SalarySwishSalarySwish
Forums/Armchair-GM

Jake

Created by: exo2769
Team: 2024-25 Chicago Blackhawks
Initial Creation Date: Jun. 6, 2024
Published: Jun. 6, 2024
Salary Cap Mode: Basic
Description
I like this team for a few reasons. Those are (3) defensive minded centers which are underrated in the NHL imo. It's hard to play against teams that have multiple lines where they focus and are capable of shutting down opponents. Not suggesting they're shutting down McDavid regularly or anything like that, but when your defenders see how your forwards are also playing defensively...it's hard to score. Hawks have a couple of "swing" center/wingers coming up. Nazar/Moore for example, but we have other wingers like Lardis/Hayes that if they're playing well...we can give them a chance and it would be great to have a responsible centerman to line up with those future prospects.
Free Agent Signings
UFAYEARSCAP HIT
2$7,000,000
4$14,000,000
Trades
1.
CHI
  1. Pageau, Jean-Gabriel
  2. 2024 2nd round pick (LAK)
NYI
  1. Phillips, Isaak [RFA Rights]
  2. Raddysh, Taylor [RFA Rights]
2.
CHI
  1. Kämpf, David
Additional Details:
2027 2nd Round Pick
TOR
  1. 2026 5th round pick (CHI)
Buyouts
Retained Salary Transactions
DraftRound 1Round 2Round 3Round 4Round 5Round 6Round 7
2024
Logo of the CHI
Logo of the NYI
Logo of the CHI
Logo of the NYI
Logo of the LAK
Logo of the CHI
Logo of the OTT
Logo of the CGY
Logo of the CHI
2025
Logo of the CHI
Logo of the TOR
Logo of the CHI
Logo of the DAL
Logo of the CHI
Logo of the CHI
Logo of the NYR
Logo of the CHI
Logo of the CHI
2026
Logo of the CHI
Logo of the CHI
Logo of the NYI
Logo of the TOR
Logo of the CHI
Logo of the CHI
Logo of the OTT
Logo of the CHI
Logo of the CHI
ROSTER SIZESALARY CAPCAP HITOVERAGES TooltipBONUSESCAP SPACE
20$87,700,000$83,365,833$0$5,407,500$4,334,167
Left WingCentreRight Wing
$14,000,000$14,000,000
LW, RW
UFA
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$950,000$950,000 (Performance Bonus$3,500,000$4M)
C
RFA - 2
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$2,250,000$2,250,000
LW, C, RW
RFA - 1
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$6,000,000$6,000,000
LW
M-NTC, NMC
UFA - 1
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$4,250,000$4,250,000
C, LW
UFA - 2
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$4,250,000$4,250,000
LW, RW
UFA - 1
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$1,200,000$1,200,000
LW, C
RFA - 2
Logo of the New York Islanders
$5,000,000$5,000,000
C
M-NTC
UFA - 2
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$4,500,000$4,500,000
LW, C, RW
UFA - 2
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$912,500$912,500 (Performance Bonus$850,000$850K)
LW
RFA - 1
Logo of the Toronto Maple Leafs
$2,400,000$2,400,000
C
M-NTC
UFA - 3
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$2,000,000$2,000,000
LW, C, RW
UFA - 1
Left DefenseRight DefenseGoaltender
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$4,600,000$4,600,000
LD
UFA - 6
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$9,500,000$9,500,000
RD
NMC
UFA - 6
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$4,250,000$4,250,000
G
UFA - 2
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$918,333$918,333 (Performance Bonus$1,000,000$1M)
LD
RFA - 2
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$4,400,000$4,400,000
RD
M-NTC
UFA - 2
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$962,500$962,500
G
RFA - 1
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$855,833$855,833 (Performance Bonus$57,500$58K)
LD
RFA - 2
$7,000,000$7,000,000
RD
UFA

Embed Code

  • To display this team on another website or blog, add this iFrame to the appropriate page
  • Customize the height attribute in the iFrame code below to fit your website appropriately. Minimum recommended: 400px.

Text-Embed

Click to Highlight
Jun. 6 at 10:26 a.m.
#1
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2022
Posts: 769
Likes: 337
That's some payday for Jake. I don't see how he could turn that down. He isn't going to get anywhere near that from a contender, nor should he. Jake is a 8-9mill type of player to me.
exo2769, SociallyHawkward, Hawksguy81 and 1 other person liked this.
Jun. 6 at 10:29 a.m.
#2
Thread Starter
exo2769
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2015
Posts: 16,129
Likes: 10,617
Quoting: PensGMwannabe
That's some payday for Jake. I don't see how he could turn that down. He isn't going to get anywhere near that from a contender, nor should he. Jake is a 8-9mill type of player to me.


And if you look at the long term. Hawks have ~$28M in cap next year with the Defense locked up and their 2nd goalie will be on an ELC. So...that's just for forwards, which they'll still have ELCs coming up like Nazar/Moore/etc...
Bedsy_Burner liked this.
Jun. 6 at 10:34 a.m.
#3
Avatar of the user
Joined: Apr. 2019
Posts: 5,944
Likes: 6,540
I don't think it's a good idea to flaunt how much money you're willing to throw at guys before bedard signs longer term contract.
PaulKorea, exo2769, Hawksguy81 and 3 others liked this.
Jun. 6 at 10:44 a.m.
#4
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2023
Posts: 1,523
Likes: 2,588
Not a fan of giving Guentzel that contract. Even with guys coming up on ELC's in two years, having him on your books for $14m for two more seasons after that doesn't make any sense. You're overpaying a guy by ~$5m when he isn't a long term piece and it puts a big dent in your cap flexibility as the team is becoming competitive.
exo2769, Hawksguy81, Bedsy_Burner and 1 other person liked this.
Jun. 6 at 10:51 a.m.
#5
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2016
Posts: 531
Likes: 256
thank the lord you aren't the Hawks GM .. $14,000,000 per year for Jake .. ouch!
PaulKorea and exo2769 liked this.
Jun. 6 at 10:54 a.m.
#6
Avatar of the user
Joined: Nov. 2022
Posts: 9,674
Likes: 12,126
If DeMelo and Guentzel cost that much to sign, pass on both. I get the Hawks will have to overpay UFA's, but those two contracts are nuts. Not a fan of the Kampf trade either. I think Safonov signs and comes over for the 25/26 season and steps right into the 4C role.
Jun. 6 at 10:54 a.m.
#7
Thread Starter
exo2769
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2015
Posts: 16,129
Likes: 10,617
Quoting: SociallyHawkward
I don't think it's a good idea to flaunt how much money you're willing to throw at guys before bedard signs longer term contract.


Quoting: PaulKorea
Not a fan of giving Guentzel that contract. Even with guys coming up on ELC's in two years, having him on your books for $14m for two more seasons after that doesn't make any sense. You're overpaying a guy by ~$5m when he isn't a long term piece and it puts a big dent in your cap flexibility as the team is becoming competitive.


I hear you guys on the amount for Jake. I'm not sure I agree with the longer-term cap flexibility piece. Sure, $14M is ALOT for Jake. If we draft Demidov then he, Moore, and Rinzel won't ever leave their ELCs before Jake is up. Hard to see Nazar commanding huge dollars coming off his ELC too. The other thing I'd mention is that I'm not sure it's flaunting to current players either. If it were...wouldn't Vlasic have baulked at a 6 year $4.6M deal when AA, Foligno, and Dickinson just got $4M plus deals? I think you can explain away the differences to why teams/players did what. Foligno sacrificed a few more chances at the literal main goal...a Stanley Cup just to come to Chicago. Jake might be giving that up too? Rebuilds take a long time. McDavid's been in the league for 9 years and this is his 1st cup appearance. PLUS EDM had (4) #1 OA selections plus Drai. It took Stamkos 11 years to win a cup. It takes a long time. Much longer than 4 years.
Bedsy_Burner liked this.
Jun. 6 at 10:58 a.m.
#8
Thread Starter
exo2769
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2015
Posts: 16,129
Likes: 10,617
Quoting: Hawksguy81
If DeMelo and Guentzel cost that much to sign, pass on both. I get the Hawks will have to overpay UFA's, but those two contracts are nuts. Not a fan of the Kampf trade either. I think Safonov signs and comes over for the 25/26 season and steps right into the 4C role.


I don't have any insider knowledge on Safonov, but I'm skeptical of his production dip this past season. bring him over, sure! But he needs to compete for that spot. Kampf is a known commodity. He's overpaid for what he does...YEAH. He's a Marcus Kruger light and that's now (3) centers that are defensively responsible. We've talked about Kampf before. I respect your opinion 100%
Bedsy_Burner and Hawksguy81 liked this.
Jun. 6 at 11:02 a.m.
#9
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2023
Posts: 1,523
Likes: 2,588
Quoting: exo2769
I hear you guys on the amount for Jake. I'm not sure I agree with the longer-term cap flexibility piece.


It absolutely affects it. If there's a long term move to be made in 2-3 years, that $14m is a huge chunk of cap to take up. You're going to have to retain and/or pay someone to take him, likely both, just to get rid of him, because every GM out there knows he's massively overpaid. So now you're tying up dead cap space and giving away assets for nothing, just to overpay a guy who isn't in Chicago long term anyway.
Jun. 6 at 11:07 a.m.
#10
ISLANDERS
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2021
Posts: 75
Likes: 11
Most reasonable Pageau trade so far.
exo2769 liked this.
Jun. 6 at 11:08 a.m.
#11
Thread Starter
exo2769
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2015
Posts: 16,129
Likes: 10,617
Quoting: PaulKorea
It does though. If there's a long term move to be made, that $14m is a huge chunk of cap to take up. You're going to have to retain and/or pay someone to take him, likely both, just to get rid of him, because every GM out there knows he's massively overpaid. So now you're tying up dead cap space and giving away assets for nothing, just to overpay a guy who isn't in Chicago long term anyway.


Why wouldn't we just keep him for all 4 years? I mentioned this in a comment above. Our defense isn't going to command HUGE dollars. Vlasic/Jones already locked up for that 4-year term. Rinzel on the right on and ELC, KK could be on a bridge, but even if he isn't and it's an 8 year deal...we've got $11.4M off the books to supplement KK's new contract. He's not getting $11.4M Dollars. Gajan on an ELC still Commesso isn't going to make north of Mrazek come two years from now. All that future cap space we have is ONLY going towards forwards. Click on the Long Term tab. Next year we're projected to have $28M...even with Jake's deal and everyone on defense/in net locked up.

***EDIT*** The Jake deal is just a 4 year deal. I just want to make sure we're on the same page.
Bedsy_Burner liked this.
Jun. 6 at 11:11 a.m.
#12
Thread Starter
exo2769
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2015
Posts: 16,129
Likes: 10,617
Quoting: hawksfan1988
thank the lord you aren't the Hawks GM .. $14,000,000 per year for Jake .. ouch!


4 year deal. I'd rather pay up for someone to meet our term on a 4 year deal than sign a 7 year deal with a lower AAV and then have to trade assets away when Jake is 35-37 years old.
Jun. 6 at 11:19 a.m.
#13
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2023
Posts: 1,523
Likes: 2,588
Quoting: exo2769
Why wouldn't we just keep him for all 4 years? I mentioned this in a comment above. Our defense isn't going to command HUGE dollars. Vlasic/Jones already locked up for that 4-year term. Rinzel on the right on and ELC, KK could be on a bridge, but even if he isn't and it's an 8 year deal...we've got $11.4M off the books to supplement KK's new contract. He's not getting $11.4M Dollars. Gajan on an ELC still Commesso isn't going to make north of Mrazek come two years from now. All that future cap space we have is ONLY going towards forwards. Click on the Long Term tab. Next year we're projected to have $28M...even with Jake's deal and everyone on defense/in net locked up.

***EDIT*** The Jake deal is just a 4 year deal. I just want to make sure we're on the same page.

Well aware it's a 4 year deal and I'm well aware next year is fine. I don't care about next year. I'm talking about in 2 years. First off, you're assuming that all these prospects are going to pan out.
Some of them won't. So now in two years, you've got a 32 year old Guentzel locked up at $14m for another two years. You've got a lot of cap space tied up in a player who isn't part of your long term plan, because you sure aren't signing a 34 year old Guentzel long term. So if some of your prospects aren't working out, you need to go out and find someone who can help long term, either by trade/UFA. Guentzel, even on a 4 year deal, limits what you can do because you don't have the level of flexibility KD might want.
exo2769 liked this.
Jun. 6 at 11:21 a.m.
#14
uWu Garak
Avatar of the user
Joined: Apr. 2024
Posts: 473
Likes: 650
Quoting: exo2769
Why wouldn't we just keep him for all 4 years? I mentioned this in a comment above. Our defense isn't going to command HUGE dollars. Vlasic/Jones already locked up for that 4-year term. Rinzel on the right on and ELC, KK could be on a bridge, but even if he isn't and it's an 8 year deal...we've got $11.4M off the books to supplement KK's new contract. He's not getting $11.4M Dollars. Gajan on an ELC still Commesso isn't going to make north of Mrazek come two years from now. All that future cap space we have is ONLY going towards forwards. Click on the Long Term tab. Next year we're projected to have $28M...even with Jake's deal and everyone on defense/in net locked up.

***EDIT*** The Jake deal is just a 4 year deal. I just want to make sure we're on the same page.


Yeah. One giant contract with a max of 5 years (preferably 2 to 4 years) isn't going to mess with CHI's cap structure. Guentzel will likely be just as good in four years as he is now. At which point we could possibly get him on a discount because we overpaid him on this deal. The number is ridiculous, but the premise is logical. I would much rather overpay on a 4 year, than give him $9M x 8 years.

Guentzel is probably the best top line complementary winger in the league, average size, plays a style that is built for longevity in the NHL, and, regardless of whatever else we do with the roster, we need to raise the bar for the top line MUCH higher than I believe Kurashev and Hall, or anyone else currently with CHI and not named Bedard, is capable of.
exo2769 liked this.
Jun. 6 at 11:23 a.m.
#15
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2023
Posts: 1,523
Likes: 2,588
Quoting: exo2769
4 year deal. I'd rather pay up for someone to meet our term on a 4 year deal than sign a 7 year deal with a lower AAV and then have to trade assets away when Jake is 35-37 years old.


Honest questions here. The Hawks likely aren't going to be contenders for most of, if not all 4 of those years, so what good does Guentzel do the Hawks over the next 4 years? What are they getting out of it besides handing a guy an extra ~$20m that he doesn't deserve?
Jun. 6 at 11:25 a.m.
#16
Thread Starter
exo2769
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2015
Posts: 16,129
Likes: 10,617
Quoting: PaulKorea
Well aware it's a 4 year deal and I'm well aware next year is fine. I don't care about next year. I'm talking about in 2 years. First off, you're assuming that all these prospects are going to pan out.
Some of them won't. So now in two years, you've got a 32 year old Guentzel locked up at $14m for another two years. You've got a lot of cap space tied up in a player who isn't part of your long term plan, because you sure aren't signing a 34 year old Guentzel long term. So if some of your prospects aren't working out, you need to go out and find someone who can help long term, either by trade/UFA. Guentzel, even on a 4 year deal, limits what you can do because you don't have the level of flexibility KD might want.


This is where (in my opinion) if we don't have ANY of Nazar/Moore/Demidov/Hayes/Lardis/etc... ready to step up. Kyle Davidson is ALREADY fired. You can't go through a rebuild and never try to bring up your prospects. You HAVE to rely on someone within your farm system to step up. It's the only way. Truly, the only way to win in this league is developing your players and playing meaningful games at the end of the year...hopefully getting to the playoffs in 2 years Maybe 3. We need to take steps forward and Maybe the deal is $13M? Maybe it's 3 years? Maybe it's 3 years $15M? I don't have the exact contract in hand, but we need to get good players and get better. We have a TON of cap space and a lot more coming off the books in 1 year and again in 2 years. Foligno/Dickinson on 2 year deals too.
Bedsy_Burner liked this.
Jun. 6 at 11:26 a.m.
#17
Thread Starter
exo2769
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2015
Posts: 16,129
Likes: 10,617
Quoting: PaulKorea
Honest questions here. The Hawks likely aren't going to be contenders for most of, if not all 4 of those years, so what good does Guentzel do the Hawks over the next 4 years? What are they getting out of it besides handing a guy an extra ~$20m that he doesn't deserve?


Hopefully we get better as a team. We can't have our guys get used to losing. To me, that's prospect development. Getting Bedard / et al to the playoffs so they get a taste of how different that style of hockey is.
Bedsy_Burner liked this.
Jun. 6 at 11:51 a.m.
#18
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 553
Likes: 262
Leafs aren't giving you a 2nd to take Kampf lol
Jun. 6 at 11:51 a.m.
#19
uWu Garak
Avatar of the user
Joined: Apr. 2024
Posts: 473
Likes: 650
Quoting: PaulKorea
Honest questions here. The Hawks likely aren't going to be contenders for most of, if not all 4 of those years, so what good does Guentzel do the Hawks over the next 4 years? What are they getting out of it besides handing a guy an extra ~$20m that he doesn't deserve?


So, I see where you're coming from, this is akin to the arguments against acquiring Marner. But, in this instance we are getting four good development years of Bedard playing with elite talent, without any commitment beyond that that could cause huge problems, and without giving up assets. If we could have Marner only for the cost of giving him a contract for four years, I would be a whole lot more interested, because we don't have those four risky years after that to worry about.

I think my only argument against doing something like this is that CHI doesn't necessarily need to do it RIGHT NOW. We could just hold out, see how a line of Hall-Bedard-Kurashev does next season, and then reach out next summer or the summer after. I don't think another bad season is going to make them get "too used to losing", if anything I think it will motivate them from within to be better. If these kids were losing for like 4 or 5 years straight, then it might start to breed complacency, but two seasons of learning how tough the NHL really is, shouldn't create any problems.
PaulKorea and Snowhawk18 liked this.
Jun. 6 at 11:59 a.m.
#20
Snowhawk
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2022
Posts: 2,932
Likes: 4,441
Ya, I understand where you are going with this Guentzel offer but I just can’t get behind making him the highest paid player in the league. To me you are repeating the same mistake the Leafs made when they signed Tavares, all the young guys; like Bedard; are going to wanted a similar piece of the pie when their contracts come due leading to cap issues down the road.

Additionally, the DeMelo offer is about $2m per season too high.

The Islanders will need to attach a 2nd round pick to Pageau to move his contract which means you are giving Raddysh and Phillips away for free… perhaps you are ok with that?

I could live with the Kampf deal but I don’t think it is necessary to send anything other then FC back to Toronto.
Bedsy_Burner and PaulKorea liked this.
Jun. 6 at 12:00 p.m.
#21
Snowhawk
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2022
Posts: 2,932
Likes: 4,441
Quoting: dh91
Leafs aren't giving you a 2nd to take Kampf lol


The Leafs will be keeping Kampf if they don’t attach a 2nd round pick to him… this is not a Chicago thing, it wil be a league wide request.
Bedsy_Burner and PaulKorea liked this.
Jun. 6 at 12:27 p.m.
#22
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2023
Posts: 1,523
Likes: 2,588
Quoting: Bedsy_Burner
So, I see where you're coming from, this is akin to the arguments against acquiring Marner. But, in this instance we are getting four good development years of Bedard playing with elite talent, without any commitment beyond that that could cause huge problems, and without giving up assets. If we could have Marner only for the cost of giving him a contract for four years, I would be a whole lot more interested, because we don't have those four risky years after that to worry about.

I think my only argument against doing something like this is that CHI doesn't necessarily need to do it RIGHT NOW. We could just hold out, see how a line of Hall-Bedard-Kurashev does next season, and then reach out next summer or the summer after. I don't think another bad season is going to make them get "too used to losing", if anything I think it will motivate them from within to be better. If these kids were losing for like 4 or 5 years straight, then it might start to breed complacency, but two seasons of learning how tough the NHL really is, shouldn't create any problems.

I guess my main problem is that it's just banking too much on one player and to me. If you're going to sign Guentzel to that deal, that can't be all you do. He isn't enough to get the Hawks to the playoffs on his own. You've added an elite piece to your top line, but you still have holes all over your lineup. If it's me, I see if I can bring in a group like Teuvo/Kane/depth C/depth RD. None of those guys are going to break the bank or require super long-term deals. Sure, they aren't the high-end piece Guentzel is, but the team is deeper with improvements on multiple lines, improved the right side of your defense, and still have room to do more. Plus, you can let your prospects cook in Rockford more because you don't need as many of them to fill out your lineup every night.


Totally agree on the "getting used to losing" thing, especially with someone like Bedard in the locker room. He doesn't come across as someone that would ever get used to losing and I think that mindset sinks in with the other kids in the locker room.
Jun. 6 at 12:28 p.m.
#23
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2023
Posts: 1,523
Likes: 2,588
Accidental double post.
Jun. 6 at 12:47 p.m.
#24
uWu Garak
Avatar of the user
Joined: Apr. 2024
Posts: 473
Likes: 650
Quoting: PaulKorea
I guess my main problem is that it's just banking too much on one player and to me. If you're going to sign Guentzel to that deal, that can't be all you do. He isn't enough to get the Hawks to the playoffs on his own. You've added an elite piece to your top line, but you still have holes all over your lineup. If it's me, I see if I can bring in a group like Teuvo/Kane/depth C/depth RD. None of those guys are going to break the bank or require super long-term deals. Sure, they aren't the high-end piece Guentzel is, but the team is deeper with improvements on multiple lines, improved the right side of your defense, and still have room to do more. Plus, you can let your prospects cook in Rockford more because you don't need as many of them to fill out your lineup every night.


Totally agree on the "getting used to losing" thing, especially with someone like Bedard in the locker room. He doesn't come across as someone that would ever get used to losing and I think that mindset sinks in with the other kids in the locker room.


I don't think we need to get anywhere near the playoffs this soon. I think we need to play tighter more competitive games, and I think Bedard needs an elite talent to play with. Maybe add a one Center and one Defenseman, but let the rest of the lineup fill in organically, and let someone take Guentzel's job if they dare. I just know that we have to set the bar higher for these kids, so that they aren't just being handed a roster spot. We don't have to go crazy with it, but if last season is the bar you want to set, then even I could play in the NHL... Ok, maybe not me, but you get what I mean. haha.

Idk. On one hand, I'm not exactly a fan of adding a big ticket free agent. On the other hand, I love Guentzel's game and think he would be a great fit. So, we'll see.
PaulKorea and exo2769 liked this.
Jun. 6 at 1:23 p.m.
#25
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2016
Posts: 531
Likes: 256
Quoting: exo2769
4 year deal. I'd rather pay up for someone to meet our term on a 4 year deal than sign a 7 year deal with a lower AAV and then have to trade assets away when Jake is 35-37 years old.


14,000,000 per year for Jake Guentzel is crazy. This about what they will have to pay Bedard in 2 years if they give Guentzel that kind of money .. that's why it's crazy and will NEVER happen.
PaulKorea liked this.
 
Reply
To create a post please Login or Register
Question:
Options:
Add Option
Submit Poll