Maybe Stanley is asking Shaw AND Ladd to take friendly deals so they can both be kept... they both have said in the past that they would. Also, a quick check of the roster reveals that 16 is almost the same size as Mashinter. Keeping Ladd would allow us not to see 53 anymore.
- RedFeather

MASHINTER.. . .

Did not know that! Thanks! Learned something new from Hockeybuzz today. Productive work day in my book.
- bhawks2241

It works like this copy cut and paste that initial
BRACKET QUOTE = poster's name close BRACKET at the front
and then the part of the quote and then
BRACKET slash the word quote close BRACKET

Maybe Stanley is asking Shaw AND Ladd to take friendly deals so they can both be kept... they both have said in the past that they would. Also, a quick check of the roster reveals that 16 is almost the same size as Mashinter. Keeping Ladd would allow us not to see 53 anymore.
- RedFeather

Would love to keep Ladd. Come on Stan... find a way!!

Would love to keep Ladd. Come on Stan... find a way!!
- z1990z

If it's Ladd or Shaw, I take Ladd 100 times over.

Hartnell just announced willing to waive his NMC.

Another option, albeit not great, at $4.75 for three more years.

Put up a 49 point season with CBJ.

Shaw - ~ 30 pts/yr, 27 YO - yet to sign
Ladd - ~ 40 pts/yr 30 YO - yet to sign
Hartnell - ~ 50 pts/yr 34 YO - contract done in three years

Is Troy Brouwer a possibility to come back?

I hope I cleared up the fantasy reference as meaning fanatsy team not you or any poster's fantasy of a goalie addition.



Not calling anyone stupid, but I do believe it is stupid to believe a successful Euro goalie from Sweden can walk in and take over as an NHL workhorse starter based on one successful year in Sweden. That was what I rea dinto the post, because was not the last coupel pages about sending away Crawford the horse who has played the bulk of the schedule?


Sorry I don't see them as being cpaable long term solutions as NHL starters...


You know I have seen people alluding to this "Don't need a top tier goalie...but hanging on Bowman? I dunno. Has he had a better goalie than Crawford? So CC would be his top teir based on what that 6 mil salary?

Certainly StanBo THOUGHT he could win with Cristobal Huet.
I think GMs, coaches they adjust their words to the personal they do have...THEY SIMPLY DON'T FEED the loose ends that may help doubt spring up quicker through the media.


John has stirred this Crawford is the answer to Cap space idea for well over a year.
I think the simplest answer to your question above is you got a John Gibson in the farm, you see relief is coming and you can think about launching your started unless, he has won you some Cups, then you get torn on what to do.
The thing is and Bowman has said it, as soon as you do win, and you truly have stra players that everyone in hockey knows are really good NOW (not in that gonna be great range) you simply HAVE to REWARD them.
I think (and know I wrote less than three years ago) that there might be a CAP jump of 20 million (before the Loonie went kerplunk)...I truly believe the GMs were actually going along and rewarding based on that template and then the track slowed to the present halt and they basically see it now but NEVER saw it coming earlier...because there are more than the Hawks feeling it.


Yes a goalie is a crucial piece of that core.
And I totally agree that core gets assessed season by season, but when you are a team in the hunt, identified as a Cup contender, you aren't messing with go you there...but you are assessing with what you want to continue building upon as they just made the decison to do with TT as a boot (so he doesn't Cap you for more on the job training) and a yes to keep Shaw. I would assume this move also helps facilitate attempting a reasonable Panarin signing...but make no bones about the fact if Artemi & his aget over-value him, he will also be sent packing...over Crawford.

I think this question is one that gets asked in
Dallas and St.Louis and even Tampa now.
I think Detroit has to answer it as well.
But you do see the difference in those situations, right?
Scott Darling has not played as much or as well as the second guy in most of those situations.


Ok, and now we have gotten to the crux of your post to me...that I have hung somebody out to dry on the board, because they suggested since they are nobody, they no nothing, and I do.
I don't think I did that. If I did please take the time and PM it to me and I will go back to that person and apologize.
and the bottom line on all players and all positions when it comes to newbies and there being able to play:
My answer to friends who ask, Do you think Forsling, or Carlsson, or Michal Kempy are gonna be any good?
I always say, ask me after we see them against NHL players surrounded by NHL players...not now, because more likely the answer is a trite NO.


On Murray, do we really know he is an elite goalie? I thought he gifted that last San Jose win to them...
Wait until the other teams video guys pass the footage on and they devise game plans and find the weak parts of hs game even more so.
- wiz1901

Teachable moment:

I don't deliberately "stir."

Here's where "semantics" and "spin" obscures what I (and others) are actually saying and why.

First, if it's my opinion (solely) as to what I think the Hawks should do, i will tell everyone. i pretty much always do.

Second, if it's my opinion of what I think they will do or might do, that is always based on some combination of what I hear from legit sources and what I observe—and lately, math.

To the extent that I've said Crawford could be traded, it's because I've heard it, from 3 individual, bona fide sources going back to February 2015.

It's because the stated reason for the exploration/discussion has always been the same: they might need cap room in the summer of 2016.

And because what I see (tight cap, lots of contracts that just aren't tradeable, Panarin, etc) tells me that it's a possibility.

So . . . I'm not stirring anything. I'm not advocating trading Crawford. I'm just saying, I believe—based on all I see and hear—the team has explored it. And based on what I heard last night, they are not shopping him, but listening to offers—just in case.

I think where it becomes my "advocating to trade him" is the reaction that is driven by an emotion, that sounds something like "I don't want that to happen. It doesn't make sense to me. That's just your opinion."

Which forces me then to explain over and over again the logic behind why it could happen—which makes it sound like I'm trying to stir or advocate for a trade. Which I'm not.

I just know it's possible.

I think one thing might be certain:

If Artemi Panarin. or Andrew Shaw tries to "Saad" the hawks, they will be sent packing...there is no room for Bowmanian overpays any more.
- wiz1901

Shaw's bargaining power is somewhat weaker now than before the trade. Other teams may be reluctant to write an offer sheet as now the Hawks are more likely to match...Plus Shaw as much as he is needed isn't going to get nearly as big a payday as Saad.

But if they unload AA and Krugs as the show was saying, they are dow 2 Cs for one, Malkin makes 9.5, and Pitt is over the cap right now so they can't exactly hold on to any salary. barring they move Fluery first or something, it's likely a pipe dream
- JRoenick97

What show was saying? I wouldn't watch that show any more.

What show was saying? I wouldn't watch that show any more.
- John Jaeckel

BTW, I DID tell you guys they were shopping TT, long before anyone else had it, including Jay Zawaski, FWIW.

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog.php?post_id=76911

All: Any discussion of Malkin is such folly. It would HAVE to include Kane, Toews or Seab going the other way.

If not, then 2017/18 looks like the following:
Toews $10.5m
Kane $10.5m
Malkin $9.5
Panarin $6m
Hossa $5.3m
Seab $6.9m
Dunc $5.4m
Hammer $4.1m
8 players eating $58+m of cap.
The entire rest of the roster, 14 players to get to 22, would have to average $1m each.
The team for the next several years would be 8 core and 14 Rockford Fillies.
Silly to consider. Unless Pitt wants to retain $3m of his salary. But oh, wait, they're in their own cap hell.
Silly.

What show was saying? I wouldn't watch that show any more.
- John Jaeckel

Pat Boyle on ESPN 1000

A lot here and even though you quoted my post I'm guessing everything you posted wasn't directed at me.

I've been a fan of AA going back to the Rangers. I like big centers with middle 6 hands, think the game well that don't take shifts off.

I was ok with moving Dano in the Ladd deal, but still thought Q gave him a bad shake especially considering the revolving door at LW. Kid is young, has holes but has what can't be taught and that's the grit and hands to work 5 feet from the goalie and along the walls. You can teach the other stuff and IMO a guy worth taking a chance on and developing, but still ok with moving him if it means a deep run at the cup.

And as far as Q I live in real time with him. You win a cup skating Mash over Weise I'm fine with it, if you don't you deserve to be pounded.

Good Lord on Daley. Man you have a vet of 10+ years who's healthy, a + plus minus player over that span, a ++skater, at a 3.3 hit in a hard cap world to play a 4/5 Dman you find ways/reasons to make that work!!! You do that, make that work!! Especially when the alternative shown was Rundblad and Gus in a Game 7... I mean cmon how that's debateable with anyone other than some who come in packs to support each others mistakes is beyond me, and as you know this isn't said in hindsight.

And Garbutt, yea I'm a fan of a guy who is the fastest skater on the team to play bottom 6, have 2 hits a game and throw two pucks a game at the net. Yea, count me in on those kind of guys.
- Mr Ricochet

Not all directed at you...by any means....


I was excited about Daley when he first got here, but so funny to me that so many now regretting him being traded were guys ready to storm the castle in October/November. Now it's how he was missing the link......

I also did laugh a little bit ago when I heard Rozner on the score proclaiming with Daley here they make the cup final. No. They depth scoring on this team was a hole they weren't getting out of. They may have had a chance if all breaks fell there way, but it's just foolish to say with this guy it's a given....with Daley still on the team, do they have the money to acquire Ladd? Probably not.

Oh well....turning the page on 2015-16. One day would love to hear the real story on Daley and what went down, but educated guess seems pretty realistic. Glad he won...seems like a nice kid.

Sounds like negotiating rights for Alex Goligoski on the move to Arizona.

Hartnell just announced willing to waive his NMC.

Another option, albeit not great, at $4.75 for three more years.

Put up a 49 point season with CBJ.

Shaw - ~ 30 pts/yr, 27 YO - yet to sign
Ladd - ~ 40 pts/yr 30 YO - yet to sign
Hartnell - ~ 50 pts/yr 34 YO - contract done in three years
- Return of the Roar

The game is all about adding speed.

Nix Hartnell for until 2019 at 4.75

Ladd at 4.5

I will take Andrew Shaw's feet at a lower rate...3.8

Sounds like negotiating rights for Alex Goligoski on the move to Arizona.
- mrpaulish

Stan should do that with Ladd.

I know I'm in the minority here, but I'd take Shaw over Ladd (when factoring in cap hit).

Sounds like negotiating rights for Alex Goligoski on the move to Arizona.
- mrpaulish

Also...very interesting for Dallas' defense. I wonder what their plans are for next season.

BTW, I DID tell you guys they were shopping TT, long before anyone else had it, including Jay Zawaski, FWIW.

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog.php?post_id=76911
- John Jaeckel

You know what's hilarious to me?

The score has a show that loves to call the uneducated or idiot fan boy yet that same show and radio station breed more hockey idiots then I care to count.

I'll give Zawaski Saad, but the other crap is organizational fed and talking puppets like Rozner with HUGE agendas get old....very fast.

Funny how these same @ss clowns were all over Talon for cap mismanagement, but now the cap mismanagement falls on Q and his hatred of this guy or running off that guy, or whatever else. Not hard to see where their loyalties lie.

Stan should do that with Ladd.

I know I'm in the minority here, but I'd take Shaw over Ladd (when factoring in cap hit).
- DarthKane

Im cautious about Shaws style and poteential injury.

Sign me up for Ladd, let Shaw walk sign Matt Martin

Did Geno Malkin ever really show up in a dominant fashion this post season?
I mean 9.5 million worth?

UNTIL 2022?


More reality checks are in the mail.

Find yours

Pat Boyle on ESPN 1000
- JRoenick97

Yeah, I don't think either of them is gonna happen honestly.

You know what's hilarious to me?

The score has a show that loves to call the uneducated or idiot fan boy yet that same show and radio station breed more hockey idiots then I care to count.

I'll give Zawaski Saad, but the other crap is organizational fed and talking puppets like Rozner with HUGE agendas get old....very fast.

Funny how these same @ss clowns were all over Talon for cap mismanagement, but now the cap mismanagement falls on Q and his hatred of this guy or running off that guy, or whatever else. Not hard to see where their loyalties lie.
- SteveRain

They don't have loyalties - they have ratings - and will point any discussion in whatever direction increases the ratings.

Im cautious about Shaws style and poteential injury.

Sign me up for Ladd, let Shaw walk sign Matt Martin
- mrpaulish

Matt Martin in a heart beat

ansd whether it was versteeg or Shaw, it is an important asect that despite the training fitness the smaller guys who hit/get hit, because they play heavy are always going to start getting nicked up when they get older.
BUT...this deal for Shaw well it would be a factor quite yet.