Was Shaw QO'd yet?
- blackhawk24

Not that has been reported.

Was Shaw QO'd yet?
- blackhawk24

Not yet. The deadline in June 27th (Monday).

Not surprised.....but crap!

Frank SeravalliVerified account
‏@frank_seravalli
#stars announce D Jordie Benn has signed a three-year extension.
- DarthKane

He's a #6 or 7

Was Shaw QO'd yet?
- blackhawk24

I was just going to ask when players had to be qualified by.

Just wanted to make sure Hawks didn't make that mistake again............

Edit; thanks Darth

On that same note, sports agents are professionals and they understand a team is a business. In the end, his client still gets 3m. Might even get a better chance to win again rather than being part of a problem that sticks a team in mediocrity due to cap problems.
- JRoenick97

Yes--- but--- when you give your word on a deal and a player is trusting the agent to represent him--- and the agent is trusting the GM to live up to his word--- in getting the client what he wants-- and then you renege--

Well good luck getting next time you negotiate with that agent-- and players talk too-- that why so many want to be in Chicago-- honorable and winning organization

Hypothetical:

Hawks send Krugs, Shaw, Crawford to Flames for Ferland and Backlund with 2nd round picks in 16 and 17.

Hawks send mcneill and a 2016 4th to oilers for Yakupov

Send a 5th round pick to LA for Lucic's rights and sign him 4 years at 5.85.

Send Anisomov to Arizona for Dvorak and a 2nd

Sign Campbell 1 year at 1.5

Sign Enroth 1 year at 1.6

Sign Schlemko 1 year at 750k

Leaves Hawks 1.88 under the cap.

Got bored on capfriendly with these. Would be a complete armageddon of moves
- ikeane

Lucic wants max term. Kings offered 4/6MM. So that won't work.

Lucic wants max term. Kings offered 4/6MM. So that won't work.
- KINGS67

I'd rather have Ladd at 4x5 or 6x4.5

Yes--- but--- when you give your word on a deal and a player is trusting the agent to represent him--- and the agent is trusting the GM to live up to his word--- in getting the client what he wants-- and then you renege--

Well good luck getting next time you negotiate with that agent-- and players talk too-- that why so many want to be in Chicago-- honorable and winning organization
- jb3333

We really have no idea if the Hawks made any unwritten promises to Kruger. Pure speculation.

Yes--- but--- when you give your word on a deal and a player is trusting the agent to represent him--- and the agent is trusting the GM to live up to his word--- in getting the client what he wants-- and then you renege--

Well good luck getting next time you negotiate with that agent-- and players talk too-- that why so many want to be in Chicago-- honorable and winning organization
- jb3333

Kruger has his deal. Trading him is business just like any other player that gets traded. How is this any different or worse than asking a player with a NMC or NTC to approve a trade or waive his contractual rights?

Sorry, the cap did not go up as much as we thought/were told we don't have the luxury of keeping you. You're going to be traded. Bowman lived up to his word. Kruger is getting paid!!!!!! If your client wants to stay at all costs tell him to take a cheaper deal!!!!!

Kruger has his deal. Trading him is business just like any other player that gets traded. How is this any different or worse than asking a player with a NMC or NTC to approve a trade or waive his contractual rights?

Sorry, the cap did not go up as much as we thought/were told we don't have the luxury of keeping you. You're going to be traded. Bowman lived up to his word. Kruger is getting paid!!!!!! If your client wants to stay at all costs tell him to take a cheaper deal!!!!!
- bhawks2241

Thank you bhawks. These are big boys, grown men, making huge money. It IS a business (like it or not) and we can't afford to worry if someone gets the sniffles because they got traded or because their buddy got traded.

Disclaimer: I am NOT for moving Krugs, or anyone...but something has to be done. Ideally, Bowman will start building this franchise with at least 1 eye on long term value.

Lucic wants max term. Kings offered 4/6MM. So that won't work.
- KINGS67

Lucic....DO.NOT.WANT!

We really have no idea if the Hawks made any unwritten promises to Kruger. Pure speculation.
- -Doh-

Thats true--- all speculation--

Kruger has his deal. Trading him is business just like any other player that gets traded. How is this any different or worse than asking a player with a NMC or NTC to approve a trade or waive his contractual rights?

Sorry, the cap did not go up as much as we thought/were told we don't have the luxury of keeping you. You're going to be traded. Bowman lived up to his word. Kruger is getting paid!!!!!! If your client wants to stay at all costs tell him to take a cheaper deal!!!!!
- bhawks2241

100% correct. Kruger is still getting his 3 million/year. That was an over pay by Stan.

100% correct. Kruger is still getting his 3 million/year. That was an over pay by Stan.
- z1990z

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

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

Neither.

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

C) Neither at that price

Does anyone know what the cap floor is? I cant seem to find it anywhere. Thanks

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

JJ: I disagree with you here on Krug and his "treatment" by Hawks. He played ball w Hwks and took a risk. then he broke his wrist. Then the Hawks signed a player with a broken wrist to a 3 yer term at very strong $$. I think The Hawks DID stand tall with their player, and did square that account. If they were to trade him now, I don't see it as any more of a breach of etiquette than trading any other player with a NTC or NMC. In those cases, you've made some commitment to those players regarding their staying in the Hawks plans. But "stuff" happens, and things change.

I feel the account w Krug is square.

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

Shaw is a true jack of all trades and his ability to play anywhere is darn useful. Kruger is more limited to PK defensive specialist. Its a tough call, but Shaw at 4 million/year? Dont know about that, but if the Hawks are hard after Ladd or Brouwer then I see both Shaw and Kruger going.

Kruger has his deal. Trading him is business just like any other player that gets traded. How is this any different or worse than asking a player with a NMC or NTC to approve a trade or waive his contractual rights?

Sorry, the cap did not go up as much as we thought/were told we don't have the luxury of keeping you. You're going to be traded. Bowman lived up to his word. Kruger is getting paid!!!!!! If your client wants to stay at all costs tell him to take a cheaper deal!!!!!
- bhawks2241

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

Tough call, I love Backlund, he's a corsi/possession monster & idolized on the Flames analytics web site. But Monahan & Bennett are our top 2 centres of the future. Backlund is probably a #2 centre on several NHL teams & in 2 years will probably want to get paid as a #2 but I don't see how we can fit him with Money & Bennett. He is quickly trending to be a Jordan Staal version of circumstances. I could maybe see that deal but pull out Ferland. As much as we hope Ferland can step up & be a top 6 nasty power forward, his ceiling seems to be a solid 3rd line forward, but I wouldn't want to give up on him yet, especially if Backlund is going the other way. That would be awful unpopular trading Backlund in Calgary. Would love to have Crawford.
- Kevin R

Interesting, great analysis BTW

I'd rather have Ladd at 4x5 or 6x4.5
- JRoenick97

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.

Neither.
- EnzoD

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?

Shaw is a restricted free agent so his rights have more value than a 5th round pick.
- DarthKane

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.

Shaw is a true jack of all trades and his ability to play anywhere is darn useful. Kruger is more limited to PK defensive specialist. Its a tough call, but Shaw at 4 million/year? Dont know about that, but if the Hawks are hard after Ladd or Brouwer then I see both Shaw and Kruger going.
- z1990z

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.