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.
- DarthKane

In theory, you are correct, though you need to logic the Campbell thing through a bit more.

Campbell clearly has some tread left on the tire. Question is, what is it an acute need?

What if Kempny, who clearly has the physical ability, is a solid second pair guy by season's end?

Then Campbell was a luxury signing, and if that $2 million could have helped acquire the winger you might desperately need, then it was a bad signing.

FO% of Hawk centers:

Toews 60%
Kruger 50%
Rasmussen 40%
Anisimov 35%
Schmaltz 31%

Goal production:

Toews line 8 (Panik has 6)
PAK line 8
Other Hawk forwards (total) 5
Hawk D 3

If/when Panik reverts to norm, and he will not continue to score at close to his present pace, you could be a one line team again. Just saying.

It remains to be seen, regardless of your being convinced it's not an issue.

Ok, so they move heaven and earth and get Panarin signed this summer.

Where then does the improvement come from that gets them back into serious contention?

Schmaltz, Motte, Panik, Hinostroza? Better start lighting candles. Most likely, none of those guys are going to be as good as a lot of people think/wish.

Meanwhile, Hossa, Keith, Seabrook all a year older.

It doesn't add up, barring an emergence that doesn't seem to be in the cards.

The only one of those guys who seems to have the talent to potentially be a sort of special player is Schmaltz. But honestly, if you compared him to TT at the same age, you would have said TT was fairly obviously the better prospect. Point being, we can't say how dedicated and willing Schmaltz—at his stature—now or in the future—will be.
- John Jaeckel

I think this is Problem A through Y for this coming off season. Unless the cap jumps 5mil plus we are going to have to hemorrhage this team even more to keep the mediocre offense together.

I don't like being a downer but if they are gonna do anything I think they go into full buy mode come january to try and get a better team iced, because with or without panarin the team next year (barring like you said the rise of Panik being legit, and Motte and Schmaltz turning into top good/decent top 6 players) will be in the same or worse position.

I don't want to sound too debbie downer, but legitimately there seems to be very little to no other options. Either we gut the centers (anisimov/kruger), Defense (Seabrook gone; unlikely), or roll with darling as the #1, and even then darling also needs a pay raise.

Anyone bring a paddle?

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

Hmmmm, have to disagree on that one JJ as yes they were paid as the cornerstones of the franchise which they are but at what cost to the team? A year added to the contract at a reduced salary of 8.5 per year would of probably been a better IMO and would have given more flexibility moving forward instead of guessing that the cap would increase. Guess what it did not and the team is in a pickle. Calculated risk, yes, but it kind of backfired. If you want a hometown discount look at Hammer's contract....Toews and Kane did not give the team a hometown discount regardless of how people want to spin it. As I've said before are these players playing like the best paid players in the league, Kane yes, Toews no. Those are the cold facts. You want to be paid the big bucks you have to produce and put your big boy pants on....Im not playing with Saad anymore excuse is wearing thin.

[quote=John Jaeckel]
In theory, you are correct, though you need to logic the Campbell thing through a bit more.

Campbell clearly has some tread left on the tire. Question is, what is it an acute need?

What if Kempny, who clearly has the physical ability, is a solid second pair guy by season's end?

The acute need after last year's playoffs was the need for defensive depth. Getting Kempney was nice, but what if he doesn't pan by season's end? Hence the Campbell signing.

...If/when Panik reverts to norm, and he will not continue to score at close to his present pace, you could be a one line team again. Just saying.

- John Jaeckel

Or maybe Toews finds a scoring touch and it remains at least a 2 line threat. While 6 goals for Panic is an outlier, so is Toews 2 pts total thru 7 games.

[quote=John Jaeckel]

Then Campbell was a luxury signing, and if that $2 million could have helped acquire the winger you might desperately need, then it was a bad signing.

Or what if Bowman didn't sign Campbell and instead signed a Hudler or Vesey, and the team was still struggling? Then some might point to the lack of help on the back end as being the problem.

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.
- riozzo

I thought the escrow is only to protect the owners, so the salary cap can increase without the owners spending more. If the players are being paid based on a percentage of the cap instead of a straight salary, they could do away with the escrow.

Toews and Kruger for Trouba, Laine and Scheifele and see if Winnipeg will take it!!!!

Hmmmm, have to disagree on that one JJ as yes they were paid as the cornerstones of the franchise which they are but at what cost to the team? A year added to the contract at a reduced salary of 8.5 per year would of probably been a better IMO and would have given more flexibility moving forward instead of guessing that the cap would increase. Guess what it did not and the team is in a pickle. Calculated risk, yes, but it kind of backfired. If you want a hometown discount look at Hammer's contract....Toews and Kane did not give the team a hometown discount regardless of how people want to spin it. As I've said before are these players playing like the best paid players in the league, Kane yes, Toews no. Those are the cold facts. You want to be paid the big bucks you have to produce and put your big boy pants on....Im not playing with Saad anymore excuse is wearing thin.
- Hawkster

They signed max year deal, though, so it wasn't an option to sign them for another year for a lower cap hit. The limit of 8 years under the new CBA is exactly why people cannot compare contracts signed under different CBAs - the situations are completely and radically varied. If Toews/Kane had the option of signing a 10-14 year deal like Weber/Crosby/Ovechkin, their cap hits would have been much lower and people wouldn't incorrectly label them as 'highest paid' based on cap hit.

This is such a tired discussion lbr that will just keep happening over and over and over...

I thought the escrow is only to protect the owners, so the salary cap can increase without the owners spending more. If the players are being paid based on a percentage of the cap instead of a straight salary, they could do away with the escrow.
- tvetter

The escrow exists to make sure that in total, the players get only - and exactly - 50% of the Hockey Related Revenues (HRR) for that season.

The cap is only an estimate based on projections of the final HRR number, which is calculated after the play-offs. In theory, the escrow could go either way - if HRR winds up exceeding the estimated cap (or, actually, the total salaries and benefits the players receive under contracts for that year), then the players would receive "extra" money to get them to 50%.

In practice, especially with a stagnant cap, the players agree to cap escalators, knowing that they will have to give some percentage of their salaries back through escrow payments.

I think the Hawks need one thing to turn this around and thats a good center for the second line.With the second line done with a quality face off man you can put Anisimov with Toews and Hossa done and Panik with krueger and Motte and bingo three lines with some balance .when Dezi comes back you can balance out the fourth line and i think this team becomes very solid up and down the line..

In theory, you are correct, though you need to logic the Campbell thing through a bit more.

Campbell clearly has some tread left on the tire. Question is, what is it an acute need?

What if Kempny, who clearly has the physical ability, is a solid second pair guy by season's end?

The acute need after last year's playoffs was the need for defensive depth. Getting Kempney was nice, but what if he doesn't pan by season's end? Hence the Campbell signing.
- teh_HAWKZ

Maybe! They def needed a #4 d-man, but adding one d-man improved the depth overall. And if the cost of adding TWO was not filling the void left by first Saad, then Ladd?

Remains to be seen.

Then Campbell was a luxury signing, and if that $2 million could have helped acquire the winger you might desperately need, then it was a bad signing.

Or what if Bowman didn't sign Campbell and instead signed a Hudler or Vesey, and the team was still struggling? Then some might point to the lack of help on the back end as being the problem.
- teh_HAWKZ

But . . . they had Kempny signed.

My point has been, if you want to rely on a rookie to grow into a top 6 or top 4 role, the 25 year old guy with lots of pro and international experience was (and still is) the SAFEST bet.

Maybe Campbell proves incredibly valuable, but without the forward units being better than they were last year, I don't see how that solves a problem—especially if Kempny progresses (at all) this year. The guy has been pretty good, and he has obvious top 4 physical ability.

That is the point.

The whole rhetoric about Toews and Kane being overpaid needs to stop for a couple of reasons.

First and foremost, since there is no re-negotiation of contracts, the cap hits are here to stay, as most likely are the players. Thru all this discussion about "value" not one person has proposed a trade for either Kane or Toews that returns anything close to what is being lost, or is one that the other team would even consider.

Secondly, and maybe even more important, Kane and more so Toews are the faces of a franchise and as such are worth more than just their on-ice numbers may suggest. The Hawks are very image conscious, and while Kane is the flash who sometimes steps in "it", Toews is the poster boy for the whole league for role model, dedication, etc.

Getting rid of Toews and/or Kane sends a message to the fan base that could send far to many of them to the exits. I was a season ticket holder in thru the 80's and early 90's. We dealt with the ups and downs, but when players like Larmer, Wilson, Roenick and other fan favorites were traded away many people bailed. Chelios was maybe the last straw, and it was 10 years of horrendous attendance to accompany the horrible play before they recovered in 2008 and started the climb to the top.

Hawks brass is not going to risk going thru that again.

The $10.5 mil contracts are what they are. If you think either one of them can be moved for cap relief and/or multiple players in return, please lets hear it. I have yet to see a valid one yet that can't be shot full of holes.

The whole rhetoric about Toews and Kane being overpaid needs to stop for a couple of reasons.

First and foremost, since there is no re-negotiation of contracts, the cap hits are here to stay, as most likely are the players. Thru all this discussion about "value" not one person has proposed a trade for either Kane or Toews that returns anything close to what is being lost, or is one that the other team would even consider.

Secondly, and maybe even more important, Kane and more so Toews are the faces of a franchise and as such are worth more than just their on-ice numbers may suggest. The Hawks are very image conscious, and while Kane is the flash who sometimes steps in "it", Toews is the poster boy for the whole league for role model, dedication, etc.

Getting rid of Toews and/or Kane sends a message to the fan base that could send far to many of them to the exits. I was a season ticket holder in thru the 80's and early 90's. We dealt with the ups and downs, but when players like Larmer, Wilson, Roenick and other fan favorites were traded away many people bailed. Chelios was maybe the last straw, and it was 10 years of horrendous attendance to accompany the horrible play before they recovered in 2008 and started the climb to the top.

Hawks brass is not going to risk going thru that again.

The $10.5 mil contracts are what they are. If you think either one of them can be moved for cap relief and/or multiple players in return, please lets hear it. I have yet to see a valid one yet that can't be shot full of holes.
- TheTrob

The whole rhetoric about Toews and Kane being overpaid needs to stop for a couple of reasons.

First and foremost, since there is no re-negotiation of contracts, the cap hits are here to stay, as most likely are the players. Thru all this discussion about "value" not one person has proposed a trade for either Kane or Toews that returns anything close to what is being lost, or is one that the other team would even consider.

Secondly, and maybe even more important, Kane and more so Toews are the faces of a franchise and as such are worth more than just their on-ice numbers may suggest. The Hawks are very image conscious, and while Kane is the flash who sometimes steps in "it", Toews is the poster boy for the whole league for role model, dedication, etc.

Getting rid of Toews and/or Kane sends a message to the fan base that could send far to many of them to the exits. I was a season ticket holder in thru the 80's and early 90's. We dealt with the ups and downs, but when players like Larmer, Wilson, Roenick and other fan favorites were traded away many people bailed. Chelios was maybe the last straw, and it was 10 years of horrendous attendance to accompany the horrible play before they recovered in 2008 and started the climb to the top.

Hawks brass is not going to risk going thru that again.

The $10.5 mil contracts are what they are. If you think either one of them can be moved for cap relief and/or multiple players in return, please lets hear it. I have yet to see a valid one yet that can't be shot full of holes.
- TheTrob

You know what sells tickets more than the Mug of Jonathan Toews? Winning Stanley Cup Championships. Let's see how many of the bandwagon fans stay on the wagon if they continue their descent into mediocrity. Paying an extra $2mil/year AAV because of "Marketability" is pure nonsense, IMO.

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

JJ, what do you think of Seabrook's deal? I love the guy and what he brings to the team and maybe/probably he deserves that kind of money but given $21m for Kane and Toews, it seems like a lot, and for a long time.

The acute need after last year's playoffs was the need for defensive depth. Getting Kempney was nice, but what if he doesn't pan by season's end? Hence the Campbell signing.

Agree 100%. In my view the greater need was defense, more than 1LW. Kempney was a good signing but he was unproven, and still is. Nobody expected Forsling to make the team, and everybody agreed TVR was not a top 4. Campbell was a much needed addition at a very favorable price.

I can fault Bowman for negotiating several questionable contracts, but not Campbell. This was a no brainer.

JJ, what do you think of Seabrook's deal? I love the guy and what he brings to the team and maybe/probably he deserves that kind of money but given $21m for Kane and Toews, it seems like a lot, and for a long time.
- matt_ahrens

Ask me at the end of this season, please.

Ask me at the end of this season, please.
- John Jaeckel

Anyone know why Q won't pair him with Keith?

Ask me at the end of this season, please.
- John Jaeckel

According to some, that might be in the next week or so....

Agree 100%. In my view the greater need was defense, more than 1LW. Kempney was a good signing but he was unproven, and still is. Nobody expected Forsling to make the team, and everybody agreed TVR was not a top 4. Campbell was a much needed addition at a very favorable price.

I can fault Bowman for negotiating several questionable contracts, but not Campbell. This was a no brainer.
- garacat

Both were CLEARLY needs. They had limited money, and they used a lot of it on a 37 year old d-man (even if it was a sweetheart deal—but again, they were strapped already).

You CANNOT say that they had a need on D but didn't have one at forward. Because all the facts say, there was an acute need at both positions.

They went out and signed Kempny BEFORE they knew Campbell would come on any kind of deal. And they did not sign Kempny to play in Rockford. And he obviously has top 4 physical ability (minimally).

So they spent extra on another d-man—and tried to go the lightning in a bottle route on the wing at the same time. That failed.

Those are pretty much facts.

And if they thought these rookies were the answer, WHY did they pursue Vesey and Hudler?

You get a year or two at most out of Campbell and you have no money to fill the STILL gaping forward slots—after losing TT and Shaw, BTW?

That doesn't seem like a real smart move—at this point—unless some other eventuality presents itself.

Anyone know why Q won't pair him with Keith?
- bhawks2241

Same reason they had Seabrook with Svedberg and Gustafsson much of last year.

According to some, that might be in the next week or so....


- CanOCorn

Ha HA!

Both were CLEARLY needs. They had limited money, and they used a lot of it on a 37 year old d-man (even if it was a sweetheart deal—but again, they were strapped already).

You CANNOT say that they had a need on D but didn't have one at forward. Because all the facts say, there was an acute need at both positions.

They went out and signed Kempny BEFORE they knew Campbell would come on any kind of deal. And they did not sign Kempny to play in Rockford. And he obviously has top 4 physical ability (minimally).

So they spent extra on another d-man—and tried to go the lightning in a bottle route on the wing at the same time. That failed.

Those are pretty much facts.

And if they thought these rookies were the answer, WHY did they pursue Vesey and Hudler?

You get a year or two at most out of Campbell and you have no money to fill the STILL gaping forward slots—after losing TT and Shaw, BTW?

That doesn't seem like a real smart move—at this point—unless some other eventuality presents itself.
- John Jaeckel

But it also seems as though Kempny and Campbell are two different types of d-men. Campbell is more of a 2-way d-man at this point of his career. Kempny seems to be more of a stay-at-home type. At least so far.