I'd be content if the Hawks got Glencross.
- EKolb13

I second that.

I'd be content if the Hawks got Glencross.
- EKolb13

He may be their future Captain, and signed at a great contract #.
Don't see him moving.

I don't think they will or have. I heard they offered Toffoli and Pearson. The Hawks offer, as I understand it— is considerably better. Just saying—based on what I've heard.

I also just heard Boston is now in the lead on this.
- John Jaeckel

you don't think Sutter is asking DL to get Iggy?? i find this hard to believe.

Because Stalberg is a FA i would this Calgary passes on him....if your future down the middle is Toews- Danault- Krugman - 4C (Shaw?).....then where does McNeil fit in? Where does Chris Hayes fit in? Maybe move McNeil to a PF type of role. If your top six over the next three years is Iggy/Saad-Hossa-Toews......Sharp-Kane- Danault.......where does TT fit.....If Stalberg, Bickel, and Kruger are your third.....where do these guys go? Granted no one has a crystal ball but don't tell me there isn't a white board with all of the possibilities in some room somewhere on Madison.....
- UnnamedSource

Why move a roster player like Bolland or Stalberg now? The team can use the depth for the playoffs.

Bowman can move a Bolland or a Stalberg at the draft.

He may be their future Captain, and signed at a great contract #.
Don't see him moving.
- FLflames34

I don't either.

Everyone keeps saying this is a "great franchise". It isn't.

It is a long-time franchise with a rabid fan base in a top North American market - but is on the ice certainly the worst of the original six: only 4 SC in 80 years, only two in my lifetime (probably only one in the lives of most posters here), and only three other SC finals teams.

Great franchises don't run off or trade their greatest players - Hull, Esposito, Roenick, Chelios; great franchises don't squander potentially great teams because they don't want to pay the going rate. Great franchises don't continually have disfunctional ownership and front offices - which the Hawks have had in my 50+ years as a fan - and which, apparently, they continue to have.

Great franchises do not continue to take money from sell-out crowds and not put a winning product on the ice.

Make no mistake: I am a die-hard fan - but I certainly recognize that there is no wy this is a great franchise
- StLBravesFan

I understand and appreciate your points....they are all valid and rather painful when thinking about how the past was......but there are a few ways to look at it.....in the present time the Hawks are considered an elite franchise when you consider revenue, tv ratings, merchandise, and tickets sold when they are on the road. If this was still the past with the old man no way Detroit would've been moved to the East.

Everyone keeps saying this is a "great franchise". It isn't.

It is a long-time franchise with a rabid fan base in a top North American market - but is on the ice certainly the worst of the original six: only 4 SC in 80 years, only two in my lifetime (probably only one in the lives of most posters here), and only three other SC finals teams.

Great franchises don't run off or trade their greatest players - Hull, Esposito, Roenick, Chelios; great franchises don't squander potentially great teams because they don't want to pay the going rate. Great franchises don't continually have disfunctional ownership and front offices - which the Hawks have had in my 50+ years as a fan - and which, apparently, they continue to have.

Great franchises do not continue to take money from sell-out crowds and not put a winning product on the ice.

Make no mistake: I am a die-hard fan - but I certainly recognize that there is no wy this is a great franchise
- StLBravesFan

IDK. Not every franchise can be the Detroit Redwings. I think this is a great franchise because of the lore and the culture that is the Chicago Blackhawks... Yeah, winning would be nice, but being a Blackhawks fan is more than that (to me at least). Then again, maybe being a Cubs fan my whole life has just made me more grateful for winning a championship at all.

I don't think they will or have. I heard they offered Toffoli and Pearson. The Hawks offer, as I understand it— is considerably better. Just saying—based on what I've heard.

I also just heard Boston is now in the lead on this.
- John Jaeckel

That's fine if it happens...

...move on SB, and try to address actual deficiencies.

Why move a roster player like Bolland or Stalberg now? The team can use the depth for the playoffs.

Bowman can move a Bolland or a Stalberg at the draft.
- EKolb13

Agreed....been banging this drum. As much as Bolland has been awful come play off time it will be a love fest again. You maximize your return for him on draft day or before.

I'll drive him from Rockford and meet you half way in Elgin.



- EKolb13

I'll drive him to the airport. But you better believe he us giving me $50. The guy makes about $3 mill a year. He can afford it.

If TT was offered as part of a package, Calgary would have made the deal already!

I don't think they will or have. I heard they offered Toffoli and Pearson. The Hawks offer, as I understand it— is considerably better. Just saying—based on what I've heard.

I also just heard Boston is now in the lead on this.
- John Jaeckel

If the Hawks offer is considerably better than that, and (based on your statement) Boston's is better still....I would hope as Hawks fans you all don't win this.

This is getting in the realm of crazy talk.

Everyone keeps saying this is a "great franchise". It isn't.

It is a long-time franchise with a rabid fan base in a top North American market - but is on the ice certainly the worst of the original six: only 4 SC in 80 years, only two in my lifetime (probably only one in the lives of most posters here), and only three other SC finals teams.

Great franchises don't run off or trade their greatest players - Hull, Esposito, Roenick, Chelios; great franchises don't squander potentially great teams because they don't want to pay the going rate. Great franchises don't continually have disfunctional ownership and front offices - which the Hawks have had in my 50+ years as a fan - and which, apparently, they continue to have.

Great franchises do not continue to take money from sell-out crowds and not put a winning product on the ice.

Make no mistake: I am a die-hard fan - but I certainly recognize that there is no wy this is a great franchise
- StLBravesFan

Nice rant!

But at least the Hawks didn't go out of business like the Montreal Maroons.

If the Hawks offer is considerably better than that, and (based on your statement) Boston's is better still....I would hope as Hawks fans you all don't win this.

This is getting in the realm of crazy talk.
- FLflames34

I already don't really like any of this. The talk should be about chicago moving a guy like Bolland or Stalberg for a true second line center. Why they would ever want to get heavily involved in this bidding war for Iginla baffles me, maybe Bowman is trying to make a splash but to go all in right now would be shooting himself in the foot. We all knew the Iginla thing was going to get ridiculous

If TT was offered as part of a package, Calgary would have made the deal already!
- Greek7

Perhaps, but it depends on what the Flames want, and how they view Hawk prospects. We fans may think more of him than Feaster does.

I already don't really like any of this. The talk should be about chicago moving a guy like Bolland or Stalberg for a true second line center. Why they would ever want to get heavily involved in this bidding war for Iginla baffles me, maybe Bowman is trying to make a splash but to go all in right now would be shooting himself in the foot. We all knew the Iginla thing was going to get ridiculous
- Ballam

I still think this is a two horse race and Chicago is just inquiring for the hell of it. Don't see the Hawks doing this.

per mark spector

http://nhlrumormill.com/l...arome-iginla-trade-front/

I'll bet dollars to donuts that Stan deals for a player(s) nobody has talked about.

He may be their future Captain, and signed at a great contract #.
Don't see him moving.
- FLflames34

I didn't think it was really possible, just that I would prefer him to an aging Iginla.

I already don't really like any of this. The talk should be about chicago moving a guy like Bolland or Stalberg for a true second line center. Why they would ever want to get heavily involved in this bidding war for Iginla baffles me, maybe Bowman is trying to make a splash but to go all in right now would be shooting himself in the foot. We all knew the Iginla thing was going to get ridiculous
- Ballam

I 100% agree. He's doing it for the sake of making a splash. Iginla fills no holes when Hossa and Sharp are back. Get a 2C and get Hendricks and call it (frank)ing day.

It's like Bowman is facing the right direction, but is walking backwards.

I'll bet dollars to donuts that Stan deals for a player(s) nobody has talked about.
- DarthKane

Or...knowing Stan, he deals for actual donuts.

I'll bet dollars to donuts that Stan deals for a player(s) nobody has talked about.
- DarthKane

Hmmm..... How many over-the-hill 35+ skaters are available?

Everyone keeps saying this is a "great franchise". It isn't.

It is a long-time franchise with a rabid fan base in a top North American market - but is on the ice certainly the worst of the original six: only 4 SC in 80 years, only two in my lifetime (probably only one in the lives of most posters here), and only three other SC finals teams.

Great franchises don't run off or trade their greatest players - Hull, Esposito, Roenick, Chelios; great franchises don't squander potentially great teams because they don't want to pay the going rate. Great franchises don't continually have disfunctional ownership and front offices - which the Hawks have had in my 50+ years as a fan - and which, apparently, they continue to have.

Great franchises do not continue to take money from sell-out crowds and not put a winning product on the ice.

Make no mistake: I am a die-hard fan - but I certainly recognize that there is no wy this is a great franchise
- StLBravesFan

My friend, have you ever heard of the TORONTO MAPLE LEAFS?

If you think you have been f'd over by the Blackhawks in your lifetime, perhaps you should take an anal width measurement on season seat holders of that great, storied franchise. They have been taking it up the rump for 45 consecutive years without even a glimmer of promise to brighten their days.

Hmmm..... How many over-the-hill 35+ skaters are available?
- CBHawks88

Sadly, lots (i.e. Hect).

IDK. Not every franchise can be the Detroit Redwings. I think this is a great franchise because of the lore and the culture that is the Chicago Blackhawks... Yeah, winning would be nice, but being a Blackhawks fan is more than that (to me at least). Then again, maybe being a Cubs fan my whole life has just made me more grateful for winning a championship at all.
- CBHawks88

The great franchises ARE like the Wings - they consistently put a quality product on the ice/field/court. Culture and lore - fans are paying good money for culture and lore.

Not just the Hawks: bin the 3rd largest market in the US (don't know if Toronto is bigger or not), look what you've had in my 68 year lifetime:

Bears - 2 championships, 2 Super Bowl appeances in 45 years. (We did have one othe NFL championship, but don't even have the team any more).

Cubs - not even a World Series appearance.

Sox - one championship, two World Series.

Bulls - one concentrated 8 year period of greatness - otherwise, no finals, four other conference finals appearances in the almost 50 year franchise history - 3 play off series wins in the 15 years since Jordan retired.

Best supported teams in the country - worst payback for that support than any other city. These franchises are closer to failures than to greatness.