Oh, I'm with ya in a lot of ways. Getting a 3rd for negotiating rights to an impending UFA is pretty remarkable.

All that said, and some will disagree because they think there's some other "obvious" answer, but I am 99% certain the Hawks wanted to deal Crawford and keep Darling—not because Darling is the better 'keeper (he isn't), but because the cap tradeoff vs. the talent tradeoff was acceptable to them. And there was another, lesser consideration I heard about that I won't go into.

So "great" move? No. Making the best of a tough situation. Yes.

Because today, the Hawks have another third round pick (big whoop)—and they are worse in net and on their roster.

Let's reserve "great move" for when the Hawks have improved their roster through leveraging some other "core" asset or two this summer.
- John Jaeckel

I still say it's a "Great Move". Simply, this time Stan got ahead of those boxing him into a corner. Once it became known in the market that Craw wasnt moving, and known in the market that Darling wanted full pay, he would have been boxed in and gotten nothing. No matter where this ends up (and I get that the highly likely scenario is Craw in Indian head, Darling not), gaining a 3rd round pick for really giving up nothing (the Hawks can sign Darling on the 1st day of free agency) has to be by any calculus a great move.

Seabrook barely has any value at all.

If he was a UFA would you pay him 7 million for 7 years ?

At 28...100 percent

At 32...no way
- Santo_44

That might be Stan's best contract yet. Nothing like paying for past performance.

Toews has really fallen off in his play. Lets see what he looks like next year. Dont know if its loss of focus or his body is simply breaking down.
- z1990z

With Toews a couple of things either he has been playing hurt which I hope is really not the case or maybe it's a case of the line he's playing on. I know at $10.5 mil he should make his linemates better and carry the line but he's always been playing with a mix of Hossa,Saad, Sharp and Kane. I just wonder if he had a legit LW on his line would it help get him rolling again.

Back then we didn't have two (+Seabrook= 3?) mammoth contracts limiting the FO's options.
- StRayHawk

I get the point that the situations surround the 2012 and 2017 teams is different, there's no arguing that. However, while the team is older it's not like they're a bunch of Rozsivals out there, there's still a lot of hockey left in this group.

The one common theme between 2012 and 2017 that is relevant is continuity. Both rosters had experiences a tremendous amount of turnover, but there is an opportunity for the 17/18 season to minimize that. Hartman and Schmaltz has solid rookie campaigns, hopefully they are even better next year now that they have a season under their belts. Kero and Kempny had less of an impact on the team but they also could be even better next season. Panik was a nice surprise too, if he sticks around it's not unrealistic to think his game will continue to improve too.

None of this player improvement is a given, but I think it's a fairly realistic assumption.

Pretty sure Keith is subject to recapture penalties just like Hossa.
- Blackwater13

Big differences between Keith and Hoss on recapture:
1. Keith today is 33, Hoss 38.
2. Keith's CASH contract amounts are higher than Hossa's (I worry that Hoss will walk away from making $1m/yr).
3. Recapture penalties for Keith are smaller, as his contract was less lopsided to the early years.

Yes, Keith's contract is subject to recapture, but the threat is less likely, further down the road, and smaller $$.

With Toews a couple of things either he has been playing hurt which I hope is really not the case or maybe it's a case of the line he's playing on. I know at $10.5 mil he should make his linemates better and carry the line but he's always been playing with a mix of Hossa,Saad, Sharp and Kane. I just wonder if he had a legit LW on his line would it help get him rolling again.
- jhawk159

Toews' play has dropped off the past couple of years, we know it and it sounds like he knows it too. The question is, can Toews recapture some or all of his former form? I personally believe he can and will. That doesn't necessarily mean I think he'll be a 100 point forward, but I believe he can get back up to 70-75 points which could put him in the top 20 in the league.

We did a first round exit in 2011 & 2012 and the sky didn't fall.
Not sure it does this time either 😎
- Colbyboy

The difference is, the core guys you count on are now 5 years older. Getting older, in most cases, doesn't make you better.

That might be Stan's best contract yet. Nothing like paying for past performance.
- howiehandles

What do you base a contract on then? Potential performance? We did that with Bickell after one fantastic post season...and (before the MS diagnosis), everyone was up in arms over THAT contract.

Seabrook has been with the team thru thick and thin and is the voice of reason in the locker room and on the ice. I admit it isn't a great contract, due to term, but it was a players contract, one that others in the league look at and go, "yeah, he deserves that."

At least, that's MHO.

The Belicheck Way!
Stan needs to go spend a weekend w Bill Belicheck. I get the "Cup" loyalty. But contracts are for the future, not the past. Stan has hurt this team with a bunch of backward looking "reward" contracts with NMCs given out like candy at a parade. The NMCs might be the downfall of this team.

In my opinion, the following are what Belicheck would have paid:
Toews/Kane: $9.5m Full NMC (Faces of franchise)
Craw: $5m. (If $5m not good enough, buh-bye)
Panarin: Go to RFA this summer (like the hardball Belicheck is playing with Malcolm Butler). $4.5-5m.
Seabrook: $6m, partial NTC (some show of loyalty)

I believe the Toews/Kane signings were heavily influenced by the NHLPA, and Belicheck might not have been able to get below their $10.5m.

Believe it or not, I think both AA and Kruger got fair contracts (Kruger's including a make-up for taking the one year to help the team).

Toews has really fallen off in his play. Lets see what he looks like next year. Dont know if its loss of focus or his body is simply breaking down.
- z1990z

He went on some weird vegan diet last year - looks like he's smaller than in year's past. Get that man a steak and baked potato.

Big differences between Keith and Hoss on recapture:
1. Keith today is 33, Hoss 38.
2. Keith's CASH contract amounts are higher than Hossa's (I worry that Hoss will walk away from making $1m/yr).
3. Recapture penalties for Keith are smaller, as his contract was less lopsided to the early years.

Yes, Keith's contract is subject to recapture, but the threat is less likely, further down the road, and smaller $$.
- Cmonalready

Or
Hossa goes on the LTIR Pronger Program, Hawks recoup 5.0 annually while only paying 1.0 - is it then the greatest contract ever?

The Belicheck Way!
Stan needs to go spend a weekend w Bill Belicheck. I get the "Cup" loyalty. But contracts are for the future, not the past. Stan has hurt this team with a bunch of backward looking "reward" contracts with NMCs given out like candy at a parade. The NMCs might be the downfall of this team.

In my opinion, the following are what Belicheck would have paid:
Toews/Kane: $9.5m Full NMC (Faces of franchise)
Craw: $5m. (If $5m not good enough, buh-bye)
Panarin: Go to RFA this summer (like the hardball Belicheck is playing with Malcolm Butler). $4.5-5m.
Seabrook: $6m, partial NTC (some show of loyalty)

I believe the Toews/Kane signings were heavily influenced by the NHLPA, and Belicheck might not have been able to get below their $10.5m.

Believe it or not, I think both AA and Kruger got fair contracts (Kruger's including a make-up for taking the one year to help the team).
- Cmonalready

Sounds like you have it all figured out.

Question though, the going rate for a #1 goalie is $6 million. Crawford is a proven #1 goalie and has been one of the team's best 2 players for the past 3-4 years. Why should he be paid almost 20% less that the average rate for his position? $5 million gets you Halak, Niemi or F Anderson. Do you think the team enjoys as much success as they have over the past few seasons with a goalie of that calibre? Not a chance.

He went on some weird vegan diet last year - looks like he's smaller than in year's past. Get that man a steak and baked potato.
- RollingPuck

Covered ad nauseam two blogs ago...

The Belicheck Way!
Stan needs to go spend a weekend w Bill Belicheck. I get the "Cup" loyalty. But contracts are for the future, not the past. Stan has hurt this team with a bunch of backward looking "reward" contracts with NMCs given out like candy at a parade. The NMCs might be the downfall of this team.

In my opinion, the following are what Belicheck would have paid:
Toews/Kane: $9.5m Full NMC (Faces of franchise)
Craw: $5m. (If $5m not good enough, buh-bye)
Panarin: Go to RFA this summer (like the hardball Belicheck is playing with Malcolm Butler). $4.5-5m.
Seabrook: $6m, partial NTC (some show of loyalty)

I believe the Toews/Kane signings were heavily influenced by the NHLPA, and Belicheck might not have been able to get below their $10.5m.

Believe it or not, I think both AA and Kruger got fair contracts (Kruger's including a make-up for taking the one year to help the team).
- Cmonalready

All this really nets you is about 3.6M. The Hawks are further away from a cup than 3/4 of Andrew Shaw...

I still say it's a "Great Move". Simply, this time Stan got ahead of those boxing him into a corner. Once it became known in the market that Craw wasnt moving, and known in the market that Darling wanted full pay, he would have been boxed in and gotten nothing. No matter where this ends up (and I get that the highly likely scenario is Craw in Indian head, Darling not), gaining a 3rd round pick for really giving up nothing (the Hawks can sign Darling on the 1st day of free agency) has to be by any calculus a great move.
- Cmonalready

Agreed, and I've said as much, he made the right move when he saw how limited the other options were. And getting a 3rd for essentially negotiating rights is a nice move. Just not "great" (IMHO). Not many third round picks (statistically) even make the NHL.

He went on some weird vegan diet last year - looks like he's smaller than in year's past. Get that man a steak and baked potato.
- RollingPuck

He def came into camp very lean this year. "Vegan" diet? I had not heard that, though I suppose that's possible.

Anecdotally, and unscientifically, he had his better seasons when he had another 10 pounds on his bones, FWIW.

Don't.....move.....Panarin. For those who keep harping "trade Panarin" - have you actually watched and observed his skill level? Yeah, Yeah...he didn't show up in the playoffs...well, neither did most of the rest of the team. I'd rather see Toews get traded.

Sounds like you have it all figured out.

Question though, the going rate for a #1 goalie is $6 million. Crawford is a proven #1 goalie and has been one of the team's best 2 players for the past 3-4 years. Why should he be paid almost 20% less that the average rate for his position? $5 million gets you Halak, Niemi or F Anderson. Do you think the team enjoys as much success as they have over the past few seasons with a goalie of that calibre? Not a chance.
- DarthKane

Valid argument. I agree that $6m was market for Craw.
Scottie Bowman doesnt agree with you on the importance of G.
And Bill Belicheck would say yes, we're a little weaker at G for playing hardball w Crow and him leaving, but we'll get someone else and use the saved money to make us stronger elsewhere.
No, I certainly don't have it figured out...if I did, I would be in Stan's office instead of Stan, versus writing on this blog. But I do think Bill B and Scottie B DO have it figured out a bit, and I think they would endorse my argument.

Doubtful. But you can bank on some fans doing so. Many already are.

So if Stanley et al don't get much else accomplished, you WILL hear the rhetoric shift to building up the prospects.
- John Jaeckel

Debrincant's number will be #99!

So, barring a blockbuster trade (not holding my breath), Kempny is the 4D, Schmaltz and Panik are Top line LWs, and a combination of TVR, Rosival, Forsling, or Gustafson is the third pair D.....I just don't see how Bowman can afford to keep the status quo....

Don't.....move.....Panarin. For those who keep harping "trade Panarin" - have you actually watched and observed his skill level? Yeah, Yeah...he didn't show up in the playoffs...well, neither did most of the rest of the team. I'd rather see Toews get traded.
- StutzBlackhawk

I don't know. One guy won you three cups and is the perfect captain, on and off the ice. The other guy has lost both playoff series he has been in.

Trading guys like Toews, Kane, Hossa, Keith, Seabs, Hammer and CC....it's like letting Bobby Hull go to the WHA, losing Roenick, Chelios, Savard. When we lost those players we blasted management. And now we want to get rid of the one guy who is the exemplary player and face of our franchise? It makes no sense nor will it happen.

Panarin can fetch us a lot...maybe even close to what Toews would just because he is younger.

Big differences between Keith and Hoss on recapture:
1. Keith today is 33, Hoss 38.
2. Keith's CASH contract amounts are higher than Hossa's (I worry that Hoss will walk away from making $1m/yr).
3. Recapture penalties for Keith are smaller, as his contract was less lopsided to the early years.

Yes, Keith's contract is subject to recapture, but the threat is less likely, further down the road, and smaller $$.
- Cmonalready

Agreed. Nobody has talked about him retiring.

He def came into camp very lean this year. "Vegan" diet? I had not heard that, though I suppose that's possible.

Anecdotally, and unscientifically, he had his better seasons when he had another 10 pounds on his bones, FWIW.
- John Jaeckel

Yeah, not vegan - just looked again at the article. Gluten free, lactose free, lots of veg though. Not for nothing, he seems to have gotten politically active in the last couple years, too.

Hope he doesn't go all Kaepernick on us.

And the way Hossa plays I hope it plays it out.
- riozzo

the issue with Hossa, I think, is that his real cash salary is only $1MM per year starting next year.

How long will he be willing to go thru the rigors of an NHL season for that kind of "mere pittance" - especially if the Hawks aren't really contenders any more?

He def came into camp very lean this year. "Vegan" diet? I had not heard that, though I suppose that's possible.

Anecdotally, and unscientifically, he had his better seasons when he had another 10 pounds on his bones, FWIW.
- John Jaeckel

Didn't he go on some training/diet program, maybe called "onnit" or something like that? I don't know anything about it but just looking at Toews' face I thought it was very thin - gaunt almost - like he had been training to be a marathon runner.