I am kind of surprised with the deal. I understand it, getting rid of Bickell.

But why not buy him out and trade TT on his own? I would have thought you could have gotten more than a couple of draft picks for him, and the buyout cap hit would have likely been worth the difference in what you were getting.
- carcus

Because the $1.5 million of Bickell's buyout cap hit in 2017-18 would likely keep them from being able to re-sign Artermi Panarin. And I think it's pretty clear that Panarin>Teravainen.

It's not that simple. If Shaw is looking for $3.5 million and Ladd wants $5.5 million that becomes a huge factor.

Stan could trade Ladd's rights for a 4th or 5th....
- DarthKane

Agreed and lets look at this way.

You are at 64.9 TODAY with Panik signed, the trade yesterday, and all the money accounted for on the books for 2016-17 cap. IF cap is at 73 million you have 8 million.

You have 2 goalies, 7 D men no including Rundblad, and need I believe 4 Fs.

So while it would be nice ink Shaw and/or Ladd OR a UFA 1LW or a top 4 D man the money isn't there UNLESS you are trading away 16,4,2,7,50,19,88,81,15.....and we can call argue over who holds what significance over whom, but the fact is financially they can't do a TON unless they make another rsizeable trade.

And as you know, you also have tagging coming into play as I'm sure Bowman would love to have panarin locked up by late fall/holiday time so it doesn't drag on.

Enter any rumor you want........but IMO I just can't see them trading 2,4,19 or 88. The rest I could, not that I would like it, but I do understand the reality of the salary cap and while we can sit here and b-tch about it costing the Hawks, when it was first implemented the hawks sucked and Talon misjudged on the rules impact when he inked Brown, and Barnaby etc. He also had to overspend to get Huet here, etc, because it wasn't an ideal destination. So while it is now, we just can't ignore the fact that in all fairness it helped the Hawks early on get to where they are today.

Because the $1.5 million of Bickell's buyout cap hit in 2017-18 would likely keep them from being able to re-sign Artermi Panarin. And I think it's pretty clear that Panarin>Teravainen.
- BreakoutHockey

I don't think that is the case. They would have another year to make other deals before having to worry about 2017-2018. And 1.5 is not a huge number, it is manageable.

SWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEETTTTTTTTTTT

General Fanager ‏@generalfanager 19s19 seconds ago
Per @ByScottPowers, #Blackhawks will have $3.07M overage applied to 2016-17 cap due to bonuses from Panarin, Teravianen and Rozsival.

SWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEETTTTTTTTTTT

General Fanager ‏@generalfanager 19s19 seconds ago
Per @ByScottPowers, #Blackhawks will have $3.07M overage applied to 2016-17 cap due to bonuses from Panarin, Teravianen and Rozsival.
- hawkeytalkman

Yep....somebody gets it, kudos to Powers.

never knew about Rozsival so instead of the 64.9, it's actually 66.......

I think we may see more trades gentlemen......

SWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEETTTTTTTTTTT

General Fanager ‏@generalfanager 19s19 seconds ago
Per @ByScottPowers, #Blackhawks will have $3.07M overage applied to 2016-17 cap due to bonuses from Panarin, Teravianen and Rozsival.
- hawkeytalkman

Frank Seravalli ‏@frank_seravalli 29s30 seconds ago
Panarin ($2.575M), Teravainen ($212.5K) & Rozsival ($200K) all hit bonuses. By my math, means #Hawks finished within $82,500 of $71.4M cap.

Rozy must have gotten a "my leg stayed intact this year" bonus

General Fanager ‏@generalfanager 3m3 minutes ago
#Blackhawks now at an estimated $64.909M cap hit for 8F, 6D, 2G:
http://generalfanager.com/hawks


For those keeping track at home

Al,

All due respect, seems kinda dumb to cannibalize the center position that you've stabilized for the first time in 20 years in order to acquire a wing. But, I have always placed a higher value on the pivots than the flanks.

And then there's the whole issue that both guys are just entering the first year of new deals. And there's ZERO replacement for either on the roster or in the system.

Regardless of what you think of Darling, he replaces Crawford better than anyone replaces AA or even Kruger. McNeill? Kero?

They just dealt TT and Danault.

Also, the same source who tipped me on them taking offers on TT, also included Shaw . . . and Crawford. Different source told me last night they're listening on CC and "far from a deal" on Shaw.

I guess anything's possible, especially when lots of conversations are going on. I just don't think AA or Kruger are going anywhere for the foreseeable future. Opinion based on what I hear and see.
- John Jaeckel

In context back when the Hawks were eliminated, I said as you know, a trade would happen with one or maybe two of Shaw-Krueger-TT-AA. I didn't think trading Crawford was going to happen unless there was an extreme need..And maybe next summer things will be more desperate than now.

I also said the most valuable trade chip sweetener in a Bickell deal was TT...Mostly because of age and affordability. I think if TT was going to stay then he would play center...

So now I'm going sound a bit like you-The numbers to get a Ladd or Brouwer type don't work unless someone else goes...Unless you believe they will sign for $2 mill or so.

I agree centers in general are more valuable and it appears AA is safe as TT was dealt. But if FO wanted to bring in a power forward and keep two very useful soldiers in Shaw and Krueger then AA would need to go.

The Hawks won 3 Cups without a bonafide 2nd line center and Bowman mentioned last night they find ways to reinvent themselves...So my point was Malkin isn't coming in no shape or form and I think Krueger/AA or even Shaw could be dealt before Crawford this summer.

From what I'm guessing Shaw is coming back as Q loves him...

Yep....somebody gets it, kudos to Powers.

never knew about Rozsival so instead of the 64.9, it's actually 66.......

I think we may see more trades gentlemen......
- SteveRain

Crap. I recall a Rozy games played bonus, but forgot it until just now as well. In my numbers a few pages ago, I used $2m carryover, so I'm off by $1m as well.

I don't think that is the case. They would have another year to make other deals before having to worry about 2017-2018. And 1.5 is not a huge number, it is manageable.
- carcus

Sorry, I could not disagree more.

1.5 is a huge number when you are constantly up against the cap and your top 9 players eat up 79% of your cap space. 1.5 is likely two roster players.

EDIT: And you have a $3M overage penalty for bonuses earned the previous year.

CapFriendly ‏@CapFriendly · 46s46 seconds ago

The #Blackhawks have an estimated cap hit of $66M
with a roster size 16 (8F/6D/2G)

https://www.capfriendly.com/teams/blackhawks …

Any chance the Hawks could get Crosby too? Or how about Ovechkin? Or maybe even all 3???

Ovi-Toews-Kane
Panarin-Crosby-Malkin
- SimpleJack

Doesn't Crosby take the number 1C position from Toews? To stir the pot.

SWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEETTTTTTTTTTT

General Fanager ‏@generalfanager 19s19 seconds ago
Per @ByScottPowers, #Blackhawks will have $3.07M overage applied to 2016-17 cap due to bonuses from Panarin, Teravianen and Rozsival.
- hawkeytalkman

Including the Scuderi rention that almost $4.2 million in dead cap space next season. The players earned their bonuses so good for them, but it sucks to have all that idle cap space.

Including the Scuderi rention that almost $4.2 million in dead cap space next season. The players earned their bonuses so good for them, but it sucks to have all that idle cap space.
- DarthKane

Its like we have two Bicks! Good thing one is gone.

Fair deal...

NHLnumbers ‏@NHLnumbers 39s39 seconds ago
The Vancouver Canucks and Sven Baertschi have agreed on a two-year extension:
2016-17: 1.7M
2017-18: 2.0M
AAV: 1.85M

I think at this point anything is possible within reason. Calgary called Pittsburgh on Fleury so I have to bet $$ if Bowman made it know he woud lat least listen on CC, he's been getting calls as well. I would think CC> Fleury in eyes of most teams.
- SteveRain

Fleury is very popular with his teammates but Rutherford gets zero blow back dealing Fluery now after winning a Cup with another goalie.
Bowman on the other hand would be in a more precarious position dealing Crawford for mostly picks/prospects this summer.

Gentlemen, I'm a long time reader, but this is my first post. I have a question for all the posters who would rather have Ladd over Shaw. I am a huge Ladd fan, but if you compare their lifetime playoff stats, Shaw's seem to be a bit better overall. Plus, he is six years younger. Other than regular season numbers, what boxes does Ladd check off that Shaw does not?

Including the Scuderi rention that almost $4.2 million in dead cap space next season. The players earned their bonuses so good for them, but it sucks to have all that idle cap space.
- DarthKane

Slight chance to get Scuderi's money back if he retires...

SWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEETTTTTTTTTTT

General Fanager ‏@generalfanager 19s19 seconds ago
Per @ByScottPowers, #Blackhawks will have $3.07M overage applied to 2016-17 cap due to bonuses from Panarin, Teravianen and Rozsival.
- hawkeytalkman

Damn... Bet the capologists are really crunching their calculators now. The numbers work against us again.

Including the Scuderi rention that almost $4.2 million in dead cap space next season. The players earned their bonuses so good for them, but it sucks to have all that idle cap space.
- DarthKane

IMO, Stan is going to move another big salary....or he'll fill in those 7 spots with AHLers and Veterans on the cheap and the Hawks will have an uphill climb to contend next Spring. I just don't see how one of Crawford/Anismov/Kruger isn't moved given the $4.2 in dead cap space, the stagnant cap, and a highly questionable roster (as currently constructed).

Slight chance to get Scuderi's money back if he retires...
- dstainer

We can hope, but Scuderi was playing with Doughty in Round 1 for Sutter...hard to believe he would leave that money on the table. Pray to the hockey gods that Scuds wants to spend more time with family

Gentlemen, I'm a long time reader, but this is my first post. I have a question for all the posters who would rather have Ladd over Shaw. I am a huge Ladd fan, but if you compare their lifetime playoff stats, Shaw's seem to be a bit better overall. Plus, he is six years younger. Other than regular season numbers, what boxes does Ladd check off that Shaw does not?
- JPBurke27

Unherniated discs

Yeah, I'd be leery of taking on 3 years of Hartnell - especially just after saying sayonara to Bickell yesterday.
- EKB13

what if they retained a 1/3 or his salary?

It's not that simple. If Shaw is looking for $3.5 million and Ladd wants $5.5 million that becomes a huge factor.

Stan could trade Ladd's rights for a 4th or 5th....
- DarthKane

What rights?

Isn't Ladd UFA?