The current problem is that Milwaukee doesn't have a NHL quality building for hockey. The Bradley Center is being replaced, but the AHL club sharing the building with the Bucks currently was not invited to be involved in the new building. That means that the Admirals are moving to a smaller building.

Then there is a lack of an ownership group looking to park a team in Milwaukee. Can't have a NHL team without that, and huge stacks of money.

Additionally, if you look at the attendance numbers for the AHL club, it doesn't seem to me that a NHL team would draw enough to make it worthwhile financially.

Lastly, doesn't the Wirtz family have some sort of territorial rights that would prohibit parking an NHL team in Milwaukee? If so, that is another problem.
- EKB13

That hasn't stopped the 'Yotes though. How long did they not have an owner?

That hasn't stopped the 'Yotes though. How long did they not have an owner?
- powerenforcer

They had an ownership group when they moved there.

The current problem is that Milwaukee doesn't have a NHL quality building for hockey. The Bradley Center is being replaced, but the AHL club sharing the building with the Bucks currently was not invited to be involved in the new building. That means that the Admirals are moving to a smaller building.

Then there is a lack of an ownership group looking to park a team in Milwaukee. Can't have a NHL team without that, and huge stacks of money.

Additionally, if you look at the attendance numbers for the AHL club, it doesn't seem to me that a NHL team would draw enough to make it worthwhile financially.

Lastly, doesn't the Wirtz family have some sort of territorial rights that would prohibit parking an NHL team in Milwaukee? If so, that is another problem.
- EKB13

According to an article in the Hockey News (http://www.thehockeynews....oving-to-southern-ontario) NHL teams have a restricted home territory of:

Home territory with respect to any member, means each member club shall have exclusive territorial rights in the city in which it is located and within 50 miles of that city’s corporate limits.”

So it seems that Milwaukee is outside of that limit - although your other concerns about Milwaukee (Lloyd Petit and his connected wife aside) are correct, IMO.

Although somehow (and the article wasn't clear how or why) the league believes that other rules would allow the league to put a franchise in suburban Toronto.

Off topic, but why doesnt Milwaukee have a hockey team? Why no expansion there?
- onehundredlevel

I think Eli hit on them all, but the biggest is if you are going to have an in the city stadium, you better have a high attendance record for your AHL club to warrant consideration.

And the Bradley center is old.

And they tend to want new NHL clubs where there seems to be populations with money to spend frivolously on taking families and Milwaukee as that same dynamic of urban flight...the reasons so many of our pistes here are suburban....there families wanted new homes, lower taxes and chalk white neighbors they are less afraid of.
So you are talking about commitment to that drive in To the city, the dollar outlay, the food prices.
The people in Phoenix drive EVERYWHERE, so they used to it.
You think Las Vegas will have a large walkin fan who didn't drive in besides the old hockey buffs who will also embraces the new product? I do.

Quebec is compact and the loyal will come back, period.

Kansas City Scouts the nhk expansion team banked on the solid minor league attendances there and the untapped market, except the area folk just didn't like paying the higher nhl ticket

The Panthers are there because there are so many people in Sunrise, Fort Lauderdale, and Miami and is still hoping that the grampa's (I have 3 grandchildren, so don't add that to your resentment of me, because I said your families keep moving further and further west I know my Polish relative who were frightened out of the multicolored Chicago to Mt. PRospect KEPT moving westward for fear Mt. prospect was going to erupt) will attend games even though it is past their 9:00 bedtimes...

Look at New Jersey...you have people all around and they have the money to attend.

And many of us here were loyal and continued to pay the ticket price as the UC almost doubled the seat price and we all were much farther away from the ice surface, not right over it where I could easily make sure Brett Hull could hear me, when I would ask him if he milked his father's bull....

It was tough to go to a Detroit game when all those wing fans would fill more than half of the UC. SUre he old man, butter with was a reason many said they left, but the product was terrible, they had no solid s outing other than their good old boy network connected to Pully.

Fans want to wn...and let's be honest - the reason everyone is now a hawk fan is that they are an elite winning club, and the casuals caught the bug, and made the demand for tickets and merchandise so high...it tickles me that anytime I am in Chicago, there are thousands of Indianheads everywhere.

So maybe if you could guaranteed Milwaukee wins as an expansion team, you grab the market,but we know that isn't easy.

San Jose just got to the finals and there is a strong list on teams still trying.

That's the philosophy that's created the current cap mess. If the team could think a little farther ahead maybe there'd still be more than a line and a half left of what used to be depth.
- DarthProbert

Nope - blame the hard cap, the fall of oil prices which crushed the CAN$, the stagnant economy, and over-agressive projections of cap growth that resulted in too much money going toward too few players. Throw in too many restrictive contract clauses and there you have it.

There is no way the Hawks, or any other team in their predicament - of which there are more every year - could ever sign players to large deals in advance of knowing what the next season's cap number will be.

You can't keep giving more players more money and keep them all. The only path to recovery is the hope that teams up against the cap can develop talent from within.

Can't speak for the Ducks , but as it stands right now and all the wishin in one hand and crappin in the other with the current pool of prospects to choose from, 9th or 10 th in the conference this year. Other teams are on the rise and Stoshu gave away valuable assets over the last 2years and got zilch in return.
We got a break this year but if you think for one minute there isn't gonna be a huge increase next season , well here's a bridge to buy. This after a non playoff year.
Lookin more and more that my new season tix will be my 80 inch Hi def Tv in my basement. Not happy with what I see surrounding Toews and Kane going into their late 20's . I am sure I am not the only one who feels this way.
JJ, I'm just not feelin it for any of those forwards you mentioned compared to how some of the other teams are looking. I think teams are gonna look at the Hawks as a big white golf ball and crush them right down the fairway, other than a couple guys, there's nothing there, we lost too much overthe last couple of seasons!
Get excited a bout some 5"7 kid ? Bowman resists to draft the big freight trains, he misses this year, he's on borrowed time then. You watch the heat turn up in that front office if it gets not going in the right direction, McD will change his tune.
- wonthecup10

"Always with the negative waves Moriarty, always with the negative waves."

This team has the best blueline and goaltending since the franchise's resurrection. When your worst D guy is now TVR and you have a puck mover on every line....

I find this years team to have elevated their possession quotient which should lead to more O zone time and more goals just by default.

Time for the coaching staff to leave the Dusty Baker era and move to the Joe Maddon era. Coach a couple of guys up and play to your strengths. Every other team in the division got worse.

Nope - blame the hard cap, the fall of oil prices which crushed the CAN$, the stagnant economy, and over-agressive projections of cap growth that resulted in too much money going toward too few players. Throw in too many restrictive contract clauses and there you have it.

There is no way the Hawks, or any other team in their predicament - of which there are more every year - could ever sign players to large deals in advance of knowing what the next season's cap number will be.

You can't keep giving more players more money and keep them all. The only path to recovery is the hope that teams up against the cap can develop talent from within.
- Return of the Roar

None of this is a reason to just back a dump truck full of money up to players instead of negotiating; if anything, your points back up mine, that they need to be more careful with extensions and raises. Stamkos gets 8.5 as a UFA but Toews and Kane get 10.5 as RFAs...Seabrook gets more than most Norris nomiees, Kruger gets borderline top 6 money...this isn't a case where it's too many good players to keep them all(anymore). It's way, way too much to too few. The Teravainens and Shaws and Danos and Leddys are the players you need most in a cap league and the team can't even keep them due to cap mismanagement.

None of this is a reason to just back a dump truck full of money up to players instead of negotiating; if anything, your points back up mine, that they need to be more careful with extensions and raises. Stamkos gets 8.5 as a UFA but Toews and Kane get 10.5 as RFAs...Seabrook gets more than most Norris nomiees, Kruger gets borderline top 6 money...this isn't a case where it's too many good players to keep them all(anymore). It's way, way too much to too few. The Teravainens and Shaws and Danos and Leddys are the players you need most in a cap league and the team can't even keep them due to cap mismanagement.
- DarthProbert

I find it hard to believe that the Hawks did not negotiate with Saad. They were $1MM apart, but the kid chased the money to play for a losing team. They will negotiate with Panarin too. If he wants anything north of $6MM per the Hawks can't keep him unless any of the core guys protected by an NMC consents to a trade. Then you have to hope that you can reasonably replace that core talent with equivalent talent at a lower price. Otherwise by feeding the Panarins of the world you are actually continuing the same wrong philosophy in the face of reality.

Panarin may be worth $7MM today, but the card the Hawks have to keep him closer to $6MM is the extra year they can sign him for being current Hawk property. The difference between six and seven in that scenario is a net $1MM. If he walks from that then screw him.

That is why you bring in young guys and gems from Europe. To think the sky is falling because they have to play two or three rookies with the stable of above average to HOF level talent still on the team is just irrationally pessimistic.

Maybe Stamkos, as well as a few other of their core guys this summer, put team ahead of wallet.

That's the philosophy that's created the current cap mess. If the team could think a little farther ahead maybe there'd still be more than a line and a half left of what used to be depth.
- DarthProbert

It is more than this ridiculous idea they should have planned ahead.

THe hard CAP has caught up to even the non Cup contenders.

THe Lightning are he prime example....the Gm and players want the group intact for a series of playoff runs, Yzerman plans and gets his players to agree to deals and HE STILL IS IN A SITUATION WHERE HE IS GOING TO BE LOSING BOTH LESSER lights AND A BIGTIME STARTER.
OH, WHY DIDN'T he PLAN AHEAD...?

Since 2010 the Hawks have had to dump....sure in a year or so Buff and Ladd were going to probably walk for the big contracts...but if there was no hard Cap, you really think Rockey wouldn't keep them to keep the team intact?

THREE Times they had to do this....you think if there was a hard Cap they don't try and keep Leddy?
Or that they don't continue to pay Sharp, injury bug or not, who was instrumental in provide direct leadership to Kane & Toews about nhl situations, strategies or preparedness.
Or Saad on a long term deal for an agreed dollar that gives him security and the Hawks options down the road?

I just think you are taking a shot at Bowman and not understanding that the reality sux around this Cap.

If you want to try and argue he got little for most of the cast offs.....I say, IF THERE WAS NO CAP LIMIT GUN UP TO HIS HEAD, does Stan Bowman get more for each and every departure when teams don' feel they are driving the trade with this against Cap situation.

It is more than this ridiculous idea they should have planned ahead.

THe hard CAP has caught up to even the non Cup contenders.

THe Lightning are he prime example....the Gm and players want the group intact for a series of playoff runs, Yzerman plans and gets his players to agree to deals and HE STILL IS IN A SITUATION WHERE HE IS GOING TO BE LOSING BOTH LESSER lights AND A BIGTIME STARTER.
OH, WHY DIDN'T he PLAN AHEAD...?

Since 2010 the Hawks have had to dump....sure in a year or so Buff and Ladd were going to probably walk for the big contracts...but if there was no hard Cap, you really think Rockey wouldn't keep them to keep the team intact?

THREE Times they had to do this....you think if there was a hard Cap they don't try and keep Leddy?
Or that they don't continue to pay Sharp, injury bug or not, who was instrumental in provide direct leadership to Kane & Toews about nhl situations, strategies or preparedness.
Or Saad on a long term deal for an agreed dollar that gives him security and the Hawks options down the road?

I just think you are taking a shot at Bowman and not understanding that the reality sux around this Cap.

If you want to try and argue he got little for most of the cast offs.....I say, IF THERE WAS NO CAP LIMIT GUN UP TO HIS HEAD, does Stan Bowman get more for each and every departure when teams don' feel they are driving the trade with this against Cap situation.
- wiz1901

But Wiz...

If we can just trade Crawford for Murray and Seabrook for Seth Jones or Gostisphehere everything would be great.

In NHL 16

None of this is a reason to just back a dump truck full of money up to players instead of negotiating; if anything, your points back up mine, that they need to be more careful with extensions and raises. Stamkos gets 8.5 as a UFA but Toews and Kane get 10.5 as RFAs...Seabrook gets more than most Norris nomiees, Kruger gets borderline top 6 money...this isn't a case where it's too many good players to keep them all(anymore). It's way, way too much to too few. The Teravainens and Shaws and Danos and Leddys are the players you need most in a cap league and the team can't even keep them due to cap mismanagement.
- DarthProbert

Ha!
Take a good look at what these on the job defenseman drafted early are getting, and they are not Seabrook?
STamkos win anything?
Is ther not state income tax in ILLINOIS?

A joke to think that any team needs lesser lights MORE THAN KANE and Toews...yeah Bowman should have hard balled them...into the USA market ...

Your argument falls to deaf ears when you think "Dano" and TT are worth fat deals to on the job train...Terovainen got his chance and quite frankly I would not be pay fat dollars to continue to attempt his develop when kids can get ready on the farm...you bought the type and haven't let it go.
Shawn IS a heartbreaker, but that body and more importantly skull has taken more hits than most, so a replacement might have been a year down the road or so, but them let's see Montreal try and trade his new contract...think it will be easy?

Last thought...you are a vet or low end rostered guy of a playoff team, and maybe you got a year or none left. Or a developing RFA looking for that early Evander Kane payday.

Before the playoffs the Gm of your team sets up. A conference call with your agent and maybe has you in the office man to man while your agent listens.

The Gm tells you we are going in another direction, or
That if we can get the numbers to say, 3.8 million we can sign you long term, or
We can give yo a bit more but a lot less years.

DONT THINK THAT THERE ISNT HONEST TALKS MOST OF THE TIME - no one is in the dark.

Now when they trade you, then you are in the dark.

But Wiz...

If we can just trade Crawford for Murray and Seabrook for Seth Jones or Gostisphehere everything would be great.

In NHL 16
- Return of the Roar

NHL 17 is out already. Get on that!

What I am most worried about is the soon to happen Canadian housing bubble bursting, and the serious depression of the loony. The salary cap might go significantly down not up. If that happens who knows.

Gustav Forsling is a left shot who plays both sides....
- wiz1901

Good catch. Will update.

But Wiz...

If we can just trade Crawford for Murray and Seabrook for Seth Jones or Gostisphehere everything would be great.

In NHL 16
- Return of the Roar

I don't think people who "advocate" trading Corey Crawford are speaking in absolutes. I don't really see anybody saying that we need to trade him or will trade him.

It seems to be more a matter of looking at those players who make a lot of money and determining which ones may be most easily/closely replaced. As you have mentioned before, there will not be a significant cap savings by moving Crawford because you will to pay Darling (or whoever is your new starter) more than Darling is making now. However, it is also unlikely that they will command $6m/year, so there should be some cost savings there, albeit minimal, maybe.

There are two goalies on this team/in this system who may be good enough to win behind an improved team if Crawford is traded. The replacements for other high-cost players (including Panarin, in the future) don't exist yet, as far as we know.

I don't think a "trade Crawford" crowd exists as much as a group of people who sometimes post on this website who are looking ahead and determining that something has to give. As you have mentioned further, though, that does not mean he will consent to a trade, already having allegedly shot down a move to Calgary. It's just going to be tough next year, as every year, to manage the salary cap with Toews, Kane, Seabrook, Crawford, Hossa, and Keith on this team. Trading one of them may alleviate some of that difficulty, even if only to a minor degree. Then again, it may not. Crawford just seems to be the most likely candidate to explore, from a management standpoint, in terms of keeping a competitive team.

That being said, I hope they don't trade Crawford. I hope they can find a way to make it work and fit Panarin into this team's nucleus for years to come. Maybe they'll get lucky with a higher-than-predicted salary cap in 2017-18.

Remember the last goalie the Hawks moved to #1 on the basis of one strong playoff run?

C. Huet
- Return of the Roar

Actually, that's not accurate.

The Hawks had Huet pegged as their future #1 when they signed him in 2008, based on three years of very good (mostly regular season) play in Montreal and Washington.

I am fairly positive Darling > Huet. He just needs more starts than they've afforded him to this point to get/keep his game where it needs to be.
- Murph76

Uhhh, you can't go there yet.

For whatever reason, Huet had a horrible 2009-2010 season in Chicago. The year before in Chicago, he was very good, and for three years prior with other teams, he was very good.

Darling does not have that body of work.

Hey JJ,

Can you ask Eklund to check his PMs on here? I sent a question regarding blog writing, but can't seem to get a response.

Thanks!

Actually, that's not accurate.

The Hawks had Huet pegged as their future #1 when they signed him in 2008, based on three years of very good (mostly regular season) play in Montreal and Washington.
- John Jaeckel

Exactly. He had 0.920 SV% and 11 shutouts in about 2-3 seasons worth of games with Montreal.

Washington was a short stint of 13 games, but he went 11-2 with .936 % and 1.63 GAA 2 SO.

Another stat that is out there now too is quality starts, which wasn't bad in Huet's case either. Some Career #s below. Keep in mind a backup like Darling will have a bit more inflated numbers here as Crawford typically got the tougher opponents.

Crawford is good in that regard .613%
Huet for his career was .584%
Niemi .535%
Khabibulin .481%
Darling .622%

Crawford was actual the best NHL starter in quality starts last season, with Schneider a close second.

Anyway, back on point, Huet was on paper a decent goalie, with some seasons behind him.

Actually, that's not accurate.

The Hawks had Huet pegged as their future #1 when they signed him in 2008, based on three years of very good (mostly regular season) play in Montreal and Washington.
- John Jaeckel

Yes, he was a top ten SVPCT guy during his tenure with MTL and WAS, but his 11-2 W/L, 1.63 GAA and .936 SVPCT in the 07-08 playoffs was the pivotal set of metrics that led to the decision to sign him. It was proof enough to Tallon that he could be a stud in the post-season.

Honestly, given his body of work, most GMs might have made that same gamble. To me the issue with Huet was all at the same time he got married, was anointed #1, and got a monster contract. Expectations.....and the pressure that came with them, were too much for him.

Uhhh, you can't go there yet.

For whatever reason, Huet had a horrible 2009-2010 season in Chicago. The year before in Chicago, he was very good, and for three years prior with other teams, he was very good.

Darling does not have that body of work.
- John Jaeckel

Hey JJ, I suppose you're right. I guess what I meant to say is I am hoping he turns out to be better than Huet with more regular season starts. I think it's hard for Darling to stay consistent because he's used so sporadically.

That's the philosophy that's created the current cap mess. If the team could think a little farther ahead maybe there'd still be more than a line and a half left of what used to be depth.
- DarthProbert

I have a question for you...do you have kids?

I ask because I have been told this for years...don't compare your children to others. How that works in this case is partially what Wiz said about state income tax. But it's also about what those players mean to your team and your city. All things being equal, I personally think Toews and Kane are AT LEAST worth $2M more because of what they mean to the team, the city and the league. We can argue all day, and some have, about what player A is worth compared to player B. But at the end of it all, players are worth what they are paid. Because that is their individual market. Whether that player can or does play up to that contract is another, completely different argument. But when the contract is signed, THAT is the players value. For the life of that contract.

I think Debrincat is going to be a bust. To small !
- mmurray892

Too small? Debrincat is highly skilled and appears very motivated. His size is not as much of an issue in today's NHL.

Johnny Hockey is also pint size but that has not stopped him from demanding $8 mil per season (per reports) which he arguably deserves and would put him in the elite pay scale.

http://forecaster.thehockeynews.com/player/9261

Debrincat has put up huge numbers in back-to-back years in the OHL even though his line mates have changed. I know doing well in the OHL does not mean he is going to be a great NHLer but it does show he has the potential to make the leap.

None of this is a reason to just back a dump truck full of money up to players instead of negotiating; if anything, your points back up mine, that they need to be more careful with extensions and raises. Stamkos gets 8.5 as a UFA but Toews and Kane get 10.5 as RFAs...Seabrook gets more than most Norris nomiees, Kruger gets borderline top 6 money...this isn't a case where it's too many good players to keep them all(anymore). It's way, way too much to too few. The Teravainens and Shaws and Danos and Leddys are the players you need most in a cap league and the team can't even keep them due to cap mismanagement.
- DarthProbert

Pretty sure Stan negotiates.

Hindsight is 20-20. The 19/88 deals were a relief to Hawks fans at the time. The cap looked like it was going to continue rising at a higher annual rate than it actually has. The reason Stamkos takes less is based on the new assumptions and seeing what happened with Chicago and the cap squeeze.

Similarly, comparing a newly signed contract with one that was signed in the past is an apples to oranges comparison. Each off season is a new market, supply and demand, salary cap, etc. Even so, there would be plenty of interest in any of the Blackhawks highest paid players around the league if the player allowed it (given their contract rights for no-trade, etc.) That tells me these players are not overpaid. Could the Blackhawks have shaved off a little on each of these contracts to have been able to afford another top player. Maybe. Don't know. Probably each player took less to stay with the Blackhawks than what they thought they could get on the open market so there might not have been as much left on the table as it seems. And, I think the Blackhawks want to treat their players with respect and pay them based on their worth.

As much fun as it can be to criticize Stan, I look at the roster and see elite and near-elite talent paid fairly but with a hole at 1LW and question marks in the bottom six. That's not a bad position for a team that has won three cups recently. But, yeah, maybe the roster is top heavy, maybe we trade a top player for two players who are above average and fill some holes. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. It is not a perfect analogy for a hockey team but the point is that maybe having an above average 1LW and above average G is better than having a below average 1LW and a nearly elite G.