Per John Dietz, Trevor Daley has 1 goal, 5 assists and is +3 in the playoffs, averaging 23:18 ice time.
- scottak

Sounds like Oduya numbers to me.

Admittedly, I have not seen him play much at all. But what I have seen kind of dovetailed with what I heard, lack of mobility will limit him. Add Pokka to the LONG list right now of guys who will be marginal NHLers this year at best.

The ONE guy I think who MIGHT be able to step up is Svedberg if he gains some confidence and starts to make quicker decisions. And speaking of heart, if Svedberg ever got a little burr under his saddle and a wee bit of nasty, you might really have something there.

Right now he is a soft as baby poop pylon with a large wingspan who can make a decent pass now and then.
- John Jaeckel

Plays with that demeanor, but I know he has some nasty in him deep down... saw him drop the gloves tp stand up for a teammate at the Prospects Tourney a few years ago. I was impressed he had that in him.

the post and Happy Friday JJ! Here's hoping Stan is aggressively pursuing major Salary reductions this summer to address those HUGE roster holes, and allot the cap space for Panarin's extension (I'm guessing $6mil/yr BTW). I've been watching the Czech game against franking Kazakstan and Kempny is a good skater with solid strength in board battles and nice puck skills, but he also got pinned in his own zone several times. Expecting him to come in and be the 4/5 D and solve the Hawks Defensive depth issues is a fanboy's dream, and far from guaranteed.
- EnzoD

Although I'm not advocating a big trade this summer I do find the off-season and corresponding trades/signings a very exciting time of the year.

Find a way to move Bickell's contract with taking minimal to no salary on return.

I'm a believer that everyone can be traded in the return is right and there is a viable candidate to replace them. Moving a big contract could be one way to address the team's needs, but it's not the only way. Maybe Teravainen is moved to bring back help on defense. Maybe Panarin is moved. What we've seen from Stan in the past is that he doesn't move his core players unless he has too. Depending on where the final salary cap ceiling lands I don't think Stan has to move a core player this season.

Also, when we discuss the possibility o moving guys like Crawford or Seabrook we're assuming there's another GM out there that will give Stan a return that would make us happy and address the teams needs. If you can see that the Hawks are in a pinch and need to move salary what makes you think the other 29 GMs don't see the same thing. If that is the case the return for Seabrook and Crawford will be more in line with the return Stan got for Sharp.
- DarthKane

Getting Bickell's full $4mil off the books would be ideal, but if it was going to happen, it would've been done last summer (IMO). So they will most likely buy him out and get $3mil in cap savings. Combine that with Shaw's $2mil off the books and maybe you can address 4D OR 1LW, but probably not both. As for trading Seabrook, that is a joke. There is no way in hell the Hawks can/will trade Seabrook unless some GM gets drugged by Stan and trades back a top 4 D+Top 6 forward prospect (keep dreaming). The guys JJ stated are in play are the best trade chips for both return and cap savings.

Getting Bickell's full $4mil off the books would be ideal, but if it was going to happen, it would've been done last summer (IMO). So they will most likely buy him out and get $3mil in cap savings. Combine that with Shaw's $2mil off the books and maybe you can address 4D OR 1LW, but probably not both. As for trading Seabrook, that is a joke. There is no way in hell the Hawks can/will trade Seabrook unless some GM gets drugged by Stan and trades back a top 4 D+Top 6 forward prospect (keep dreaming). The guys JJ stated are in play are the best trade chips for both return and cap savings.
- EnzoD

You're probably right, but that doesn't mean that has to be the moves that Stan makes. I wouldn't be shocked if Crawford was traded, but I don't believe it's the right move. Crawford was just as important to the team's success this season as Kane.

Another reality is that Stan may not be able to address the needs on defense and 1LW via trade or big free agent signing. It may be only one, but that doesn't mean the team can't be competitive. The Hawks won Cups with non-ideal forwards in their top 6 before (Handzus and Richards), it can be done again. If Stan can find a way to improve the defense I won't worry so much about the 1LW slot.

You're probably right, but that doesn't mean that has to be the moves that Stan makes. I wouldn't be shocked if Crawford was traded, but I don't believe it's the right move. Crawford was just as important to the team's success this season as Kane.

Another reality is that Stan may not be able to address the needs on defense and 1LW via trade or big free agent signing. It may be only one, but that doesn't mean the team can't be competitive. The Hawks won Cups with non-ideal forwards in their top 6 before (Handzus and Richards), it can be done again. If Stan can find a way to improve the defense I won't worry so much about the 1LW slot.
- DarthKane

I would be satisfied with adding a legitimate 4D or 1LW, and like you said, adding both will be damn near impossible. Depending on the progress of TVR and who Stan can find for the bottom pairing Dmen, I might lean towards 1LW as the more important hole. The Hawks cannot stay dependent on 1 line for scoring bc if you cant score, the 4D wont matter. It's a really tough call on what to prioritize and even tougher to address with the cap crunch Stan is in.

The amazing thing about these boards is the absolute certainty that some player is dog poop and will always be dog poop. Or that a player has no chance of ever improving.

Let's give some examples: Svedberg, Gus...had rough first years, but so do a lot of players. If we were the Oilers, then perhaps we can live through the growing pains, but we aren't. We want to repeat, they weren't the d-men for that THIS YEAR. But that in no way means they haven't learned and will come back bigger and stronger and smarter next year. They may not, but there's as good of a chance that they may.

Secondly, every year, some player comes up from the AHL or NCAA and plays well enough to stick. Someone no one expected. We have one on our team. His name is Andrew Shaw. He wasn't some highly touted prospect coming out of juniors. He wasn't a huge scorer. But look at him now.

All I'm saying is enough with the absolutism on young players.

Find a way to move Bickell's contract with taking minimal to no salary on return.

I'm a believer that everyone can be traded in the return is right and there is a viable candidate to replace them. Moving a big contract could be one way to address the team's needs, but it's not the only way. Maybe Teravainen is moved to bring back help on defense. Maybe Panarin is moved. What we've seen from Stan in the past is that he doesn't move his core players unless he has too. Depending on where the final salary cap ceiling lands I don't think Stan has to move a core player this season.

Also, when we discuss the possibility o moving guys like Crawford or Seabrook we're assuming there's another GM out there that will give Stan a return that would make us happy and address the teams needs. If you can see that the Hawks are in a pinch and need to move salary what makes you think the other 29 GMs don't see the same thing. If that is the case the return for Seabrook and Crawford will be more in line with the return Stan got for Sharp.
- DarthKane

DK nobody is gonna take 29. Its reached the point where he simply needs to be bought out. Its better then nothing. I do not want to lose another prospect or up/coming player just to trade that guy. Buy him out. Im not proposing blowing the team up either. As has been pointed out there are holes. Ladd is gone and there goes the top LW. That makes Panik that much more important. The top line next year could very well be 14 19 and 88. Works for me. Maybe that means 86 stays and plays with 72 and 15.

I love Shaw and he has earned that big contract. The question Stan has to ask is this.. do I fill the holes on D and keep Shaw by tradiing maybe CC? The money looks that tight. Is Hartman or Ross ready to come up and be the next 65? Some very hard decisions this summer.

The amazing thing about these boards is the absolute certainty that some player is dog poop and will always be dog poop. Or that a player has no chance of ever improving.

Let's give some examples: Svedberg, Gus...had rough first years, but so do a lot of players. If we were the Oilers, then perhaps we can live through the growing pains, but we aren't. We want to repeat, they weren't the d-men for that THIS YEAR. But that in no way means they haven't learned and will come back bigger and stronger and smarter next year. They may not, but there's as good of a chance that they may.

Secondly, every year, some player comes up from the AHL or NCAA and plays well enough to stick. Someone no one expected. We have one on our team. His name is Andrew Shaw. He wasn't some highly touted prospect coming out of juniors. He wasn't a huge scorer. But look at him now.

All I'm saying is enough with the absolutism on young players.
- CanOCorn

Wow... Im not one of those folks. Ive said many times that Sveds has alot to work with as does Gus. D is a tough position to learn/play in the NHL. I will say is that Q may not be helping their development at the moment.

The amazing thing about these boards is the absolute certainty that some player is dog poop and will always be dog poop. Or that a player has no chance of ever improving.

Let's give some examples: Svedberg, Gus...had rough first years, but so do a lot of players. If we were the Oilers, then perhaps we can live through the growing pains, but we aren't. We want to repeat, they weren't the d-men for that THIS YEAR. But that in no way means they haven't learned and will come back bigger and stronger and smarter next year. They may not, but there's as good of a chance that they may.

Secondly, every year, some player comes up from the AHL or NCAA and plays well enough to stick. Someone no one expected. We have one on our team. His name is Andrew Shaw. He wasn't some highly touted prospect coming out of juniors. He wasn't a huge scorer. But look at him now.

All I'm saying is enough with the absolutism on young players.
- CanOCorn

For me its not just about having a bad season, but did I see some improvement and/or something positive during the season. TvR made some mistakea, but he also did a lot that was very good. I can't say the same for Svedberg.

You're right about the team finding a hidden gem, he does have a track record of that - Shaw, TvR, Panarin, Darling, and even Kruger was a late round pick.

There are still far too many unknowns with regard to expansion (one team ove next two years or two teams at once, start next year or the year after, NMC's must stay or not, compliance buyouts or not, can you subtract exempt players from the 25% cap exposure rule) for the FO to concern themselves with anything other than next year's immediate needs.

That all means:

Cap of $74-75MM for next year.

Bickell gets bought out. Only path. No market for the guy unless some team does the Hawks a favor. Which I doubt. So you take the $1.5MM and $1.0MM cap hits to net $1.5MM in space for 2016-17.

Status of Scuderi. There is over $1MM in cap riding on his decision to hang em up or play another season.

Panarin's deal will not get redone until before the expansion draft next summer, because it does not have to be done until then. He will be exempted from the draft anyway.

The only scenario under which Shaw is resigned this year is if he accepts a one year QO minimum deal at $2MM. If the whispers regarding his durability are true, it makes sense to limit their exposure anyway. His situation dictates any further movement on the offensive side of things. No NHL ready talent exists in Rockford at this time, except perhaps Rasmussen. I think Panik signs at a low cap hit, and Weise and Fleischmann are still in play for reasonable hits as well. How these deals play out will dictate what can be done to add, or retain Ladd (not likely, but who knows?)as a decent LW.

Kempny is step one of two required to repair the D situation. Being on an ELC with under two years NHL service makes him exempt from the draft as well. I bet the next move is to find that sixth player on D that is not someone from Rockford. None of those kids are ready yet. I expect dealing TT to potentially be a part of a deal for that last D player, or to create some cap space for the last D player. I would hope they are looking at guys like Schlemko and Polak, with the pipedream of Campbell at a really low number as a very remote possibility.

If the revolving door was in fact a team chemistry issue as Toews led on in post playoff interviews, I expect the FO to have a minimum of roster changes and reconstitute next year's team largely from the personnel on the roster at the end of last season.

A 2017-18 cap of $75,250,000 (which assumes a VERY minimal cap increase from 2016-17 at $74-75MM) allows the Hawks to retain 75% of that in cap. That means they can keep Toews, Kane, Hossa, AA, Kruger, Keith, Seabrook, Hammer and Crawford with $15K in cap to spare, with Kempny and Panarin exempt from the draft.

The biggest worry for the Hawks going forward is that the margin of talent is no longer what is was able to be, and their success will ultimately depend upon the ability of the team and its players to play their best hockey. Parity.

JJ, if you had to rank the likelihood of movement for TT, Shaw, CC, what would your ranking of those three be??
- 93Joe

I would say either Shaw and/or TT, COMBINED with buying out or (remotely) possibly packaging Bickell, are more likely to be moved.

There are still far too many unknowns with regard to expansion (one team ove next two years or two teams at once, start next year or the year after, NMC's must stay or not, compliance buyouts or not, can you subtract exempt players from the 25% cap exposure rule) for the FO to concern themselves with anything other than next year's immediate needs.

That all means:

Cap of $74-75MM for next year.

Bickell gets bought out. Only path. No market for the guy unless some team does the Hawks a favor. Which I doubt. So you take the $1.5MM and $1.0MM cap hits to net $1.5MM in space for 2016-17.

Status of Scuderi. There is over $1MM in cap riding on his decision to hang em up or play another season.

- Return of the Roar

Panarin's deal will not get redone until before the expansion draft next summer, because it does not have to be done until then. He will be exempted from the draft anyway.

The only scenario under which Shaw is resigned this year is if he accepts a one year QO minimum deal at $2MM. If the whispers regarding his durability are true, it makes sense to limit their exposure anyway. His situation dictates any further movement on the offensive side of things. No NHL ready talent exists in Rockford at this time, except perhaps Rasmussen. I think Panik signs at a low cap hit, and Weise and Fleischmann are still in play for reasonable hits as well. How these deals play out will dictate what can be done to add, or retain Ladd (not likely, but who knows?)as a decent LW.

Kempny is step one of two required to repair the D situation. Being on an ELC with under two years NHL service makes him exempt from the draft as well. I bet the next move is to find that sixth player on D that is not someone from Rockford. None of those kids are ready yet. I expect dealing TT to potentially be a part of a deal for that last D player, or to create some cap space for the last D player. I would hope they are looking at guys like Schlemko and Polak, with the pipedream of Campbell at a really low number as a very remote possibility.

If the revolving door was in fact a team chemistry issue as Toews led on in post playoff interviews, I expect the FO to have a minimum of roster changes and reconstitute next year's team largely from the personnel on the roster at the end of last season.

A 2017-18 cap of $75,250,000 (which assumes a VERY minimal cap increase from 2016-17 at $74-75MM) allows the Hawks to retain 75% of that in cap. That means they can keep Toews, Kane, Hossa, AA, Kruger, Keith, Seabrook, Hammer and Crawford with $15K in cap to spare, with Kempny and Panarin exempt from the draft.

The biggest worry for the Hawks going forward is that the margin of talent is no longer what is was able to be, and their success will ultimately depend upon the ability of the team and its players to play their best hockey. Parity.

If Stan waits until next summer to try and re-sign Panarin, Panarin will receive an offer sheet that we can't match and will be gone. Stan either locks him up long term this summer, or that's it for Panarin as a Hawk. The kid already said he wants he wants to get paid.

Who said I refused to see that the cap will require change? I think I flat out said it would. My point is that Stan doesn't have to go overboard in trades just to create cap space. If $2 million is required then trade Shaw, not Crawford.

I think we've seen enough over the past several seasons to realize that very few guys are safe in the off season. But Stan doesn't strike me as the type of guy who would panic. Has Stan contemplated various trade scenarios both big and small, of course he has, that's his job. But considering a move and actually taking action are two different things.
- DarthKane

But maybe Stan needs to take a longer view, look at what's in Rockford, what FAs they're likely to sign - and say - we need to create some serious cap room over the next couple of years to resign Panarin, Shaw (?), get some problem solvers who won't be just short-term stop-gaps, and keep this going while the remaining core (Toews, Kane, Keith, Seabrook, Hjalmarsson) are still able to drive Cup contention.

I would say either Shaw and/or TT, COMBINED with buying out or (remotely) possibly packaging Bickell, are more likely to be moved.
- John Jaeckel

If both 65/86 go in a trade say for that #4 D, that opens mores holes on the wing. Tough decisions..... Id rather just buy 29 out and only have to move 65 or 86, not both.

If Stan waits until next summer to try and re-sign Panarin, Panarin will receive an offer sheet that we can't match and will be gone.
- Murph76

Since he is an RFA, offer sheets cannot be made until after the last day a QO can be made by the RFAs current team. That is the day after the entry draft.

CanoCorn

I completely agree. Here is Gustafsson's numbers for the season:
Games 41
Goals 0
Assists 14
Points 14
+/- +11

From a 23 rookie. That's the big thing, he was a ROOKIE!!! Is he going to be the next Keith or Seabrook? Problem not, but could he be the next Odyua, or Rozsival for the team? Possibly. But to cast him aside and think that he will not and cannot improve after his rookie season, is ridiculous. You have to give him a chance to work on his game. If he doesn't work hard and put the effort in to improve, see ya. But give him a chance to prove he belongs. I know the turnover in game 7 that pretty much cost the series is tough to swallow, but he will learn from it and hopefully use it as motivation.

If Stan waits until next summer to try and re-sign Panarin, Panarin will receive an offer sheet that we can't match and will be gone. Stan either locks him up long term this summer, or that's it for Panarin as a Hawk. The kid already said he wants he wants to get paid.
- Murph76

I agree Murph. Not to mention, waiting on an extension allows Panarin to increase his $$ figure with another Top 10 or maybe Top 5 scoring year. If the Hawks re-sign him this summer, maybe you can get him in the $5-6mil range. Another 75point season and its $7mil+/year. If Stan hasn't learned his lesson from Saad, then maybe another General Manager should be running things. CANNOT continue to purge Top Line talent with minimal to no return.

I agree Murph. Not to mention, waiting on an extension allows Panarin to increase his $$ figure with another Top 10 or maybe Top 5 scoring year. If the Hawks re-sign him this summer, maybe you can get him in the $5-6mil range. Another 75point season and its $7mil+/year. If Stan hasn't learned his lesson from Saad, then maybe another General Manager should be running things. CANNOT continue to purge Top Line talent with minimal to no return.
- EnzoD

Stan got a legit #2 C for Saad. That guy (AA) helped Kane to a career/MVP type year. Considering how that contract crap with Saad went south at the last minute, Stan did okay with that. Just wish we still had Dano.

I agree Murph. Not to mention, waiting on an extension allows Panarin to increase his $$ figure with another Top 10 or maybe Top 5 scoring year. If the Hawks re-sign him this summer, maybe you can get him in the $5-6mil range. Another 75point season and its $7mil+/year. If Stan hasn't learned his lesson from Saad, then maybe another General Manager should be running things. CANNOT continue to purge Top Line talent with minimal to no return.
- EnzoD

Since Panarin's current deal has over $2.5MM in annual incentive pay over his $800K base, it is safe to say he will hit his numbers again whether you sign him or not.

If the dude wants $7MM, he is gone. Not possible to keep him without giving up equal loss elsewhere on the team.

2 random questions for further discussion -

1) Do you think Stan and the FO will do something wild (either this draft or at the TDL) to make a bigger splash for the draft in Chicago?

2) Any chance that Mtl has questions about Price's health and would entertain thoughts of bringing CC back home? (Not saying trade CP for CC)

2 random questions for further discussion -

1) Do you think Stan and the FO will do something wild (either this draft or at the TDL) to make a bigger splash for the draft in Chicago?

2) Any chance that Mtl has questions about Price's health and would entertain thoughts of bringing CC back home? (Not saying trade CP for CC)
- powerenforcer

No and No.

Stan got a legit #2 C for Saad. That guy (AA) helped Kane to a career/MVP type year. Considering how that contract crap with Saad went south at the last minute, Stan did okay with that. Just wish we still had Dano.
- z1990z

Saad is by FAR the superior player to both Anisimov and Dano combined. Dano looks like a 3RW to me. Saad is a 30 goal/year 1LW and Anisimov is a solid 2/3C. Would rather have Saad and so would StanBo. You are right, Stan did OK in that deal, but a similar scenario with Panarin is still a net loss for the club. Remember when dirt cheap Brad Richards and Handzus were competent 2C's for Super-Scorer Patrick Kane? Those top 6 forward groups (with Stud LW Saad next to Toews-Hossa) were far more balanced than last years' club with a solid 2C but no 1LW.

Since he is an RFA, offer sheets cannot be made until after the last day a QO can be made by the RFAs current team. That is the day after the entry draft.
- Return of the Roar

Plus, you have to think...if the kid has an 70+ point season again, his head is just going to get bigger and bigger and he's going to want even more $. I say the sooner we lock him up for 4+ years, the better!

Since Panarin's current deal has over $2.5MM in annual incentive pay over his $800K base, it is safe to say he will hit his numbers again whether you sign him or not.

If the dude wants $7MM, he is gone. Not possible to keep him without giving up equal loss elsewhere on the team.
- Return of the Roar

75 point scorers, in today's NHL, get $7mil+/year. Saad averaged 50 points/year and got $6mil/6yrs. So, IMO, try to lock him up long term with a $5-6mil cap hit this summer or I fear he will be gone after this year.