Fair point. At the same time, an elite talent like Kane is rarely found on the trade market - outside of a trade deadline deal. Perhaps the NMC doesn't effect things as much as you think?
- EKB13

More heretical thinking here.
If we are going to cough up one of the wonder twins to free up major cap space, it wouldn't be Kane, regardless of off-ice past history.

This club has had serious trouble 5x5 and we're going to launch a guy that EVERY year has committed to some serious off-ice training and improvement?

I don't think so.

If we are going to launch a $10.5M contract, if it's my call it's #19 that goes.
Over the course of time since the 2 have been in the league, #88 has continued to up his game and abilities, worked on his shot, shot selection, moves, strength, conditioning. He has never once failed to do that in the off-season. #19 OTOH, has regressed - we USED to see power moves to the net and pretty much those have all but disappeared. If someone says teams have gotten wise, maybe they have but all the more reason to work/learn some new things to stay ahead.

In reality, neither guy is going anywhere. But great topic so people here can piss all over one another bringing up leadership, intangibles, defense, special teams, etc. Should be a fun conversation.

Anyone with more insight on Hawks prospects think Motte or Schmaltz could come in and produce similar pt totals to TT in a bottom 6 roll and play a responsible 2 way game? I could see TT being moved for D help if the front office thinks this is a real possibility.
- bhawks2241

Motte is pretty average sized but he has some nice wheels and is playing PK for Team USA at the IIHF. I think Motte could be a bottom 6 guy very soon, bc he can skate and looks to be responsible defensively

Carolina was just paying Ward $6.3 million, so they get an upgrade in Crawford and save $300,000.

I'm not advocating trading Crawford, but if he is dealt then teams like Carolina (and Calgary) make sense. Although I don't know if he'd accept a trade there.
- DarthKane

Correct. They just got out from an awful cap hit from an aging goalie. What makes you think they are going to take another one on.

Ward if a UFA now, So Carolina saves zero money in trading for Crawford.

Agree with you 100% there Rainer. I like Kruger a lot, but not at a $3M+ cap hit. Shaw should be a part of the core, but the Hawks chose Kruger over him which I cannot get on board with.
- Dannyboy

Exactly...I'm going to need help swallowing that one.......Kruger is what he is, a nice player but he's more readily replaceable then Shaw.

The Hawks as it is have very few guys will to get dirty and score the necessary "net presence" goals. I'm very hopeful JJ is wrong on this one.

Shaw to me is what Leddy is to Savvy and Q even LIKES Shaw......

Correct. They just got out from an awful cap hit from an aging goalie. What makes you think they are going to take another one on.

Ward if a UFA now, So Carolina saves zero money in trading for Crawford.
- ImThatGuy

Crawford is better than anyone Carolina has and his contract is fair, if not a very good deal (unlike Ward). I hear what you're saying, but Crawford brings the Canes closer to being a playoff team (which the added revenue) than anyone else.

More heretical thinking here.
If we are going to cough up one of the wonder twins to free up major cap space, it wouldn't be Kane, regardless of off-ice past history.

This club has had serious trouble 5x5 and we're going to launch a guy that EVERY year has committed to some serious off-ice training and improvement?

I don't think so.

If we are going to launch a $10.5M contract, if it's my call it's #19 that goes.
Over the course of time since the 2 have been in the league, #88 has continued to up his game and abilities, worked on his shot, shot selection, moves, strength, conditioning. He has never once failed to do that in the off-season. #19 OTOH, has regressed - we USED to see power moves to the net and pretty much those have all but disappeared. If someone says teams have gotten wise, maybe they have but all the more reason to work/learn some new things to stay ahead.

In reality, neither guy is going anywhere. But great topic so people here can piss all over one another bringing up leadership, intangibles, defense, special teams, etc. Should be a fun conversation.
- savvyone-1

Day drinking? Just kidding.

There is no way the Hawks would trade Toews over Kane and I would think most GM's would think the same too.

Exactly...I'm going to need help swallowing that one.......Kruger is what he is, a nice player but he's more readily replaceable then Shaw.

The Hawks as it is have very few guys will to get dirty and score the necessary "net presence" goals. I'm very hopeful JJ is wrong on this one.

Shaw to me is what Leddy is to Savvy and Q even LIKES Shaw......
- SteveRain

Just saw this Rain Man and almost coughed up my coffee on the screen.
Most excellent!
I suspect we'll be seeing/reading a lot of Shaw posts from you in the very near future.

Exactly...I'm going to need help swallowing that one.......Kruger is what he is, a nice player but he's more readily replaceable then Shaw.

The Hawks as it is have very few guys will to get dirty and score the necessary "net presence" goals. I'm very hopeful JJ is wrong on this one.

Shaw to me is what Leddy is to Savvy and Q even LIKES Shaw......
- SteveRain

And the crazy thing is, they had a potential Kruger replacement in Danault and traded him away. Also, have Rasmussen who I think could be a solid 4C or maybe even a 3C in time.

JJ,

Wouldn't mid moving Crawford and getting Anderson as a mentor for Darling. He's a veteran who can also still play at a high level.

I'm down with moving TT anywhere. I've said for a long time that I don't believe he's the player that everyone thinks (or wants him) to be here in Chicago. I think a different system like Arizona, Edmonton, etc. would fit him better--somewhere he can go and focus on all offense and not be defensively responsible. Maybe he'll find is stride in that kind of environment. But, he won't go anywhere unless he becomes tougher, both mentally and physically.

Don't want to lose Shaw. Not too many guys like him in the league.

Crawford for MacDonald, Streit, and your 2nd back. Done.

Day drinking? Just kidding.

There is no way the Hawks would trade Toews over Kane and I would think most GM's would think the same too.
- Dannyboy

Only coffee Danny, but it's

I agree and actually don't think either will ever be traded.
I had to throw it out there for some great moments of angst for all.
And btw, I agree with SteveRain and you on Shaw. Will be a sad moment, for many of us Shaw is "everyman" who in spite of his size/weight/abilities has gone out and done far more in this league than those far more talented.

Crawford is better than anyone Carolina has and his contract is fair, if not a very good deal (unlike Ward). I hear what you're saying, but Crawford brings the Canes closer to being a playoff team (which the added revenue) than anyone else.
- DarthKane

Since when is a 31 year old, top 5 goalie with a $6M cap hit for 4 more years a bad thing?

Fair point. At the same time, an elite talent like Kane is rarely found on the trade market - outside of a trade deadline deal. Perhaps the NMC doesn't effect things as much as you think?
- EKB13

This draft is not deep enough to move a talent like Kane unless you are sending the message that you are not going to be competitive for a few years. Matthews, while a very solid prospect is not considered a "generational talent" like McDavid and even Eichel were last year, and I'm not sure there are many NHL ready talents behind him this year.

Crawford is better than anyone Carolina has and his contract is fair, if not a very good deal (unlike Ward). I hear what you're saying, but Crawford brings the Canes closer to being a playoff team (which the added revenue) than anyone else.
- DarthKane

I'm not saying Crawford is a bad goalie, just very few teams need and can afford him without the hawks taking on any sort of Cap hit back.

If it is Carolina OR Calgary and Crawford blocks either one, his value plummits.

Let's trade Kane and Toews, maybe Keith and Seabrook too. The Blackhawks will be the envy of the league with all the draft picks and cap space.

Let's not forgot that it wasn't too long ago that just making the playoffs was an accomplishment for this club. The team is still within it's window of opportunity to win at least one more Cup. So any changes Stan makes will be minimal and he's shown that he doesn't move salary unless he absolutely has to.

I am not not ready to give up on this core yet, they are proven winners. I acknowledge that change has to happen but for me that means the likes of Shaw, Kruger, and Anisimov would be moved before any of the core.

Since when is a 31 year old, top 5 goalie with a $6M cap hit for 4 more years a bad thing?
- Dannyboy

Time and time again, guys with NTC/NMC clauses get moved for lackluster returns.

Every year, teams up against the cap sell veteran players at a discount in the offseason.

That’s 2 huge hits to his trade value.

I’d be willing to pay closer market value for shaw. I’m just not sure what that is.

I'm not saying Crawford is a bad goalie, just very few teams need and can afford him without the hawks taking on any sort of Cap hit back.

If it is Carolina OR Calgary and Crawford blocks either one, his value plummits.
- ImThatGuy

Agreed, and that's one of the reasons why I think Crawford won't be dealt. Toronto could be interesting destination as well.

Only coffee Danny, but it's

I agree and actually don't think either will ever be traded.
I had to throw it out there for some great moments of angst for all.
And btw, I agree with SteveRain and you on Shaw. Will be a sad moment, for many of us Shaw is "everyman" who in spite of his size/weight/abilities has gone out and done far more in this league than those far more talented.
- savvyone-1

Plus Shaw can play effectively on lines 1-4 at LW, RW, & C.

Can't say that about Kruger. If Kruger was in the $2M range, I'd be happier.

Plus, I am a big Kruger fan, but like I said earlier, not at $3M+ cap hit.

Motte is pretty average sized but he has some nice wheels and is playing PK for Team USA at the IIHF. I think Motte could be a bottom 6 guy very soon, bc he can skate and looks to be responsible defensively
- EnzoD

Unless Motte makes a leap this summer development-wise, I believe it's safe to say that he'll be learning to ply his trade in Rockford - to start the season.

Don't get me wrong, there's a lot to like about Motte and what he could bring. He just needs time to transition his game and smooth out the rough edges at the pro level.

Since when is a 31 year old, top 5 goalie with a $6M cap hit for 4 more years a bad thing?
- Dannyboy

No one is saying it is just that.

A) Very few teams need a starting goalie.
B) Teams cant afford to take a 6MM cap hit without sending anything back to Chicago
C) Crawford can block any trade. Do you think he waives to go to bottom feeders?
D) Goalie pad size is shrinking next year, no person knows how that will effect the goalies going into next year.

You have to think we would extend darling this summer for 3 years at some figure 5 mil total over 3 years. and tell him he will be able to compete for #1 spot and be only be 31 when he is a FA. Which is still OK as Goalie's go. and if they have a vet coming back it would be one that only has 1 year left on his deal. Give Shaw a one year deal at 2 mil. Then Extend panarin at 7 year 7 mil. then give Shaw another extensions 5 year 3 mil ( still this summer which I think you can) Sign Vesey (hopefully), Kempny to compete for top 4/6 roster spots. Extend Panik at 1.25 for 4 years. Trade TT for a D prospects on a ECL and get back either pick, or good prospect for Craw along with a vet. Sign a few guys that do not get Long term deals to 1 year and $900K type deals as insurance for the younger guys or injuries. Schlemko stepinak type deals.

No offense Eli...but trading Kane is a really bad idea.
- DarthKane

You're probably right. At the same time, it is something to (briefly) think about.

Now that I have that out of my system...

You have to think we would extend darling this summer for 3 years at some figure 5 mil total over 3 years. and tell him he will be able to compete for #1 spot and be only be 31 when he is a FA. Which is still OK as Goalie's go. and if they have a vet coming back it would be one that only has 1 year left on his deal. Give Shaw a one year deal at 2 mil. Then Extend panarin at 7 year 7 mil. then give Shaw another extensions 5 year 3 mil ( still this summer which I think you can) Sign Vesey (hopefully), Kempny to compete for top 4/6 roster spots. Extend Panik at 1.25 for 4 years. Trade TT for a D prospects on a ECL and get back either pick, or good prospect for Craw along with a vet. Sign a few guys that do not get Long term deals to 1 year and $900K type deals as insurance for the younger guys or injuries. Schlemko stepinak type deals.
- kmw4631

The Hawks cannot afford to pay Panarin $7M/year unless they know the Hossa contract can be shed without penalty if expansion is in the works. Even with saying that, I hope they could get Panarin to sign in the $5M range, but we will have to see.

No one is saying it is just that.

A) Very few teams need a starting goalie.
B) Teams cant afford to take a 6MM cap hit without sending anything back to Chicago
C) Crawford can block any trade. Do you think he waives to go to bottom feeders?
D) Goalie pad size is shrinking next year, no person knows how that will effect the goalies going into next year.
- ImThatGuy

Again, who ever said Crawford needs to move with 100% salary going one way with nothing coming back?

Let's trade Kane and Toews, maybe Keith and Seabrook too. The Blackhawks will be the envy of the league with all the draft picks and cap space.

Let's not forgot that it wasn't too long ago that just making the playoffs was an accomplishment for this club. The team is still within it's window of opportunity to win at least one more Cup. So any changes Stan makes will be minimal and he's shown that he doesn't move salary unless he absolutely has to.

I am not not ready to give up on this core yet, they are proven winners. I acknowledge that change has to happen but for me that means the likes of Shaw, Kruger, and Anisimov would be moved before any of the core.
- DarthKane

I agree with you, but this is the cost of doing business. Trades need to happen and tweaks need to be made when money is an issue.