I brought this issue up a few weeks ago and it, understandably, is a very touchy subject with Hawk fans,myself included. From a strictly pragmatic point of view, moving out core veterans just as they are on the downside of their careers, (however that can be determined) for a bluechip prospect is the best way to ensure the team doesn't get old all at once and that you improve the skill level at the same time. From an emotional side the core players are beloved by the fan base who can't bear the thought of the player being traded. I fall right in the middle, on one hand I want to see the team constantly updated and younger, on the other I don't want to see any of the core players I really like traded away. Lucky for us we have a Management group who will have to wrestle with that dilemma.
- paulr

It may be difficult - or impossible - but if you move a core player, it must be for two NHL ready players (one at 2C, one on defense), giving you cap relief there, or one 2C at a cap hit $2-$3 MM less than what you're giving up.

Have to get away from the cap at some point to give Stan the flexibility to make moves other than "hope and a prayer" older vets or not ready for the show Rockfish prospects.

Especially knowing that your cap hit is going to increase by at least $6MM after next year, plus other signings (Kruger, I think, etc.).

May be impossible - but that's why GMs get the big bucks.

The issue is comes down to a couple things, to me. One....is there a part to replace the out-going player? Two....what is the upcoming salary for that player? Trading a core player without a replacement while the core player is still good is a no go, imo. You're also not going to get anything for a declining core member who has a lot of salary left. So restocking won't happen.

Making generalized statements like "trade core players while they're still good enough" get us nowhere other than circular arguments. Who goes? And for who? Then we can talk a bit more about apples to apples...
- mohel

I will be honest I am talking in generalities and in the big picture.

Excellent post Paul. With me I love what all our boys have done for this program...lifting two Cups is something I never thought I'd see. I remember those chithole days of the late 90s/early 2000s...

The player I hated moving? Andrew Ladd. When he was moved I was sick. He provided the grit, moxie, toughness, the edge that blended perfectly with our skilled guys. The efffing hell you say? Laddy is traded?

We traded other VERY popular and Very talented players (Soupy, Buff). When you live as close to the edge as the Hawks, a few things happen

-you are spending big money on great players which presumably leads to success. Check
-as players improve and demand raises, some players are pushed off that edge

The Blackhawks "core" should change as players not only get older, but new players demand to be included in that core. If we had no salary cap, that's one thing...but with a Cap the core can never be static because at some point you get diminishing returns and if you begin emotionally choosing the aging veteran over the now-more-skilled young and cheaper player you will get the results you deserve...failure, but at least 'the core' will be together.
- kwolf68

It is hard for me to follow you on this stuff.... You said earlier that Kane, Toews, Seabrook, and Keith should not be traded. That leaves Hossa (who is untradeable because of the recapture penalties), Hammer (who's contract makes trading really dumb), Crawford (no replacement in sight), Shaw (young, cheap deal), Saad (young, cheap deal, future core guy). One guy not mentioned is Sharp. Any I've missed? So, I am not sure how your theory mixes with reality.

How about a fresh one? Blog that is....

It is hard for me to follow you on this stuff.... You said earlier that Kane, Toews, Seabrook, and Keith should not be traded. That leaves Hossa (who is untradeable because of the recapture penalties), Hammer (who's contract makes trading really dumb), Crawford (no replacement in sight), Shaw (young, cheap deal), Saad (young, cheap deal, future core guy). One guy not mentioned is Sharp. Any I've missed? So, I am not sure how your theory mixes with reality.
- mohel

My only untradeable is Toews; it would really need to be an impossibly great deal to move Kane; Hossa is not moveable because of his contract.

But what if you could move Seabrook for a legitimate second-pairing defenseman locked up at half the cap hit (I don't know who - just conjecturing) - move Hjalmarsson up with Keith.

What if you could move Sharp for a legitimate 2C at half the cap hit - a Pirri who could play defense - Saad moves into the top six, Morin (maybe) replaces Sharp, maybe (with the dap space flexibility) Stan can make a second deal....

What if - I don't know - how creative can Stan be?

Other GMs make impossible deals all the tome - Stan gets the benefit of the doubt because he's always been up against the cap - let's see how good he really is.

Of course he can be questioned but I said some fans think they know more than he does. If any of us did we'd be making a million plus dollars a year coaching in the NHL, wouldn't we?
- paulr

Not always. Not even usually. Politics plays a much larger part than the average fan knows. Like any business with an old boys network, it's more who ya know as far as the opportunities go. Very few open minded thinkers in management. There's a lot of go with the flow no matter what.

The high priced player you mention, Brian Campbell was traded to alleviate cap space because his contract (at the time) was one of the worst in the NHL. Comparing that situation with trading from the current core is an apples to oranges comparison. Patrick Sharp is the trending name to be traded because of the poor post season he is having. Yes, your philosophy makes sense...in order to keep the Hawks from becoming old and stale you must trade to replenish and keep the window open....I get it. However, just as one great post season does not define a player neither does one not so great post season. Let us not forget a few months ago he was an olympian.....he's been an All Star MVP and more or less even though streaky, one of the most consistent Hawk players during the cup run. You also mention these diamonds in the rough or these up n coming 2C's as if they will be a guarantee of success. The fixation on a 2C and how this exposes the Hawks is also comical....any team that is loaded down the middle has deficiencies in other places....lack of D depth....lack of overall depth...hole in the net. In the salary cap era you can't build a fantasy hockey team. You can't have it all. A team has to ask themselves what is most important and some teams feel being loaded down the middle is more important than their 5-6-7 dmen or their fourth line. Also trading for a diamond in the rough has risks....a risk most teams will find not worthy if it means giving up one of your top forwards. A team also has to consider injuries.....Say we trade Sharp for a young 2C....and then Toews gets concussed....that forward depth you speak of isn't so deep now. Plus all these up n comers you feel are a good fit....I think we have better talent currently in the system.....and lastly Brandon Pirri was also considered an up n comer.....
- UnnamedSource

You are right on Campbell. They had to unload him. If they hadn't, 2 other guys to total his AAV would have been gone.

As far as the example you laid out...the Kings are probably the closest. Great depth, great center depth, very solid D, and they have Quick in net. They are the exception to the rule.

As far as trading away PROVEN players so we can plug in all the hyped up Bowman prospects....I am not in favor of it. I think that is also why Kevin Hayes is tentative about signing here. Where does he fit in? Does he see himself as a top 6 winger, and if so, where is that playing time coming from on the Hawks?

Sharp is banged up....and the fact he has as many points as toews sicne Sochi out of the core guys, I'll let that slide. I'm not a big fan of the injury excuse, but if he's hurting a LOT as what has been alluded to, then there is only so much we can expect. Q hasn't come out with the Sharp "OK" game in a quite awhile, which means a guy sucks, so that speaks volumes.

I will say this.....it's hard to prove, but I would bet my left nut that Kane has expressed some serious concerns about having a SOLID center man for him to play with. We haven't even seen all that Kane can do because he's being plugged with Saad, himself, Toews, Shaw, Kruger, Bolland, Regin, and god knows who else since 2007-08. You cant load up Kane/Toews forever so I would think they look hard at this.

Sorry, the little fin that everyone wants to build a statue for isn't the answer. Maybe at wing down the road, but if he's the EXACT player kane is and needs the puck a LOT how does that benefit Kane? Ahh....it doesn't

I won't say they'll get kesler, but if anyone doesn't think that Kane and Kesler spoke, and both may be pushing things with their respective things...well.....

My only untradeable is Toews; it would really need to be an impossibly great deal to move Kane; Hossa is not moveable because of his contract.

But what if you could move Seabrook for a legitimate second-pairing defenseman locked up at half the cap hit (I don't know who - just conjecturing) - move Hjalmarsson up with Keith.

What if you could move Sharp for a legitimate 2C at half the cap hit - a Pirri who could play defense - Saad moves into the top six, Morin (maybe) replaces Sharp, maybe (with the dap space flexibility) Stan can make a second deal....

What if - I don't know - how creative can Stan be?

Other GMs make impossible deals all the tome - Stan gets the benefit of the doubt because he's always been up against the cap - let's see how good he really is.
- StLBravesFan

1 Seabrook is a first pair defenseman on just about every team in the league. His salary is no problem. He probably has at least seven excellent years left. Trading him for a 3/4 guy makes the team weaker. I would only consider trading him if he and his agent are talking about a contract that busts the Hawks' cap plans, and I suspect that won't happen with him.

2. Place yourself in the shoes of the other GM for a minute. Why would that other GM trade a legit 2C who is considerably underpaid for Sharp; who is an excellent player on the back nine of his career and whose salary will look a bit gross in a few years? Even if said GM were dumb enough to trade the elusive underpaid legit 2C, I would suspect he'd get a much better deal from another team.

3. One more point on these "underpaid guys". The only way you get them is if they are near the end of their team-friendly deal. The market for a second pairing defenseman ain't far from Seabs' current cap hit. The market for that second line center is at least Sharpie's current cap hit. So, those cap savings to use for another player is largely a mirage.

My only untradeable is Toews; it would really need to be an impossibly great deal to move Kane; Hossa is not moveable because of his contract.

But what if you could move Seabrook for a legitimate second-pairing defenseman locked up at half the cap hit (I don't know who - just conjecturing) - move Hjalmarsson up with Keith.

What if you could move Sharp for a legitimate 2C at half the cap hit - a Pirri who could play defense - Saad moves into the top six, Morin (maybe) replaces Sharp, maybe (with the dap space flexibility) Stan can make a second deal....

What if - I don't know - how creative can Stan be?

Other GMs make impossible deals all the tome - Stan gets the benefit of the doubt because he's always been up against the cap - let's see how good he really is.
- StLBravesFan

I have three untradables - Toews, Kane and Keith. Those are guys we need for long term success, take any one of them away and you severely impact the team. Anyone can be traded of course, but I don't see any team giving up a package that would make it worth our while.

We have a 2nd tier that are near-untradable: Hossa, Saad, Seabrook, Hjalmarsson and Sharp. Moving these guys wouldn't hurt as much as 19, 88 and 2 but there would still be a negative impact.

The 3rd tier are guys we really like and would want to keep, but if we had to we could get by without (not all at the same time though): Bickell, Shaw, Kruger, Smith, Oduya and Crawford.

You are right on Campbell. They had to unload him. If they hadn't, 2 other guys to total his AAV would have been gone.

As far as the example you laid out...the Kings are probably the closest. Great depth, great center depth, very solid D, and they have Quick in net. They are the exception to the rule.

As far as trading away PROVEN players so we can plug in all the hyped up Bowman prospects....I am not in favor of it. I think that is also why Kevin Hayes is tentative about signing here. Where does he fit in? Does he see himself as a top 6 winger, and if so, where is that playing time coming from on the Hawks?

Sharp is banged up....and the fact he has as many points as toews sicne Sochi out of the core guys, I'll let that slide. I'm not a big fan of the injury excuse, but if he's hurting a LOT as what has been alluded to, then there is only so much we can expect. Q hasn't come out with the Sharp "OK" game in a quite awhile, which means a guy sucks, so that speaks volumes.

I will say this.....it's hard to prove, but I would bet my left nut that Kane has expressed some serious concerns about having a SOLID center man for him to play with. We haven't even seen all that Kane can do because he's being plugged with Saad, himself, Toews, Shaw, Kruger, Bolland, Regin, and god knows who else since 2007-08. You cant load up Kane/Toews forever so I would think they look hard at this.

Sorry, the little fin that everyone wants to build a statue for isn't the answer. Maybe at wing down the road, but if he's the EXACT player kane is and needs the puck a LOT how does that benefit Kane? Ahh....it doesn't

I won't say they'll get kesler, but if anyone doesn't think that Kane and Kesler spoke, and both may be pushing things with their respective things...well.....
- SteveRain

I'd bet your left nut too about the Patrick Kane concerns. I have seen a bunch of times when he just shakes his head and heads off to the bench for a change. And I'd bet your right nut that Bowman is aware of it.

You are right on Campbell. They had to unload him. If they hadn't, 2 other guys to total his AAV would have been gone.

As far as the example you laid out...the Kings are probably the closest. Great depth, great center depth, very solid D, and they have Quick in net. They are the exception to the rule.

As far as trading away PROVEN players so we can plug in all the hyped up Bowman prospects....I am not in favor of it. I think that is also why Kevin Hayes is tentative about signing here. Where does he fit in? Does he see himself as a top 6 winger, and if so, where is that playing time coming from on the Hawks?

Sharp is banged up....and the fact he has as many points as toews sicne Sochi out of the core guys, I'll let that slide. I'm not a big fan of the injury excuse, but if he's hurting a LOT as what has been alluded to, then there is only so much we can expect. Q hasn't come out with the Sharp "OK" game in a quite awhile, which means a guy sucks, so that speaks volumes.

I will say this.....it's hard to prove, but I would bet my left nut that Kane has expressed some serious concerns about having a SOLID center man for him to play with. We haven't even seen all that Kane can do because he's being plugged with Saad, himself, Toews, Shaw, Kruger, Bolland, Regin, and god knows who else since 2007-08. You cant load up Kane/Toews forever so I would think they look hard at this.

Sorry, the little fin that everyone wants to build a statue for isn't the answer. Maybe at wing down the road, but if he's the EXACT player kane is and needs the puck a LOT how does that benefit Kane? Ahh....it doesn't

I won't say they'll get kesler, but if anyone doesn't think that Kane and Kesler spoke, and both may be pushing things with their respective things...well.....
- SteveRain

I'm not opposed to getting Kesler, but I wouldn't go all out to get him. The deal has to be right. Kesler would be a short term addition (2 years) so I wouldn't mortgage the future for him (i.e. Saad). But I realize we'd have to give up something of quality to get him (i.e. Shaw, Leddy, Teravainen).

NEW BLOG BEEN UP FOR AWHILE.

Disagree on 87.7 - it's all unlistenable.

Kaplan and Hough have zero chemistry, if they're even in the same building.

Teinowitz is even worse than he was in his previous gigs - and those were pretty bad (although he had help in being bad by that ex-football player whose name I can't remember).

Didn't he and McNeil get into a fight at one point?

Spiegel and Bernstein merely repeat what they read somewhere that morning - Boers can't put five words together to make a coherent sentence, when he's able to get his head out of Bernstein's ass.
- StLBravesFan

Ex football player yesterday was Jarret Payton, Walter's kid

You are right on Campbell. They had to unload him. If they hadn't, 2 other guys to total his AAV would have been gone.

As far as the example you laid out...the Kings are probably the closest. Great depth, great center depth, very solid D, and they have Quick in net. They are the exception to the rule.

As far as trading away PROVEN players so we can plug in all the hyped up Bowman prospects....I am not in favor of it. I think that is also why Kevin Hayes is tentative about signing here. Where does he fit in? Does he see himself as a top 6 winger, and if so, where is that playing time coming from on the Hawks?

Sharp is banged up....and the fact he has as many points as toews sicne Sochi out of the core guys, I'll let that slide. I'm not a big fan of the injury excuse, but if he's hurting a LOT as what has been alluded to, then there is only so much we can expect. Q hasn't come out with the Sharp "OK" game in a quite awhile, which means a guy sucks, so that speaks volumes.

I will say this.....it's hard to prove, but I would bet my left nut that Kane has expressed some serious concerns about having a SOLID center man for him to play with. We haven't even seen all that Kane can do because he's being plugged with Saad, himself, Toews, Shaw, Kruger, Bolland, Regin, and god knows who else since 2007-08. You cant load up Kane/Toews forever so I would think they look hard at this.

Sorry, the little fin that everyone wants to build a statue for isn't the answer. Maybe at wing down the road, but if he's the EXACT player kane is and needs the puck a LOT how does that benefit Kane? Ahh....it doesn't

I won't say they'll get kesler, but if anyone doesn't think that Kane and Kesler spoke, and both may be pushing things with their respective things...well.....
- SteveRain

The narrative of Sharp being hurt has been floated and seemingly accepted for some time here. I don't accept it. He looks fine to me. He's just not producing. He may be playing through an injury and i could be wrong, but this Sharp is "banged up" stuff rings hollow.

The post Sochi decline theory has also been put out there, but Sharp actually tallied 6 goals and 14 assists in 22 games after the Olympics. He was -5 during that stretch as well and didn't look nearly as spry, so maybe the journey and grind did take their toll, but his production remained respectable.

The bolded is just not true, Fredo. There's a long list of untested, young players who have played for the Hawks over the past several years and stuck. Shaw, Saad, Krugman, Bickell, Leddy, Niemi, Crawford, Bolland, Smith, Bollig.
- mohel

Notice I said he doesn't have a roster full of youngsters, not that he never plays them?

Judge, Jury and Executioner. Same role my wife took on after we got married.
- Canardhawk

I prefer "Thought Police".

clerks was really funny no doubt. It is very close for me but maybe because I like joey lauren adams I liked chasing amy better
- tomcat24

She gots nice breastises!

Shannon D is just an avg skank.

Ek says E. Kane is on the way in the off season, so we got that going for us....which is nice. Jumbo Joe is on the block according to him as well, so our 2C issue would be solved...
- Sundevil

Jumbo Joe is a dirty player and a choke-meister. Gimme Kesler.

I see no way Versteeg is in tonight.
- kwolf68

Question not the incomprehensible decisions of Q. I'd give it 50/50 his meds kick in.

XM is channel 92,I think Sirius is 207????
- wonthecup10

I believe the NHL radio network on Sirius is 211 . Their shows are all hockey, most come out of Toronto. Very comprehensive and different hosts every 2 hours.

I too was most upset about the team losing Ladd. He would still be a vital player for the Hawks a guy who can play on any line, he skates well has decent skill, was physical, would drop the floves if needed, could play in any situation and he provided leadership. Like I said it's a touchy subject and most of us use emotion instead of logic when talking about our team. And that's OK because we don't have to make these decisions, merely comment on them and pretend we know better.
- paulr

I also was very upset with the Hawks loosing Andrew Ladd. Stan last move to get down to the cap was between Bolland and Ladd.We can' t really complain about Stan keeping Bolland..:: he was very instrumental in the Hawks winning 2 cups. However, Stan made the right move by trading Bolland last year. Bolland's back issue was becoming a big problem in the number of games he had missed during the last 3 years.

My only untradeable is Toews; it would really need to be an impossibly great deal to move Kane; Hossa is not moveable because of his contract.

But what if you could move Seabrook for a legitimate second-pairing defenseman locked up at half the cap hit (I don't know who - just conjecturing) - move Hjalmarsson up with Keith.

What if you could move Sharp for a legitimate 2C at half the cap hit - a Pirri who could play defense - Saad moves into the top six, Morin (maybe) replaces Sharp, maybe (with the dap space flexibility) Stan can make a second deal....

What if - I don't know - how creative can Stan be?

Other GMs make impossible deals all the tome - Stan gets the benefit of the doubt because he's always been up against the cap - let's see how good he really is.
- StLBravesFan

I really think Kesler is a pipe dream. I would like to see them target Vermette- age 31, 24 goals last year, 1 less than Kesler, makes 3.75 on last year of contract