I think that's a little harsh overall. Not writing the Hawks off just yet. Let's wait and see what happens. The gap between all the top teams is very small and all the teams have some flaws. Hawks are still closer to the top than the bottom.

In terms of those players. 5 & 53 don't belong on any roster, their ice time remains a mystery. 43 needs more time in the AHL. I think 52 & 70 given the chance to continue to develop would be fine.
- TheTrob

I chose to ignore it...

...gonna be a long summer.

Congrats to the Sharks, now let me think, could 5,43,52 ,53 or70 crack the Sharks line up , not a god dam snow balls chance in hell. You got your work cut out for you Stanley. Some one said it best that the closest thing we had to Pavelski was Saad.
Don't have much faith in the over seas crap, Illgive ya the D man, but the other 2..... Never make it past Rockford, but some think they are Crawford and Shaws replacements! Serve me up some Grape please! Looking at next years roster unless there are some god forsaking surprise like a Blockbuster trade that nets us some Bonified Canadien Talent, I'm expecting probably a full playoff ticket refund or possibly not having to send in any doe at all. The rest of the league has caught up to the 21million dollar men! The 2 lived up to their slogan in the playoffs "one goal" between the 2of them!
- wonthecup10

We won the cup last year with 4 defensemen. We did not play dominating hockey most of this year save for about 15 games. None of the other teams are going to be the same next year either. Pump the brakes a little. No, it won't be easy, and I'm sure there will be a couple of head scratching decisions along the way. That said, if you are already writing off next year, you might need some meditation in your life.

- FourFeathers773

Priceless...

Well there's no banner for that. Who's the big loser? Hocks or blues? blues. blues lose. I'd much rather go out in the first round if you don't win it all. How is it that the blues didn't even show up?

GO SHORKSSSHHKKS

Hitchcock gone? Thoughts?
- TheTrob

I think hes back on a other one year deal. Theyll make changes and they have a lotnof good young players. Hitch is a good coach. Not sure there is a better option out there. If you can bring him back on another one year deal then I think theyll do it. They should contend again next year.

Did anyone else catch Wakey Wakey Backes crying like a little b_tch????

That made my night!!!!!
- dahawks8819

Damn I missed that. Gotta find the pix.

Not gonna revel in their loss cuz there are a few guys on their team I like. Plus I don't want the karma to cross over to baseball. Cubs are 4-2 vs the RedBirds in StL thus far, hanging on 9-8 yesterday.

Good luck to the Sharks but I am pulling for the Bolts.

Damn I missed that. Gotta find the pix.

Not gonna revel in their loss cuz there are a few guys on their team I like. Plus I don't want the karma to cross over to baseball. Cubs are 4-2 vs the RedBirds in StL thus far, hanging on 9-8 yesterday.

Good luck to the Sharks but I am pulling for the Bolts.
- blackhawk24

Yes you do!!!!

He was whining about how he didn't feel good the other night, and Ott brought him something to feel better.

I swear it was like listening to an eight year old with a tummy ache!!!

Do you think the front office wants to wait for another situation? You pointed this out last summer when the incident did happen and how furious the front office was. You mentioned that Kane's future did not look good in a Hawks uniform.

Personally with Panarin on board, I feel better about losing Kane. Besides the return for him should be outstanding. I really don't want us go through another another situation like last year.

Yes Kane is a Generational Talent, but he is also a generational pain in the butt. I would argue that Panarin could eclipse Kane. I can't wait for the season to start to see how a year of NHL ice time has changed Panarin. IF I were the Front Office I would do everything possible to lock him to a long term deal now, because I will bet he puts up even better numbers next season.


- gifman

These are really good questions. It's hard to say without being a close confidant of John McDonough and Rocky Wirtz.

But . . . ased on what I heard last summer . . . and what I have seen since (including the South Bend presser) is . . . one more "incident" and there will be some conversations and a serious exploration of moving him.
Some will say yeah, but how is that "fair" when there was nothing tot he allegations against him this past summer.

Problem is, no one knows there was nothing to it. All we really know is it was dropped. There could be a lot of reasons or combinations of reasons why and they don't necessarily mean Kane was completely innocent. Further, he had "two strikes" against him already (the cab incident, which I've heard may have been a lot worse than what he was charged with, and Madison). He is a public figure and very highly paid employee. CEO's are getting fired right and left these days for having affairs.

So my strong sense is, as long as he stays out of the papers and the police blotter, he's fine. One more "incident," even if its his cousin or some other numbskull and not him—he knows now he must show better judgement about the places he goes, what he does and who he does them with—and they will probably find a way to part ways with him.

And it might not take that. If the team feels his behavior is heading that way regardless? I can see them preemptively moving before something blows up in their faces.

But there's no evidence of that that I've heard.

one or two-way contracts only means what they are paid where they play. Has nothing to do with waiver status, roster spots or anything else related to playing time.

It only concerns money. That's it. They signed him to a one-way because he s older and wouldn't sign with anyone for a two-way deal. He could make more by just staying in Sweden if he was making AHL level money.
- TTtime

That's correct, as I understand it. Congratulations, you've responded to a point I did not make.

What you responded to was my post that it is unusual for a team to carry three goaltenders—not because there is a rule against it (I am not aware of one) but because the third goalie would basically just be a wasted roster spot in most cases, better occupied by a skater who will likely play more.

If your implication is that three one-way contracts does not necessarily mean someone is getting traded, I looked into it last night and I think that's correct. And I like some others may have been living in a pre-2013 CBA mindset yesterday. Mea culpa there.

If you think that "pokes a hole" in the theory/whispers that Crawford might be dealt for cap reasons, that's incorrect. Those rumors have been out there from valid sources for over a year. The cap issues are what they are. The Panarin deal is a major concern for the team.

There's a lot to respect/appreciate about this Blues team, so I'm not necessarily taking pleasure solely in the fact that they lost.

However, I don't want to live in a world where Steve Ott hoists the Stanley Cup.

So, thank you San Jose.

JJ

This idea of moving Kane if he gets into trouble again is a head scratcher for me. Just as the Hawks are raked over the barrel because of the cap and Stan's "hands are tied", why would be moving a 'damaged goods' Patrick Kane not be the same thing. I could see us getting ripped off big time if Kane is traded under the auspices of bad behavior. Once again, the Hawks are trading from a point of disadvantage. This is assuming they could even move him at all with him undergoing any further investigation.

Or do you suggest that the Hawks could get "fair market value" for him even if he was wearing an orange jump suit.

I do NOT want to trade this guy at all, he's magical, but IF they did then I'd rather do it from the point of the Hawks having leverage. Another couple more trades like we've seed lately (2 #2s for Kimo, Johns, Rundblad trade, the Daley fiasco, trading a 2 and a spec for press box fodder) then this organization will have nothing in the way of quality depth to show.

JJ

This idea of moving Kane if he gets into trouble again is a head scratcher for me. Just as the Hawks are raked over the barrel because of the cap and Stan's "hands are tied", why would be moving a 'damaged goods' Patrick Kane not be the same thing. I could see us getting ripped off big time if Kane is traded under the auspices of bad behavior. Once again, the Hawks are trading from a point of disadvantage. This is assuming they could even move him at all with him undergoing any further investigation.

Or do you suggest that the Hawks could get "fair market value" for him even if he was wearing an orange jump suit.

I do NOT want to trade this guy at all, he's magical, but IF they did then I'd rather do it from the point of the Hawks having leverage. Another couple more trades like we've seed lately (2 #2s for Kimo, Johns, Rundblad trade, the Daley fiasco, trading a 2 and a spec for press box fodder) then this organization will have nothing in the way of quality depth to show.
- kwolf68

I agree, if you trade Kane do it while he is on top. BUT, if Breadman likes playing with Kane as a linemate, what does that do to his future with the Blackhawks? Dare trade both, to replenish the team via young assets and picks? That would be a MEGA-BLOCKBUSTER of a trade.....

Trade Kane and this is a lottery team. Nobody is giving the Hawks anything close to his full value. He is a threat on every shift and a dynamic, game breaker on offense. THE MVP OF THE LEAGUE! Nobody is going to create 3 roster holes to add Kane. He's going nowhere anytime soon, IMO.

I agree, if you trade Kane do it while he is on top. BUT, if Breadman likes playing with Kane as a linemate, what does that do to his future with the Blackhawks? Dare trade both, to replenish the team via young assets and picks? That would be a MEGA-BLOCKBUSTER of a trade.....
- powerenforcer

I had suggested this already but no one responded.

I would rather watch these 2 play and never win again than to trade them and win the cup for the next 6 years with a boring bunch. I'll take the globetrotters.

GO ??????

There's a lot to respect/appreciate about this Blues team, so I'm not necessarily taking pleasure solely in the fact that they lost.

However, I don't want to live in a world where Steve Ott hoists the Stanley Cup.

So, thank you San Jose.
- Chief4Feathers

Good for SJ .Putting Ott or Bakus name on the cup ,would be like someone spit on the dam thing ..

Trade Kane and this is a lottery team. Nobody is giving the Hawks anything close to his full value. He is a threat on every shift and a dynamic, game breaker on offense. THE MVP OF THE LEAGUE! Nobody is going to create 3 roster holes to add Kane. He's going nowhere anytime soon, IMO.
- EnzoD

I don't know if they'd be a lottery team, but they certainly would not be a contender. I agree that Chicago would not get close to full value in return. Plus, as others had mentioned Kane is a marketing diamond for this team. Off the ice his value is almost has great as it is on the ice.

I had suggested this already but no one responded.

I would rather watch these 2 play and never win again than to trade them and win the cup for the next 6 years with a boring bunch. I'll take the globetrotters.

GO ??????
- hocktock

I like it ,but 6 years of cup winning, I could live with boring

That's correct, as I understand it. Congratulations, you've responded to a point I did not make.

What you responded to was my post that it is unusual for a team to carry three goaltenders—not because there is a rule against it (I am not aware of one) but because the third goalie would basically just be a wasted roster spot in most cases, better occupied by a skater who will likely play more.

If your implication is that three one-way contracts does not necessarily mean someone is getting traded, I looked into it last night and I think that's correct. And I like some others may have been living in a pre-2013 CBA mindset yesterday. Mea culpa there.

If you think that "pokes a hole" in the theory/whispers that Crawford might be dealt for cap reasons, that's incorrect. Those rumors have been out there from valid sources for over a year. The cap issues are what they are. The Panarin deal is a major concern for the team.
- John Jaeckel

Yeah, that was me who was going by the old rules and the fact that no team carries 3 G's. My bad. I tried to read up on the new rules a bit, and Darling and LJ would have to clear waivers due to their age and or games played in order to be sent down to Rockford, correct?

Yeah, that was me who was going by the old rules and the fact that no team carries 3 G's. My bad. I tried to read up on the new rules a bit, and Darling and LJ would have to clear waivers due to their age and or games played in order to be sent down to Rockford, correct?
- Sundevil

I think Darling would but not LJ, but I am not 100% certain. If both are subject to waivers then I would say there is a very good chance Stan will move a goalie this summer.

St. Louis is their own worst enemy. They have all the pieces. Solid D, above average although unproven goaltending, plenty of skill players mixed with some good physical players as well. When they concentrate on playing their game they can come up with performances like when they blew out the Sharks. Unfortunately I think it's possible to get both their coach and captain off their games, and the team follows them down the rabbit hole. Close series against equally talented teams is where your captain makes a difference. It's why Toews and Kopitar are successful and probably why the Sharks win after switching from Thornton to Pavelski.
- TheTrob

IMHO the Blues didn't lose the Sharks won! I've said it before, I'll say it again the Sharks won with grit. The Blackhawks need to take note.

Didn't keep track and it's not a stat that anyone tracks (at least that I know of) but the Sharks won this series on the BOARDS. Time and time again they came out of those battles with the puck. They aren't the fastest and weren't always the first to the puck but they went in and dug it out.

They also refused to let Blues plant players in front of their goalie.

IMHO the Blues didn't lose the Sharks won! I've said it before, I'll say it again the Sharks won with grit. The Blackhawks need to take note.

Didn't keep track and it's not a stat that anyone tracks (at least that I know of) but the Sharks won this series on the BOARDS. Time and time again they came out of those battles with the puck. They aren't the fastest and weren't always the first to the puck but they went in and dug it out.

They also refused to let Blues plant players in front of their goalie.
- walleyeb1

Vlasic did a great job shutting down Tarasenko, that's not an easy thing to do.

Please no more "trade Kane" talk... It's old. We all have our opinions on Kane and his off ice bullpoop. Keep it hockey.


Sharks-Bolts final.... Hopefully

These are really good questions. It's hard to say without being a close confidant of John McDonough and Rocky Wirtz.

But . . . ased on what I heard last summer . . . and what I have seen since (including the South Bend presser) is . . . one more "incident" and there will be some conversations and a serious exploration of moving him.
Some will say yeah, but how is that "fair" when there was nothing tot he allegations against him this past summer.

Problem is, no one knows there was nothing to it. All we really know is it was dropped. There could be a lot of reasons or combinations of reasons why and they don't necessarily mean Kane was completely innocent. Further, he had "two strikes" against him already (the cab incident, which I've heard may have been a lot worse than what he was charged with, and Madison). He is a public figure and very highly paid employee. CEO's are getting fired right and left these days for having affairs.

So my strong sense is, as long as he stays out of the papers and the police blotter, he's fine. One more "incident," even if its his cousin or some other numbskull and not him—he knows now he must show better judgement about the places he goes, what he does and who he does them with—and they will probably find a way to part ways with him.

And it might not take that. If the team feels his behavior is heading that way regardless? I can see them preemptively moving before something blows up in their faces.

But there's no evidence of that that I've heard.
- John Jaeckel

I agree with what you are saying. From a personal stand point if I were in Stan's position I'm listening to any offer that comes my way for Kane. If I get a deal like what happened to Saad where the offer was to good to pass up.

IMHO the Blues didn't lose the Sharks won! I've said it before, I'll say it again the Sharks won with grit. The Blackhawks need to take note.

Didn't keep track and it's not a stat that anyone tracks (at least that I know of) but the Sharks won this series on the BOARDS. Time and time again they came out of those battles with the puck. They aren't the fastest and weren't always the first to the puck but they went in and dug it out.

They also refused to let Blues plant players in front of their goalie.
- walleyeb1

The Sharks have some bigger dmen to move opposing forwards. Hawks have Seabrook and Hammer. Players like TVR, Gus, Rundblad all do not have the strength/size to move players.

I agree with what you are saying. From a personal stand point if I were in Stan's position I'm listening to any offer that comes my way for Kane. If I get a deal like what happened to Saad where the offer was to good to pass up.



- gifman

The Hawks still "lost" the Saad trade. Dano looks like a 3rd liner and Anisimov can't hold Saad's jockstrap. Given how good Panarin+ Kane are, nearly any competent Center would have been fine on that line. Any time you are getting lesser players back via trade, that's not a "home run" trade.

Saad on Toews line with Brad Richards between 88+72 would have given the Hawks 2 scoring lines instead of one.