Which of the assistant coaches is in charge of the power play? Should probably lay some blame there too for whatever they did that took the PP from looking really good a lot of the season and turning it into a poopshow by the end.

And whoever is in charge of the PK has a lot to answer for as well. Watching the Sharks' PP and PK, the Blues as well (and I haven't watched enough of the EC series to speak to those teams) there is so much movement, in all directions. Different players are scoring. Every team that played the Hawks knew that crowding up the middle or covering Panarin/Kane closely would prevent them from their one set play of Panarin one-timing it backdoor. And for whatever reason, the Hawks never adjusted. Roster/cap issues aside there's a lot from this past season that really needs to be fixed.
- maria_wyeth

Do the million + dollar players that are actually on the ice have any accountability to produce?

you play = "fine" in Q speak...he will never talk about post season injurys afte losing a series...i suspect craw was concussed thanks to the asshattery of brouwer...he is a big body but man is he a stone hands around the net...he has gotten to gimmes vs hawks and stars and almost biffed them both
- bogiedoc

Oh I forgot about that! I would guess he was most definitely concussed, or at least was experiencing minor symptoms again after the early concussion from the regular season, also Brouwer's handiwork

My point stands....U save maybe $2 mill the next season and maybe the same afterwards but the risk is high by dealing Crawford.

The MO for the Hawks is they sacrifice role players and keep the core guys...
Is Crawford a core guy? Is Seabrook a core guy?
If so look elsewhere....Is my bet.
- Al

The MO for Scotty's teams has also to NOT pay goaltending as much as Crawford either

I knew you were being sarcastic but I feel there will be considerable changes.
Orpik showed his true colors in the series as being an advantageous cheap shot artist.

The suspension he took and penalty last night hurt his team...Last night was a selfish play on his part.
- Al

...

no question...but I think the extra 2min for a cut on a high stick is idiotic...why? a more vicious slash or high stick does not draw blood but you catch soft tissue around the mouth or nose and its a double minor...that rule has to go...

We know that the answer for Saad is no, he wouldn't have. Stan tried. I think he had learned (a little) from Leddy and was trying to prevent a repeat. So the Hawks tried to extend him early in the season and Saad and his agent said "nope. come find us after the playoffs." So Stan was forced to wait until after Saad had a stellar postseason, and then his agent said "we're not taking less than 6m." I believe they were offering him at least 5m a year and that was turned down.

Saad can keep claiming his agent did it all without running it by him which is silly, there's nothing wrong with wanting to max out your earnings in a sport where one injury could end your career. Saad just shot himself in the foot by saying he would take a hometown discount and then refusing to do so.

Can't speak to your other hypotheticals but Stan absolutely tried to extend Saad early and was turned down
- maria_wyeth

I'm talking in July of 2014 I have a hard time thinking he would have turned down 5Mil X 6 years. I'm sure Stan offered him a Bridge deal 2 year 3-3.5 mil which is in line with bridge deals. And they said lets wait till after the season. That is my point. Take the best offer you get for sharp at the draft period. Offer up picks or propsects for Bickell right away. I think he waits to long.

Which of the assistant coaches is in charge of the power play? Should probably lay some blame there too for whatever they did that took the PP from looking really good a lot of the season and turning it into a poopshow by the end.

And whoever is in charge of the PK has a lot to answer for as well. Watching the Sharks' PP and PK, the Blues as well (and I haven't watched enough of the EC series to speak to those teams) there is so much movement, in all directions. Different players are scoring. Every team that played the Hawks knew that crowding up the middle or covering Panarin/Kane closely would prevent them from their one set play of Panarin one-timing it backdoor. And for whatever reason, the Hawks never adjusted. Roster/cap issues aside there's a lot from this past season that really needs to be fixed.
- maria_wyeth

The PK to me lost them both games in Chicago when the series came back tied.

Game 3 had a 1 goal lead heading into 3rd, crazy bounce ties it, Kane takes bad penalty, and Schwartz alone in slot rifles it by Crawford.

Game 4, they rally to have a 1 goal lead late in 2nd, Keith gets caught half way, Tarasenko rifles home tying goal, Keith takes bad penalty to start the 3rd, another PP goal against......

Huge turning point in this series. Before those penalties Hawks couldn't add on to lead.

Hawks went 6/19 on PP....31.5%
Hawks went 14/18 on PK....77.7%

Wasn't just the PK goals were scored, but when......that to me and Toews, Kane combining for 1 goal is why this team is done.

My point stands....U save maybe $2 mill the next season and maybe the same afterwards but the risk is high by dealing Crawford.

The MO for the Hawks is they sacrifice role players and keep the core guys...
Is Crawford a core guy? Is Seabrook a core guy?
If so look elsewhere....Is my bet.
- Al

Stan really is stuck between a rock and a hard place. It seems like you would advocate not moving Crawford this summer. So what do you do this summer if you're in Stan's shoes?

The PK to me lost them both games in Chicago when the series came back tied.

Game 3 had a 1 goal lead heading into 3rd, crazy bounce ties it, Kane takes bad penalty, and Schwartz alone in slot rifles it by Crawford.

Game 4, they rally to have a 1 goal lead late in 2nd, Keith gets caught half way, Tarasenko rifles home tying goal, Keith takes bad penalty to start the 3rd, another PP goal against......

Huge turning point in this series. Before those penalties Hawks couldn't add on to lead.

Hawks went 6/19 on PP....31.5%
Hawks went 14/18 on PK....77.7%

Wasn't just the PK goals were scored, but when......that to me and Toews, Kane combining for 1 goal is why this team is done.
- SteveRain

Yep....they could have jumped out in game 1 (even with Mashinter in the lineup) if the big $$ crew produced on any of the PP's in the first period.

And you can lump Panarin's 1g in the series (not counting the EN goal) in the lack of goal production category.

The PK with the greatest defensive players Toews, Kruger and Hossa failed

Do the million + dollar players that are actually on the ice have any accountability to produce?
- PatShart

Dude, I don't know what your deal is. Please show me a post where I said that all the players on the ice are blameless. I haven't, because they're not. In fact, I believe it was in the last thread, I said that the Blues were the better team, plain and simple, and I went through every star on the Hawks and matched them to their counterpart on the Blues and said that every Hawk was outplayed (Backes > Toews, Tarasenko > Kane, Elliott > Crawford, Brouwer > AA, every Blues defender > every Hawks defender, Fabbri/whoever > Panarin). Like I said the last time you jumped all over me, holding the players accountable and also holding Q/the rest of the coaching staff accountable are not mutually exclusive.

As for this time, if you looked at the post I was responding to, they had said:

"We can blame crazy Q lineups all day long, but the Blues PK, and the stars not scoring is why this team is done."

Which I was agreeing with, and simply adding that the PP and PK structure got worse over the season and needs to be addressed. If you think that the PP and PK were perfect and the coaching staff doesn't need to make a single adjustment then great, that's your opinion.

I have never disagreed with you that Toews had a bad year and the Hawks stars didn't perform to their normal levels so I don't know why you keep acting like I am. We only differ in that I think the coaching staff also had a hand in their poor year.

I'm talking in July of 2014 I have a hard time thinking he would have turned down 5Mil X 6 years. I'm sure Stan offered him a Bridge deal 2 year 3-3.5 mil which is in line with bridge deals. And they said lets wait till after the season. That is my point. Take the best offer you get for sharp at the draft period. Offer up picks or propsects for Bickell right away. I think he waits to long.
- kmw4631

Oh I completely agree. Almost every one of Stan's poor trades can be connected back to waiting too long on something. And you could be totally right that Saad would have taken that much if offered in July 2014 but had he done enough to earn that offer at that point? Stan waited too long on Sharp but Sharp also held a lot of cards with his NTC/NMC (can't remember which one it was), and while he clearly needs to learn from Saad and try to lock up RFAs asap the player and their agent have to be on board too, and at least by the time Stan tried Saad was not.

Crawford is the only player in the $4mil+ club that has an NHL-ready replacement for 16/17. A big money player has to go.

Seabrook's replacement > ??
Anisimov's replacement > ??
Hossa's replacement > ??


IMO, Stan either trades Crawford this summer, or gets absolutely taken to the woodshed again next summer shedding his contract to get Panarin signed. All the while, not being able to adequately address the 1LW or 4D spots for 16/17.

toews/kane vs blues = 1 goal; hawks lose in 7
crosby/malkin vs caps = 1 goal; win in 6 onto conf finals
getzlaf/perry vs preds = 2 goals (getzlaf); lose in 7

reducing a series outcome to goal scoring from the megastars is way to simplistic...

caps rally to win last night and beagles save is legendary...now nobody will remember...

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.
- PatShart

Shartie, my lad. These are all good and fair points. I might slightly demur on some. But they are loaded with insight.

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...
- z1990z

1) Consider the source.
2) They were "working on" and I was told were close on a deal with Saad for weeks last summer.
3) Bear point 2 in mind. Shaw has gone public that he is concerned about the dollars they will offer him. Stanley showed last summer that he will be prepared if the negotiation goes south.
4) Hence, why Shaw's name IS in play.

Bingo. Kruger is now your highest paid forward outside the Top 6 besides maybe Shaw if he is back ( not counting Bickell). He has to score 30-40 pts. Otherwise you are counting on players on contracts of 1 mil or less taking care of all your depth scoring. Stagnant cap and losing talent means you need all your horses to step it up a notch.
- bhawks2241

Being the 7th highest paid forward makes him . . . what . . . can anyone help me here . . .

No?

Your 3rd line center.

30-40 points would be nice. But it's all a bonus if you have a top 10 PK, he's over say 52% on draws, and your team defense is overall strong.

You really can't rank order pay for forwards on points.

I repeat, there have many garbage, loser NHL forwards who have racked up a lot of points. Start with Dany Heatley, Mike Ribeiro, etc.

I personally hope the other 29 gms do think he's worth 3 Million and if they do
I would trade him

Hawks need to get bigger and faster and Kruger is another smallish forward as is TT and it's why I see them both being moved this summer
- Colbyboy

Let's forget about their height and weight on the roster. How big do they play? Kruger plays about 6'2" 215 pounds. Honestly. Not a bruiser, but along the wall and in the dot? Absolutely.

Being the 7th highest paid forward makes him . . . what . . . can anyone help me here . . .

No?

Your 3rd line center.

30-40 points would be nice. But it's all a bonus if you have a top 10 PK, he's over say 52% on draws, and your team defense is overall strong.

You really can't rank order pay for forwards on points.

I repeat, there have many garbage, loser NHL forwards who have racked up a lot of points. Start with Dany Heatley, Mike Ribeiro, etc.
- John Jaeckel

Garbage as human beings? Possibly. As hockey players I dont know if you would call them garbage.

Glad to see the Caps get eliminated but I did have them to win the cup in JJ's bracket challenge.
My 9 yr old daughter on the other hand does have the penguins winning it all.

I was shocked to see that as of now only 4 people still have a horse in the race to win the cup.

This is the worst rule in the CBA. The contracts this rule applies to were approved by the NHL under the old CBA. Why is it fair to penalize these teams because they agreed to a completely on-side contract with a player? Damn small market teams moan and groaned then got their way on this.
- DarthKane

Next moaning and groaning will be to carry the cap into the playoffs (next CBA). No more Kane/clavical/trades/win cup scenarios. Book it.

toews/kane vs blues = 1 goal; hawks lose in 7
crosby/malkin vs caps = 1 goal; win in 6 onto conf finals
getzlaf/perry vs preds = 2 goals (getzlaf); lose in 7

reducing a series outcome to goal scoring from the megastars is way to simplistic...

caps rally to win last night and beagles save is legendary...now nobody will remember...
- bogiedoc

which is a shame, because that save was awesome

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

My point still stands because when thing shakeout it's only about a $2 mill cap savings over the next two years ...Darlings a UFA after next year.

Obviously something needs to be done...But no one except Dale Tallon trades for or signs high priced UFA goal tenders. Just doesn't happen and for the Hawks to deal Crawford, although there are quite a few teams that could use him it won't be easy to do without taking back considerable money.

For every high priced goalie like Quick and Crawford that wins the Cup there are just as many making considerably less that do so. One will do so this year.

But in this case Crawford was a huge reason they won in 2015 and was their most consistent player this year...Actually this year may have been his best season considering the defense.

I think Bowman explores every possible option first before dealing Crawford.

I also believe Panarin will sign a 3/4 year deal for reasonable money...Not Tarasenko like as he will be only an RFA after next year. He will get paid more $$ sooner with the realization that playing with Kane is an annuity for him.

First order of business for Bowman is what he is doing now....Seeing how reasonably
he can sign Shaw....If it can't happen they will replace Shaw with an Ice Hog (Hold on Tight) and then look to make a significant trade.

Who will be dealt....TT/Kruger or AA.

Anisimov is very good player but when the dust settles and if Shaw is here 2 of 3
I mentioned may not be.....

TT could get a nice return but if they decide to trade Kruger...TT plays 2nd line and AA could play 3rd line/4th line. Either way one or two of those I mentioned won't be here in October.

If that can't play out next in line would be Crawford/Seabrook but both have trade clause situations...And they won't go quietly is my guess.

So if Bowman is painted into a corner this team will be what you called them this year....A fringe playoff team, for possibly quite awhile.

Wirtz spends to Cap ceiling and needs every seat+ filled every game....I feel they won't have the guts to deal Crawford and risk missing the playoffs. That's not such a bold statement. Because without him this season they would have been slugging it out with Minny to get in, and they would have lost the 1st tie breaker.

Or monkeys could fly out of my butt, because that has about as much chance of happening as Kruger getting traded right now.

So let's be logical here.

1) You feel Kruger is not worth $3 million a year. Why would any of 29 NHL GMs, assuming you're right, not share your opinion? That's one issue.

2) Rarely, if ever, is a guy just signed to a multi-year deal, traded right before the deal kicks in. Has it EVER happened?

3) Third line shutdown C. Who assumes that role if Kruger is dealt?

4) Let's say Stanley disregards all of the above, there IS a market for player you feel is overpaid, and he deals him. How does $3 million or less in cap relief solve Shaw's new deal, and TT and Panarin the following summer, TVR too I believe? It doesn't come close.
- John Jaeckel

#2 happened with Hossa and Ottawa back in 2004. The Hossa/Heatley trade was after Hossa signed a 3yr/$6m deal and got traded literally the day he signed it. It is rare, but it has happened.

#2 happened with Hossa and Ottawa back in 2004. The Hossa/Heatley trade was after Hossa signed a 3yr/$6m deal and got traded literally the day he signed it. It is rare, but it has happened.
- ahjnkn

If memory serves me that was only way that trade got done....Hossa priced himself out of Ottawa's budget.

My point stands....U save maybe $2 mill the next season and maybe the same afterwards but the risk is high by dealing Crawford.

The MO for the Hawks is they sacrifice role players and keep the core guys...
Is Crawford a core guy? Is Seabrook a core guy?
If so look elsewhere....Is my bet.
- Al

If they deal for Mason (for example) and allowed him to walk after next season, there would be $1.8 million saved next season, and possibly as much as $4-5 million the following season, when Panarin is due.

Will they deal CC for Mason and a pick? About 4 million other possibilities are out there. So probably not, but . . .

But . . . the money is going to need to come from somewhere.

The team as composed DOES have holes.

It was dreadful 5-on-5 last year. And you could have Patrick Roy in net next year and you will get the same result with Svedberg, Gustafsson, Rundblad, Rozy 2.0 or some 5'9" Swedish rookie in front of him.

You also need to find someone to play on Toews left wing. Maybe it's Shaw, but they will have to pay him as well.

You want to deal Kruger. Great, also likely not happening for several reasons, not least of which they have NO (no one!) replacement at 3C/PK, and it doesn't create that much cap room.

Bolland? Sure, scrape him up off the floor, bag him up and send him to South Bend. Maybe he plays 25 games. AA? He is not a shutdown center. Good player. Doesn't replace what Kruger does. So you wanna deal Kruger? What does his replacement cost realistically. My guess is you "save" nothing or next to it.

Let's stop playing Monopoly and fantasy hockey here.

So if you re-sign Shaw at say $2.5 million per (minimum), you are already at least $500K deeper in the hole—without having done Jack to actually improve the team.

Filling out next year's roster will be tough. The following summer will be very tough, assuming they want to wait that long to get Panarin done.

Panarin's deal is the 800 pound gorilla in the room. Gonna take big money. He is a player they can't afford to lose. If he gets anywhere near RFA, he will get offer sheeted for sure.

So, as I have said all Spring so far, some tough choices are going to need to be made. Someone's "indispensable" player is likely going to be moved. Maybe it's Kruger, I guess. I just doubt it strongly.

So, there ya go.

Welp, looks like we lost out on the 2top college UFA's ,1st the kid cagoots goes to the Oilers,now Vesey sounds like to the Bruins. As far as Trades, I see Shaw or TT getting dished with Bickell Riding on the back step along in that deal. Probably the only way to get it done. We may be in for A Pittsburgh type scenario for awhile until we get another round of draft picks who are ready to play, kind of like Johns, Dano and Danault are ready to, maybe by missing next year , McD will re evaluate his command staff when it comes to personnel.