This is the part everyone needs to understand.

You trade Crawford, you will downgrade the position—but you have something like $2-5 million that you can now use elsewhere.

You trade AA, you will probably downgrade the position, but maybe only slightly, and you could save $2 million a season that you can use elsewhere.

Actually you trade Kruger, and you will not only downgrade the position likely, but you might not end up saving much.

The issue is this, you have only one top 6 LW and one of the top lines, in the absence of said LW, stopped dead last year. What is the "cost" of that? AND you have to pay the other LW you do have BIG TIME next year.

You want an upgrade over AA? Meh. $4.5 million is a lot for a guy who's 43% in the dot, not terribly fast and only produced 42 points playing with the MVP and the rookie of the year. I think he can be somewhat replaced honestly. Not to say he didn't do some solid work. He did. But he is NOT what made that line go.
- John Jaeckel

Trade AA and sign Brouwer to be the new line 2 Center. Should be the same contract in terms of money and years that AA has. They are comparable.

Interesting facet of the Weber trade. He's subject to recapture.

https://twitter.com/gener...status/748284902538285056

I think some attempts, my own included, to document the recapture didn't account for the fact you do NOT get a credit for a higher cap hit than salary paid. So the penalties are even worse. Could be up to $18 mil if he retires with 1-yr left.

He did well to coach them to the playoffs with that D core. Stan gave him a little forward depth at the end, but nothing in the top 4D level... and it showed.
- JRoenick97

I guess that's subjective. I think he badly managed available assets, that of course is my opinion. I think Q had a bad year but don't think he got stupid all of a sudden. If he has a similar year I think it's fair to question whether or not Q is the kind of coach that can work with a group that is flush with unproven and under performing (bargain bin) talent.

In the end I think the early exit was probably a blessing since they weren't gonna win and now they get more rest. But 100% agree that while there were a lot of problems, some of them were exacerbated by Q's decisions, or could have been fixed but weren't because of Q's decisions. Who knows what Gus would have looked like if he hadn't been shuffled back and forth and then press-boxed and asked to change his style of play. And Runblad on the ice in a game 7 is straight up embarrassing. (Stan AND Q at fault for that one). We've rehashed the Mash Mistake endlessly, but that's another one on Q, and he didn't manage Stan's TDL pickups very well either.

Every year Q does seemingly dumb poop, roster-wise, and usually takes a few games to figure out the best lineup. Some of it is feeling out the other team and figuring out the best response, but some of it is without a doubt also Q's stubbornness and this is nothing new. Every year before this year he had a team so stacked that they kept in it in spite of Q's lineups until he settled on the right one. This year there were too many holes, and too many tired core members, for them to tread water during Q's figuring it out period.
- maria_wyeth

Our legal eagle from CA is spot on here. Love Q but he's a stubborn man and in his world, there's only one way, his way (ala, Ditka). And as I've always said, its the "players dummy". . He never won a Cup as a head coach until he got here with its loaded roster. Not saying Denis Savard was going to win 3 Cups here but I bet a handful of coaches could have and maybe an extra one thrown in for good measure.

Bill Belichick didn't win anything until he got to NE and Mr. Brady. At least Phil Jackson won a title in the CBA in 1984 with the Albany Patroons (now there's a trivia answer for you) but I'm guessing even Big Chief Triangle would have had some competition from a handful of head coaches who could have duplicated his efforts in Chicago and LA with Michael and Kobe.

Oh well, as a lifelong Cub fan.....I now am using this refrain for our Hawks......."wait until next year"

This is the part everyone needs to understand.

You trade Crawford, you will downgrade the position—but you have something like $2-5 million that you can now use elsewhere.

You trade AA, you will probably downgrade the position, but maybe only slightly, and you could save $2 million a season that you can use elsewhere.

Actually you trade Kruger, and you will not only downgrade the position likely, but you might not end up saving much.

The issue is this, you have only one top 6 LW and one of the top lines, in the absence of said LW, stopped dead last year. What is the "cost" of that? AND you have to pay the other LW you do have BIG TIME next year.

You want an upgrade over AA? Meh. $4.5 million is a lot for a guy who's 43% in the dot, not terribly fast and only produced 42 points playing with the MVP and the rookie of the year. I think he can be somewhat replaced honestly. Not to say he didn't do some solid work. He did. But he is NOT what made that line go.
- John Jaeckel

Like I told someone on Twitter it's not about getting better at the position-But if you can be no worse as a team then there are millions of reasons to make the trade.

In retrospect Crawford's salary is about average for the position...Not sure I can say the same for AA and 5 years is a long time.. I would take my chances Panarin and Kane will be okay, way before I deal Crawford or even Kruger.

With nhl16 like moves today, any word out of the bowman camp JJ?

Do you see them moving AA before his NMC kicks in, or shaking up the team?

In the end I think the early exit was probably a blessing since they weren't gonna win and now they get more rest. But 100% agree that while there were a lot of problems, some of them were exacerbated by Q's decisions, or could have been fixed but weren't because of Q's decisions. Who knows what Gus would have looked like if he hadn't been shuffled back and forth and then press-boxed and asked to change his style of play. And Runblad on the ice in a game 7 is straight up embarrassing. (Stan AND Q at fault for that one). We've rehashed the Mash Mistake endlessly, but that's another one on Q, and he didn't manage Stan's TDL pickups very well either.

Every year Q does seemingly dumb poop, roster-wise, and usually takes a few games to figure out the best lineup. Some of it is feeling out the other team and figuring out the best response, but some of it is without a doubt also Q's stubbornness and this is nothing new. Every year before this year he had a team so stacked that they kept in it in spite of Q's lineups until he settled on the right one. This year there were too many holes, and too many tired core members, for them to tread water during Q's figuring it out period.
- maria_wyeth

Agree with everything you posted, Maria, especially the bolded. The Hawks took a bath every time they faced DAL last year and if they got by them I don't see them getting past SJ....... Yes, I don't think we realize just how important it is for the Hawk core to get a good long rest away from the arena.

I think the core comes back rested and as importantly, hungry.

The margin for error gets more thin each year due to the cap. Q and StanBow must be on the same page. The scouts need to be right on, StanBow needs to mange the cap like a song and Q needs to find the right grouping and make what he has work, whatever that may be.

In the end I think the early exit was probably a blessing since they weren't gonna win and now they get more rest. But 100% agree that while there were a lot of problems, some of them were exacerbated by Q's decisions, or could have been fixed but weren't because of Q's decisions. Who knows what Gus would have looked like if he hadn't been shuffled back and forth and then press-boxed and asked to change his style of play. And Runblad on the ice in a game 7 is straight up embarrassing. (Stan AND Q at fault for that one). We've rehashed the Mash Mistake endlessly, but that's another one on Q, and he didn't manage Stan's TDL pickups very well either.

Every year Q does seemingly dumb poop, roster-wise, and usually takes a few games to figure out the best lineup. Some of it is feeling out the other team and figuring out the best response, but some of it is without a doubt also Q's stubbornness and this is nothing new. Every year before this year he had a team so stacked that they kept in it in spite of Q's lineups until he settled on the right one. This year there were too many holes, and too many tired core members, for them to tread water during Q's figuring it out period.
- maria_wyeth

I was going to highlight parts of this, but as I kept reading I deleted them because I agree with ALL of this. Nice post Maria.

Like I told someone on Twitter it's not about getting better at the position-But if you can be no worse as a team then there are millions of reasons to make the trade.

In retrospect Crawford's salary is about average for the position...Not sure I can say the same for AA and 5 years is a long time.. I would take my chances Panarin and Kane will be okay, way before I deal Crawford or even Kruger.
- Al

I think Stan obviously knows that his view on the cap and where it would be today was dead wrong and the cap isn't going to increase much next year with Las Vegas joining the league. MHO is I believe Stan has a blockbuster trade sitting on the table and is pounding the JD until he talks himself into pulling the trigger!!!

Hawks have not stood pat. See JJ's long list of subtractions with Kempny as the only true addition.
- phantasmo

And add Bickell as addition by subtraction. Getting that thing off the books is huge. He also added the Swedish bowling ball, Lundberg. In theory he'll help in the bottom 6 but after watching Q operate last year I take nothing for granted. ......And IF somehow one of the goalies go he also added 28 yr old Swede goalie Lars Johansson.

This is the part everyone needs to understand.

You trade Crawford, you will downgrade the position—but you have something like $2-5 million that you can now use elsewhere.

You trade AA, you will probably downgrade the position, but maybe only slightly, and you could save $2 million a season that you can use elsewhere.

Actually you trade Kruger, and you will not only downgrade the position likely, but you might not end up saving much.

The issue is this, you have only one top 6 LW and one of the top lines, in the absence of said LW, stopped dead last year. What is the "cost" of that? AND you have to pay the other LW you do have BIG TIME next year.

You want an upgrade over AA? Meh. $4.5 million is a lot for a guy who's 43% in the dot, not terribly fast and only produced 42 points playing with the MVP and the rookie of the year. I think he can be somewhat replaced honestly. Not to say he didn't do some solid work. He did. But he is NOT what made that line go.
- John Jaeckel

Now there's a crystal clear explanation. Love this post. Nice job.

Shipachyov, a center, is still a remote possibility. With Bergevin spending like a drunken sailor and now reportedly pursuing Ladd, maybe SB has an inside track.

Then you can move AA, upgrade his spot at center with the Ivan at a lower AAV, and have a few bucks left to upgrade at LW.

Its ok to dream right?

Whoah, I seem to recall a cantankerous blogger who was in love with Tyler Myers and was begging the hawks to draft him !! Funny how it all works out.
- 6628

Meyers is no bust but I count him as one I was wrong on. After that rookie year of 48 points and playing ok in his end I thought he was the real deal, a top 10-20 Dman. ...These are reasons I rarely speak in absolutes on players and pass by most people who do.

In his blog, Garth says the Sabres were prepared to go 7 years, $12M AAV on Stamkos, and that Lucic is getting 7 years, $7AAV from Edmonton.

Shipachyov, a center, is still a remote possibility. With Bergevin spending like a drunken sailor and now reportedly pursuing Ladd, maybe SB has an inside track.

Then you can move AA, upgrade his spot at center with the Ivan at a lower AAV, and have a few bucks left to upgrade at LW.

Its ok to dream right?
- Return of the Roar

Dreaming is all we can do right now.

I hate the CAP.

Thank god there isn't one in MLB, so the Cubs can hang on to their wealth of young talent.

Nashville just got better and younger IMO.

We'll see what St. Louis loses.

But last year they and Dallas were better than the Hawks and you leave out the fact that mostly all the Hawks have done this offseason is subtract for draft picks and breathing room.
- John Jaeckel

I think we are in agreement that under the current stagnant cap the better teams hope to get less worse or break even year to year. If not we can agree to disagree.

I think we can also agree that the Hawk model of having 72% of the cap tied into a 7 player core is a model no other team has bought that heavily into.

I think we can also agree of a One Goal burn the house down every year of moving picks and what little assets on the farm at the TDL makes adding from the farm a tough do.

I think we can agree, and as you blogged, that under the current cap rules and the Hawk formula of going so core heavy very realistically leaves them vulnerable to sliding into mediocrity, and I'd add maybe worse.

I have no illusions that the Hawks are better than they were at seasons end and in fact said the day after Q got bumped out of the playoffs the goal is to get less worse, not better. But I also said that is offset a bit by MOST of the better teams getting a bit worse and that the team that gets less worse has done well.

I also don't think the Hawks got as much worse as you think they have. I still think they have the best core, they will better with a rested core and the defense is much better assuming Kempny can eat #4 minutes bumping TVR to #5 and Gus and the 7 footer have some NHL experience under their belts.

And I'd add there will be a training camp surprise, there always is. And I'd add the list of players not qualified or lower tier UFA's is very intriguing. I do think the Hawks find a useful player from that pile. And I'd add Q ain't all of a sudden stupid and expect he's better this coming year.

Holes? Of course it's a hard cap every team has em but this is a pedigreed core and a management group that have won some cups.

Shipachyov, a center, is still a remote possibility. With Bergevin spending like a drunken sailor and now reportedly pursuing Ladd, maybe SB has an inside track.

Then you can move AA, upgrade his spot at center with the Ivan at a lower AAV, and have a few bucks left to upgrade at LW.

Its ok to dream right?
- Return of the Roar

Sounds pretty logical to me. If you lost AA salary and say sign Ship to a $2M contract, there is about $8.5-9M to play with for the rest of the roster.

EDIT: that's enough room to sign McGinn and say.. Joe Colbourne. Now team depth is actually pretty good and has some nasty and size.

I hate the CAP.

Thank god there isn't one in MLB, so the Cubs can hang on to their wealth of young talent.
- scottak

Just wait until we have 'Cubs TV' in a few years, after those current contracts expire.

Meyers is no bust but I count him as one I was wrong on. After that rookie year of 48 points and playing ok in his end I thought he was the real deal, a top 10-20 Dman. ...These are reasons I rarely speak in absolutes on players and pass by most people who do.
- Mr Ricochet

I was taking about WIZ, he was all over him at the draft

I'm hoping we have a trade in player that moves a player after a big bonus is paid out for a player thats contracts is back loaded on a budget team. seabs gets 4.5 mil FRI, Kruger 1.5. AA 4.75. so he is paid 18 mil over 5 years 3.6 actual salary but a AAV of 4.55. After we pay that he should return a budget team a pretty big return. lets get a 1LW and then sign Ship for 3 year 10mil and campbell 4 year 6 mill all front loaded and he can retire after 2. extend panarin at 6 X 40.

I was taking about WIZ, he was all over him at the draft
- 6628

I know. Wiz has a pretty solid record, can't win em all.......... Just like to remind myself of my misses.

I'm hoping we have a trade in player that moves a player after a big bonus is paid out for a player thats contracts is back loaded on a budget team. seabs gets 4.5 mil FRI, Kruger 1.5. AA 4.75. so he is paid 18 mil over 5 years 3.6 actual salary but a AAV of 4.55. After we pay that he should return a budget team a pretty big return. lets get a 1LW and then sign Ship for 3 year 10mil and campbell 4 year 6 mill all front loaded and he can retire after 2. extend panarin at 6 X 40.
- kmw4631

Campbell is over 35 so any deal he signs stays on the cap for the entire term of the deal. Also, there are parameters that the contract must fit into with regards to amount of money paid year to year.

This is just one of the clauses:

(b) "The 100 Percent Rule" for Multi-Year SPCs. For any SPC that is not a FrontLoaded
SPC, the difference between the stated Player Salary and Bonuses in the first two League
Years of an SPC cannot exceed the amount of the lower of the two League Years. Thereafter, in
all subsequent League Years of the SPC, (i) any increase in Player Salary and Bonuses from one
League Year to another may not exceed the amount of the lower of the first two League Years of
the SPC (or, if such amounts are the same, that same amount); and (ii) any decrease in Player
Salary and Bonuses from one League Year to another may not exceed fifty (50) percent of the
Player Salary and Bonuses of the lower of the first two League Years of the SPC (or, if such
amounts are the same, 50 percent of that same amount).

Campbell is over 35 so any deal he signs stays on the cap for the entire term of the deal. Also, there are parameters that the contract must fit into with regards to amount of money paid year to year.

This is just one of the clauses:
- dstainer

He said (per Trib article today) that he only wants a 1 year deal: "Campbell just completed an eight-year, $57 million contract and is prepared to sign a one-year deal to land in his preferred destination."
http://www.chicagotribune...gency-20160629-story.html

He said (see Trib article today) that he only wants a 1 year deal
- Marlowe

Then I pay him up to $3mill...