Gotta agree. (One would hope he learned his lesson(s)). If there is another deal out there to improve the team, then I hope he goes with it and doesn't hold out.
- 93Joe

Stan is under a lot less pressure to make better deals now. The vultures will have flown away now that he has a bit of cap space to work with. I hope he does hold out now because I believe there will be a lot of deals out there when the dust settles on free agents.
And as much as I like Shaw, I hope Stan does not go and overpay again. For the kind of $ being talked about several players left without contracts in Aug /Sept can be signed without the long term implications.

A few years back Vancouver traded Schneider to Jersey for a top 10 pick. Turned out to be Bo Horvat. Schneider at the time was an unknown quantity with plenty of upside. Win win for both sides. Crawfords resume far exceeds that of Cory Schneider though all things being equal, there's not much of a gap. Do you not think Crawford is worth a top 10 pick even with the salary cap implications? IMO if they wait till draft day the package offered may be sweetened.
- walter34

Source SPECIFICALLY alluded to THAT DEAL as an example of what the Hawks might try to achieve, thanks

Odd to handle things this way but evidently Yeo was coveted.
- Al

I will repeat the words of a friend of mine...so the blues deided to lock up Mike year, and let their entire team know that
a) when Hitch wanted to move up and out of the head coaches job he could,
b) they could meet their next coach NOW, as he would already be there on the bench
or I thought,
Yeo was going to be taking a bigger chuck of the day to day handling of his future job in the Fall.
I understand the coveting of replacements and it is tough stopping your lower organziation coaches to leave to other NHL teams for opportunities as fresh head coaching positions, but you have to wonder if maybe Hitch may have run out his welcome and his locker room has some disent and Yeo is a way of deflecting it....for the short term.

Not saying Johansson will be an immediate impact just saying that I think he deserves a long look during the preseason.
- Dabearshawks

As do i but we were in the middle of a Crawford replacemen discussion,right?

Source SPECIFICALLY alluded to THAT DEAL as an example of what the Hawks might try to achieve, thanks
- John Jaeckel

And that would be a draft day/last second thing. Stan might wait to see who calls and who is on the board at the time. And for the record, I do not want to see CC go, but this rediculous cap stuff is forcing very difficult decisions. If CC were to go it allows the Hawks to fill some holes and make this team more complete top to bottom.

I think I heard Boomer or Baranby saying that Backes would do a team like Toronto some good in terms of leadership. I think Backes is willing to take a smaller salary but is looking for longer term.

Would they sign Brouwer and let Backes walk?
- 93Joe

I think so but also probably others in line in front of Brouwer.

I will repeat the words of a friend of mine...so the blues deided to lock up Mike year, and let their entire team know that
a) when Hitch wanted to move up and out of the head coaches job he could,
b) they could meet their next coach NOW, as he would already be there on the bench
or I thought,
Yeo was going to be taking a bigger chuck of the day to day handling of his future job in the Fall.
I understand the coveting of replacements and it is tough stopping your lower organziation coaches to leave to other NHL teams for opportunities as fresh head coaching positions, but you have to wonder if maybe Hitch may have run out his welcome and his locker room has some disent and Yeo is a way of deflecting it....for the short term.
- wiz1901

Could be...

Speaking for myself, I don't want him gone. But based on what I have heard and—again—doing the math, it might become necessary.



After that, you have a choice, hold on to all your sacred cows (because there so fricking amazingly awesome!) and a make a slow slide back to the middle of the pack like Detroit has, or make some hard choices.
- John Jaeckel

JJ, I'm with you, it's a foregone conclusion that Crow is gone. Too many goalies signed already and they need the $$$$ elsewhere, particularly D depth and and LW.

I'm just getting having trouble picking out who else would have to go beyond Crawford.

To avoid reasons mentioned for several blogs, the have significant roadblocks or don't create cap savings by moving: Hossa, Keith, Hammer, Seabrook, Toews, Kane, Kruger.

The following could get a healthy return and have fewer obstacles to moving:
Shaw, AA, Panarin, some combination of Hogs

What "sacred cows" are people wrong for assuming that the Hawks will not trade?

Stan is under a lot less pressure to make better deals now. The vultures will have flown away now that he has a bit of cap space to work with. I hope he does hold out now because I believe there will be a lot of deals out there when the dust settles on free agents.
And as much as I like Shaw, I hope Stan does not go and overpay again. For the kind of $ being talked about several players left without contracts in Aug /Sept can be signed without the long term implications.
- 67hawks

Valid point 67. Stan will probably sign Shaw for $10-12 mil for 3-4 years. The cap will disappear rather quickly because of new contracts and extensions. Sure, and I agree the pressure is somewhat alleviated, but if he is targeting a specific free agent that the FO and say Q knows will help the team, shouldn't he act on it before he goes elsewhere? Additionally, if there is a deal for someone that frees up a bit more cap and fetches a useful player and or picks, should he take the deal instead of holding out?

I think so but also probably others in line in front of Brouwer.
- Al

Schwartz for sure. He's probably looking at $5 mil +.

As I said before, if they feel they need the money, then yeah, they have to do it. But until the cap settles, they can't know the full gravity of their position.

Some continue, IMO, to underestimate the severity of the Hawks' cap situation. Yesterday's move helped on a couple of fronts. But they still have to (eventually) sign Panarin AND also ice a team and one would hope is a better team than last year's (that's the other thing some still refuse to get, last year's team was not a Cup-caliber team, not even close).

Let me spell it out, regardless of how you feel about Teuvo, if you lost him in order to re-sign Shaw for more money, you are a marginally worse team, not ANY better, unless Shaw takes his game to some other, highly unlikely level.

It's math. And the same math problem that's been here all summer. How do you re-sign Panarin for big bucks and still improve the team under a stagnant cap?
- John Jaeckel

I don't think you can make the team better without hoping that TVR, Kempny, Gus, Sved, Darling, and the upcoming forwards on ELCs all jell and take meaningful developmental steps. With a stagnant cap, you really can't add anyone else to the core, nor even get depth that is more expensive than an ELC. So the core needs to be rested and play their best, especially when the real season begins.

Say they trade Crawford and give the exact same contract to Panarin. Then, for the next three years, you've got Keith, Seabrook, Hammer, Toews, Kane, Hossa, Panarin, Anisimov, Kruger, and possibly Shaw all locked up. They won't need any raises. So any incremental increase in the cap in the next few years can be devoted totally to depth.

A few years back Vancouver traded Schneider to Jersey for a top 10 pick. Turned out to be Bo Horvat. Schneider at the time was an unknown quantity with plenty of upside. Win win for both sides. Crawfords resume far exceeds that of Cory Schneider though all things being equal, there's not much of a gap. Do you not think Crawford is worth a top 10 pick even with the salary cap implications? IMO if they wait till draft day the package offered may be sweetened.
- walter34

I loved at the All-Star game how Schneider & Luongo playfully fought for the space in the net as lil Joe Pavelski & Brett Burn's kids came in one the shoot out and scored.

Great example Bo Horvat is still developing so if you trade for a really good junior prospect you usually wait for the end product.
By the way it was actually Schneider for the Darnell Nurse pick.

and the Vancouver poopstorm was because they were paying Luongo on a huge length deal and PLAYING Schneider over him.
and then after they dumped Luongo, guess what happened? (What seems to always happen once a player is secure as "the guy" Schneider wanted comparable money to what Luongo got...)

So this idea you are gonna fix the Cap with under-loved underplayed under the radar goalie gems...it'd work until their agents realize they need to be paid accordingly.

Hey Al...Stan would have had that money had he not resigned his pet Runny. You know I want to give Stan a break but time and again he shows his out over his skis. Rundblad had no business being brought back. The fact that Stan thought this kid should be here is a huge red flag. The same guy who you mentioned targeted Timonen and way overpaid two springs ago.

And seeing some of the other comments particularly Tred's - Bowman has gotten very little return for some key pieces over the last 2 years.

As far as some of the other comments...I doubt Vesey is leaving the Boston area. And as JJ mentions this team is by no means out of the woods yet as far as the cap. The logical piece to move is CC. I like Crawford and he's top notch but what are you going to do? At the same time its a buyer's market for goalies with several available.

I do give Stan credit for unloading Bickell yesterday, with the price being TT. But he's got a lot more heavy lifting to do here. Does he actually make a deal at the draft like he should have with Sharp last year and Leddy the year before? Or does he wait too long again? We'll know soon enough.
- DK002

Good morning DK.

Certainly his work is not done. Once the Cap # comes in a) sign Shaw b) see where they're at with Panarin to try to re-sign him c) fill out the fwd roster and maybe pick up a cheap vet on D, think Rozy 2013 v2.0.

Didn't yesterday's deal essentially alleviate a ton of the pressure on Stan and dispense with the necessity of simply getting rid of players to be Cap compliant for this season?

Unless I'm missing something what is the comparable to the Leddy/Sharp deals or situations and who does Stan need to trade by the draft?

Schwartz for sure. He's probably looking at $5 mil +.
- 93Joe

I thought he was really unexistant as a factor for most of the playoff and so small I know he is gonna want big bucks but Dougie Armstrong may need to pull back on his rewards to him or he maybe gets a little bickell blowback later too.

So...

Get final cap #.


Resign Shaw or Ladd

Extend Panarin .

Find a real #3 D man.


Is this possible ?
- mrpaulish

If cap goes up to 74 million...it is very real. If it stays around 71.4 like this year, doubt we get the #3 D man. But the rest is all very possible.

I think they know they are getting taken to the woodshed on a future Crawford deal. If I'm StanBo, I try to re-sign Panarin this year, but since the contract won't kick in until the following year, I keep Crawford to try to make a Cup run in 2016-17. In other words, don't clear space first.

If Panarin is not signed mid-year, then after 2016-17, see what Panarin wants. If the cap falls further and we can't afford him, it's a Saad-like situation. But you get to keep Crawford for the rest of his contract. If you do sign Panarin to a workable contract, then you have to move Crawford, knowing you are just making a salary dump. This time, if Jim Nill offers two 2nd-rounders, TAKE IT.

@theScoreNHL

Shaw's agent intends to talk contract with Blackhawks at draft thesco.re/23dY8mL

Hawks Cap Math:

Here's how we look for 2016/2017 year. I've only included what I think are known roster players, with one exception...I've included Shaw at $2.5m (probably the low end of where he'll get signed).

Forwards:
toews $10500
kane 10500
hossa 5275
aa 4550
krug 3083
panarin 812
Desi 800
Shaw 2500
Panik 875
Lundberg 693

D:
keith 5538
Seab 6875
Hammer 4100
TVR 825
Kempny 700
Gus or Sved 750

Goal:
Craw 6000
Darling 588

Carry-over crap:
Scuderi 1125
Pan bonus 2000 (estimate)
Runblad 100

That totals $68.2m, and is 4 players short of a full 22 man roster (3 forwards, 1 D).
Assuming Cap of $72m, there's about $1m/player to fill out the roster.

From this, you can see how tight it is and why they need to know the cap in order to sign Shaw. If Shaw were to get $3.5m in a $72m cap, there would only be about $700k for each of the last 4 roster spots.

Tough still, but Stan did VERY well yesterday...buyout hit of $1m for Bick, or retention of $1m of salary in a trade would be devestating, once you see how these numbers add up. Getting rid of 100% of Bickell's salary is BIG.

@theScoreNHL

Shaw's agent intends to talk contract with Blackhawks at draft thesco.re/23dY8mL
- DarthKane

If you were the Blackhawks would you do Pitts 1st, TOR 2nd, Percy and Holland Bernier for Craw. Saves you 2 mil in cap space this year and comes off the books next year. you get 2 reasonable productive young players that would be cheap RFA's that might compete for #6/7 D and 4th/3rd line center who both could use a change of scene (worked with Panik) and you get #30 and #33. this might give you the room to sign Boedeker, Ladd, or Oko on 4-5 year deals, keep shaw, and extend Panarin and Darling.

I loved at the All-Star game how Schneider & Luongo playfully fought for the space in the net as lil Joe Pavelski & Brett Burn's kids came in one the shoot out and scored.

Great example Bo Horvat is still developing so if you trade for a really good junior prospect you usually wait for the end product.
By the way it was actually Schneider for the Darnell Nurse pick.

and the Vancouver poopstorm was because they were paying Luongo on a huge length deal and PLAYING Schneider over him.
and then after they dumped Luongo, guess what happened? (What seems to always happen once a player is secure as "the guy" Schneider wanted comparable money to what Luongo got...)

So this idea you are gonna fix the Cap with under-loved underplayed under the radar goalie gems...it'd work until their agents realize they need to be paid accordingly.
- wiz1901

Schneider was traded for the 9th overall pick in the 2013 draft and the Canucks picked Horvat. The Oilers drafted Nurse at 7th.

I've seen Horvat play a lot, he will develop into a very good NHLer. Was he worth a #1 goalie (Schneider)? No, but the Canucks could afford to make that move with Luongo in net (before they decided to trade him).

Does trading Crawford for a potential 2nd liner make hockey sense? Absolutely not, but the salary cap considerations could muddy the waters a little bit.

Wiz...what are your thoughts on the kids rated 6 though 10 in the draft, does anyone stand out? Or might Stan go for a 2017 first round pick?

Crow for Hamonic may make sense for both clubs. Hawks get cap controlled excellent defender who wanted to move West anyway. Hawks save dollars. NYI gets a proven playoff goalie with durability. Could be a deal that works for everyone. I think with those two pairings plus whoever they put with Kempny on the third pairing shelters Darling enough to make him successful.

Otherwise, not sure. Winnipeg has some younger defensive prospects that may be attractive. I don't know what comes the other way from Buffalo outside of cap relief and futures.

Writing on the wall for TT and much of that is on the player. You can say whatever about that trade but glad the Bickell money is gone. Begs the question as to why they had to include Johns with the Sharp deal unless Bowman was really hard for Daley. And both Q and Scotty hate guys in the back who aren't pass first so that whole thing is again perplexing.
- fattybeef

Well said.

That's why everyone pining for Campbell makes zero sense to me. Bowman SR flat out called BC out during the Vancouver series in game 1 by screaming at Tallon in the box. That's why Campbell. Leddy, and Daley aren't here anymore......it's not hard to read between the lines.

Out of all the trades, waivingss the past 12 months, the Sharp one still is a bit perplexing. Completely get keeping Sharp to win the cup in 2015. No qualms there, but if the persistent rumors of him being shopped/listened on starting in 2014 per Krypreos and others are factual, just odd that's what Bowman came away with....seeing that sharp takes up residency on the east coast during the offseason you would think a team out there would have pushed for him.

If you were the Blackhawks would you do Pitts 1st, TOR 2nd, Percy and Holland Bernier for Craw. Saves you 2 mil in cap space this year and comes off the books next year. you get 2 reasonable productive young players that would be cheap RFA's that might compete for #6/7 D and 4th/3rd line center who both could use a change of scene (worked with Panik) and you get #30 and #33. this might give you the room to sign Boedeker, Ladd, or Oko on 4-5 year deals, keep shaw, and extend Panarin and Darling.
- kmw4631

I'm not advocating trading Crawford but I would probably do that deal.

Schneider was traded for the 9th overall pick in the 2013 draft and the Canucks picked Horvat. The Oilers drafted Nurse at 7th.

I've seen Horvat play a lot, he will develop into a very good NHLer. Was he worth a #1 goalie (Schneider)? No, but the Canucks could afford to make that move with Luongo in net (before they decided to trade him).

Does trading Crawford for a potential 2nd liner make hockey sense? Absolutely not, but the salary cap considerations could muddy the waters a little bit.

Wiz...what are your thoughts on the kids rated 6 though 10 in the draft, does anyone stand out? Or might Stan go for a 2017 first round pick?
- DarthKane

Darth, based on what you've seen, what is his ceiling? 2nd line center? I recall him saying he wants to model his game after Jonathan Toews.

No, it means another team who feels that goalie is very replaceable is going to let that guy go, and you know what? No matter what his pay is, he is gonna want CC salary to be the guy too.

1 Lundqvist 8.5
2 Bobrovsky 7.4
3 Rinne 7
4 Rask 7
5 Carey Price 6.5
6 Cam Ward 6.3
7 Ryan Miller 6
8 Coery Crawfor 6
9 Cory Schneider 6
10 Ben Bishop 5.95
11 Kari Lehtonen 5.9
12 Semyon Varlamov 5.9
13 Quick 5.8
14 M A Fleury 5.75
15 Mike Smith 5.7
So...from here on a Crawford departure says you a million or more - but
is the one good one in the group up for trade and are the rest going ot keep y21 ou in games?
16 Jimmy Howard 4.533
17 Roberto Luongo 4533. I'll say it but this guys salary/skill is now balanced right
18 Jaroslav Halak 4.5 (didn't see as a regualr as far back as Montreal)
19 Antti Niemi 4.5 (How'd that work oput for the Stars?)
20 Devan Dubnyk 4.333 and not worth any penny of it!
21 Craig Anderson 4.2 he's your guy expect a shared gaol and plenty of streaky results...and is he really available?
22. Cam Talbot 4.166
23 Bernier 4.15
24 Mason Who they are keeping 4.1

so we could have a teo million savings starting with 20th overalll highest salaried guy.! What a savings and the
- wiz1901net only suffers minimally...
25 Ondrej Pavelec 3.9 he your fantasy backup/ DOUBT IT 3.9
Martin Jones is NOT asking for a trade, either is Brian Elliot or the kid.
Michal Neuvirth the answer? Then I gotta know the long term question...


30 teams and everyone thinks there our some hidden gems who can play 50 games better than Corey Crawford

Who is saying, "play better than Crow"? This is simple arithmetic, not very difficult to comprehend.

One scenario is acquiring a goalie, perhaps so with the other team retaining salary.

Another is the draft pick only return, perhaps even a prospect in return as well.

Another could even be a lower level salaried player or players who fill glaring needs here. Though that seems to be less probable.

Bottom line is the numbers as of right now will not work for a cup-challenging team. Time for Stan to make some tough decisions.

And I couldn't care less if the "fans" get in an uproar. Most who would female dog about Crow being moved are Chelsea Dagger dancers anyway.

Why the delay in releasing the cap number?