[Signing] Chicago signs Toews and Kane to 8 yr contract extensions ($10.5 mil AAV EACH)

[cannon7]

Will be interesting to see if the Blackhawks can ice a contender over the course of these contracts. Teows/Kane is arguably the best duo in hockey, better than Crosby/Malkin even, so this is a good move in all likelihood. But I imagine it will be difficult to keep top-end talent like Keith, for example, without sacrificing depth in a big way.

[EldrickOnIce]

Can someone explain the relevance of 50% as signing bonus?
This keeps the AAV the same but drops the actual dollars later?
What, if any, ramifications does this have on potential buyout(s), etc?
Thanks

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Chicago needed to keep both, and why wouldn't they? Toews and Kane are about the best pair of players in hockey. This is a better package deal for better players than when the Sedins signed their "sweetheart" contracts with Vancouver in 2009.

I'm not sure why you quoted me to say this... the part you quoted was me in direct agreement with what you're saying.

I think they deserved those contracts, and that it was smart for Chicago to keep them. Good deal all the way around imo.

[Jacks]

We'll have to see how the contracts end up structured. I believe that signing bonuses are guaranteed money and aren't affected by buyouts. I think they are paid out lump sum at the beginning of each year?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by GoJetsGo

I'm not sure why you quoted me to say this... the part you quoted was me in direct agreement with what you're saying...

Uh, yeah. That was kind of the point.

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by GoJetsGo

I am a huge Toews fan and always prefer the Canadians over Americans, and also dislike Kane's personality.



But you're flat out wrong. The amount of times Kane has scored tying and game winning goals in the playoffs - especially his cup winning OT goal - show his game breaking traits put him up there at equal value with Toews.



This is a case where they're definitely best keeping both of them and at the same price tage. Great deal for Chicago despite the premium.

I love Kane's personality, and find him a whole lot more exciting than Toews.

That said, "flat out wrong"? No. "In my opinion I disagree"? Sure, I'm good with that. Again, Kane's ability is undeniable, he's a top 10 player in the league. He does, however, have defensive issues. Toews, while not as explosive offensively in a visual way, plays almost a perfect game.

Some May value Kane's "game breaker" ability so strongly than Toews nearly equal scoring prowess and much stronger defensive ability are all but forgotten, but over the past 5 years Toews has asserted himself as a dominant (perhaps the most dominant) 2-way player in the NHL. Kane is known for his goal scoring ability, but he rarely out-performs Toews in that regard.

I found this surprising myself, but Toews has more goals, a better goals/per game, and a better shooting percentage than Kane over the past 5 years. In the playoffs Kane has 6 more goals than Toews over the past 5 years, but his shooting percentage is still lower.

As for all those game winning goals in the playoffs? Kane has 7, Toews has 8 (again, past 5 years). 4 and 2 in overtime respectively. So again, not remarkably different.

They're excellent players. Both of them, nearly equally. In my opinion however, Toews has more impact over the entire surface of the ice, while the two are not significantly different in their scoring ability. It's actually more surprising that Kane doesn't get recognition as a playmaker, as he's more apt in that role.

You may respectfully disagree, and that's totally cool. They've been deemed equal commodities by the Blackhawks so my opinion is my own, just thought I'd outline the reasons why I hold it.

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

I love Kane's personality, and find him a whole lot more exciting than Toews.

That said, "flat out wrong"? No. "In my opinion I disagree"? Sure, I'm good with that. Again, Kane's ability is undeniable, he's a top 10 player in the league. He does, however, have defensive issues. Toews, while not as explosive offensively in a visual way, plays almost a perfect game.

Some May value Kane's "game breaker" ability so strongly than Toews nearly equal scoring prowess and much stronger defensive ability are all but forgotten, but over the past 5 years Toews has asserted himself as a dominant (perhaps the most dominant) 2-way player in the NHL. Kane is known for his goal scoring ability, but he rarely out-performs Toews in that regard.

I found this surprising myself, but Toews has more goals, a better goals/per game, and a better shooting percentage than Kane over the past 5 years. In the playoffs Kane has 6 more goals than Toews over the past 5 years, but his shooting percentage is still lower.

As for all those game winning goals in the playoffs? Kane has 7, Toews has 8 (again, past 5 years). 4 and 2 in overtime respectively. So again, not remarkably different.

They're excellent players. Both of them, nearly equally. In my opinion however, Toews has more impact over the entire surface of the ice, while the two are not significantly different in their scoring ability. It's actually more surprising that Kane doesn't get recognition as a playmaker, as he's more apt in that role.

You may respectfully disagree, and that's totally cool. They've been deemed equal commodities by the Blackhawks so my opinion is my own, just thought I'd outline the reasons why I hold it.

Fair enough, but Kane at 8 to Toews' 12 just seemed out to lunch.

I don't think it's as simple as trying to break it down statistically. Kane's game-breaking ability and penchant for coming through in the clutch has made him one of the biggest playoff performers in recent years. He's one of the most dynamic wingers in the game.

I think it would have been a disservice for Chicago to evaluate them at the same time and label one as being more important than the other. They're clearly one of the best duos in hockey, and while they bring different things to the table with their games I think they've been equally important to the team up to this point, and their contracts should and do reflect that.

[FireGilbert]

Good contracts for Toews, Kane, and the Hawks. Both players would have received more on the open market next year. Obviously the Hawks will need to get rid of some players in the future but will still be a top team. I think their big issue is Hossa and the recapture penalties though.

[Lanny_McDonald]

The cap comes down and the Hawks are screwed. As long as the Canadian buck remains strong the contracts won't be that damaging. The Canadian buck drops and the cap will follow, putting the Hawks behind the eight ball.

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by GoJetsGo

Fair enough, but Kane at 8 to Toews' 12 just seemed out to lunch.

I don't think it's as simple as trying to break it down statistically. Kane's game-breaking ability and penchant for coming through in the clutch has made him one of the biggest performers in recent years. He's one of the most dynamic wingers in the game.

I think it would have been a disservice for Chicago to evaluate them at the same time and label one as being more important than the other. They're clearly one of the best duos in hockey, and while they bring different things to the table with their games I think they've been equally important to the team up to this point, and their contracts should and do reflect that.

Don't get me wrong, those numbers were literally made up on the spot without any relevant thought put in, I just tried to split their cap hit differently. As you can see, I am dumb and made 1 million disappear by being bad at math. Looking at comparables, Kane fully deserves to be in the 10 million range.

I never suggested them getting paid equally was a bad thing, it's a great thing, it being any other way would be good for nobody really.

As you said, Kane is a performer, he's flashy and exciting. He's a thrill to watch AND he contributes at a high level. When you boil it down to basics, does he really decide games in the same way Toews does? Probably not, but it's a hell of a lot more fun watching him do it.

[puckedoff]

Dis wat is gonn look liek wehn Calgry re-sign Guadreau and Monnohans.
Kane-Taves 2.0 baby!

[Barbecue]

There's also the ego thing too

When you have two superstars that are very close to what they bring to the club, you cant have one of them paid slightly more than the other. It's just going to cause tension and bitterness with the guy who's got the lower dollar amount.

Even if Toews is slightly better, he's the bigger man for not asking slightly more than Kane

[calf]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Can someone explain the relevance of 50% as signing bonus?
This keeps the AAV the same but drops the actual dollars later?
What, if any, ramifications does this have on potential buyout(s), etc?
Thanks

I think the signing bonuses have to be paid in full if there is a buyout.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

Dis wat is gonn look liek wehn Calgry re-sign Guadreau and Monnohans.
Kane-Taves 2.0 baby!

[Hackey]

I guess time will tell the impact this has on their ability to ice a contender but they are two of the best players in the game and you have to keep them. I think Getzlaf and Perry might be the best duo though. It's a close call.

[MuscleOnTheBlvd]

The Hawks had to re-sign both of them. You're either a rebuilding team or you have the star players like they do.

What are you going to do, let one of them walk and try and replace them?

The thing with Jonathan Toews and Patrick Kane is that it's probably easier to bring in lesser skilled players and they'll be better playing with those 2 guys.

They could have gone $10M each and saved an extra $1M on the salary cap otherwise I'd say it's a good double signing by Chicago.

They still have some good players in Hossa, Sharp, Keith and Seabrook.

[getbak]

People can say "Oh no, they'll be in trouble if the cap goes down", but the cap has never gone down, even after the massive economic collapse in 2008. The last couple of seasons have been a little screwy because of the new CBA adjusting the players' share, but in regular year-to-year growth, the cap has gone up at least $2M per year except for 09-10, when it only went up $100,000. Some years, the cap has gone up over $6M from one season to the next. Between 05-06 and 08-09, the cap rose $17.7M.

Could the cap drop (or even remain steady) at some point in the next 8 years? Sure, it could. If that does happen, it will probably be after the cap has gone up $5M+ per year for three or four years before it, and will be followed by another couple of $3M+ increases in the years following it.

Originally Posted by Arya Stark

The TV deal has zero impact on the season coming up. The TV deal will have an impact on the 2015-16 season and beyond.

That's not true. The cap is calculated using both the past season's real dollars, and any known significant revenue that will be on the books for the following season (it can also be decreased if there will be a known significant drop in revenue).

The NHL starts receiving the money from Rogers next season, and the players will receive their share of that money next season. It doesn't make any sense for both sides to know that money will be available in a season, and that money will be used in calculating that season's HRR (and the players' share of that HRR), and not accounting for it in the cap.

For next season's cap, the player's chose to only use part of the known revenue from the Rogers deal because they wanted to lower their escrow payments. The cap could have been 70 or 71 million had they used all of the money from the Rogers deal.

Originally Posted by GGG

This is less than Iggy got in the second year after the lockout when the cap was 39 or 42 and he signed is 5 yr 35 mil contract. Now that didn't work out that well for the rest of his contract but in terms of cap percentage he was higher.

Since those first 7 mil contracts early in the cap system the top players as a % of the cap have been taking less and less. The psychological barrier of 10 million and the cap cheater contracts pushed those numbers down.

Now that you can't cheat the cap this will be typical for top players to get 15% of the cap. And this should spread good players around the league a little more than right now.

Exactly. The only reason we haven't seen a $10M cap hit previously is because teams started signing the ridiculous long-term back-diving deals. If you took just the first 8 years of some of those deals, we would have crossed the $10M barrier at least two years ago.

In 2005-06, Iginla's $7M contract was 17.9% of the $39M cap. If the cap goes up to a conservative $73M for 2015-16, Toews and Kane's deals will be 14.4% of the cap, and if it goes up to $75M, their deals will be 14% of the cap.

[Geeoff]

I hope that in the future, Monahan and Bennett are in the position to sign deals like this.

[DOOM]

Originally Posted by cannon7

Will be interesting to see if the Blackhawks can ice a contender over the course of these contracts. Teows/Kane is arguably the best duo in hockey, better than Crosby/Malkin even, so this is a good move in all likelihood. But I imagine it will be difficult to keep top-end talent like Keith, for example, without sacrificing depth in a big way.

Keith is signed at 5.38 million until 2023.

Seabrook however is only signed for two more years.

[trackercowe]

Originally Posted by Geeoff

I hope that in the future, Monahan and Bennett are in the position to sign deals like this.

Exactly what I was about to post, but you know with the Flames, not with another team.