Devoted Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 I'd probably pay Hamilton 6+ million on an offer sheet. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd as compensation would hurt, but the value isn't that far off. If you were to try and trade for him, the asking price would likely be Tanev+top prospect+pick. By offer-sheeting him, you'd keep your developing assets and give up a year's worth of 18 year olds.. Could be worse. Not like JB will shaft his old team though.. just fun to consider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackcanuck Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 For you dreamers of Benning offersheeting Hamilton, We don't have our 2nd and 3rd picks or the Cap space Hamilton is 21 yrs old, 215lbs, 6'5",#1-#2 RH 2 way D ANA has a ton of Cap DET has been looking for a RHD FLA CAL OTT NSH all have lots of Cap room And their picks should be 12th or higher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicklas Bo Hunter Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Bruins would trade Chara before they let Hamilton go on an offer sheet... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Is Hamilton worth 6.7 mil and a first, second and third pick though? If a contender (ie late round picks) offers something even at slightly less cap hit - ie 6 million, I think it would be worth it to them and could really hurt the Bruins in the short run either way - match and they have to fork out a 6 million cap hit to him next year, don't match and they're getting late round picks for Hamilton - they'd have to match. Would an eastern rival resort to that? But I doubt it gets to the point where teams can offer sheet him - they lock him up before then imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 For you dreamers of Benning offersheeting Hamilton, We don't have our 2nd and 3rd picks or the Cap space Hamilton is 21 yrs old, 215lbs, 6'5",#1-#2 RH 2 way D ANA has a ton of Cap DET has been looking for a RHD FLA CAL OTT NSH all have lots of Cap room And their picks should be 12th or higher It would be our 2016 picks. But you're correct in that we would need to re-acquire our 3rd round pick from either the Isles or Sharks. We would certainly be able to make $6 mil of cap room for Hamilton. In a heartbeat. Everyone in the league would. And so would Boston. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Iginla's bonus money comes off the books. Chris Kelly/Loui Eriksson gets moved and replaced full time by Spooner/Pastrnak. The NHLPA opts for the 5% salary cap increase. They're as bad off as you make it sound. They just need to play better, especially on the PP. This particularly is something people forget for next season. They have a $4.779M cap hit from Iginla's bonus last season that was deferred to this year. That won't be there next year. They still have some jockeying to do with other pieces, and there's some worry about particularly Smith's consistency considering he signed for two years at that price, but it's a stop gap to get them through. ... I was under the impression that Talbot's retention was for this season only. You can't retain salary for only part of a contract. It has to be the same percentage for each remaining year. Depends on the length of the deal really. I'd prefer to see a $6 million sheet heading their way. keeps costs down and still shafts the B's Wonder if Chiarelli will see one though Make me laugh if benning mans up and sends one over. Hamilton is trending into a solid 1-2 D man and we've seen what they're worth I'd love to get him, but we don't have our third next year (the second we traded is this year's) so we're missing the necessary compensation for any offer from ~$3.4M-$8.4M. We could trade something back to the Islanders to get it back (maybe a Higgins deal?) but we don't have it as it stands. Bruins would trade Chara before they let Hamilton go on an offer sheet... Someone would have to be willing to take him and the three remaining years on his deal at a $7M cap hit for that to work though. No guarantees, even with salary retained and a minimal asking price, that a team would want to take him on as he declines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 It would be our 2016 picks. But you're correct in that we would need to re-acquire our 3rd round pick from either the Isles or Sharks. We would certainly be able to make $6 mil of cap room for Hamilton. In a heartbeat. Everyone in the league would. And so would Boston. Absolutely, even if it meant trading Tanev to do so. We can exceed the cap by 10% in the offseason so if it went through we'd be able to make trades to accomodate the extra. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackcanuck Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 If the Bruins don't make the playoffs, Chiarelli and Julian both could be gone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 I'm surprised people are assuming the NHLPA accepts the 5% cap escalation. It affects the escrow retention, & apparently last summer was a b!tch to get through. Like to see what a tightening economic climate would do to some rivals... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 I'm surprised people are assuming the NHLPA accepts the 5% cap escalation. It affects the escrow retention, & apparently last summer was a b!tch to get through. Like to see what a tightening economic climate would do to some rivals... I think it will go to a vote of the members and they'll approve it. It's a function of the majority of players are financially able to cope with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 ^The owners are 'all-in', & praying the 5% goes through(read:the influential, key BOG types). They'll probably use expansion as a means to persuade the NHLPA. Expanding to 32 teams creates another 100 contracts(pro/prospects). Then there's talk about expanding to 20 teams(4 fighting out a 'play-in' to qualify for PO's)..wonder if owners might give the NHLPA a slice of any expanding, post-season pie? Big biz seems to rule the day. More & more players doubling up as ambitious stockbrokers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 ^The owners are 'all-in', & praying the 5% goes through(read:the influential, key BOG types). They'll probably use expansion as a means to persuade the NHLPA. Expanding to 32 teams creates another 100 contracts(pro/prospects). Then there's talk about expanding to 20 teams(4 fighting out a 'play-in' to qualify for PO's)..wonder if owners might give the NHLPA a slice of any expanding, post-season pie? Big biz seems to rule the day. More & more players doubling up as ambitious stockbrokers. I think that's correct. The PA won't get a piece of the expansion monies but they get jobs. Also relocations will expand revenue meaning higher salaries. I don't know about the expanded playoff format. There will be pretty big backlash but who knows. Players should all be hockey business experts...considering how quickly salaries have gone up, despite three labour stoppages, they stand to benefit from it substantially in the next half dozen years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goblix Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 ^The owners are 'all-in', & praying the 5% goes through(read:the influential, key BOG types). They'll probably use expansion as a means to persuade the NHLPA. Expanding to 32 teams creates another 100 contracts(pro/prospects). Then there's talk about expanding to 20 teams(4 fighting out a 'play-in' to qualify for PO's)..wonder if owners might give the NHLPA a slice of any expanding, post-season pie? Big biz seems to rule the day. More & more players doubling up as ambitious stockbrokers. Wouldn't owners want smaller caps ? Cap going up means that more is spent on players and more money overall spent on the team means less in the pocket... The only reason some owners spend to the cap (other than the passion for the game and extremely deep pockets) is that teams spent to the cap are likely to get into the playoffs and are more likely to go deeper than others. The insane money is in the postseason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush17 Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 I like the idea of Seattle and maybe another Canadian team getting a franchise. I just can't picture the nhl keeping 32 teams long term. Does the nfl have 32 teams or 30? Can't think of a league that can sustain that 30 seems to have been the max in the past. Maybe my lack of nhl knowledge is why I feel this way. Please do correct me if there is 32 in the nfl Ok I looked it up there is 32 in the nfl. I still hold my judgement though. Not sure if it's feasible hockey isn't as popular as nhl. I know less kids are playing football in the us and more are involved in hockey but I would be surprised. Maybe tho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 Rush17, Consider that particular sport is US-centric, with more kids apparently opting for other sports(youth involvment), due to the health questions. By contrast, NHL is firmly entrenched in 2 influential nations, & going more global in player resources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morrissex95 Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 I fail to see how they are in trouble with the cap if the NHLPA exercises the 5% multiplier. Lucic (6.0) - Krejci (7.25) - Smith (3.425) Marchand (4.5) - Bergeron (6.5) - Pastrnak (0.925) Soderberg (2.5) - Spooner (1.0) - Connolly (1.0) Paille (1.5) - Talbot (1.25) - Campbell (1.8) Griffith (0.925) Chara (7.0) - Hamilton (5.0) Seidenberg (4.0) - Krug (3.4) McQuaid (2.5) - Miller (0.8) Bartkowski (1.5) - Morrow (0.863) Rask (7.5) Svedberg (1.0) Moved: Eriksson (4.25), Kelly (3.0) = $72.138mil - ($69.4 mil x 5% = $72.87 mil cap) * Italics indicate an assumption on re-signings That's still a pretty decent line-up. shoulda kept seguin... they got way worse long term with that trade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 chara is gonna be even slower next year. i lol. He used to look like a big clown trying to skate in his Prince George days.... ... and then you'd see him lay someone out and cringe at the hit. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plum Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 They'll probably need someone to fill Soderberg's spot because he'll fetch a lot in the market and Boston can't afford him unless trading more than Eriksson/Kelly. To me, I think it's going to come down to how much longer can Chara anchor the back-end. He's already slowing down so next season he might just not be able to hold it and the Bruins could come crashing down, probably won't crash but they'll be struggling defensively. Hamilton as good as he is looking, he still makes mistakes and can't be a #1 defenceman yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.