Jump to content
The Official Site of the Montréal Canadiens
Canadiens de Montreal

Niklas Hjalmarsson Offer Sheet


Recommended Posts

This makes no sense though. Why doesnt anyone else ever do it? There has to be something we're missing.

There are only a handful of teams who can justify spending more than 5 million dollars on a minor leaguer. Also, this is a big reason why we've seen such a rise in questionable no movement clauses. Such a clause prevents a team from doing this unless the player agrees to do it. That's why we had to buyout Laraque instead of just sending him to Hamilton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Second - and more important - Huet falls into an odd situation because he's not yet 35 (and was under 35 when he signed the contract) but will be 35 this september... I am not certain but believe they cant bury his contract this season, next year there should be no problems. The league always seems to use dates in june and july as the "measuring" stick for age, so if Huet is 34 NOW, then I would not be surprised at all if he has to remain on the Cap until next summer.

You have a couple things wrong here. First, you do have it backwards: it's only over 35 that you get the "cap hit no matter what". But also, it's only when you sign the contract, not your age in any given season. The reason for the rule was to prevent front-loaded deals which cheat the cap by tacking on low-dollar years after the player is expected to retire. However, it has been a failure since guys like Hossa are signing really long deals long before they are 35.

Basically, the CBA is quite clear that only players on the NHL roster count against the cap (other than buyouts, bonuses from last season, plaeyrs who signed a deal over 35, etc.). A one-way deal is not an exception.

This makes no sense though. Why doesnt anyone else ever do it? There has to be something we're missing.

Well it costs a lot of money, and it doesn't exactly make your team appealing for free agents (not to mention team morale). In most situations, the tradeoff just isn't worth it. Take Hamrlik for example, is it really worth sending him to the minors at his full salary when he can still contribute, just because he's a little overpaid? Huet is a rare case in that the tradeoff is clearly worth it (for Chicago at least, on many teams it wouldn't be worth it). You kind of have a best of both worlds situation: Chicago desparately needs to shed salary, and Huet has what is likely considered one of the worst contracts in the NHL: they will bite the bullet and send him to the minors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyways, want to add that I can't believe they matched. Not only did they just take on an overpriced contract (not a great idea when you have major cap issues), but also gave up a couple of nice compensation picks. Maybe we're all underating this guy (remember Kessler?)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyways, want to add that I can't believe they matched. Not only did they just take on an overpriced contract (not a great idea when you have major cap issues), but also gave up a couple of nice compensation picks. Maybe we're all underating this guy (remember Kessler?)?

It was a surprising move. If they had the right to move him by way of trade,, then maybe it would have been worth it to match and explore the possibility of a better deal then S.J.'s 1st and 3rd. They dont even have that option for this comming season so this is an odd move by the Hawks. Maybe they're planning on moving one of those big three in some blockbuster deal for huge returns in picks and prospects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...