Good point - Tampa is in the same boat with DAL. Their window of youth/early conracts is about to be slammed shut with Stamkos UFA and the 5 big RFA's they need to sign...then Bishop will be a UFA the following year.

And they have won nothing.

Yet 3 Cups (2 after overhauls of rosters) and Stan/Q are failures for not "repeating"
- PatShart

There have been some great comments on this board and yours earlier was one of the most insightful. It's a great way to look at things.

I've been thinking more about the choice of Crawford/Seabrook traded now vs. losing Panarin next year. And about the upcoming expansion draft.

I would be 90% willing to bet that Stan Bowman treads water this year rather than move on Crow/Seabrook or make any trades for players that can't be protected. After thinking about it more, I think that may actually be the wisest choice. So go get 'em, Stan!

There have been some great comments on this board and yours earlier was one of the most insightful. It's a great way to look at things.

I've been thinking more about the choice of Crawford/Seabrook traded now vs. losing Panarin next year. And about the upcoming expansion draft.

I would be 90% willing to bet that Stan Bowman treads water this year rather than move on Crow/Seabrook or make any trades for players that can't be protected. After thinking about it more, I think that may actually be the wisest choice. So go get 'em, Stan!
- DMChi2010

Seabrook isn't going anywhere.

The one to move would be Crawford and this season would probably make most sense, rather than next. There are several teams that have the cap room and need for a goalie. And the Hawks would have Darling to carry the mail if needed

It just makes sense but only if they feel that Darling can do it. The DET/Scotty model was never to have high paid netminders (with the cap era as it is) and as valuable as Crow has been for this team, his value will never be higher and his cap space would go a long way in filling a D role and resigning Panarin

Some here wanted the team to take more time with him, and definitely play him with Hjalmarsson.
- John Jaeckel

I was one of those. My point was a lot of those pining for Daley now wanted him gone. He was under performing and didn't seem to fit. Why? I have no idea but he requested a trade and at that point was a lost cause. I always thought he was brought in to be the 4D with Hammer.

One thing I didn't give credit for in the Daley trade was I believe they gained cap space, its a little confusing to me with the Scuderi stuff in it.

If I critisize Stan (and I'm one of the ones who rarely does) and play armchair GM I go back to the point I made 5 or 6 pages ago. If Stan just made two moves at or before the draft and after the Sadd trade

Buyout Bickell and trade Sharp for a lower round pick. Think JO might have been with the team, Johns also. Shaw could probably be resigned this year
- vabeachbear

Don't forget that Sharp had a NMC/NTC (I can't remember which) so you can't just say there had to be one team that would've given up a 7th pick for him. He was in control of where he wanted to go.

I think one poster earlier in the thread had a decent explanation:

- If Sharp was the missing piece, you likely didn't have the cap space to absorb the entire 5.9
- If Sharp was a building block, you likely weren't going to get him to waive to go there

Stan was over a barrel the league knew it and Nill took advantage of it.

As far as the retention of salary for Scuderi if he retires I believe that comes off the books.

Seabrook isn't going anywhere.

The one to move would be Crawford and this season would probably make most sense, rather than next. There are several teams that have the cap room and need for a goalie. And the Hawks would have Darling to carry the mail if needed

It just makes sense but only if they feel that Darling can do it. The DET/Scotty model was never to have high paid netminders (with the cap era as it is) and as valuable as Crow has been for this team, his value will never be higher and his cap space would go a long way in filling a D role and resigning Panarin
- PatShart

This is what Stan SHOULD do, but he will likely tinker and lose Crow/Panarin for zilch next summer. So it goes.

This is what Stan SHOULD do, but he will likely tinker and lose Crow/Panarin for zilch next summer. So it goes.
- EnzoD

Well...Panarin will be a RFA...so they wouldn't lose him for zilch. If they thought of trading him, they could get something good...or a plethora of picks from the team signing him

Well...Panarin will be a RFA...so they wouldn't lose him for zilch. If they thought of trading him, they could get something good...or a plethora of picks from the team signing him
- PatShart

Most teams would, but this front office will over analyze and overplay the market, and they'll get lesser value.

Well...Panarin will be a RFA...so they wouldn't lose him for zilch. If they thought of trading him, they could get something good...or a plethora of picks from the team signing him
- PatShart

Honestly, I have ZERO clue on what to expect from Stan in the next 15 months. Last year, everyone pretty much knew that Sharp was gone and Bickell was going to get moved (HA!). Nobody expected Saad to be dealt after his Cup-Winning comments on a long term deal. With Panarin's comments this week, it is clear that he wants to get paid (and rightfully so, he's a stud). I just don't know how the Hawks are a playoff team in 17/18 without Panarin in the lineup. So, Stan has to decide if he wants to keep the playoff streak alive (like Detroit) or bottom out in 2 years to get a high draft pick and build for another run in Toews/Kane's early 30s....

Don't forget that Sharp had a NMC/NTC (I can't remember which) so you can't just say there had to be one team that would've given up a 7th pick for him. He was in control of where he wanted to go.

I think one poster earlier in the thread had a decent explanation:

- If Sharp was the missing piece, you likely didn't have the cap space to absorb the entire 5.9
- If Sharp was a building block, you likely weren't going to get him to waive to go there

Stan was over a barrel the league knew it and Nill took advantage of it.

As far as the retention of salary for Scuderi if he retires I believe that comes off the books.
- dstainer

A barrel of his own making. For a financial guy, I'm not very impressed with some of the new deals, or the foresight when building this team going forward.

Most teams would, but this front office will over analyze and overplay the market, and they'll get lesser value.
- howiehandles

Most teams don't win 3 cups in 6 years....but lets forget that

Tell me the exact trade Stan turned down for players/picks that were verified offered.

2011-2012, when he was like 21, he had 9 goals and 17 assists in 71 games and was +11.

Point being, he can contribute more offensively, if anything, he can do better than that because he has matured physically since then. It is a matter of how he is used and the earlier post about how he has been used recently is highly instructive.

He may be the most undervalued and probably the most misunderstood player on the roster.
- John Jaeckel

I just feel there is no misunderstanding 2 things.

1) No goals - all year. Even being deployed mostly defensively, you gotta chip in a handful.

2) The Hawks effectiveness at preventing goals while Kruger was on the PK was only average. Sure he got the tough assignments and some of it is luck of when the goalie makes a save, but preventing goals against is what needs to happen when he is on the ice. This is the area he needs to shine if he isn't bringing offense.

Goals against per 60 min - shorthanded (regular season and playoffs)


Ladd 4.36
Toews 4.90
Danault 5.02
Fleischmann 6.44
Kero 6.44
TT 7.03
Kruger 7.88
Desjardins 7.99
AA 8.26
Hossa 9.06
Mash 1028.57 - lol

The Hawks PK was average at best all year and obviously you don't put it on Kruger, but I don't think he was our best PK guy this year. Most of the stats put him middle of the pack for the Hawks in terms of effectiveness while shorthanded. He is being paid next year to be more than that. If you score no goals, then you have to be that much better defensively to make it worthwhile, otherwise what is the point? I really do like Kruger, but I think no question, he has to bounce back and be more of a defensive leader or else he has to become a bit more effective 2-way.

A barrel of his own making. For a financial guy, I'm not very impressed with some of the new deals, or the foresight when building this team going forward.
- howiehandles

Going to have to disagree wholeheartedly here. The moves made by Bowman have resulted in 2 cups and a game 7 in the WCF in a 4-yr period. So the hockey moves have paid off.

There's a mix right? You have to balance the future with the right now. Last year it paid off, this year it didn't. Not only that, you can only plan so far in the future. You can't necessarily plan for dropping oil prices or a weak Canadian dollar suppressing HRR but it's going to affect the cap.

At an $80 mil cap Bickell is less of a mistake, Kane/Toews at 10.5 each, instead of say 9.5 is less of a burden because you still have room. However, when you have stagnated cap growth it becomes a problem.

In the grand scheme of things it's amazing that the Hawks have been able to retool as many times as they have and stayed successful. It also helps that they have 2 HOF's on technically illegal (yes I know they were legal at the time) contracts.

Hard cap systems are designed to do this. It's designed to bring parity. You eventually pay for your mistakes and or slowly bleed out due to a 1000 paper cuts, i.e. draft picks traded, talent/coaching leaving, etc. You become a victim of your own success.

Honestly, I have ZERO clue on what to expect from Stan in the next 15 months. Last year, everyone pretty much knew that Sharp was gone and Bickell was going to get moved (HA!). Nobody expected Saad to be dealt after his Cup-Winning comments on a long term deal. With Panarin's comments this week, it is clear that he wants to get paid (and rightfully so, he's a stud). I just don't know how the Hawks are a playoff team in 17/18 without Panarin in the lineup. So, Stan has to decide if he wants to keep the playoff streak alive (like Detroit) or bottom out in 2 years to get a high draft pick and build for another run in Toews/Kane's early 30s....
- EnzoD

I was just thinking, Bickell's 4Mil/pr contract comes off the boards pretty much at the same time Panarin's contract does. Do you guys think Stan will just offer him maybe the same deal Bickell had this summer? ie. something to the effect of 4Mil per year for 4 years (totalling 16Mil) until 2020/21?

I was just thinking, Bickell's 4Mil/pr contract comes off the boards pretty much at the same time Panarin's contract does. Do you guys think Stan will just offer him maybe the same deal Bickell had this summer? ie. something to the effect of 4Mil per year for 4 years (totalling 16Mil) until 2020/21?
- Murph76

Considering Saad got $6mil x 6 and Panarin outscored him by nearly 30 points (in his rookie year), I don't think Panarin will be signed for anything less than $6mil....

Considering Saad got $6mil x 6 and Panarin outscored him by nearly 30 points (in his rookie year), I don't think Panarin will be signed for anything less than $6mil....
- EnzoD

And the Hawks can either trade him for assets (like Saad)...and the team wanting to sign him to that will need their own 1st, 2nd,3rd picks to give the Hawks if they can't/don't match

And lets not forget either, Hossa's contract drops to 1mil...there may be a rumored buyout period if there is expansion (Hossa)...or Hossa may be "injured" and not able to continue his career, which could free up that 5mil cap hit

I was just thinking, Bickell's 4Mil/pr contract comes off the boards pretty much at the same time Panarin's contract does. Do you guys think Stan will just offer him maybe the same deal Bickell had this summer? ie. something to the effect of 4Mil per year for 4 years (totalling 16Mil) until 2020/21?
- Murph76

I'm assuming that offer would be much too low. Not many 30 goal scorers can be had for that kind of price. 5.5 - 6/year seems fairly likely.

Considering Saad got $6mil x 6 and Panarin outscored him by nearly 30 points (in his rookie year), I don't think Panarin will be signed for anything less than $6mil....
- EnzoD

True about Saad, he's got some fat pockets now but he can also look forward to a long summer of golf for the foreseeable future playing in Columbus. I would think playing for a cup contender year after year + the decent amount of endorsement cash he has to be making, perhaps that would be enough? Don't get me wrong, I don't think Stan will pull it off honestly. I'm just speculating how he could potentially be re-signed.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Caggiula sign in Vancouver. They can offer him a chance to play with UND teammates and they'll probably guarantee him some playing time next season.
- DarthKane

Probably offered a bit more cash too.

Here's a trivial item for everyone to ponder, the average NHL hockey player gets about 25 hours of ice time during the entire 82 game regular season. That means Toews and Kane make about $400,000 per hour....!!!! Don't know why I thought about this last night, but that just blows my mind. Have a good one All.
- Gary0301

Want to REALLY blow your mind...think about football. I think in the average NFL game, the ball is in play about 11 minutes. Call that 5 offense, 5 defense, 1 special teams. Only 16 games in an NFL season. So Brady officially is playing for 80 minutes per year, less than 1 1/2 hours!!!!!
So he makes about $15 MILLION PER HOUR!!!

I was one of those. My point was a lot of those pining for Daley now wanted him gone. He was under performing and didn't seem to fit. Why? I have no idea but he requested a trade and at that point was a lost cause. I always thought he was brought in to be the 4D with Hammer.
- Blackwater13

Yep, me too.

And the Hawks can either trade him for assets (like Saad)...and the team wanting to sign him to that will need their own 1st, 2nd,3rd picks to give the Hawks if they can't/don't match

And lets not forget either, Hossa's contract drops to 1mil...there may be a rumored buyout period if there is expansion (Hossa)...or Hossa may be "injured" and not able to continue his career, which could free up that 5mil cap hit
- PatShart

I can see some scenario like this developing.

Per McKenzie tweet just now
One of the U.S.-based NHL teams interested in college UFA Drake Caggiula (UND) has been informed the player is going to a team in CAN.

@HawksBreakdown on Twitter with some interesting points to ponder today:

- Would Panarin have scored as many points if he could speak fluent English?
- He couldn't understand Q. He couldn't be forced to play a structured, defensive minded game.
- He could just play hockey.
- And he said that in an interview. He didn't know what was going on. Anisimov just told him to play hockey. Play his game.

Which brings me to my final point.
- Do you see how fun it is to watch players who are allowed to just play hockey?

When someone jumped in to say it isn't just Q, he/she said:
- It's all coaches in the NHL who value suppressing goals against over generating goals for
- Takes fun out of the game.

So. . .would the Hawks this year have been/be better if there were more emphasis on the offensive side of the game? PP sure seems better when they rapid fire shots at the net.

Considering Saad got $6mil x 6 and Panarin outscored him by nearly 30 points (in his rookie year), I don't think Panarin will be signed for anything less than $6mil....
- EnzoD

You forget, Saad was forced to play with those worthless, no-offense players: Toews and Hossa.

Most teams don't win 3 cups in 6 years....but lets forget that

Tell me the exact trade Stan turned down for players/picks that were verified offered.
- PatShart

No one knows for sure. But you are just being, umm, not very smart, if you think he didn't lose leverage as the summer wore on. Because he did.

Some may say: well he didn't have any offers.

Having done this rumor thing for a while, and having talked to a lot of people last summer, i'm fairly confident there were offers. Were they better than what he got? No one knows for sure. The real issue is he got an asset in Trevor Daley who had been useful for nearly ten years in Dallas and is playing pretty effective hockey right now for the Pens. So that is NOT being blamed on Stan. And while no one (here at least) may ever know the whole story, there is some reason to believe that the coaching staff soured on Daley awful early.

Is it a blame game? Not for me.

What it comes down to is IF mistakes were made. IF there is a disconnect between Q and Bowman (and there is evidence that at least suggests it). IF there is a deal out there by which the defense 4-7 can be improved, and/or the team can add another quality 2-way LW.

IF . . . then those are things that need to be addressed so the team can do better next season.

What I don't get is why some people get so butthurt over the suggestion that there are moves out there that could improve the team: trades, internal resolutions, what have you.

If they do nothing to improve, you can pretty much count on the same result. PLEASE no one tell me they sucked 5-on-5 all year because they were "tired." Really, so did they take Ritalin before every power play or 3-on-3?

People have every right to criticize or suggest improvements, especially if they buy tickets or tv packages or merchandise.

And if someone wants to say all is well, Great. They are allowed. But I hear people being ripped right now for daring to criticize Q or Stanley.