[Signing] Hawks sign Panarin to an extension (Update: Friedman: 2 years, 6 M per).

[browntrout]

Originally Posted by Locke

The crazy part is that people have been saying this for years, but they keep getting out of them.

Its amazing what you can do when you're a winning team with a wealth of young talent.

you have to credit them for dodging the lack of depth year after year...cudos to the GM for finding cheap alternatives to fill the voids. I do think that seabrook and keith in a couple of years are really going to start declining and if that happens, they are not going to have the cap space to sign adequate NHL defenceman.

The team has a 2-3 window to win...after that its going to be ugly....but they got three cups, a might feat indeed

[Locke]

Originally Posted by browntrout

you have to credit them for dodging the lack of depth year after year...cudos to the GM for finding cheap alternatives to fill the voids. I do think that seabrook and keith in a couple of years are really going to start declining and if that happens, they are not going to have the cap space to sign adequate NHL defenceman.

The team has a 2-3 window to win...after that its going to be ugly....but they got three cups, a might feat indeed

Hell yeah and its not like that window is unrealistic. You're saying 2-3 window, and it isnt unrealistic for them to win another Cup in that time-frame and I'd wager that window is for them as a serious contender if not a Cup favourite. After that there is still noise to be made.

If the Devil proposed a deal right now saying the Flames could win 3-4 cups in the next 6 years but then they'd suck again for a decade who wouldnt take that everyday and twice on Sunday?

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by Locke

Hell yeah and its not like that window is unrealistic. You're saying 2-3 window, and it isnt unrealistic for them to win another Cup in that time-frame and I'd wager that window is for them as a serious contender if not a Cup favourite. After that there is still noise to be made.

If the Devil proposed a deal right now saying the Flames could win 3-4 cups in the next 6 years but then they'd suck again for a decade who wouldnt take that everyday and twice on Sunday?

When does this ever happen? Few franchises win a championship every few decades. The Lakers is the only one I can think of. The Penguins did it with hockey for a young franchise. It's usually the case where a team doesn't win a championship or series of champions for nearly half a century after its first set.

Chances are if the Flames win a cup in our lifetime, they won't win another while we're alive. Or we'll be too old to care. Edit: thought about Yankees and Greenbay

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by thefoss1957

Oling...I doubt that the recapture penalty would survive a legal challenge, in the US. The CBA change came AFTER the Hossa contract...the legal argument would be that an ex-post facto rule change is invalid to apply...this would be akin to unilaterally changing a business contract, not allowable.

No offence intended here, but has an actual lawyer ever said this to you? Frankly, it sounds like nonsense. The CBA didn't "unilaterally change" a business contract. It IS a business contract. If the players and owners wanted to agree to the cap recapture rule, why would the Courts interfere?

[Geeoff]

Let's be honest, Hossa will "retire" in the same way Chris Pronger did. Hossa doesn't look close to retirement though with 16 goals so far.

[Vinny01]

Ugly bridge contract. Highest AAV for a 2 year RFA deal if I am not mistaken?

[cznTiburon]

It is insane looking at their cap situation next year. They only have just over 6 million in cap space right now and have just 24 players signed (including those that are in Junior right now). They have 7 players on their roster right now that have expiring UFA/RFA deals that will need re-signing. While guys like Campbell and Roszival will likely not be back due to age anyways where are they going to find replacements? They're going to need to find a way to get a backup goalie signed as well seeing as Darling is due for a raise from the $575,000 he is making.

They have been in trouble before but I think this is going to be the worst of it for them in terms of trying to get a solution.

[sureLoss]

^ Blackhawks will also almost certainly have bonus overages next season due to Panarin as well.

Even less cap space to work with.

[bubbsy]

under the cap they have 9 forwards, 5 dmen, 1 goalie.

so that leaves 6 million bucks to get 3-4 forwards, 1-2 dmen, and a backup goalie.

not ideal, but not dire either, as they can go bargain day shopping and get <= $1M contracts for each. Given that this is a sure fire deep playoff team almost yearly, there are likely some quality guys who would be willing to go there at a reduced rate. That being said, i wouldn't be surprised for them to make further moves to move out larger contracts and not skip a beat by simply finding great replacements somehow (seabrook, crawford, etc)...

[thefoss1957]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

No offence intended here, but has an actual lawyer ever said this to you? Frankly, it sounds like nonsense. The CBA didn't "unilaterally change" a business contract. It IS a business contract. If the players and owners wanted to agree to the cap recapture rule, why would the Courts interfere?

Because, in US law, ex-post facto changes are NOT binding...the CBA at the time of the contract, is what is applicable

In any case, this might be worth a legal challenge.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by thefoss1957

Because, in US law, ex-post facto changes are NOT binding...the CBA at the time of the contract, is what is applicable

In any case, this might be worth a legal challenge.

Judges rarely get involved with items collectively bargained.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Not a bad move by the Hawks at all. It allows them to stay competitive for the next two seasons. Signing Panarin for a longer term contract would have probably significantly increased that contract, forcing additional moves to get under the cap. This way, they keep their 'window' open for those two years, with a good possibility of more as I would figure Panarin would likely re-sign with the Hawks.

They just better keep drafting well to get good but cheap talent into that lineup.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by thefoss1957

Because, in US law, ex-post facto changes are NOT binding...the CBA at the time of the contract, is what is applicable

In any case, this might be worth a legal challenge.

Untrue. You are confusing statutory changes with contractual negotiations. It's assumed that changes to a collective agreement apply generally unless otherwise specified (i.e. a grandfather clause).

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by thefoss1957

Because, in US law, ex-post facto changes are NOT binding...the CBA at the time of the contract, is what is applicable

In any case, this might be worth a legal challenge.

Again, I don't mean any offence here, but your description sounds like it would apply if the CBA were a law that purported to retroactively change the terms of a played contract. There are two reasons this logic doesn't work:

1. The CBA isn't a law, it's an agreement. There are very few principles on the common law which would permit a court to interfere with the terms of an agreement, and to be honest I don't think this is one of them.

2. The cap recapture rule is not a retroactive modification of the player contract with Hosea. It is a consequence set out in the CBA, which sets out what happens to the Blackhawks, in the event that Hosea retires.

In short: I don't think "ex post facto" means what you think it does, and I very much doubt this principle applies here, and even if it did apply it would not create any basis for a "legal challenge" to a provision of the CBA that the Blackhawks agreed to during the collective bargaining process.

Again, happy to be corrected, but the idea that somehow the Blackhawks could avoid the agreed-upon consequences under the CBA through a court challenge sounds like wishful thinking to me.

[thefoss1957]

ex-post facto...after the fact, which would describe the cap penalty change in the CBA that would punish the Blackhawks for having entered a contract that was perfectly within the boundaries of the CBA at the time the contract was entered. I think that a legal test would be interesting.

[OILFAN #81]

Information on Hossa:

http://www.secondcityhockey.com/2016...etirement-ltir

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by thefoss1957

ex-post facto...after the fact, which would describe the cap penalty change in the CBA that would punish the Blackhawks for having entered a contract that was perfectly within the boundaries of the CBA at the time the contract was entered. I think that a legal test would be interesting.

The reason I don't think it would work is due to the teams agreeing to these changes, so if the rule applied retroactively it would have already been an agreed-upon change. I'm sure the owners in Nashville and Chicago were making sure they were aware of what would happen when Weber/Hossa retire.

I don't know if you could say "We legally agreed to the change, we legally signed off on it applying retroactively, but we don't think it should apply in this specific instance."

I don't think getting rid of Hossa would be a priority though and I don't see any reason of him retiring this summer.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by thefoss1957

ex-post facto...after the fact, which would describe the cap penalty change in the CBA that would punish the Blackhawks for having entered a contract that was perfectly within the boundaries of the CBA at the time the contract was entered. I think that a legal test would be interesting.

Thing is, as others have pointed out, the contract between the Blackhawks and Hossa is not affected. What is affected is the cap hit of that contract, which is a matter determined by the CBA – which the league, the PA, and every individual team have accepted. Since there is no breach of contract, it seems to me that there would be no grounds for a suit on the basis of that contract.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

No offence intended here, but has an actual lawyer ever said this to you? Frankly, it sounds like nonsense. The CBA didn't "unilaterally change" a business contract. It IS a business contract. If the players and owners wanted to agree to the cap recapture rule, why would the Courts interfere?

In addition, two things.

1) This doesn't change Hossa's contract in any way, shape, or form (edit: whoops, this has already been covered). It is simply a rule for how the salary cap works. The salary cap (as a portion of the CBA) is the legal landscape in which Hossa's contract operates. The legal landscape can change around existing contracts all the time -- just ask Alberta's power companies.

2) There's precedent for the NHL changing the rules (or interpretation of the rules) with respect to cap consequences of existing contracts -- see: Kovalchuk, Ilya.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by OILFAN #81

Information on Hossa:

http://www.secondcityhockey.com/2016...etirement-ltir

Pretty sure the numbers in that article are not correct. They assume the Hawks will be credited for years where Hossa's salary is less than the cap hit, I don't believe that is the case.