call it a "hunch" but I am betting they move Kruger and Aminisov and that is all.....I'm not saying I disagree with moving other parts previously mentioned but they pimp Panarin around hard and realize he's the next clone to "sharp" as they have (sniper/goal scorer).
- SteveRain

I lean in the same direction. All these proposals with multiple players moving to multiple teams in separate deals is just not going to happen. Focus on a deal or 2 coming down and that is it.

AND, as always, please try and temper it a little with the realities that the trade in some way needs to show some type of benefit to the other team as well. It has to make sense in one way or another for both teams.

Lastly, realize that the Hawks as long as they feel their window for winning is open, will always spend to the cap limit. As someone said previously losing any of 2/4/7/19/72/81/88/50 creates a hole that is not easily closed. Dealing any of them creates cap space without necessarily closing the hole generated, and while its easy to say "swap Seabrook for Forward X and Dman Y" who are young and/or make less, what would motivate the other team to make that deal?

Ok so what does Stan offer Panik per year for a three year contract?
- walleyeb1

Realistically, I would start $1.65 X 4. I am sure Panik's agent would say something like I can get $3.0M X 3 in AZ. To wit I'd say, let me know how going from playing with 2 top 100 players and 5 potential HOF's to zero will impact his stats and subsequently that big UFA contract your hoping for...

Just my $0.02 not based in any fact...

Hossa's cap hit for his contract is $5,275,000. His salary for those last 4 years beginning 2017/2018 is $1m. $4,275,000 penalty for each year he doesnt play.

Here's the logic of the penalty, using extreme numbers for an example:
Say a player is only going to play one more year, but wants $10m to play.
The team can't afford a $10m cap hit. So they sign him for two year contract that pays him $10m for year 1, and $1m for year 2. No way he's playing for $1m in year 2. NHL cap hits are calculated on average salary across a contract. So his average is $5.5m/year for two years.

He plays in year 1 for $10m, and the team's cap hit is $5.5m. As you can see, the team has gained a $4.5m cap hit advantage by this contract structure. But the opposite occurs ion year 2...he gets $1m salary, but the team gets $5.5m cap hit.
In the old days, the player retired before year two, and the team suffered no penalty for having gained that advantage in year 1.

The penalty is effectively telling these teams that if you gain the advantage, you have to accept the downside in the out years of the contract. In Hossa's case, this "downside" is $4.275m per year for each of the next 4 years.

Once you understand this, you can see that even if the Hawks trade Hossa, the penalty should come back to the Hawks...the Hawks gained the advantage in the early years, they can't sluff that off on someone else for the out years.

Now one other thing. This was a RETROACTIVE assessment of a penalty negotiated into the last Collective Bargaining Agreement. Hossa (like many other players) negotiated this contract when doing this structure was legal. It was approved by the League. Then when the last CBA was negotiated, the league put in a penalty after the fact on several players contracts, including Hossa's and Keith's on the Hawks (there's only a handful of existing contracts that fall meaningfully into this category). Many NHL fans feel this retroactive penalty is unfair.

Finally, there is at least one weird set of circumstances that cause some hawk fans to hold out hope we can avoid a Hossa penalty. Pronger was on Philly, and basically retired due to injuries (concussions). He worked in the NHL office while still under contract with Philly. Then he was traded to Coyotes, and kept on their roster on LTIR for the remainder of his contract. No cap penalty to Philly. I am in the camp that feels this Pronger fact pattern will allow the Hawks to find a reason (chronic back issues?) to put Hossa on LTIR when he decides to hang them up, and avoid the cap penalty. But to me, that's why he can never be traded. He needs to be on the Hawks so they can work with him to handle this LTIR situation. Another team will tell him to just retire, as the penalty doesnt hit them.
- Cmonalready

The question is: if he is traded now, then plays 2 years for Arizona (and wouldn't you?), then retires with one year left on the contract - does Chicago owe only ONE recapture year, at $4.275? Or does Chicago have to recapture ALL of the excess amount as of the date of the trade - which would be $4.275*3=12.825 in one year?

The retroactive penalty certainly is unfair - it was a legal and league-accepted contract when it was signed - but don't forget - Wirtz and the Blackhawks organization accepted and signed on to the new CBA with the penalty included, so....

if the NHL isn't going to enforce the rules and the playoffs are going to turn into a blood bath again
- fattybeef

Speaking of: based on Crosby getting both a head shot and going hard into the boards again last night (just 5 days after admitted concussion), people found this little gem in the NHL rule book when questioning why he wasn't pulled by the concussion spotters after being slow to get up after hitting the boards.

Concussion spotters didn't have the authority to pull Pittsburgh Penguins star Sidney Crosby from Game 6 on Monday because his head-first collision with the boards is not a "mechanism of injury" that allows that under their guidelines.

nder the current concussion policy, the league’s central concussion spotter only would have been able to force Crosby out had his head hit the ice or another player.

“Depending on the mechanism of injury, ‘slow to get up’ does not trigger mandatory removal,” NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly told USA TODAY Sports. “The protocol has to be interpreted literally to mandate a removal. ‘Ice’ as compared to ‘boards’ is in there for a reason. It’s the result of a study on our actual experiences over a number of years. ‘Ice’ has been found to be a predictor of concussions -- ‘boards’ has not been.”

Seriously? Sullivan confirmed after the game that he wasn't worried about Crosby and didn't put him through protocol.

My favorite snarky response:

Dimitri Filipovic‏ @DimFilipovic
It's not worth reviewing a dude nearly breaking his neck but if your skate is hovering over the line as you enter the zone the NHL is on it

I lean in the same direction. 1) All these proposals with multiple players moving to multiple teams in separate deals is just not going to happen. Focus on a deal or 2 coming down and that is it.

2) AND, as always, please try and temper it a little with the realities that the trade in some way needs to show some type of benefit to the other team as well. It has to make sense in one way or another for both teams.

Lastly, realize that the Hawks as long as they feel their window for winning is open, will always spend to the cap limit. 3) As someone said previously losing any of 2/4/7/19/72/81/88/50 creates a hole that is not easily closed. Dealing any of them creates cap space without necessarily closing the hole generated, and while its easy to say "swap Seabrook for Forward X and Dman Y" who are young and/or make less, what would motivate the other team to make that deal?
- TheTrob

1) Most years, I would agree completely. This year? No. I can easily see Bowman making two separate deals including "core" players, and 1-2 more fairly significant deals involving kruger and prospects/picks. I think there is a lot of solid perspective in your post, yet Bowman's job is on the line, he HAS to upset the inertia. Another first round loss and he's toast.

2) Agreed. At the same time, don't kid yourself, the same "irreplaceability" you cite in point 3 makes any or all of these players desirable on some level to other teams. NMCs CAN be waived. Some of these guys have limited NTCs in place now anyway.

3) Also agreed, that's why I think you see more than one deal—a core winger for a center,or a defenseman for a forward, to backfill other needs created by other deals.

If you leave the "core" intact—with all the salary commitment—all you can do is rearrange the deck chairs with more rookies and retreads on the bottom half of the roster. Same formula as the last two years, and especially las year, and likely the same result.

Bowman is betting his job on it. He will make some bigger moves.

1) Most years, I would agree completely. This year? No. I can easily see Bowman making two separate deals including "core" players, and 1-2 more fairly significant deals involving kruger and prospects/picks. I think there is a lot of solid perspective in your post, yet Bowman's job is on the line, he HAS to upset the inertia. Another first round loss and he's toast.

2) Agreed. At the same time, don't kid yourself, the same "irreplaceability" you cite in point 3 makes any or all of these players desirable on some level to other teams. NMCs CAN be waived. Some of these guys have limited NTCs in place now anyway.

3) Also agreed, that's why I think you see more than one deal—a core winger for a center,or a defenseman for a forward, to backfill other needs created by other deals.

If you leave the "core" intact—with all the salary commitment—all you can do is rearrange the deck chairs with more rookies and retreads on the bottom half of the roster. Same formula as the last two years, and especially las year, and likely the same result.

Bowman is betting his job on it. He will make some bigger moves.
- John Jaeckel

I will also add, anecdotally, over the years, I have heard certain players names come up in trade rumors that might surprise some based on the popular perception of the player by fans, and some other names NOT come up—as far as who the Hawks might be willing to deal for this player or that.

One example: for years, I NEVER heard Kruger's name, but heard Shaw's—a lot. Shaw is gone, Kruger is still here. Although I will grant, I have heard Kruger's name a lot the last year or so and I put his being dealt at about 50/50.

What I have heard most recently is the team will approach at least 2 of the guys with NMCs about waiving, if they have deals that make sense.

I have never heard them shopping 2 or 4, and 7 only once before he extended on the new deal.

Names I heard more than once before the trade deadline were Forsling and Debrincat, which tells me the team might not be quite as high on them as some fans. Doesn't make them bad or flawed prospects—but also suggests the team's own scouting might not equal the public hype. Sell high if you can.

For a little comic relief, back when the Hawks drafted Vorobiev and Yakubov back to back??? Ott and Justin Williams were drafted later in that first round.

1) Most years, I would agree completely. This year? No. I can easily see Bowman making two separate deals including "core" players, and 1-2 more fairly significant deals involving kruger and prospects/picks. I think there is a lot of solid perspective in your post, yet Bowman's job is on the line, he HAS to upset the inertia. Another first round loss and he's toast.

2) Agreed. At the same time, don't kid yourself, the same "irreplaceability" you cite in point 3 makes any or all of these players desirable on some level to other teams. NMCs CAN be waived. Some of these guys have limited NTCs in place now anyway.

3) Also agreed, that's why I think you see more than one deal—a core winger for a center,or a defenseman for a forward, to backfill other needs created by other deals.

If you leave the "core" intact—with all the salary commitment—all you can do is rearrange the deck chairs with more rookies and retreads on the bottom half of the roster. Same formula as the last two years, and especially las year, and likely the same result.

Bowman is betting his job on it. He will make some bigger moves.
- John Jaeckel

I agree that Bowman has to do more than rearrange the deck chairs, but, he has to do it wisely. The Hawks don't need a Weber for Subban type trade. If they are swapping one of the core, then it needs to be a deal that fills multiple positions. So if a winger is going, the return better be more than just a Center, or if your moving a Dman then you better fill multiple needs, because you are creating a hole on the back end.

Realistically, I would start $1.65 X 4. I am sure Panik's agent would say something like I can get $3.0M X 3 in AZ. To wit I'd say, let me know how going from playing with 2 top 100 players and 5 potential HOF's to zero will impact his stats and subsequently that big UFA contract your hoping for...

Just my $0.02 not based in any fact...
- riozzo

What if his agent says we won't go the RFA route l, he'll sign now for 3 X $1.75, do you sign him?

What if his agent says we won't go the RFA route l, he'll sign now for 3 X $1.75, do you sign him?
- walleyeb1

Yes

I lean in the same direction. All these proposals with multiple players moving to multiple teams in separate deals is just not going to happen. Focus on a deal or 2 coming down and that is it.

AND, as always, please try and temper it a little with the realities that the trade in some way needs to show some type of benefit to the other team as well. It has to make sense in one way or another for both teams.

Lastly, realize that the Hawks as long as they feel their window for winning is open, will always spend to the cap limit. As someone said previously losing any of 2/4/7/19/72/81/88/50 creates a hole that is not easily closed. Dealing any of them creates cap space without necessarily closing the hole generated, and while its easy to say "swap Seabrook for Forward X and Dman Y" who are young and/or make less, what would motivate the other team to make that deal?
- TheTrob

What i would do as armchair GM move on 1 each of Dmen and F

2 - could be broken down and has value. Hawks know how long he has left, Can you replace 2 in his prime - nope, however, he is not in his prime any longer. Knee's (and backs) are the gift that keeps on giving e.g Gayle Sayres, Wally Chambers, Derrick Rose, Bobbie Orr... Therefore, replacement may be required now. TRADE

4 - great value, shot-blocking = World Class. 4 has to be nearing the cliff. One of the upcoming shot-blocks surely lands him on IR if not LTIR. TRADE

7 - feet have failed him now, need to upgrade - DUMP SALARY

19,88 - Debated at length on this board. Bottom-line McD would never trade faces of franchise KEEP

81 - Smart move, play one season, LTIR for 3, his back will make this happen KEEP

50 - Trade-able, however, without a competent back-up KEEP

72 - High value. Inability to chase coupled with marginal speed and fear of the slot limits his real skill set - here is where I would try to turn one asset into 2 TRADE

Just my quick thoughts of trading Hammer now.
For the money he is making and he is signed for two more years for a crazy low price, this is not the year to trade him. For a team a cash strapped as the Hawks are, you need to find the best value for cost you can find - and I believe that other than players still on their ELC, you can not find better value than Hjalmarsson. Next year is the time to trade him as his contract will expire at the end of that year. teams will still be willing to pay a good price for a quality top 4 (on some teams top 2) dman at a low cap hit in his final year. This year, I don't think they will find the same value to cost for him.

I'm on the trade Seabrook boat if you can find a taker, even at the cost of a younger player - the value/cost isn't there anymore. He is a great dman, and I think many teams on the verge would love to get him to get them over the top (Edmonton/Toronto come to mind). But if I was Stan, it has to be a salary dump at this point..too many years on his contract. That should have been a 4 year contract max.

I also believe Hossa will end up being LTIR whenever he wants to be done. He has had enough of a history of back problems that it would not be hard to find a doctor that says he just can't play anymore. It will just depend on how long Hossa want to play making only 1M a year from now on.

I have not heard this, but I would bet the Hawks kick tires (at the very least) on Kovalchuk.

Lots of bridges to cross, but it could actually make sense.

What if his agent says we won't go the RFA route l, he'll sign now for 3 X $1.75, do you sign him?
- walleyeb1

Its a negotiation, so yes. My cap would be 2.0M X 3. I would not settle on 2 years nor would I entertain anything north of 2.0. Panik is not going to repeat those numbers playing 1st line AZ or 3rd line anywhere else... His future earning power is tied to playing with Toews...

[quote=spudrock512]

My bad - double post

I will also add, anecdotally, over the years, I have heard certain players names come up in trade rumors that might surprise some based on the popular perception of the player by fans, and some other names NOT come up—as far as who the Hawks might be willing to deal for this player or that.

One example: for years, I NEVER heard Kruger's name, but heard Shaw's—a lot. Shaw is gone, Kruger is still here. Although I will grant, I have heard Kruger's name a lot the last year or so and I put his being dealt at about 50/50.

What I have heard most recently is the team will approach at least 2 of the guys with NMCs about waiving, if they have deals that make sense.

I have never heard them shopping 2 or 4, and 7 only once before he extended on the new deal.

Names I heard more than once before the trade deadline were Forsling and Debrincat, which tells me the team might not be quite as high on them as some fans. Doesn't make them bad or flawed prospects—but also suggests the team's own scouting might not equal the public hype. Sell high if you can.
- John Jaeckel

Whether it's the Scouting Dept. or the General Manager, somebody had better be hoping hard that some of these draft picks make it to the NHL and soon. They have 61 total NHL games out of the last 3 drafts and that's from one player.

And guys like McNeill, Clendening, Morin, Hayes etc. are long gone from previous drafts.

Not very good really. And that kind of draft record is exactly what started the Vancouver Canuck's spiral into the toilet.

Its a negotiation, so yes. My cap would be 2.0M X 3. I would not settle on 2 years nor would I entertain anything north of 2.0. Panik is not going to repeat those numbers playing 1st line AZ or 3rd line anywhere else... His future earning power is tied to playing with Toews...
- riozzo

Like Kempny, must resign Panik. I just hope Kempny wants to come back. The way Q yo-yo'd him he may want to go elsewhere. I think Kempny can step in if one of the top 3 D gets moved.

I have not heard this, but I would bet the Hawks kick tires (at the very least) on Kovalchuk.

Lots of bridges to cross, but it could actually make sense.
- John Jaeckel

Kovalchuk has relationships with Hossa, Panarin, Anisimov, and Barry Smith. Wants to win a Cup. He def nudges the Hawks back in that direction, apparently he is still at the top of his game.

Does he need the money (probably not), or does he give the Hawks a sweetheart deal for the above reason.

What does NJ ask of the Hawks back?

Getting Kovalchuk is the kind of big headline grabber McD wants right now, so he takes the shackles off Stanley, assuming the Hawks think he solves a problem (which he likely does).

Whether it's the Scouting Dept. or the General Manager, somebody had better be hoping hard that some of these draft picks make it to the NHL and soon. They have 61 total NHL games out of the last 3 drafts and that's from one player.

And guys like McNeill, Clendening, Morin, Hayes etc. are long gone from previous drafts.

Not very good really. And that kind of draft record is exactly what started the Vancouver Canuck's spiral into the toilet.
- RickJ

Totally agree, other than 2011, they don't have much to show for several years. And all the 2011 guys are gone.

Kovalchuk has relationships with Hossa, Panarin, Anisimov, and Barry Smith. Wants to win a Cup. He def nudges the Hawks back in that direction, apparently he is still at the top of his game.

Does he need the money (probably not), or does he give the Hawks a sweetheart deal for the above reason.

What does NJ ask of the Hawks back?

Getting Kovalchuk is the kind of big headline grabber McD wants right now, so he takes the shackles off Stanley, assuming the Hawks think he solves a problem (which he likely does).
- John Jaeckel

Dunno.. yes he can score, but is he a guy that goes to the net? I don't want another perimeter player with no sand to fight for the puck. Is NJ still carrying his contract?

call it a "hunch" but I am betting they move Kruger and Aminisov and that is all.....I'm not saying I disagree with moving other parts previously mentioned but they pimp Panarin around hard and realize he's the next clone to "sharp" as they have (sniper/goal scorer).
- SteveRain

Well you can't move them both IMO. You need to have a Toews insurance policy (AA can at least pretend to be the NO 1 center) and preferably one more veteran who can play up the middle, be that Duchene (or other acquisition) or Thornton.

To be perfectly honest I'd flip Panarin for Couturier straight up, bank that 2 million in savings (hes signed for 4 years at a sexy hit) then you can move Kooga for another 3 million in space and all of a sudden they aren't completely SOL if Toews misses time and they have money to spend. Couturier would also take a lot off of Toews in terms of having to take D zone draws.

Moving both of Kruger and AA gives them literally one NHL center on the roster and I like Schmalz as a player but I don't think he solves that problem for them next year.

I have not heard this, but I would bet the Hawks kick tires (at the very least) on Kovalchuk.

Lots of bridges to cross, but it could actually make sense.
- John Jaeckel

Kovalchuk wanting to come back makes sense as the RUB is getting killed against the USD for the better part of 3 years now.

Lets see the hurdles Betman throws up

Like Kempny, must resign Panik. I just hope Kempny wants to come back. The way Q yo-yo'd him he may want to go elsewhere. I think Kempny can step in if one of the top 3 D gets moved.
- z1990z

Meh, Stalberg V2. Though he actually hits people. Excellent athlete but 2 cent head.

20 goals on the Hawks with Q picking matchups. Does nothing anywhere else. That's a guy they can let walk or flip rights for a future.

Dunno.. yes he can score, but is he a guy that goes to the net? I don't want another perimeter player with no sand to fight for the puck. Is NJ still carrying his contract?
- z1990z

They need a guy with speed and finish on the left wing. BADLY.

Yes, they need another big body or two to park in front of the net. But that is not the speed winger they need.

In his heyday, when properly engaged, Kovy was that guy. With size and some nasty to boot.

Anecdotally, sounds like his skills are still there.

I am certain, the Hawks have seen a lot of him as much as they've scouted Panarin and Shipachyov and with Smith's contacts at CSKA. I've put a feeler out about it, see what I get back.

Meh, Stalberg V2. Though he actually hits people. Excellent athlete but 2 cent head.

20 goals on the Hawks with Q picking matchups. Does nothing anywhere else. That's a guy they can let walk or flip rights for a future.
- fattybeef

I like Panik, but I agree with the basic assessment. Hard to see him getting 20+ goals again next year, and I suspect the Hawks would like to see him on the third line—where they have 6 better options ahead of him and not playing him in the top 6 because they don't have those options.