Fair comment, but expecting that 6 of the teams most successful players to make less is a BIG IF. The players want to maximize their earnings and that is 100% their right. Those are the amounts as fans we'd like them to make but the negotiations are between the front office and the players.

Even if the team had an extra $4.25 million in cap space, would that make a significant change to the team? In all likelihood this extra cap space would have meant that either the Shaw deal or Bickell/TT deal wouldn't have to happen. Shaw and TT are decent players but they play a support role. Would having Shaw instead of Hinostroza instantly convince everyone that the Hawks are Stanley Cup favourites?
- DarthKane

Today Shaw is a much better player than any of the rookies in the lineup or Desjardin when he returns or Moose. Stanley Cup favs-No...But it would be foolish to think the team wouldn't be improved with Shaw.

Unremarkable start for the Blackhawks http://chirb.it/zdkBC1
Today's interview-NHL Radio Network:@SiriusXMNHL @StellickSimmer

Today Shaw is a much better player than any of the rookies in the lineup or Desjardin when he returns or Moose. Stanley Cup favs-No...But it would be foolish to think the team wouldn't be improved with Shaw.

Unremarkable start for the Blackhawks http://chirb.it/zdkBC1
Today's interview-NHL Radio Network:@SiriusXMNHL @StellickSimmer
- Al

Would those 6 players have signed with the Hawks for less money who knows. But let's say that Kane and Toews signed for $10.5 mil each. Then the Hawks offered less to the other 4. The other 4 said "No" way and walked. You would have $20.5 mil to sign a 2nd line ctr, 3rd line ctr, 2 pair defender, and a starting goalie. Just for example Franz Nielsen $5.25, Frederik Anderson $5 mil, TJ Brodie $4.8 mil, Ribeiro $3.5 are playing today for $2 mil less than Seabs, Crawford, Kruger and Anisimov.

If Kane and Toews sign for $10 mil instead of $10.5 add another $1mil of available cap room.

Who would sign or would have signed for and what is all total speculation. I get that. I am just saying it is the Hawks decisions and not the cap structure that is the reason we are up against the cap.

The biggest test of top six player willingness to take less money would be if we all knew what we know now about the cap and its impact on the team's future competitiveness, would you all have taken less money?

We will never know the answer to that, but it seems to be a trend among other teams on the rise or in the mix to reduce their salary requests.

The biggest test of top six player willingness to take less money would be if we all knew what we know now about the cap and its impact on the team's future competitiveness, would you all have taken less money?

We will never know the answer to that, but it seems to be a trend among other teams on the rise or in the mix to reduce their salary requests.
- Return of the Roar

Totally true. Along the same lines you have to ask the question....... other than Kane and Toews (who most would agree are the faces of the franchise) if the Hawks played hardball with the other 4 and they walked would you have been able find replacements with the same skill levels (and intangibles) that would have taken less money than caving in to those 4. All is speculation. No wrong answers.

Would those 6 players have signed with the Hawks for less money who knows. But let's say that Kane and Toews signed for $10.5 mil each. Then the Hawks offered less to the other 4. The other 4 said "No" way and walked. You would have $20.5 mil to sign a 2nd line ctr, 3rd line ctr, 2 pair defender, and a starting goalie. Just for example Franz Nielsen $5.25, Frederik Anderson $5 mil, TJ Brodie $4.8 mil, Ribeiro $3.5 are playing today for $2 mil less than Seabs, Crawford, Kruger and Anisimov.

If Kane and Toews sign for $10 mil instead of $10.5 add another $1mil of available cap room.

Who would sign or would have signed for and what is all total speculation. I get that. I am just saying it is the Hawks decisions and not the cap structure that is the reason we are up against the cap.
- -Doh-

Not that simple and everythings starts with the cap basically coming to standstill.

Your Kane-Toews thinking is wrong to start because in the open market-separately they both could have signed a larger contract.

When players win multiple Cup and have not reached their prime yet they are rewarded...It's plain and simple. That's exactly what happened here for everyone in the core except Keith who signed a retirement contract and Hammer who gave a big hometown discount.

The Hawks have won 3 Cups and at least 2 with most of the same players who were resigned. There is a price to pay for success and even if they don't win another Cup in the Kane/Toews era there is no foundation to conclude they overpaid anyone.

Totally true. Along the same lines you have to ask the question....... other than Kane and Toews (who most would agree are the faces of the franchise) if the Hawks played hardball with the other 4 and they walked would you have been able find replacements with the same skill levels (and intangibles) that would have taken less money than caving in to those 4. All is speculation. No wrong answers.
- -Doh-

And if you are going to say that, you have to call out the below market contracts for Keith (although the length is killer), Hammer and even Desjardins for taking less than a mil. How much do you think Keith and Hammer would have made on the open market? Well, we will find out with Hammer soon.

Not that simple and everythings starts with the cap basically coming to standstill.

Your Kane-Toews thinking is wrong to start because in the open market-separately they both could have signed a larger contract.

When players win multiple Cup and have not reached their prime yet they are rewarded...It's plain and simple. That's exactly what happened here for everyone in the core except Keith who signed a retirement contract and Hammer who gave a big hometown discount.

The Hawks have won 3 Cups and at least 2 with most of the same players who were resigned. There is a price to pay for success and even if they don't win another Cup in the Kane/Toews era there is no foundation to conclude they overpaid anyone.
- Al

Totally correct. It was the Hawks decisions, yes. But they paid free and open market prices (sounds fair)-- but NOT in the overall structure of an open market system. Those two things do not reconcile, and therein lies the problem.

Not that simple and everythings starts with the cap basically coming to standstill.

Your Kane-Toews thinking is wrong to start because in the open market-separately they both could have signed a larger contract.

When players win multiple Cup and have not reached their prime yet they are rewarded...It's plain and simple. That's exactly what happened here for everyone in the core except Keith who signed a retirement contract and Hammer who gave a big hometown discount.

The Hawks have won 3 Cups and at least 2 with most of the same players who were resigned. There is a price to pay for success and even if they don't win another Cup in the Kane/Toews era there is no foundation to conclude they overpaid anyone.
- Al

I can not argue with you. It is all speculation on my part and your part.

Maybe Kane and Toews could have / would have signed bigger contracts elsewhere. But they still are the largest two cap hits in the NHL. Or Toews and Kane could have signed a smaller contract (like $10 mil Kopitar). We just do not know.

Kruger and Seabs were signed after the Front Office new the cap was not growing significantly.

Keith and Hammer contracts we say are "reasonable". Could the other 4 have signed smaller more "reasonable" contracts? Maybe. If the 4 walked could we have replaced them with players of equals skills and intangibles for less money. Maybe. All speculation.

No argument here. Just something to consider.

Not that simple and everythings starts with the cap basically coming to standstill.

Your Kane-Toews thinking is wrong to start because in the open market-separately they both could have signed a larger contract.

When players win multiple Cup and have not reached their prime yet they are rewarded...It's plain and simple. That's exactly what happened here for everyone in the core except Keith who signed a retirement contract and Hammer who gave a big hometown discount.

The Hawks have won 3 Cups and at least 2 with most of the same players who were resigned. There is a price to pay for success and even if they don't win another Cup in the Kane/Toews era there is no foundation to conclude they overpaid anyone.
- Al

Teams win Cups, Al. That is really all that needs to be said, IMO. Toews + Kane have never been 2x as valuable to the Chicago Blackhawks' winning hockey games than Marian Hossa, Duncan Keith or Nik Hjalmarsson. The impact players that have been lost to fit those inflated contracts under the cap is the difference between being the best team in the league, and barely being in the top 10-16. It was 100% within their rights to demand to make $1.5mil more per year than Crosby and Malkin, but doesn't mean they deserved it. Look at the rapid decline in scoring for #19 after his HOF RW finally was caught by father time, and his 2 All-Star LWs were traded to make room for his cap hit. You and anyone else can disagree, but the proof is in the pudding....and those $10.5mil cap hits are the fly in Stan Bowman's pudding.

I can not argue with you. It is all speculation on my part and your part.

Maybe Kane and Toews could have / would have signed bigger contracts elsewhere. But they still are the largest two cap hits in the NHL. Or Toews and Kane could have signed a smaller contract (like $10 mil Kopitar). We just do not know.

Kruger and Seabs were signed after the Front Office new the cap was not growing significantly.

Keith and Hammer contracts we say are "reasonable". Could the other 4 have signed smaller more "reasonable" contracts? Maybe. If the 4 walked could we have replaced them with players of equals skills and intangibles for less money. Maybe. All speculation.

No argument here. Just something to consider.
- -Doh-

Nothing on my part is speculation within reason-On the open market individually Kane and Toews could have gotten larger contracts.

It has never happened before in the latest salary cap environment where one club has won 3 Cups in a such short time with such a young core....That's a fact too.

The Hawks never really had negotiating leverage once Toews' and Kane's extensions were linked to each other and under the same agent. The Hawks options were to pay them both or lose them both, and with losing them both a completely unacceptable PR fiasco, they basically had to pay above market.

That's my read anyway.

Totally correct. It was the Hawks decisions, yes. But they paid free and open market prices (sounds fair)-- but NOT in the overall structure of an open market system. Those two things do not reconcile, and therein lies the problem.
- RedFeather

They paid free and open market prices. However could they have paid less? The Front Office did not know for sure that other clubs would have offered more, nor did Toews and kane. The Front Office did not know whether Kane and Toews would have left Chicago if they only offered $10 mil, or whether Kane and Toews would have taken $10mil from the Hawks if that is all they were offered (much higher than any NHL player at that time or since)? They did not know and we do not know.

You can define "open" market in several different ways. But all of the NHL teams are operating with the same constraints in this "closed" market.

Nothing on my part is speculation within reason-On the open market individually Kane and Toews could have gotten larger contracts.

It has never happened before in the latest salary cap environment where one club has won 3 Cups in a such short time with such a young core....That's a fact too.
- Al

The Core of Saad, Sharp, Shaw and Oduya you mean?

The Hawks never really had negotiating leverage once Toews' and Kane's extensions were linked to each other and under the same agent. The Hawks options were to pay them both or lose them both, and with losing them both a completely unacceptable PR fiasco, they basically had to pay above market.

That's my read anyway.
- BreadmanCometh

You are right when they say the Hawks had no negotiating leverage and that it would have been a PR fiasco losing them. Having said that why $10.5 mil? Why not $11 mil? $12 mil? $10 mil? $9.5mil? They still would have been the highest paid players in the league.

The Hawks options were to sign one or both of them or risk losing one or both of them. That is not the question. The question is the dollar amount. I am sure it was a lengthy negotiation and the Hawks blinked first and agreed to $10.5 mil. I am not faulting them. It is what it is. They were generational players.

Seabs, Kruger, Crawford, Anisomov are not generational players.

They paid free and open market prices. However could they have paid less?
You can define "open" market in several different ways. But all of the NHL teams are operating with the same constraints in this "closed" market.
- -Doh-

...could have and SHOULD have, of course. good discussion, boys.
...makes one appreciate the miracle of three (four?!?) cups this decade, with these restraints and so many moving parts.

With "CAP HELL" becoming more and more of an issue for a lot of teams( not just the Hawks) why not do like the NFL... Each team can have one IMPACT PLAYER whose salary does not count against the cap with a max cap( like 11 K ).

The Core of Saad, Sharp, Shaw and Oduya you mean?
- EnzoD

Exactly. All signing decisions have an impact on future signings. The Front Office has to make tough decisions under the cap structure. Some really good (not generational players) have to go from time to time, especially on the better teams in the league. Those players leave and strengthen other teams and that create balance in the league. Each team starts each year with the same amount of Monopoly money. Then some is a roll of the dice (luck - good &/or bad) and some is strategy.

With "CAP HELL" becoming more and more of an issue for a lot of teams( not just the Hawks) why not do like the NFL... Each team can have one IMPACT PLAYER whose salary does not count against the cap with a max cap( like 11 K ).
- spanky

In that scenario don't you think the Hawks would still have cap issues signing the other 20+ players (excluding that one player). If you have a hard cap (even with one exception) and good players with a certain amount of years of service you are going to be near or at the cap.

The Core of Saad, Sharp, Shaw and Oduya you mean?
- EnzoD

Only ones who were identified as core member in 2010 was Sharp and Bolland who ended up leaving.

The biggest test of top six player willingness to take less money would be if we all knew what we know now about the cap and its impact on the team's future competitiveness, would you all have taken less money?

We will never know the answer to that, but it seems to be a trend among other teams on the rise or in the mix to reduce their salary requests.
- Return of the Roar

If i asked for 11 or 12 million and they were like nah how bout 10.5 I don't think I'm going to back down to 9.

Its irritating that it kind of bonks the roster now however it is also better than the alternative of refusing to pay anyone through the 90s which started the dark days. Just like every schwartz theres an upside and downside.

Only ones who were identified as core member in 2010 was Sharp and Bolland who ended up leaving.
- Al

Sharp signed his 4 year $3.9 mil contract after the 07/08 season.
Bolland signed his 5 year $3.375mil contract after 08/09 season.
Sharp signed his 5 year $5.9 contract after 11/12 season.

If i asked for 11 or 12 million and they were like nah how bout 10.5 I don't think I'm going to back down to 9.

Its irritating that it kind of bonks the roster now however it is also better than the alternative of refusing to pay anyone through the 90s which started the dark days. Just like every schwartz theres an upside and downside.


- fattybeef

Could be pretty close. They said $11 mil. FO said $10 mil. Ultimately split the difference at $10.5 mil.

It all comes back to the reality of the league.

You don't win if you have to pay all your players market value. Just because a team on the UFA market is willing to pay more, doesn't make a contract a good deal. If Toews/Kane Toews could have gotten 11.5 million on the open market, doesn't mean keeping them at 10.5 is a good value. There have been a number of GMs that were willing to overpay to get talent because they have the cap space.

Now, if you have enough guys who are ...

-ELC youngster playing above their pay grade
-Vets signing for cheap to get a chance at winning.
-contributing players who signed under value

Then you can afford some of the other pieces of the team at market value. The Hawks have been finding this out the hard way, trying to fill out their team from the bargain bin while core parts of the team can't live up to their huge contracts.

That isn't to say the Hawks might not put it together. Pittsburgh has been in the same boat and managed to fill a lot of holes with younger players who make very little.

He has played 1 full season.
- JRoenick97

So he did not play in 2014-2015? http://www.chicagotribune...rgery-20141119-story.html

Becuase before that injury he looked great. I thought your team found a player out of no where who would replace Nick Leddy. After the injury...no. So unless 18 games four months injured and 4 play off games do not count as a season you would be correct.

It all comes back to the reality of the league.

You don't win if you have to pay all your players market value. Just because a team on the UFA market is willing to pay more, doesn't make a contract a good deal. If Toews/Kane Toews could have gotten 11.5 million on the open market, doesn't mean keeping them at 10.5 is a good value. There have been a number of GMs that were willing to overpay to get talent because they have the cap space.

Now, if you have enough guys who are ...

-ELC youngster playing above their pay grade
-Vets signing for cheap to get a chance at winning.
-contributing players who signed under value

Then you can afford some of the other pieces of the team at market value. The Hawks have been finding this out the hard way, trying to fill out their team from the bargain bin while core parts of the team can't live up to their huge contracts.

That isn't to say the Hawks might not put it together. Pittsburgh has been in the same boat and managed to fill a lot of holes with younger players who make very little.
- breadbag

Agree. 2016 Pittsburgh, 2015 Hawks, 2014 Kings. You can get to the top drafting smart signings and good trades. Staying on top for several years is really tough with a hard cap now. That may not be a bad thing. The Islanders had their run, the Oilers, the Wings, the Pens, Kings, Hawks. Maybe the baton will go to Edmonton, Toronto, Tampa..... Maybe it is not a bad thing to allow teams to get to the top and then give way to others and then have to fight their way back to the top.