Well it say's Pitt and TB not happy with what being offered for Bishop and Flurey .Maybe Stan can slide in there with a deal ,and show them how it done . Crow is worth as much as Anderson maybe a little more .

Even without a 1st pick HAWKS could find some solid players in the 2nd and 3rd rounds . Maybe even some diamonds in the ruff . Would like to see them take a flyer on Sean Day .He is big Defenseman 6.3 230 who was granted exceptional status to play in the OHL at 15 years old .Massive physical tools ,does he have the mind set . It what is said about him .Reminds me of what was said about both Saad and Beach .Could be right in the HAWKS wheel house late 2nd . Maybe Seebs and Toews can show him the way . Also like Cliff Pu but may need a 1st to get him .Star in the making out of London . Also with London there goalie Tyler Parsons ' Makes clutch saves on a élite team that gives up big chances " .Sound familiar ..

That was going to be my next guess actually. He makes $1M less than AA. Wasn't he more of a 3C?
- 93Joe

I thought he was the majority of the time too, Joe, along with 2nd unit PP time. But I just reading this morning about Sam Bennet (rookie) and it said his two most often linemates were Backlund and Frolik and that Bennet played wing although I know Bennet is a centerman. That is a sure 2nd line but I gotta look into the minutes.

I should know this and am gonna spend the time to look this up. Gotta run now though.

How is moving a player with an NMC any different than trading Kruger after his bridge deal concession with respect to the message it sends to remaining and future players?

Still seeing things pretty much status quo with a few minor deals.

There really is no scenario returning Shaw, a power forward and another defenseman without a huge hole created elsewhere in the lineup.
- Return of the Roar

Generally speaking, as I understand it, a full NMC with no modification, means you can't trade, assign or waive a player.

Crawford, specifically, has an NMC, BUT with a modified NTC built in. Guess what, so does Kruger. Kruger's kicks in a year after the start of the deal: 7/1/17.

Crawford's, I believe has already kicked in, as he is entering the third year of his deal.

The DIFFERENCE is, Crawford was not asked to "play ball" with the team, risking his future livelihood, by a accepting a low-ball 1 -yr. bridge deal.

Kruger was asked to do so because he wanted to be in Chicago long term. And he did it.

Again, it is not the current contract structure that makes the difference. It is what Kruger was asked to do-and did—to get the current contract, which I'm not aware of any other current Hawk being asked to do.

If the Hawks go to Crawford today and ask for a list of eight teams, or to Kruger a year form now, it's the same thing-and it's built into both their contracts. Fsair game.

The "reversal" and breach of trust lies in the fact that the Hawks asked a favor of Kruger for him to get this deal.

Generally speaking,
The "reversal" and breach of trust lies in the fact that the Hawks asked a favor of Kruger for him to get this deal.
- John Jaeckel

I know you can't discuss specifics, but do you think teams that are asking about Kruger see him in a different role than he plays for the Hawks?

The Hawks see him as their #1 defensive center with a PK specialty. Are other teams viewing him as a guy with offensive upside?

Just caught reading the last few hours posts on previous blog. Decided to take the night off and watch "Boiler Room" as I truly love Affleck's training style. Makes me long for Alec Baldwin's theory on coffee...........

Great post by PatShart on the Seabrook vs Hammer vS keith numbers. I hope EVERYONE realizes statistically Seabrook wasn't bad, or a fat slob like some goof blog makes him out to be.

Hindsight is 20-20 but if you don't think 19/88 don't get MORE then 10.5 on the open market AND Seabrook doesn't get more then what he got.....you are in the clouds. Can we please stop talking about hometown discounts and assuming it will happen AND then when it doesn't going on tirades about it? CanOCorn and I will open up a work place for those of you and you guys can come work for us in exchange I'll give you a NMC......

Congrats to Eli on your 3.9.....look at the big brain on you! No wonder they choose you for moderating this group that is the internet's version of Nurse Krachet's gang.....

lastly, if you look at expansion draft guidelines, and then look at pending NMCs going into play next Friday for 15 and 16, you quickly see why both are being shopped......Panarin is safe regardless but if you try to keep EVERYONE, the guy left without a chair is TVR and Shaw. So point is, somebody with a current NMC, probably 2, will HAVE to be moved if they want to keep TVR, who if they sign Campbell could be gone, and that's before you entertain extending Darling or having to deal his rights after the cup final next year OR this offseason/season.

Stan Bowman is crawling through his river of crap, but hasn't reached the light yet.......

Kruger and Seabs are getting more then they would get on the FA market so we have more then been fair to them in every way. Yandle got 44 mil and Seabs got 55 mil. Getting a guy to sign a undermarket deal and then trade them is different. that is not the case with either of these guys.
- kmw4631

Except Kruger has not seen one dime from his new deal yet.

I know you can't discuss specifics, but do you think teams that are asking about Kruger see him in a different role than he plays for the Hawks?

The Hawks see him as their #1 defensive center with a PK specialty. Are other teams viewing him as a guy with offensive upside?
- phantasmo

No. I believe the scoring on him is pretty much the same for all 30 teams. But I have always felt the Hawks believe he has some untapped offensive upside. Some, not much.

Generally speaking, as I understand it, a full NMC with no modification, means you can't trade, assign or waive a player.

Crawford, specifically, has an NMC, BUT with a modified NTC built in. Guess what, so does Kruger. Kruger's kicks in a year after the start of the deal: 7/1/17.

Crawford's, I believe has already kicked in, as he is entering the third year of his deal.

The DIFFERENCE is, Crawford was not asked to "play ball" with the team, risking his future livelihood, by a accepting a low-ball 1 -yr. bridge deal.

Kruger was asked to do so because he wanted to be in Chicago long term. And he did it.

Again, it is not the current contract structure that makes the difference. It is what Kruger was asked to do-and did—to get the current contract, which I'm not aware of any other current Hawk being asked to do.

If the Hawks go to Crawford today and ask for a list of eight teams, or to Kruger a year form now, it's the same thing-and it's built into both their contracts. Fsair game.

The "reversal" and breach of trust lies in the fact that the Hawks asked a favor of Kruger for him to get this deal.
- John Jaeckel

Kruger did right by the Hawks by agreeing to one year deals at low cap hits two years in a row. The Hawks did right by Kruger by giving him an "over market" 3 year deal. They are square now. No guarantees going forward. Players and agents are pretty smart. They can see that the Hawks treated Kruger just fine.

Kruger did right by the Hawks by agreeing to one year deals at low cap hits two years in a row. The Hawks did right by Kruger by giving him an "over market" 3 year deal. They are square now. No guarantees going forward. Players and agents are pretty smart. They can see that the Hawks treated Kruger just fine.
- -Doh-

I could buy this if Kruger hadn't avoided going on the open market—where he would have been paid—maybe not $3 million per, but likely north of $2 million per—last year.

He did so because he wanted to be in Chicago, not elsewhere. And the team said they wanted him in Chicago.

So, no, I don't think it really is square. Yeah, he's getting paid now—but he would have last summer. he's not getting paid where he wanted to be and he risked a lot for that.

The one thing that isn't making much sense to me is we talk about the Hawks trading for cap space so they can acquire another player when they should be clearing cap space to extend Panarin.

Generally speaking, as I understand it, a full NMC with no modification, means you can't trade, assign or waive a player.

Crawford, specifically, has an NMC, BUT with a modified NTC built in. Guess what, so does Kruger. Kruger's kicks in a year after the start of the deal: 7/1/17.

Crawford's, I believe has already kicked in, as he is entering the third year of his deal.

The DIFFERENCE is, Crawford was not asked to "play ball" with the team, risking his future livelihood, by a accepting a low-ball 1 -yr. bridge deal.

Kruger was asked to do so because he wanted to be in Chicago long term. And he did it.

Again, it is not the current contract structure that makes the difference. It is what Kruger was asked to do-and did—to get the current contract, which I'm not aware of any other current Hawk being asked to do.

If the Hawks go to Crawford today and ask for a list of eight teams, or to Kruger a year form now, it's the same thing-and it's built into both their contracts. Fsair game.

The "reversal" and breach of trust lies in the fact that the Hawks asked a favor of Kruger for him to get this deal.
- John Jaeckel

And I'm sure Shaw's agent is telling Andrew this currently in regards to bridge deals vs LT deals AND the dreaded hometown discount.

Shaw very well could in Kruger's shoes next June and be shopped before his NMC kicks in, and god knows he'll have one as well.....

Fact is, Bowman has done this to himself with the NMCs. The cap is not all on him, as I have ratned about the NHL's inability to supply teams with factual information and conservative LT planning......but the NMC pickle....not good.

And you are right.....agents, players will all take notice SHOULD the Hawks deal Kruger, and whoever's Kruger's agent is will not be a fan of doing business with Chicago again.

The one thing that isn't making much sense to me is we talk about the Hawks trading for cap space so they can acquire another player when they should be clearing cap space to extend Panarin.
- Dabearshawks

Agreed. Someone said earlier in this thread that they probably don't do anything big, lose Shaw and sign Campbell....and just have Rockford guys come up. I can see that happening. Then next year deal either Crawford, Kruger or AA to open up space for AP.

The one thing that isn't making much sense to me is we talk about the Hawks trading for cap space so they can acquire another player when they should be clearing cap space to extend Panarin.
- Dabearshawks

They can tag that contract on and then roll the dice and get cap complaint next summer as long as they are within 10%. So Bowman could go up to 80 million on the books for next fiscal year, if he wanted to.

That's why I think you are seeing so many names out there being shopped....not only does he have plans A + B, but it sounds like he's going 5-6 deep in regards to scenarios.

The one thing that isn't making much sense to me is we talk about the Hawks trading for cap space so they can acquire another player when they should be clearing cap space to extend Panarin.
- Dabearshawks

Out of all of the pieces, I think this is the most important, yet the most challenging.

Generally speaking, as I understand it, a full NMC with no modification, means you can't trade, assign or waive a player.

Crawford, specifically, has an NMC, BUT with a modified NTC built in. Guess what, so does Kruger. Kruger's kicks in a year after the start of the deal: 7/1/17.

Crawford's, I believe has already kicked in, as he is entering the third year of his deal.

The DIFFERENCE is, Crawford was not asked to "play ball" with the team, risking his future livelihood, by a accepting a low-ball 1 -yr. bridge deal.

Kruger was asked to do so because he wanted to be in Chicago long term. And he did it.

Again, it is not the current contract structure that makes the difference. It is what Kruger was asked to do-and did—to get the current contract, which I'm not aware of any other current Hawk being asked to do.

If the Hawks go to Crawford today and ask for a list of eight teams, or to Kruger a year form now, it's the same thing-and it's built into both their contracts. Fsair game.

The "reversal" and breach of trust lies in the fact that the Hawks asked a favor of Kruger for him to get this deal.
- John Jaeckel

Fair enough.

I see the goalie market as flooded with #1s all in the same relative price range - namely Fleury, Bishop, and Andersen with TO. The reason why I think action surrounding those three, actual and rumored, is potentially due to the possibility that (a) no one is doing CHI any favors and (b) CC may already have given his list and that is why he has not been specifically tied to any team in a rumor.

I also think you don't enter the expansion draft without a proven, solid #1 protected, as all other teams will be rushing to do the same. Nor do I think Darling surrenders his leverage by not dragging out his contract negotiation ntil next summer. Just fundamentally stupid for him.

Should be an interesting week for sure.

I could buy this if Kruger hadn't avoided going on the open market—where he would have been paid—maybe not $3 million per, but likely north of $2 million per—last year.

He did so because he wanted to be in Chicago, not elsewhere. And the team said they wanted him in Chicago.

So, no, I don't think it really is square. Yeah, he's getting paid now—but he would have last summer. he's not getting paid where he wanted to be and he risked a lot for that.
- John Jaeckel

You might be right. But the difference between "north of $2 mil" and the contract he got at $3.083 mil should lessen the hurt. Also if there was an understanding he would not be moved why isn't there a no trade clause in the first year of the new contract. I like Kruger and would not mind him staying, but would not mind them moving him in the right deal.

I don't see Anisimov getting moved because of the potential impacts it COULD have on Panarin, who is very much, still integrating into this country.

IF Hawks talking w/Calgary: Calgary doesn't need help at center- they need wingers and especially goaltending. They also have around 22 million to work with in cap space.

Crawford + Shaw's rights to Calgary for Sam Bennett and 35th overall pick.

Hawks then go out and sign Matt Martin aka "Lower line power forward".

I could buy this if Kruger hadn't avoided going on the open market—where he would have been paid—maybe not $3 million per, but likely north of $2 million per—last year.

He did so because he wanted to be in Chicago, not elsewhere. And the team said they wanted him in Chicago.

So, no, I don't think it really is square. Yeah, he's getting paid now—but he would have last summer. he's not getting paid where he wanted to be and he risked a lot for that.
- John Jaeckel

Where he wants to be (paid wise) and what he's worth...may be two different things.

They essentially gave him a 4yr -10.75mil dollar deal which is very fair for him/in his favor

The one thing that isn't making much sense to me is we talk about the Hawks trading for cap space so they can acquire another player when they should be clearing cap space to extend Panarin.
- Dabearshawks

Paniarin is 12 months away. No one has a clue where the cap will go, what will happen with Hossa at that point, will there be tweaks to the expansion about to happen (buyouts), etc.

They have a 2016-17 to play for/field a team for which is #1 priority. Panarin will be a RFA - not UFA.

Paniarin is 12 months away. No one has a clue where the cap will go, what will happen with Hossa at that point, will there be tweaks to the expansion about to happen (buyouts), etc.

They have a 2016-17 to play for/field a team for which is #1 priority. Panarin will be a RFA - not UFA.
- PatShart

Yes. The landscape of the entire league has changed.

Worry about this year now, and next year next year.

Paniarin is 12 months away. No one has a clue where the cap will go, what will happen with Hossa at that point, will there be tweaks to the expansion about to happen (buyouts), etc.

They have a 2016-17 to play for/field a team for which is #1 priority. Panarin will be a RFA - not UFA.
- PatShart

Not true on the cap.....all reports with added Vegas team is that HRR will drop due to increased splits and with Canadian dollar where it's at.....cap at best will increase slightly but probably flat or drop.

Look at this year, and if you put division +1 of HRR, the cap would have been at best flat.

So we know baring a MAJOR rebound of the loonie, you can pencil in cap at best at 74-75 with a low of 71-73 million. 4 million dollar variance but this thing isn't jumping up HUGE like so many thought it would be....

The one thing that isn't making much sense to me is we talk about the Hawks trading for cap space so they can acquire another player when they should be clearing cap space to extend Panarin.
- Dabearshawks

Yeah been thinking about that too. The question is what does that contract look like?

The one thing that isn't making much sense to me is we talk about the Hawks trading for cap space so they can acquire another player when they should be clearing cap space to extend Panarin.
- Dabearshawks

Both, actually, if they want to be a better team this year.

I don't see Anisimov getting moved because of the potential impacts it COULD have on Panarin, who is very much, still integrating into this country.

IF Hawks talking w/Calgary: Calgary doesn't need help at center- they need wingers and especially goaltending. They also have around 22 million to work with in cap space.

Crawford + Shaw's rights to Calgary for Sam Bennett and 35th overall pick.

Hawks then go out and sign Matt Martin aka "Lower line power forward".
- Bjm84

They're going to have much less than half of that 22 million when the signings of Gaudreau, Monahan and Colborne get done. Colborne might not get signed, but Gaudreau and Monahan are likely to get bridge deals in the 6M range. They are Calgary's Toews/Kane.

Calgary has a lot of guys with Shaw's type of skill set(Jooris and Bouma in particular). I don't see Shaw going there. Crawford is a very realistic possibility, but doubtful for Sam Bennett. Bennett is taking all the necessary developmental steps, and he is going to be a top 6 monster for them for a lot of years. Calgary can get a goalie without giving him up.

UFA negotiating window opens tonight at 12am, so if they are going to clear cap and try to make a run at Ladd, it has to be today.