Oilers desperately need D. Should have traded Taylor Hall for Seabs instead of Larsson.

I remember a debate I had with a friend who touted Toews being the best leader in NHL and he would pick Toews over Crosby....I laughed at him...Leadership is an overused word. Production and performance trumps over any leadership....Toews being a leader is overused word.
- shidler

That's all hindsight though. Two years ago, most people here probably would have taken Toews over Crosby. You can slam it has a homer move but at the time Toews had three Cups to Sid's one and people were talking about Sid as being the underachiever as far as none of his regular season numbers turning into anything meaningful in the postseason.

A lot's changed.

Thanks for this link. Never heard of this site and this piece in particular is indeed interesting. Not sure if it's thinking outside the box, it would be for Q it would seem, but when the author advocates a Daley, Leddy type or Gustafsson, Forsling and soon Snuggerud to be a part of the solution it will at least perk up the ears of many a Hawk fan.

Add that a different coaching philosophy in Dmen skating the puck up or that the Hawks led all of the NHL in offensive zone time but much of that was along the walls that indeed there is more than one way to skin a cat and systems can (and should IMO), be changed depending on personnel.
- Mr Ricochet

Unfortunately the article calls for Quenneville to do some coaching. Quite honestly, other than his blender, I'm not confident that he the ability to coach these changes.
He has shown total stubbornness when it comes to changing the PP and the PK for years now. Keith at the point has been awful for awhile now, and that non aggressive 4 man box on the PK has been called out as well. Not to mention the spacing from our dmen and always backing into our Goaltenders. Sorry, but I have No faith in this staff making any changes.....of course he's won 3 Cups remember. ...No need to question success. .....RED FONT !!

Jenner wears the A, plays on their 2nd line, and scored 30 goals last year. Zach Werenski is their #1Dman. They might think about Werenski for Panarin + Forsling but you aren't even close on that first attempt. Gustav Forsling is nothing but "potential". Both those guys have done it at the NHL Level. I agree Stan should give Jarmo a call as a trade partner, but that trade only helps the Hawks.
- EnzoD

Perhaps, but CBL needs to give to get. Perhaps they go lower, Schmaltz and Kruger for Murray?

So excited to be attending the Hawks convention this July. I hope the boo birds are deafening for Stan during any panel he participates in. Though honestly he will probably chicken out of any front office panels to begin with.

Myself and many close friends have finally come to the conclusion that this current Blackhawks team is much closer to a full rebuild than any kind of subtle tweaking. The question now is will Stan expedite the overhaul or drag his feet and let us sit through another 3-4 years of mediocrity.

Better to trade the assets now when their value is worthwhile than to wait and hold onto these players whose contracts will become albatrosses on the franchise.
- falseprophet93

Don't shoot the messenger, but I would very, very, very quietly be looking to get out from under that Toews contract

Just sayin'

So, what do you think is the single biggest / best move for the Hawks? No dead horses please - don't want to hear how Stan won't do it because he couldn't manage a McDonalds (harder than you might think to do, btw). Really interested in what they could do.

My one idea is trade Seabrook to COL. COL needs D and more than that they need someone to lead that locker room. CHI needs out of that contract.
- Marlowe

Seabrook plus your 2017 1st to Las Vegas for their 2017 3rd and a 2018 conditional 3rd.

They can make Seabrook either their first captain or assistant, you get out of the contract. Yeah, it's costly. But it's gonna look something like that, and you guys have got to get out from under that commitment.

Panarin and your 2017 5th to Phoenix for Duclair and their 2017 2nd. Duclair has the toolset to ride shotgun for Toews, and their 2nd offsets you losing the first to Vegas. Plus, Duclair is still on his ELC.

Yes, you lose the deal in production, but this offseason is about getting your cap fixed

Seabrook plus your 2017 1st to Las Vegas for their 2017 3rd and a 2018 conditional 3rd.

They can make Seabrook either their first captain or assistant, you get out of the contract. Yeah, it's costly. But it's gonna look something like that, and you guys have got to get out from under that commitment.

Panarin and your 2017 5th to Phoenix for Duclair and their 2017 2nd. Duclair has the toolset to ride shotgun for Toews, and their 2nd offsets you losing the first to Vegas. Plus, Duclair is still on his ELC.

Yes, you lose the deal in production, but this offseason is about getting your cap fixed
- AllInForFlyers

The goal is to win one more Cup before Keith is 35. Those trades are a First Class ticket to the Draft Lottery.

The goal is to win one more Cup before Keith is 35. Those trades are a First Class ticket to the Draft Lottery.

- EnzoD

You really think getting rid of Seabrook will cost us possibly another Cup run?
Your kidding right.

yes, the Hawks need to get younger, cheaper and more experienced! Perhaps reacquire Mark McNeill? And see if Brandon Perri is available.
- BMWChiFan

Smartass

You really think getting rid of Seabrook will cost us possibly another Cup run?
Your kidding right.
- shidler

It's OK; it's what happens when teams win with homegrown guys. The perceived value and what they are now merges with memories of what they were.

From the outside looking in: You guys are top heavy in the wrong way: with guys who are in decline.

Crosby was a generational talent and he's going to produce longer than Toews -- you're seeing that now. But Toews makes almost $2 million more than Crosby. And that money and difference in production has to be made up somehow.

Seabrook isn't what he was. And he's never going to be that player again. People on the outside were stunned when he got extended at that term, and you are correct: You will not need him if/when you make another run, and it can be argued that if they don't get rid of some of the "declining cash," another run is gonna be tricky to come by

The good thing about you guys is that free agents will always give you a look, as opposed to a few other cities

But if they aren't honest about shaving bad money off the cap, well, hockey is as simple as it gets: You're either getting better or you're getting worse.

You gotta clear $10-plus million of cash, cold turkey and without mercy, and retrofit this thing before Kane's decline sets in, hard

The Pens did it with Orpik and Niskanen. Sometimes, you gotta be merciless and thank guys for their service

You really think getting rid of Seabrook will cost us possibly another Cup run?
Your kidding right.
- shidler

I am not kidding. Have you watched the Hawks the last 7 years? He is a Top 4 Dman that plays in all situations. Trading him for some trash mid round draft picks suggested by a Flyers' fan still salty about 2010 and reveling in the Hawks trouble in the first round....laughable.

WHO PLAYS THOSE MINUTES THAT 7 plays?? I am willing to bet that 2,4,7 are going NOWHERE unless a young and highly talented Dman comes back in the trade. Not Seabrook for franking mid round picks in 2018. Give me a (frank)ing break.

I am not kidding. Have you watched the Hawks the last 7 years? He is a Top 4 Dman plays all situations. Trading him for some trash mid round draft picks suggested by a Flyers' fan still salty about 2010 and reveling in the Hawks trouble in the first round. WHO PLAYS THOSE MINUTES THAT 7 plays?? I am willing to bet that 2,4,7 are going NOWHERE unless a young and highly talented Dman comes back in the trade. Not Seabrook for franking mid round picks in 2018. Give me a (frank)ing break.
- EnzoD

Salty about 2010? Come on, man -- look around the league. Seriously. Look around. Nobody's insulting your team, mocking your playoff results.

Seabrook's a 2003 draftee. Those guys are starting to steadily filter out of the league -- it's a young man's game.

Just look around the league, and you'll see the truth: You're overpaying Seabrook at this stage of his career, it's gonna get worse, and it doesn't work that way in this league anymore

Salty about 2010? Come on, man -- look around the league. Seriously. Look around. Nobody's insulting your team, mocking your playoff results.

Seabrook's a 2003 draftee. Those guys are starting to steadily filter out of the league -- it's a young man's game.

Just look around the league, and you'll see the truth: You're overpaying Seabrook at this stage of his career, it's gonna get worse, and it doesn't work that way in this league anymore
- AllInForFlyers

The Hawks will go all in for one more Cup in the next 2 seasons and trading ANY of those guys you suggested for draft picks makes the team worse. Seabrook for a 3rd round pick is insulting.

The Hawks will go all in for one more Cup in the next 2 seasons and trading ANY of those guys you suggested for draft picks makes the team worse. Seabrook for a 3rd round pick is insulting.
- EnzoD

A 32-year-old Brent Seabrook making $6.875 million for the next seven seasons for a 3rd round pick is doing you a favor. There's only three or four teams in the sport, max, who could even absorb that contract -- especially if he manages to keep the movement clauses in his deal as an agreement to move.

A 32-year-old Brent Seabrook making $6.875 million for the next seven seasons for a 3rd round pick is doing you a favor. There's only three or four teams in the sport, max, who could even absorb that contract -- especially if he manages to keep the movement clauses in his deal as an agreement to move.
- AllInForFlyers

For a 3rd round pick?

That's a good strategy for a rebuild. Maybe in 3 years...

For a 3rd round pick?

That's a good strategy for a rebuild. Maybe in 3 years...
- RedRevenge

In three years, it will be nearly impossible to trade a 35-year-old Brent Seabrook with four years left on his contract, and Vegas likely won't be able to swallow the contract whole.

Hey, I responded to the post where the question was what I'd do. Seabrook's contract is...not good. But you don't have to do anything, can play it out, see what happens

A 32-year-old Brent Seabrook making $6.875 million for the next seven seasons for a 3rd round pick is doing you a favor. There's only three or four teams in the sport, max, who could even absorb that contract -- especially if he manages to keep the movement clauses in his deal as an agreement to move.
- AllInForFlyers

What favor is that? The favor of making the Hawks a worse team on the ice? Are you even reading my comments. The goal is to make the Hawks a BETTER team, not removing one of the three Top Pair Dmen the Hawks have for a franking 3rd round draft pick. Are you still hammered celebrating your Draft Lottery win from last night?? Hawks will trade Kruger for a pick and probably 72 or 15 for a young highly touted defenseman and go for the Cup again. Maybe in 2019 Seabrook will be traded for a draft pick, but I'm positive that won't (nor should it) happen this summer.

What favor is that? The favor of making the Hawks a worse team on the ice? Are you even reading my comments. The goal is to make the Hawks a BETTER team, not removing one of the three Top Pair Dmen the Hawks have for a franking 3rd round draft pick. Are you still hammered celebrating your Draft Lottery win from last night?? Hawks will trade Kruger for a pick and probably 72 or 15 for a young highly touted defenseman and go for the Cup again. Maybe in 2019 Seabrook will be traded for a draft pick, but I'm positive that won't (nor should it) happen this summer.
- EnzoD

Hey, it could happen exactly as you described. Good luck with it

In three years, it will be nearly impossible to trade a 35-year-old Brent Seabrook with four years left on his contract, and Vegas likely won't be able to swallow the contract whole.

Hey, I responded to the post where the question was what I'd do. Seabrook's contract is...not good. But you don't have to do anything, can play it out, see what happens
- AllInForFlyers

You are acting as if Seabrook is a 3rd pairing defensemen.... Some teams would die to have him as a defensemen (see Oilers/Toronto/Dallas/Avs/the list goes on). So to say that Seabs for a 3rd rounder is doing the hawks a favor is a complete joke.

Here's a thought experiment:

Taylor Hall was able to fetch Adam Larsson. Would you rather have Larsson or Seabs if you were an oiler?

You are acting as if Seabrook is a 3rd pairing defensemen.... Some teams would die to have him as a defensemen (see Oilers/Toronto/Dallas/Avs/the list goes on). So to say that Seabs for a 3rd rounder is doing the hawks a favor is a complete joke.

Here's a thought experiment:

Taylor Hall was able to fetch Adam Larsson. Would you rather have Larsson or Seabs if you were an oiler?
- RedRevenge

Hey, if I'm wrong and you guys move Seabrook for a better return than that, I'll have absolutely zero issues coming in here and doing a mea culpa.

My reasoning is pretty simple and clear: This league is either capped out or has teams working with internal payroll constraints.

It's easy to say that the Oilers would take Seabrook's contract. But in reality, that won't happen without you taking an equally onerous contract in return -- they've got their own contractual commitments. You can't just drop Seabrook's cap hit anywhere you feel like -- he is owed seven more years.

If I'm wrong, I'll have no issues in saying it. But I don't think some of you have come to grips with just how bad Seabrook's contract is, how few teams can absorb it, and would be willing to do so with seven more years at $6.8M-plus.

Again: If you guys are able to move Seabrook for anything even remotely close to something equal to or better than the value of the deal I suggested -- a 2017 3rd and a 2018 conditional 3rd -- over even the next two seasons, I will pop in here the day of the deal and congratulate your franchise on doing something I do not think is possible: Getting value in return for shedding that contract

I am not being facetious when I say this: Good luck with it. Because moving that deal is gonna be one of the heavier lifts in this sport, especially with him having an NMC

Hey, if I'm wrong and you guys move Seabrook for a better return than that, I'll have absolutely zero issues coming in here and doing a mea culpa.

My reasoning is pretty simple and clear: This league is either capped out or has teams working with internal payroll constraints.

It's easy to say that the Oilers would take Seabrook's contract. But in reality, that won't happen without you taking an equally onerous contract in return -- they've got their own contractual commitments. You can't just drop Seabrook's cap hit anywhere you feel like -- he is owed seven more years.

If I'm wrong, I'll have no issues in saying it. But I don't think some of you have come to grips with just how bad Seabrook's contract is, how few teams can absorb it, and would be willing to do so with seven more years at $6.8M-plus.

Again: If you guys are able to move Seabrook for anything even remotely close to something equal to or better than the value of the deal I suggested -- a 2017 3rd and a 2018 conditional 3rd -- over even the next two seasons, I will pop in here the day of the deal and congratulate your franchise on doing something I do not think is possible: Getting value in return for shedding that contract

I am not being facetious when I say this: Good luck with it. Because moving that deal is gonna be one of the heavier lifts in this sport, especially with him having an NMC
- AllInForFlyers

Your point is moot bc The Hawks will not trade Seabrook this Summer. There is no likely trade scenario that makes the Hawks better equipped to win the Cup in 2018 or 19. Panarin, Anisimov and Kruger are the likely trade chips on the table as Top
4 Dmen are a limited commodity. He is 32 not 36 and has several years of effective Top Pair production. Brent Seabrook is a Top 4 Dman on every NHL team. 7 was not the reason the Hawks lost to the Predators or Blues the last two years. The bottom 3 Dmen and coaching adjustments were the biggest culprits this year. However, Seabrook was a Cornerstone and HUGE reason for 3 Cups in 5 years. He's also a huge leader in the locker room. I'd be absolutely dumbfounded if he is traded this summer, regardless of your valuation of his contract.

Hey, if I'm wrong and you guys move Seabrook for a better return than that, I'll have absolutely zero issues coming in here and doing a mea culpa.

My reasoning is pretty simple and clear: This league is either capped out or has teams working with internal payroll constraints.

It's easy to say that the Oilers would take Seabrook's contract. But in reality, that won't happen without you taking an equally onerous contract in return -- they've got their own contractual commitments. You can't just drop Seabrook's cap hit anywhere you feel like -- he is owed seven more years.

If I'm wrong, I'll have no issues in saying it. But I don't think some of you have come to grips with just how bad Seabrook's contract is, how few teams can absorb it, and would be willing to do so with seven more years at $6.8M-plus.

Again: If you guys are able to move Seabrook for anything even remotely close to something equal to or better than the value of the deal I suggested -- a 2017 3rd and a 2018 conditional 3rd -- over even the next two seasons, I will pop in here the day of the deal and congratulate your franchise on doing something I do not think is possible: Getting value in return for shedding that contract

I am not being facetious when I say this: Good luck with it. Because moving that deal is gonna be one of the heavier lifts in this sport, especially with him having an NMC
- AllInForFlyers

I'm obviously less emphatic than EnzoD about a Seabs trade being a nonstarter but regarding his NMC in the later years of his contract you need to take a look at the actual contract terms - his NMC actually softens toward the end, making him easier to trade in the last few years. So while the deal still isn't great from a mgmt perspective, it's not as bad as you may think.

Your point is moot bc The Hawks will not trade Seabrook this Summer. There is no likely trade scenario that makes the Hawks better equipped to win the Cup in 2018 or 19. Panarin, Anisimov and Kruger are the likely trade chips on the table as Top
4 Dmen are a limited commodity. He is 32 not 36 and has several years of effective Top Pair production. Brent Seabrook is a Top 4 Dman on every NHL team. 7 was not the reason the Hawks lost to the Predators or Blues the last two years. The bottom 3 Dmen and coaching adjustments were the biggest culprits this year. However, Seabrook was a Cornerstone and HUGE reason for 3 Cups in 5 years. He's also a huge leader in the locker room. I'd be absolutely dumbfounded if he is traded this summer, regardless of your valuation of his contract.
[quote=EnzoD]


You may be right that it's a moot point because there are two problems with Seabrook's contract. One is the term, the other is the NMC. In order to put a team together that can compete for a Cup, one or two of the core have to go. We just saw what the core+ELC players did in the playoffs, and it wasn't pretty. So, that being said, who do you trade, and what can be reasonably expected in return? IMO, the untradeables are 88 and 4 because of production/value 81 and 2 because of recapture penalties, 72 because $6M for a top 10 scorer is not unreasonable (what is his replacement cost?), and 50 because he's made it pretty clear he isn't going to waive. I would be open for discussion on everyone else.

19 and 7 would be very difficult to trade because of their contracts. We would probably have to take a bad contract back or retain salary. If we could get Seabrook to waive, and not take salary back, that would be a win. I would like more than a 3rd round pick, but I don't think other GMs are going to be lining up to trade their young, promising, cost-controlled D-men for a 32 year old leader who is owed almost $7M AAV for 7 more years; however, you may be able to take that $7M, and turn it into signing a RFA D-man for $4-5M, save 2-3M on the cap, and have someone entering their prime instead of on the decline.

Toews is another matter. While I don't think any Hawks fan wants to see Seabrook go, and he is definitely a leader, most people don't view him as the face of the franchise, so trading Toews may be a PR nightmare. Unfortunately, the fact is, the Hawks can't continue to pay Toews 10.5M a year for faceoffs and leadership. Again, you run into the same problems as Seabrook, NMC and term. If Toews would waive his NMC, you may be able to find a team willing to overpay (WPG?), but it would be difficult.

That leaves Kruger and AA as the only two players left on the books for next year making over 1M. AA is a 2C making 4.5M. If you trade him, who takes his spot, and for how much? You could put Kero there, but if you're going to do that, I'd rather keep AA, and put him on Toews' LW. A top 6 LW for 4.5M is a decent value. Again, if AA is traded for a LW, what would we be paying him. I highly doubt AA will bring back a cost-controlled 2C/1-2LW.

Kruger is gone. period. I like him, and would like him to stay a Hawk, but I only see two options for him. 1) Vegas takes him in the expansion draft, or 2) he gets traded before his NTC comes into effect on 7/1. IMO, moving Kruger isn't enough. Panik is geting a decent raise (if he stays), and they need to fill 5 or 6 more roster spots. It's possible that Kruger's 3M would be enough if the cap goes up 2-3M, but I think that would just lead to another early playoff exit.

Crawford staying ??? Don't count on it.