Shaw is an RFA, so if you are going to trade his rights you need to get back more than he would bring by signing somewhere else:

$1,826,328-to-$3,652,659 Second-round pick
$3,652,659-to-$5,478,986 First and third-round picks
$5,478,986-to-$7,305,316 First, second and third-round picks

It's all a matter of what type of contract you think he will demand. If I'm the Hawks I am assuming that his ask will be in the second tier above, so return needs to be at least a first round Pick+
- TheTrob

Andrew Shaw - just looking at the top numbers:

322 games, 70 goals ( one 20-goal season), 137 points, 3rd/4th line minutes -

(A) Why would anyone sign him approaching $4MM per year - AND (B) why would anyone want to give up a 1st and 3rd round pick?

I like what he brings - his grit, his jump, his pestyness - goes to the net - but he's a bottom-6er who can occasionally / temporarily / in emergencies move up.

I would look at an offer sheet of $3MM - $3.5MM.

Hard to say, dealing rights a week before the guy could go to RFA is tricky. But it gets done. Def a late first round pick at minimum IMO, player/prospect wise harder to say.
- John Jaeckel

Thanks for responding but I will be surprised if he nets a first.

Depends on the team and the matchups. Kruger was all on Getzlaf and Kesler like stink on poop whenever Q could get the matchup in the 2015 WCF. Just one example.

Short memories.

Funny, the "mad props" for the Hawks' judgement ("they've won 3 Cups," etc) except when it comes to Kruger.

But there's a reason he is never offered in trade and is being paid $3 million a year.

It's not because he's Stanley's Little Bobo, nor because he doesn't score enough goals for some.
- John Jaeckel

...and the Sharp trade
...and the Saad trade
...and paying too much for Kane and Toews
...and the poor deadline deals this season
...and for all things Teravainen
...and for overpaying for Seabrook
...and for likely losing Shaw
...and trading Daley
...and for playing TvR too much
...and for trading and re-signing Rundblad (ok, this one is fair)
...and for not trading or buying out Bickell
...and trading Leddy
...and not giving young guys a chance (Q hates young guys)
...and trading Anders Nilsson
...and trading Garbutt
...and waiving Sekac
...and waiving Tikhonov
...and all things Mashinter (ok, this one is fair too)


Did I miss anything?

You fail to acknowledge his new deal is essentially an extension of the bridge deal signed last offseason. He took a cap friendly deal and was promised to be compensated later. I look at it as a 4yr/10.75m deal. Wrist injuries are notorious for sapping power for quite some time after (see baseball players), so it's understandable he is not near 100%.

Kruger checks off more Hawk needs than Shaw. 19 is the only other C that can win a faceoff. Kruger also excels on the PK. Kruger is not asked to score. Sure, Shaw can fill in at C in a pinch, but he is more suited to play wing. He does not play the PK either. A physical bottom 6 winger is a lot easier to replace than a bottom 6 C who can win faceoffs and kill penalties. We see how valuable center depth is year after year in the playoffs.
- Antz96

we can agree to disagree.

For 1 you can't consider it a bridge deal or spread out the cap hit because that's NOT what the deal is....Fact is it's a 3+ million cap hit per year. It's a technicality and I agree that may have been thinking but it hits the books in full.

I can argue the same rationale in regards to Shaw's importance on the PP as Kruger's on the PK. Shaw can play 1lw as easy as 3c or 4lw and not skip a beat. Kurger can't do that. Hawks are limited in their net front presence type of players and very guys go in front of the net like Shaw. Look at game 2...Screens Elliott on Keiths' blast, scores dirty goal, nets win....those are what wins in playoffs...not waiting on a highlight real back door 1 timer every PP.

And Toews, Hossa are better PK players then Kruger, and it's not like the Hawks PK was lights' out in the playoffs vs the Blues....if it were they'd still be playing...

Again....agree to disagree......it's the nature of the beast. Hawks chose Kruger and I'll have to suck it up, but I just hate that choice and feel it's a grave mistake. Time will tell.....Feel Shaw's NHL career will outweigh Kruger's when it's all said and done.....what will I remember Marcus for...compared to what will I remember Shaw for........

For as supposedly as smart as a hockey IQ player Kruger is, I have never seen a professional in a long time put himself in such bad spots to get absolutely smoked in regards to checks by opposing teams...every game he gets smoked and I just wait to see him head back to the room.........

All else being equal, Shaw is a much better player.

I think it's the all else (in addition to his salary demands) that make him tradeable.
- John Jaeckel

Since we have no idea of what is demands are or what the all else may be, trading him and signing Weise makes the team worse. IMO.

There is no way in the world Weise is more skilled then Shaw. In Montreal he was used in a role because of injuries and had a very hot start due to an unsustainable shooting percentage. Weise can't play center. OR LW for that matter. He sure the heck can't be used in a shutdown role. He is terrible defensively.

Also. Go look at what Weise did over the 65 games of the season. Weise barely sniffed 20 goals in 2 seasons let alone one.

Shaw is better and its not even close.
- TTtime

Shaw is not a perennial 20-goal scorer nor is Weise... Shaw is a more versatile player and in a perfect world he goes nowhere... If I'm a GM I'm taking Shaw every time, but to say Weise can't even dream of being the same player as shaw is a stretch, and that's the point I was making. We are talking about Andrew Shaw, not Patrick Kane. Shaw is replaceable as a depth player... I love the guy and love his heart, but he's a 20-Goal scorer 1 time and plays with an edge that, combined with his size, is likely not sustainable long-term. His value is high right now, and if given the option of keeping shaw or finding a #4 d-man well bye bye Shawzy... Weise of game 6 was very impressive, and the first time he was utilized properly wearing the Hawks sweater... He certainly isn't the answer either... Both similar players though and if imagine get similar contracts all said and done (but who knows at this point)

At the end of the day, BOTH are replaceable... And likely both will need to be replaced

Isn't Pittsburgh a team similar to the Hawks in terms of cap difficulties and two high priced super stars? They also traded away picks and prospects over the past few years like the Hawks. They seemed to have turned it around, so what can Hawks management learn from them?

Maybe a coaching change?
- Dieselhead

Hawk management could learn to sign their two superstars to $8.7MM and $9.5MM, thus saving almost $3MM per year.

Completely agree. If you rephrase the question as "If you could cancel out one of the opposition's best centers for 3.5m/yr, would you?" a lot more people would say yes.
- Antz96

That is if you think one player can shut down another. It takes the whole 5 man unit to do it.

Since we have no idea of what is demands are or what the all else may be, trading him and signing Weise makes the team worse. IMO.
- TTtime

I agree with you there... Trading Shaw and signing Weise would be counter-productive

Shaw is not a perennial 20-goal scorer nor is Weise... Shaw is a more versatile player and in a perfect world he goes nowhere... If I'm a GM I'm taking Shaw every time, but to say Weise can't even dream of being the same player as shaw is a stretch, and that's the point I was making. We are talking about Andrew Shaw, not Patrick Kane. Shaw is replaceable as a depth player... I love the guy and love his heart, but he's a 20-Goal scorer 1 time and plays with an edge that, combined with his size, is likely not sustainable long-term. His value is high right now, and if given the option of keeping shaw or finding a #4 d-man well bye bye Shawzy... Weise of game 6 was very impressive, and the first time he was utilized properly wearing the Hawks sweater... He certainly isn't the answer either... Both similar players though and if imagine get similar contracts all said and done (but who knows at this point)

At the end of the day, BOTH are replaceable... And likely both will need to be replaced
- Frenchy4488

I disagree that all depth players are replaceable. Ever notice that Kris Draper was always a part of those Red Wing powerhouse teams. That is what Shaw means to the Hawks.

Kruger is not being dealt this summer, guys. Not happening. Not because I say so. But because of the deal they just did with him—and they highly value him.

As hard as this may be for some to wrap their heads around, I have heard Shaw being offered by the Hawks in MANY deals.

Kruger? NEVER.

They are different kinds of players, and I will by no means dis Shaw and what he brings (98% of the time) on the ice.

But I will say, based on what I've heard, I would be a LOT more worried about Shaw's future injury risk than Kruger's. And I hear the Hawks are.

The whole Kruger as Pat LaFontaine Concussion Veggie about to happen narrative is not based in reality. He's had a couple of brief absences due to concussion.

You win hockey games with Andrew Shaw or Marcus Kruger, albeit somewhat for different reasons. And Kruger's teammates think very highly of him. He is not a little ball of hate like Shaw but he has a titanic heart. They just can't afford both.

I also think they believe Kruger has some more upside.
- John Jaeckel

Shaw's back may not hold up. I get that.....we shall see.

However, Kruger's coming off a substantial wrist injury for a center that is very alarming.

I don't buy the upside thing...I'm sorry. It's not there....For years I heard about Bolland's and Bolland at least produced in big moments and given the chance in 2013 as #2 center he bombed and consequently was moved because of his cap hit and value brought back.

Kruger hasn'st sniffed Bolland's big game moments and I can't even name more then 1 big Kruger goal outside of OT vs Anh.

I just hate the deal. Really do. Way too much money for a player with very little return. I hope I am dead wrong, but I can't complain about bad deals neither ran anyone backing Kruger after what he got. Pure robbery. God bless his agent.

Marcus Kruger.....went into wrist surgery with 1 point and came out 3 million dollars a year richer on the other side............

Doesn't Winnipeg have a young goalie - Helleybeuck (sp?) - that they're high on?
- StLBravesFan

Yes sir. Hutchinson and Hellybeuck I think is their desired tandem in the near future.

I disagree that all depth players are replaceable. Ever notice that Kris Draper was always a part of those Red Wing powerhouse teams. That is what Shaw means to the Hawks.
- TTtime

Sand paper guys are worth their weight in gold come big boy time.....especially those who also produce.

Shaw is that perfect storm. Oh well.....I'll have to move on......

I disagree that all depth players are replaceable. Ever notice that Kris Draper was always a part of those Red Wing powerhouse teams. That is what Shaw means to the Hawks.
- TTtime

So lets get rid of TT and Crawford and keep Shaw at 4yrs at 3MM.

we can agree to disagree.

For 1 you can't consider it a bridge deal or spread out the cap hit because that's NOT what the deal is....Fact is it's a 3+ million cap hit per year. It's a technicality and I agree that may have been thinking but it hits the books in full.

I can argue the same rationale in regards to Shaw's importance on the PP as Kruger's on the PK. Shaw can play 1lw as easy as 3c or 4lw and not skip a beat. Kurger can't do that. Hawks are limited in their net front presence type of players and very guys go in front of the net like Shaw. Look at game 2...Screens Elliott on Keiths' blast, scores dirty goal, nets win....those are what wins in playoffs...not waiting on a highlight real back door 1 timer every PP.

And Toews, Hossa are better PK players then Kruger, and it's not like the Hawks PK was lights' out in the playoffs vs the Blues....if it were they'd still be playing...

Again....agree to disagree......it's the nature of the beast. Hawks chose Kruger and I'll have to suck it up, but I just hate that choice and feel it's a grave mistake. Time will tell.....Feel Shaw's NHL career will outweigh Kruger's when it's all said and done.....what will I remember Marcus for...compared to what will I remember Shaw for........

For as supposedly as smart as a hockey IQ player Kruger is, I have never seen a professional in a long time put himself in such bad spots to get absolutely smoked in regards to checks by opposing teams...every game he gets smoked and I just wait to see him head back to the room.........
- SteveRain

They are two solid, different players. It's like playing a game of would you rather. I just think Kruger is a better fit for the team. Honestly the bridge deal followed by the 3 yr deal is better than a 4 yr deal. It allowed the Hawks to attempt to resign Oduya. Without that 1 yr deal the Hawks are in a much worse position last year. On top of that, the sting of the larger cap hit is eased by the rising cap.

They are two solid, different players. It's like playing a game of would you rather. I just think Kruger is a better fit for the team. Honestly the bridge deal followed by the 3 yr deal is better than a 4 yr deal. It allowed the Hawks to attempt to resign Oduya. Without that 1 yr deal the Hawks are in a much worse position last year. On top of that, the sting of the larger cap hit is eased by the rising cap.
- Antz96

So Stan gets the participation trophy for attempting to do his job better?

So Stan gets the participation trophy for attempting to do his job better?
- EnzoD

Never said that. I think Stan thought he could get more relief in the Sharp deal, and the plan would've been to sign Oduya and Kruger. They were both willing to take less to make it work. When Plan A fell through, he had to move on.

I disagree that all depth players are replaceable. Ever notice that Kris Draper was always a part of those Red Wing powerhouse teams. That is what Shaw means to the Hawks.
- TTtime

Despite lack of scoring touch, I always think of Kris Draper when I watch Kruger play. Solid defense by both, but Draper had a bit more scoring touch. That was also a different time for hockey.

Never said that. I think Stan thought he could get more relief in the Sharp deal, and the plan would've been to sign Oduya and Kruger. They were both willing to take less to make it work. When Plan A fell through, he had to move on.
- Antz96

Just razzin you AntMan! TT to the NJD for Severson sounds like a plan

Depends on the team and the matchups. Kruger was all on Getzlaf and Kesler like stink on poop whenever Q could get the matchup in the 2015 WCF. Just one example.

Short memories.

Funny, the "mad props" for the Hawks' judgement ("they've won 3 Cups," etc) except when it comes to Kruger.

But there's a reason he is never offered in trade and is being paid $3 million a year.

It's not because he's Stanley's Little Bobo, nor because he doesn't score enough goals for some.
- John Jaeckel

So was Bolland in 2010 with sedins and the Flyers.

Look...we can go on and on and on and on. Bottom line is I view Kruger as a poor man's john madden, without Maddens' scoring.

I can go Pahlsson to Madden to bOlland to Kruger

When this Hawks team scrambles they lose because of jam up front. You know it. I know it....We arent' talking about a perimeter player here.....

And the reason you may not have heard of Kruger on the block is that Shaw will probably fetch more if you put both out there, right now......even without that asinine deal, I'd bet my life savings Shaw is more attractive on the open market then Kruger.

I hope everyone falls in love with Ryan Hartman......

This also would result in a much worse team. And Kruger still isn't getting traded.
- John Jaeckel

In what regard? Asking Bolland to play a 3/4C is pretty much his wheelhouse and wouldnt be very far off Kruger if healthy

Most of the time he disappointed was either A) when people hoped he would be the 2C in Chicago B) was injured C) trying to live up to that ridiculous contract Florida gave him

If he goes back to a bottom 6 checking center role is anyone really going to complain he isnt doing what is expected of him? I dont really think so. Sure, give Kruger the edge in faceoffs and a slight edge in defensive play, but Bolland likely has a slight edge in offense but Bolland was a pest that was very valuable in the playoffs and was the Marcus Kruger before Marcus Kruger. Bolland was single handedly in Joe Thortons head all series in 2010 and terrorized H.Sedin in his Hart trophy year

Again, if you could get Bolland to come in a replace Kruger as that tweener 3C/4C at half the cost or less, is that really dropping off the roster by much when you have added money to address other areas of the roster now?

They are two solid, different players. It's like playing a game of would you rather. I just think Kruger is a better fit for the team. Honestly the bridge deal followed by the 3 yr deal is better than a 4 yr deal. It allowed the Hawks to attempt to resign Oduya. Without that 1 yr deal the Hawks are in a much worse position last year. On top of that, the sting of the larger cap hit is eased by the rising cap.
- Antz96

Could be but lets not also forget that while we can sit here and praise Hossa's 200 ft game, and I will and stand by it, he's NOT finishing as a top 6 player anymore. That's a fact.

So 19's lw next year will be............Panik? Thought Panik was a good but very little sample size.....Shaw's got the versatility and before Ladd he helped jump start that line.

that's all I am getting at. Oh well....I'm moving on...it's pointless. Just hate when the hawks waste money and lose players because of it.

Andrew Shaw - just looking at the top numbers:

322 games, 70 goals ( one 20-goal season), 137 points, 3rd/4th line minutes -

(A) Why would anyone sign him approaching $4MM per year - AND (B) why would anyone want to give up a 1st and 3rd round pick?

I like what he brings - his grit, his jump, his pestyness - goes to the net - but he's a bottom-6er who can occasionally / temporarily / in emergencies move up.

I would look at an offer sheet of $3MM - $3.5MM.
- StLBravesFan

At $3-3.5MM I would guess that Shaw signs a 1 year deal with the Hawks at around $2.5MM and rolls the dice on becoming a UFA the following year.

In what regard? Asking Bolland to play a 3/4C is pretty much his wheelhouse and wouldnt be very far off Kruger if healthy

Most of the time he disappointed was either A) when people hoped he would be the 2C in Chicago B) was injured C) trying to live up to that ridiculous contract Florida gave him

If he goes back to a bottom 6 checking center role is anyone really going to complain he isnt doing what is expected of him? I dont really think so. Sure, give Kruger the edge in faceoffs and a slight edge in defensive play, but Bolland likely has a slight edge in offense but Bolland was a pest that was very valuable in the playoffs and was the Marcus Kruger before Marcus Kruger. Bolland was single handedly in Joe Thortons head all series in 2010 and terrorized H.Sedin in his Hart trophy year

Again, if you could get Bolland to come in a replace Kruger as that tweener 3C/4C at half the cost or less, is that really dropping off the roster by much when you have added money to address other areas of the roster now?
- hawkeytalkman

What if it comes down to this:

Keeping Kruger, losing Shaw

OR

Trading Kruger, Signing Bolland at $1-$1.5 mil, AND keeping Shaw

which would you do?

What if it comes down to this:

Keeping Kruger, losing Shaw

OR

Trading Kruger, Signing Bolland at $1-$1.5 mil, AND keeping Shaw

which would you do?
- hawkeytalkman

Isn't Bolland's career over? Did he even play in 15 games last year bc of recurring back problems? If Bolland could be close to the 2013 Bolland, sure thing. I think that guy is long gone....