Ask Stamkos how life was with him there, and how it will be without him there.
- Return of the Roar

I tried calling him. He didn't answer so I left a voicemail.

You are correct but there is a huge difference between having 5 instead of 4.

The Hawks have 4...
- Al

Which is one reason I don't consider this year (11-12) a success: none of the problems the team has were solved - one or two new ones were created (goal, PP/PK).

They had 4 top-6 forwards last year: they have 4 now.

No one stepped up - not the "youngsters", not the "alte-cochers" (sp?).

In fairness to Bergevin, and while office politics could very well have played a role, he was with the Hawks for seven years and now has the chance to head up a high profile original six team. Hard to pass up the invite.
- Return of the Roar

There was no way he was turning this down. None. I don't care if Jesus Christ was GM instead of Stan in Chicago and they won the Cup the last 3 years.

Ask Stamkos how life was with him there, and how it will be without him there.
- Return of the Roar

I tried calling him. He didn't answer so I left a voicemail.
- coldsteelonice

Floor won't have to rise if the new CBA says it doesn't: could fall.

Of course, the new CBA also impacts the cap.
- StLBravesFan

Well, in the scenario he states he expects the salary cap to go up so the floor would have to go up as well.

Glass half full (is everyone watching?) here:

The 4 the Hawks have (assuming Big Hoss is healthy) are as good or better than the top 4 guys anyone else has.
- John Jaeckel

Edmonton might give them a good run at that title in a year or 2 if they draft Yakupov.
Eberle, RNH, Hall, Yakupov....wow

Well, in the scenario he states he expects the salary cap to go up so the floor would have to go up as well.
- shruew

Again, this seems to me to be an at least somewhat important issue to the owners.

They could either decouple the floor from the cap, or have a different formula, or something: if the cap goes up, in the new CBA, the floor will not necessarily have to go up.

Well, in the scenario he states he expects the salary cap to go up so the floor would have to go up as well.
- shruew

So if I understand correctly, there's an option to extend the current CBA for one more year which has to be exercised by parties sometime in June. So if they do, then business as usually and a cap of like $69 to $72MM. If they don't extend, then you no one knows what the new CBA will be. However, wouldn't everyone just have to assume status quo? And then if the cap is lowered based on a new CBA, that all salaries would just be rolled back?

Glass half full (is everyone watching?) here:

The 4 the Hawks have (assuming Big Hoss is healthy) are as good or better than the top 4 guys anyone else has.
- John Jaeckel

I saw it. :thumbs up:

And I agree by the way a top 6 does not mean six all stars. Having four perennial all stars in your top 6 all with different attributes is really a blessing if you are a fan here. Now lets go insert some size (5) and physicality (6) .

Again, this seems to me to be an at least somewhat important issue to the owners.

They could either decouple the floor from the cap, or have a different formula, or something: if the cap goes up, in the new CBA, the floor will not necessarily have to go up.
- StLBravesFan

Depends on how much they want to try for parity.

I agree the cap floor doesnt seem to really help parity. Seems that the lower teams just blow the money on overpaying mediocre players.

In the MLS you can actually trade cap space as allocation funds. It would probably help parity long term if a team like the Islanders could trade off some extra cap space at the trade deadline and stockpile draft picks.

First part yes, second part...ahhhh...no.
- Return of the Roar

I think it has to say something about the organization that all these executives that are getting GM jobs elsewhere were part of this organization at some point. Someone knew how to pick em. Dont know who that someone was?

The problem is they are all leaving, to be big shots themselves. Could this lead to positive relationships with many other teams throughout the league ie trading partners?

Again, this seems to me to be an at least somewhat important issue to the owners.

They could either decouple the floor from the cap, or have a different formula, or something: if the cap goes up, in the new CBA, the floor will not necessarily have to go up.
- StLBravesFan

Agree somewhat. I thought the idea of the cap is to bring parity to the league. To make it fair for smaller market teams to compete for the cup.

Bolland's never scored 20 goals in an NHL season. Come on. I like the guy as a player. But Kruger has upside. We know what Bolland is and isn't. You want your C to set up plays more so than finish them, in theory at least and Kruger is superior to Bolland there.

I don't think it's an easy choice on way or the other. Sometimes you have to go with the upside player in order to make other things happen for your team. Coming off his first healthy season in the last four, Bolland might never have more value.

People talk abut Kruger like he's been around forever. We forget he has less than one full NHL season under his belt, and he got progressively better and better over that time. And he will get bigger. And when he does, he will get better.
- John Jaeckel

Interesting you would see something in Kruger that leads you to believe he would be able to score while playing on a checking line, although I agree on his passing.

I see a player reluctant to shoot...I can see reasons to trade Bolland but probably more have to do with Danualt/Kruger adding more than scoring.

Kruger hasn't scored more than 11 goals anywhere, including the no check leagues in Sweden.

Danault has scored 20 goals in Jr's but..

Neither had the scoring pedigree Bolland had before coming ot the NHL...So either Kruger or Danault might not be moving up to fill scoring needs...

My guess is if Bolland gets moved to add scoring somewhere else...Like on the 2nd line or on the blueline...maybe both.

Agree somewhat. I thought the idea of the cap is to bring parity to the league. To make it fair for smaller market teams to compete for the cup.
- roenick

The Cap really hasn't made it much easier for small market teams to make money.

More parity...ok...But spreading the wealth...not really.

It isn't overblown at all, it was spoken from his mouth into a microphone and broadcast over the airwaves on multiple occasions. Name me an NHL player not a piece of garbage who publicly said "I don't want to play this position, I don't like to stand in front of the net and score goals"

Also he only played well in one playoff run... The Cup run... And it wasn't in the first round against Nashville... Havlat and Toews carried the team in 08-09, congratulations on following the team pre-Cup

I don't think out shooting Phoenix the way they did and taking 5 games to overtime is being man handled... Nor would I consider going 7 games deep with the team that ended up winning the Western Conference... Those are significant numbers as well.

THE HAWKS HAVE BEEN TOP 5 IN THE LEAGUE THOSE TWO YEARS IN SCORING! That really isn't the problem.

An elite talent with a bad attitude. Again no thanks.

And at the time he would have been a 5/6 defender... You don't pay those +3million, which was his cap hit.. And you don't deal with the woe unto me... Tell me how that makes sense from a management perspective when you have only X amount of dollars to spend? You cant because it doesn't

Elite talents do their best to win and be the best player they can be, not show up to camp out of shape, over weight and content with being the big fish in a little pond.
- fattybeef

Where has our top 5 in the league in scoring been the last 2 years in the playoffs? MIA. This is what bothers me most. Our top 4 skill guys haven't done squat. Regular season scoring obviously does not = post season scoring. I think alot of that has to do with who plays with them. Q treated Buff just like he treated Brouwer and now Stalberg. Some guys he handles very poorly. Would have been intersting to see 88-19-33 play for one full year. Never happened.

We will just disagree. I get it. You think it was a no brainer. I think it was a huge mistake that we have yet to recover from. Will leave it at that...