Arbitrate This
Al Cimaglia | Jul 19, 2010 | Comments 54
There are many reasons why the Blackhawks are in a salary cap bind.
There were a couple of big overpayments involving the Brian Campbell and Cristobal Huet contracts. Another factor which isn’t brought up as much would involve players which went from earning close to the league minimum and then resigned multi-year extensions for around $3 million per season. None of those players were at All-Star status when they received very large increases. Last summer’s careless qualifying offer snafu added to some overpayments as well.
Certainly the Blackhawks franchise has been a victim of its own success but not enough fiscal responsibility was in place. Many believe Stan Bowman’s appointment as general manager signaled the end for Blackhawks careless overspending.
As a long time featured sports writer from Chicago once commented….Dale Tallon paid players as if they were his own children. Maybe the criticism was a bit harsh, maybe not.
Bowman is trying to maintain a tighter fiscal discipline. He doesn’t want a relatively unproven player’s salary to jump from near the NHL floor to well over $3 million per year. Those which are watching closely realize Bowman has already gotten rid of the most overpaid players on the team except for Campbell and Huet.
Will Bowman be forced to send Antti Niemi packing in the same way as Cam Barker, Dustin Byfuglien and Kris Versteeg?
Trading away a young Stanley Cup winning goalie would require some real cojones, plus let’s not dismiss the hefty hike in ticket prices already in place for Hawk faithful.
But Bowman didn’t sign up for an easy job and it could be a long year. Imagine the relentless criticism if the 2010-2011 season is knocked off the tracks because of poor goal keeping due to the Hawks not re-signing Niemi.
The Niemi negotiations were supposedly going along, until Doug Wilson upset the proceedings. The Hawks then made Niklas Hjalmarsson their first priority and now Niemi’s camp, led by agent Bill Zito have been left dangling.
Zito always worked well with Tallon, which meant his clients left the negotiating table happy. But Bowman won’t ever be confused for Tallon.
Unless the tune out of Zito changes quickly and Niemi signs on for less than $3 million per season the Hawks may seek an arbitration settlement. We are getting close to crunch time as Niemi’s hearing is set for July 29, only ten days away.
There are a number of different factors to consider when ascertaining a fair contract value for Niemi. For our discussion, goal tender salaries which can be used as comparables will be reviewed. Also we will take a look at some of the criteria an arbitrator will use in determining Niemi’s new contract.
My information concerning arbitrator guidelines are from an article by Jamie Fitzpatrick in About.com.
1. The player’s “overall performance” including statistics in all previous seasons.
Niemi’s playoff stats were very good, although his GAA wasn’t as low as Jaroslav Halak, Michael Leighton, Evgeni Nabokov or Tuukka Rask.
He didn’t dominate in the playoffs but he was as good as Pekka Rinne and out played Roberto Luongo, Nabokov and Leighton.
Advantage Zito
As for the regular season, Niemi was good but his sample is based on fewer games than any starting goal tender in the NHL.
Last year Niemi only started 35 games and played in a total of 39. His stats rank him around mid-pack in the league although many had more games played.
By those standards Niemi could be considered good but not great. The Hawks team defense and penalty killing unit ranked high, which also doesn’t help Niemi’s cause.
Advantage Bowman
2. Injuries, illnesses and the number of games played.
Niemi wasn’t injury prone. But in the big picture he saw limited regular season action compared to other number one goalies.
Advantage Bowman
3. The player’s length of service with the team and in the NHL.
Niemi has played in only 42 regular season NHL games and he didn’t start in all of those.
Advantage Bowman
4. The player’s “overall contribution” to the team’s success or failure.
Would the Blackhawks have won the Stanley Cup with Huet between the pipes?
Advantage Zito
5. The player’s “special qualities of leadership or public appeal.”
The young guy is likeable enough. But until he can string a few sentences together in English his popularity will be based entirely on the team’s overall success. There doesn’t appear to be any edge here for Zito.
Advantage Bowman
6. The performance and salary of any player alleged to be “comparable” to the player in the dispute.
Here is where the proceedings can get really dicey for each side.
No doubt Zito will want to draw a comparison to Halak and Jonas Hiller.
Halak didn’t go to the Blues in a sign and trade, it was the opposite. To say he had an extreme upper hand on Blues management would be an understatement.
When St. Louis acquired him they knew they would have to agree to Halak’s demands. The result was Halak signed a four year contract with a $3.75 million dollar cap hit.
In January, Hiller signed a four year contract paying him an average of $4.5 million each season. Hiller had close to the same amount of NHL games when he signed his extension as Niemi has now. That could be a big problem for Bowman. But, and it is a big but in my estimation, Hiller would have become an unrestricted free agent six months later if he wasn’t re-signed.
Bowman will undoubtedly bring up the contract value of the Kings starting keeper Jonathan Quick. His progression in the NHL and status before signing his three year contract extension could be viewed similarly to Niemi’s situation.
Quick signed a three year extension which runs through 2012-2013 for a cap hit of $1.8 million. Before agreeing to his extension Quick wasn’t about to become a UFA.
Although Carey Price was a high draft pick his last contract might be a comparable enough for Bowman to emphasize. Price had signing bonuses involved as well, as his cap hit was $2.2 million for the 2009-2010 season.
Price is unsigned for next year and Quick might be available via trade. The Kings have the well thought of Jonathan Bernier waiting in the wings. Bernier is thought to be NHL ready, although only 21 years old.
Maybe the goalie which is most similar to Niemi is Rinne, who just signed a two year extension in February. Rinne reminds me of Niemi in some ways as they are both close to the same age. Rinne’s cap hit will be $3.4 million, and his contract will run through 2011-2012.
A notable point which comes into play when using Rinne’s contract as a comparable was his pending UFA status. Niemi is only a restricted free agent otherwise he might already be with another team.
Advantage Bowman….As long as the arbitrator agrees there is a higher realized contract value for players negotiating an extension just before being eligible for free agency.
How much extra value an arbitrator will place on a pending UFA goalie is probably the most important unknown. There aren’t many goalies that were not drafted and quickly won a Stanley Cup, so this hearing is not typical. My presumption is the added leverage a pending UFA has when negotiating an extension can’t be discounted.
If Niemi had another solid season of stats under his belt an arbitrator could value him closer to Halak and Hiller. Now a conclusion might come somewhere between Quick and Prices’s contract values, an average of $2 million and Rinne’s $3.4 million cap hit.
My guess is the Hawks won’t agree to pay Niemi as much as Rinne before the arbitration hearing. If an arbitrator ends up determining Niemi’s contract value both sides will have to hold on tight.
Players which signed new contracts after earning UFA status aren’t used as comparables in NHL arbitration hearings.
If the arbitrator only uses recent contract signings which didn’t involve pending UFA’s, maybe it boils down to an average between the Quick and Halak contracts.
If that is the case the Niemi camp will be disappointed as his new deal would be for slightly less than $2.8 million.
If an arbitrator weighs the pending UFA factor heavily then Niemi’s ruling should be below $3 million per season. If an arbitrator discounts Halak’s contract, as he was already traded to a new team before agreeing to terms, the Niemi camp won’t like the outcome.
If Niemi had pending UFA status and a longer resume he could deserve a contract between Rinne’s $3.4 and Hiller’s $4.5 million.
Bowman could stick to a more stringent stance than in the past and choose to not pay Niemi in excess of $3 million dollars per season.
In my estimation Niemi’s new contract shouldn’t be strictly compared to those with longer resumes and on the verge of UFA status. That said, Niemi could be much better next year after the benefit of pressure packed playoff seasoning.
The Hawks front office could be banking an arbitrator views things my way. There are so many unknowns, but the last is the biggest question of all.
Will the mistakes of the past cost the Blackhawks a potential star goal tender of the future?
blackhawkswin@comcast.net
Filed Under: Al Cimaglia • Chicago Blackhawks • Featured • NHL
Al, excellent summary of the factors in play.
It’s really interesting to see how the salary cap has changed the way teams have to construct themselves.
There’s also a certain irony in the situation…Tallon signs Huet to $5.6 million dollar deal after signing Khabibulin to $6.75 per…the Hawks end up winning with an $800K/yr rookie.
Now Zito may be looking for more money than the current goalie market will bear.
Or Bowman may be forced to walk away from one of the best value priced netminders Chicago has ever seen.
That’s hockey…nowadays.
Kovy to NJ instead of LA doesn’t hurt Hawks.
Al>agreed…Hawks still in good posture in the West, especially with Lamoriello and not Lombardi signing Kovalchuk.
BTW VegasInsider.com today has odds 5-1 CHI favored to repeat as Cup winners.
The other thing Niemi and his handlers probably realize is that there are precious few goalie jobs available right now anywhere in the NHL – especially for big money.
His best chance to maximize his earnings is to play really well again this year. That best happens if he has a strong defense in front of him. I am guessing that is with the Hawks.
I am seeing hope for a one year deal that is cap friendly to stay with Chicago being worked out before the arbitration hearing. We go nowhere in the playoffs with Crawford – yet. He needs a full season as #2 with the big club.
The Flyers may still need a number 1 but LA has Quick, Bernier…Ersberg…they all are good and they will trade one of the top two is my guess.
Big game of Texas Hold ‘em going on. We’re in the pre-flop betting round right now. Except the flop cards are in the control of the players in this case. The turn and the river cards controlled by the arbitrator. Both parties do not want to go there. Based on what you point out, Al, I like Bowman’s hand more than Zito’s at the moment.
I think both sides feel like they were dealt a pair of Kings….
Al>can we take it you’re suggesting if the Hawks and Zito can’t come to terms, that Bowman might deal for a Quick fix?
I don’t see LA helping the Hawks or vice versa unless absolutely necessary….
Unless the arbitrator is completely ignorant of the difference between UFA and RFA he/she will realize as you said that Rinne’s and Hiller’s contracts are not good comparables – your point about Halak not being a sign and trade also plays to the Hawks favour. The boat is seems listing to Bowman’s side. Zito will come down in price I predict eventually to avoid the arbitration. The interesting question will be to what figure does he have to come down to before Bowman agrees to pay him – 3M? 2.8? 2.5?
This is a good test of Stan’s negotiating skill – we’ll see.
I think at $2.3-$2.5 the Hawks would bite.
Al, at those numbers, and perhaps a one year deal, both the Hawks and Zito/Niemi could win.
If Niemi has a strong season he may get more $ as a UFA in 2011-12.
I think the Hawks will want to go for 2 yrs…which if Niemi can become a UFA after next season would be more of a reason for him to sign a 1 yr. deal before arbitration.
As far as I know the team decides the term in arbitration.
Love this blog and the opinions on it.
Bowman sent Zito and Niemi the clear message by publicly guaranteeing Sharp he isn’t going anywhere that they will not shed anymore salary to accomodate them at the negotiating table.
If I am Bowman I have 1.9 on the table with room to 2.2 and am banking on Zito realizing this is a terrible market for Goaltenders.
It the arbiter goes 2.5+ Bowman will let Niemi walk without even thinking about it. He has to.
Campbell isn’t going anywhere while the Hawks have their current salary cap issues. Who would do them that favor? I think McCabe for Campbell for 1.4 in relief while it is much needed is not enough.
The roster as I pencil it out without Huet because he will not be there comes in at $57.1 +/- a rounding error. That leaves 2.2 for Niemi and puts them right against it.
Just my thought. Good luck Stan
Seems like Bowman got some value for his trades and didn’t have to make a Gagne for Matt Walker type of trade (I hope we don’t see Sharp to Colorado for Koci..).
I was thinking the same…
I thought there was a Gagne for Quick trade coming….guess not.. but have to figure LA has to trade a young keeper eventually.
Al,
Thanks for all the enjoyable summertime reading.
I have to give Bowman high marks for the value trades he has made. As shruew points out, the “Gagne for Matt Walker and a 4th” trade smells like a salary dump. Bowman’s moves appear to rise above.
Quick aside: if the Devils signed Kovy for $102M over 17 years with $95M front-loaded to years 1-12, how do they determine the cap hit? It can’t be a simple average, can it?
Anyway, although the Blackhawks only have 17 players under contract with the big club, they still have approximately $4M to $5M to play with to stay within the 10% overage, correct?
Do they have to have a minimum number of players signed to the roster in order to comply with salary cap/union guidelines and rules (similar to baseball’s 24-man reg season roster)?
Thanks again for all your insightful work and keeping us rabid fans in the loop. Sure makes the offseason more tolerable.
There are roster minimums and maximims.
The max is 23 and the min. is 20.
The cap hit amount is a simple average although players can get front end loaded contracts.
The reason for a 17 yr. contract is so the cap hit each season can be lessened.
So the Hawks must sign at least three more players to the big club with whatever is left of their 10% overage.
What is to stop them from moving the three least expensive guys in the system from the reserve list to the active NHL roster? Are there limits to the number of player moves that are permissible?
“If the arbitrator only uses recent contract signings which didn’t involve pending UFA’s, maybe it boils down to an average between the Quick and Halak contracts.”
I’m not sure why the arbitrator would choose to only consider contract signings that didn’t involve pending UFAs.
The point of arbitration when requested by an RFA is to give them a venue in which a fair market value for their services can be determined, something they don’t have otherwise. This is why “comparable” UFA contracts can’t be considered because a UFA has options available to them that an RFA doesn’t – like, you know, going and testing the market and seeing how much they can get.
So whether a player is about to become a UFA or not is irrelevant to the basis of the arbitration, and should be. The same logic explains why the team’s cap situation can’t be factored in.
I’m not sure why the arbitrator would choose to only consider contract signings that didn’t involve pending UFAs.
My point is they are not a pure comparable….not as out of whack as a UFA signing but closer to that status than a RFA like Niemi not on the verge of becoming a UFA.
So whether a player is about to become a UFA or not is irrelevant to the basis of the arbitration, and should be. The same logic explains why the team’s cap situation can’t be factored in
It is far from irrelevant…
The player’s ruling should not be influenced by the cap situation of the team involved…I couldn’t agree more.
But that point has nothing to do with a pending UFA having far more leverage than someone who is only an RFA like Niemi.
In determining a contract value the player’s CBA status should be taken into effect.
A RFA doesn’t have the same leverage as a pending UFA…so it stands to reason pending UFA’s could receive a higher contract value in most cases.
The fact that an RFA doesn’t have the same leverage as a is exactly why RFAs have the option for arbitration, though: they don’t have any other recourse. What would be the point if the only salary comparison that should be considered is what GMs are willing to offer other players without available options? That would put players at a serious disadvantage. And since all RFAs have a 1-year period, why would a player in that situation sign anything longer than a year? That way they could just wait out the negotiations and test the real market, where they are on much more fair terms.
The point of arbitration is to determine a fair market rate and what a reasonable salary would be for a player. It’s a substitute for players who can actually go test the market, not a tool for GMs to keep salaries low.
But regardless of that, I’m still not sure why you think an arbitrator would automatically refuse to consider contracts of any RFA signed as a pending UFA. I don’t see any of those contracts as being abnormally high or out of whack like you suggest, and I don’t see them as having more leverage at all, just more options. Also, considering that a player is only an RFA for a single season, it seems like a curious exemption to make. When does an RFA turn into an RFA-pending-UFA-status? Should deals made in the first 4 months of an RFA season be considered RFA deals but the last 4 be considered RFAs-pending-UFA-status?
Let’s not go to extreme.
I didn’t say not to consider the pending UFA contracts at all..I said they shouldn’t be considered in the same way.
Actually the contracts for pending UFA’s are higher so they should be somewhat discounted. Rinne doesn’t get a contract for $3.4 mill if he wasn’t almost eligible for free agency.
RFA’s don’t have the same options and the only reason Niemi is even eligible for arbitration at this point is because of his age when signing his first NHL contract. Not all RFA’s are arbitration eligible.
The whole point of entry level contracts, RFA’s, arbitration eligible RFA’s and UFA’s is they are all treated differently because they are at different points in their careers.
I don’t see any of those contracts as being abnormally high or out of whack like you suggest, and I don’t see them as having more leverage at all, just more options.
They have more leverage because they have more options…
If you see it differently then we will have to agree to disagree.
Al, one of arguments the Hawks have working for them is that rookie goalies have shown themselves to have less than stellar sophomore years.
Steve Mason is a prime example.
Antti Niemi has talent, but the question with all goaltenders is ultimately mental toughness. Niemi might be well advised to take a reasonable raise and establish himself as a true number one, rather than looking for the big money right away.
There are more than a few examples, as we know, of goalies who get fat contracts and then fold in the clutch.
It will interesting to see if Zito plays the waiting game.
(BTW in other news, with reports today from both Chris Kuc and Tim Sassone that Bowman has told Sharp he won’t be traded, it may be that Stan has a Plan B if more salary needs to be moved. Sharp getting married will no doubt sadden a number of Lady Hawks.)
“The player’s ruling should not be influenced by the cap situation of the team involved…I couldn’t agree more.”
Recently, a blogger (I forget which one) pointed out that no arbitrator had ever awarded an NHL contract that the team in question could not meet under the cap.
First, I have no idea if that is really true.
Second, Niemi isn’t going to receive a figure that would take Chicago to 10% over the limit, unless I am really bad at math.
At any rate, I mention this in case anyone knows whether or not it is true. It’s an “idle curiosity” thing.
If Sharp is really untouchable, Bolland’s days seem to be numbered. Reasoner and Kopecky don’t make enough to justify trading. Also, Kopecky seems to be the NHL equivalent of Ruth to Hossa’s Naomi: “Entreat me not to leave you, or to turn back from following you; For wherever you go, I will go; And wherever you lodge, I will lodge.”
Yeah, I admit it. I’ve been wanting to use that comparison for weeks! ;)
Bolland as well as Sharp were on the untouchable list…until proven otherwise I will stick with it.
We won’t no who they have to trade, if anyone until after Niemi’s deal…If it is a choice between Niemi and Bolland…Niemi will be with another team.
Recently, a blogger (I forget which one) pointed out that no arbitrator had ever awarded an NHL contract that the team in question could not meet under the cap.
Doesn’t matter if it is true.. although I don’t think there has been a case where a team was so far over the cap as the Hawks are now.
The Hawks can walk away or trade Niemi if they need to…an arbitartor has a lot to consider but it won’t matter one bit what the Hawks cap sitauation is.
Your point about Hossa and Kopecky is true ..so he won’t be first choice….but Reasoner and or someone else …replaced by one/two Ice Hogs could happen.
Al – if Niemi signs for 2 years or more what about the idea of trading Crawford and signing Yann Danis or Manny Legace at 5-6K to save a little under the cap (maybe to keep Kopecky) or do you think the Hawks still think Crawford has a future with them?
Colin…I have to agree with Al on the Hiller, Renne contracts – they are not exact comparables. Hiller and Renne signed those contracts as extensions to go into effect after the date when they could declare themselves UFA so those extensions were negotiated as those they were already UFAs. This is not Niemi’s situation and arbitration is not meant to make it the equivalent of Hiller’s and Renne’s situation. That is not the point of the arbitration process. If Niemi signs for 1 year THEN he will be in Hiller and Renne’s position coming up to UFA status the following year.
I don’t see the benefit trading Crawford who has paid his dues to save a small amount of money.
I haven’t spoken to anyone. who’s opinion I value, that said Crawford didn’t play as well a Niemi in last yrs training camp.
Al>good point about Crawford.
There seems to be some skepticism among certain Hawks fans about Crawford, but until we’ve seen him play a number of NHL games, it’s premature to judge.
He appeared to play well in camp and the preseason. Perhaps the time he has spent in the AHL will pay dividends, as it did for the Wings with Jimmy Howard who took a similar route.
the reason Crawford didn’t make the roster was because of the difference between Nimei and his contract…waiver provisions.
I can’t say I’ve studied the CBA extensively, but from my elementary understanding of it, the Hawks still have approximately $4.8M ($4,863,410 if CapGeek.com’s numbers are exact) to spend before they reach their limit of 10% over the cap.
That 10% cap overage is only permissible during the offseason. They still have to get total salaries, including last year’s “deferred bonus” penalties, under $59.4M once the season starts.
Let’s say Niemi signs for $2M; a little unrealistically optimistic, but let’s say he does. That gives Bowman $2.8M to play with until the Hawks reach the magic 10% overage. So he has breathing room during the summer months.
That also leaves management with a major decision. Either Huet starts the season in Rockford and the club buries his salary of $5,625,000 in the minors, or they have to make a major trade to reduce salaries by $5M to $6M.
Yikes.
Which leads to the logical conclusion that Huet has to remain in the minors. He’d be crazy to walk away from his contract, and nobody is going to trade for him.
If Bowman and Tallon make a trade (Campbell for McCabe), the Hawks only save $1.4M off the cap for 2010-2011. That means we cannot take McCabe back without sending Huet down or still needing to make another blockbuster, salary dump trade.
That one would really smell like a salary dump.
Okay, let’s assume Bowman has already informed Huet that he starts the season in Rockford. Take Huet’s $5.625M off the books and bring up Corey Crawford. Roster still stands at 18 players and total salaries are approximately $57.7M.
That leaves a minimum of two roster spots to fill, maximum of five. And only $1.8M (approximately) to fill those spots.
Again, yikes.
In my humble opinion, Bowman cannot afford to sign Niemi for much more than $2M. And shedding Campbell’s salary for McCabe would provide much needed breathing room for this year, but more importantly going forward.
If you want to see this for yourselves, go to http://www.capgeek.com/cap_calculator/index.php?teamId=11 and play with the numbers yourselves.
It ain’t purty.
That is why there is no way Huey can stay on the roster.
Plus.. $1.4 mill doesn’t sound like a lot but here it is.
The extra 1-1.5 mill on Hammer’s deal did hurt.
Al, you’re right. Every dollar is critical. It’s the difference between possibly keeping Reasoner, Brouwer, or Kopecky for a little veteran presence… or resigning Bickell or Hendry to round out the roster… and having to settle for Klinkhammer or Makarov or Cullimore or rushing another prospect.
Maybe Niemi signs for 20 years front loaded for $45MM
Shreuw> y’know, maybe he does….
…or how about 10 years, 22.5 million?
Thanks for the nice words.
I thought $2.3 to begin with….If Zito would come in at $2.2-3 I think Bowman would sign off now.
The tune is changing out of Zito…there’s no more 3-4 mill talk…now he says he would like to avoid arbitration…I don’t blame him.
If I am Bowman I am offering him about what you said with just a little wiggle room.
I also would tell him if it goes to arbitration the Hawks will seek a two yr. ruling….
Zito knows he could come out with a $2.2 ruling and be stuck for two years instead of just agreeing to a one yr deal.
Al, do you think Bowman won’t budge on a two-year contract and that’s why he and Zito have yet to strike a deal?
I’m surprised they haven’t gotten it done yet, but maybe both sides are playing chicken until we get closer to D-day (or would that be A-day?)…
What if they make it a bonus-laden deal? Would the bonus be deferred to next year? Does deferral depend on the type of bonus?
It’s appears that either Zito will have to sign what Bowman offers or they go to arbitration.
The biggest loser in both cases could be Niemi if the award was too high…the Hawks trade him to a team with cap space or he becomes a UFA and can’t sign with any club for more than Bowman was offering.
It is in everyones best interest to get it done but Bowman has the check book and the account is almost overdrawn.
I wonder if Zito sees it as leverage that Crawford is going into the last year of his contract as well. Or am I really stretching now?
Joe Fallon is an UFA with St. Louis. I liked his play in Rockford. Wonder if Stan would re-sign him for depth??
Heck, could Crawford be the odd man out again this year? Toivonen (or Fallon) would save $250,000 and any dollar saved is a good dollar.
If Antii gets $2M, another trade is likely. If he gets more, it’s a necessity.
Campbell has a No Trade Clause. Do you think he would accept a trade to Florida?
I wrote about Campbell on Friday..
It’s Crawford’s turm this yr…having only on yr. left means nothing now.
Thanks for the reminder. I didn’t remember that you speculated on which teams he may be willing to go to.
Just playing around on capgeek…Assuming Bickell and Hendry sign for 6K (which another blog speculated) the Hawks get under the cap with Niemi at 2.3 and trading/waiving Reasoner BUT being able to keep Kopecky.
You gotta figure Stan knows this too – given the tight spot the Hawks are in the above would be a major win.
Not sure if this has been floated elsewhere.
Spezza for Campbell.
1) Hawks get $142,785 in relief
2) Sens get rid of chronic underachiever
3) Spezza comes off the books 1 year earlier than Campbell and is 4 years younger. Spezza is 27, Campbell is 31
4) Spezza slots in as the #2 Center and gets out of the glare of the Canadian spotlight. Chicago isn’t Columbus obviously but Spezza’s underachievement won’t be a national sports news story either.
5) If the Hawks figure out a way to get more production out of the big playmaking center he has way more value than Campbell ever will. Spezza still has upside, Campbell is a finished product.
6) Bolland becomes the #3 Center. On a high caliber team that is where he belongs.
7) Sharpy gets to stay on the wing if Quenneville wants him to.
8) Chicago can start the season with one AHL center instead of two. In this scenario I like Dowell over Reasoner.
9) Murray gets to finally move Spezza.
If I am Murray I ask for 2 prospects as sweetener because of Spezza’s age. If I am Bowman I give it to him.
No….2) Sens get rid of chronic underachiever
Enough said.
If Spezza had only 1 or 2 years left it could be debatable.
Big if…
Did you change your handle?
Finally fessing up to being of Polish descent?
Was on another browser so I had to retype it and threw in the -ski. Dont recall ever denying being a proud Pole :)
No you never denied it… actually in all the years never knew you were….my wife’s half Polish although she looks more Italian than me….lol
hey shruew(ski)…
proud purebred Pole here too
and… I don’t like the Spezza thing
Being in Ottawa, I’ve seen Spezza play more than once. Imagine a tall Versteeg without the feistiness. And a $7 mil cap hit.
Pass.
LOL, Dave, perfect description/comparison.
With a handle like General Sosabowski, obviously another Pole! :)