Yep, Toronto writer was giving me the whole "we don't want Chicago's garbage" thing this AM. So you'll take Anaheim's, whose not as good, certainly not as proven, at $500K less per.

OK.

Where is thehockeygod anyway?
- John Jaeckel

Look at Isles or sabres now JJ?

W/ Nick Alberga and Tyler Madarasz (spelling?)

Seems like a lot of new things going on over there.
- 93Joe

On with Nick....Yes.

There were a few poster clamoring that Crawford "at his age" isn't worth the contract.

Suffice to say, haven't seen those posters around since.
- TommyHawk

I see what you mean--- didn't read back too far--

Dustin Byfuglien is a very, very good natural athlete. When he dedicates himself to training, look out. When he doesn't, look out the other way. But he is strong and athletic enough to carry an extra 25 pounds and it doesn't slow him down much.

And, yes, from his former agent, a pretty good friend of mine, he had a particular affection for cheese doodles and 12 oz. frosties.

I don't think TT was dealt primarily for the lack of conditioning reason either. And I agree the primary reason was he was going to likely slot as a RW instead of a C. I DO, however, also believe his unwillingness to engage physically left a sour taste in some coaches and teammates mouths. At some point the "he's just a kid" argument doesn't wash. You have to decide you want it, and when other guys are willingly sticking their noses in the rough areas and getting bruised and dinged, the little kid who won't starts to get on people's nerves.
- John Jaeckel

Who doesn't

I heard Sabres where the #2 option the other day—have not heard anything since.

Apparently the Leafs WERE in the market for a goalie and willing to commit to $5.5 million a year. So that tells me they likely did at least talk to the Hawks about Crawford.

All I know is, I saw Freddy Andersen EPICLY melt down in the WCF in 2015—and get totally outplayed by Crawford. But Leaf fans are probably too busy planning their parade to consider that.

If Schmault was ready
to be an NHL Centre
to be a top line player
to be an NHL winger

pick one of the above, until we see him in the seater on the sheet, daancing and moving his l'il feet,
- wiz1901

I'm last in line to swallow the hook on young prospects...I'm also last line in line to deal an excellent Cup winning goalie when there could be other choices to make.

I heard Sabres where the #2 option the other day—have not heard anything since.

Apparently the Leafs WERE in the market for a goalie and willing to commit to $5.5 million a year. So that tells me they likely did at least talk to the Hawks about Crawford.

All I know is, I saw Freddy Andersen EPICLY melt down in the WCF in 2015—and get totally outplayed by Crawford. But Leaf fans are probably too busy planning their parade to consider that.
- John Jaeckel

I think they ought to rejoice and plan their parade over that fact that Lou didn't give up their OTHER first round pick.

Crawford is obviously the better net minder. Would he have consented to a move to Toronto is what we don't know
- z1990z

I was told as of around 3PM YESTERDAY, Crawford had not been asked to submit his list.

I'm last in line to swallow the hook on young prospects...I'm also last line in line to deal an excellent Cup winning goalie when there could be other choices to make.
- Al

I agree with this.

If the choice is Crawford or Shaw + veteran d-man who won't take a Brad Richards-type deal, I absolutely take Crow.

I'm last in line to swallow the hook on young prospects...I'm also last line in line to deal an excellent Cup winning goalie when there could be other choices to make.
- Al

What are those moves?

Not a shot, but I would just like to see when people comment about how you can't move a certain player ie. CC, AA, Shaw or really anyone (and I keep saying not signing Panarin is a choice), I'd like them to say what they would do to get in line with the cap.

Like if someone didn't want to deal CC, or AA, or let Shaw go, they could say they'd keep them and let Panarin go next year for picks.

I was told as of around 3PM YESTERDAY, Crawford had not been asked to submit his list.
- John Jaeckel

Doesn't it make sense that they wouldn't go down that route if they didn't have something at least semi in the works?

Would seem foolish to potentially piss off a player if there's not a deal out there.

Which is what I keep saying trading Crawford kicks the can down the road but the savings isn't going to be close to his full cap hit...Not close.
- Al

So Al what do you see as other viable options, obviously Shaw can't be signed under the current cap crunch. If the cap does come in at $72.8m, we'll have $6.8 to sign six players or approximately $1,133,333 per player.

So Al what do you see as other viable options, obviously Shaw can't be signed under the current cap crunch. If the cap does come in at $72.8m, we'll have $6.8 to sign six players or approximately $1,133,333 per player.
- walleyeb1

I wouldn't say resigning Shaw is impossible.

I heard Sabres where the #2 option the other day—have not heard anything since.

Apparently the Leafs WERE in the market for a goalie and willing to commit to $5.5 million a year. So that tells me they likely did at least talk to the Hawks about Crawford.

All I know is, I saw Freddy Andersen EPICLY melt down in the WCF in 2015—and get totally outplayed by Crawford. But Leaf fans are probably too busy planning their parade to consider that.
- John Jaeckel

I heard a few weeks ago a goalie was going to be dealt from the Ducks...The math says there are tough decisions to make for them. Murray was quoted after the deal it was a trade he needed to do.

Bowman on the other hand I believe will only deal Crawford if he needs to and has no other choice. Now with Bickell gone I don't think that will happen this summer.

I will be on SiriusXM tonight at 7:35 CST.
- Al

Good luck, hope you can think of something coherent to say lol.

I wouldn't say resigning Shaw is impossible.
- Al

I just did a line up on Armchair GM that resigned Shaw for 3.5.

Schmaltz, Motte, Hartman and Lundberg up.

Svedberg, Gustafsson, and Kempny up on D.

Cap hit is 73.640.000

So if it did go up to 73.8 (rumored #), they could sign Shaw and still be cap compliant with a 22 man roster, with Crawford in tact.

Certainly is a path to go. Lots of youngins though. It does allow you to keep Crawford, AA, and resign Shaw.

Deal with Panarin next year.

I just did a line up on Armchair GM that resigned Shaw for 3.5.

Schmaltz, Motte, Hartman and Lundberg up.

Svedberg, Gustafsson, and Kempny up on D.

Cap hit is 73.640.000

So if it did go up to 73.8 (rumored #), they could sign Shaw and still be cap compliant with a 22 man roster, with Crawford in tact.

Certainly is a path to go. Lots of youngins though. It does allow you to keep Crawford, AA, and resign Shaw.

Deal with Panarin next year.
- vabeachbear

The rumor is $72.8 so back to the drawing board.

Good luck, hope you can think of something coherent to say lol.
- walleyeb1

Ditto!

I just did a line up on Armchair GM that resigned Shaw for 3.5.

Schmaltz, Motte, Hartman and Lundberg up.

Svedberg, Gustafsson, and Kempny up on D.

Cap hit is 73.640.000

So if it did go up to 73.8 (rumored #), they could sign Shaw and still be cap compliant with a 22 man roster, with Crawford in tact.

Certainly is a path to go. Lots of youngins though. It does allow you to keep Crawford, AA, and resign Shaw.

Deal with Panarin next year.
- vabeachbear

Q has an aneurysm by December. Hawks struggle to make the playoffs.

Now, if Bowman can't get anything else done, they will go young by default/necessity and sell that bill of goods hard.

But the reality is, it is a WORSE team than last year's.

And if you wait til "next year" to address Panarin, you stand a very good chance of losing him.

I have heard, and I believe, the Hawks are hoping Shaw will take a hometown, 1-yr. Bridge deal "like Kruger" (the term that was used). Do the math and it's pretty much the only way they can keep him. Shaw at $3.5 million basically doesn't fit.

I just did a line up on Armchair GM that resigned Shaw for 3.5.

Schmaltz, Motte, Hartman and Lundberg up.

Svedberg, Gustafsson, and Kempny up on D.

Cap hit is 73.640.000

So if it did go up to 73.8 (rumored #), they could sign Shaw and still be cap compliant with a 22 man roster, with Crawford in tact.

Certainly is a path to go. Lots of youngins though. It does allow you to keep Crawford, AA, and resign Shaw.

Deal with Panarin next year.
- vabeachbear

I'm more focused on what veteran they are going to pick up from sale bin.

The rumor is $72.8 so back to the drawing board.
- walleyeb1

72.8, 73.8, doesn't matter, but 72.8 says Shaw is most likely gone.

I'm more focused on what veteran they are going to pick up from sale bin.
- Al

Agreed.

Agreed.
- John Jaeckel

And I don't know what Brouwer would want to come back to Chicago (maybe a little, maybe a lot, and too much) but that's a guy i would be looking at because he checks a lot of boxes and it might work out.

I heard a few weeks ago a goalie was going to be dealt from the Ducks...The math says there are tough decisions to make there today. Murray was quoted after the deal it was a trade he needed to do.

Bowman on the other hand I believe will only deal Crawford if he needs to and has no other choice. Now with Bickell gone I don't think that will happen this summer.
- Al

I have never thought Stanbo & Co. want to trade Crawford unless it was a 'no other way out' financial situation. There will always be pikers like Garth Snow and Ron Francis looking for something big for next to nothing in return but moving a top line goalie for futures is a bad message and as you say won't yield much in cap savings in the end.

Q has an aneurysm by December. Hawks struggle to make the playoffs.

Now, if Bowman can't get anything else done, they will go young by default/necessity and sell that bill of goods hard.

But the reality is, it is a WORSE team than last year's.

And if you wait til "next year" to address Panarin, you stand a very good chance of losing him.

I have heard, and I believe, the Hawks are hoping Shaw will take a hometown, 1-yr. Bridge deal "like Kruger" (the term that was used). Do the math and it's pretty much the only way they can keep him. Shaw at $3.5 million basically doesn't fit.
- John Jaeckel

Shaw fully agree...Like I said above ...Wonder if there is a vet who forsakes a bigger payday to come here??

After the deal today the Leafs were still $11 mill under the cap...They could have afforded Crawford if he was available...But now they took a shot with a younger kid who can grow with the club and has a cap hit $1 million less than Crawford.

But if I'm thinking like you....If I want to win big in the next couple of years I would spend the extra $$ to get Crawford.