Bigthuder1636 Posted November 19, 2009 Report Posted November 19, 2009 The rumor is that the Blackhawks are going to sign Kane, Toews, Keith to long term deals worth big money. In order to do this they are obviously going to have to dump other big contracts (Campbell, Hossa, and Huet being the biggest). I find it hard to believe they would dump Hossa who they just signed and hasn't yet played a game for them and Huet is their only real goalie so that leaves Campbell a likely cut. I am not saying the sabres could should or would seek to bring him back,I am just wondering what you think he would be worth on the open market since he hasnt done much since he signed that huge contract? What would it take to sign Brian Campbell now compared to 2 years ago?
inkman Posted November 19, 2009 Report Posted November 19, 2009 ...so that leaves Campbell a likely cut. NHL players under contract can't be cut, unless a stick, fist or skate is involved.
Eleven Posted November 19, 2009 Report Posted November 19, 2009 They're going to have to get rid of some talent if they want to do this, either by trading high salaries (and in Campbell's case, probably agreeing to pick up some of the salary), or otherwise. From a Sabres perspective, I think the most attractive potential casualty from Chicago's overspending is Ben Eager.
shrader Posted November 19, 2009 Report Posted November 19, 2009 They're going to have to get rid of some talent if they want to do this, either by trading high salaries (and in Campbell's case, probably agreeing to pick up some of the salary), or otherwise. From a Sabres perspective, I think the most attractive potential casualty from Chicago's overspending is Ben Eager. They're not allowed to take on part of a player's salary in any deal.
Bigthuder1636 Posted November 19, 2009 Author Report Posted November 19, 2009 They're not allowed to take on part of a player's salary in any deal. That's true and the article I was reading suggested that if they couldn't trade his salary they would consider buying him out to create the room they needed. The article did not actually said that they would buy him out only that they have to make room and they would do what it took to take Campbell's salary off their books. Add to this the fact that many of the teams that would pay that salary, and that number is dwindling, have salary cap questions of their own, buying him out may be the only option left to them. Thats all I am saying.
Eleven Posted November 19, 2009 Report Posted November 19, 2009 They're not allowed to take on part of a player's salary in any deal. Good. Then I definitely want a $2M-$3M offer sheet issued to Eager next summer.
carpandean Posted November 19, 2009 Report Posted November 19, 2009 They're not allowed to take on part of a player's salary in any deal. True, but they could send him through waivers, then bring him back through re-entry waivers and, if picked up, take on half of his salary. That's $3.57 million in salary (and cap?) for the next six years. Since his contract has a constant salary, the cost of a buyout is easy to figure out. They would have to pay him $2.38 million per year for 12 years and would have a cap hit for the same for just as long. Yikes!
Mbossy Posted November 19, 2009 Report Posted November 19, 2009 True, but they could send him through waivers, then bring him back through re-entry waivers and, if picked up, take on half of his salary. That's $3.57 million in salary (and cap?) for the next six years. Since his contract has a constant salary, the cost of a buyout is easy to figure out. They would have to pay him $2.38 million per year for 12 years and would have a cap hit for the same for just as long. Yikes! That should have been his pay from the get go.
shrader Posted November 19, 2009 Report Posted November 19, 2009 True, but they could send him through waivers, then bring him back through re-entry waivers and, if picked up, take on half of his salary. That's $3.57 million in salary (and cap?) for the next six years. Since his contract has a constant salary, the cost of a buyout is easy to figure out. They would have to pay him $2.38 million per year for 12 years and would have a cap hit for the same for just as long. Yikes! There's still one minor detail on this that could throw everything for a loop. Does he have a no movement clause? It seemed like everyone was getting them with those big contracts a few years back.
Calvin Posted November 19, 2009 Report Posted November 19, 2009 True, but they could send him through waivers, then bring him back through re-entry waivers and, if picked up, take on half of his salary. That's $3.57 million in salary (and cap?) for the next six years. That's a good point - if they put him on waivers with that inflated salary, would any other teams be interested?
Kristian Posted November 19, 2009 Report Posted November 19, 2009 That should have been his pay from the get go. Amen. Of all the players we've let go in recent years, Campbell was by far the least painful to lose. Especially when looking at the contract he got, I mean WHAT were the Hawks thinking? Great puck mover, heck yes, but since when do you pay a guy 7 mill. bucks a year for carrying the puck through the neutral zone??
carpandean Posted November 19, 2009 Report Posted November 19, 2009 Especially when looking at the contract he got, I mean WHAT were the Hawks thinking? Great puck mover, heck yes, but since when do you pay a guy 7 mill. bucks a year for carrying the puck through the neutral zone?? I agree about the "what were the Hawks thinking" but you can't really consider the contract that he got in determining whether they should have let him go. I believe that it was fairly well established that the Sabres weren't coming up from about $4 million per and he wasn't coming down from $4.5 million per. That was about my indifference point. If we had him under contract for around that much, it wouldn't be the worst thing. I'd have to think about picking him up if he were placed on re-entry waivers. Shrader: according to here he does have a NTC with an 8-team "short list" exception ... Brian Campbell, CHI - NTC [can provide a list of 8 teams he will accept a trade to; team has 45 days from date notice is received to trade him to any team on that list]
shrader Posted November 19, 2009 Report Posted November 19, 2009 Ahh, I didn't know that any site actually compiled a list of trade/movement clauses. That's good to know. But back to the original point which I shouldn't have skipped over. I could never imagine it getting to the point of re-entry waivers with Campbell. That's a lot of dead space for Chicago to have sitting on their cap. If they're ever going to get rid of him, they'll find a way to get rid of the whole contract.
nfreeman Posted November 19, 2009 Report Posted November 19, 2009 I would take him back in a heartbeat if the Sabres were on the hook for only 1/2 of his salary. I expect 95% of the teams in the NHL would do so as well.
Kristian Posted November 19, 2009 Report Posted November 19, 2009 I agree about the "what were the Hawks thinking" but you can't really consider the contract that he got in determining whether they should have let him go. I believe that it was fairly well established that the Sabres weren't coming up from about $4 million per and he wasn't coming down from $4.5 million per. That was about my indifference point. If we had him under contract for around that much, it wouldn't be the worst thing. I'd have to think about picking him up if he were placed on re-entry waivers. Shrader: according to here he does have a NTC with an 8-team "short list" exception ... Never said they should have let him go, only that I felt better about him leaving than guys like Dumont, Grier, Drury and McKee. I should've made that more apparent in my post. Alhough I do think 4 mill. for what he brought at the time of his trade was too much, although I'm sure others will call me crazy. When Campbell left, the Sabres didn't need him as much as they needed fixing in other areas. Had they gotten the player(s) they DID need however, Brian could've been a big asset to the team, but still not worth a dime over 3.5 mill. At the time of his trade some made the point that he was asking for Niedermayer and Pronger money without being anywhere near their level. I think that still stands.
... Posted November 20, 2009 Report Posted November 20, 2009 Never said they should have let him go, only that I felt better about him leaving than guys like Dumont, Grier, Drury and McKee. I should've made that more apparent in my post. Alhough I do think 4 mill. for what he brought at the time of his trade was too much, although I'm sure others will call me crazy. When Campbell left, the Sabres didn't need him as much as they needed fixing in other areas. Had they gotten the player(s) they DID need however, Brian could've been a big asset to the team, but still not worth a dime over 3.5 mill. At the time of his trade some made the point that he was asking for Niedermayer and Pronger money without being anywhere near their level. I think that still stands. I never thought Campbell was worth $4 mil, and watching him play against Calgary right now I'd say he's worth maybe $2.75 mil at most (despite the current 6-1 blowout the Hawks are enjoying). At the time, I didn't think he was worth any thing over that. Of course, I didn't think Vanek was worth $7 mil, and I REALLY don't think he's worth that today.
Kristian Posted November 20, 2009 Report Posted November 20, 2009 I never thought Campbell was worth $4 mil, and watching him play against Calgary right now I'd say he's worth maybe $2.75 mil at most (despite the current 6-1 blowout the Hawks are enjoying). At the time, I didn't think he was worth any thing over that. Of course, I didn't think Vanek was worth $7 mil, and I REALLY don't think he's worth that today. Too true.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.