Disagree 100%.

By the time the summer rolled around when they would have become free agents, the canadian dollar crashed and it was already announced the cap in the upcoming year would be flat

Nobody was giving them $10+ mil with that outlook
- hawkeytalkman

I agree with you, no way would the boys have received more than 10.5 M by another team after the Canadian currency crash. Furthermore, I still doent understand why the savvy business advisors of the Wirtz empire didn't tell our GM or Rocky that the Canadian Dollar had a high probality of tanking in the near future. Wallstreet and the Bankers predicted the fall three months before the signings of Toews and Kane.

Sad to say but this is probably the best post by a reader that I think I've ever seen. Especially the part about making a hard choice to subtract one of the "core" to preserve three other really good players. And the part about teams coveting only the players in their prime with good deals.
- DMChi2010

the bottom line is: Stan believed that his seven " Core Players" should be paid top dollars and the rest of the pieces will fall into place with a yearly increase of the Cap. He guessed wrong IMO and the club will pay dearly for the next three years unless he cuts the unbiblical cord / trades three to four of our core players for high draft choices and is willing or able to let the team hit rock bottom for a couple of years like 2007/8 and make another run for the Cup. However , I will promise "No Guarantees "

I agree with you, no way would the boys have received more than 10.5 M by another team after the Canadian currency crash. Furthermore, I still doent understand why the savvy business advisors of the Wirtz empire didn't tell our GM or Rocky that the Canadian Dollar had a high probality of tanking in the near future. Wallstreet and the Bankers predicted the fall three months before the signings of Toews and Kane.
- spanky

Because the media pundits and NHL execs were too blinded and caught with the suddenly infusion of cash from both new tv deals in canada and the US. Not to mention the NHL has REALLY been hurting the last few years with no canadian teams going deep or being playoff teams or just one team makes it in. The playoff ratings in canada have been poor

The Pittsburgh/SJ series was laughably low on ratings with the devils kings final being the only worse ratings wise in the last 20 years or something

A .500 record won't win you cups.
- EKB13

Didn't it pretty much win the Kings in 2012 a cup? They technically lost more games than they won, that's for sure. Other teams have done similar in some years. Not the norm or ideal obviously but it always amuses me when people talk in definitive (not you specifically, just like in general). A .500 record suggests a team will not win a cup, though, yes.

True, but not until the season after he signed his deal. 19+88 have never been top 3 in scoring so why did they need to be the highest paid players in the NHL? Bc they were the most popular faces on a cup winning TEAM? Their individual performances (even on a stacked roster) never merited the contracts they currently have. Patrick Kane has made a case that he is worth $10.5mil, but only in the last 1.5 seasons. Toews has gone in the exact opposite direction.
- EnzoD

Again, they are not the highest paid players in the league - they just have the highest cap hits. The highest paid players are still guys like Weber, Crosby, Ovechkin, etc. who sign the old CBA contracts.

Also, Kane had been top 5 for PPG in the league 3 of the last 4 seasons and was tied for 6th one year. Add in his success in the playofss, and it's been more than 1.5 seasons.

Disagree 100%.

By the time the summer rolled around when they would have become free agents, the canadian dollar crashed and it was already announced the cap in the upcoming year would be flat

Nobody was giving them $10+ mil with that outlook
- hawkeytalkman

Except this is a silly argument - the discussed value of their contracts was the year before the dollar crash in 2014 because that's when they were thinking about if they should sign their deals or hold out. 2014 is when everyone - their agent, NHLPA, other GMs, whoever - would have been telling them their value was so high and that the cap was going up up up. If they hadn't signed with the Hawks and waited instead to hit FA, they would have been in for a rude awakening in the summer of 2015, duh, but that is not how the time line went when they were getting info about their market value and the cap situation.

Didn't it pretty much win the Kings in 2012 a cup? They technically lost more games than they won, that's for sure. Other teams have done similar in some years. Not the norm or ideal obviously but it always amuses me when people talk in definitive (not you specifically, just like in general). A .500 record suggests a team will not win a cup, though, yes.
- L_B_R

They also made a midseason trade for jeff carter and got hot down the stretch of the regular season so thats misleading. They were a subpar team before carter and vastly improved after they got him en route to winning that cup

Calgary is up on St Louis 3-0 after 2. If the Flames win tonight maybe the loss last night wasn't so bad.

The Jets are down 2-0 midway through the 2nd. They Jets just aren't good team, I thought they would have started to pull things together this year but it hasn't happened yet. Defensive and goaltending is still an issue.

They also made a midseason trade for jeff carter and got hot down the stretch of the regular season so thats misleading. They were a subpar team before carter and vastly improved after they got him en route to winning that cup
- hawkeytalkman

It wasn't mid-season, it was a little before the TDL. And in the 16 games Carter played with the Kings during the regular season in 2012, they won only two more games than they lost (two shootout wins) and in the final 10 they technically went split 5-5. Carter also only had 6 points in that span - it took until the second series in the playoffs for Carter to really have an impact at least in terms of production as he only had points in one game against VAN. So the Kings did improve because they added a good player, but their record did not by much.

To be clear, I was mostly poking fun at the definitive nature of the statement rather than the actual content of the comment.

the bottom line is: Stan believed that his seven " Core Players" should be paid top dollars and the rest of the pieces will fall into place with a yearly increase of the Cap. He guessed wrong IMO and the club will pay dearly for the next three years unless he cuts the unbiblical cord / trades three to four of our core players for high draft choices and is willing or able to let the team hit rock bottom for a couple of years like 2007/8 and make another run for the Cup. However , I will promise "No Guarantees "
- spanky

Somethings gotta give between now and the draft in Chicago. McD is known to make a big splash. Wouldn't be surprised if something significant happened by Christmas if they are still hovering around .500. I'm sure Stan and the board members have at least a half dozen irons in the fire.

Disagree 100%.

By the time the summer rolled around when they would have become free agents, the canadian dollar crashed and it was already announced the cap in the upcoming year would be flat

Nobody was giving them $10+ mil with that outlook
- hawkeytalkman

Yes, by then the market had changed. I'm saying the market for their services at the time they signed was probably more than what they signed for. It's water under the bridge now but I don't recall too many people saying this was an overpay for two of the most talented players in the league (again, at the time.)

Anisimov and Seabrook were probably over-market when they signed. Kruger, even if you add in the previous year at $1.5m, was an over pay too. I don't think anyone else on the roster was an overpay when they signed.

Also, for what it is worth, the "market rate" isn't the only criteria for a signing being judged as good or bad. Each signing is relative to the team's cap position. That's the hard part of $21m cap hit for two players, there isn't a lot of room for other "at market" players, need even more under-paid players to make up the difference.

That all said there is reason to be optimistic. Moose is a solid 4th line center, Tutu has done very well at playing good hockey. I'd much rather see him getting to the net, creating chances than participating in a stage WWF match. I really like what I am seeing from Hartman and Motte, though Motte has got to keep his butt out the box. Anisimov is in the early stages of what could very well be a career year for him. I just hope that inconsistency doesn't show up, but he's showing me something early on. Kane and Bread are studs. Panik looks like a nice find. The third line of Kruger/Hossa has potential. I am less excited about Schmaltz, but there is talent there. I've also been disapointed with Kempny's play early, but he's acclimating.

The PK is a joke. I know the experts in here keep saying "pressure the point", which is well and good, but if you have a wider box you create massive passing lanes. This PK is no different than what the Hawks have ever run and have run with success....that's to play positionally disciplined hockey, limit passing lanes, keep everything outside and win some battles low. What I've seen is a general discombobulation on the PK, not just being "too passive". For example, on Flames Goal 1 ALL FOUR players were below the goal line prior to the goal and the goal was scored by a Flame who was ALSO BELOW the goal line. How does that even happen? Poor positioning combined with lack of awareness and/or desire to compete. Lets try an entirely new PK unit. Q has no problems moving guys around who don't do well, sticking them in the doghouse...do the same damn thing with the PK...hell, give Moose and Tutu prominent roles there. See what they can do. Maybe you'll discover you don't need Toews playing 5-6 minutes a night on the PK which will allow him to be more juiced for 5v5/PP...
- kwolf68

If those two can start generating a bit more and be consistent defensively then it definitely helps. Main thing is finding a way to get Toews going, figure out the egregious penalty kill (taking dumb penalties has a lot to do with that also), and to find the correct defensive pairings. Campbell and Keith played together pretty well. Kempny and Seabrook look to be developing some chemistry, and Forsling is only making occasional small mistakes. One final thing is to be able to roll 4 lines with confidence.

Thats just BS agent talk from Brisson

Yes they hypothetically could have asked for max % of the cap deals under the cap, just like Panarin can ask for $13.8 mil but that doesnt mean he will get it or anyone will give it to him. ZERO chance toews and kane were getting anything close to $12 or $13 mil from anyone.

$10.5 was literally near the max they would have gotten elsewhere and they got it right at home from stan.

Its also reason why stamkos and kopitars deals havent even matched toews and kane. GMs see how crippling those hits can be and they got them to take less to co tinue building around them
- hawkeytalkman

The "talk" does influence the market price. There is only ONE market rate data point for the caliber of player 19 and 88 were that summer, and that is the amount on their contract. The main reason no other player has matched their dollar amounts is because the market & cap projections changed due to the Canadian dollar.

Calgary is up on St Louis 3-0 after 2. If the Flames win tonight maybe the loss last night wasn't so bad.

The Jets are down 2-0 midway through the 2nd. They Jets just aren't good team, I thought they would have started to pull things together this year but it hasn't happened yet. Defensive and goaltending is still an issue.
- DarthKane

Maybe Calgary isn't so bad . Watched the Flames feed last night ,said it was easily their best game . And they were expected to be a improved team this year ,just the HAWKS luck to catch them when they start their breakout

Yes, by then the market had changed. I'm saying the market for their services at the time they signed was probably more than what they signed for. It's water under the bridge now but I don't recall too many people saying this was an overpay for two of the most talented players in the league (again, at the time.)

Anisimov and Seabrook were probably over-market when they signed. Kruger, even if you add in the previous year at $1.5m, was an over pay too. I don't think anyone else on the roster was an overpay when they signed.

Also, for what it is worth, the "market rate" isn't the only criteria for a signing being judged as good or bad. Each signing is relative to the team's cap position. That's the hard part of $21m cap hit for two players, there isn't a lot of room for other "at market" players, need even more under-paid players to make up the difference.
- matt_ahrens

Here is the point some have tried to make on here and I am saying the same. Toews and Kane were overpaid the market rate when they signed those deals and are REALLY overpaid now that the cap hasn't gone anywhere and Toews especially since his production has fallen

Not a single person labeled their $10.5 mil cap hits as "market value" when they signed

Maybe Calgary isn't so bad . Watched the Flames feed last night ,said it was easily their best game . And they were expected to be a improved team this year ,just the HAWKS luck to catch them when they start their breakout
- oldduffman

Its like when they make bad goalies look stellar by shooting into his crest all night.

Yes, by then the market had changed. I'm saying the market for their services at the time they signed was probably more than what they signed for. It's water under the bridge now but I don't recall too many people saying this was an overpay for two of the most talented players in the league (again, at the time.)

Anisimov and Seabrook were probably over-market when they signed. Kruger, even if you add in the previous year at $1.5m, was an over pay too. I don't think anyone else on the roster was an overpay when they signed.

Also, for what it is worth, the "market rate" isn't the only criteria for a signing being judged as good or bad. Each signing is relative to the team's cap position. That's the hard part of $21m cap hit for two players, there isn't a lot of room for other "at market" players, need even more under-paid players to make up the difference.
- matt_ahrens

Is there anyway to change contracts (next CBA) to be a percentage of the cap instead of an actual dollar amount? That way both sides can use projections, and if something happens that causes the cap to be stagnant, it doesn't handcuff the team, but if it continues to rise, the player's salary rises with it. To use Toews' and Kane's contracts as an example: actual salary this year is $13.8M, but that was based on a projected salary cap of around $80m. That means they expected his salary to be about 17% of the cap. In the last year of his contract, actual salary is $6.9 million (admittedly, I don't know what the projected salary cap is/was for the 2022/23 season, but for the sake of argument, let's use $90M), that would be roughly 7.5% of the cap. The AAV would be the average of the yearly percent, say 12.5% of the cap each (again, for the sake of argument). That would mean this year's cap hit would be $9.25M each instead of $10.5M. Thoughts?

Is there anyway to change contracts (next CBA) to be a percentage of the cap instead of an actual dollar amount? That way both sides can use projections, and if something happens that causes the cap to be stagnant, it doesn't handcuff the team, but if it continues to rise, the player's salary rises with it. To use Toews' and Kane's contracts as an example: actual salary this year is $13.8M, but that was based on a projected salary cap of around $80m. That means they expected his salary to be about 17% of the cap. In the last year of his contract, actual salary is $6.9 million (admittedly, I don't know what the projected salary cap is/was for the 2022/23 season, but for the sake of argument, let's use $90M), that would be roughly 7.5% of the cap. The AAV would be the average of the yearly percent, say 12.5% of the cap each (again, for the sake of argument). That would mean this year's cap hit would be $9.25M each instead of $10.5M. Thoughts?
- tvetter

Part of the problem if I recall correctly is the cap escrow. So while they may have a $13.8M payment due, they will only see $12.5 at most. I and i recall someone wanting to increase the escrow due to the CAD decline. Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

I 100% agree with you
- nvrsoft

Salut, mon ami

the bottom line is: Stan believed that his seven " Core Players" should be paid top dollars and the rest of the pieces will fall into place with a yearly increase of the Cap. He guessed wrong IMO and the club will pay dearly for the next three years unless he cuts the unbiblical cord / trades three to four of our core players for high draft choices and is willing or able to let the team hit rock bottom for a couple of years like 2007/8 and make another run for the Cup. However , I will promise "No Guarantees "
- spanky

They paid Kane and Toews to be franchise cornerstones, at an AAV that reflected their ages, skill sets, accomplishments and anticipated cap growth—and in that last regard, they may well be vindicated.

The two deals I am keeping the question open on are Anisimov's and Campbell's.

Anisimov, because it felt like Bowman and the FO turned around and knee jerk extended him almost to say to the world (and Saad and his agent), see. we're willing to take care of our guys, or that AA was the guy they really wanted anyway (which is bs). I just didn't (and don't) see why they had to make that kind of commitment right then, right after they acquired him. Especially with a NMC.

Campbell's because even though $2 million is a likely bargain deal, I don't think the hawks had blearily as acute a need on defense (especially after singing Kempny) as they did at forward. I think they thought they could afford Campbell and make something else work out (like Hudler or Vesey or a bargain bin vet from somewhere)—and that came up craps. And now they're totally hamstrung.

But again, on both these deals, time will tell. I really don't care if Anisimov was the NHL's 2nd star last week. A lot of guys can rack up points playing with Kane and Panarin. His lack of skill or commitment in the dot is troubling and bad on this team where the 4th line center is also terrible. He is a good defensive player and physical. I'm just not sure he was worth that kind of commitment, dollars and term.

AT LEAST 10 more games. 1) Probably the midway point of the season is when we'll really know what we're dealing with and what moves/additions need to be made.

2) The level of concern/complaining is rather silly right now. 3) BUT....that was expected, i was prepared for it. So it is what it is. In fact I've seen worse on these boards.
- SimpleJack

Ahh, where to begin?

From the top:

1) And if they are, say, .500 (or worse) at the mid point of the season, and not really playing appreciably better than they are right now, the second half schedule, actually the last 50 games of the season are much tougher—and they likely miss the playoffs.

The first 30 games of the Hawks' season is cake, relatively speaking to the latter 50.

Anyway, I've heard the Hawks are going to give it ten games before they make any decisions. Moves could take a bit longer.

2) See point 1. You take some things for granted that you probably shouldn't. NO ONE can predict that this team is any better (or any worse) than it has played through 7 games. "They need time to gel, they'll get better?" Maybe. What about those pesky little things called injuries? What if some of the youths being counted on to gel and progress, regress under the pressure of your expectations—because they're simply not ready at 20-21 years of age?

3) Your perspective is your perspective. And while you have a right to it, you don't have a right to slam others or the board as a whole for disagreeing with you. Bear that in mind going forward.

That all said there is reason to be optimistic. Moose is a solid 4th line center, Tutu has done very well at playing good hockey. I'd much rather see him getting to the net, creating chances than participating in a stage WWF match. I really like what I am seeing from Hartman and Motte, though Motte has got to keep his butt out the box. Anisimov is in the early stages of what could very well be a career year for him. I just hope that inconsistency doesn't show up, but he's showing me something early on. Kane and Bread are studs. Panik looks like a nice find. The third line of Kruger/Hossa has potential. I am less excited about Schmaltz, but there is talent there. I've also been disapointed with Kempny's play early, but he's acclimating.

The PK is a joke. I know the experts in here keep saying "pressure the point", which is well and good, but if you have a wider box you create massive passing lanes. This PK is no different than what the Hawks have ever run and have run with success....that's to play positionally disciplined hockey, limit passing lanes, keep everything outside and win some battles low. What I've seen is a general discombobulation on the PK, not just being "too passive". For example, on Flames Goal 1 ALL FOUR players were below the goal line prior to the goal and the goal was scored by a Flame who was ALSO BELOW the goal line. How does that even happen? Poor positioning combined with lack of awareness and/or desire to compete. Lets try an entirely new PK unit. Q has no problems moving guys around who don't do well, sticking them in the doghouse...do the same damn thing with the PK...hell, give Moose and Tutu prominent roles there. See what they can do. Maybe you'll discover you don't need Toews playing 5-6 minutes a night on the PK which will allow him to be more juiced for 5v5/PP...
- kwolf68

The Bishop© (aka Bishop Jordin TuTu)
All Rights Reserved

See here's the thing: We clearly aren't that good, not as good as we used to be, no longer an elite team, etc, etc...

Yes, all of this is currently true(though it may change as the season goes along, we may very well improve and become championship caliber).

What i don't get is why so many have to be/act so disgruntled about it. Like "Stan ruined this" and "Coach Q (frank)ed up that", stuff like that. All those out there that seem so upset, that's what i don't understand.

Sometimes there's no avoiding it, you just can't sustain excellence for that long, especially with the salary cap. So stop acting like you're fans of some incompetent failure of a franchise, and show some damn respect for everything you've been a part of the past 8 years. You'll never enjoy a ride like that again. And you can't possibly expect better/more.
- SimpleJack

but not necessarily worse than many other teams

If this is indeed the beginning of the downward spiral of the Golden Age of Blackhawks hockey (and I'm not sure it is) I can say without a doubt I'll happily watch and cheer for this team no matter what because they brought something home (3 times no less) that I thought I'd never see in my lifetime. For that I will always be grateful.

As a Sox fan I can also say that those memories of the first cup and the Sox championship are why I hope the Cubs can do the same thing for their long suffering fans. Everyone should get to experience that at least once in their life.
- blackhawks30

nah

They paid Kane and Toews to be franchise cornerstones, at an AAV that reflected their ages, skill sets, accomplishments and anticipated cap growth—and in that last regard, they may well be vindicated.

The two deals I am keeping the question open on are Anisimov's and Campbell's.

Anisimov, because it felt like Bowman and the FO turned around and knee jerk extended him almost to say to the world (and Saad and his agent), see. we're willing to take care of our guys, or that AA was the guy they really wanted anyway (which is bs). I just didn't (and don't) see why they had to make that kind of commitment right then, right after they acquired him. Especially with a NMC.

Campbell's because even though $2 million is a likely bargain deal, I don't think the hawks had blearily as acute a need on defense (especially after singing Kempny) as they did at forward. I think they thought they could afford Campbell and make something else work out (like Hudler or Vesey or a bargain bin vet from somewhere)—and that came up craps. And now they're totally hamstrung.

But again, on both these deals, time will tell. I really don't care if Anisimov was the NHL's 2nd star last week. A lot of guys can rack up points playing with Kane and Panarin. His lack of skill or commitment in the dot is troubling and bad on this team where the 4th line center is also terrible. He is a good defensive player and physical. I'm just not sure he was worth that kind of commitment, dollars and term.
- John Jaeckel

I don't mind the Anisimov contract, that's about the going rate for a player of his stature. Killorn received a similar deal in Tampa, but at least Anisimov's contract doesn't have a NTC or NMC in the last 2 years and only modified NTC in year 3. Anisimov has performed poorly on the dot, but otherwise there isn't much to complain about.

Campbell's deal is solid and I have no complaints about it. When Stan didn't acquire a defenseman at the TDL we experienced that this team will do with only 3 top 4 dmen. Stan addressed a major void on the team and for only $2 million.