I'm not saying I agree with it, but since somebody (or 2) have to go maybe the Hawks think they can deal Anisimov and slide Schmaltz into his 2C role. There would be good and bad impacts to a move like that.
- DarthKane

Agreed and moving 15/16 does nothing to your brand in a PR sense. Even moving 57 who had a very good playoff and who's stock may never be higher.

Again, I just dont' see the "big" move so many here are hoping for/speculating about. I dont' see a decent core piece or contributor being moved out because they will rely on a rebound similar to pre 2013 and do more of a fine tune IMO.

Now if all blows up in their face in April of 2018 wouldn't shock me then to see SB, JQ and a huge piece go.

Also one Dean Lombardi I believe is the son in law of Bob Puford.....believe Mr Lombardi is still currently unemployed.

I wonder what the value of certain players if the hawks moved them individually for just draft picks (if they waived any no movement clauses):
Crow - a 2nd round pick?
Hjalmarsson - a 2nd round pick?
Anisimov - a 3rd round pick?
Panik - a 4th round pick?
Kruger - a 4th round pick?

I am not suggesting that they will or should move any of these. However if you could get Vegas to take Kruger and moved Anisimov, Panik and Hjalmarsson for picks you would have cap space ($10 mil). Then you could package picks, young players, prospects to make a decent package for a Duchene, Palat, Drouin or the likes.
- -Doh-

You are way undervaluing the Value of some of these players. Hjalmarsson is arguably a first pairing defenseman on more 75% of the teams in the league, and has a below market cap hit, thats worth more than a 2nd. You can make similar arguments for the others. Even Kruger, with his slightly elevated cap hit probably nets you at least a 3rd rounder.

any chance at all the hawks would move Keith?

They have nobody wiling to stand in front of the net and score the dirty goals.....how many goals did Shaw score from 4 ft in and how timely where those goals? The only borderline dirty goal was Rasmussen banging in a 1 timer vs Nash....Kane, Toews were shots from the outside.......

They had zero defenders clearing the crease......both goals scored against C2 in game 3 in regulation were a result of guys watching the puck and not seeing a guy coming down broadstreet....goal 1 in game 2 was a screened shot with 2 and 4 to the side of 50......

We can say cap casualty, or attrition or system change all day, but this team had zero guys willing to pay the price in front of the net in their end OR Nash end and that's a large reason why they lost. Any NHL goalie 99% of the time is going to make the save from the outside and besides a few posts, which happen in any series, they had very few grade A chances.
- SteveRain

While I agree that in the offensive zone you didn't have enough guys willing or able to "pay the price" in front of the net, I think the Hawks D-zone play is dictated more by Q's system than by lack of players willing to pay the price. Hawks have always been a "finesse" team in their own zone. Rarely a big hit, or clearing the crease, usually the active sticks and positioning. Kitchen as D coach always toed the Q principles and style hasn't changed. Maybe a Samuelsson changes that some.

any chance at all the hawks would move Keith?
- frafra

Not unless the return was ridiculously amazing.

You are way undervaluing the Value of some of these players. Hjalmarsson is arguably a first pairing defenseman on more 75% of the teams in the league, and has a below market cap hit, thats worth more than a 2nd. You can make similar arguments for the others. Even Kruger, with his slightly elevated cap hit probably nets you at least a 3rd rounder.
- TheTrob

Sorry to be a debbie downer, however, from my perspective, the BH scouting department just has way more misses than hits. And many of those solid hits (Danult) are given away for One Goal. Case in point I remember when Johns was shipped out with Sharp and the world ended. He is so great that Dallas may not protect him. And remember the all world Klas Dalbeck. And, the hawks value 3rd rounders so much they gave one up for the immortal Thomas Jurco.

Sorry to be a debbie downer, however, from my perspective, the BH scouting department just has way more misses than hits. And many of those solid hits (Danult) are given away for One Goal. Case in point I remember when Johns was shipped out with Sharp and the world ended. He is so great that Dallas may not protect him. And remember the all world Klas Dalbeck. And, the hawks value 3rd rounders so much they gave one up for the immortal Thomas Jurco.
- riozzo

Maybe it's more a matter of player development than strictly scouting? They've been drafting at the bottom or missing the 1st round entirely for the better part of a decade.

Well,

1) I believe they HAVE to clear out some of the logjam of big contracts. As such, they have to look at a number of factors. Who can be dealt without waiving, who WILL waive, how critical they are positionally, what they potentially bring in return.

And that last part is critically important. Cap dumping is not the answer either.

So, 2) I'd explore moving Panarin and/or Anisimov, possibly TVR and or some prospects/picks to see what I could get back and/or do with $11-12 million in cap space. Knowing, yes, you now have a couple of added holes to fill. But remember, you have to realize, especially with Panarin, you DO likely get some good value back.

But that's me.

Panarin and Kruger and etc? Meh, OK, I just don't think you get much back for Kruger right now, and you need return in any deal.
- John Jaeckel

2words or 1name John! TAYLOR HALL! ..... If NJ is willing to listen.
Sounds likeDrouin and Duchene are gonna be swapped for each other.

2words or 1name John! TAYLOR HALL! ..... If NJ is willing to listen.
Sounds likeDrouin and Duchene are gonna be swapped for each other.
- wonthecup10

What's up with Duchene? 1 goal in 10 games in the tourney, meanwhile Nathan Mack dominated.

I wonder what the value of certain players if the hawks moved them individually for just draft picks (if they waived any no movement clauses):
Crow - a 2nd round pick?
Hjalmarsson - a 2nd round pick?
Anisimov - a 3rd round pick?
Panik - a 4th round pick?
Kruger - a 4th round pick?

I am not suggesting that they will or should move any of these. However if you could get Vegas to take Kruger and moved Anisimov, Panik and Hjalmarsson for picks you would have cap space ($10 mil). Then you could package picks, young players, prospects to make a decent package for a Duchene, Palat, Drouin or the likes.
- -Doh-

I think you're undervaluing these guys, just look at the return the Hawks got for Frolik, Bolland and Shaw over the years.

Frolik - 3rd and 5th
Bolland - 2nd and 2 x 4th
Shaw - 2 x 2nd

Sorry to be a debbie downer, however, from my perspective, the BH scouting department just has way more misses than hits. And many of those solid hits (Danult) are given away for One Goal. Case in point I remember when Johns was shipped out with Sharp and the world ended. He is so great that Dallas may not protect him. And remember the all world Klas Dalbeck. And, the hawks value 3rd rounders so much they gave one up for the immortal Thomas Jurco.
- riozzo

Not trying to pump the tires of the Hawks scouting staff, but in reality a very small percentage of 3rd and later round picks go on to become difference makers in the NHL. Sure there are a few each year, but the overall odds of success in those rounds is very low.

To take a contributor at the NHL level and trade him for a 3rd (or lower) rounder means you are 1) dumping salary for cap 2)rolling the dice on finding return in that pick 3) using the pick as an asset to include as a sweetener/piece of future trades.

Where you can FIND players to help fill weak areas on our roster

and How to acquire them:

Someone could invest time and effort to construct a list of players Bowman should consider prior to the expansion draft.

Look at the Washington Caps situation in their hockeybuzz blog this morning and learn how useful players Johansson or N Schmidt probably available in trade. But realize that if you give them a player in return whom they wish to protect, then the trade is likely wotheless to complete for them. So you either make it a multiple player/team trade, and or include our #1, or pass in favor of another team on the hot seat. Like Pittsburgh. Like I Cole or someone else.

Whatever Bowman does, he should consider changing the excitement, challenge, enjoyment his top players experience by changing one or more of their linemattes. If he has to sacrifice skill for grit/physical boards type player, just know that come playoffs Bowman better have more of those type or prepare to die in round one again. It will be probably both Stan and Q who are no longer employed here if they loose without a wimper again.

Trading before the expansion draft could change the attitude and culture more so in the locker room than on the ice. But it is a head start when merely nitpicking the current roster changes nothing.

The best way to add a difference maker, is to draft one in round one. Great scouting, some luck with our pick or move up. As many have cried out on this board, i not only do not want to trade the 2017 #1, but also not move Seabrook, Hjalmarsson, or Panarin.

Probably a greater task to maturity as an NHL dman for Forsling, Kempny if you trade an experienced top three current dman. Sort of a dagger to the heart to trade Panarin, whom has yet untapped greater offensive numbers he can reach.

Only thing that is for sure, is that Q and Bowman need to loose stubborness and face reality.

I see a potential scenario of Anisimov and Panarin being shipped out together for a package in return consisting of young players, draft picks, and/or cap relief. What about something like:

TO CANES: Anisimov and Panarin
TO HAWKS: Lindholm and one of Hanifin, Slavin, Bean, or Fleury

Throw in some other pieces on our end like prospects to gain a draft pick and/or to sweeten the pot for some cap relief.

May not be reasonable at all but just thinking outside the box.

Or maybe Anisimov and Panarin get shipped to Vegas for their #1 draft pick and other assets. Reunite them with Shipachyov.

Maybe the Hawks believe Schmaltz can be the guy to centre Kane and Panarin?
- DarthKane

Yep, could be

any chance at all the hawks would move Keith?
- frafra

Only if it was full rebuild time

I see a potential scenario of Anisimov and Panarin being shipped out together for a package in return consisting of young players, draft picks, and/or cap relief. What about something like:

TO CANES: Anisimov and Panarin
TO HAWKS: Lindholm and one of Hanifin, Slavin, Bean, or Fleury

Throw in some other pieces on our end like prospects to gain a draft pick and/or to sweeten the pot for some cap relief.

May not be reasonable at all but just thinking outside the box.

Or maybe Anisimov and Panarin get shipped to Vegas for their #1 draft pick and other assets. Reunite them with Shipachyov.
- AEL_Fox

From what I hear Lindholm is a big part of Carolina's plans moving forward. Doubt they move him.

Rask makes some sense though. And yeah, they have a glut of young defensive talent.

Maybe it's more a matter of player development than strictly scouting? They've been drafting at the bottom or missing the 1st round entirely for the better part of a decade.
- kinigitt

I agree and do feel its top to bottom. Looking back at 2004 to 2014 i see draft performance as follows:
2004 Cam Barker 3rd overall – BUST. Passed on Cory Schneider, Mike Green
2005 Jack Skille 7th overall – BUST. Passed on Kopitar, Stall, Rask
2006 Toews 3rd Overall – HIT.
2007 Kane 1st Overall – HIT.
2008 Kyle Beach 11th Overall – BUST. Passed on Erik Karlsson.
2009 Dylan Olsen 28th Overall – BUST. Passed on Silfverberg, Tatar
2010 Kevin Hayes 24th overall. Jury out lazy player. Passed on Kuznetsov
2011 Mark McNeil 18th Overall BUST of BUSTS, Danault with 26th Pick, probable hit, also drafter Saad in 2nd.
2012 TT 18th Overall, HIT Also could have selected Tanner Pearson
2013 Hartman 30th and Hayden 3rd round – overall productive draft.
2014 – Schmaltz 20th overall, Jury Out
In those 10 years 5 legit busts, Hayes/Hartmam seem serviceable, on the fence with Schmaltz, and only 3 true hits.
So Hindsight being 20/20 hawks could skate

Silvferberg Toews Hossa
Panarin Kopitar Kane
Kuznetsoz Danult Hartman
?? TT Pearson

Keith Karlsson
Seabrook Hammer
Green ??

Schneider

So between bad drafts and what was given away, it seems the hawks are a few players short of an all-star roster.

I agree and do feel its top to bottom. Looking back at 2004 to 2014 i see draft performance as follows:
2004 Cam Barker 3rd overall – BUST. Passed on Cory Schneider, Mike Green
2005 Jack Skille 7th overall – BUST. Passed on Kopitar, Stall, Rask
2006 Toews 3rd Overall – HIT.
2007 Kane 1st Overall – HIT.
2008 Kyle Beach 11th Overall – BUST. Passed on Erik Karlsson.
2009 Dylan Olsen 28th Overall – BUST. Passed on Silfverberg, Tatar
2010 Kevin Hayes 24th overall. Jury out lazy player. Passed on Kuznetsov
2011 Mark McNeil 18th Overall BUST of BUSTS, Danault with 26th Pick, probable hit, also drafter Saad in 2nd.
2012 TT 18th Overall, HIT Also could have selected Tanner Pearson
2013 Hartman 30th and Hayden 3rd round – overall productive draft.
2014 – Schmaltz 20th overall, Jury Out
In those 10 years 5 legit busts, Hayes/Hartmam seem serviceable, on the fence with Schmaltz, and only 3 true hits.
So Hindsight being 20/20 hawks could skate

Silvferberg Toews Hossa
Panarin Kopitar Kane
Kuznetsoz Danult Hartman
?? TT Pearson

Keith Karlsson
Seabrook Hammer
Green ??

Schneider

So between bad drafts and what was given away, it seems the hawks are a few players short of an all-star roster.
- riozzo

Well, bad drafts, give-aways, development - and cap hits: your roster wouldn't come close to being cap-compliant.

Well, bad drafts, give-aways, development - and cap hits: your roster wouldn't come close to being cap-compliant.
- StLBravesFan

Not the point of the exercise. Factoring in Cap, wouldn't that give StanBo more leverage in a trade dangling some of those players?

While I agree that in the offensive zone you didn't have enough guys willing or able to "pay the price" in front of the net, I think the Hawks D-zone play is dictated more by Q's system than by lack of players willing to pay the price. Hawks have always been a "finesse" team in their own zone. Rarely a big hit, or clearing the crease, usually the active sticks and positioning. Kitchen as D coach always toed the Q principles and style hasn't changed. Maybe a Samuelsson changes that some.
- TheTrob

To an extent but they collapsed further back then what I ever recall in their own zone and didn't block enough shots per the eye test compared to previous years.

If I'm C2 I tell the coaches either the D guy fronts the shot and blocks it OR clears my line of vision. But my guy standing to the side and still allowing opposition in front of me does nothing.

I'm fine with that if you have a guy left (or in return) to center 88 and 72 (please don't say Kero, please don't say Kero, please don't say Kero), and you get someone to be your secondary FO option.

I don't have a prediction as to who they'll move, if they move anyone. I have honestly not heard anything beyond some tidbits about Rutta in a while.

As I've said previously, I have some opinions I'll keep to myself as to who they should consider dealing (one of whom I know they CAN deal), what they should get back, etc.
- John Jaeckel

That's the problem with trading AA. Granted he may be a bit of an overpay, but not much, where are you going to get someone that does all the the things he does, at a significantly lower cap hit?

This is one position I think you need to be real careful with. A bad decision here can have a significant impact on Kane's and Panarin's production.

To an extent but they collapsed further back then what I ever recall in their own zone and didn't block enough shots per the eye test compared to previous years.

If I'm C2 I tell the coaches either the D guy fronts the shot and blocks it OR clears my line of vision. But my guy standing to the side and still allowing opposition in front of me does nothing.
- SteveRain

The infuriarating thing is that this is a pretty basic hockey strategy: either challenge the shooters and block shots (or force low percentage shots) OR clear the goalie's lines of sight so he can see the puck. Ideally you have the forwards doing the former and the blueliners doing the latter. Opening up the goalie's vision includes YOU as the defenseman. So many times have goals been scored on Crawford and Darling not because the other team screened them but because one of their teammates did instead.

That's the problem with trading AA. Granted he may be a bit of an overpay, but not much, where are you going to get someone that does all the the things he does, at a significantly lower cap hit?

This is one position I think you need to be real careful with. A bad decision here can have a significant impact on Kane's and Panarin's production.
- walleyeb1

Yea, Kane can only thrive with someone as good as Anisimov... or Handzus

I think you're undervaluing these guys, just look at the return the Hawks got for Frolik, Bolland and Shaw over the years.

Frolik - 3rd and 5th
Bolland - 2nd and 2 x 4th
Shaw - 2 x 2nd
- DarthKane

I hope you are right. If the Hawks could get 1sts and 2nds, they could package them with Kruger, Anisimov Forsling and other prospects not named Debrincat and take on a salary like Duchene or a Palat/Drouin that are RFA's or #2 right side defender.

My feeling is Kruger is gone (a hunch instead of TVR). They will try to move Anisimov. Crow stays. They will do everything they can to hold on to Hjalmarsson. So they will not be able to add a top flight forward or defender. Maybe a EU FA like Rutta or one of the young Russian forwards. But I doubt it. My guess is we are looking at the same team in the Fall that ended this season minus Kruger and TVR plus the young players (including Motte/Forsling) from this year plus Glass, Fortin and maybe Debrincat.

Interesting post.

is Kruger THE problem? Is anyone?

The issue seems to be lots of big contracts and NMCs that hamstrings the team and forces the coach to (in turn) force fit players into roles they aren't ready for or ideally suited to.

Yeah, you could argue Kruger is overpaid. I think you can make the same argument, based on production over the las couple of regular seasons—and especially playoffs—about a LOT of guys on this roster.

Why, did they all mysteriously start sucking jun July 2015—or is it because the roster as a whole, 3 of the 4 lines, power play and penalty kill lack the necessary pieces, and so not just the team (come playoff time) but individual players suffer as well?

I'm the first to point out that Kruger—in his present role with this team—must be over 50% on face-offs, which he hasn't been. But there are also reasons why he centers the 2nd line on team Sweden in international play, and is always a key player on all the very good Swedish international entries–where "favortism by Q" does not factor in.

I will not be the least bit surprised if Kruger and his salary don't get jettisoned here in short order. All that said, if he ends up remaining in Chicago and even if the Hawks expanded his role and played him with scorers and gave him more offensive zone starts—I, for one, would not be completely surprised or discouraged. He HAS a lot more setup skill and ability to play an effective cycle game than many realize.

I still think it all comes down to moving a BIG contract (or two), dealing from areas of strength and depth to shore up some areas of weakness could quickly remedy the Hawks.

"Losing Kruger" to me is just a small scale salary dump and it's not like you don't lose some depth (at least) with the move.
- John Jaeckel

Wow. Have to read that 4-5 times to grasp whether you think he'll be here or gone. Even "surprised" and "jettisoned" add to the level of difficulty, as both of those are negatives in a way. Quadruple negative, sort of.