It'll be interesting to see what the blue line looks like after this summer.
- Hank3Henshaw

Gus is 6"

I have learned to try to avoid delving into the players' personal lives. It is a boundary I observe more stringently now than in the past—but HB writers are actually pretty much asked to steer clear except when it's a matter of public record.

My stance on the Kane/Ross stuff is in the blog.

My feeling was the Kane stuff was bad for the team's brand and I stick by it. Anyone remember the presser in South Bend? Oy. So the Ross stuff definitely falls into that same category.

All that said, when he wasn't convicted of anything and the accuser's story became "flimsy," I let it go. I wasn't there. i don't know exactly what happened, nor does anyone who assumes Kane was 100% innocent. I do know he hasn't been in the past and it is the track record in entirety that can threaten his association with the team's or any endorsement's brand.

Again, I don't know that anything happened last summer that he was actually guilty of vis a vis a crime.

So, that's done. But there are those who have soured on the team a bit (rightly or wrongly) and my point in the blog was/is, losing doesn't help. Winning does.

Not saying that's right either. It's just how things are in sports. And brands matter in sports, especially when you're (for now) the top team brand in the NHL in the 3rd largest media market on the continent.

I don't endorse Hockeenight's style or point of view in entirety, but a lot of their stuff was funny as hell, even if I cringed a bit at the profanity because it is so alien to what I do here, and Fork is a great guy and a good friend.
- John Jaeckel

Sure was

There are only three things that will happen with Hossa because of the massive cap penalties:

1) He plays until the end of his contract
2) Once his actually salary goes down to 1M per season, he finds a doctor that can verify he is injured and goes on LTIR until his contact expires (see Pronger)
3) If that buyout thing is actually real at the expansion draft he will get bought out - and will then retire

I personally think option two is most likely what will end up happening at some point, maybe not the first year when is salary goes down, but at some point 1M a year is not worth putting your body through the grind of the season
- spudrock512

Except that if Hossa feels like it, he can actually just retire. It is his choice, so you can't say it wouldn't happen. Not saying it will happen, but it certainly can happen.

Would hate to see Crow go, but it's just another case of the cap destroying this team and it's Nucleus. We have seen it every year since 2010. The possibility of moving Bickell with Teuvo attached and also moving Crow might give us what we need to write the ship. Just a difficult thing.

Observations after two periods of Fin vs USA (2-2) exhibition game: Tyler Motte has been really good. Skates well, protects puck really good and looks good overall. Hinostroza has been invisible so far and Pokka has been in trouble in own end..

Our defense already sucks but you would trade one of our only good guys SHOCKING
- Maggie

Seabrook was the Hawks' worst defenseman this year by nearly every possession metric:

Share of shot attempts 5v5? Check.
Share of shot attempts 5v5 close? Only Svedberg was worse.
Share of attempts relative to teammates 5v5? Check.
Share of attempts relative to teammates 5v5 close? Check.
Share of unblocked shot attempts? Again, only Svedberg was worse.
Share of unblocked shot attempts relative to teammates? Check.

His share of unblocked shot attempts 5v5 when the score was close were more middling, though only the Hawks' cast of rotating 6th defensemen were worse. (Except for Gustafsson, who dominated possession metrics this year, but that's a different discussion).

Now, that doesn't tell the whole story. His on-ice goal numbers were middling (5v5) to above average (5v5 close). Can't discount that, and there doesn't seem to have been a significant luck effect.

There's also the fact that Seabrook spent a good portion of the season paired with TVR, which was an unmitigated disaster, carrying something like 43.7% of the play 5v5 close. He was significantly better when paired with everybody else. He assuredly would from better linemate selection by the coaching staff, but I'm not holding my breath for any changes in 2016-17.

By the way, I know there's this theory out there that poor Brent Seabrook's numbers suffered because he had to babysit TVR, but it's not true. Not counting the grand total of 6 minutes and 12 seconds TVR played with Erik Gustaffson and David Rundblad, every single other Hawks defenseman -- and that includes Trevor Daley and Rob Scuderi -- was better when playing with TVR than Seabrook was. As a matter of fact, all of them but Daley had positive possession numbers (5v5, close, adjusted for zone starts). This is not a case of TVR dragging Seabrook down.

To put it bluntly, Seabrook did not have a good season. Keith, Hjamarsson, and TVR all had better seasons. Arguably, Roszival, Gustafsson and Rundblad (!) did too. This year, Seabrook was either a below-average second-pairing defenseman or an above-average third pairing defenseman. The Hawks weren't missing a fourth defenseman -- they were missing a third defenseman.

So no, he was not good this year.

But here's the rub. Brent Seabrook has the highest cap hit of any Hawks defenseman. Higher than Keith. Higher than Hjalmarsson. Way higher than TVR and the third-pairing peanut gallery. And that cap hit is about to increase by a million dollars. His contract is easily the worst value on the team. Worse even than Bickell, whose hit will be off the books after this year or next, depending on whether the Hawks buy him out. If there's a team out there who is willing to pay for him and there is a way to acquire a second-pair defenseman, the Hawks should trade him and not look back.

Follow-up on the Panarin article posted yesterday - here's a translation of some of his comments done by an actual person who speaks both languages. I've asked her to please look at the specific salary cap comments, too, and will post if she responds.

…Artem wasn’t translating anything to me; he was just like play your game, so I did. There were a few times, when I was on the ice skating, then coach yelled something at me from the bench and I was in panic, I had no idea what to do…

… All three of us, we were improvising the whole time. Coaches were trying to tell me the tactics, but firstly I didn’t understand it, secondly Anisimov wasn’t translating it to me and thirdly we played our own hockey, so it was hard for rivals to play against us…

… When you play with Kane, and he has already proved a lot to the team, you’re trying to set up a game for him, and like the puck comes to him anyway… And when I play without him, I feel like I’m my own boss, you know. Of course, it’s very cool and fun to play with these guys, but sometimes when I remember how I actually want to play – to show off, create moments and feel good, you know, to make fans scream, I’m like hmm…

So, basically, they ignored Q.

Just a horrible idea, who do you replace him with, Runblad?
- Maggie

Not sure which part of that was a horrible idea. Is it making a trade that makes your team better, or not making a trade that would make your team worse? I don't think it's a particularly good idea to trade Seabrook if you aren't able to acquire somebody to play on the second pairing. So no, I wouldn't replace him with Rundblad.

I'm not the biggest fan of this "Trade Crawford" movement, but like JJ pointed out, there aren't a lot of options.

There needs to be some balance restored with this team and that has to start with flexibility with the cap.

Now, if #50 is to be moved this off-season, let's look at who realistically would be in the running with A) does this make sense for their team plans & B) fit his 6M within their cap situation and C) Potential Deal (just for fun).

* Buffalo - a) Crawford takes them to the next level along with the growth of their youngsters. b) Yes. c) Crawford + Kero for Lehner + Pysyk

* Toronto - a) Does Mathews (...and maybe a big FA signing this summer that rhymes with Schmamkos) speed up their rebuild? Crawford would def help with his experience. b) Yes c) Crawford + Bickell for Percy, Leivo + Cowan (CHI buys out contract)

* Carolina - a) I'm not sure what Francis is up to but has had serious conversation with Stan apparently last year b) yes and will have trouble hitting the floor c) Crawford + TT for Lack + Slavin


These are the Eastern conference teams that would make sense; I'm sure Stan would do everything possible to keep Crow out of the West (Win & Cal make sense though).

Gus is 6"
- Maggie

He's also 175,

I don't want to trade Seabs either but I don't want to became a team that all the high paid players are on the decline of there career. Would you rather have Panarin or Seabs for the next 8 years?

We dealt all last year from a position of weakness and it was the worst off season we have had in 10 years and we had just won the Cup. You need to get ahead of the cap and plan a year or 2 ahead not make trades out of desperation.

I'm not the biggest fan of this "Trade Crawford" movement, but like JJ pointed out, there aren't a lot of options.

There needs to be some balance restored with this team and that has to start with flexibility with the cap.

Now, if #50 is to be moved this off-season, let's look at who realistically would be in the running with A) does this make sense for their team plans & B) fit his 6M within their cap situation and C) Potential Deal (just for fun).

* Buffalo - a) Crawford takes them to the next level along with the growth of their youngsters. b) Yes. c) Crawford + Kero for Lehner + Pysyk

* Toronto - a) Does Mathews (...and maybe a big FA signing this summer that rhymes with Schmamkos) speed up their rebuild? Crawford would def help with his experience. b) Yes c) Crawford + Bickell for Percy, Leivo + Cowan (CHI buys out contract)

* Carolina - a) I'm not sure what Francis is up to but has had serious conversation with Stan apparently last year b) yes and will have trouble hitting the floor c) Crawford + TT for Lack + Slavin


These are the Eastern conference teams that would make sense; I'm sure Stan would do everything possible to keep Crow out of the West (Win & Cal make sense though).
- TyCamScore

Leafs wouldn’t have the space for that with schmamkos.

From the leafs prespective, something structured like this:

Crawford for Percy, Leivo + Cowan (CHI buys out contract) and bernier

Seabrook was the Hawks' worst defenseman this year by nearly every possession metric:

Share of shot attempts 5v5? Check.
Share of shot attempts 5v5 close? Only Svedberg was worse.
Share of attempts relative to teammates 5v5? Check.
Share of attempts relative to teammates 5v5 close? Check.
Share of unblocked shot attempts? Again, only Svedberg was worse.
Share of unblocked shot attempts relative to teammates? Check.

His share of unblocked shot attempts 5v5 when the score was close were more middling, though only the Hawks' cast of rotating 6th defensemen were worse. (Except for Gustafsson, who dominated possession metrics this year, but that's a different discussion).

Now, that doesn't tell the whole story. His on-ice goal numbers were middling (5v5) to above average (5v5 close). Can't discount that, and there doesn't seem to have been a significant luck effect.

There's also the fact that Seabrook spent a good portion of the season paired with TVR, which was an unmitigated disaster, carrying something like 43.7% of the play 5v5 close. He was significantly better when paired with everybody else. He assuredly would from better linemate selection by the coaching staff, but I'm not holding my breath for any changes in 2016-17.

By the way, I know there's this theory out there that poor Brent Seabrook's numbers suffered because he had to babysit TVR, but it's not true. Not counting the grand total of 6 minutes and 12 seconds TVR played with Erik Gustaffson and David Rundblad, every single other Hawks defenseman -- and that includes Trevor Daley and Rob Scuderi -- was better when playing with TVR than Seabrook was. As a matter of fact, all of them but Daley had positive possession numbers (5v5, close, adjusted for zone starts). This is not a case of TVR dragging Seabrook down.

To put it bluntly, Seabrook did not have a good season. Keith, Hjamarsson, and TVR all had better seasons. Arguably, Roszival, Gustafsson and Rundblad (!) did too. This year, Seabrook was either a below-average second-pairing defenseman or an above-average third pairing defenseman. The Hawks weren't missing a fourth defenseman -- they were missing a third defenseman.

So no, he was not good this year.

But here's the rub. Brent Seabrook has the highest cap hit of any Hawks defenseman. Higher than Keith. Higher than Hjalmarsson. Way higher than TVR and the third-pairing peanut gallery. And that cap hit is about to increase by a million dollars. His contract is easily the worst value on the team. Worse even than Bickell, whose hit will be off the books after this year or next, depending on whether the Hawks buy him out. If there's a team out there who is willing to pay for him and there is a way to acquire a second-pair defenseman, the Hawks should trade him and not look back.
- darklighter

I have been trying to explain this for a long time now. Seabrook really had an up and down season. Offensively and on the PP he was great, defensively he was bad. Some of that was being paired with guys like Svedberg, but it was clear he didn't have a good defensive season. I think the problem with trading him is his age, long contract and then there is the NMC which limits you to 5 teams he is willing to go to. Tough to move him.

I don't want to trade Seabs either but I don't want to became a team that all the high paid players are on the decline of there career. Would you rather have Panarin or Seabs for the next 8 years?

We dealt all last year from a position of weakness and it was the worst off season we have had in 10 years and we had just won the Cup. You need to get ahead of the cap and plan a year or 2 ahead not make trades out of desperation.
- kmw4631

I honestly feel Seabrook is irreplaceable. But does anyone else feel Toews woefully failed to live up to his 10Mil contract this year? His numbers were put up by players making half of what he makes, and "intangibles" are not worth 5Mil annually IMO. Like the guy, great leader and all that stuff...but he has to live up to that gorilla of a contract. I know he has a NMC so it's kind of a moot point, but I think it needs to be said regardless.

I honestly feel Seabrook is irreplaceable. But does anyone else feel Toews woefully failed to live up to his 10Mil contract this year? His numbers were put up by players making half of what he makes, and "intangibles" are not worth 5Mil annually IMO. Like the guy, great leader and all that stuff...but he has to live up to that gorilla of a contract. I know he has a NMC so it's kind of a moot point, but I think it needs to be said regardless.
- Murph76

Neither Kane or Toews are worth 10.5 mil, but also Toews had nobody on his wings doing anything pretty much all year. If the Hawks swapped AA and Toews in the depth chart this season, Toews probably ends up ~75 points but the top line produces even less.

Seabrook was the Hawks' worst defenseman this year by nearly every possession metric:

Share of shot attempts 5v5? Check.
Share of shot attempts 5v5 close? Only Svedberg was worse.
Share of attempts relative to teammates 5v5? Check.
Share of attempts relative to teammates 5v5 close? Check.
Share of unblocked shot attempts? Again, only Svedberg was worse.
Share of unblocked shot attempts relative to teammates? Check.

His share of unblocked shot attempts 5v5 when the score was close were more middling, though only the Hawks' cast of rotating 6th defensemen were worse. (Except for Gustafsson, who dominated possession metrics this year, but that's a different discussion).

Now, that doesn't tell the whole story. His on-ice goal numbers were middling (5v5) to above average (5v5 close). Can't discount that, and there doesn't seem to have been a significant luck effect.

There's also the fact that Seabrook spent a good portion of the season paired with TVR, which was an unmitigated disaster, carrying something like 43.7% of the play 5v5 close. He was significantly better when paired with everybody else. He assuredly would from better linemate selection by the coaching staff, but I'm not holding my breath for any changes in 2016-17.

By the way, I know there's this theory out there that poor Brent Seabrook's numbers suffered because he had to babysit TVR, but it's not true. Not counting the grand total of 6 minutes and 12 seconds TVR played with Erik Gustaffson and David Rundblad, every single other Hawks defenseman -- and that includes Trevor Daley and Rob Scuderi -- was better when playing with TVR than Seabrook was. As a matter of fact, all of them but Daley had positive possession numbers (5v5, close, adjusted for zone starts). This is not a case of TVR dragging Seabrook down.

To put it bluntly, Seabrook did not have a good season. Keith, Hjamarsson, and TVR all had better seasons. Arguably, Roszival, Gustafsson and Rundblad (!) did too. This year, Seabrook was either a below-average second-pairing defenseman or an above-average third pairing defenseman. The Hawks weren't missing a fourth defenseman -- they were missing a third defenseman.

So no, he was not good this year.

But here's the rub. Brent Seabrook has the highest cap hit of any Hawks defenseman. Higher than Keith. Higher than Hjalmarsson. Way higher than TVR and the third-pairing peanut gallery. And that cap hit is about to increase by a million dollars. His contract is easily the worst value on the team. Worse even than Bickell, whose hit will be off the books after this year or next, depending on whether the Hawks buy him out. If there's a team out there who is willing to pay for him and there is a way to acquire a second-pair defenseman, the Hawks should trade him and not look back.
- darklighter

This is well-stated. I 100% agree with you that trading Brent Seabrook would be a good idea if you can get a young, cost-effective defenseman in return who can step in and play on the 2nd pairing immediately. I just don't think that will happen... It'd be awesome if it does, though.

If it's between trading Seabrook and Crawford, though, I think Crawford is the smarter choice, both in terms of return and what you are left with. Trading Seabrook means that you now have to get two defenseman this offseason. It's seems unlikely that he would bring a defenseman back. So now, who do you trade once Seabrook is gone? And how do they get you two starting defensemen?

I honestly feel Seabrook is irreplaceable. But does anyone else feel Toews woefully failed to live up to his 10Mil contract this year? His numbers were put up by players making half of what he makes, and "intangibles" are not worth 5Mil annually IMO. Like the guy, great leader and all that stuff...but he has to live up to that gorilla of a contract. I know he has a NMC so it's kind of a moot point, but I think it needs to be said regardless.
- Murph76

Toews did not play up to his contract this year. No question about it. I'm more bullish on him bouncing back next year than I am Seabrook, though.

Smallish but compact—6', 195. Plays left side. Made Czech World Cup team. That's all I know.
- John Jaeckel

Oduya like player?

I'm not the biggest fan of this "Trade Crawford" movement, but like JJ pointed out, there aren't a lot of options.

There needs to be some balance restored with this team and that has to start with flexibility with the cap.

Now, if #50 is to be moved this off-season, let's look at who realistically would be in the running with A) does this make sense for their team plans & B) fit his 6M within their cap situation and C) Potential Deal (just for fun).

* Buffalo - a) Crawford takes them to the next level along with the growth of their youngsters. b) Yes. c) Crawford + Kero for Lehner + Pysyk

* Toronto - a) Does Mathews (...and maybe a big FA signing this summer that rhymes with Schmamkos) speed up their rebuild? Crawford would def help with his experience. b) Yes c) Crawford + Bickell for Percy, Leivo + Cowan (CHI buys out contract)

* Carolina - a) I'm not sure what Francis is up to but has had serious conversation with Stan apparently last year b) yes and will have trouble hitting the floor c) Crawford + TT for Lack + Slavin


These are the Eastern conference teams that would make sense; I'm sure Stan would do everything possible to keep Crow out of the West (Win & Cal make sense though).
- TyCamScore

If we're trading #50 to Carolina I'd want Faulk in return.

I honestly feel Seabrook is irreplaceable. But does anyone else feel Toews woefully failed to live up to his 10Mil contract this year? His numbers were put up by players making half of what he makes, and "intangibles" are not worth 5Mil annually IMO. Like the guy, great leader and all that stuff...but he has to live up to that gorilla of a contract. I know he has a NMC so it's kind of a moot point, but I think it needs to be said regardless.
- Murph76

He definitely had a bad year. However, given his (very recent) past achievements and contributions to the team, I'd make sure the following (all or most) are true statements before giving up on him:

1. He has another bad year, equal to or down from this year
2. He doesn't do much this summer to improve his skill set and/or conditioning (I highly doubt this will be the case)
3. You know moving him would have little to no negative impact on the locker room morale
4. He's in an intractable power struggle with the Coach (a la rumored Crosby situations) and you prioritize keeping your Coach
5. Other players on the free agency market this summer who are equal to or less than him don't get roughly equivalent paychecks

If there is any player, other than Kane, who I think will do everything in his power to "be better," it's Toews.

This is well-stated. I 100% agree with you that trading Brent Seabrook would be a good idea if you can get a young, cost-effective defenseman in return who can step in and play on the 2nd pairing immediately. I just don't think that will happen... It'd be awesome if it does, though.

If it's between trading Seabrook and Crawford, though, I think Crawford is the smarter choice, both in terms of return and what you are left with. Trading Seabrook means that you now have to get two defenseman this offseason. It's seems unlikely that he would bring a defenseman back. So now, who do you trade once Seabrook is gone? And how do they get you two starting defensemen?
- tgentry1084

Obviously a big problem. If you trade him, you have to replace him -- really, you have to upgrade from him. I don't even know if it's possible.

If I were the GM and I got a trade offer for him that had real value in terms of draft picks or prospects or NHL players coming back, I might pull the trigger even without a plan for my 3D in place. Why? Because I need to clear cap space anyway if I want to improve my team. If you get something of value in return, there's no rule that says you have to keep it. (I've been wondering lately if Bowman's biggest offseason mistake was not trading Trevor Daley immediately upon acquiring him to open up enough cap space for Oduya.) You might be able to use those assets down the line to acquire the 3D that you're looking for.

Crow to Winnipeg or Calgary. Book it!
- EnzoD

Crawford and Teravainen for Trouba.

If we're trading #50 to Carolina I'd want Faulk in return.
- DarthKane

We can all want Faulk in return.

With that being said, Carolina would laugh at Bowman, hang up. Call him back again just to laugh at him again, and hang up one more time.

Not sure you'll ever get it on the record, but I'd bet my left ... that any player, coach, management in training camp/early next year would refer to this year as "taxing or long or tough" Why? Change and all the drama that has surrounded this team for the last 18 months. I t has to wear on you.....human nature.

Look, I love the Chicago Blackhawks THE hockey team. Will I defend guys like Bobby Hull to those who question how the Hawks employ a person with his demons? Nope. Everyone has some bad laundry but in the world of McDonough he loves to build a brand and push the players to get the casual fan's discretionary income. He's in direct competition with the Bears, White Sox, Cubs, and Bulls for our dollars and if people cant comprehend that you need to start So if you are going to push people out there, then you better be ready to answer the tough questions when/if their is a hiccup. Something this team ROYALLY screwed up at ND.

Something happened with Kane. What? Noboby will ever know besides Kane and that young woman. Case closed. Moved on. You had the Reiff suicide, you had persistent rumors of Sharp off ice antics, you had Corey Crawford getting blasted at a concert and hurting himself, you had the ND BOMB of a news conference, you had Foley bashing NHL and McDonough going against Foley, Shaw slur, and the Ross Scandal. That's not a good year for any team off the ice/field/court. Hawks had NUMEROUS issues and last year could and did sweep them under the rug with a cup win. Now? Nope.....Us loyalists will support the product because we love hockey grew up watching hockey etc but the real tweet that struck a nerve was from the score update woman who said something along the lines of she knows a LOT of long time frans that are giving up on this team after this year. Reality? Pr spin? How the hell knows, but I can't look past it, and either should the Hawks.

Cubs and Sox are off to great starts.....Bears are still numero uno in this town, so to compete for front page and press headlines, I would expect to see a very modest shakeup in player personnel and some PR spin towards to it. McDonough needs the casual sports fan talking hokcey, Hawks, because if not....that casual fan come fall will only remember the flame out this year and reach for the new t shirt jersey to dawn and the newest "it" to support. Who knows how long into the Hawks season that could go and if ratings slip advertisers go elsewhere....

Again, loyal fan and I can/will question the front office and coaches. I think the arrogance from top to bottom bit them in the @ss this year. Taking their spot among the Chicago teams for granted, playing ego games with lineups, and players just assuming they could flip it on when it mattered. Now they all are at home and the next 6 weeks we won't hear much until the draft......

As I said a few blogs ago....HUGE offseason for the Hawks for the reasons listed above.

Crawford and Teravainen for Trouba.
- 93Joe

Bit of an over payment and I would be concerns with Trouba's contract demands.