I don't really know who I'm pulling for. Part of me will always resent the Blues with a fiery passion, while part of me would like to see Nill's boys lose. Jim Nill has done a damn good job constructing that team, but he can pound sand

It comes down to the Dallas defense dealing with the physical forecheck of the Blues. Cody Eakin is a solid depth guy but the drop-off from Seguin to Eakin is substantial....
- EnzoD

If Dallas can weather the physical storm, I think they'll be OK.

They need to bombard Elliot. He's shown that he's prone to giving up a lot of rebounds and once a couple get past him, he looks pretty human.

Dallas proved they can battle back against that tough Blues defense. In game two (I think it was) Dallas was down two goals, fought back and pushed it to over time. Eventually losing. But, they pounded Elliot in that game and had him on his heels. That's what they need to keep doing.

If Dallas can weather the physical storm, I think they'll be OK.

They need to bombard Elliot. He's shown that he's prone to giving up a lot of rebounds and once a couple get past him, he looks pretty human.

Dallas proved they can battle back against that tough Blues defense. In game two (I think it was) Dallas was down two goals, fought back and pushed it to over time. Eventually losing. But, they pounded Elliot in that game and had him on his heels. That's what they need to keep doing.
- Hank3Henshaw

I agree that Elliot's rebound control is poor, but the Blues defend the Blue paint (lol) very well. If STL can limit the transition/odd man breaks, it will be tough for the Stars to generate that 4 line offensive pressure they had with Seguin. Also, the defensive breakdowns from the inexperienced Stars defenders have to e limited bc, like you said, Blues have been getting the bounces and are finishing their looks so far. Niemi and Lehtonen are another issue in Big D....I've got Blues in 6 but it will be a battle for sure. Will be interesting to see how the Penguins look without Letang tonight...I've got Caps winning big tonight.

I don't think the Stars have a snowball's chance in Texas to win this series without Seguin. Blues are too good, too deep and too physical. Best of luck....this might be your year
- EnzoD

The forecheck was strong last night and it overwhelmed the Dallas D and the their goaltending was, well, their goaltending. It's not like they gave up 4 bad goals but it's not like there was a point where you felt they might steal the game.

If the Blues keep up the forecheck, the Dallas D won't be able to handle it imho.

Also, another bounce back answer goal. Got the goal they gave up back in less than a minute. All good signs but only 1/3 of the way to the goal.

If anyone wants some light reading to find the holes in the CBA here you go

http://cdn.agilitycms.com...DF/NHL_NHLPA_2013_CBA.pdf

540 pages of legalese......good luck.
- TheTrob

yep. have it downloaded but haven't spent much time in it. I review enough legalese in my day job.

Some night when you have insomnia, give it a whirl, lol.

If Dallas can weather the physical storm, I think they'll be OK.

They need to bombard Elliot. He's shown that he's prone to giving up a lot of rebounds and once a couple get past him, he looks pretty human.

Dallas proved they can battle back against that tough Blues defense. In game two (I think it was) Dallas was down two goals, fought back and pushed it to over time. Eventually losing. But, they pounded Elliot in that game and had him on his heels. That's what they need to keep doing.
- Hank3Henshaw

IMHO, Elliott was good/better/sometimes great with rebound control and movement early to mid Hawks series. It got away from him in the latter part of of the Hawks series and early in the Stars series. It got better in the second half of the game last night. Hoping its coming back around to the good/better/sometimes great set.

I agree that Elliot's rebound control is poor, but the Blues defend the Blue paint (lol) very well. If STL can limit the transition/odd man breaks, it will be tough for the Stars to generate that 4 line offensive pressure they had with Seguin. Also, the defensive breakdowns from the inexperienced Stars defenders have to e limited bc, like you said, Blues have been getting the bounces and are finishing their looks so far. Niemi and Lehtonen are another issue in Big D....I've got Blues in 6 but it will be a battle for sure. Will be interesting to see how the Penguins look without Letang tonight...I've got Caps winning big tonight.
- EnzoD

It'll be interesting to see...I agree that Niemi and Lehtonen are big issues. It's strange how Lehtonen has kind of lost his game over the past couple years...

How about a gentlemen's bet? I say Dallas wins the series. You have the Blues. Cool?

Letang, man...can't believe he didn't get suspended when he viciously tried to take off Stalberg's jaw with his stick in the first round.

No one has answered this question:

Why would you trade Crawford for a 4D if you can't protect a fourth defenseman in the expansion draft? I have a VERY hard time believing a trade of CC for a guy like Hamonic buys you a run at the Cup.

Would it not make more sense to keep CC, protect him, and sign a guy like Kempny to an ELC that will be exempt from the draft?

It just astonishes m how arguably the best player on the Hawks the past two seasons is they guy everyone wants to give the bus ticket to......

I agree that Elliot's rebound control is poor, but the Blues defend the Blue paint (lol) very well. If STL can limit the transition/odd man breaks, it will be tough for the Stars to generate that 4 line offensive pressure they had with Seguin. Also, the defensive breakdowns from the inexperienced Stars defenders have to e limited bc, like you said, Blues have been getting the bounces and are finishing their looks so far. Niemi and Lehtonen are another issue in Big D....I've got Blues in 6 but it will be a battle for sure. Will be interesting to see how the Penguins look without Letang tonight...I've got Caps winning big tonight.
- EnzoD

I think the Blues D is playing to match their goalie in a way which is how you need to structure things imho.

If they do that, the rest of the union will freak the "eff" out. Players in this union play for all the other players in the union. It's a limited membership union so if one or two players do this, it has a greater impact on the rest of the members.
- CanOCorn

Now see, that does not make sense to me, because if they were playing for each other, two (maybe more) of their "union brothers" Andrew Shaw and Dale Weiss, the "little guys," would get paid and not worry about leaving Chicago.

No one has answered this question:

Why would you trade Crawford for a 4D if you can't protect a fourth defenseman in the expansion draft? I have a VERY hard time believing a trade of CC for a guy like Hamonic buys you a run at the Cup.

Would it not make more sense to keep CC, protect him, and sign a guy like Kempny to an ELC that will be exempt from the draft?

It just astonishes m how arguably the best player on the Hawks the past two seasons is they guy everyone wants to give the bus ticket to......
- Return of the Roar

Not me, if a big salary has to go it would be 7 - much better return for a top 2 D than for a goalie

I think the Blues D is playing to match their goalie in a way which is how you need to structure things imho.
- Jason Millen

Hawks did the same when they had Niemi.

No one has answered this question:

Why would you trade Crawford for a 4D if you can't protect a fourth defenseman in the expansion draft? I have a VERY hard time believing a trade of CC for a guy like Hamonic buys you a run at the Cup.

Would it not make more sense to keep CC, protect him, and sign a guy like Kempny to an ELC that will be exempt from the draft?

It just astonishes m how arguably the best player on the Hawks the past two seasons is they guy everyone wants to give the bus ticket to......
- Return of the Roar

The Expansion Draft will be a huge factor in personnel decisions this summer, but banking on the Expansion Draft to bail the Hawks out of Salary Cap Hell is very risky....like losing Panarin next summer risky...

No one has answered this question:

Why would you trade Crawford for a 4D if you can't protect a fourth defenseman in the expansion draft? I have a VERY hard time believing a trade of CC for a guy like Hamonic buys you a run at the Cup.

Would it not make more sense to keep CC, protect him, and sign a guy like Kempny to an ELC that will be exempt from the draft?

It just astonishes m how arguably the best player on the Hawks the past two seasons is they guy everyone wants to give the bus ticket to......
- Return of the Roar

I have been one to say Crow may need to go , just for his contract .But am rethinking that and have always like Crow a lot .Your reasoning make a lot of sense .Only thing that I worried about with Crow is the new equipment rules ,nobody else seems to think this is anything to worry about .So I guess it would be wise to hang onto Crow ,and just make some minor tweaks .Rest and some maturing of young players could be enough to get us to the promise land ..

The Expansion Draft will be a huge factor in personnel decisions this summer, but banking on the Expansion Draft to bail the Hawks out of Salary Cap Hell is very risky....like losing Panarin next summer risky...
- EnzoD

How does trading CC for a #4D, and needing to sign another goalie give you room for Panarin?

I still think the compliance buyout is a for real thing and Hossa's money will go to keep 72.

More than a coincidence that 2,4,7,50,19 and 88 all have NMCs. They are all part of the plan.

I have been one to say Crow may need to go , just for his contract .But am rethinking that and have always like Crow a lot .Your reasoning make a lot of sense .Only thing that I worried about with Crow is the new equipment rules ,nobody else seems to think this is anything to worry about .So I guess it would be wise to hang onto Crow ,and just make some minor tweaks .Rest and some maturing of young players could be enough to get us to the promise land ..
- oldduffman

I agree with the rest and tweaks being enough to make a solid run next year. As for equipment.....all teams will deal with that issue equally, so seems a wash to me.

How does trading CC for a #4D, and needing to sign another goalie give you room for Panarin?

I still think the compliance buyout is a for real thing and Hossa's money will go to keep 72.

More than a coincidence that 2,4,7,50,19 and 88 all have NMCs. They are all part of the plan.
- Return of the Roar

Ideally, Hawks would add a guy like Kempny or another ELC/bridge deal young 4D(cost-controlled for 2-3 seasons). Then, sign a cheap NHL Veteran goalie for $2mil to platoon with Darling. That would open up the cap space to extend Panarin at $6-7mil. I really have no idea what to expect, but that is what I would try to accomplish

No one has answered this question:

Why would you trade Crawford for a 4D if you can't protect a fourth defenseman in the expansion draft? I have a VERY hard time believing a trade of CC for a guy like Hamonic buys you a run at the Cup.

Would it not make more sense to keep CC, protect him, and sign a guy like Kempny to an ELC that will be exempt from the draft?

It just astonishes m how arguably the best player on the Hawks the past two seasons is they guy everyone wants to give the bus ticket to......
- Return of the Roar

Brother nobody wants to. The topic centered on if a trade HAD to be made. My thoughts on that did not take into account an expansion draft. Is this expansion thing gonna go through?

With several teams struggling money wise, I think adding another is a horrible idea.

It'll be interesting to see...I agree that Niemi and Lehtonen are big issues. It's strange how Lehtonen has kind of lost his game over the past couple years...

How about a gentlemen's bet? I say Dallas wins the series. You have the Blues. Cool?

Letang, man...can't believe he didn't get suspended when he viciously tried to take off Stalberg's jaw with his stick in the first round.
- Hank3Henshaw

I enjoy a good wager. I'll also stick with the Capitals in 7 over the Pens.

No one has answered this question:

Why would you trade Crawford for a 4D if you can't protect a fourth defenseman in the expansion draft? I have a VERY hard time believing a trade of CC for a guy like Hamonic buys you a run at the Cup.

Would it not make more sense to keep CC, protect him, and sign a guy like Kempny to an ELC that will be exempt from the draft?

It just astonishes m how arguably the best player on the Hawks the past two seasons is they guy everyone wants to give the bus ticket to......
- Return of the Roar

According to Generalfanager, the Hawks will have about $11 million for next year assuming a $74 million cap, and a Bickell buyout.

We have:

?-Toews-Hossa
PAK
?-Krug-TT
?-?-Desi

Keith-Seabs
Hammer-TVR
Sved-Gus

CC
Darling

Obviously, some of the ? will be filled by ELC players currently in the organization at an average cost of, what, $800,000? So plug Moose into 4C, maybe Motte or Schmaltz. Kempny (if he signs) could replace Sved at about the same cost. That leaves us >$9 million for Shaw and Panik, which is more than enough. Shaw gets 3.5-4, Panik 1-1.5, leaving us about 3.5 for a legit 4D.

The problem then becomes next year...no money to sign Panarin will seriously hurt the Hawks moving forward. That is why you look into trading Crawford for a 4D. If that player gets picked in the expansion draft, you will still have the cap room to replace him, and still have 5-6 million to sign Panarin.

I put Toews, Kane, and Keith in the supercore.
- DMChi2010

You gotta throw hammer in there with that contract. It's one of those golden contracts for a reliable high quality player that keeps us from crumbling.

Let's not get too high and mighty about this franchise or pretend they are something they are not.

The whole team was built on booze money. Likely back to the Prohibition Era, but certainly tied to Judge and Dolphs. The old old man used to turn off the water fountains so you HAD to buy booze.

Our Ambassadors all present themselves drunk regularly. Hull and Savard each having law issues of some kind involving booze, Espo a pitch man for Binny's. Even Coach Q promotes the booze....which some could argue is a short walk to promoting the bad (man?) behavior which goes with drinking. (Kane / Ross, etc) So, please let's just enjoy the hockey and not pretend this organization is warm and fuzzy. They are not. n (Ice Girls, second period Score-O game, etc)

May have some years left with this window, but even when the Hawks are down, they are not down for long. (75 - 80) (86 - 88) (1999 - 2009) Even though this is a golden age, we will have other eras to come. (Hull / Mikita Era, Savard era, Roenick / Cheli Era, and now Toews / Kane) In another ten years it will be someone else, and if we endure a down time that is the price of doing business.

For someone to say that they only realized after this season that the organIzation was not the warm and fuzzy one portrayed by the Hawks promo videos has not been paying attention for long.

I enjoy a good wager. I'll also stick with the Capitals in 7 over the Pens.
- EnzoD

Cool. Here's who I have winning:

Dallas
Pittsburgh
New York
San Jose

So first, let me explain what I meant by my post.

Burying cap hits: This board has been up in arms since Oduya signed with Dallas about David Rundblad's contract, as though Rundblad's deal somehow foreclosed signing Oduya. If only the Hawks had parted ways with Rundblad, Oduya would have returned and we'd be winning the cup. What was Rundblad's cap hit, buried in the AHL and in Europe? A whopping $100k. That's not the reason we didn't sign Oduya. The fallout from the Sharp trade is.

Flipping players for picks: This is another theme that keeps popping up, probably because of the rumor JJ posted around the draft. People seem to think that the Blackhawks were going to be able to trade Sharp for draft picks without taking any salary back. Question: who exactly was going to do that? A low-salary rebuilding team wouldn't. A high-salary contender wouldn't have the cap space to take on $5.9m extra. The only remotely plausible scenario, then, would have been trading Sharp to a contending team that had $6m sitting around that had no better use than to pay for an aging middle-six winger. So which team was that?

If Stan Bowman had the chance to move Sharp for two second-round draft picks -- straight up, no strings attached -- and blew it, he's either a fool or his hands were tied by a fool.

Value in a hard-cap league and opportunity cost: A lot of folks here debate the relative merits of X player vs. Y player, or the absolute merits of Z player. That's absolutely fine for hockey discussion. But when you start talking roster construction, absolute value goes out the window because you have a hard cap. I don't mean just that we have to think about cap hits. I mean that every decision you make has to be based on the number of wins the player is worth relative to the size of that cap hit. Bryan Bickell at $1m is a wash. Bryan Bickell at $4m is a disaster. Artemi Panarin at $3.25m or whatever his hit is when you include his bonuses is a bargain. Artemi Panarin at $7m is close to a wash.

While I wouldn't be surprised to learn that there's a GM or two out there who doesn't get this, most of them surely do. Which is why, going back to Sharp, you'd have to be an idiot* to trade away two second-round draft picks, which represent two decent shots at securing an NHL-caliber player at a very low cost for a few years, for a player costing $6m against your cap who is probably worth more like $3m or $4m.

Now, take opportunity cost into account. If that team acquires Sharp, then it's missing an opportunity to acquire a different player (or different players) who could contribute more on the ice.* Here's the exception to what I just said. If there's a team with the space to take on Sharp, and if Sharp's going to put your team over an important threshhold -- say, playoff team to cup contender -- then it would make sense for you to do it. The Phil Kessel trade is a perfect example of this.

What all of this adds up to is that Patrick Sharp's trade value was not anything near what we might think if we only consider his merits as a hockey player.

Okay. You discussed some specific transactions that I have some thoughts on.



I agree that Leddy was probably worth more than what the Hawks received in return. It would have been a much better idea to move him before July 1, when rosters are not settled and teams have more flexibility. Compare what they got for Leddy to what they got for Saad, and the Saad transaction was RFA rights only. Leddy still had a year left at a relatively low hit.



Chicago got absolutely fleeced there. I have no idea what anybody was thinking. This trade would have been horrible even if it had cost the Hawks only one second-round pick.



If you can do it, that's great, but you run into the problem, again, of trading a player with a $4m or so hit who isn't quite worth that. Especially after July 1, you're virtually guaranteed to have to take salary back, which is...



...exactly why this trade happened the way it did.



When the Hawks traded for Ehrhoff, I breathed a sigh of relief because that was Scuderi's cap hit off the books. Then they retained salary. Um, okay. Who exactly in the organization wanted Ehrhoff, anyway? Completely bizarre.



This is simply not true. They had two very serious and very pressing cap issues: they needed to open space for deadline acquisitions, and they needed to open space to absorb Panarin's bonus overages. They also needed to open space for the contract extensions kicking in the following summer, but they could have moved Daley after the season for that.



As I explained above, Rundblad on the Blackhawks might be a $1.05m cap hit, but off the Blackhawks, he's only a $100k hit. Less, potentially, if the minimum salary increases in the offseason.If Rundblad is good enough to be on the NHL roster, a $1m hit is fine for a bottom-pair defenseman. If he's not, then you can bury him without creating an issue for yourself.



The first two may very well be true.

The Saad-Anisimov trade was neither slow nor overconfident. The Leddy trade was slow. The Sharp trade may have been overconfident.

As for long-term vision... I think he's acting in accordance with one, just not a very good one.

He's identified his "core" and locked them up. His intent is to build the rest of the roster around them. That's a perfectly fine strategy, assuming you have a good enough value in your core.

Unfortunately, the Hawks don't. Keith and Hjalmarsson are on excellent contracts. Everybody else is a wash or slightly worse. Seabrook in particular is going to be a major problem, I think. It is very unfortunate that they don't really have an in-house replacement for him, because I think it would have been much better in the long term for them to have let him walk after this past season. I know some people think that their in-house replacement is in Dallas now. I don't have an opinion on that because I don't know anything about prospect projection.



We can speculate about the latter, but trading away an apparently good, young player on an ELC for two players on expiring contracts who aren't even given the opportunity to contribute, really, is a major mistake. This trade is going to cost the Blackhawks going forward.



No doubt about that. Just an awful trade under the circumstances.



This is true only if you think that those players were going to be able to stay in Chicago. They weren't.

The Sharp trade -- part of the price of which was Stephen Johns, which should not be forgotten -- has ultimately opened roughly $4m in cap space. I think that just about pays for the extensions that are kicking in this summer.

The Leddy trade returned Ville Pokka.

We may think those are BAD values, but it's not nothing.

This is the type of reasoning I was talking about when I mentioned production versus cap hit. It's not enough to say that a player is high caliber. How much are they getting paid? How long is their contract? How much do they contribute relative to their cap hit? Those are the kinds of questions that need to be answered before you can evaluate a player's trade value.



When was the last time a player with a cap hit measurably above what he brought to the table as a player was traded for draft picks without taking salary back? For that matter, when was the last time ANY player with a significant cap hit was dealt with no salary coming back?

Nobody in the NHL is able to dump their cap problems on other teams AND come out with shiny high-round draft picks. Maybe that was true in the past -- I haven't paid close enough attention to know -- but it's certainly not happening right now. This isn't NHL 16.



I agree with you that these trades have chipped away at the Blackhawks' depth. But they were the product of mistakes that had already been made. Bickell's disaster of a contract comes to mind. Roszival's unnecessary prior deal. A pair of $10.5m contracts do, too, though I think the jury's still out on whether they were worth it.

This cap system punishes you harshly for overvaluing players if you're fielding a roster full of quality veterans, as the Hawks are. Don't mistake the consequences of the mistake -- the cap forcing your hand in a trade -- for the mistake itself, which may be as little as $2m too much committed to a couple players.



Out of curiosity, why does Bowman get the blame for trades you think were bad but not the credit for signing quality players that his scouting department unearthed?

Also, I'm not sure exactly who you think the Hawks should have picked up in free agency, hell, I'm not sure why you think the Hawks had ROOM to sign free agents, but free agent contracts are generally poor values.



No. You were able to move the RIGHTS to a 23-year-old top-six power winger -- who signed for $6m/6y, which was pretty much what he was worth -- in exchange for a very good prospect who had seen success in limited NHL player time and a middle-six center who you were able to lock up with a contract paying him probably about what he's worth and possibly somewhat less than you would have paid on the open market. Was that trade a steal? Heck no. Could a case be made that the Hawks came out of it worse? I don't think so, because they sure weren't going to be able to afford Saad. I guess it could be argued that the Jackets ultimately got more out of it than the Hawks did, but who cares?



One hole filled opens up another one. The cap sucks. I hate it.



Not as long as mine!

Also, pre-emptive apologies if I'm coming off as a Richard. I'm just... passionate.
- darklighter

Interesting, entertaining read, DL. Thanks for posting!

No way we 11 mil in cap space. Kane t hos as Kruger craw hammer Seabs Keith is 57 + we have 4 mil in dead space.

So first, let me explain what I meant by my post.

Burying cap hits: This board has been up in arms since Oduya signed with Dallas about David Rundblad's contract, as though Rundblad's deal somehow foreclosed signing Oduya. If only the Hawks had parted ways with Rundblad, Oduya would have returned and we'd be winning the cup. What was Rundblad's cap hit, buried in the AHL and in Europe? A whopping $100k. That's not the reason we didn't sign Oduya. The fallout from the Sharp trade is.

Flipping players for picks: This is another theme that keeps popping up, probably because of the rumor JJ posted around the draft. People seem to think that the Blackhawks were going to be able to trade Sharp for draft picks without taking any salary back. Question: who exactly was going to do that? A low-salary rebuilding team wouldn't. A high-salary contender wouldn't have the cap space to take on $5.9m extra. The only remotely plausible scenario, then, would have been trading Sharp to a contending team that had $6m sitting around that had no better use than to pay for an aging middle-six winger. So which team was that?

If Stan Bowman had the chance to move Sharp for two second-round draft picks -- straight up, no strings attached -- and blew it, he's either a fool or his hands were tied by a fool.

Value in a hard-cap league and opportunity cost: A lot of folks here debate the relative merits of X player vs. Y player, or the absolute merits of Z player. That's absolutely fine for hockey discussion. But when you start talking roster construction, absolute value goes out the window because you have a hard cap. I don't mean just that we have to think about cap hits. I mean that every decision you make has to be based on the number of wins the player is worth relative to the size of that cap hit. Bryan Bickell at $1m is a wash. Bryan Bickell at $4m is a disaster. Artemi Panarin at $3.25m or whatever his hit is when you include his bonuses is a bargain. Artemi Panarin at $7m is close to a wash.

While I wouldn't be surprised to learn that there's a GM or two out there who doesn't get this, most of them surely do. Which is why, going back to Sharp, you'd have to be an idiot* to trade away two second-round draft picks, which represent two decent shots at securing an NHL-caliber player at a very low cost for a few years, for a player costing $6m against your cap who is probably worth more like $3m or $4m.

Now, take opportunity cost into account. If that team acquires Sharp, then it's missing an opportunity to acquire a different player (or different players) who could contribute more on the ice.* Here's the exception to what I just said. If there's a team with the space to take on Sharp, and if Sharp's going to put your team over an important threshhold -- say, playoff team to cup contender -- then it would make sense for you to do it. The Phil Kessel trade is a perfect example of this.

What all of this adds up to is that Patrick Sharp's trade value was not anything near what we might think if we only consider his merits as a hockey player.

Okay. You discussed some specific transactions that I have some thoughts on.



I agree that Leddy was probably worth more than what the Hawks received in return. It would have been a much better idea to move him before July 1, when rosters are not settled and teams have more flexibility. Compare what they got for Leddy to what they got for Saad, and the Saad transaction was RFA rights only. Leddy still had a year left at a relatively low hit.



Chicago got absolutely fleeced there. I have no idea what anybody was thinking. This trade would have been horrible even if it had cost the Hawks only one second-round pick.



If you can do it, that's great, but you run into the problem, again, of trading a player with a $4m or so hit who isn't quite worth that. Especially after July 1, you're virtually guaranteed to have to take salary back, which is...



...exactly why this trade happened the way it did.



When the Hawks traded for Ehrhoff, I breathed a sigh of relief because that was Scuderi's cap hit off the books. Then they retained salary. Um, okay. Who exactly in the organization wanted Ehrhoff, anyway? Completely bizarre.



This is simply not true. They had two very serious and very pressing cap issues: they needed to open space for deadline acquisitions, and they needed to open space to absorb Panarin's bonus overages. They also needed to open space for the contract extensions kicking in the following summer, but they could have moved Daley after the season for that.



As I explained above, Rundblad on the Blackhawks might be a $1.05m cap hit, but off the Blackhawks, he's only a $100k hit. Less, potentially, if the minimum salary increases in the offseason.If Rundblad is good enough to be on the NHL roster, a $1m hit is fine for a bottom-pair defenseman. If he's not, then you can bury him without creating an issue for yourself.



The first two may very well be true.

The Saad-Anisimov trade was neither slow nor overconfident. The Leddy trade was slow. The Sharp trade may have been overconfident.

As for long-term vision... I think he's acting in accordance with one, just not a very good one.

He's identified his "core" and locked them up. His intent is to build the rest of the roster around them. That's a perfectly fine strategy, assuming you have a good enough value in your core.

Unfortunately, the Hawks don't. Keith and Hjalmarsson are on excellent contracts. Everybody else is a wash or slightly worse. Seabrook in particular is going to be a major problem, I think. It is very unfortunate that they don't really have an in-house replacement for him, because I think it would have been much better in the long term for them to have let him walk after this past season. I know some people think that their in-house replacement is in Dallas now. I don't have an opinion on that because I don't know anything about prospect projection.



We can speculate about the latter, but trading away an apparently good, young player on an ELC for two players on expiring contracts who aren't even given the opportunity to contribute, really, is a major mistake. This trade is going to cost the Blackhawks going forward.



No doubt about that. Just an awful trade under the circumstances.



This is true only if you think that those players were going to be able to stay in Chicago. They weren't.

The Sharp trade -- part of the price of which was Stephen Johns, which should not be forgotten -- has ultimately opened roughly $4m in cap space. I think that just about pays for the extensions that are kicking in this summer.

The Leddy trade returned Ville Pokka.

We may think those are BAD values, but it's not nothing.

This is the type of reasoning I was talking about when I mentioned production versus cap hit. It's not enough to say that a player is high caliber. How much are they getting paid? How long is their contract? How much do they contribute relative to their cap hit? Those are the kinds of questions that need to be answered before you can evaluate a player's trade value.



When was the last time a player with a cap hit measurably above what he brought to the table as a player was traded for draft picks without taking salary back? For that matter, when was the last time ANY player with a significant cap hit was dealt with no salary coming back?

Nobody in the NHL is able to dump their cap problems on other teams AND come out with shiny high-round draft picks. Maybe that was true in the past -- I haven't paid close enough attention to know -- but it's certainly not happening right now. This isn't NHL 16.



I agree with you that these trades have chipped away at the Blackhawks' depth. But they were the product of mistakes that had already been made. Bickell's disaster of a contract comes to mind. Roszival's unnecessary prior deal. A pair of $10.5m contracts do, too, though I think the jury's still out on whether they were worth it.

This cap system punishes you harshly for overvaluing players if you're fielding a roster full of quality veterans, as the Hawks are. Don't mistake the consequences of the mistake -- the cap forcing your hand in a trade -- for the mistake itself, which may be as little as $2m too much committed to a couple players.



Out of curiosity, why does Bowman get the blame for trades you think were bad but not the credit for signing quality players that his scouting department unearthed?

Also, I'm not sure exactly who you think the Hawks should have picked up in free agency, hell, I'm not sure why you think the Hawks had ROOM to sign free agents, but free agent contracts are generally poor values.



No. You were able to move the RIGHTS to a 23-year-old top-six power winger -- who signed for $6m/6y, which was pretty much what he was worth -- in exchange for a very good prospect who had seen success in limited NHL player time and a middle-six center who you were able to lock up with a contract paying him probably about what he's worth and possibly somewhat less than you would have paid on the open market. Was that trade a steal? Heck no. Could a case be made that the Hawks came out of it worse? I don't think so, because they sure weren't going to be able to afford Saad. I guess it could be argued that the Jackets ultimately got more out of it than the Hawks did, but who cares?



One hole filled opens up another one. The cap sucks. I hate it.



Not as long as mine!

Also, pre-emptive apologies if I'm coming off as a Richard. I'm just... passionate.
- darklighter

This is an awesome post. Keep the passion.