Hawks Shopping Ladd Hard – They’re in Trouble

by on June 22, 2010 in Free Agency - 166 Comments

Share

Brian Burke is a pretty smart guy. Months ago, he explained to the fans and media that while the current free agent market is weak, it could get stronger as cap strapped teams are unable to submit qualifying offers to some prominent restricted free agents. One such player could be Andrew Ladd, and there could be several other names in play as well. Follow me as a I crunch some numbers to figure out why.

Here’s how that works: The current salary cap set at $56.8 million, with a potential increase of another $2 million coming this offseason (could be announced as early as today), so let’s say next year’s figure is roughly $58.8 million.

A couple weeks ago, the Globe and Mail reported that including bonuses (you can exceed the cap by up to 7.5%), the Hawks exceeded last year’s cap by roughly $4 million. That means that number comes off their total for this coming season.

Here’s the problem: According to Cap Geek, they’ve currently got roughly $57.6 million committed to 9 forwards, 4 defensemen and a goalie. Add in that $4 million carry-over from last season and they’re now sitting at $61.6 million. But hey, they can just put Huet on waivers right now correct? Wrong. The waiver period only starts 12 days before the start of the regular season, yet the NHL qualifying offer deadline is June 28th.

So, they’ve got to find a way to make that all fit without the help of waivers. But Chicago does have the benefit of working at 110% of the salary cap until the start of the season, thus enabling them to go as high as $64.68 million.

Moving on…

Andrew Ladd made $1.6 million this past season and under CBA rules, any player making above $1 million must receive a qualifying offer in the amount of 100% of his previous year’s salary. In contrast, a player making under $660,000 would be qualified at 110%, while those making between $660,000 and $1 million would be qualified at 105%. So, Ladd’s qualifying offer would have to be for the same $1.6 million.

But that’s not all. The Hawks have several more key RFA’s needing qualifying offers:

G Antti Niemi – $800,000 – $840,000 qualifying offer

D Niklas Hjarmalsson – $600,000 – $660,000 qualifying offer

F Jack Skille – $1.3 million – $1.3 million qualifying offer

F Ben Eager – $1.0 million – $1.05 million qualifying offer

If they choose to qualify just those 5 players for the total of $5.45 million, their new salary cap figure would read $67.05 million, putting them way over the 110% limit. If my estimates are correct, the Hawks have roughly $64.68 – $61.6 = $3.08 million left in buffer room to work with. You have to assume that qualifying Niemi and Hjarmalsson are a given, so they’ve got $1.58 million left, or close to it.

Now remember Ladd’s $1.6 million? Yikes..that’s cutting it mighty close isn’t it? Given the inexactitude of my estimates, it’s possible that they could still just barely have the wiggle room to get it done.

That’s why despite the fact that Ladd is an RFA, the Hawks are essentially shopping him like crazy ahead of the June 28th deadline, because it’s very possible that he will become an unrestricted free agent at that time. That’s not even mentioning the likes of quality young players like Ben Eager and Jack Skille who are all but guaranteed to join the free agent class.

Remember when everyone wondered why Burke didn’t offer Champagne a contract? Now it begins to make a little more sense. On one hand, Joel was likely asking for a fairly large bonus laden contract, and at the same time, Burke had to watch his 50 contract limit because he expected several interesting depth players to become available.

It’s going to be an interesting next few days to say the least.

Well played sir.

[email protected]

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Print article

  • long_suffering_leaf_fan
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • long_suffering_leaf_fan
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Charlie

    Jordan wrote:

    Plekanec is a good player though. 5 mil isnt a bad price, but for 6 years its insane. They will be at the bottom soon enough wondering how to fix their mess

    Oh, I can not WAIT for that to happen!

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • rpearce76

    Surprised theres not more bobby ryan talk since neidermyer is hangin em up.

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Tim
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • luisad

    @ rpearce76:
    well I guess they have room to resign him?

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Jordan

    rpearce76 wrote:

    Surprised theres not more bobby ryan talk since neidermyer is hangin em up.

    I dont think Burke will match what other teams are willing to throw at the though. Nashville could easily give what they were offering for Kessel and we would never touch that

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • luisad

    @ Jordan:
    Agree, Bobby Ryan is really just a dream. I think Neal would be more realistic.

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Gilmour2halloffame

    Would you have traded our 7th pick overall (turned into Kadri) for say 1 year of Gonchar? No right so why would you turn down a 3rd overall for Kabs which also free’s up $4+ million to sign UFA’s i.e. Kovalchuk? Fowler will be a stud. Even if Burke didnt want to draft a D man he could trade that 3rd overall for a 1, 2, 3 rounders. Anyways Florida wouldnt trade the 3rd overall pick anyways for Kabs it would be an overpayment.

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Jordan

    Kaberle+Kadri
    FOR
    Bobby Ryan
    is probably what they would want. I mean I dont like that deal but you cant blame them for wanting it. Ryan is 23 and scored 30+ goals his first 2 seasons. Thats nuts. Hes what Kadri and Schenn are to us except hes already walked the walk

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • M_Dub81

    @ long_suffering_leaf_fan:
    i know the 3rd overall would never be offered for kabs, but imagine what we could do with that pick… chicago deal with sharp, package it for bobby ryan…. a lot of 3rd overall turn into excellent players, there’s a 3rd overall pick retiring as we speak, after having an amazing career… look at Duchene last year….

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • dlb
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Tim
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • kaz
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Gilmour2halloffame

    if BB is getting such a great return for Kabs why didnt he trade him last summer? because he didnt get a good offer! but now that kabs has 1 year left his value went up? nope!

    I want as much as possible for kabs too but be real.

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • luisad

    I’m sure teams were offering more last summer for Kabs, Burke was prolly asking too much. I agree with Tim, I wouldn’t call it a overpayment. I mean Kabs is not really THAT old, can prolly got for 3-5 more seasons, and we all know that McCabe and Kabs are a good pairing, Not to mention that there aren’t as many PMD out there.

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)