How can anyone honestly believe the "market rate" for Toews and Kane was $11 per?

The numbers got out of control once McKenzie reported that they initially asked for $12 mil, which was ludicrous in its own right.

Several things need to be clarified at the time those were signed:
-Toews and Kane were only 2 time cup champions at the time (signed July 2014). Their deals didnt kick in until after they won the cup in 2015

-At the time they signed, the highest cap hit in the league was $9.5 mil by both Malkin and Ovechkin. Malkin had a cup on resume as well as art ross and hart and conn smythe trophies. Ovechkin has won the goal scoring title nearly every year he has been in the league and also has a hart trophy

-The only awards that Toews and Kane had at the time they signed were Conn Smythe, Selke ('13 Toews) and Calder (Kane '08)

-The canadian dollar was notoriously struggling and it was no mystery, but the projections of an exploding cap was grossly overstated as a lot of revenue came in at the time due to the new TV deals in both Canada and the US.

-Had Stan just waited 6 more months to negotiate those deals, he would have watched the canadian dollar crash and the flat cap projections were already coming out by about December

Now why they felt, and Stan agreed, to take DUAL highest cap hits in the league on the same team clearing the highest cap hit in the league by a cool million made any sense from a hockey standpoint, I have no clue. Malkin had a much more impressive resume at the time short 1 cup and they felt they were much more than him.

But lets also not forget the ONLY reason the Hawks won the cup again in 2015 was two fold:

1. Kane and Toews' mega deals didnt kick in yet, so they had the cap space to round out a better roster
2. Kane broke his collarbone and being able to LTIR him cleared space to add a critical third line center in Vermette

If those contracts were in effect that year, no chance they win the cup. You have to wonder if that last year of those previous deals for them in 2015 was truly the swan song because it has been nothing short of a disaster trying to cobble the roster back together from what it was in 2015 since those deals kicked in. Panarin was a nice find, but lets see how generous Bowman is with the extension he is working on right now
- hawkeytalkman

Would you rather have Malkin on the team than Kane or Toews?

I don't understand the point in bringing this stuff up. Prior to the season, everyone was excited to see what the kids could do...now that we're under way, everyone is pissed because the 7 new guys on the team aren't completely meshed and firing on all cylinders.

Give it some time.

There is also one thing we should keep in mind about the Hawks 3 cup wins. There is a common factor. All three were before Kane/Toews got their big contracts.

2010 - Toews/Kane on ELC and many Hawks players due a raise because they were up and coming. The Hawks on paper were under the cap(with bonus cushion) but the talent level was well above the cap hits.

2013 - Toews/Kane cap hit a reasonable 6.3 per year. Guys like Saad, Shaw, Leddy were playing well above their cap hit. Sharp was playing on a reasonable deal. Hossa still in his prime (more or less)

2015 - Toews/Kane still cap hit 6.3 still. Hawks depth starting to show cracks but still had some good role players who were a good value. Richards signed a sweetheart deal to play in Chicago. Kane's LTIR put the Hawks in position to get enough to put them over the top.

Compare that to now. The Hawks are top heavy on salary and need to find guys who can play way above what they are being paid. The Hawks can play better than they are playing right now, but I don't know if they are setup to really win a cup.

How can anyone honestly believe the "market rate" for Toews and Kane was $11 per?

The numbers got out of control once McKenzie reported that they initially asked for $12 mil, which was ludicrous in its own right.

Several things need to be clarified at the time those were signed:
-Toews and Kane were only 2 time cup champions at the time (signed July 2014). Their deals didnt kick in until after they won the cup in 2015

-At the time they signed, the highest cap hit in the league was $9.5 mil by both Malkin and Ovechkin. Malkin had a cup on resume as well as art ross and hart and conn smythe trophies. Ovechkin has won the goal scoring title nearly every year he has been in the league and also has a hart trophy

-The only awards that Toews and Kane had at the time they signed were Conn Smythe, Selke ('13 Toews) and Calder (Kane '08)

-The canadian dollar was notoriously struggling and it was no mystery, but the projections of an exploding cap was grossly overstated as a lot of revenue came in at the time due to the new TV deals in both Canada and the US.

-Had Stan just waited 6 more months to negotiate those deals, he would have watched the canadian dollar crash and the flat cap projections were already coming out by about December

Now why they felt, and Stan agreed, to take DUAL highest cap hits in the league on the same team clearing the highest cap hit in the league by a cool million made any sense from a hockey standpoint, I have no clue. Malkin had a much more impressive resume at the time short 1 cup and they felt they were much more than him.

But lets also not forget the ONLY reason the Hawks won the cup again in 2015 was two fold:

1. Kane and Toews' mega deals didnt kick in yet, so they had the cap space to round out a better roster
2. Kane broke his collarbone and being able to LTIR him cleared space to add a critical third line center in Vermette

If those contracts were in effect that year, no chance they win the cup. You have to wonder if that last year of those previous deals for them in 2015 was truly the swan song because it has been nothing short of a disaster trying to cobble the roster back together from what it was in 2015 since those deals kicked in. Panarin was a nice find, but lets see how generous Bowman is with the extension he is working on right now
- hawkeytalkman

First of all, contracts aren't borne out of one simple thing. It isn't just past performance. It's future potential. And at the time, T and K were 26 and 25 AND they had won two cups. They also were the face of the rebuilt Chicago Blackhawks, an Original 6 team and arguably the most important American team to the NHL. They are being paid according to what they've done on the ice and for the NHL. It's similar (and no I'm not directly comparing) to the Michael Jordan contracts at the end of his career. He wasn't just being paid based on championships. He was being paid for what he did for the Bulls and for the NBA.

But again, why keep rehashing this? According to the CBA, it's a done deal until the contract is up or they are traded. So, why bother?

I smell a coaching change ,don't know WHY but I do . PK PP are a disaster , in respect to alignment and personnel and that IMO falls on the coaching staff . Some of Q roster moves going back to last years playoffs have been odd to say the least . I t really is the only big move this team can make to shake things up .
- oldduffman

That may be some old pizza under the sofa. NOT happening.

Firing Joel Quenneville because he can't get this jalopy of a "Stanley Cup roster" over 60 would be, ummm, historically unwise.

Why isn't he paired with Hammer? hammer can play his offside, correct?

2-7
51-4
42-57
- BlazinMike

Good call. And, Hammer is one of the few (only?) guys I've seen saying he prefers to be on his offside.

- DarthKane

How much time you wanna give 'em?

First of all, contracts aren't borne out of one simple thing. It isn't just past performance. It's future potential. And at the time, T and K were 26 and 25 AND they had won two cups. They also were the face of the rebuilt Chicago Blackhawks, an Original 6 team and arguably the most important American team to the NHL. They are being paid according to what they've done on the ice and for the NHL. It's similar (and no I'm not directly comparing) to the Michael Jordan contracts at the end of his career. He wasn't just being paid based on championships. He was being paid for what he did for the Bulls and for the NBA.

But again, why keep rehashing this? According to the CBA, it's a done deal until the contract is up or they are traded. So, why bother?
- CanOCorn

I'll add a 3rd, until a labor disagreement occurs and the league shuts down again.

Hope for the future:


Christopher Kamka
‏@ckamka
Corey Crawford has allowed 15 goals this season.
3 of them have been 5 x 5
- CanOCorn

Crawford and Darling are the reason this team is not 1-6.

First of all, contracts aren't borne out of one simple thing. It isn't just past performance. It's future potential. And at the time, T and K were 26 and 25 AND they had won two cups. They also were the face of the rebuilt Chicago Blackhawks, an Original 6 team and arguably the most important American team to the NHL. They are being paid according to what they've done on the ice and for the NHL. It's similar (and no I'm not directly comparing) to the Michael Jordan contracts at the end of his career. He wasn't just being paid based on championships. He was being paid for what he did for the Bulls and for the NBA.

But again, why keep rehashing this? According to the CBA, it's a done deal until the contract is up or they are traded. So, why bother?
- CanOCorn

There big difference is this.

Paying players what they are worth and paying players contracts that will help you win a cup and have depth. Kane and Toews may very well have commanded that money based on talent and potential, but doesn't mean those contracts allow the Hawks to be competitive, unless those two are clearly the best players in the NHL.

You don't win cups if you have to pay everyone market rate. Not in Chicago, Not in LA, Not in Pittsburgh. If you don't have enough talent at a good cap hit, you just can't beat the teams that do.

But Toews only has 2 assists in 7 games to go along with Panik's 6 goals and Motte's 2 - he may not have been on the ice for 3 of Panik's netters, based on who got the assists (Hossa/Anisimov, Kane/Seabrook, Forsling/Anisimov), I'm not sure.

But only 2 of Panik's goals could have come off of Toews or Hossa rebounds.

I think that all of Panik's goals have come from him being at the net at opportune times, a couple in scrums - so Panik fighting for goals, a good sign for him.
- StLBravesFan

Yeah, but I was talking about Motte (both of his came off Toews' rebounds, I'm pretty sure) AND Panik's.

Relax, CHI will be fine. You're so used to winning constantly that a little bump in the road is the end of the world. It's not. CHI will be fine they have a ton of talent and the PK will get resolved. Cool it people.

Spreading fear via doom & gloom is much more personally rewarding. Things will start straightening out.. #koolaide
- Beaver-Warrior

Yeah, well, the rest of us were having a respectful discussion before you shared your commentary. On our discussion. Typical.

How's the recruiting going? #jv

Interesting concept.

On the one hand you have two accomplished players that have very important roles on the team.

On the other hand, you have a number on a spreadsheet somewhere.

Ill take the former, I like the way you think DK
- BlazinMike

That may be some old pizza under the sofa. NOT happening.

Firing Joel Quenneville because he can't get this jalopy of a "Stanley Cup roster" over 60 would be, ummm, historically unwise.
- John Jaeckel

Count me in the trade CC and fire Q fan club but remember I'm a Blues fan.

There big difference is this.

Paying players what they are worth and paying players contracts that will help you win a cup and have depth. Kane and Toews may very well have commanded that money based on talent and potential, but doesn't mean those contracts allow the Hawks to be competitive, unless those two are clearly the best players in the NHL.

You don't win cups if you have to pay everyone market rate. Not in Chicago, Not in LA, Not in Pittsburgh. If you don't have enough talent at a good cap hit, you just can't beat the teams that do.
- breadbag

No you don't, but not every contract can or should be treated the same way either. As has been documented here, Pittsburgh won with younger players last year, not fresh out of college, but low cap hit players. So it CAN be done, it just can't be sustainable for the long term.

Count me in the trade CC and fire Q fan club but remember I'm a Blues fan.
- Jason Millen

And that's telling enough about that strategy.

Count me in the trade CC and fire Q fan club but remember I'm a Blues fan.
- Jason Millen

This also points to the fact that EVERY other team brings it against the Blackhawks because they are the closest to a dynasty. See: Elliot, Brian

There is also one thing we should keep in mind about the Hawks 3 cup wins. There is a common factor. All three were before Kane/Toews got their big contracts.

2010 - Toews/Kane on ELC and many Hawks players due a raise because they were up and coming. The Hawks on paper were under the cap(with bonus cushion) but the talent level was well above the cap hits.

2013 - Toews/Kane cap hit a reasonable 6.3 per year. Guys like Saad, Shaw, Leddy were playing well above their cap hit. Sharp was playing on a reasonable deal. Hossa still in his prime (more or less)

2015 - Toews/Kane still cap hit 6.3 still. Hawks depth starting to show cracks but still had some good role players who were a good value. Richards signed a sweetheart deal to play in Chicago. Kane's LTIR put the Hawks in position to get enough to put them over the top.

Compare that to now. The Hawks are top heavy on salary and need to find guys who can play way above what they are being paid. The Hawks can play better than they are playing right now, but I don't know if they are setup to really win a cup.
- breadbag

When 19 and 88's cap hit went to $21 million per, versus $12.6 million per, without a corresponding increase in the cap itself, the dynamics of the Hawk roster changed significantly.

I have said this before—apparently it is too doom and gloom or too much math for some—but the basic truth is, when you pay existing talent more under a stagnant salary cap, you reduce your ability to acquire new talent. This has been especially true of the Hawks, and bears a direct impact on potentially re-signing Panarin.

The Hawks have "sold off" mostly in order to reward certain players. Cap has remained mostly stagnant. Therefore, hard to see how the overall quality of the roster would not suffer.

Is it the end of the world?

No.

Let's assume the Hawks are a playoff team again this year. Where is the evidence that suggests they are closer to the 2015 Cup team versus the 2016 first round out team?

It all depends what the fans and the organization are ultimately comfortable with.

The Hawks won all 3 Cups without a legitimate 2C bc unlike 19, 88 can carry a line by himself.

20-19-81
72-Anyone-Kane

That would provide 2 consistent scoring lines.

I'd take 20 over 16 and 50 because, like I've been saying for months, we have in-house replacements for 50+ 16 that can nearly replicate their production. There is nobody in the system, and only a few guys in the entire NHL, that can replicate the production and 200ft play that Brandon Saad brings to the ice. So it goes.

I have also stated repeatedly that despite being outplayed in every game this year, with an even mediocre PK they would probably be undefeated. Fix the PK and then we can really assess this team.
- EnzoD

Ok, let's take this one step further, who specifically would you have replace Crawford and Kruger?

I'm a fan of Darling, but there's no certainty he can carry the load like Crawford can. But even if he could, we'd still need a solid backup during the first couple seasons in case Darling faltered. Right now the Hawks pay around $6.6 million for their goalies. Signing Darling and a quality back-up would cost close to $6 million. Is this move worth $600K in cap space?

For Kruger, the team is already short on defensive centres who can win a faceoff. Take Kruger out of the picture and we're left with Toews. Nobody in Rockford could replace Kruger now.

Would you rather have Malkin on the team than Kane or Toews?

I don't understand the point in bringing this stuff up. Prior to the season, everyone was excited to see what the kids could do...now that we're under way, everyone is pissed because the 7 new guys on the team aren't completely meshed and firing on all cylinders.

Give it some time.
- BlazinMike

How much time are we talking?

We are 96 games into Toews and Kane's new contracts. We were atrocious 5 on 5 last year. We cant stop a runny nose on the PK currently and have holes all over the lineup.

How much more of a sample size is needed to point to the Toews, Kane, and Seabrook contracts as direct reasons why there are huge flaws on the roster that cant be addressed due to no cap space and prospect purging to try and get the team under the cap?

Those guys should be playing ELITE hockey regardless of the makeshift roster because that is how the Hawks cap roster is structured. Sadly only Kane looks like he is coming close to his value. Does Seabrook look like a near $7 mil dman? Nope. Does Toews look like a $10.5 player? Absolutely not. He honestly looks like a $7 mil player right now, and thats being generous

Obviously hindsight is 20/20 and we are stuck with those deals, but they individually need to step it up ESPECIALLY since their roster is thin on depth

How much time you wanna give 'em?
- John Jaeckel

As long as it takes. Salary cap dumps won't free up enough cap space to reconfigure the roster. Teams will look to take advantage of Stan like they did with Frolik, Bolland, Byfuglien, Ladd, Sharp, Leddy, Shaw and Saad.

The front needs to be patient as the team comes together and the rookies continue to develop.

No you don't, but not every contract can or should be treated the same way either. As has been documented here, Pittsburgh won with younger players last year, not fresh out of college, but low cap hit players. So it CAN be done, it just can't be sustainable for the long term.
- CanOCorn

Right, but even their two stars take up a combined ~3 million less, which does make a difference. Then this year there is the Seabrook contract extension and salary bump that is about another million. Another 1.5 for Kruger. It all adds up. Crawford, Hossa, Keith all making a respectable salary. It all adds up to having to make magic happen with no money to do it.

Yeah, well, the rest of us were having a respectful discussion before you shared your commentary. On our discussion. Typical.

How's the recruiting going? #jv
- John Jaeckel

Ladies and gents...

Listen to JJ. Keep the respectful discussion going.

Otherwise, if you're here to take shots with the ledge-jumping Kool-ade drinking comments, I can start handing out bans. LONG BANS.

Thanks.

How much time are we talking?

We are 96 games into Toews and Kane's new contracts. We were atrocious 5 on 5 last year. We cant stop a runny nose on the PK currently and have holes all over the lineup.

How much more of a sample size is needed to point to the Toews, Kane, and Seabrook contracts as direct reasons why there are huge flaws on the roster that cant be addressed due to no cap space and prospect purging to try and get the team under the cap?

Those guys should be playing ELITE hockey regardless of the makeshift roster because that is how the Hawks cap roster is structured. Sadly only Kane looks like he is coming close to his value. Does Seabrook look like a near $7 mil dman? Nope. Does Toews look like a $10.5 player? Absolutely not. He honestly looks like a $7 mil player right now, and thats being generous

Obviously hindsight is 20/20 and we are stuck with those deals, but they individually need to step it up ESPECIALLY since their roster is thin on depth
- hawkeytalkman

You cant hand out those contracts which will make the roster thin elsewhere and then turn around and complain about the roster depth is the reason why those guys cant live up to their deals. If they got that payday, the expectation is that they should flourish and produce whether you have Saad next to you or a ham sammich. Getting paid as the top players in the league comes with the burden of being able to produce like that, or else dont ask for those laughable contracts

When 19 and 88's cap hit went to $21 million per, versus $12.6 million per, without a corresponding increase in the cap itself, the dynamics of the Hawk roster changed significantly.

I have said this before—apparently it is too doom and gloom or too much math for some—but the basic truth is, when you pay existing talent more under a stagnant salary cap, you reduce your ability to acquire new talent. This has been especially true of the Hawks, and bears a direct impact on potentially re-signing Panarin.

The Hawks have "sold off" mostly in order to reward certain players. Cap has remained mostly stagnant. Therefore, hard to see how the overall quality of the roster would not suffer.

Is it the end of the world?

No.

Let's assume the Hawks are a playoff team again this year. Where is the evidence that suggests they are closer to the 2015 Cup team versus the 2016 first round out team?

It all depends what the fans and the organization are ultimately comfortable with.
- John Jaeckel

You are right. I really do have to give you credit for your level headed perspective.

I decided for myself a few seasons ago that I'm happy as long as they make it to the second round of the playoffs. For me, everything after that is gravy.