I think we fans are gonna have to suck up a few lean years.
 

anotheridiot

Well-known member
Joined:
Jul 15, 2016
Posts:
5,935
Liked Posts:
799
Seabs was still a fan favorite in his 5.9M range. I blame Stan for the contract, not Seabrook.

While there are teams who will still accept Cap Floor contracts, RSA doesn't enter into them much...and you're still playing the crapshoot of finding a player making peanuts and playing like an all-star. That doesn't last. Right now, if they RSA'd Seabrook at 50%, We'd be stuck with about 4M of RSA for 6 more years. That's the issue right there--players playing above their cap hit tend to be younger and on the cusp, meaning that they are ELC's and RFA's, not UFA's. Players who are that good hitting UFA will be making what they're worth. Much like Seabrook before 2012, a 7M defender right now on a UFA is going to be asking for 7M for the duration. RFA's won't be signed that long and ELC's are going to be capped at three years--so if the 'hawks are up against the ceiling, come 2021 guys like Debrincat, Joker, etc.? Yeah, we can't afford them because there's that 4M in dead cap space taken up by Seabrook. Cycling out potential new core players like that? No GM wants that.

Realistically if we RSA'd Seabrook, we'd be getting a UFA D-man worth and ~3.5-4M...which means you're trading Seabrook for a Murphy clone. Does that make us *that* much better? I don't think so. You're not getting a Hjammer clone for 4M anymore--just like you're not getting a Keith/Hossa clone for 5M and change.

I think if the core is RSA'ed, it's closer to the end of their deals. I think we fans are gonna have to suck up a few lean years.

Not talking about taking anyone back though, that is the difference. If Joker is the real deal, you will gain cap space by paying seabs to go. you will get for 5 million hit instead of seabs 7. gain 2 million. That is what I mean about taking these around minimum guys and allowing them to replace said core, not bring back more problems. That is the only way you can get thru the rebuild and change the core without tanking.
 

LordKOTL

Scratched for Vorobiev
Joined:
Dec 8, 2014
Posts:
8,604
Liked Posts:
3,088
Location:
PacNW
My favorite teams
  1. Portland Timbers
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
Not talking about taking anyone back though, that is the difference. If Joker is the real deal, you will gain cap space by paying seabs to go. you will get for 5 million hit instead of seabs 7. gain 2 million. That is what I mean about taking these around minimum guys and allowing them to replace said core, not bring back more problems. That is the only way you can get thru the rebuild and change the core without tanking.
If Joker is the real deal, he could command much more than Seabs' RSA value...even on an RFA deal.

Ditto with a guy like El Gato. If he starts putting up 30 goals he can command more than Saad's 6M.

If the Hawks RSA guys, that's money that *can't* go to guys who deserve it. The smarter move is if Joker is the real deal, to convince Seabs to pronger himself.

Sent from my HTC U11 using Tapatalk
 

Top