I'm sure Daley plays a part in that blame, but is it "blame" per say? Perhaps Daley ultimately just didn't fit in Q's scheme? I think that's part of the problem.

Further, I would have liked to see Q actually pair up Daley with one of Seabrook/Hjalmarsson/Keith just to see if that was the issue. That wasn't tried, or if it was, it wasn't for a long enough span of games to see what Daley could do outside of being paired up with the rotation of the rest of the defensive corps.

As for Gustafsson, I just don't get why the organization thought it was a good idea to hide him away in the press box as long as they did when he could have been playing valuable minutes in Rockford. I just don't get it.
- EKB13

110% true on your final paragraph. Don't understand it either. Maybe Q's way of "teaching a lesson" sounds like BS in my opinion. If you're not going to play the guy, let him log minutes in Rockford to improve his game.

But they would have lined up to get Sharp if they had wanted him - even if, as a by-product, it gave Chicago cap relief.

I'm not sure why so many seem to think that the first thing on a GM's mind is screwing Bowman: the first think on his (or her, to be politically correct) mind is to improve his own club - the effect on Chicago doesn't enter into it.

Of course, the receiving team's cap situation and Sharp's NMC do come into play.
- StLBravesFan

I think the biggest thing that stood in the way of moving Sharp, was that he had a so-so 2014-15 season. He got a lot of 3rd line minutes and only put up 16 goals. It was his worst offensive season since he broke out and wasn't a good sign for a guy who typically nets 25-35 goals. Sure, he missed some time with injury, but he was on the wrong side of 30(age 33 at the time) and starting to show some decline. I don't think a lot of teams wanted to take a chance on a guy with 2 years left at 5.9 mil if he was maybe not gonna hit that 20 goal mark. I'm with you, I don't think anyone is specifically out to stick it to Chicago, but Sharp was a bit of a question mark.

Ok - I don't believe it - but go with it:

Had another GM wanted Sharp at the time - from a team that Sharp would have agreed to go to - there would have been a bidding process, and Bowman would would have seen better offers than the one from Nill.

You can't revoke the laws of supply and demand.
- StLBravesFan

It is 100% speculation and my opinion, so let me preface my comments with that. I do not want to rehash the trade, but Nill essentially stripped Stan of his 1LW, 4D and #1 NHL Ready D-prospect with top 4 ability. If you don't call that larceny an attempt to hurt the Hawks as much as an attempt to improve the Stars, idk what you call it....

I need some official Blackhawks news...a player (or two or three) like Schmaltz, Cagguila, Kempny (officially) signing would be great.

I wouldn't say it means nothing. The presidents cup winning team historically has the highest odds of taking the cup, when compared individually to each of the other 15 teams. You aren't guaranteed to win the cup, but generally would be the favorite.
- breadbag

Yes they will have the highest odds and will be the favorite, a presidents trophy winner has won around 25% of the cups over the last 30 years, which also means that 75% have not gone on to win.

My point is more that the Penguins finished with the 2nd best record in the East this year. Losing to them is not exactly a choke.

110% true on your final paragraph. Don't understand it either. Maybe Q's way of "teaching a lesson" sounds like BS in my opinion. If you're not going to play the guy, let him log minutes in Rockford to improve his game.
- 93Joe

Honestly Joe, my point on Gustafsson wasn't entirely centered on Q. Bowman has a part in it to. He could have stepped up and sent Gustafsson down to Rockford.

Yes they will have the highest odds and will be the favorite, a presidents trophy winner has won around 25% of the cups over the last 30 years, which also means that 75% have not gone on to win.

My point is more that the Penguins finished with the 2nd best record in the East this year. Losing to them is not exactly a choke.
- TheTrob

That is true. The Pens were arguably the best team in the 2nd half of the season.

Edit: Also why I don't feel too bad that the Hawks lost to STL. The series was close and the Blues (if healthier) likely would have taken the Western Conference in the regular season and probably finished #2 in the NHL.

Exactly Bhawks! That is why I am strong advocate for trading 50 this summer. Otherwise, StanBo is backed into a corner again and will either give away Crow for NOTHING, or have to trade Panarin/let him walk for nothing. Get ahead of the Cap or else it will continue to eat away at this championship roster....
- EnzoD

It is a gamble either way. Hold onto an asset and see if you can win the cup then deal with the consequences the next year. I think that is exactly what happened with Sharp. I think we maybe in a similar situation next summer. So do you stand pat and gamble that we get hot and win next year? Or do you make some preemptive moves which help you for the next 2-3 years and gamble with say Darling in net and an improved D core. That is the fine line to walk for Bowman. With the core aging can you somehow field a serious contender while also staying ahead of the cap issues? JJ has alluded to all the hands that are in the front office cookie jar that certainly doesn't make the task any easier.

I love Crow but I want them to move him and take the gamble with Darling and improve the D core. If it works I think you are set next year and the year after. Standing pat I don't think this team has enough to win next year unless they hit the jackpot on a college or euro free agent or two. Anyway you cut it the Hawks are going to have to make some calculated gambles this offseason. The Blues are only going to get better. They got over the mental block that was the Hawks and their young studs are gaining valuable experience. Stars are not going anywhere neither are the Preds or Wild. If anything the Blues have shown the rest of the Central the Hawks can be beat. Put on the big boy pants Bowman and make some shrewd calculated moves don't wait until you're backed into a corner.

I need some official Blackhawks news...a player (or two or three) like Schmaltz, Cagguila, Kempny (officially) signing would be great.
- DarthKane

I'm thinking his buddies Schmaltz and Johnson might help the decision. But he probably wants to get paid. I hope he signs here. Seems like a promising prospect.

Fully-translated version of the Panarin interview at Worlds:

http://www.iihfworlds2016.../news/boost-from-chicago/
- pdx2ord

Thanks for posting this--

NOTE in the first question Panarin answers-- a comment on the lack of practice-- which I would say is likely why the new players like Daley, Weise, Garbutt ultimately didn't fit well-- Q didn't plan for the time to acclimate these players-- I find it hard to fathom how these three players along with the other acquisitions would have not been better than what they ended up with after sending Daley and Garbutt out-- This is the biggest FAIL to me of this season-- I respect and believe in Q-- but this issue is parked at his door--

Both Q and Toews commented on the lack of chemistry developed on bottom 6-- and we all know the d was very thin-- the pieces were there-- not utilized

Honestly Joe, my point on Gustafsson wasn't entirely centered on Q. Bowman has a part in it to. He could have stepped up and sent Gustafsson down to Rockford.
- EKB13

My mistake then. I just tend to assume (mistakenly) that Q has final say on all roster decisions. It is probably just as much Bowman's fault as it is Q's.

Except the Core is 6 years older this time around....no time to wait...
- EnzoD

This is why I have a hard time giving Stan loads of blame for the Sharp trade... Yes, in retrospect (hindsight being 20/20 as it always is) we are in rough shape but using the "win now" mentality adds some justification to why (on paper) that trade didn't look terrible at the time. It was obvious that Hawks needed a puck-moving #4 DMan, ideally young and cost-controlled (which never was going to happen in that trade because every team needs young cost-controlled defensemen)... So Stan makes a trade for a cost-controlled ($3 mil and some change through '17 for a proven top 4 d-man is very reasonable) puck moving d-man who theoretically should fit the Hawks system like a glove... A yound defensive prospect was ALWAYS going to be going the other way in this deal it is rare in today's NHL world to see a 1-for-1 swap deal like Jones for Johansson (and that is swapping two future cornerstones for each receiving franchise to mutually fill needs and trim excess). If you want NHL-ready players you're gonna have to give up a future NHL player. Was Johns our #4 d-man this year? Not a chance... Could he have been in a few years... Maybe... But as you said the core is a few years older then. If you solely look at the fact that a need was filled (on paper) that arguably would have put you in a better position to win the cup then you make the deal... We caught a crappy bounce on Daley not working out, much like we caught crappy bounces in the Blues series, and that's the way the chips fall sometimes. The point is that the consensus was that adding a #4 Dman was a top priority and he did that.

He doesn't get a free pass from me on everything, but I refuse to obliterate the guy for making that trade because at the time there was a logical reason for making it... Now, you find a way to keep Oduya and we aren't having this convo so there is still plenty of blame to go around.

I am eager to see what moves are made this offseason and although we are in a tough spot I think we are still very much in the mix to contend again next year; albeit, we will have a different looking roster. I am less concerned about the nature of the deals that will be made, but moreso with the clear disconnect between FO and coach... That is really the only concern to me at this point. "You can lead a horse to water"... But you can't make that horse play the players they should. There is no one trade that we can look at tag as the 'demise of the dynasty' but if the front-office and coaching disconnect continues to rear its ugly fangs, THAT will be the demise of this dynasty.

Ps... This was not calling out anyone on here, just using quote to Segway to my point

I'm sure all HC's want to do it "their way" otherwise they wouldn't be heading things up! However, you'd certainly think a 3 time CUP winning coach IS consulted on possible moves ("Hey Q, might get Trevor Daley back when we move Sharp, whaddya think?").

I mean, I would be FLOORED if he was NOT consulted.

So does Q have ADD?
Split personality?:
>good Q, "Yes Stan, absolutely can use Daley to push the pace."
>bad Q, "(frank)ing Stan (to Dineen and Kitch), WTF am I gonna do with this p.o.s.?"

Plus, the guy was coming off hip surgery.
Given the problems the Hawks had nearly all season with moving the puck out of their zone, you'd think he'd be thrilled to have a guy capable of that.
- savvyone-1

Probably worse trading Daley than Sharp/Johns for Daley/Garbutt. Big time bite in the butt.

Ok - I don't believe it - but go with it:

Had another GM wanted Sharp at the time - from a team that Sharp would have agreed to go to - there would have been a bidding process, and Bowman would would have seen better offers than the one from Nill.

You can't revoke the laws of supply and demand.
- StLBravesFan

Like the one he (allegedly) had from Nill at the draft?

No one knows for sure, one way or the other, but there is an alternate logic that as the summer wore on, Bickell wasn't dealt, Bowman lost leverage. Not only is it a logic. It is what many closer to the actual story have said.

Thanks for posting this--

NOTE in the first question Panarin answers-- a comment on the lack of practice-- which I would say is likely why the new players like Daley, Weise, Garbutt ultimately didn't fit well-- Q didn't plan for the time to acclimate these players-- I find it hard to fathom how these three players along with the other acquisitions would have not been better than what they ended up with after sending Daley and Garbutt out-- This is the biggest FAIL to me of this season-- I respect and believe in Q-- but this issue is parked at his door--

Both Q and Toews commented on the lack of chemistry developed on bottom 6-- and we all know the d was very thin-- the pieces were there-- not utilized
- jb3333

On the flipside...the core has played the most games ever for NHLers in a 7 year span. So he has to let them rest, especially as the playoffs are nearing. Which was why Ladd was a good pickup...didn't need the practice time. If you are the coach, who do you support? Your core or new players? Not sure there's a good answer. Also, I saw this in the Q&A:

Who brought who to the next level afterall. Did you bring Patrick Kane up or did he bring up your level?
Anisimov brought us both up. He ran on defence first when we lost the puck. He works hard for both of us. The fans need to make a picture in Photoshop where Artyom is standing with a shovel and a pot.

Thought that was real telling and since AA needed that surgery, might be part of the reason why Kane didn't have a great post season.

Finally, this:

Is Chicago ready to give you a long-term contract?
I am open for negotiations from 1st July. But Chicago has problems with salary cap, which I do not like. And you cannot earn more from bonuses. They are only meant for rookies.

I took it as Panarin isn't upset with the Hawks, he's doesn't like the salary cap. But that could just be how I interpret it.

Probably worse trading Daley than Sharp/Johns for Daley/Garbutt. Big time bite in the butt.
- stan-ley-cups

I actually really liked when Garbutt was in the lineup.

He was a nother guy (like Weise, Ehrhoff, etc.) who was never really given enough reps and time to adjust.

Like the one he (allegedly) had from Nill at the draft?

No one knows for sure, one way or the other, but there is an alternate logic that as the summer wore on, Bickell wasn't dealt, Bowman lost leverage. Not only is it a logic. It is what many closer to the actual story have said.
- John Jaeckel

Yes - at the draft, before othe teams' possible interest in Sharp dried up.

Bowman lost leverage because he presumably waited too long and, finally, there was no more market for Sharp.

I'm thinking his buddies Schmaltz and Johnson might help the decision. But he probably wants to get paid. I hope he signs here. Seems like a promising prospect.
- 93Joe

Having those two guys signed (Schmaltz eventually) will certainly help.

My guess is that it comes down to Chicago and Vancouver for Caggiula, he has two teammates on each team (or their rights belong to the team).

Like the one he (allegedly) had from Nill at the draft?

No one knows for sure, one way or the other, but there is an alternate logic that as the summer wore on, Bickell wasn't dealt, Bowman lost leverage. Not only is it a logic. It is what many closer to the actual story have said.
- John Jaeckel

I'm absolutely sure that it's true that Bowman's leverage disappeared the longer the summer wore on. Not buying out Bickell appears to have been a very serious error.

I'm far less certain that any GM would have allowed Bowman to dump Sharp and his entire $5.9m cap hit on them, and given Bowman two quality draft picks for his time, too. Because that seems like a mindnumbingly stupid thing to do.

I actually really liked when Garbutt was in the lineup.

He was a nother guy (like Weise, Ehrhoff, etc.) who was never really given enough reps and time to adjust.
- Hank3Henshaw

I agree 100%. Clearly was not utilized properly and I still am sick about how Weise was used in the playoffs (or not used, more accurately). Anyone who's watched hockey outside of Hawks games can attest to the fact that he is a very strong player and was EXACTLY what we needed in a tough series against the Blues (he is a bigger and more technically skilled version of Shaw). He was given some slack on his leash in game 6 and he was very good... There were 6 other games that I would have loved to see him play a larger role in, and he was completely mismanaged. Unless the Hawks "grand plan" was to decrease his value so they could afford him, this was a huge error on Qs side.

My mistake then. I just tend to assume (mistakenly) that Q has final say on all roster decisions. It is probably just as much Bowman's fault as it is Q's.
- 93Joe

Not your mistake at all. Perhaps I should have put in more effort to clearly define that point.

Further, Q and Bowman share blame in my opinion. Also, you have to add in McD and MacIsaac into the equation. Too many cooks in the kitchen trying to figure out what players are best for the team in my opinion.

"There’s nothing quite like an endorsement from the game’s all-time greatest defenseman.
Trevor Daley can now boast about this distinction after Bobby Orr repeatedly praised his game to Pittsburgh Penguins general manager Jim Rutherford.

And when the opportunity to add the blue-liner by way of Chicago presented itself earlier this season, Rutherford jumped."

http://hockeynews.tk/bobb...vor-daley-to-penguins-gm/

Interesting that other teams saw value in him, but the FO spun it as he just wasn't a fit. Oduya wasn't a fit, and then he was. He initial time here was a bit rocky, but eventually he found his groove. Daley's transition game would have been nice to have, as was Campbell's when he came back vs Nashville, and Leddy was at times.

Mark me as someone who doesn't have confidence that the dynamic between FO and Q will bring anymore Cups. It's been great, but seen too many good vets die on the vine here, players who came here with some value, but were eventually dealt for pennies on the dollar. Not even blaming the FO so much on these, as Q, and whatever evaluation process he's working.

If there is a disconnect between both parties, I'm surprised more hasn't come out. Then again, McD likes everything on the hush hush.

I'm absolutely sure that it's true that Bowman's leverage disappeared the longer the summer wore on. Not buying out Bickell appears to have been a very serious error.

I'm far less certain that any GM would have allowed Bowman to dump Sharp and his entire $5.9m cap hit on them, and given Bowman two quality draft picks for his time, too. Because that seems like a mindnumbingly stupid thing to do.
- darklighter

I'm in this school of thought. Unfortunately, there are only a few people who know the real story and it will never be public knowledge. I agree that giving the defending champs and the most dominant franchise of the last 7 seasons EXACTLY what they need would be silly... Yes, Dallas was able to improve by the deal, but if they can knock the Hawks down a peg (which they did), then it makes their improvement that much greater. If Stan had 2 second rounders offered at the draft and he passed on it, he's an idiot (which is possible)...

Yes - at the draft, before othe teams' possible interest in Sharp dried up.

Bowman lost leverage because he presumably waited too long and, finally, there was no more market for Sharp.
- StLBravesFan

I'd put "due to a high asking price" right after "waited too long."

Not your mistake at all. Perhaps I should have put in more effort to clearly define that point.

Further, Q and Bowman share blame in my opinion. Also, you have to add in McD and MacIsaac into the equation. Too many cooks in the kitchen trying to figure out what players are best for the team in my opinion.
- EKB13

Hey Ek, good to see you back Can you let us know who, if anyone, has shown some value in Rockford and may have a decent chance to help out the Hawks this coming season? I'm especially curious about the "D".