This is the same B.S. that’s been coming out of CHI all along.

“We’ll keep everyone.”  “We won’t have to break the team up”.  “We’ll move on e of the big salaries, not the impact guys that made less”.  Blah blah blah blaaahhh….

It’s all a load of horsesh*t out of CHI.  The fact is, theymay not keep Niemi, and they *still* may have to move Sharp then because they’ll be forced to go with Huet on the roster and Sharp’s about all that’s left with trade value that isn’t someone like Keith, Seabrook, Kane, or Toews.

Have fun missing the playoffs, Hawks fans.  Your management blundered their way into a Cup I guess, but now you’re going to pay the price for it.

Posted by Primis on 07/20/10 at 07:16 AM ET

Hossa has the most trade value, but there seems to be a lot of confusion whether or not he has a NTC/NMC…

Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 07/20/10 at 08:15 AM ET

Isn’t this the whole point of the cap?  To make sure one team does not dominate for years on end and are not able to hoard all the good players (be they stars or support guys)...  If there was not cap, Chi would have the exact same team and I don’t think anyone would have a chance to defeat them next season.  Instead, due to cap restrictions, the Stanley Cup champions are forced to gut their support guys, keep their top end guys, and move on…. meaning at least 10-12 teams now have a legitimate change to win the cup instead of 1 or 2.

Of course nothing is guaranteed, but you have to admit - despite the disappointment from the champions fans - the cap is doing what the league envisioned.  Pretty much resetting the league before each season (of course not all teams gain as much from this, but many do).

Not saying I agree with this or anything, but for me - this is exactly what the league (read Gary) wanted.

Posted by WingMan from The Q C on 07/20/10 at 09:24 AM ET

If there was not cap, Chi would have the exact same team and I don’t think anyone would have a chance to defeat them next season.

If there was no cap, Detroit would still be the team to beat.

By my calculations, they need to get rid of Bolland AND Sharp or not sign Niemi and get rid of Bolland or Sharp.

Posted by Keyser S. from therealworldforum.com on 07/20/10 at 10:24 AM ET

meaning at least 10-12 teams now have a legitimate change to win the cup instead of 1 or 2.

Name me the 10 teams last year with a legitimate chance to win the cup.

Detroit, Chicago, San Jose, Vancouver, Washington, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh

uhhh… New Jersey, Buffalo, Phoenix, Nashville, Montreal?  Bullshit

Now tell me the 1 or 2 teams from the 2001-02 season among all of these teams which were the only teams with a legitimate chance to win the cup

Detroit, Carolina, Boston, Colorado, St. Louis, San Jose, Ottawa, Philadelphia

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 07/20/10 at 10:43 AM ET

Primis—

I agree on most of your points, but I don’t see why the Hawks would have to go with Huet on the roster.  In that case (since Huet’s more expensive), why not just stick him in the minors and take Niemi and whatever they have to pay him?

Wingman—

I like to think (in this perfect little world we live in) that the point of the cap is to punish teams for outrageous, idiotic spending—just like what has happened in Chicago.  I mean, you have to admit that it has worked to punish them for the Huet and Campbell contracts.  And if you’re a fan of a team (like Detroit) who has always been quite responsible with the way they’ve done business under the cap, you’ve got to be happy to see Chicago dealing with this instead of continuing on their merry way without a cap.

Posted by nosferatu from oh on 07/20/10 at 11:44 AM ET