The Hawks should have resigned their own before they dipped into the market this could cost the Hawks Barker and Versteeg with no compensation

Posted by Aaron from MI from Huron, MI on 07/04/09 at 07:08 PM ET

...as this mistake may have been, there is no excuse for it, and the league should follow through with the ultimate penalty…

You mean the way they “followed through” with the automatic suspension on Malkin during the Finals for instigating a fight in the last five minutes of a game. Or the way the refs “followed through” with the too-many-men-on-the-ice call when the Pens played six-on-five for 24 seconds in the Finals. Yeah, the League has a really good track record for “following through” on things.

Not that Tick Tock would have ever let something like this happen, but if the Wings had done what Chicago did, this whole issue would have been settled by now...with the Wings suffering the consequences. And rightly so.

At some point, those who run businesses and fail to perform their duties within the letter of the law have to start paying a price for their actions. Banks. Mortgage companies. Hockey clubs. All of them.

Posted by OlderThanChelios from Grand Rapids on 07/04/09 at 08:02 PM ET

I don’t think this is going to end up with the NHL deciding how things work. Rather it’s in the hands of the NHLPA and the players’ agents.  If the team hasn’t done things in the correct manner it doesn’t matter what the NHL wants.

Posted by SV from Vancouver on 07/04/09 at 08:33 PM ET

Yeah, the League has a really good track record for “following through” on things...Not that Tick Tock would have ever let something like this happen, but if the Wings had done what Chicago did, this whole issue would have been settled by now.

...what do you propse the league should have done to “follow through” with the missed Too Many Men call?  Should they have wiped the game out of existence and replayed it?  Give me a break.

Actually, I don’t care if you get a break or not, Garth. But I sure as heck would have loved to see the Wings get a break in the Finals. If you don’t like to hear someone like me “complain” about that, then just skip my posts...because I’m not going to forget that this SCF was a sham.

wah wah wah.  shut up.  the penguins is bad guys.  did they make a boo boo on your wed wings.  god damn cry ass.  no room for you!  eat a weiner.

Well, now I see the error of my ways. I made the mistake of pointing to factual events that made you cry. So sorry. I hope you feel better soon.

Posted by OlderThanChelios from Grand Rapids on 07/04/09 at 10:26 PM ET

so there isn’t a strong push for them to leave.

You’re right, there isn’t, and it’s conceivable that they would sign with Chicago, but you can’t discount the draw of a big offer.  Should they become UFAs you know there are going to be teams offering them more than Chicago’s qualifying offer would’ve been.

If someone offers Barker the $3-5M that Dreger suggests he could get on the open market, can Chicago afford to keep him?  I’m not saying he WOULD get it, but who knows?

And you have to figure that, when signing Hossa, Madden and Kopecky, the Hawks had a certain amount squared away to pay their RFAs, and now that’s potentially not going to cover them.

capgeek.com has Chicago with 7 RFAs right now, and if all 7 of them end up being UFAs because of this snafu, the Hawks are screwed.

Of course there’s going to be someone willing to offer Barker what he’s worth and to double (or more) the salaries of guys like Versteeg or Eager.

This could end up being nothing, but it could also screw the Hawks now AND in the future!  I would assume they’d count on having all their RFAs in the system.

I mean, come next year, when they have to sign Kane, Toews, Keith, etc, whatever they sign Versteeg, Eager and Barker to could determine whether or not they can sign their big guns.

Posted by Garth on 07/04/09 at 10:31 PM ET

ctually, I don’t care if you get a break or not, Garth. But I sure as heck would have loved to see the Wings get a break in the Finals. If you don’t like to hear someone like me “complain” about that, then just skip my posts...because I’m not going to forget that this SCF was a sham.

Wow, really?  Are you going to be crying about this next summer like we make fun of the Pens fans who are still crying about Hossa signing with the Wings?

It’s over.  What’s done is done.  The referees were uniformly awful for the entirety of the playoffs.  AND, shock of shock, it was not ALL for the Pens and ALL against the Wings!

It’s not about complaining, it’s about dwelling, and the representing of Wings fans as crybabies that are just as bad as Pens fans.

For someone who calls himself “Older Than Chelios”, one might expect some wisdom or maturity.

Posted by Garth on 07/04/09 at 10:48 PM ET

For someone who calls himself “Older Than Chelios”, one might expect some wisdom or maturity.

Posted by Garth on 07/04/09 at 11:48 PM ET

Guys!  Guys GUYS!!!  The war is out there, man!  Out there!  Anyway, Garth, if it’s true what you say when you say

As a Wings fan, I god damn HATE it when other Wings fans play the conspiracy/victim/NHL-hates-the-Wings card

then do you cringe when Chief makes the same point?  I’m a fellow conspiracy believer, I truly and honestly know the NHL has it in for our Organ-I-zation but if you hate the conspiracy talk then over on A2Y I’d imagine you get pissed when Chief writes about it.  I’m not knocking you one way or another, I’m just curious.

Anyway, regardless of outcome, this does make Chicago look a little sloppy.  There’s a level of professionalism that we embody in our front office in Detroit that not many other teams can boast.  Things like this just make me glad once again I’m a Wings fan.

Posted by Sullyosis from A hateful lair in Post Apocalyptic US (or Arizona) on 07/04/09 at 11:06 PM ET

It’s not about complaining, it’s about dwelling, and the representing of Wings fans as crybabies that are just as bad as Pens fans.

I didn’t randomly bring the matter up, Garth. I included my “complaint” as part of a response to what we all know the League is likely to do regarding the Hawks situation. I’m not “dwelling” on anything...but I’m not forgetting it either. There will be a number of times in the next 10 months that the issue of League fairness can legitimately be brought into a discussion.

Again, if you don’t want to hear someone like me talk about factual situations that had a bearing on the outcome of the 2009 SCF, then don’t read anything I post.

For someone who calls himself “Older Than Chelios”, one might expect some wisdom or maturity.

Ignoring what happened is not a sign of either “wisdom” or “maturity”, young man. That’s actually a sign of immaturity. Kinda like not closing an italic, you know?

And, as for my fixing your mistake? You’re welcome.

Posted by OlderThanChelios from Grand Rapids on 07/04/09 at 11:07 PM ET

What do the devils do when/if the league lets them off the hook?

Posted by chris from nj on 07/04/09 at 11:19 PM ET

this league is laughable. things like this-if the Hawks are not punished- are why this league isnt mentionedamong the othr major sports leagues. i dont give a f**k what other fans think, i love the redwings, and no matter what u say, they aremore scrutinized than any other team. ive accepted that, but if this happens, and the hawks get off the hook, the league is gonna lose more respect, and it cant afford to. i cant wait to see how this unfolds… if the hawks are punished, and considering the fact that Kane, Toews, or Keith(or maybe 2 out of the three) are not gonna be able to resign, this team is gonna wish they never even talked to Hoss.

Posted by zettersyuk4 on 07/05/09 at 12:14 AM ET

Ignoring what happened is not a sign of either “wisdom” or “maturity”, young man. That’s actually a sign of immaturity.

“God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; the courage to change the things I can; and the wisdom to know the difference.”

So you missed both the serenity AND the wisdom.  So...you’re just old.  And cranky.

Oh, and thanks for being so wise as to fix my immature mistake of deleting an end tag.

It’s nice to see your argument devolving into comments on typos.

I’m not “dwelling” on anything...

Dude, you’re ABSOLUTELY dwelling on it.  What is it if not dwelling, to bring up something COMPLETELY UNRELATED to the topic at hand?

Seriously, what possible connection is there between two on-ice situations in the finals (one being an interpretation of a rule that is 100% in step with how that rule was interpreted earlier in the playoffs, the other being an oversight by the on-ice officials) between the Pens and Wings, and a restricted free agent situation not involving either of those teams, their staff or any on-ice officials.

What next, OTC?  Are you going to start claiming that Bettman told Tallon not to bother with the QO’s, that Bettman himself would take care of the situation so that Tallon could focus on finding a way to steal Hossa from the hated Red Wings?

By all acounts, the PA is as involved in this as the NHL, and the PA’s interest is ALWAYS going to be in favour of getting players more money, so if anything the PA is going to attempt the force the league to make these players UFAs so that they can force the owners -be they the Hawks or some other teams- to pay up for their services.

Posted by Garth on 07/05/09 at 12:44 AM ET

Older than Chelios, you pointed out zero facts, only that you’re a pussy.  The Wings are scrutinized more than any other team, zettersuk, YOU scrutinize the Wings more than any other team, reading every little bullshit article and claiming conspiracy.  If you’ve ever been to Canada, you’d know better.  The Leafs and Habs get the magnifying glass 100 more than the Wings.  Quit whining, you losers.  Older than Chelios...hahaha...Dumber than Shit.

Posted by Puckhead from Jersey, you idiots! on 07/05/09 at 03:07 AM ET

You’re right, there isn’t, and it’s conceivable that they would sign with Chicago, but you can’t discount the draw of a big offer.  Should they become UFAs you know there are going to be teams offering them more than Chicago’s qualifying offer would’ve been.

If someone offers Barker the $3-5M that Dreger suggests he could get on the open market, can Chicago afford to keep him?  I’m not saying he WOULD get it, but who knows?

And you have to figure that, when signing Hossa, Madden and Kopecky, the Hawks had a certain amount squared away to pay their RFAs, and now that’s potentially not going to cover them.

capgeek.com has Chicago with 7 RFAs right now, and if all 7 of them end up being UFAs because of this snafu, the Hawks are screwed.

Of course there’s going to be someone willing to offer Barker what he’s worth and to double (or more) the salaries of guys like Versteeg or Eager.

This could end up being nothing, but it could also screw the Hawks now AND in the future!  I would assume they’d count on having all their RFAs in the system.

I mean, come next year, when they have to sign Kane, Toews, Keith, etc, whatever they sign Versteeg, Eager and Barker to could determine whether or not they can sign their big guns.

Posted by Garth on 07/04/09 at 11:31 PM ET

Oh, yes, it definitely COULD be a problem - The Devils had this same issue years ago with Madden and Rafalski, and wound up paying them more than they wanted to, but that was just money, not salary cap space, so it was a little different situation.

But here is another reason why the players might just accept the qualifying offers - they don’t want to look stupid.  Imagine you are a player in this situation and realize that if you had been paying attention you could have made a fuss about being UFA and accepted offers, but you weren’t paying attention and missed a simple thing in your own CBA.  They wouldn’t be the first people to claim that the way things worked out is the way they wanted them all along, just to save face.  It reminds me of Brian Burke’s bluster when the Ducks lost Penner to an offer sheet, and I think a lot of it was just to cover the fact that he missed an easy way to make sure that Penner wasn’t vulnerable to an offer sheet from the Oilers.  He was at least as mad at himself as at Kevin Lowe, but it isn’t in his personality to say “I’m irritated at myself for missing that simple fact and sparing myself all this hassle.”

The difficult thing for Chicago in this is that despite Tallon’s comments to the contrary, the team would have been losing players after next season, so they had a one-year window where they would have an extremely deep team with several players far over-producing based on their contracts, and now this might potentially reduce their depth and close that window a crack by forcing them to make decisions on who to keep and who to let go a lot earlier than they planned.

(And I don’t see this as having anything to do with the Red Wings at all, and especially not with any kind of in-game calls on penalties or such.  This reflects poorly on a front office which apparently didn’t do what all the other front offices do and send out qualifying offers to the agents or their players by fax or by certified mail in the middle of June after the season is over to avoid any unneeded time crunch.)

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 07/05/09 at 06:23 AM ET

Dude, you’re ABSOLUTELY dwelling on it.  What is it if not dwelling, to bring up something COMPLETELY UNRELATED to the topic at hand?

The only one “dwelling” on anything, Garth, is you. And what I said initially was not unrelated to the topic at hand. The writer said the League “should follow through with the ultimate penalty”. My point was that the League and its officials didn’t do a very good job of “following through” when it came to applying the rules during the SCF. Get it.

If you want to ignore what happened back then, that’s fine with me. If doing that somehow makes you feel morally superior to Pens fans, again, that’s fine with me. But please allow me the same courtesy. I expressed my opinion and neither you using all caps or some Pens fans calling me names will change that opinion.

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change…

Well that may work well for alcoholics, but if we all forgot about what history has taught us, we’d be fools. I certainly accept the fact that nothing will change the outcome of the SCF (and I actually made my peace with that the very next day). But I’m sure as heck not going to forget about what happened. On that issue, I can’t be changed. Can you accept that?

Posted by OlderThanChelios from Grand Rapids on 07/05/09 at 08:54 AM ET