You really want the inept Stan Bowman to make a deal with the schrewd hockey minds in Toronto?

Stan would walk in looking to get TvR for Seabrook but walk out with Matt Martin for Artemi Panarin.
- DarthKane

Good point, it might be a good idea to get rid of Stan first. But still a team we should be talking with.

I do not know why you need to get personal and talk about my hatred which you obviously know nothing about.
I have nothing against him and wish him good luck but starting with 2013 I was horrified by his moves started with his signing of Bickell and then downhll from there. I was a fan from 1992 and to me he was rushing this team quickly back to the mediocrity on the 15 years after 1992 run to SC. Lasting damage is done by his moves and it may take another 15 years for this team to get back to contention. Nothing to do with my 'hatred'.
- vshun

Stan has done nothing but hurt this team. Every move he's made can chipped away and any hopes of this team's long term success. Getting lucky with Panik doesn't count, from everything we've heard Panik was pretty much handed to him on a platter without any effort or decision making on his part.

All these deals made the team weaker:

Saad
Sharp
Danault
Ladd (both deals)
Daley
Teravainen
Versteeg (both deals)
Darling
Raanta
Leddy
Pirri
Bolland
Frolik
Acquiring Timonen
Brouwer

Seriously? How does a GM trade away this much talent without getting anything tangible in return still have a job??? Fans should brace themselves for another decades long Cup drought with all the damage Stan has inflicted on the team.

NHLPA can choose to opt out of the CBA on Sept 19, 2019.

With the way the cap and roster situation is, do you really see the players NOT opting out?

Opening salvo was when the NHL offered to allow the players to play in the 2018 Olympics IF the players agreed to extend the current CBA for nine more years, and the NHLPA not only rejected it, but further said the current CBA needs to be re-examined.
- Return of the Roar

You may be right about 2019, although I'm not sure how the math works - the CBA says opting out after 8 years, which adding the year's up comes to after 2020 (13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20 - that's 8 years) but further research (ok, Googling it ) says September, 2019.

I'm not sure what the PA could get by going out - their issue would be the escrow - but unless they insist on a cap that gets closer to the ultimate 50/50 split, that will continue to be a problem - the real issue is the hard 50% split - with a stagnant cap, the owners are not likely to ever agree to giving the players more than 50%.l issu

Aivis Kalniņš‏ @A_Kalnins
Offical, Max Shalunov has signed a three year contract extension with Sibir Novosibirsk league announces.

Aivis Kalniņš‏ @A_Kalnins
Offical, Max Shalunov has signed a three year contract extension with Sibir Novosibirsk league announces.
- pdx2ord

Another Stan failure. This team has a need that Shalunov could fill, but Stan cannot get him to sign in Chicago.

Any estimate on when we will have something constructive to talk about again? You know instead of beating all the dead horses into the ground for the bazillionth time? If I hear one more Stan sucks, all success is due to the late great Tallon. No it isn't. Yes it is! What about Smith? OR Q hates young players. But Saad! OR My personal favorite - "LEDDY!!!!!!!" (Said in the voice of Brando saying Stella! from Street Car). I may have to scream.

Yes, the Hawks went out in particularly embarrassing fashion in the first round. And!?!?!! Looking forward, now what?

I think the only players who should not be examined as tradable assets are 19-88 (heart and soul players, without them you don't have a team to build around and no one will trade for those cap hits) and 2-81 (cap recapture penalties make trading those players / contracts impossible - no way Hawks cede control over that much potential cap penalty). Other than those contracts everything should be (and hopefully is) under consideration.

All of that said I don't think the team is an absolute write off either. COL or ARZ they aren't. Odds are any NMC/NTC contracts will be hard (ok maybe impossible to move). I get that.

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.

Any estimate on when we will have something constructive to talk about again? You know instead of beating all the dead horses into the ground for the bazillionth time? If I hear one more Stan sucks, all success is due to the late great Tallon. No it isn't. Yes it is! What about Smith? OR Q hates young players. But Saad! OR My personal favorite - "LEDDY!!!!!!!" (Said in the voice of Brando saying Stella! from Street Car). I may have to scream.

Yes, the Hawks went out in particularly embarrassing fashion in the first round. And!?!?!! Looking forward, now what?

I think the only players who should not be examined as tradable assets are 19-88 (heart and soul players, without them you don't have a team to build around and no one will trade for those cap hits) and 2-81 (cap recapture penalties make trading those players / contracts impossible - no way Hawks cede control over that much potential cap penalty). Other than those contracts everything should be (and hopefully is) under consideration.

All of that said I don't think the team is an absolute write off either. COL or ARZ they aren't. Odds are any NMC/NTC contracts will be hard (ok maybe impossible to move). I get that.

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

I've mentioned my trade before, but it goes against your rules. Toews and TVR to Toronto for Kadri and Gardiner.

Another Stan failure. This team has a need that Shalunov could fill, but Stan cannot get him to sign in Chicago.
- DarthKane

last time i checked it takes two to make a deal...maybe he didn't want to come here..

heads = stan blows
tails = stan blows

Jimmy R has 2 cups in his career, StanB has 2 to 3 depending on which Talon fan your speaking with. so how is Jim the best in the league again? Didn't Dean Lombardo win 2?

After cups its all subjective
- riozzo

Didn't Jimmy R win one with Carolina ? Not basing it all on cups.
Why I think he is best, he obtain Haglen Boninio, Kessel (and had leafs retain salary)) which was easliy the best 3rd line in the playoffs last year. Took Daley from Hawks and made us take back Scuds. Hired Sullivan ect[/img]

Any estimate on when we will have something constructive to talk about again? You know instead of beating all the dead horses into the ground for the bazillionth time? If I hear one more Stan sucks, all success is due to the late great Tallon. No it isn't. Yes it is! What about Smith? OR Q hates young players. But Saad! OR My personal favorite - "LEDDY!!!!!!!" (Said in the voice of Brando saying Stella! from Street Car). I may have to scream.

Yes, the Hawks went out in particularly embarrassing fashion in the first round. And!?!?!! Looking forward, now what?

I think the only players who should not be examined as tradable assets are 19-88 (heart and soul players, without them you don't have a team to build around and no one will trade for those cap hits) and 2-81 (cap recapture penalties make trading those players / contracts impossible - no way Hawks cede control over that much potential cap penalty). Other than those contracts everything should be (and hopefully is) under consideration.

All of that said I don't think the team is an absolute write off either. COL or ARZ they aren't. Odds are any NMC/NTC contracts will be hard (ok maybe impossible to move). I get that.

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

oh shortly after the pens hoist the cup BTB...

the post season stan blows and trade everybody sqwauking is way over the top...

Stan has done nothing but hurt this team. Every move he's made can chipped away and any hopes of this team's long term success. Getting lucky with Panik doesn't count, from everything we've heard Panik was pretty much handed to him on a platter without any effort or decision making on his part.

All these deals made the team weaker:

Saad
Sharp
Danault
Ladd (both deals)
Daley
Teravainen
Versteeg (both deals)
Darling
Raanta
Leddy
Pirri
Bollards
Frolik
Acquiring Timonen
Brouwer

Seriously? How does a GM trade away this much talent without getting anything tangible in return still have a job??? Fans should brace themselves for another decades long Cup drought with all the damage Stan has inflicted on the team.
- DarthKane

Bingo
Clearly based on how stressed Stanbo looked at season end presser Team ownership has also reviewed the file
Winning solves everything
Losing exposes history

Seabs - Kruger - Smaltz to New Jersey for Kovalchuck

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

Unless Eric Johnson or Tyson Barrie are coming back to Chicago, who replaces Seabrook's 20+minutes/game? The Hawks don't even have a legit #4 Dman so trading 2, 4, or 7 is nonsensical IMO.

Kane has shown that he can carry the 2nd line with a center that can win faceoffs and an unknown left wing (Richards and Versteeg).

What's stopping us from trading Panarin? The hawks could get a massive return like a promising prospect + pick. Or the hawks could go a pure hockey trade like Panarin + ?? for Duchene.
- RedRevenge

Panarin + for Duchene would be another loss in a trade. Panarin is younger and has better offensive stats. Duchene ++ for Panarin would be a win for us......however. ..watch for Carolina to get Duchene. They have a wealth of youthful dmen to satisfy Sakic and it almost happened at the TD. The Canes are on the rise !!

I've mentioned my trade before, but it goes against your rules. Toews and TVR to Toronto for Kadri and Gardiner.
- walleyeb1

No way in the world would Toronto make that trade. Kadri now scores more then Toews may be as good as Toews on defence, is younger and makes about 6 million less. Plus your throwing Gardiner who is light years better then TVR (no offence to TVR)

Panarin + for Duchene would be another loss in a trade. Panarin is younger and has better offensive stats. Duchene ++ for Panarin would be a win for us......however. ..watch for Carolina to get Duchene. They have a wealth of youthful dmen to satisfy Sakic and it almost happened at the TD. The Canes are on the rise !!
- Hawkytalk

They are definitely in the game if they are able to sign Darling.

Heh. 2 minutes after Pierre claims the ice in Nashville is "really good", there is a play stoppage to repair the ice.

Unless Eric Johnson or Tyson Barrie are coming back to Chicago, who replaces Seabrook's 20+minutes/game? The Hawks don't even have a legit #4 Dman so trading 2, 4, or 7 is nonsensical IMO.
- EnzoD

How about Seabrook to Toronto for Gardiner?

No way in the world would Toronto make that trade. Kadri now scores more then Toews may be as good as Toews on defence, is younger and makes about 6 million less. Plus your throwing Gardiner who is light years better then TVR (no offence to TVR)
- HamiltonHawk

Kadri is no Toews, we'd be losing on that part of the trade as much as Toronto would be losing on Gardiner. Toronto could use some veteran leadership on their club.

Last four seasons 14 - 17

Toews 68, 66, 58, 58

Kadri 50, 39, 45, 61

I think Toronto is the trading partner the Blackhawks should be talking with. They're a team that should be looking for some veteran leadership and have $8m in buried contracts coming off the books next season.
- walleyeb1

We recall Babcock is not a Seabrook fan. HJALMARSSON more likely his flavor. But does hammer have limited trade clause. His wife- model surely not wanting to model with hubby a Maple Leaf. I know they have kids now, but Toronto is not where she would extend any modeling? JJ might know about that if he was an Ad man up.north. But i like the idea of boldly seeking a one for one trade like you suggested.

Beyond Kane and if Panarin was traded, i am not worried much about anyone else beating me if i am the Blackhawks foe. So it is a preresiquite to get the asset type player you think you need in exchange for Panarin. But with trading of core players like Seabrook, Hjalmarsson, Panarin it appears we are going the "robbing Peter to pay Paul" route. Long term perhaps two core dmen are moved, but a lot depends upon some kids on blueline developing. One of which could be a new draft or swedish newbie but more than likely we just focus on whom we have at hand.

Oh how we need Forsling and Kempny developing as at a minimum descent second pair. How long before that could happen?

Then too, we have a conendendrum:
It is asking too much to trade two core dmen if you expect the team to compete - even to qualify - in the playoffs!

I realize any or all of these players could be dangled: Kruger, Crawford, Anisinov, Panarin, either Seabrook or Hjalmarsson. Desi btw probably will be gone. The return: you can hypothesize but really it is just a lot of spitballing and head scratching. We can better just focus here and now what players are more likely subtracted than added.

I've mentioned my trade before, but it goes against your rules. Toews and TVR to Toronto for Kadri and Gardiner.
- walleyeb1

It's your one big thing. Future looking and not bashing. What are the needs being met on both sides? What do the Leafs get that they need? How does it make the Hawks better? Are you thinking get rid of 19 salary and upgrade on D? I said I didn't think another team would trade for Toews but Let us know why Leafs would.

Unless Eric Johnson or Tyson Barrie are coming back to Chicago, who replaces Seabrook's 20+minutes/game? The Hawks don't even have a legit #4 Dman so trading 2, 4, or 7 is nonsensical IMO.
- EnzoD

Good question on Seats minutes. Combination of Forsling / Kempny and Gustafson. Yes, I think we see him back. Given some of what Q said in his exit interview I think we will see a lot more of Gustafson.

We recall Babcock is not a Seabrook fan. HJALMARSSON more likely his flavor. But does hammer have limited trade clause. His wife- model surely not wanting to model with hubby a Maple Leaf. I know they have kids now, but Toronto is not where she would extend any modeling? JJ might know about that if he was an Ad man up.north. But i like the idea of boldly seeking a one for one trade like you suggested.

Beyond Kane and if Panarin was traded, i am not worried much about anyone else beating me if i am the Blackhawks foe. So it is a preresiquite to get the asset type player you think you need in exchange for Panarin. But with trading of core players like Seabrook, Hjalmarsson, Panarin it appears we are going the "robbing Peter to pay Paul" route. Long term perhaps two core dmen are moved, but a lot depends upon some kids on blueline developing. One of which could be a new draft or swedish newbie but more than likely we just focus on whom we have at hand.

Oh how we need Forsling and Kempny developing as at a minimum descent second pair. How long before that could happen?

Then too, we have a conendendrum:
It is asking too much to trade two core dmen if you expect the team to compete - even to qualify - in the playoffs!

I realize any or all of these players could be dangled: Kruger, Crawford, Anisinov, Panarin, either Seabrook or Hjalmarsson. Desi btw probably will be gone. The return: you can hypothesize but really it is just a lot of spitballing and head scratching. We can better just focus here and now what players are more likely subtracted than added.
- jhawk59

A lot will depend on Q and how he maximizes his roster. He must change the mindset of this team and make them nastier. 7 may not have the wheels he did a few years ago, but he is 603 and pretty darn strong. Start clearing out that crease and play with an edge. This team has alot of skill, just need to find the right mix on the lines and play with a bit more heavy/snarl.

How about Seabrook to Toronto for Gardiner?
- walleyeb1

Could fill the need for TOR that you identified in you next post - more veteran leadership for the young club, Seabs is still the best passer from the back end. Also, if the leafs get the young swede Dman (Calle Rosen) as they are rumored to be, then it could make sense to do a deal, but would they trade Gardner? Would the Hawks want a LW instead?

It's your one big thing. Future looking and not bashing. What are the need some met on both sides? What do the Leafs get that the need? How does it make the Hawks better? Are you thinking get rid of 19 salary and upgrade on D? I said I didn't think another team would trade for Toews but Let us know why Leafs would.
- Marlowe

Because they're a young team that's closer to being a contender than I thought they'd be at this point in time. They could use the veteran leadership on their team, not to mention at least one player that's actually one the cup.

Could fill the need for TOR that you identified in you next post - more veteran leadership for the young club, Seabs is still the best passer from the back end. Also, if the leafs get the young swede Dman (Calle Rosen) as they are rumored to be, then it could make sense to do a deal, but would they trade Gardner? Would the Hawks want a LW instead?
- Marlowe

Yeah I thought about JVR instead of Gardiner, but he's only signed for one more year and we'd be in worse shape on D.