The purpose of this is just to assess where Chicago may be at with cap space next year as we approach the trade deadline. Trades, minimum salary roster additions, and pairings are all just placeholders. I estimated $3m salary cap addition and presumed Gustafsson is traded at the deadline or not signed. Also, bonuses are not included . . . if they don't clear some cap space (LTIR can't be used for that), that may mean adding $2 - $4 million to this budget. Wild cards include whether they can sign Lehner, what's happening with Seabrook and Shaw, and where the cap will actually be, of course.

6 million for Strome is overpayment.

3 or 4 year deal should be 4ish million AAV.

Aren't Seabrook and Shaw gonna be put on perma-LTIR? That's 10M you can spend over the cap right there.

But you can't really spend that money over the summer because you have to be cap compliant on opening day. They wouldn't have that $10 m until after that. And their status is far from certain, too.

He's got 81 points in 98 games for Chicago. I think they're going to keep him in line with DeBrincat's new deal. All the analysts I've read (at the Athletic, other chicago media) think it'll be in the $5-$6 range.

BOOM ! ?

How did Toronto manage to do it with their even worse situation then?

I do not know much about Toronto's situation but didn't they have a big RFA hold out? All I know that this was a big issue with Hossa and much discussed, and they never used any of the bonus cap space either in summer or during the season. Then they traded the contract to get out from under it.

Yeah, I think Chicago would like to pay Strome about $4.5 (bridge deal for 3 yrs), however if the market dictates he get near $6, the Chicago would want a longer term, I would think. It shall be interesting come summertime.

Whats the difference between a player resigning as an RFA and a UFA when it comes to dollars spent in the offseason? Answer is there isn't.

The NHL increases the cap by 15% in the offseason. That's to promote teams to spend on UFA's if they need be and the players they have on the injury list, are put retroactively on the LTIR come the season opening.

The only reason Toronto got Horton's contract back was so that they could LTIR him to allow them to spend over the cap by the necessary amount that Marner's contract put them over by.

Chicago can do the same thing. As long as the idea of Seabrook and Shaw being truly finished is real on not wishful thinking. Only going on what other Hawks fans have told me about the situation.

I thought I read reports that Seabrook will be ready for the start of next season.

Why do I feel like Bowman's going to announce that they signed Gustaffson and Crawford to deals? ("we'll work it out for those other guys later")

I think that was the stated goal, but it was before he had any of these three upcoming surgeries. Everyone's talking about him in past tense now (players, announcers) so it's really unclear.

Shaw's dealing with a concussion -- I would not call it "wishful thinking" that he doesn't come back. The NHL does not increase the cap in the summer; teams are allowed to exceed it by 10% (as I always understood it; maybe you're right on the 15% -- I don't know). I agree that there's no difference in signing and RFA and UFA; my point was that if you were cap compliant on opening day and then put a player on LTIR that would give you the room to sign a holdout RFA (or a UFA but there's not many of those hanging around on Oct. 15). But as I said, I didn't follow Toronto's cap situation closely, so I'm speculating because I treated the question "how did Toronto do it?" as an actual question.

Corey, I am fine with. He well played well for the most part. You can’t give up 40+ shots a night and expect to win hockey games. Gustafsson need a new venue. He has had a horrible campaign so far to date. Sorry, but moving him at the TDL for a bag of broken hockey sticks would be a win.

Maybe. I'm only going on what I thought people were saying. I haven't heard anything about if he's coming back or not.

From a cap situation it would be "wishful thinking" is what I meant.

Teams are allowed to exceed the cap is the same as the cap in increased in this context because its not tagged to player injury or anything. So for all intensive purposes the cap is increased or however you'd like to say it. You are right though about the %. Had to double check and its actually 10%.

But that 10% has no bearing on player injury. In 19-20 offseason, Leafs were allowed to spend up 90M+ because of this cushion. Once the season started however, the cap "dropped" back to 81.5M but that coincided with the players being added to LTIR thus letting them exceed the cap by that, almost identical amount, yet again. That's why it was imperative that they get as close to the cap ceiling at the start of the season because their LTIR is directly linked to their current spend.

Anyways this all was to say I thought I saw some Hawks fans say that they were both likely to be LTIR forever due to their injuries (Assuming they also "played ball" and failed their physicals purposefully). If there is a chance they do actually return, forget I said anything as it won't apply to the topic. Was just pointing out that IF they are, then Chicago will have oodles of cap space to use if they need.

yeah, I like Corey a lot, but he's 35. If they prioritize bringing him back that's not a great move for re-casting this team for the future.

I guess it will depends on What will be offered. Whether a Hawk or another team, Crawford role will be, I think similar to Ryan Miller

I think he gets 4 years 20million ( 5 mil aav) with last year having a huge qualifying offer such as debrincat's 9 mil qualifying offer.

Bowman stated after the surgeries were announced that he expected both DeHaan and Seabrook to be fully recovered for the start of next season. But, of course it's anyone guess on what will happen. Shaw on the other hand, I hope retires (is put on LTIR) after reading what he went through with the concussion last season.