SBN Mock Expansion Draft - Who Do the Hawks Protect?
It's a slow news period around here. Sure there's the Niemi signing, the Kovy contract issues just won't die and Sam came out of hibernation to ask you all for money.. but that's not a hell of a lot to really write about. So SBN decided to see what would happen if the NHL were to add two more teams. Through fan voting - two new cities were picked - one in Winnipeg and the other in Quebec City. The former being named the Jets and the latter being the Nordiques... real fucking original guys...
And of course if the NHL were dumb enough to actually make this league bigger - it would need to conduct an expansion draft. So the powers that be here at SBN decided to see what that would look like. The great Gabe Desjardins of Behind The Net gets to play GM for the Jets while our Godfather, James Mirtle, calls the shots for the Nordiques. The question becomes then - who do those two get to pick from?
Here's where we come in - we decided to use rules that were close, if not identical, to the last expansion draft the NHL conducted in 2000 when the Wild and Blue Jackets were added. The rules are fairly straight forward but I probably managed to screw them up and possibly cheat them... Here they are:
-Teams can protect either "1 goalie, 5 defensemen and 9 forwards" OR "2 goalies, 3 defensemen and 7 forwards."
- If you go the two goalie route, at least one goalie left unprotected must have played in at least 10 games last season OR 25 games in the last two seasons combined. One game = at least 31 minutes.
- Each team must leave unprotected at least one defenseman who appeared in 40 games last season OR 70 games in the last two seasons combined.
- Each team must leave unprotected at least two forwards who appeared in 40 games last season OR 70 games in the last two seasons combined.
- Players who have played in 49 or fewer games are automatically exempt and do not need to be protected.
So with those rules in place here is my protected and unprotected list:
Protected:
Goalie (1) - Marty Turco
Defense (5) - Duncan Keith, Brent Seabrook, Niklas Hjalmarsson, Brian Campbell, Jordan Hendry
Forwards (9) - Jonathan Toews, Patrick Kane, Marian Hossa, Patrick Sharp, Dave Bolland, Troy Brouwer, Jeff Taffe, Tomas Kopecky??
Unprotected:
Goalie - Cristobal Huet (enjoy!), Hannu Toivonen
Defense - Nick Boynton, Jassen Cullimore, John Scott??
Forwards - Fernando Pisani, Tomas Kopecky/John Scott??
Why the question marks? Hit the jump to hear my explanations and see my questions...
Lets break this down by position:
Goalies - Leaving Huet unprotected is a no brainer - we don't want him and if one of the other two new teams wants him they're free to pay him his money. If they can convince him to come back from Europe that is. Corey Crawford is automatically exempt from the draft because he's only played in 8 NHL games. I really didn't realize Toivonen had played 61 games in the NHL - fun fact though - Sidney Crosby scored his first ever career goal against Toivonen. So yeah - we'll take Turco for the year and keep him out of Canada.
Defense - The top three of this group is once again an easy choice. Seabs, Keith and Hammer are all locks to stay on this team. Now, you could make things a little interesting here. Campbell's cap hit is a bit outrageous - we know this. So do we leave him unprotected? There's two ideas here - 1) No one else wants to take on his cap hit so there's a chance he won't be taken in the draft. That would leave us with room to protect another d-man. 2) Screw it - if someone else wants to take on that hit... let them. Freeing up that money will allow the Hawks a lot more flexibility in the coming years.
I decided against it though. First of all, we saw what happens to this team when Campbell is gone this spring and it wasn't pretty. There's no one to replace him on this roster yet so he plays a valuable role. Plus, the only other options to protect are Boynton, Cullimore and possibly John Scott. I'd much rather have Soupy than those guys who are easily replaced. Sorry to Boynton, I don't have anything against you but there's only so many spots available. Cullimore... I'm not even sure if he should be present here. I barely remembered that he was signed to the team. I included him here just to be safe.
Forwards - Now why did I say only "possibly" John Scott? Well, it's because I'm trying to cheat the system here. We have room to protect 9 forwards. Toews, Kane, Hossa, Sharp, Bolland and Brouwer are all easy choices to protect. That's only 6 though. We need to leave at least two forwards who have played 40 last season or 70 in the last two combined.
Fernando Pisani is a pretty easy choice to drop. His health concerns alone make him unprotectable.. so that's one.
The other forward? Maybe John Scott?? I'm still awaiting a ruling here - but Scott has played forward before in his career. He also meets the minimum games requirement - so can the Hawks list him as one of the unprotected forwards? Does it matter that he may have possibly played most games as a defenseman... or that is what the Hawks signed him to be? I hope not, because again - he doesn't do anything particularly well other than fight. He'd be an easy player to part ways with. Either way though - Scott's unprotected..
Putting Scott on the unprotected list also means the Hawks would be able to keep Tomas Kopecky... which I guess would be nice. If the powers that be say that Scott CANNOT be listed as a forward though - I'd choose to leave TomoKop unprotected. While he endeared himself to many in the playoffs - someone's got to be unprotected and he is probably the best option...
Why protect Taffe you may ask? Well because he doesn't fit the bill for an unprotected player. We need to leave two forwards unprotected that have played 40 games last year or 70 the last two combined, remember?. Taffe's only played 29 games the last two years so he doesn't work for that spot. We also have an extra spot or two on the protected list... so why the hell not?
So here's the list if Scott can be listed as a forward:
Protected:
Goalie (1) - Marty Turco
Defense (5) - Duncan Keith, Brent Seabrook, Niklas Hjalmarsson, Brian Campbell, Jordan Hendry
Forwards (9) - Jonathan Toews, Patrick Kane, Marian Hossa, Patrick Sharp, Dave Bolland, Troy Brouwer, Jeff Taffe, Tomas Kopecky
Unprotected:
Goalie - Cristobal Huet, Hannu Toivonen
Defense - Nick Boynton, Jassen Cullimore
Forwards - Fernando Pisani, John Scott
If Scott can't be listed as a forward:
Protected:
Goalie (1) - Marty Turco
Defense (5) - Duncan Keith, Brent Seabrook, Niklas Hjalmarsson, Brian Campbell, Jordan Hendry
Forwards (9) - Jonathan Toews, Patrick Kane, Marian Hossa, Patrick Sharp, Dave Bolland, Troy Brouwer, Jeff Taffe
Unprotected:
Goalie - Cristobal Huet, Hannu Toivonen
Defense - Nick Boynton, Jassen Cullimore, John Scott
Forwards - Fernando Pisani, Tomas Kopecky
So there we go - any changes you'd like to see? Should we be allowed to bend the rules here? Remember - players with less than 50 games played are automatically exempt, that's why guys like Beach aren't on here..
UPDATE: Yeah.. the buzzkills who are running this thing won't let me list Scott as a forward. So Scott is an unprotected defenseman and Kopecky is the second unprotected forward. You can check around other sites for their lists. There's not a hell of a lot of talent to be had on most of these so I'd imagine Kop goes pretty quick. Mirtle and Gabe will be drafting teams later today so I'll post a link about who they choose.
95 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I think your picks are pretty much going be accepted by everyone
None of our new guys are anything to write home about, so they make perfect expansion draft bait. However, imagine if the whole band from last year was still together, and the kind of task this would be. So, here’s my picks if that was the case, just last year’s team- none of our off-season pickups or trades:
Protected
G: Niemi
F: Kane, Toews, Hossa, Sharp, Bolland, Ladd, Buff, Brouwer, Versteeg
D: Keith, Seabrook, Hammer, Campbell, Sopel
Unprotected:
G: Huet, Toivonen
F: Burish, Kopecky, Fraser, Eager, Madden
D: Hendry, Johnsson
Chicagoan in the Lou.
What if Johnsson didn't have the concussion problems?
Same type of player as Campbell (but admittedly with fewer spin-o-ramas & a bit slower) for $2.5mil cheaper. I’d imagine the ’Hawks would leave Campbell unprotected.
Also, you wouldn’t have to protect Niemi because he’s only played in 42 NHL games.
Should we be allowed to bend the rules here?
The Hawks would never bend the rules, but there was this one contract………….
How would you like a job where, every time you make a mistake, a big red light goes on and 18,000 people boo?
SHHHHHHHHH!
They’re listening…
"What the hell, let's review it." - Dale Tallon
"They are!" - Pat Foley
"What a farce." - Dale Tallon
You give Gary too much credit.
He’s the Elmer Fudd of commissioners.
There are only two seasons in Chicago; Hockey and Construction.
While I would keep Campbell protected,
Does anyone know if a player with a No Trade or No Movement Clause would be allowed to be put on the unprotected list without that player’s permission?
Maybe, just once, someone will call me 'Sir' without adding, 'You're making a scene."
Oh noooooes!
We can’t lose “Kopecky the Luongo Slayer”!!!

Lord Stanley's new address: Sweet Home Chicago!
by ChicagoNativeSon on Sep 2, 2010 8:41 AM CDT reply actions
Why, after every goal, does it seem like
there is a picture with Luongo flopped out on the ice? I’m sure there are plenty of goals that leave goalies in awkward positions while trying to make a save, but Lu’s body language seems to be indicative of his confidence and compete level; yet another reason why he should let someone else wear the C.
Ditto for Badgerdano
I think it's kind of a
“uhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaahhhhh! Dammit! Look at how hard I tried guys! I mean, LOOK at me!”
"What the hell, let's review it." - Dale Tallon
"They are!" - Pat Foley
"What a farce." - Dale Tallon
Wait, I don't get your list
Why can’t you protect Kopecky? You only have 7 forwards listed (Toews, Kane, Hossa, Sharp, Bolland, Brouwer, Taffe) so there’s room for 2 more…
(Tweets @ChiBlackhawks and blogs at Blackhawks Down Low.)
you can even keep Pisani if you really wanted to as well.
(Tweets @ChiBlackhawks and blogs at Blackhawks Down Low.)
by chiblackhawks on Sep 2, 2010 8:58 AM CDT up reply actions
oh wait
I just realized you had to leave 2 unprotected forwards. Never mind then.
(Tweets @ChiBlackhawks and blogs at Blackhawks Down Low.)
by chiblackhawks on Sep 2, 2010 8:59 AM CDT up reply actions
Thanks for at least trying Chi
Thank god this is just a bad dream.
Lord Stanley's new address: Sweet Home Chicago!
by ChicagoNativeSon on Sep 2, 2010 9:13 AM CDT up reply actions
it's alright CNS
it’ll all be okay. Kop’s gonna be just fine…
(Tweets @ChiBlackhawks and blogs at Blackhawks Down Low.)
by chiblackhawks on Sep 2, 2010 10:17 AM CDT up reply actions
We need Kop to keep the Panda happy!
Yeah, he’s married now, but what if he needs some ass on the road?
There are only two seasons in Chicago; Hockey and Construction.
If we lose TomoKop
then Hoss doesn’t get his balls powdered. And you know what happens to a Hoss with dampsack…

Occam's Razor keeps the cutting clean.
by russellguldin on Sep 2, 2010 2:34 PM CDT up reply actions 6 recs
Rec'd
for accuracy.
"What the hell, let's review it." - Dale Tallon
"They are!" - Pat Foley
"What a farce." - Dale Tallon
That picture,
with that caption, is fucking awesome.
/Note unceasing sarcastic laughter in background.
Fan of the 2010 Stanley Cup Champion Blackhawks!
Fan of the not 2010 Stanley Cup Champion Isles!
by burpchelischili on Sep 2, 2010 8:55 PM CDT up reply actions
I wouldn't worry about it.
He just got married to a hot babe. I have a feeling his sack will be just fine.
by Ban on Sep 3, 2010 3:04 AM CDT up reply actions
Hmm
That’s an interesting thought experiment. Thank God it won’t ever happen.
19-88-81-2-7-10-36-4-51 : The Hawks
This wouldn't be a bad year for it though
Considering half our team are league minimum types.
Really, you could arrange this list by salary.
Go jump in Toews Lake.
Aubrey: old German for king of the elves. Huff: English for...huff.
by shinkicker on Sep 2, 2010 9:15 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Thats true. I was thinking from the standpoint of not wanting anymore teams. The last thing the NHL needs is to expand. Frankly I’d axe about 4 franchises if I could.
19-88-81-2-7-10-36-4-51 : The Hawks
Oh absolutely
There is no reason for the NHL to have as many teams as the NFL
Go jump in Toews Lake.
Aubrey: old German for king of the elves. Huff: English for...huff.
by shinkicker on Sep 2, 2010 9:22 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions
theoretically
if americans in the south cared more, the addition of viable canadian markets could make it feasible. its not like the nfl has teams in places like calgary
"Sportsmanship is just loser talk for losing."
I know cdz linked to a similar article on PD
in his fanshot. Here’s more. Not good if this turns into a dogfight…
http://www.sbnation.com/2010/7/14/1569351/ilya-kovalchuk-nhl-free-agency-rumors-news
The League has offered an “ultimatum” to the PA, according to Brooks, saying that they will allow the recently-submitted 15-year, $100 million Kovalchuk contract should the PA agree to certain new collective-bargaining conditions.
Those conditions, according to the Post, are as follows:
1. That the cap hit on future multi-year contracts will not count any seasons that end with the player over 40 years of age. The cap hit would be calculated on the average of the salary up through age 40 only.
2. That the cap hit on future contracts longer than five years will be calculated under a formula granting additional weight to the five years with the highest salary.
Existing contracts for Roberto Luongo and Marian Hossa are also subject to these conditions being accepted by the NHLPA. If the PA refuses to accept these conditions by Friday at 5 PM, the new deadline set for approval or rejection of the Kovy deal, the NHL will reject the Kovalchuk deal, void the Luongo deal and formalize the investigation on the Hossa deal. They have the right to take just about any action they want if they think a deal circumvents the CBA, and this suggests that, yeah, they do feel that way.
Until yesterday, I didn’t think there was a chance the league would do something this stupid, even though past performance has proven otherwise. Now I’m not so sure.
If I’m understanding this correctly, if the PA chooses to accept this ultimatum – even if Hossa’s contract isn’t voided – the Hawks would be subject to the higher cap hit – which would obviously screw us royally. The league isn’t this stupid is it?? (rhetorical question, fyi – I just can’t stop asking myself this)
Lord Stanley's new address: Sweet Home Chicago!
by ChicagoNativeSon on Sep 2, 2010 9:11 AM CDT reply actions
The way I understood it, Hossa and Luongo would be grandfathered in, so their respective cap hits would remain the same.
Thanks, I see that now on the PD article (if they accept the ultimatum)
Although I feel the league brass are morons for letting things go this far, I can’t really blame them for their reaction to the 3rd Kovy contract. It really is a FUCK YOU in their face.
However this ends, none of this posturing sends out good vibes for the next CBA.
Lord Stanley's new address: Sweet Home Chicago!
by ChicagoNativeSon on Sep 2, 2010 9:30 AM CDT up reply actions
right, it would be grandfathered in as is
the confusing sentence is this one:
Existing contracts for Roberto Luongo and Marian Hossa are also subject to these conditions being accepted by the NHLPA
I believe they are saying that the potential voiding of these deals is subject to the NHLPA decision, not that the deals themselves are subject to the new CBA conditions.
Ditto for Badgerdano
Luongo's deal is different
in that he merely signed an extension that hasn’t kicked in yet. He’s still under his old deal until next season so his extension would be the first to go. Hossa’s contract is entirely a different matter since he’s already played one season under it.
tremendously tremendous
by Crease Monkey on Sep 2, 2010 1:40 PM CDT up reply actions
bingo
NHLPA and Blackhawks lawyers would jump all over the NHL for trying to void an accepted and in-effect contract. This is where I think Hossa’s deal stands apart from the others.
Not all those who wander are lost.
my Captain is better than your Captain
they're picking a fight with the NHLPA
while Fehr’s not officially leading them. It’s very cutthroat.
(Tweets @ChiBlackhawks and blogs at Blackhawks Down Low.)
by chiblackhawks on Sep 2, 2010 10:16 AM CDT up reply actions
Excellent point
Chicago Blackhawks - 2010 Stanley Cup Champions
Things have changed forever, we're the Ramblin' Boys of Pleasure
This ultimatum makes no sense to me.
How is it that the status of contracts for Hossa and Luongo (which reflect negotiations carried out by the Hawks and the Nucks) can be made contingent on the acceptance of a contract negotiated by the Islanders? The Isles were the ones stupid enough to submit the contract for a second time like this, why are other teams suddenly getting penalized for the fact that Lou is an idiot? If the League doesn’t like the contract, the CBA has ways to deal with that: take it to arb, and if the arbitrator rules in your favor, punish the team involved. If another team submits a bad contract next year, do the same thing and make the penalties even stiffer if they want. Why should the NHL get to change the rules of the game just because they feel like it?
It’s like if Bettman and I were arguing, and suddenly Bettman says, “Well, if you agree with me right now, I get to hit you in the face. And if you don’t agree with me, then I get to hit you in the face and also punch the next two random people I see.” I just don’t get it.
by spokeinthebandwagon on Sep 2, 2010 12:18 PM CDT up reply actions
You'd be right
but we are talking about people who can’t understand normal thinking.
Nice to see
you didn’t use the acronym
Maybe, just once, someone will call me 'Sir' without adding, 'You're making a scene."
Yis.
I was just doing some reading on the Lighthouse Project before I ran across the PD article, and apparently NY teams blur together in my mind.
by spokeinthebandwagon on Sep 2, 2010 12:28 PM CDT up reply actions
Also
If the new arrangement changes cap hit for contracts over five years in length, what happens to Keith’s cap hit? He’s got the longest deal on the team right now, though Soupy might also be affected.
by spokeinthebandwagon on Sep 2, 2010 12:21 PM CDT up reply actions
Nvm
It’s future contracts over 5 years. Okay then.
by spokeinthebandwagon on Sep 2, 2010 12:26 PM CDT up reply actions
If the NHLPA agrees to the terms
Dunc’s contract would be grandfathered in.
Soup’s salary is the same as his cap hit, so it wouldn’t be impacted.
Ditto for Badgerdano
inappropriate use of comment
this should be a FanPost, or at least a FanShot.
June 30, 2010. We will rue this day.
Too bad you can't list Scott as a forward
I’m pretty fond of Kopecky. For now, anyway.
Weirdly, I dreamt Scott played for the Bears last night. How is he the Blackhawk that shows up in my dream?
Go jump in Toews Lake.
Aubrey: old German for king of the elves. Huff: English for...huff.
by shinkicker on Sep 2, 2010 9:18 AM CDT via mobile reply actions
Contraction draft
Let’s move the opposite/more sensible direction (because it makes sense it will never happen anyways)
Kill of 4 teams: Lightning, Panthers, Coyotes, Blue Jackets
The remaining 26 teams get to draft players from those teams in reverse order of the previous regular season final standings. Aquired players salary will not count against the cap for the remainder of their contract.
Who would be left at pick #24 for the Hawks and who would you want?
Not all those who wander are lost.
my Captain is better than your Captain
There's a winning idea
although that blog would be a significant undertaking – assumptions on what team would pick who based on needs (short term and long term) etc etc etc. It would be a dandy of a read, though. I’m going to email From The Rink and see if they’re interested in tackling something like that…because, as you said, and I wholeheartedly agree, contraction is the most likely scenario. I think it should happen at some point, especially if prevents another labor stoppage.
"What the hell, let's review it." - Dale Tallon
"They are!" - Pat Foley
"What a farce." - Dale Tallon
The thing that would make that even more difficult after an all out war with the player’s union (headed by Don Fehr now, mind you), would be cap considerations.
If you contract teams, it would stand to reason that the gross revenue the league calculates its cap percentage from would go down. So not only would a franchise have to claim someone on the cheap, but teams like the Hawks who are already dry humping the cap would need to jettison even more salary.
Chicago Blackhawks - 2010 Stanley Cup Champions
Things have changed forever, we're the Ramblin' Boys of Pleasure
Oh I know, it would be a zoo
a zoo where none of the animals were caged, and upon entering the employees of said zoo would strap a raw T-bone steak belt on you, and say, “Welcome! And a friendly reminder, this zoo is not responsible for any disfigurement you suffer.”
Also, I’m pretty sure Don Fehr will be wearing this to upcoming meetings…

"What the hell, let's review it." - Dale Tallon
"They are!" - Pat Foley
"What a farce." - Dale Tallon
Less teams = less revenue
but then we’re also dividing that $$ up between fewer teams so wouldn’t the cap stay near the same? I admit I have no idea how the CBA decides this and I’m just applying logic which probably means I’m wrong since this is the NHL.
Not all those who wander are lost.
my Captain is better than your Captain
Losing lost income
Keep in mind that the teams that would be downsized are the ones not making, or rather losing money, ie Coyotes. So it would result in more revenue per team.
Lord Stanley's new home is Sweet Home Chicago!
Can't kill the 'Ning
That’s been a consistently viable market when the ownership situation isn’t in complete shambles. I contract Atlanta WAY before I contract Tampa.
Chicago Blackhawks - 2010 Stanley Cup Champions
Things have changed forever, we're the Ramblin' Boys of Pleasure
Agreed.
Why isn’t Nashville in the conversation?
There are only two seasons in Chicago; Hockey and Construction.
It's close enough for a road trip
Not all those who wander are lost.
my Captain is better than your Captain
Nashville has gotten good of late. Plus, they have Hornqvist, Weber, Franson, Suter, Erat, and Rinne. I think they will be trending upwards.
"Mes que un club"
"You're a pro or you're a noob. That's life"
by Scratch and Snif on Sep 2, 2010 10:24 PM CDT up reply actions
I think that Ohio should have a team before Tennessee
I could be wrong. Ohio just seems like a more natural place for hockey.
There are only two seasons in Chicago; Hockey and Construction.
Cleveland is a more logical market though
Preparing my psyche for the coming Capocalypse
Confusion will be my epitaph.
Cleveland ehh???
You mean here?
http://youtu.be/ysmLA5TqbIY
http://youtu.be/oZzgAjjuqZM <———- Absolutely Hilarious!
Drink it up!
In Stanley we trust! 34,38,61, and finally 2010!!!
I love these things
"Mes que un club"
"You're a pro or you're a noob. That's life"
by Scratch and Snif on Sep 3, 2010 1:33 PM CDT up reply actions
I agree.
Never understood putting an NHL team in Columbus. That’s like putting one in Madison, WI before Milwaukee.
39 years of pain vaporized by one OT goal. (1971 loss to Habs)
The NHL tried Cleveland once and it failed
As for choosing Columbus, the Blue Jackets are competing with Ohio State football and basketball. Other than the dipshits than run the NHL, it’s still beyond me why they would even bother putting a team there.
Maybe, just once, someone will call me 'Sir' without adding, 'You're making a scene."
I get cheap ass tickets to see the Hawks when they are in town
Thank you Ohio State Football
Back off man, I'm a scientist
Bug Chucker Fly Fishing
by BigCSouthside on Sep 3, 2010 4:29 PM CDT up reply actions
that's what I'm saying
because pretty much everyone has the Jackets being moved/retracted in this scenario, and I’d rather see the Preds get chopped/moved
There are only two seasons in Chicago; Hockey and Construction.
Leave the Preds alone
From someone who lives by Chattanooga lets squash this talk quick like. The Preds are pretty much my only ’Hawks hookup. And tickets are cheap. During playoffs i got 6 rows from the glass for 115 a piece. 2 rows from glass were 150. Lets keep moving nithing to see here…
by neverhome30728 on Sep 3, 2010 1:17 PM CDT up reply actions
Agreed
100%, you have to think about us trapped in the south. Nashville is ok, the team is ok. Tickets are EASY to get and cheap, as stated above. For those of us in the area, we love their Preds, simply for the above reasons. (and the power play two finger thingy is something to see, really, best fun you can make of a team and still not feel dirty afterwords)
Teams i'd remove
Atlanta, Florida, Columbus and Phoenix (though I would relocate 2 of them for 28 teams)
At 24th pick? tough call…wonder who would make it to that number
2009-2010 Stanley Cup Champions
Chicago Blackhawks
Hey Burke
Looks like you can get either Rick Nash or Steven Stamkos!
What? You traded that pick for Dany Heatley, that doesn’t sound like you!
Ditto for Badgerdano
Danny Heatley? Surely you jest. Burke would trade his pick, and an extra two 1st rounders, for Ryane Clowe and a box of crayons.
"Mes que un club"
"You're a pro or you're a noob. That's life"
by Scratch and Snif on Sep 2, 2010 10:27 PM CDT up reply actions
I havent had my coffee yet (college is great) but...
How come I don’t see viktor stalburgs name anywhere?
CHICAGO BLACKHAWKS-2010 STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS!
by elpjuly4 on Sep 2, 2010 10:47 AM CDT via mobile reply actions
Someone just watched Fear and Loathing...
LV might be a good place for one of these fictitious expansion teams, no?
The NHL could form the Desert Division. Why not? There’s skiing in Dubai and that economy is doing well, right??
Lord Stanley's new address: Sweet Home Chicago!
by ChicagoNativeSon on Sep 2, 2010 12:57 PM CDT reply actions
There's also skiing outside LV
real snow on a real mountain. I always had fun there.
Not all those who wander are lost.
my Captain is better than your Captain
No one gets my reference (sigh)
everyone look up (new SCH tagline)
Lord Stanley's new address: Sweet Home Chicago!
by ChicagoNativeSon on Sep 2, 2010 6:42 PM CDT up reply actions
work has been too crazy this week
to get references. I’m sure I’ll read it again on Sunday and laugh
Not all those who wander are lost.
my Captain is better than your Captain
more on the NHL's Ultimatum
from ESPN insider, here are the 2 conditions that the NHLPA must agree to for a CBA amendment:
1. Age 40 cutoff: When a player signs a contract into his 40s, the salaries past his 40th birthday won’t be calculated into the cap number. In Ilya Kovalchuk’s contract, the Devils signed him until the age of 44, although he wasn’t expected to play that long. However, they just added years onto the end of the deal at a minimum salary, which lowered the average salary over the course of the whole deal. And that average is how cap numbers are currently calculated.
2. Weighted cap numbers: The NHL wants to take the five most expensive consecutive years of a contract and weight them. So in Kovalchuk’s first deal, there were five consecutive seasons in which he would’ve made $11.5 million. Those season’s would’ve been weighted more heavily in the average.
The first part of the amendment isn’t surprising, and it is probably fair, but could that second part be any more convoluted?
First of all, how can the NHLPA agree to a generic statement like that? The NHL doesn’t specifiy how much weight they’d put on the highest years. The PA could say, “sure, weighting the cap hit based on the max salary is fine”, but then the NHL could assign whatever weight they want without the NHLPA having the chance to agree with the number.
To me, it seems like adding a magic formula to cap hit calculation is much more difficult than a statement like this:
“For players signing mult-year deals, the minimum salary for any one year of the contract can not be less than 40% of the maximum salary paid out in any year of the contract.”
The downside to the 40% rule (somewhat arbitrary by the way) would be that it makes the lifetime contract for a superstar almost an impossible feat, but are these lifetime contracts really necessary? The only reason most of these 10+ year lifetime contracts are being handed out is to reduce the cap hit. If a player and an organization are committed to loyalty, then the player will more than likely be on that team for a long time, and if they aren’t, there will be a reason for it.
Under the 40% rule, current contracts would be grandfathered in, but just for kicks, let’s apply it retroactively to some “cheat” deals:
For the following deals, I calc’d the 40% min and applied it to all years that were below that minimum, and then revised the cap hit accordingly.
Kovy’s newest
current cap hit = 6.67
revised cap hit = 7.62
% inc. in cap hit = 14.3
Hossa
current cap hit = 5.28
revised cap hit = 6.0
% inc. in cap hit = 13.6
Dunc
current cap hit = 5.54
revised cap hit = 5.8
% inc. in cap hit = 4.7
Pronger
current cap hit = 4.92
revised cap hit = 5.64
% inc. in cap hit = 14.6
Savard
current cap hit = 4.01
revised cap hit = 4.84
% inc. in cap hit = 20.9
Luongo
current cap hit = 5.33
revised cap hit = 5.64
% inc. in cap hit = 14.1
Ditto for Badgerdano
I knew I'd make a mistake somewhere
Lu’s revised hit would be 6.1, and the % inc is correct at 14.1
Ditto for Badgerdano
also
Kovy’s original 17 year $102 mil deal
Cap hit = 6.00 mil
Rev hit (w/ 40% rule) = 7.48 mil
increase = 24.7
The 40% rule takes Kovy’s previous min salary from $550k to $4.6 mil. Obviously the devils wouldn’t sign him to this deal if the 40% rule were in effect, but you get the idea, that deal was bunk.
Ditto for Badgerdano
My favorite twitter comment of the day
@DownGoesBrown: Gave my wife an ultimatum: Steak dinner tonight, or I de-register our marriage vows. She has a deadline of WHY ARE ALL MY CLOTHES ON FIRE?
by spokeinthebandwagon on Sep 2, 2010 4:16 PM CDT reply actions 2 recs
that's freakin' hilarious
"Because he's a (bleeping, bleep), that's what he is," Guillen said at the time of West (after Buehrle and Guillen ejected because of the balks) FUCK YOU JOE WEST
On Twitter? Follow my occasional rants about whatever...
by chisoxfan1473 on Sep 2, 2010 9:17 PM CDT up reply actions
I just ROFL so hard that even my LOLs are LMAOing.
"Mes que un club"
"You're a pro or you're a noob. That's life"
by Scratch and Snif on Sep 2, 2010 10:22 PM CDT up reply actions
when was the SCH tagline changed?
i dig the Hunter S Thompson reference
Back off man, I'm a scientist
Bug Chucker Fly Fishing
I was wondering that too, I only noticed that today
"Because he's a (bleeping, bleep), that's what he is," Guillen said at the time of West (after Buehrle and Guillen ejected because of the balks) FUCK YOU JOE WEST
On Twitter? Follow my occasional rants about whatever...
by chisoxfan1473 on Sep 2, 2010 9:18 PM CDT up reply actions
sometime in the wee hours of the morning?
It was still hoes and Cups when I went to bed last night, but different this morning when I got to work. Um, yeah. I’m addicted to SCH obviously.
by Katherine215 on Sep 2, 2010 11:18 PM CDT up reply actions
On the plus side
Enough of us have been dragged to AA meetings to know how to help you a bit.
There are only two seasons in Chicago; Hockey and Construction.
Step 2: The airing of grievances?
Step 3: The feats of strength?
39 years of pain vaporized by one OT goal. (1971 loss to Habs)
I'll get the aluminum poll out of the garage.
There are only two seasons in Chicago; Hockey and Construction.
Hey on other news
At least Kovy’s deal was accepted so that means the others will all be grandfathered in
2009-2010 Stanley Cup Champions
Chicago Blackhawks

by 


























