This is how the cap is set up, so there are sooooo many obstacles put in front of a Chicago, LA, TB, STL, NYR type teams that draft and spend that you are forced to hemorrhage talent to stay cap compliant year, after year after year after year until there is no more rope to pull as the AAA cupboard is now bare and NHL FA are too expensive to even come close to replacing what's been lost. So these teams come BACK to the CAR-NYJ-AZ types.

This happens until the LA's-CHI's-NYR's don't make the playoffs and revenue goes down even more and so will the cap making those teams even weaker and the AZ's-NYJ's AZ's a little stronger.

A system set up to knee cap the revenue drivers to allow the anchors a place at the table. And it was voted for by the LA's-CHI's-NYR's.

So the revenue drivers hope to get "less worse" each year and the anchors hope to get a little bit better each year like CAR getting "TT's for free" and the two different business models meet in the MIDDLE.
- Mr Ricochet

You must be young and don't realize that when Chi-Ny and LA's revenue goes down that the NHL will be just fine when Philly, Colorado and Dallas's go up. Those teams had Hella mad cash in the late 90's when they were winning.

The NHL doesn't depend on those 3 markets being competitive as much as you suggest.

How about a 1 yr flyer on Vrbata. He can most definitely score. Doesn't play much defense, and not sure if he is a possession type guy. And not sure he can play left wing.
- hockey nut 28

Thought about this too, 28, even though Vrabata is a veeeeery flawed player who can and does pot 35 goals. But he's simply a RW and wouldn't fit.

What about steve downie for the 3rd line?

Stempniak would be a nice pick up for you guys
- Ross77

Yes, a nice 3/4R.

This is the point that really aggrevates me. This was what I thought was the model. When you have to get rid of good players, you do it for picks, that you then draft, over-develop, and bring to the NHL when they are really good players.

Getting an extra two or three picks a year only increases the chance that you are going to get good players (ie. perfect example was the year they got both Danault and Saad after their own 1st rounder McNeill).

You build what should be one of the top prospect organizations and it lets you move guys out and back fill with seasoned talented youngsters, some of which will become future core guys.

This model was working, and the last 12 months, before this week, they went completely off script and drained the system.

Look at the prospects list over the last 2 years when the Hawks had a top 5 system:

TT, Danault, Johns, Dano.

If those 4 guys had been in Rockford (yes, I know but TT was never seasoned enough to be playing in the league, he should have been in Rockford being over seasoned, remember that is a key part to the plan) and now being ready to move up with the moving out of Shaw, Kruger, would there be such nashing of teeth and thoughts of doom and gloom.

They need to get back on this plan, even if it means no cups for a couple years. They need to move guys when they have to for picks and build the top prospects in the system up.

Otherwise, when it crashes with this current core, its going to be Edmonton ugly for a while.
- vabeachbear

Good post Bear. BUT was there a chance to move Sharp a month earlier without the damage, or did StanBow mangle it? Do you have to move a Sharp (a higher end guy than Shaw) a year early weakening the club for that year's cup run?

You must be young and don't realize that when Chi-Ny and LA's revenue goes down that the NHL will be just fine when Philly, Colorado and Dallas's go up. Those teams had Hella mad cash in the late 90's when they were winning.

The NHL doesn't depend on those 3 markets being competitive as much as you suggest.
- Jeropotato

Ok, but the tv ratings say otherwise. And I watched the Broad Street Bullies and Peter the Puck if that tells you anything.

You must be young and don't realize that when Chi-Ny and LA's revenue goes down that the NHL will be just fine when Philly, Colorado and Dallas's go up. Those teams had Hella mad cash in the late 90's when they were winning.

The NHL doesn't depend on those 3 markets being competitive as much as you suggest.
- Jeropotato

It worked for a while, (lockouts, and a missed season), blew it up.
The big dogs had salaries of $90m, and the little ones were at $22m.
It would have gotten worse.

Yes, a nice 3/4R.
- blackhawk24

3/4, he had 51 points last season.

We need a top 6 LW, an entire 3rd line, and a 4/5D.

We have about 5-6mil to make all of that happen.

May god have mercy on our souls...
- SimpleJack

This is along the lines what a lot of us have yapped about the past days / weeks. A big salary has to go. Al stands by it being AA, while 7/50 are highly unlikely. And I get what JJ reiterated from some a week or so back, that CC could go for a pick or two.

Until more salary moves out and the roster carefully re-built I fear missing the '16-'17 playoffs.

We're doomed, we'll never win again.

Kind of humorous coming from a Oil fan. You couldn't suck more than you have, now the league gifts you with like 10 straight years of #1 overalls and you might have gotten one right.

then the idiots picking in front of you this year pass on Puuliarvi(I'm sure that's spelled wrong, finnish is such a tough language), or did they? Would you have taken the Dman if Puuliarvi was gone?

Anyway, any other team that was gifted what you were would be battling for cups every year, so come here and pop off when at least when you finally make the playoffs...................and let us worry about how screwed we are
- vabeachbear

Waaay to early to make that call even in the face of common accepted thought. I may be biased but I live to see Peter Forsberg type players, same style the Frenchy with 3 names plays.

3/4, he had 51 points last season.
- puckhead17

Unless he clearly displaces Hossa, still a solid 200' player, he'd be blocked at 1/2R.

That said, if he'd come cheaply, I would really like to see him come here and see if he can make an impact on Toews line, if nothing more than an experiment. Since Q will have his blender set on high, it's likely Stemniak would get a few looks.

It worked for a while, (lockouts, and a missed season), blew it up.
The big dogs had salaries of $90m, and the little ones were at $22m.
It would have gotten worse.
- puckhead17

Oh for sure, the system was flawed, and the the TV revenue is huge from those markets. But if Chicago and NY fans turn away because the teams are not dominant ( I expect this from LA) then shame on the fans in those markets.

The Canadian dollar being low is a bigger concern because those markets are hella strong otherwise, as well as the regular, traditional hotbeds, regardless of team success.

To say the new system is bad for the NHL because it depends on LA/NY/Chi being good in order to make money is just plain wrong, and it shouldn't adjust just to help out those teams.

Unless he clearly displaces Hossa, still a solid 200' player, he'd be blocked at 1/2R.

That said, if he'd come cheaply, I would really like to see him come here and see if he can make an impact on Toews line, if nothing more than an experiment. Since Q will have his blender set on high, it's likely Stemniak would get a few looks.
- blackhawk24

He has speed, and his hands came back to life last season, he could possibly get 60 points playing in Chicago's top 6. Problem is I guess no one really knows what they will get with him considering his up, and down seasons.

This is along the lines what a lot of us have yapped about the past days / weeks. A big salary has to go. Al stands by it being AA, while 7/50 are highly unlikely. And I get what JJ reiterated from some a week or so back, that CC could go for a pick or two.

Until more salary moves out and the roster carefully re-built I fear missing the '16-'17 playoffs.
- blackhawk24

I have a little more faith in this core to at least make the playoffs even if the supporting cast isn't as good/young. Realistically though, we have to prepare for the fact that there will be rebuilding seasons coming up unless we get a cap spike/change the rules. Being bad one year, getting a lottery pick that plays well on a ELC contract probably helps this team out a lot.

I'm not sure when the next CBA comes up, but there has to be some medium between unregulated spending like the old days, and the hard cap like today. Maybe they could switch to the NBA style soft cap, which at least gives you the option of going over the cap (but paying a huge price).

Hudler/McGinn... Yes neither are what you would consider a #1 LW, but we dont have alot of options right now. Either would be fine in my book as they are veteran players that would blend just fine with 19 or 15. I would still like to see what it would take to get Yak from the Oilers. I think he would flourish on this team.

Anyone think Debrincat can start as a rook? The more of his highlights I see the more I like him.
- z1990z

No.

Nice looking prospect no doubt and a player who will have to play top 6 to contribute. Instead of watching his highlight reel watch the CHL 2016 Top Prospect Game vs the best players of his class. Notice his puck management and his defense. He's 14 in the red. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lr2--sX45E4

Oh for sure, the system was flawed, and the the TV revenue is huge from those markets. But if Chicago and NY fans turn away because the teams are not dominant ( I expect this from LA) then shame on the fans in those markets.

The Canadian dollar being low is a bigger concern because those markets are hella strong otherwise, as well as the regular, traditional hotbeds, regardless of team success.

To say the new system is bad for the NHL because it depends on LA/NY/Chi being good in order to make money is just plain wrong, and it shouldn't adjust just to help out those teams.
- Jeropotato

All true!!
And we've seen first hand the huge difference in managing a team with the cap, vs being able to buy anything you want, cough, my team.
Now General managers are showing who can really manage.
There's. still issues regarding the old system, or maybe we would have had Quebec back in a few years ago, (the Habs blocking them),when the Canadian dollar was more stable.

I have a little more faith in this core to at least make the playoffs even if the supporting cast isn't as good/young. Realistically though, we have to prepare for the fact that there will be rebuilding seasons coming up unless we get a cap spike/change the rules. Being bad one year, getting a lottery pick that plays well on a ELC contract probably helps this team out a lot.

I'm not sure when the next CBA comes up, but there has to be some medium between unregulated spending like the old days, and the hard cap like today. Maybe they could switch to the NBA style soft cap, which at least gives you the option of going over the cap (but paying a huge price).
- hawkfan79

Yeah this team as is looks like the 2011 team depth wise. With less upfront. We squeaked into the playoffs that year. This could be very similar.

This is along the lines what a lot of us have yapped about the past days / weeks. A big salary has to go. Al stands by it being AA, while 7/50 are highly unlikely. And I get what JJ reiterated from some a week or so back, that CC could go for a pick or two.

Until more salary moves out and the roster carefully re-built I fear missing the '16-'17 playoffs.
- blackhawk24

I'd still wager that the Hawks will make the playoffs - when you have the core that we do still in place - we'll get enough regular season points to make it (especially given OT/shoot out system). However, the lack of forward depth and bottom pairing quality will make the hopes of advancing in the playoffs speculative at best. But, as many have pointed out - this isn't happening to the Hawks in a vacuum - as many teams find themselves in the cycle of trying to stem their decline rather than improve and get better.

I don't hate the cap - I see it doing exactly what it was constructed to do. But, as a Hawks fan and finally having an owner willing to spend - there is a bitter irony of Rocky not being around during the 90s. We very likely would be talking about a few cups won back then around a core of Roenick, Chelios and Belfour. Instead we saw Dollar Bill and henchman Pulford trade it all away for essentially nothing. Those were dark days - and outside fans bagging on Hawks fans for staying away during the early 2000s just can't appreciate the heartache of seeing a competitive team dismantled - all because of the shortsighted greed of an out-of-touch owner.

Oh for sure, the system was flawed, and the the TV revenue is huge from those markets. But if Chicago and NY fans turn away because the teams are not dominant ( I expect this from LA) then shame on the fans in those markets.

The Canadian dollar being low is a bigger concern because those markets are hella strong otherwise, as well as the regular, traditional hotbeds, regardless of team success.

To say the new system is bad for the NHL because it depends on LA/NY/Chi being good in order to make money is just plain wrong, and it shouldn't adjust just to help out those teams.
- Jeropotato

I'll leave your last paragraph to stand on it's own merit but have a question for regarding the rest of your post.

I can be accused, and rightly so, of having a mythical view of Canada and it's love affair with hockey. What are your thoughts of the horrid tv ratings and lack of interest in this last year's fantastic playoffs up in Canada? And what do you think Rogers Broadcasting will do to recap the money lost?

I understand Canada didn't have an entry in the tournament but to nearly completely shun the sport to me was nothing short of incredible, something I could never have conceived.

And as a Chicagoan for 5 decades I can tell you with zero doubt if the Hawks go through a "dry spell" so will attendance and tv ratings.

McGinn can slide up the LW. If they need him with Toews he will be fine. With Kane definitely fine. It'll be an underrated add in my opinion. He competes.

because the other way, (the old way), the NHL becomes the MLB.
the MLB can do this and get away with it, the NHL would be back to a 24 team league.
- puckhead17

Is that bad if the remaining 24 teams drive revenue up and put out a great product?

All true!!
And we've seen first hand the huge difference in managing a team with the cap, vs being able to buy anything you want, cough, my team.
Now General managers are showing who can really manage.
There's. still issues regarding the old system, or maybe we would have had Quebec back in a few years ago, (the Habs blocking them),when the Canadian dollar was more stable.
- puckhead17

Agree 100%. A system based on allowing the monied owners to buy cups can't work long term and neither can a system we have now with a cap designed to knee cap those who scout, sign, develop and bring to the NHL a very good product.

A middle has to be found.

I hope the primary objective in constructing this roster is to be in position to extend Panarin. In other words, any free agent signed to play in 2016/17 must either have a 1-year deal or have a low enough AAV to not cause Stan to have to unload more assets next summer to fit Panarin in to play the 2017/18 season.

Here is the 2017/18 salary cap reality as it stand today: players signed (Toews, Kane, Hossa, Anisimov, Kruger, Keith, Seabrook, Hjalmarsson, TvR & Crawford) total $57M. Let's assume it will take $6M to sign Panarin - that brings the total up to $63M - for 6 forwards, 4 d-men and 1 goalie.

If the salary cap inches up the way it has the last few years (no guarantee) and the players again agree to use the escalator (no guarantee) - maybe the salary cap goes up from $73M to $75M. That means the Hawks would have only $12M for the remaining 12 players on the roster. But ... what if Panarin hit's his bonuses again and the Hawks have a $2M overage from the 2016/17 season. That would leave only $10M for the remaining $12 players.

All that is the dire salary cap circumstances if they don't sign a free agent this summer whose salary extends into the 2017/18 season. If they sign a Hudler or McGinn and even get them to sign at under market value - say $3M - that would mean the Hawks would have only $7M for 11 players.

The math simply doesn't add up. Not without a big contract player traded. Or maybe the Hawks figure to trade Panarin's rights after next season and get what they can for him. Something has to give.

Is that bad if the remaining 24 teams drive revenue up and put out a great product?
- Yikes726

Yeah it works for soccer.

All true!!
And we've seen first hand the huge difference in managing a team with the cap, vs being able to buy anything you want, cough, my team.
Now General managers are showing who can really manage.
There's. still issues regarding the old system, or maybe we would have had Quebec back in a few years ago, (the Habs blocking them),when the Canadian dollar was more stable.
- puckhead17

Yes, and the NHL needs to deal with and manage finances with the potential for peaks and valleys to occur. If this is a great time for the NHL because of the big markets success, they should squirrel away some cash.

I hope, hope, hope to Hell when the next CBA rolls around that the NHL doesn't do something poopty like " (frank) parity and the small markets! We need Chicago, Philly, NY and LA on top again! Let's make it easier! Don't worry about Canada, those Schlubs will still pay top dollar to watch garbage hockey, they've been doing it since the 80's!"