John,

I take the issue of addiction very seriously, and it was not my intention to be flippant or dismissive of it. Personally knowing some former NHL'ers, I can attest to your numbers and impacts being accurate.

I also give the FO guys enough credit not to hang a mega contract on someone with a substance abuse problem.

It is just upsetting to me to see the comments surrounding CC get to the point where heresay accusations about going on a bender become part of the narrative to somehow discredit someone's character, while most of us prefer to deal in the facts. It cheapens the dialogue among an otherwise highly knowledgable and passionate group of fans.
- Return of the Roar

I agree. Which is why I won't go there. But if a guy "likes to party," the question needs to be asked. Doesn't mean the answer is he's an alcoholic or an addict. Doesn't mean it isn't.

I know Seabrook had an off year, but how much of that can be attributed to fatigue and/or injury? My guess is that those are HUGE factors for this play this season. Seabs is a champion and proven winner, trading him would instantly make the team worse. I get the point of needing to create cap space, but trading Seabs would be a mistake.
- DarthKane

I don't think you read it that way, but do note that I am 100%, without doubt NOT interested in trading Brent. Absolutely not. If #7 goes, then may as just burn the whole thing down.

Yes, in a couple years Seabs will probably slide into a 2nd pairing role and toward the end of his career he'll be a third pairing guy, but he is (as you state) a champion, a winner, and a warrior of epic proportions. I have ZERO interest in moving 7, 2, 4, 88, 81, 19.

Seabrook needs competent guys around him to take the wear and tear off him. You do't win Stanley Cups with talent alone, but you win them with character. And #7 brings all that. Move #7 then you may as well just go full rebuild.

IF you were to move him, you need to find better to replace him with than Soupy and Kempny (who I like both of them).
- kwolf68

Yes! Pair 2 and 7 and you fix Seabrook's game. He spent most of this year babysitting D prospects playing the role of mentor (which leaders do), and absorbing a disproportionate level of punishment as a result.

Ill tell you what though - if they signed Kempny (possible) and Campbell (more of a pipedream), the Hawk D corps might have its best depth in years.

With the spectre of expansion hanging over every team, the chance it may happen as soon as nex year, or in two consecutive years depending upon the readiness of the new franchises, it serves every team to think short term right now, as in what needs to be done for next year. I think you get in bigger trouble trying to solve problems two and three years out today.

If the forward corps gets healthy, and you add some depth on the back end, this team can contend. But I think the days of dominance are long gone due to parity, putting the onus on the performance of your players as the highest degree of importance to your success.

You seriously believe that?? Wow and I thought we really overvalued our players here!!
- tyweb69

Steve Mason is worse than Cristobal Huet was. Fact. But if you're the Hawks, you use him as a high-priced backup to Darling or bury him in Rockford til his deal is up. It's a money move.

Nowhere in reality is Steve Mason even in the top 20 of NHL goaltenders. That's a joke.

Yes! Pair 2 and 7 and you fix Seabrook's game. He spent most of this year babysitting D prospects playing the role of mentor (which leaders do), and absorbing a disproportionate level of punishment as a result.

Ill tell you what though - if they signed Kempny (possible) and Campbell (more of a pipedream), the Hawk D corps might have its best depth in years.

With the spectre of expansion hanging over every team, the chance it may happen as soon as nex year, or in two consecutive years depending upon the readiness of the new franchises, it serves every team to think short term right now, as in what needs to be done for next year. I think you get in bigger trouble trying to solve problems two and three years out today.

If the forward corps gets healthy, and you add some depth on the back end, this team can contend. But I think the days of dominance are long gone due to parity, putting the onus on the performance of your players as the highest degree of importance to your success.
- Return of the Roar

Great post. Agree 100%

Al,

Maybe I didn't make this clear. You don't acquire a Mason or an Anderson or a Pavelec with any thought of extending them after their current deal.

What dealing Crawford for Mason and say a pick does is, save you nearly $2 million next year, and possibly $6 million the year after, when oh, by the way, you need to extend Artemi Panarin among other things.

Hello?

But this is assuming you feel Darling most likely can carry the load for 60 games or so. Because Mason is not a guy I would hand the #1 reins to, certainly not over Darling.

Big "IF," but I will also tell you the Hawks seem to have decided in the Spring of 2015 that Darling MIGHT have that potential. Maybe the jury's out. Maybe they have decided at this point, Darling is just a career backup, albeit a good one. Maybe they are still exploring that possibility of him being a #1.

No question, you roll the dice a bit with the G position for the next year or two. How much is up to the Hawks, Q, and Jimmy Waite.

But you might need $5 million a year to sign Panarin. Where does it come from? This is the world the Hawks are in. People need to prepare for these kinds of trade-offs.

And I am not "speculating" about Crawford being "shopped." Which is also different (right now) than absolutely gone. I am hearing it from someone who would know.

ALSO,

AA took over Kruger's role and the PK went from 10th in the league to 24th. Fact. AA is a disaster in the dot, which becomes a real problem in short-handed defensive zone draws. He's also just not the defensive player Kruger is in some ways. A solid two-way player for sure. But he does not "replace" what Kruger does, we just saw this movie.

Also, can someone tell me ONE INSTANCE where a guy signed to a long term deal is traded the week before it kicks in?

I'm not arguing for putting Kruger in the hall of fame. Nor do I WANT to see the Hawks part with any of these three players. I am relating what I am hearing. And what I am hearing makes sense if you look at it dispassionately and realistically.

Seems like there's a lot of denial about the situation the Hawks are in with regard to the cap, existing contracts and new contracts coming up, especially next summer.
- John Jaeckel

Right -You have to look at 2016-2017 AS WELL as years ahead and see what you have. Everyone loves Crow, but to save a few bucks in the next few years have you have to really consider it. Can they have 2 1B type of goalies you feel you can win with? If so, you may have to pull the trigger and roll the dice. Cap Hell exists we all say and we all want to keep our guys, but reality sucks and hard decisions have to be made. Stan has to think 2 steps ahead and not take band-aid types of deals. Which is other reasons why he also traded Daley, Garbutt and Scuderi, he was planning the team's future finances. He tried to make the team better at the time, but also looked into the future where he has a few extra dollars to play with going forward. The minor deals got him a few extra notes. If they still have Daley's cap, would there be a Kruger signing?

No one blast me for this but Yakupov intrigues me. I wonder how he would look with Panarin and Anisimov. ( I have not seen him play much the last couple of years). That would certainly be one way to catch some Russian lighting in a bottle for cheap. Would the Oilers would give him up for cheap?
- bhawks2241

I totally agree.

I have said many times on the Leafs boards that I wouldn't mind getting Yakupov, and you have to think he is available.

It could very well be fools gold, but there are times he looks like the most skilled player on the ice. Maybe he will just never put it together, or maybe he just needs a change of scenery?

4th and a prospect. But they did this deal because they acquired Jamie McGinn from Buffalo.
- DarthKane

McGinn would be a solid add, especially if we lost Shaw. Decent size, speed, grit.
Sign the Hawks up Stan!

Lets just trade em all. Now is a great time to deal Keith, his value will never be higher. Toews had an off year, move him.

Seabrook needs competent guys around him to take the wear and tear off him. You do't win Stanley Cups with talent alone, but you win them with character. And #7 brings all that. Move #7 then you may as well just go full rebuild.

IF you were to move him, you need to find better to replace him with than Soupy and Kempny (who I like both of them).

If Seabrook is moved it has to be for a bounty....I'd at least consider it for 3 pieces (combo of top picks + prospects) and not a damn bit less. Would the Oilers move Griffin Reinhart and a #1 for Seabrook? That's my starting point.
- kwolf68

The point is not do we like SEABs, We all do but can we afford to pay a $ d man like a # 1 when he is probably going to become a #4 and then # 5 and Then # 6/7 during his 8 year deal. If you paid your # 3 like a Number 3 his contract would have $5 mil for 6 years. You cannot have the 2 highest paid players in the league by 1 mil and think you can pay 7 mil for a #3 D man till he is 39. History also tells you puck movers stay better longer then Big D men. How many over 34 Big D men are top 4 players? You can probably count them on 1 hand. Would you rather have SAAD for the next 6 years at 6 or SEABS at 7? SAAD is going to be a all star for the next 7 years or extremely close. Seabs was not even a top 100 player last year let alone as he ages. We went all in the last 2 years and it cost us a huge price, you cannot keep doing it.

Jeff Carter
- tyweb69

Not doubting you Ty, what were the specifics? It was from Columbus right, and wasn't it during the first year of his deal? Or was it from Philly?

Either way, there were HUGE extenuating circumstances in both cases, speaking of alcohol issues in a dressing room (in Philly at least).

Yes! Pair 2 and 7 and you fix Seabrook's game. He spent most of this year babysitting D prospects playing the role of mentor (which leaders do), and absorbing a disproportionate level of punishment as a result.

Ill tell you what though - if they signed Kempny (possible) and Campbell (more of a pipedream), the Hawk D corps might have its best depth in years.

With the spectre of expansion hanging over every team, the chance it may happen as soon as nex year, or in two consecutive years depending upon the readiness of the new franchises, it serves every team to think short term right now, as in what needs to be done for next year. I think you get in bigger trouble trying to solve problems two and three years out today.

If the forward corps gets healthy, and you add some depth on the back end, this team can contend. But I think the days of dominance are long gone due to parity, putting the onus on the performance of your players as the highest degree of importance to your success.
- Return of the Roar

If I may add, and there may be some bias, but he didn't do THAT terrible for being a babysitter all year. Agreed - put him with Keith and you have a top tier pair again.

I know Seabrook had an off year, but how much of that can be attributed to fatigue and/or injury? My guess is that those are HUGE factors for this play this season. Seabs is a champion and proven winner, trading him would instantly make the team worse. I get the point of needing to create cap space, but trading Seabs would be a mistake.
- DarthKane

And/or being partnered with Gustafsson and Svedberg?

Let's see how he does this year with some rest and rehab and a non-AHL partner (hopefully).

The point is not do we like SEABs, We all do but can we afford to pay a $ d man like a # 1 when he is probably going to become a #4 and then # 5 and Then # 6/7 during his 8 year deal. If you paid your # 3 like a Number 3 his contract would have $5 mil for 6 years. You cannot have the 2 highest paid players in the league by 1 mil and think you can pay 7 mil for a #3 D man till he is 39. History also tells you puck movers stay better longer then Big D men. How many over 34 Big D men are top 4 players? You can probably count them on 1 hand. Would you rather have SAAD for the next 6 years at 6 or SEABS at 7? SAAD is going to be a all star for the next 7 years or extremely close. Seabs was not even a top 100 player last year let alone as he ages. We went all in the last 2 years and it cost us a huge price, you cannot keep doing it.
- kmw4631

Trade Seabrook, just trade a bunch of them and start over. You have NO idea what that guy is gonna be doing in 2, 5 years. I could give a crap about it when he's in his final 2 years of his deal. The next 3-5 years is what matters and a chance at another Cup run or two will be what matters.

ANY player on this team (other than the rest of the core) should go before #7. How many Cups did Gretz win without Messier? How many did Mess win? What made Messier special was his character, his leadership and we GOT TWO of those type guys (19 and 7). Under no circumstances do you move either unless the other team is ready to remove the stopper on resources coming back.

I do NOT want him moved, but also understand it's a business and it will take NO LESS than a #1, Griffin Reinhart, + to get Stan to even think about it. Or it better. If Bowman moves Seabs in a salary dump move for garbage players he needs to pack his poop and get gone.

McGinn would be a solid add, especially if we lost Shaw. Decent size, speed, grit.
Sign the Hawks up Stan!
- 93Joe

I believe there was talk that he was offered over 4 per year to stay in Buffalo and turned it down. I expect he'll make some decent money in FA this summer.

If I may add, and there may be some bias, but he didn't do THAT terrible for being a babysitter all year. Agreed - put him with Keith and you have a top tier pair again.
- 93Joe

Exactly. We need our top pair back together. Do what you gotta do to fix this Defensive mess, but D-men 1-3 are NO problem at all. In fact, they may be the best in the NHL.

Not doubting you Ty, what were the specifics? It was from Columbus right, and wasn't it during the first year of his deal? Or was it from Philly?

Either way, there were HUGE extenuating circumstances in both cases, speaking of alcohol issues in a dressing room (in Philly at least).
- John Jaeckel

IIRC he was extended during the 10-11 season with the Flyers and traded right after that season to CBJ. The deal hadn't even kicked in yet (it was at or right around the draft)

To your point yes it basically never happens but it HAS happened. And yes him and Richards were both big distractions in the locker room (I believe Pronger may have had a say in all of this) which is why both were jettisoned that summer.

I believe there was talk that he was offered over 4 per year to stay in Buffalo and turned it down. I expect he'll make some decent money in FA this summer.
- stashu

Damn. Good chunk of change IMO. I could see him getting $3.5-4 mil from someone. Unfortunately not the Hawks Seems like a playoff kind of player and team guy.

IIRC he was extended during the 10-11 season with the Flyers and traded right after that season to CBJ. The deal hadn't even kicked in yet (it was at or right around the draft)

To your point yes it basically never happens but it HAS happened. And yes him and Richards were both big distractions in the locker room (I believe Pronger may have had a say in all of this) which is why both were jettisoned that summer.
- tyweb69

Correct. OK.

As I recall, Philly HAD to get those guys out of the room. And it might even have been that in spite of having signed the deal, by that point, Carter himself wanted out.

So I will stand basically by what I said, I still don't see a precedent here for Kruger. Plus, he and Carter are very different players and people (because that's relevant here).

Damn. Good chunk of change IMO. I could see him getting $3.5-4 mil from someone. Unfortunately not the Hawks Seems like a playoff kind of player and team guy.
- 93Joe

Currently 2.95 and had a pretty good year. Looking for his final big payday I imagine, if he goes long term (28yo when the upcoming season starts). Decent chance he goes short (2 years) though, especially to a good team

Correct. OK.

As I recall, Philly HAD to get those guys out of the room. And it might even have been that in spite of having signed the deal, by that point, Carter himself wanted out.

So I will stand basically by what I said, I still don't see a precedent here for Kruger. Plus, he and Carter are very different players and people (because that's relevant here).
- John Jaeckel

I agree I see no reason why the Hawks would sign a guy just to dump him immediately. They love Kruger, he is not getting moved.

There are 5 reasons that are preventing the Hawks from winning the Cup again three of these reasons have to be corrected off season)

CAP issues

Speed (lack of )

Solid 2nd line defensman

Natural scored on 1st or 2nd line

Third linePlayer or two that can light the lamp every third game or so



Trading Seabrook , Craford & Shaw have to be part of the equation IMO to fill three of those holes. It will definitely take Stan & CO's best effort to accomplish these shortcomings.

Trade Seabrook, just trade a bunch of them and start over. You have NO idea what that guy is gonna be doing in 2, 5 years. I could give a crap about it when he's in his final 2 years of his deal. The next 3-5 years is what matters and a chance at another Cup run or two will be what matters.

ANY player on this team (other than the rest of the core) should go before #7. How many Cups did Gretz win without Messier? How many did Mess win? What made Messier special was his character, his leadership and we GOT TWO of those type guys (19 and 7). Under no circumstances do you move either unless the other team is ready to remove the stopper on resources coming back.

I do NOT want him moved, but also understand it's a business and it will take NO LESS than a #1, Griffin Reinhart, + to get Stan to even think about it. Or it better. If Bowman moves Seabs in a salary dump move for garbage players he needs to pack his poop and get gone.
- kwolf68

The problem with your theory is you have Kane, Teows, Hossa, Craw, Kruger, Seabs, AA, Hammer, Keith. you have 57 mil tied up for 9 players, That means you have about 16 mil left for 13 players. That is 1.25 per player and you have one of the worst prospect pools in the system after giving away 2 1sts, 4 2nds the last 2 years. in your scenario we cannot afford Shaw, Darling, panarin, TT. All of those guys will want more then 1.25.

You are going to have a aging Big 9 with all UDFA or guys on ECL's. you are not competing with the Big 9 and that lineup. the panarins, TVR's, Vesey, Kempny are not going to come to Chi knowing you are going to pay them $900 and then trade them when they are Restricted to what ever team gives the best offer. The will pick a team that can afford to keep them and control there own destiny.

I you want to compete for the next 7 years. Teows and Kane's contract the only untouchable I would include is Hammer. For the right return everybody should be avalaible. The best Franchise have 1 maybe 2 untouchable players. Also the AVG age of teams that are good is decling pretty rapidly. IE what is the AVG age of playoff teams and world champs 15 years ago to now. it used to be close to 30 and now my guess its 2-3 years less then it was 10-15 years ago. Of your core d how many are getting better? how many are staying the same and for how long and how many are decling? You have 1 that could get better Krug. AA, Hammer, Teows and Kane are staying the same 2-3 years and Keith, Seabs, Craw, Hossa are all decling. So you supporting cast gets worse and your Core is getting worse.

So BR is reporting that the Hawks and Shaw are talking about a new contract for him. How are we able to keep him with all the cap issues. Does this further hint that CC may be the one on the way out??

Panik needs a new deal
Weise/Fleish are UFA
Still need a legit #4 D
And sometime this coming season 72 will need his new deal...

Kane produced goals and assists. So did Rob Brown. So did Jimmy Carson. So have many players who have never actually won squat.

When will some learn that goals and assists are really important for a skater. But really no more important than the player's defensive game. You allow five goals a game and score four, you lose. Math.

Kane is at best an average defensive player. When he tries, he's OK. But he doesn't always try. Toews is a Selke caliber player who at his best can be a point a game player.

Not better, just different.

Toews' numbers this past year really suffered—especially in assists, which suggests not having finishers on his wings. That's been his game. He still scored a "Toews-like" 28 goals. Off year through, and sure he deserves some blame.

Your implication seems to be Kane is just light years better than Toews because of his point production no matter who he plays with. It's just way more complicated than that.

And the more you value defense, leadership, killing penalties, etc, and that Toews is the best FO guy in the freaking league, and a pure center, it's why I think GMs would be split along some lines as to which player they prefer.

IMO in terms of today's cap, both players are at least slightly overpaid and Patrick has to look at himself over the round one loss as well.
- John Jaeckel

I agree on the point they're different

Kane has been held to much higher standards and expectations then Toews ever has been.

Was told he was too small and needed to go into traffic early in his career. He got stronger in off seasons, and plays much more engaged.

Then, he never plays defence/back checks - and he is vastly improved in that aspect.

His improved speed with the puck is much more noticeable since his career began. And he demands the other teams best players when he's on the ice, while making the other 4 Hawks on the ice - regardless of who they are - much better and dangerous than the really are. Kane makes 1mil dollar a year has beens worth much more than that.

I get and understand Toews is a Selke winner - while playing with arguably the best defensive winger in the history of the game. Connect those dots for me. You don't think that's made Toews look/play a tad bit better while "numbers only Kane" had scrap heap line mates?

And the Toews-like 28g were a bit of smoke and mirrors, considering 5 were scored in the gimmick hockey.

If Kane's expectations were always to improve on his game, why isn't Toews held to the higher standard as well?

Someone posted earlier that he's a 62pt/avg player in his career - which is not accurate. Prior to this year, he avg .895ppg or 73pts per season. He gets plenty of PP play time as well. His first 4 seasons in the league he was puttin up 20+ pts a season on the PP. He had 9 this year.

Why is it so far fetched to expect him - the highest paid player in the league - to work on improving his game (specifically speed and offensive game), as much as it was for Kane to improve his game/speed/strength, or any other player?

Toews looked slow - all season long. And spent more time falling down/getting knocked off the puck. I think he needs to spend less time jet skiing on Toews' Lake and more time working on his skating this off-season (yes, a bit tongue in cheek)

And going by your math, if you give up 1g and score 0....guess what, you lose. So fantastic defensive game, but you can never win if you can never score.

How hard is it for people to understand that #16 (assuming he takes his number back) is a specialized player and his role is NOT to score goals or assist in scoring goals AND that the current Hawks management has decided that him in that specialized role is worth the contract that they gave him.

They would not have gone down that path without the realization that it MAY cost them another player (Shaw perhaps) who they feel can be replaced easier than #16.

I get the concept of the salary cap era and dollars being allocated. But IMHO, it's harder to replace lock down C's (one's where you have confidence to throw out on the ice when you are up in a 2-1 Game 6 in your end) versus a very good bottom 6 forward who excels in getting to the net on the PP.

If I'm Q, I sleep better at night with #16 on the roster over #65.