I agree. If he came with cost certainty, he might be worth a lot more.

But I think for his RFA rights, if I felt confident I could sign him, a 2nd or 3rd round pick would be worth it, especially if I knew another club was after the same.
- John Jaeckel

Whats your vibe? Is Shaw gone?

Not directed at you personally, more towards some comments that have been make about players salaries in general.


Kruger - overpaid, should have let him go
Shaw - likely to be overpaid, should let him go
Toews - overpaid, should have let him go
Kane - overpaid, should have let him go
Seabrook - overpaid, should have let him go
Crawford - overpaid, should have let him go

What kind of team would we have without these guys?
- DarthKane

Exactly!! and how many Cups would they have won without the core?

Someone said it here previously-- the moving target of the flawed NHL cap system /number has been the biggest variable affecting all of the deals Bowman has made--

I'm sick of long term deals given by teams. It really hurts in the long run. 4 years for any UFA is fine by me this year.
- KINGS67

Yeah, I'd prefer 4, but if you want to knock down that cap hit, gotta add term. That's the reality in a salary cap world, and players/agents know that.

Biggest issue with Shaw, as others have pointed out, is that although the way he plays is what makes him so valuable to the Blackhawks, it's also the biggest issue with signing him long term.
- Bjm84

Yes-- I am concerned about his back / injury history and being able to maintain the style of play he needs to bring--

I agree. If he came with cost certainty, he might be worth a lot more.

But I think for his RFA rights, if I felt confident I could sign him, a 2nd or 3rd round pick would be worth it, especially if I knew another club was after the same.
- John Jaeckel

I would think Shaw's worth at least an early 2nd round pick....just my opinion though.

Not directed at you personally, more towards some comments that have been make about players salaries in general.


Kruger - overpaid, should have let him go
Shaw - likely to be overpaid, should let him go
Toews - overpaid, should have let him go
Kane - overpaid, should have let him go
Seabrook - overpaid, should have let him go
Crawford - overpaid, should have let him go

What kind of team would we have without these guys?
- DarthKane

The Rassmussen's, McNeill, Gustaffson, Svedburg.....and all the other guys Q allegedly screws over and doesn't play them enough

I'm sick of long term deals given by teams. It really hurts in the long run. 4 years for any UFA is fine by me this year.
- KINGS67

Preach! From both sides I think this makes more sense. If the player plays above what he signs for he isnt stuck for an extra 3-5 years. You think Keith isn't thinking about it just a little? On the team's side, you aren't quite as handcuffed for the long haul. Better all around.

The Rassmussen's, McNeill, Gustaffson, Svedburg.....and all the other guys Q allegedly screws over and doesn't play them enough
- PatShart

True....but think of all the glorious cap space Stan would have!

True....but think of all the glorious cap space Stan would have!
- DarthKane

He could sign so many Svedbergs.

congratulations, Eli - a long haul, hope you and you're much-better half move forward into your next life phase with success and happiness.
- StLBravesFan

Thanks Sage. Also, you're correct - my wife is my much better half.

Matt Larkin tweeted a response to me on Shaw's value. He believes if the Hawks traded him he could fetch a late 1st rounder much like Troy Brouwer in 2011. The Hawks ended up taking P. Denault with the pick.

So Lucic turned down 6 million/4 years from LA? Hmmm No thanks at 6 mill for him. Brouwer would be a very nice add. Maybe we all should chip in and pay for Q and Brower to have a nice dinner/drinks to patch things up..

Business is THE point--- you lose credibility if you renege on an agreement--

Now I don't know what they agreed to-- it is speculation-- but it was reported Kruger took a team friendly deal to stay in Chicago-- with Bowman paying up down the line-- So yes Kruger got paid-- and Bowman honored that-- but the the reported part-- was that Kruger agreed to this to stay in Chicago--

The risk Kruger took is significant-- and he DID get injured--

Anyway-- in my business-- if someone says they will honor an agreement and then they don't--- they lose credibility-- and I deal with them different later--if at all
- jb3333

He took a discount to stay in Chicago last year. He got injured and they still gave him the long term contract with a higher AVV. His current deal is not a discount it makes up for the previous 1 year discount deal. Kruger took a risk and the Hawks kept their word despite the fact he got injured. It is not like the Hawks saw him get injured and then tried to low ball him. Give me a break. Kruger and his agent should not have any problem with getting traded. It is also not like Kruger took a discount to stay and now they are trying to move him. His current deal is not a discount at all. He might be getting paid more than his actual market value. I just don't buy it at all. What agreement are the Hawks not honoring if they move Kruger?

I guarantee you they did not promise him the would not trade him no matter what after he signed his new deal. I fail to see how any fault in the Hawks looking to move him.

What would you prefer....Kruger at $3 million or Shaw at $4 million?
- DarthKane

For me, it is an easy choice - Kruger over Shaw.

The Hawks have Hartman in the pipeline who could be close enough to step in and provide some of the things Shaw does. What they don't have is a shutdown center camped out in Rockford that can do the things that Kruger can.

If Crawford is included, then I would want the #6 pick back from Calgary.
- hpk90

That would be an over reach IMO, besides I would like to look at it as more of a hockey trade, as I posted earlier. I might start with a slightly higher initial ask than I laid out before, not sure there's a lot of pieces involved.

Preach! From both sides I think this makes more sense. If the player plays above what he signs for he isnt stuck for an extra 3-5 years. You think Keith isn't thinking about it just a little? On the team's side, you aren't quite as handcuffed for the long haul. Better all around.
- Chunk

Duncan Keith will have made @80mil in 17yrs. I'm sure he is very happy with having to set himself and his family up just nicely.

For me, it is an easy choice - Kruger over Shaw.

The Hawks have Hartman in the pipeline who could be close enough to step in and provide some of the things Shaw does. What they don't have is a shutdown center camped out in Rockford that can do the things that Kruger can.
- EKB13

We sent him to MTL for Weise and Flash.

So Lucic turned down 6 million/4 years from LA? Hmmm No thanks at 6 mill for him. Brouwer would be a very nice add. Maybe we all should chip and pay for Q and Brower to have a nice dinner/drinks to patch things up..
- z1990z

That might take couples counseling to fix that.

For me, it is an easy choice - Kruger over Shaw.

The Hawks have Hartman in the pipeline who could be close enough to step in and provide some of the things Shaw does. What they don't have is a shutdown center camped out in Rockford that can do the things that Kruger can.
- EKB13

Agreed. And I like Shaw a lot and what he brings. But if I had to make a choice, it's Kruger.

So for those who like to play hindsight or back seat driver.......

Lets watch how Stamkos goes down. Lightning at 8.5 million which is below market value. There's your dreaded "hometown discount" and Stamkos still isnt' inked.

You have reports Buffalo could go up to 12 per year. Say what you want, but we also saw Yandle go to Florida and get overpaid to sign there. So don't brush off additional 3+ million in Buffalo with a young talented team, who could also sway SS with a goalie pick up . yes, I know about the tax benefits in FLA, but overpay and money always can trump allegiance to a team.

So for those saying 19/88 should have signed for 9 AAV lets watch how this wraps up.

Matt Larkin tweeted a response to me on Shaw's value. He believes if the Hawks traded him he could fetch a late 1st rounder much like Troy Brouwer in 2011. The Hawks ended up taking P. Denault with the pick.
- Omahawk

Ehhhh, maybe. I guess it depends on the team and the need.

Craig Custance ‏@CraigCustance 4m4 minutes ago
Not sure Blackhawks can get new contract done with Andrew Shaw without moving Marcus Kruger. There's definitely trade interest in Shaw too.

We sent him to MTL for Weise and Flash.
- JRoenick97

Hartman wasn't traded for them, that was Danault and a 2nd round pick

For me, it is an easy choice - Kruger over Shaw.

The Hawks have Hartman in the pipeline who could be close enough to step in and provide some of the things Shaw does. What they don't have is a shutdown center camped out in Rockford that can do the things that Kruger can.
- EKB13

Yeah, not anymore, they traded him away

For me, it is an easy choice - Kruger over Shaw.

The Hawks have Hartman in the pipeline who could be close enough to step in and provide some of the things Shaw does. What they don't have is a shutdown center camped out in Rockford that can do the things that Kruger can.
- EKB13

Very late to the party, but congratulations on your graduation.

I'm with you on Freddy vs Andy.

The suspense is killing me.....going to be a loooooooong Friday