At least Comcast is courteous enough to give us the hubble telescope view of her "insider" reports during game breaks
- hawkeytalkman

Now that's funny.... I've had to put up with her a few times and I'm not a fan at all, but you guys are f'n brutal. Shovelface? I understand it, but that don't make it right.

If he wont wave for Edmonton or Calgary, why would he wave to go to Buffalo?
- scott.jackson

And tell me where, anywhere outside this forum, have their been discussions of Crawford getting moved? Thats because he is not getting moved.

I also think they might be planning to round out the bottom internally through Rockford unless they find some UFA forwards who will come cheaply to play in Chicago.

If he wont wave for Edmonton or Calgary, why would he wave to go to Buffalo?
- scott.jackson

Closer to home.

I thought Tage Thompson was chosen Wiz?
- 6628

yeah flocked up

And tell me where, anywhere outside this forum, have their been discussions of Crawford getting moved? Thats because he is not getting moved.
- onehundredlevel

No where outside this forum that I know of. I am goin on speculation. I will also say that it was Bowman that gave out this NMC in hopes that that cap would continue to rise and it didn't. Therefore the player has every right to tell him where and where he isn't going.

As long as we are spitballing crazy ideas after dark, here's one to chew on....

Would you deal Crawford for Sharp? You would have negligible cap savings but you would presumably address your hole at LW. Then you could leave Sharp unprotected next summer. Crawford would be a huge upgrade for the Stars.

Completely crazy?
- phantasmo

I think Sharp is a UFA after next season and I'm not sure UFA's qualify to be in the expansion draft. That said, you could conceivably make that deal and then put Sharps money towards Panarin for resigning him. But then you dont have a winger or Crawford. Unless the cap goes up 5 million next year they will continue to lose players....either Crawford or Panarin, next year. Its just the simple reality.

Closer to home.
- RedFeather

All three teams are basically at the start or in the middle of a rebuild. Crow is 31 years old with 3 years left in his contract. Why would he would wave his NMC to go to a team with now chance of winning the cup in the next 3 years? I think the only way he would wave in would be if a close buddy on the team would go it the same trade.

No where outside this forum that I know of. I am goin on speculation. I will also say that it was Bowman that gave out this NMC in hopes that that cap would continue to rise and it didn't. Therefore the player has every right to tell him where and where he isn't going.
- scott.jackson

The NMC and NTCs for already well paid players outside of maybe the top 4 or 5 guys was a terrible move by Stan. No reason to give Crow that with the salary as well. Yes, if Crow makes a bit lower, then offer an NMC to sorta balance the lower salary. Nope...for people SO wanting to play in Chicago these guys sure do drive a hard bargain. The only one that didn't (Hammer) was because the contract was essentially orchestrated by San Jose. LOL...I don't have a real problem with Keith's deal either and to a lesser extent Hossa. That deal would be sweet if not for the stupid way they changed the rules after. So I'll give Stan kudos for at least working the system with Duncs and Hoss, though it hurts now (not his fault)

Isn't curious we have two guys that are left wings, Panarin and Desi and Mashinter?

and Tanner kero and Garret Ross and Nick Schmaltz

Scott Powers ‏@ByScottPowers 1m1 minute ago
Stan Bowman described trading Andrew Shaw as a "very tough day" and a "difficult decision."
- mrpaulish

I can feel his pain....couldn't afford him...but this time I agree with Q...they have no replacement for him...you go back and look at the big goals over the last 4 years and 65 is in picture...

aww just (frank) it

I also think they might be planning to round out the bottom internally through Rockford unless they find some UFA forwards who will come cheaply to play in Chicago.
- wiz1901

yea.......


damn.

Ugh that line up is so slow. Frank the cap. Also don't think the Shaw deal was all that great. Bowman had no choice. No way we can sigh him for that. His only option was to trade him. So Bowman traded him instead of holding onto him way too long. Whoopieeeeee. Bowman showed he was competent nothing more. This wasn't some cutthroat deal. Now he will sit on his hands and wait around as he watches other GMs make moves to try and improve and get infront of the cap. Yawn. Feels like another textbook Hawks offseason when they should be trying to make moves to get out of this cap hell.
- bhawks2241

So what you are saying is that you would rather have lesser quality players that make less money, just so you can be out of "cap hell".

To do what? Go out and spend more money to fill holes created by the departed players, which will put you right back into cap hell?

Holy moly! I have read some really dumbass posts over the course of my lifetime, but this one takes the cake.

Here is a little tip for you, Mr. Commenter: There is no magic way that 10.5 + 10.5 + 6.8 + 5.5 + 5.8 + 6.0 + 4.2 adds up to anything but roughly 50 million dollars. And for those figures, you get 7 stud NHL players.

The task for Stan then becomes how does he best round out the roster to complement those 7, with 16 other players for roughly 23 million dollars. Does it suck? Of course. The entire NHL salary cap system sucks. But don't sit there acting like there is some magic formula that you but not Stan Bowman is not aware of.

I guarantee you, the minute we trade CC for cap space that we can spend on another position player or two, the minute Darling fails as the number one goal tender, there will be 20 "experts" on here clamoring about how they never would have traded Crow, with the others who wanted Darling as the cheap alternative all going into internet hibernation.

If they can trade CC and keep Kruger, then the team is a bit "better" on the depth side. Keep Kruger at 3C. Maybe take back a useful bottom six guy and a pick for CC. Use whatever money is left to sign Ladd/McGinn and Martin.

If Kruger goes, maybe look at a Frans Nielson?

Bowman has another week at best to get some contracts moved. Maybe tomorrow we see a move.

I can feel his pain....couldn't afford him...but this time I agree with Q...they have no replacement for him...you go back and look at the big goals over the last 4 years and 65 is in picture...

aww just (frank) it
- bogiedoc

At 4.5 million? I am sure they can find a replacement at half that AAV

Mark Lazerus ‏@MarkLazerus 11m11 minutes ago
Stan Bowman won't say for sure that all current roster players are now safe, but says, "We don't have a cap problem anymore." #Blackhawks

interesting take. I dont think the Hawks are in the clear as much as he is indicating
- hawkeytalkman

nah just a horsepoop roster problem...

Going to bed pissed. This team is going to miss Shaw.

So what you are saying is that you would rather have lesser quality players that make less money, just so you can be out of "cap hell".

To do what? Go out and spend more money to fill holes created by the departed players, which will put you right back into cap hell?

Holy moly! I have read some really dumbass posts over the course of my lifetime, but this one takes the cake.

Here is a little tip for you, Mr. Commenter: There is no magic way that 10.5 + 10.5 + 6.8 + 5.5 + 5.8 + 6.0 + 4.2 adds up to anything but roughly 50 million dollars. And for those figures, you get 7 stud NHL players.

The task for Stan then becomes how does he best round out the roster to complement those 7, with 16 other players for roughly 23 million dollars. Does it suck? Of course. The entire NHL salary cap system sucks. But don't sit there acting like there is some magic formula that you but not Stan Bowman is not aware of.

I guarantee you, the minute we trade CC for cap space that we can spend on another position player or two, the minute Darling fails as the number one goal tender, there will be 20 "experts" on here clamoring about how they never would have traded Crow, with the others who wanted Darling as the cheap alternative all going into internet hibernation.
- Katana777

I agree that the board will always write should of, could of, would of, but that's why we have board. I f we didn't have conflict or opinions we would have this board. I for one think the Hawks have no choice but to take a flyer on Darling an trade Crow for picks? If anybody has a better idea I am all ears!

(frank) it! I'm watching Strange Brew after the draft. Man, my wife is gonna let me have it tomorrow morning.
- EKB13

Someone horked our clothes!

Look at Pittsburgh to have some perspective. Every year they wheel and deal at the deadline. They didn't win a Cup for 7 years. Pittsburgh won because it got unexpected depth scoring from....AHL players who were called up. Pittsburgh developed well and got a bit lucky. The Hawks are not suddenly a non playoff team because Andrew Shaw isn't here. Seriously? Shaw is a bottom 6 forward with some versatility. A lot of fans here are severely overvaluing his impact.

You know how I said after about picks in the early twenties the picks from then on into the third round all seemed to be all warts developmentals and close in value whether you slected laste in the first or in the start of the third round?

Well it looks like the strategy sheet a fan at the draft found documents Tampa Bay's draft table tells the story that they were more than willing to trade out of slot 27 and receive the Montreal picks the Hawks acquired of 39 & 45.

I love when one of the GMs actually used the lingo of having an extra spin of the wheel describing adding picks...

this is worth taking a gander at....

http://globalnews.ca/news...l-lobby-posts-to-twitter/

I also think they might be planning to round out the bottom internally through Rockford unless they find some UFA forwards who will come cheaply to play in Chicago.
- wiz1901

No cap problem?? Even adding schmaltz, motte, kempny, lundberg, hartman and rasmussen, they are less than $2.3 mil over the cap.

There is room for a cheap d man but not Ladd. If StanBo wants to retain Ladd, he needs to move someone quick.

I think Sharp is a UFA after next season and I'm not sure UFA's qualify to be in the expansion draft. That said, you could conceivably make that deal and then put Sharps money towards Panarin for resigning him. But then you dont have a winger or Crawford. Unless the cap goes up 5 million next year they will continue to lose players....either Crawford or Panarin, next year. Its just the simple reality.
- onehundredlevel

It buys another year.

Ok , so who would you move ? CC or Seabrook to do it your way then ?
- mrpaulish

What do you do with Panarin next year after he hits his bonuses that at least 5 mil more plus 2.5 mil in bonuses added onto the cap. Stan is going to be in a terrible spot if he doesn't move a big name this offseason that's a fact. The math doesn't work.

Now that's funny.... I've had to put up with her a few times and I'm not a fan at all, but you guys are f'n brutal. Shovelface? I understand it, but that don't make it right.
- 6628

Brutal, and largely unnecessary. No reason to berate someone over their looks. She has a job and she does it. Who cares?