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.
- Mr Ricochet

I'm fearful we will miss another season on those grounds.

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.
- Mr Ricochet

You're team isn't being kneecapped. You won 3 cups. You made 2 of your players the highest paid in the NHL , not because they are the 2 best players, but because they were the two best players on the best team in the NHL.

There has been a cost for success for 3 decades, deal with it. We had to.

I'm fearful we will miss another season on those grounds.
- puckhead17

Agreed but the medicine has to be taken. Better sooner than later........

As Al likes to say, we need to look at the moves and decisions made by the Hawks in "real time" when passing judgement.

When the Hawks are in a constant pursuit of Cups - with legitimate chances to win it all each season during this "golden era" (and it truly is - just ask anyone who's been a fan for a few decades) there are certain opportunity costs that have to be accepted.

First, trades of key players are usually not going to be when their value is at their highest - but rather when the cap dictates and the situation is forced. Why? Because that player is a piece that helps you win during the season. Should Stan have traded Sharp, Leddy, et al. at the respective trade deadlines - when their value was arguably higher than the off season? No - because they were key in the team's depth for a Cup run. Winning championships is more important than winning trades - so you live with the trade offs.

Also, bemoaning the Hossa contract now is misplaced. Let's remember what a highly sought after commodity he was. Pittsburgh made a trade to get him for a '07 Cup run - then Detroit lured him away for their '08 season. It was a coup and a creative contract structure that landed him on the Hawks to start the '09 campaign - which resulted in the first of the three Cups. The signing of Hossa was absolutely essential - and I'm willing to wager that the Hawks/Hossa will have the last laugh on the cap recapture penalty retroactively issued by the league when Hossa goes out on LTIR ala Pronger.

I could go on, but you get the point...
- Chief4Feathers

Well said but especially the bolded. Yes you need a Sharp for the run and move him after it but one would think StanBow wouldn't take such a beating doing so, and I'm one who thinks the move was better than most every Hawk fan thinks (IMO if Garbutt and Daley, Weise too, were utilized they get past STL).

Yes you take less moving a guy a yr too late than early but you have to minimize the less, no?

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!"
- Jeropotato

We missed an entire season due to Goodenow not giving in to the inevitable.
And another 1/2 season because of the old school owners.

Agreed but the medicine has to be taken. Better sooner than later........
- Mr Ricochet

I don't know if my 52 year old heart can stand another (frank)ing lockout.
I so wish the current contract was a 20 year and not 8-10.

Agreed but the medicine has to be taken. Better sooner than later........
- Mr Ricochet

It always comes at that expense.
You guys may have 3 forwards making $29/30m combined next year.
They may each have to play 30 minutes a game like the elite D men.

You're team isn't being kneecapped. You won 3 cups. You made 2 of your players the highest paid in the NHL , not because they are the 2 best players, but because they were the two best players on the best team in the NHL.

There has been a cost for success for 3 decades, deal with it. We had to.
- Jeropotato

No? STL, LA, DAL, NYR, TB now and CLB, CAL, WPG along with others will soon be too.

If EDM management doesn't mangle their good luck/fortune in 3-4-5 years they'll be knee capped too.

Of the 4 players that I thought would/could be moved only 2 are left...

AA and Kruger...Kruger coming off a serious injury and not his best season is more difficult sell theses days than AA.

Unless the Hawks have a course of meds to help Q get through the season-Someone needs to go so some winning know how and experience can be acquired.
AA can be dealt easier than Kruger.....

Q has had his foot to the floor board from Oct-April every season.....The vets better be training and resting up for a lot of hard miles unless a few moves are still to come.

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

Only if there is a several fold TV revenue increase. Until that happens, all the expansion in the world won't help. Sure there will be a dead cat bounce with LV, but long term prognosis will be, lets just say, less than flattering.

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
- Mr Ricochet

Now we know why a 2 times 50 goal scorer was available at #39. No rush on this kid. Another year at Erie and maybe one of 2 in the AHL. High risk high reward. Have to wait and see.

I don't know if my 52 year old heart can stand another (frank)ing lockout.
I so wish the current contract was a 20 year and not 8-10.
- puckhead17

Plenty of fantastic hockey in your area. The NCAA (Penn State plays the EXACT same system as the Pens and did so before the Pens did), minor pro (love AA) and juniors can feed the addiction much better than most realize. ... Of course I'm a guy who boycotted Dollar Bill Wirtz and his Hawks for 23 years so I'm not the best comparable.

Point is there are more hockey options than most fans realize. I'm willing to wait while the NHL gets it's "affairs" in order (until the next time?).

System is broken and dying a slow death.

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

Just make the playoffs is a Bill Wirtz / Bob Pulford staple, a losing one.

CBA has six more seasons. Either side IIRC can re-open negotiations after four more seasons.

I would prefer a system more like MLB, but that may never happen.

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

Hmmm - and what's the downside?

You can't say there are only two ways - modifying the cap works better - Bird rights so that a good development team can keep the players it's spent resources developing, for instance.

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.
- puckhead17

Great experiment if he can be had at $1M or so. Unlikely though.

Now we know why a 2 times 50 goal scorer was available at #39. No rush on this kid. Another year at Erie and maybe one of 2 in the AHL. High risk high reward. Have to wait and see.
- EbonyRaptor

IMO you have a good scouting report on the kid in the small sample size. You can't teach the release or scoring IQ the kid has but he can be coached up in most every other area, and he needs some coaching up at 5ft 4in 125lbs.

No? STL, LA, DAL, NYR, TB, and CLB, CAL, WPG along with others will soon be too.

If EDM management doesn't mangle their good luck/fortune in 3-4-5 years they'll be knee capped too.
- Mr Ricochet

You pay for success. You dont think Edmonton fans know this? We went through this 30 years ago, and it was devasting, not to mention within a system that didn't allow for a quick turn around ( Hawk fans should painfully remember this era as well).

It has always been this way. The only team that managed to stave off this reality for an extended period of time has been Detroit, and they are feeling it now.


If you stocked up and went for it but didn't win? Thems the breaks. Hawks fans shouldn't poo poo about the best system the NHL has developed since the Eagleson era.

...and yes, if the Oilers win, we will certainly experience the same frustration...but it will be worth it to bring home Stanley#6, let alone 7 and 8.

You're team isn't being kneecapped. You won 3 cups. You made 2 of your players the highest paid in the NHL , not because they are the 2 best players, but because they were the two best players on the best team in the NHL.

There has been a cost for success for 3 decades, deal with it. We had to.
- Jeropotato

2,190, 000, 000.00

Why is this figure important?

It is the 2016-17 Salary Cap for the entire league.

Why should a fan of one particular team care about that?

Because eventually, more and more teams will succumb to the cap casualty operating system that the Blackhawks (and several other recent successful teams) have gone through, and once it claims all 30 teams, the league will be forced to reconfigure the Cap concept in order to maintain economic balance between the owners, the NHLPA, and the ability to allow for competitive equality.

It will never “claim” all 30 teams.

Ecomomics and basic math say otherwise. If player salary inflation and Cap ceiling do not increase at equal levels percentage wise, it is a mathematical certainty that eventually the gap between available cap space league wide and current salary commitment will close, shrinking to the point of equilibrium between the two numbers, or in economic terms, monetary Armageddon.

The reason it is not a premium concern currently is that there are enough teams with space available where UFA’s and RFA’s can relocate and collect on a salary increase. However, over time (as stated above) the available funds will diminish year after year, due in large part to a Salary Cap that does not increase enough to absorb all of the increases given out. In the short term, it can work because as long as there are teams with space, there will be player movement to those areas. And it may even look good on paper to the eyes of Gary Bettman, because parity will become almost to perfection level. But once that is attained, it has no where to go but off the cliff, as the players union will never agree to a wage structure that has no room for growth. And herein lies the importance of the relationship between the Salary Cap percentage increase in relation to annual salary inflation.

Aren’t there are enough new players entering the NHL every year on ELC’s, combined with older vets retiring, to keep the numbers proportionate to each other?

Possibly. But not necessarily. Those 2 factors definitely influence the danger zone in which the teams are operating from an accounting standpoint. However, a quick evaluation from 2010 – 2015, comparing the relationship of the league operating Salary Cap (current year team Cap x 30) and the committed funds to all players for same year, shows a decrease of the available player funds in each of the last 5 seasons. This number represents not only the conclusion that there is simply not enough league wide cap space to support contract increases, but that without a reconfigured Cap system the league would be at risk of strikes / lawsuits from the NHLPA on grounds of collusion. Again, this is the extreme result and seems unlikely in the short term, but 5 years from now is not only a possibility, but likely reality.

To illustrate this, take the Blackhawks current roster and salary structure. After the forthcoming raise to Panarin, they will have roughly 58 million tied up into 9 players. The remaining roster slots will be taken up by 14 players making 1 to 1.5 mil per.

Now envision all 30 teams being comprised likewise. It will happen eventually under the current salary inflation vs. Cap limit structure. And once it does happen, the levy will break in the form of a corporation crash. Unless a change to the system happens. Fair warning.

It always comes at that expense.
You guys may have 3 forwards making $29/30m combined next year.
They may each have to play 30 minutes a game like the elite D men.
- puckhead17

Hawks paid market value, if they didn't teams were lined up along the block to do so. Big boy world. No whining play within the system and make it work as best you can and that is get as less worse year after year after year after year as you can. And the Hawks have gotten a little worse every year since 2010 not cuz they wanted to but that's what the system demands.

Only if there is a several fold TV revenue increase. Until that happens, all the expansion in the world won't help. Sure there will be a dead cat bounce with LV, but long term prognosis will be, lets just say, less than flattering.
- blackhawk24

Thank you
Sometimes going back to the 80's isn't a good thing

You pay for success. You dont think Edmonton fans know this? We went through this 30 years ago, and it was devasting, not to mention within a system that didn't allow for a quick turn around ( Hawk fans should painfully remember this era as well).

It has always been this way. The only team that managed to stave off this reality for an extended period of time has been Detroit, and they are feeling it now.


If you stocked up and went for it but didn't win? Thems the breaks. Hawks fans shouldn't poo poo about the best system the NHL has developed since the Eagleson era.

...and yes, if the Oilers win, we will certainly experience the same frustration...but it will be worth it to bring home Stanley#6, let alone 7 and 8.
- Jeropotato

Actually it has never been this way...

With all due respect you lost the the core of one of the best teams ever because Gretzky wanted to leave, others got old and those that didn't were beyond your budget.

Teams that could afford to pay players kept them...As in the case of Detroit.
But they knew what they were doing more so than anyone...It takes more than throwing money around.

Look at the history of NY Rangers and my point will be understood because they had a huge budget but made incorrect decisions over and over again.

It has never been like this in the NHL....It's the wrong design and wrong plan for lasting success.

Parity doesn't sell.....Dynasties and stars sell, the NHL hard cap model works against marketing both.

You pay for success. You dont think Edmonton fans know this? We went through this 30 years ago, and it was devasting, not to mention within a system that didn't allow for a quick turn around ( Hawk fans should painfully remember this era as well).

It has always been this way. The only team that managed to stave off this reality for an extended period of time has been Detroit, and they are feeling it now.


If you stocked up and went for it but didn't win? Thems the breaks. Hawks fans shouldn't poo poo about the best system the NHL has developed since the Eagleson era.

...and yes, if the Oilers win, we will certainly experience the same frustration...but it will be worth it to bring home Stanley#6, let alone 7 and 8.
- Jeropotato

The difference being that the cap (instituted in 2006) didn't wreck the Oilers but it's giving a slow death to teams (and the league?) like the Hawks, LA, NYR, STL, TB.

Hmmm - and what's the downside?

You can't say there are only two ways - modifying the cap works better - Bird rights so that a good development team can keep the players it's spent resources developing, for instance.
- StLBravesFan

Yeah works for the Yankees, $$$ in. $$$ out

You pay for success. You dont think Edmonton fans know this? We went through this 30 years ago, and it was devasting, not to mention within a system that didn't allow for a quick turn around ( Hawk fans should painfully remember this era as well).
- Jeropotato

This is the only thing that makes the salary cap issue barely tolerable.

At least I can take solace in the fact that I have been fortunate enough to celebrate 3 Blackhawks Stanley Cups in the last 7 years…. Something fans of 12 other teams can’t even say they have seen once (Washington, Buffalo, Vancouver, Arizona/Winnipeg, Ottawa, Florida, San Jose, Columbus, Nashville, Minnesota, Winnipeg/Atlanta, and St. Losers), while an additional 7 team fan bases have been waiting 22+ years (New York Rangers -22, Montreal -23, Edmonton -26, Calgary -27, New York Islanders -33, Philadelphia -41, Toronto -49).


I suppose things could be worse.

You pay for success. You dont think Edmonton fans know this? We went through this 30 years ago, and it was devasting, not to mention within a system that didn't allow for a quick turn around ( Hawk fans should painfully remember this era as well).

It has always been this way. The only team that managed to stave off this reality for an extended period of time has been Detroit, and they are feeling it now.


If you stocked up and went for it but didn't win? Thems the breaks. Hawks fans shouldn't poo poo about the best system the NHL has developed since the Eagleson era.

...and yes, if the Oilers win, we will certainly experience the same frustration...but it will be worth it to bring home Stanley#6, let alone 7 and 8.
- Jeropotato

EDM didn't have a cap 1990-2004, the period from your most recent cup, until the lost season. What happened there?

Put the 'Hawks 2010-2015 track record back at 1985-1990 with the system the way it was with Rocky at the helm and you can bet your bottom dollar there would be more 'Hawks titles post-1990. The hard cap is doing exactly what it was designed to do, guaranteeing there won't be a:

1984-1990 Oilers ... 5/7
1980-1983 Islanders ... 4/4
1971-1979 Habs ... 6/9

EDIT: And yes I knew the Oilers era well, very well. 1983, 1985 & 1990 especially.