SalarySwishSalarySwish
Forums/NHL Signings

Chicago Blackhawks signed Erik Gustafsson (2 Years / $1,200,000 AAV)

Was this a good signing?
The chart has been hidden

Poll Options


Mar. 6, 2018 at 9:46 p.m.
#1
Erik Gustafsson has signed a new contract with the Chicago Blackhawks.
Standard Contract (Extension)
Comparable ContractsCOMPARE THIS CONTRACT
SIGNED BY: Stan Bowman
Length: 2 years
Value: $2,400,000
Expiry Status: UFA
Cap % Tooltip: 1.60
Signing Team: Logo of the Chicago BlackhawksChicago Blackhawks
Signing Date: Mar. 6, 2018

Erik Gustafsson signed a 2 year, $2,400,000 contract with the Chicago Blackhawks on Mar. 6, 2018. The contract has a cap hit of $1,200,000.

SEASONClauseCap HitTooltipAAV TooltipP. BonusesTooltipS. BonusesTooltipBase SalaryTooltipTotal SalaryTooltipMinors SalTooltip
2018-19$1,200,000$1,200,000$0$200,000$800,000$1,000,000$1,000,000
2019-20$1,200,000$1,200,000$0$400,000$1,000,000$1,400,000$1,400,000
TOTAL$2,400,000$2,400,000$0$600,000$1,800,000$2,400,000$2,400,000
Mar. 7, 2018 at 12:14 p.m.
#2
Hockeyplayer1
Avatar of the user
Joined: Feb. 2016
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 199
Overpayment for a #6 defenseman. But that is Stan Bowman's MO. Overpay every player that has played for you.
bixyboii liked this.
Mar. 8, 2018 at 10:22 a.m.
#3
Missouri
Retired V2 V3 GM
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 3,612
Likes: 1,141
Overpayed big time. This guy is just injury depth. IMO
Mar. 8, 2018 at 9:52 p.m.
#4
HawksFan28
HawksFan28
Avatar of the user
Joined: Dec. 2016
Posts: 1,076
Likes: 138
Quoting: Hockeyplayer1
Overpayment for a #6 defenseman. But that is Stan Bowman's MO. Overpay every player that has played for you.


You can bury that contract if you want to.... I don't have an issue with deals that are 1.5 or less because you can bury those contracts in the AHL and get the 900k cap credit..
Mar. 11, 2018 at 1:30 p.m.
#5
Hockeyplayer1
Avatar of the user
Joined: Feb. 2016
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 199
Quoting: HawksFan28
You can bury that contract if you want to.... I don't have an issue with deals that are 1.5 or less because you can bury those contracts in the AHL and get the 900k cap credit..


You bury him and there is still 300k counting against the cap. What has Gustafsson done to deserve anything more than 900k? He’s not even going to get half a season in the NHL this year and didn’t play an NHL game last year. He’ll be a RFA after this season.
Mar. 11, 2018 at 3:16 p.m.
#6
HawksFan28
HawksFan28
Avatar of the user
Joined: Dec. 2016
Posts: 1,076
Likes: 138
Edited Mar. 11, 2018 at 3:22 p.m.
Quoting: Hockeyplayer1
You bury him and there is still 300k counting against the cap. What has Gustafsson done to deserve anything more than 900k? He’s not even going to get half a season in the NHL this year and didn’t play an NHL game last year. He’ll be a RFA after this season.


Well, this may have something to do with it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restricted_free_agent#NHL

"Qualifying offers
The current team must extend a "qualifying offer" to a restricted free agent to retain negotiating rights to that player. Qualifying offers are for one year contracts. The minimum salary for the qualifying offer depends on the player's prior year salary.

Players who earned less than $660,000 in the previous season must be offered 110 percent of last season's salary. Players making up to $1 million must be offered 105 percent. Players making over $1 million must be offered 100 percent."

It appears that was the minimum of what Bowman had to offer..... Gusafsson couldn't have been signed for any less.

So for example, Duclair now makes 1.2 so he should get a 2.4 per qualifying offer... Hinostroza makes 700K so he will get a 1.4 million dollar qualifying offer...

So yea, Bowman gave Gustafsson the league mandatory minimum contract he could.
Mar. 11, 2018 at 7:02 p.m.
#7
hpatton
Avatar of the user
Joined: Oct. 2017
Posts: 420
Likes: 94
Quoting: HawksFan28
Well, this may have something to do with it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restricted_free_agent#NHL

"Qualifying offers
The current team must extend a "qualifying offer" to a restricted free agent to retain negotiating rights to that player. Qualifying offers are for one year contracts. The minimum salary for the qualifying offer depends on the player's prior year salary.

Players who earned less than $660,000 in the previous season must be offered 110 percent of last season's salary. Players making up to $1 million must be offered 105 percent. Players making over $1 million must be offered 100 percent."

It appears that was the minimum of what Bowman had to offer..... Gusafsson couldn't have been signed for any less.

So for example, Duclair now makes 1.2 so he should get a 2.4 per qualifying offer... Hinostroza makes 700K so he will get a 1.4 million dollar qualifying offer...

So yea, Bowman gave Gustafsson the league mandatory minimum contract he could.


wow, that's both an epic common sense and math fail....
Mar. 12, 2018 at 9:29 a.m.
#8
Hockeyplayer1
Avatar of the user
Joined: Feb. 2016
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 199
Quoting: HawksFan28
Well, this may have something to do with it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restricted_free_agent#NHL

"Qualifying offers
The current team must extend a "qualifying offer" to a restricted free agent to retain negotiating rights to that player. Qualifying offers are for one year contracts. The minimum salary for the qualifying offer depends on the player's prior year salary.

Players who earned less than $660,000 in the previous season must be offered 110 percent of last season's salary. Players making up to $1 million must be offered 105 percent. Players making over $1 million must be offered 100 percent."

It appears that was the minimum of what Bowman had to offer..... Gusafsson couldn't have been signed for any less.

So for example, Duclair now makes 1.2 so he should get a 2.4 per qualifying offer... Hinostroza makes 700K so he will get a 1.4 million dollar qualifying offer...

So yea, Bowman gave Gustafsson the league mandatory minimum contract he could.


110% of $650,000 is $715,000
Mar. 12, 2018 at 4:51 p.m.
#9
HawksFan28
HawksFan28
Avatar of the user
Joined: Dec. 2016
Posts: 1,076
Likes: 138
Quoting: Hockeyplayer1
110% of $650,000 is $715,000


I took it as a 110% raise, not a 10% raise.

When you look at other contracts it certainly appears that's the implication and the RFA rule is just poorly defined.

If it's 10% then why not say 10%?

110% makes more sense and certainly explains why ELC's are 925k.
Mar. 12, 2018 at 5:26 p.m.
#10
Hockeyplayer1
Avatar of the user
Joined: Feb. 2016
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 199
Quoting: HawksFan28
I took it as a 110% raise, not a 10% raise.

When you look at other contracts it certainly appears that's the implication and the RFA rule is just poorly defined.

If it's 10% then why not say 10%?

110% makes more sense and certainly explains why ELC's are 925k.


"must be offered 110 percent of last season's salary"
Mar. 12, 2018 at 6:08 p.m.
#11
hpatton
Avatar of the user
Joined: Oct. 2017
Posts: 420
Likes: 94
Quoting: HawksFan28
I took it as a 110% raise, not a 10% raise.

When you look at other contracts it certainly appears that's the implication and the RFA rule is just poorly defined.

If it's 10% then why not say 10%?

110% makes more sense and certainly explains why ELC's are 925k.


Quoting: HawksFan28
I took it as a 110% raise, not a 10% raise.

When you look at other contracts it certainly appears that's the implication and the RFA rule is just poorly defined.

If it's 10% then why not say 10%?

110% makes more sense and certainly explains why ELC's are 925k.


it's defined just fine, the word raise isn't in there at all.

I mean did you honestly think that the least a team could do was double a guys salary? no one would ever actually become a RFA lol
Mar. 12, 2018 at 6:16 p.m.
#12
HawksFan28
HawksFan28
Avatar of the user
Joined: Dec. 2016
Posts: 1,076
Likes: 138
Quoting: hpatton
it's defined just fine, the word raise isn't in there at all.

I mean did you honestly think that the least a team could do was double a guys salary? no one would ever actually become a RFA lol


No it's not defined just fine 110% is 110% NOT 10% - no where does it say 10% and if they're implying 10% then why not say 10%?
Mar. 12, 2018 at 6:31 p.m.
#13
hpatton
Avatar of the user
Joined: Oct. 2017
Posts: 420
Likes: 94
Quoting: HawksFan28
No it's not defined just fine 110% is 110% NOT 10% - no where does it say 10% and if they're implying 10% then why not say 10%?


because they aren't implying 10%...
Feb. 15, 2019 at 10:45 a.m.
#14
exo2769
exo2769
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2015
Posts: 15,602
Likes: 9,697
Quoting: Hockeyplayer1
Overpayment for a #6 defenseman. But that is Stan Bowman's MO. Overpay every player that has played for you.


Quoting: Missouri
Overpayed big time. This guy is just injury depth. IMO


This aged well! hehe I'm just messing around. Cheers!
HabsForEver and CFMan liked this.
Feb. 15, 2019 at 1:01 p.m.
#15
PrincessChloe
May contain nuts
Avatar of the user
Joined: Feb. 2017
Posts: 6,612
Likes: 2,016
Quoting: exo2769
This aged well! hehe I'm just messing around. Cheers!


Hindsight is 20/20. How was anyone supposed to know that he'd be this good?
Feb. 15, 2019 at 1:45 p.m.
#16
DoctorBreakfast
Below Market Value
Avatar of the user
Joined: Nov. 2015
Posts: 1,426
Likes: 1,324
Quoting: Icegirl
Hindsight is 20/20. How was anyone supposed to know that he'd be this good?


I knew all along, I just didn't say anything.
CFMan and exo2769 liked this.
Feb. 15, 2019 at 4:02 p.m.
#17
Hockeyplayer1
Avatar of the user
Joined: Feb. 2016
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 199
Quoting: Icegirl
Hindsight is 20/20. How was anyone supposed to know that he'd be this good?


Quoting: DoctorBreakfast
I knew all along, I just didn't say anything.


To be fair “this good” is very dependent on what you’re saying is good. He might be the worst defenseman I’ve ever seen in his own end. He’s lost. Clueless. He’s putting up point but he’s also a minus on the best offensive season he’s ever had.
Feb. 15, 2019 at 4:09 p.m.
#18
PrincessChloe
May contain nuts
Avatar of the user
Joined: Feb. 2017
Posts: 6,612
Likes: 2,016
Quoting: Hockeyplayer1
To be fair “this good” is very dependent on what you’re saying is good. He might be the worst defenseman I’ve ever seen in his own end. He’s lost. Clueless. He’s putting up point but he’s also a minus on the best offensive season he’s ever had.


+/- is a terrible stat.
+/- is a terrible stat.
+/- is a terrible stat.
+/- is a terrible stat.
+/- is a terrible stat.
Feb. 16, 2019 at 12:21 p.m.
#19
Hockeyplayer1
Avatar of the user
Joined: Feb. 2016
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 199
Quoting: Icegirl
+/- is a terrible stat.
+/- is a terrible stat.
+/- is a terrible stat.
+/- is a terrible stat.
+/- is a terrible stat.


Quoting: Icegirl
+/- is a terrible stat.
+/- is a terrible stat.
+/- is a terrible stat.
+/- is a terrible stat.
+/- is a terrible stat.


It is if you’re completely going off of the stat with no other reference to back it up. Such as watching him play. Or knowing that he has a 60-30 o-zone starting percentage. Or that he has 18 take away to his 51 five aways. Plus minus can be a useful stat.

For instance, Kane is a career plus 61 while Toews is a career plus 198. Is that a useless stat? No. And it becomes even more important when you know that Toews almost always has played against the other teams top offensive line.
Feb. 25, 2019 at 1:52 p.m.
#20
exo2769
exo2769
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2015
Posts: 15,602
Likes: 9,697
Quoting: Hockeyplayer1
It is if you’re completely going off of the stat with no other reference to back it up. Such as watching him play. Or knowing that he has a 60-30 o-zone starting percentage. Or that he has 18 take away to his 51 five aways. Plus minus can be a useful stat.

For instance, Kane is a career plus 61 while Toews is a career plus 198. Is that a useless stat? No. And it becomes even more important when you know that Toews almost always has played against the other teams top offensive line.


I actually do agree with you that relative +/- can help give an overall indication. The Toews/Kane comparison is valid. It's more of a supporting stat though. It's not like +/- should be the basis of proof. To which I agree with you AND the way you're using +/-...The eye test shows his poor defense...110% agreed AND then the +/- backing it up as support. With that said...45 points and officially taking over as the PP QB is freaking ginormous. The Power Play was literally last place in November and now it's 7th in the entire NHL. That jump has NOTHING to do with either Toews/Kane. The Blackhawks PP has stunk for YEARS and both Toews/Kane have been on it for YEARS. Q gets fired. 2 weeks later Gus is the PP QB over Keith...boom 31st to 7th.
 
Reply
To create a post please Login or Register
Question:
Options:
Loading animation
Submit Poll Edit