Maybe a team takes Bickell in a Crawford deal. If they have to take back something have Q structure the deal so the guy gets a fair shake when he gets here.
- 6628

We need 3-4 mil in cap space this year and 3-4 mil next year. That is why I move Craw this year and just let Bicks ride the year out in AHL. We have traded away 2 1sts, 3 2nds, and Danult, Johns, Dano, Pailliota, all in the last year. We cannot trade anymore assets to get Bicks off the books. Trade Craw for a player on ECL and we are good this year and when Bicks and Scuds come off the books we are good in the next 2 years with room to raise TT and Darling and long term PAN. You may even buy out Hossa. If you do it the other way by trading Shaw so someone can take bicks off the book you still cannot extend Pan knowing were you are going to get the money. IE you still trade Craw in a year and the market may be worse for him due to a bad year or the EXP draft or because everybody knows you have to move someone. We went all in and it did not work. Now we need to try and be competitive for the next 6-7 years.

I'd trade Seabrook before Crawford. He'll have a $6.875m cap hit over the next eight years. Given his play this year, it barely seems worth it now; it'll look even worse down the line. That's cap space is something the Hawks badly need. I love Brent Seabrook and I'd hate to see him leave, but the salary cap doesn't leave much room for sentiment.

My understanding is that 7 has a modified NTC in his current contract. The details are unknown, but my guess is that he has to submit a list of at least some teams he'll accept a trade to. Once the extension kicks in (July 1, right?), it goes to a full NMC, which significantly reduces flexibility and also (from what I understand) requires the Hawks to protect him in an expansion draft.

So I'd look to trade Seabrook before July 1. Of course, you have to have a plan in place for a 3D.

I was with you until last season—when statistically, the defense was no longer elite, and Crawford started to really carry this team. That was especially true this season.
- John Jaeckel

As a Blues fan, I like the idea of the Hawks rolling with Darling in 2017. More on this from me in the off-season.

I'd trade Seabrook before Crawford. He'll have a $6.875m cap hit over the next eight years. Given his play this year, it barely seems worth it now; it'll look even worse down the line. That's cap space is something the Hawks badly need. I love Brent Seabrook and I'd hate to see him leave, but the salary cap doesn't leave much room for sentiment.

My understanding is that 7 has a modified NTC in his current contract. The details are unknown, but my guess is that he has to submit a list of at least some teams he'll accept a trade to. Once the extension kicks in (July 1, right?), it goes to a full NMC, which significantly reduces flexibility and also (from what I understand) requires the Hawks to protect him in an expansion draft.

So I'd look to trade Seabrook before July 1. Of course, you have to have a plan in place for a 3D.
- darklighter

So because you don't think Seabrook is worth it, now is a good time to trade him? Why would another team want him then? At that price?

Dynasty officially over. Thanks for playing. Seabrook is going to be fine, he is the perfect example of a player who needs rest and some competent players around him on defense.

Interesting point of view on goalies and coaches. You could throw Rinne into that situation as well with goalie coach Mitch Korn leaving Nashville and now coaching Holtby in Washington.

"Crawford is one of the league's elite goalies—you don't just replace a guy like that."

correction - Crawford is not elite goalie, he plays behind an elite team
- southpaww82

wrong...now go back and play in your leaf sandbox

Interesting point of view on goalies and coaches. You could throw Rinne into that situation as well with goalie coach Mitch Korn leaving Nashville and now coaching Holtby in Washington.
- wrister

I can personally vouch for Korn being a wizard. His training techniques and ingenuity are unreal. So glad I had the pleasure of meeting him, talking hockey with him and learning some from him. It was torture but worth it.

I really don't know where the Hawks go from here. In the case of every repeat year the Hawks just looked off, 2 repeat years in a row they go down 3 games to 1 only to come up short in both game 7's. Struggle with the penalty kills in both series bad line changes bad penalties etc etc, fwiw why it's so hard to repeat.

Maybe if we didn't trade Daley maybe we're still in the playoffs,I know he had one really bad game in the playoffs but the Caps series he's been nothing but solid and he makes the PP lethal with Letang, imho we should of kept him but oh well now the boys are golfing

Nice write up, JJ.

I'm a glass half-full guy. As such, I'm looking forward to this summer and moves to be made.

Everyone wants a team of pure all-stars and that just isn't realistic, nor possible. The Hawks have many talented guys (more than most teams). What they need to do is figure out how to get pieces like Panik and start rotating in prospects, etc. that can play/add a different dynamic and are cap-friendly.

I think a lot of fans have this notion that if a player isn't at a Toews, Kane, Panarin, Keith, etc. level, than they can't be on the Hawks. That's a silly thought. At some point, the organization has to take a chance and start bringing up/in younger guys and taking chances on the trade market. I feel like they've become an almost possessive organization-- completely afraid to take chances and let go or disrupt their "core" guys. I feel there's not a lot of trust from the coaching staff in the "lesser" talented or seasoned players, and as a result, those guys will never develop because they're never given the experience to.

I think the most successful teams don't need to have multiple superstars or big names, sometimes it's just about finding balance of talent, having different looks and the right attitudes. You need to find the guys who are all in.

I don't care for Hockeenight's mantra of we're going to walk away because the players did some bad things...and we're not having fun any more attitude. Somehow their moral code is broken for rooting for a team that had people get in trouble with the law?

If they're truly not having fun. Fine. I can understand the grind it takes to put on a blog for so long (kudos to JJ). Heck, it's a grind to just be so emotional invested in watching games like many of us are.

But when did following a sports team and rooting for them to win somehow connect us with the guiltiness of what the players have done? Do Patriots fans' support murder because one of their TE's killed someone? Former Bears WR Sam Hurd went to jail for 15 years for drug trafficking. Guilty by association?

Derek Rose cheated to get into a college so he could play basketball. The Patriots have literally been found to have cheated on numerous occasions. Are people offended by this and stop following their team? Are Bulls fans running away like Hockeenight or Julie DiCaro's hawks friends?

When does the line get drawn in the sand? Current Presidential nominees are found to have done illegal things that would get them into a lot of trouble but they're still running and taking votes by half their party. Is that ok?

Live and let live.
- hawks1921

i am with ya...stopped reading them a couple of years ago..their explitive laden posts were tiresome and not funny...even more so when when they would get on their explitive laced sactimonious rants...

the kid ross gets himself in trouble and then is not prosecuted because of laws or lack the of in another state...the hawk orgnaization is now branded as "hateful" toward women...

In reply to Tumbleweed regarding the movability/immovability of Marian Hossa, it's my understanding that the Blackhawks current cap benefit on Marian Hossa is around $18.375m. If they trade him this year, they are stuck with that cap benefit. If he retires at any time prior to the end of his contract, the Blackhawks would be on the hook for the $18.375m divided by the years remaining on the deal.

For example, if the Blackhawks trade Marian Hossa this offseason, and he retires at the end of 2019, the cap hit for the Blackhawks during the 2019-20 and 2020-21 seasons would be $9.1875m (Cap benefit / years remaining = cap hit).

He may not be viewed as immovable by other teams, but I don't feel that this is a risk the Blackhawks are willing to take.

Then again, I could be completely wrong regarding the recapture rules.

I'd trade Seabrook before Crawford. He'll have a $6.875m cap hit over the next eight years. Given his play this year, it barely seems worth it now; it'll look even worse down the line. That's cap space is something the Hawks badly need. I love Brent Seabrook and I'd hate to see him leave, but the salary cap doesn't leave much room for sentiment.

My understanding is that 7 has a modified NTC in his current contract. The details are unknown, but my guess is that he has to submit a list of at least some teams he'll accept a trade to. Once the extension kicks in (July 1, right?), it goes to a full NMC, which significantly reduces flexibility and also (from what I understand) requires the Hawks to protect him in an expansion draft.

So I'd look to trade Seabrook before July 1. Of course, you have to have a plan in place for a 3D.
- darklighter

What do you get if you trade Brent Seabrook? Nobody is going to give the Blackhawks his younger/cheaper replacement.

Also, then you are relying even more on Corey Crawford to be a game-breaker. I believe this year showed that he cannot do it with three solid defensemen. Why should the Blackhawks think he can do it with two?

I'd trade Seabrook before Crawford. He'll have a $6.875m cap hit over the next eight years. Given his play this year, it barely seems worth it now; it'll look even worse down the line. That's cap space is something the Hawks badly need. I love Brent Seabrook and I'd hate to see him leave, but the salary cap doesn't leave much room for sentiment.

My understanding is that 7 has a modified NTC in his current contract. The details are unknown, but my guess is that he has to submit a list of at least some teams he'll accept a trade to. Once the extension kicks in (July 1, right?), it goes to a full NMC, which significantly reduces flexibility and also (from what I understand) requires the Hawks to protect him in an expansion draft.

So I'd look to trade Seabrook before July 1. Of course, you have to have a plan in place for a 3D.
- darklighter

The Hawks would trade Crow before Seabrook in my opinion. Guy is a leader, seasoned vet, and can play top pairing minutes. This past season saw some defensive stagnation but he still performed. I can see where you may be coming from with that his value is very good right now.

If they went out and traded Seabrook, then they better put their $ on Hamonic
ASAP and pretty much be sure that he will be a hawk.

Cut ties with Bickell via buyout, dangle Crow and TT for a defender and prospects/picks. Sign Panarin and Shaw.

Any truth to the rumor teams may be allowed one compliance buyout related tonthe expansion draft? I saw it mentioned on this board several days ago.

"Crawford is one of the league's elite goalies—you don't just replace a guy like that."

correction - Crawford is not elite goalie, he plays behind an elite team
- southpaww82

It's not 2012 any more. Time to pay attention to current events.

Sounds like the Michal Kempny deal is done, but he can't technically sign it until after his last game of the season, which is the World Cup. Could be a top 4 or 5, certainly should elevate the overall depth at D.
- Sundevil

Where did you see that?

Sounds like the Michal Kempny deal is done, but he can't technically sign it until after his last game of the season, which is the World Cup. Could be a top 4 or 5, certainly should elevate the overall depth at D.
- Sundevil

Good news...but can I ask how you know this?

In reply to Tumbleweed regarding the movability/immovability of Marian Hossa, it's my understanding that the Blackhawks current cap benefit on Marian Hossa is around $18.375m. If they trade him this year, they are stuck with that cap benefit. If he retires at any time prior to the end of his contract, the Blackhawks would be on the hook for the $18.375m divided by the years remaining on the deal.

For example, if the Blackhawks trade Marian Hossa this offseason, and he retires at the end of 2019, the cap hit for the Blackhawks during the 2019-20 and 2020-21 seasons would be $9.1875m (Cap benefit / years remaining = cap hit).

He may not be viewed as immovable by other teams, but I don't feel that this is a risk the Blackhawks are willing to take.

Then again, I could be completely wrong regarding the recapture rules.
- tgentry1084

I don't think it's that high. While the benefit so far may be $18m, it will go down moving forward as the next several years the cap hit is higher than his salary. Someone can provide the exact numbers, but for estimate sake, what I've seen indicates his recapture is about $4m for every year left in his contract no matter when he retires. (Might be $5m for retirement in year x, or $3m for retirement in year y, but I dont think it's ever $9m or $1m). Round number, we can all use $4m and be close.

Any truth to the rumor teams may be allowed one compliance buyout related tonthe expansion draft? I saw it mentioned on this board several days ago.
- blackhawk24

Hasn't been mentioned anywhere but this board as far that I've seen. And no reason for there to be one really.

The expansion draft is going to be interesting for Hawks. They have to protect all their NMC's, and also have to leave unprotected at least 25% of their cap hit. Depending on how much the cap goes up, that means around 18.5m of salary has to be exposed. If expiring contracts still count, as expansion draft will likely be before July 1 next year, it seems like that almost guarantees hanging on to Bickell.

I don't think it's that high. While the benefit so far may be $18m, it will go down moving forward as the next several years the cap hit is higher than his salary. Someone can provide the exact numbers, but for estimate sake, what I've seen indicates his recapture is about $4m for every year left in his contract no matter when he retires. (Might be $5m for retirement in year x, or $3m for retirement in year y, but I dont think it's ever $9m or $1m). Round number, we can all use $4m and be close.
- Cmonalready

Not if Chicago trades him. The cap benefit is just over 18m at this point. (Easy way to tell, take cap hit remaining, minus actual salary remaining.) That number only goes down if he actually plays for Chicago. If he is traded, the number doesn't go down for hawks, it goes down for whatever team he is traded to.

I don't think it's that high. While the benefit so far may be $18m, it will go down moving forward as the next several years the cap hit is higher than his salary. Someone can provide the exact numbers, but for estimate sake, what I've seen indicates his recapture is about $4m for every year left in his contract no matter when he retires. (Might be $5m for retirement in year x, or $3m for retirement in year y, but I dont think it's ever $9m or $1m). Round number, we can all use $4m and be close.
- Cmonalready

Unless we trade him, which Tumbleweed suggested might be possible. If he's traded, the penalty does not go down. It stays at the number it was when he left the team.

If he retires as a Blackhawk this summer, his cap hit would be $3.675m/year until 2021. If he retires as a Blackhawk at any time after this year, his cap hit would be $4.275m/year until 2021. These numbers don't sound so bad considering his current cap hit is $5.275m, but bear in mind the Blackhawks would be paying for a player that was not playing.

Unless we trade him, which Tumbleweed suggested might be possible. If he's traded, the penalty does not go down. It stays at the number it was when he left the team.

If he retires as a Blackhawk this summer, his cap hit would be $3.675m/year until 2021. If he retires as a Blackhawk at any time after this year, his cap hit would be $4.275m/year until 2021. These numbers don't sound so bad considering his current cap hit is $5.275m, but bear in mind the Blackhawks would be paying for a player that was not playing.
- tgentry1084

If he retires he is paid nothing. It is the fact that his salary the next 4 years is $4.275 less then his cap hit. We get hit with the Difference. There was no rule for front loading when he signed it. Now your highest year cannot be more then double your smallest year salary.

Unless we trade him, which Tumbleweed suggested might be possible. If he's traded, the penalty does not go down. It stays at the number it was when he left the team.

If he retires as a Blackhawk this summer, his cap hit would be $3.675m/year until 2021. If he retires as a Blackhawk at any time after this year, his cap hit would be $4.275m/year until 2021. These numbers don't sound so bad considering his current cap hit is $5.275m, but bear in mind the Blackhawks would be paying for a player that was not playing.
- tgentry1084

there are just so many reasons why Hossa is NOT getting traded this summer.

Crow to Winnipeg or Calgary. Book it!

Not if Chicago trades him. The cap benefit is just over 18m at this point. (Easy way to tell, take cap hit remaining, minus actual salary remaining.) That number only goes down if he actually plays for Chicago. If he is traded, the number doesn't go down for hawks, it goes down for whatever team he is traded to.
- Antilles

There would be no penalty to the acquiring team. Salary is less than caphit for the remaining term.

I thought it was a total cap hit vs. total salary thing. So regardless of where he plays, Chicago would see the penalty decline over time.

But my understanding could be wrong. Do you have a source on the method you described; that chicago has to keep him to claw back the penalty?