Blackhawks agree to 3-year deal with Gustav Forsling
- jt19

Would be great if he could step up and be a threat on the PP by 17/18. Maybe put the offensive minded Forsling with his defensive minded countryman??

Sorry, I should have put some verbiage in there to show that yes...I was being sarcastic. It still sucks though, I like Hoss but don't think he's worth that kind of $ anymore.

- Murph76

I figured you were, but didn't want to assume and come across like a real bumhole

I think Hossa is still worth is cap hit currently (his hit is only $725,000 more than Anisimov's), the question is whether he will still be worth it next year and the year after

ETA: OT, its kind of weird that the filter lets you say "ass" but changes it to "bum" when you combine it with "hole"

Mason overpaid at a $4.1 million cap hit? Ehhh....

Regardless, you're missing the point. The point isn't if Crawford is better than the Flyers 2 goalies (I'd rather have Crawford), but whether it makes sense for the Flyers to trade assets for a marginal upgrade, if that, and also take his $6 million cap hit. I didn't know where to go research the numbers, but in looking at the last 10 Stanley Cup winning goalies, I'd say that only 2 of them were highly paid at the time they won the cup - those 2 being Crawford and Quick for the 2nd wins. I don't think the rest were TOO well paid at the time of the win. Everybody thought Bryz was great when he played in AZ, but he ended up being a bum and Mike Smith played just as well. I'd much rather have an upgraded defense in front of Mason instead of a downgraded one in front of Crawford.

In the Flyers 6 game series against the Capitals they were shut out twice, twice scored one goal, and twice scored two. Goalie was not the reason they lost. It was lack of scoring. But forget all that - just trade an asset from either the offense or defense for a marginal upgrade that takes up more cap space. I just spoke to 3 sources - the 3 guys sitting near my cube. All my sources agree.
- wolphnuts12

My sources don't work where you work. They work for owners and GMs. And after having done this for seven years and accumulating a pretty good batting average because of credible sources (who read here and PM me after comments like these sometimes and we have a good laugh), your attempts at shooting the messenger(s) are just kind of laughable.

Unless you're, like, 12. But I digress.

I did not, and I have stated earlier in the thread, have a source tip me on that.So again, aim before you fire maybe?

It was conjecture, because it made some sense.

But, you know what, yeah, unlikely they would deal a Mason for a Crawford, even though you STILL have not acknowledged that between them, Neuvirth and Mason have never won a playoff series, and Crawford has won 10 series and two Cups.

So that whole importance of a goalie who can win a Cup, like Michael Freaking Leighton was not enough evidence for you, is just silly and dismissible. OK.

You and your cubemates have a great afternoon. I will too!

Would be great if he could step up and be a threat on the PP by 17/18. Maybe put the offensive minded Forsling with his defensive minded countryman??
- EnzoD

He has a chance to be a decent NHL player because he has at least one NHL quality skill (his shot).

But bear in mind, so did David Rundblad.

Forsling needs to gain strength, a lot of it. Up to him and how much he wants it.

Being the 7th highest paid forward makes him . . . what . . . can anyone help me here . . .

No?

Your 3rd line center.

30-40 points would be nice. But it's all a bonus if you have a top 10 PK, he's over say 52% on draws, and your team defense is overall strong.

You really can't rank order pay for forwards on points.

I repeat, there have many garbage, loser NHL forwards who have racked up a lot of points. Start with Dany Heatley, Mike Ribeiro, etc.
- John Jaeckel

Fair enough. I am not trying to rank by points. More salary allocation. If he is in that 30-40 pt range I won't have any issues at all. I know his value is not pt production but with the current team struggle 5 on 5 he has to chip in some. Our strength in years past was depth scoring. If Shaw leaves we have no established depth scoring. Kruger, doing what he does best, plus putting up 30-40 really helps this teams chances next year.

I love Kruger and by no means think he is the problem or that his contract is not at market value. My thoughts are, if he scores at the same rate as this last year, could we get someone close to his defensive value at 2 mil and use the extra 1 mil elsewhere to improve the overall make up of the club? Maybe.. maybe not.

Also don't think our current PK structure plays to his strengths. He looked a lot more dominant (and has a lot more value as a PKer) when we play a more aggressive style and pressured the points. You have 3 elite PKers on the team. Toews, Kruger, and Hossa. Play to their strengths. PLUS I HATE staring at my TV watching bombs get unloaded from the point uncontested praying one doesn't get tipped in or ripped past Crow.

He has a chance to be a decent NHL player because he has at least one NHL quality skill (his shot).

But bear in mind, so did David Rundblad.

Forsling needs to gain strength, a lot of it. Up to him and how much he wants it.
- John Jaeckel

Does he have a heart? Rundblad, much like the Tinman, doesn't have one.

He has a chance to be a decent NHL player because he has at least one NHL quality skill (his shot).

But bear in mind, so did David Rundblad.

Forsling needs to gain strength, a lot of it. Up to him and how much he wants it.
- John Jaeckel

The Rundblad comparison doesn't inspire a lot of confidence. Though, he was acquired for Adam Clendening, so any type of NHL contribution would be a bonus.

Fair enough. I am not trying to rank by points. More salary allocation. If he is in that 30-40 pt range I won't have any issues at all. I know his value is not pt production but with the current team struggle 5 on 5 he has to chip in some. Our strength in years past was depth scoring. If Shaw leaves we have no established depth scoring. Kruger, doing what he does best, plus putting up 30-40 really helps this teams chances next year.

I love Kruger and by no means think he is the problem or that his contract is not at market value. My thoughts are, if he scores at the same rate as this last year, could we get someone close to his defensive value at 2 mil and use the extra 1 mil elsewhere to improve the overall make up of the club? Maybe.. maybe not.

Also don't think our current PK structure plays to his strengths. He looked a lot more dominant (and has a lot more value as a PKer) when we play a more aggressive style and pressured the points. You have 3 elite PKers on the team. Toews, Kruger, and Hossa. Play to their strengths. PLUS I HATE staring at my TV watching bombs get unloaded from the point uncontested praying one doesn't get tipped in or ripped past Crow.
- bhawks2241

kmw, not trying to be a D, but you do realize that defense is as important a part of the equation 5-on-5 as scoring?

That the Hawks real problem 5-on-5 this past year was the GAA and shots allowed went way up?

Marcus Kruger is NOT a detriment 5-on-5. He doesn't turn the puck over like some. He wins pucks. He wins draws. He blocks shots. He slows opponents down. And his line has driven TONS of o-zone possession, especially in 2014-15.

The only problem with this team scoring this year was a huge drop off on Toews' line (mostly). The defensive problems were much greater. Because they lost Oduya for the whole year—and Kruger for part of it.

Agreed on your points about the PK scheme. Let the dogs hunt.

JJ...I think you are spot on with CC being the one to move with taking back a goalie coming back. I think Al is missing on not the savings next year with taking a goalie back, but the 6mil savings the following year when Panarin will be up AND an expansion draft

Philly...not sure about.

I mentioned it before I could see CC going to Winn with Pavelec (1 more year at 3.9mil left) with maybe pick/prospects (LW Brendan Lemieux) coming back or getting exchanged

The other team I think could be CC going to TOR who will have a TON of cap room, Matthews and other young players (Marner, Nylander) in the fold. A vet goalie can go a long way there

You may be able to do a bigger deal with them -
Rights to RFA Shaw (2mil last year)
CC - 6mil
Bickell (4mil)

for -
Bernier (last year of 4.15)
JVR - (4.25 x 2)


The Bernier for Bickell is a wash of 4mil/last year of bad contracts...and Hawks get a backup

So it's essentially Shaw's rights and Crow for JVR.

For TOR...they get the goalie. While they lose JVR (old regime trade), they have a young top 6 next year of Matthews, Kadri, Marner, Nylander, Kapanen....and Stamkos

Lamoriello has always been a Crawford fan and this is a trade that can help both teams

My sources don't work where you work. They work for owners and GMs. And after having done this for seven years and accumulating a pretty good batting average because of credible sources (who read here and PM me after comments like these sometimes and we have a good laugh), your attempts at shooting the messenger(s) are just kind of laughable.

Unless you're, like, 12. But I digress.

I did not, and I have stated earlier in the thread, have a source tip me on that.So again, aim before you fire maybe?

It was conjecture, because it made some sense.

But, you know what, yeah, unlikely they would deal a Mason for a Crawford, even though you STILL have not acknowledged that between them, Neuvirth and Mason have never won a playoff series, and Crawford has won 10 series and two Cups.

So that whole importance of a goalie who can win a Cup, like Michael Freaking Leighton was not enough evidence for you, is just silly and dismissible. OK.

You and your cubemates have a great afternoon. I will too!
- John Jaeckel

Steve Mason is his guy JJ. He will take the Flyers to the promised land. Who needs a 2x Cup winning goalie (at a very similar cap hit) when you have this guy....


https://streamable.com/nyuu?t=6.0

He has a chance to be a decent NHL player because he has at least one NHL quality skill (his shot).

But bear in mind, so did David Rundblad.

Forsling needs to gain strength, a lot of it. Up to him and how much he wants it.
- John Jaeckel

I think Forsling has a chance to be much more than a decent player. He has top end talent and if he puts the work in, he can have a major impact for the Hawks

JJ...I think you are spot on with CC being the one to move with taking back a goalie coming back. I think Al is missing on not the savings next year with taking a goalie back, but the 6mil savings the following year when Panarin will be up AND an expansion draft

Philly...not sure about.

I mentioned it before I could see CC going to Winn with Pavelec (1 more year at 3.9mil left) with maybe pick/prospects (LW Brendan Lemieux) coming back or getting exchanged

The other team I think could be CC going to TOR who will have a TON of cap room, Matthews and other young players (Marner, Nylander) in the fold. A vet goalie can go a long way there

You may be able to do a bigger deal with them -
Rights to RFA Shaw (2mil last year)
CC - 6mil
Bickell (4mil)

for -
Bernier (last year of 4.15)
JVR - (4.25 x 2)


The Bernier for Bickell is a wash of 4mil/last year of bad contracts...and Hawks get a backup

So it's essentially Shaw's rights and Crow for JVR.

For TOR...they get the goalie. While they lose JVR (old regime trade), they have a young top 6 next year of Matthews, Kadri, Marner, Nylander, Kapanen....and Stamkos

Lamoriello has always been a Crawford fan and this is a trade that can help both teams
- PatShart

I like the pillars of the trade proposal, but I think it would take more than Shaw+Crow to pry TVR out of Leaf Nation AND take Bickell's cap hit.

kmw, not trying to be a D, but you do realize that defense is as important a part of the equation 5-on-5 as scoring?

That the Hawks real problem 5-on-5 this past year was the GAA and shots allowed went way up?

Marcus Kruger is NOT a detriment 5-on-5. He doesn't turn the puck over like some. He wins pucks. He wins draws. He blocks shots. He slows opponents down. And his line has driven TONS of o-zone possession, especially in 2014-15.

The only problem with this team scoring this year was a huge drop off on Toews' line (mostly). The defensive problems were much greater. Because they lost Oduya for the whole year—and Kruger for part of it.
- John Jaeckel

Not being a D at all and besides I have thick lawyers skin anyway so if I am wrong or my hockey logic sucks call me out on it. I appreciate all of your insight and I enjoy learning a lot about the game through the perspective of the more experienced hockey guys on this blog.

I am actually a big defensive first kind of person and do think Kruger is critical to this teams success. I remember the '14 Kings just dominating us down the middle b/c we lacked quality centers. I just think the Hawks are going to need him to chip in some scoring like the '13-'14 Kruger and not like this last years Kruger.

Do you or anyone else have insight into why we changed into a very passive box PK that doesn't really challenge entries? Wouldn't a more aggressive PK better utilize Kruger's great stick, small area quickness, overall skating ability, etc? Same for Toews and Hossa.

I like the pillars of the trade proposal, but I think it would take more than Shaw+Crow to pry TVR out of Leaf Nation AND take Bickell's cap hit.
- EnzoD

JVR would be a nice add. Solves first 1/2 LW problem. Wasn't it reported they liked Hartman?

Re: exploring AA as a trade option to reduce cap problems (Al/JJ)...

Do either of you think that Stan alluded to having more Russians on the team when Panarin was signed last spring? Not sure if it is totally relevant, but after one year in the league, do you think Panarin's prospects of resigning are better if the team retains AA through his current contract?

My argument is that (beyond TT), AA could be the most expendable trade chip to finding that coveted #4D. I would think $4M - $4.5M would land you a solid #4D, either in the DFD or OFD mold. Yes, I love AA's game and all of the things he does to free up 72/88. Losing AA would probably end 88's chances of repeating as a scoring champ.

In terms of relative value and accepting deficiences on your roster, would you rather 1) retain the pivot that anchored the NHL's best regular season scoring line or 2) generate better 5v5 possession with 4 solid D-men?

Myself, I would bet that 72/88 will continue to generate pressure with a band-aid center (TT, Ras, Kruger, or cheap vet centerman a-la Richards). I do not see this team going anywhere in the postseason without a significant upgrade to the D corps.

Who replaces:

AA (maybe Kruger, maybe TT)
TT (a lot of people at least right now, because he's basically a third line RW)
CC (Darling)
Shaw (Hartman, Ross—for all his versatility, Shaw is best suited as a bottom six RW 5-on-5)
Kruger (TT or AA)

There are negative tradeoffs everywhere except probably TT (next year anyway).

Biggest cap savings is CC.

Player "least" replaced is probably Kruger—as much as some refuse to see his role and value in it and how deficient AA or TT would be/have been in trying to do it).

I have laid out the many reasons Kruger will likely not be dealt.

I don't honestly see them dismantling their best scoring line (AA), which leaves CC, TT, Shaw as the chips.

They have mostly quietly "shopped," "dangled" "discussed" all three at times over the last two seasons. Except maybe Shaw.

But they would be completely insane if they are not at least exploring it now (see: Saad last year).

Here's the other thing, who here really believe that the situation they are in today was not pretty much known to them when they signed AA and Kruger to their deals. I will tell you, it was known. They KNEW Panarin was going to be a star. They knew they would have cap issues. Especially next summer.

So again, the notion that this is all a big surprise to the Hawks now and they completely went mentally AWOL when they signed those deals, is a little far-fetched. Which is why they started quietly talking to teams about CC over a year ago. Why they dangled TT briefly this past February (in a very similar manner I might add—I was told to "gauge interest only."
- John Jaeckel

C'mon already! One of the thing's that's hurt badly is Panarin earning the B bonus of $1.75m. Anyone predicting before the start of 2015/16 season that he would end up top 10 in scoring in his rookie year, raise your hand. Yeah, didnt think so.

Sure, the Hawks (some combination of true assessment and wishful thinking) thought he would be good, maybe really good. But unlikely they put a high probability on him earning that $1.75m this year (and a threat to earn it again next year). And unlikely they viewed him as so good that his next contract was $5-7m, versus a typical RFA bridge contract of, say, $2.0-3.5m.

Agreed on your points about the PK scheme. Let the dogs hunt.
- John Jaeckel

I think part of the reason of abandoning the aggressive PK was the lack of PK depth at the D positions. #4 seemed to be out all the damned time, especially when he took his two blocks per night that dropped him to the ice.

Is it too hard to be aggressive with the PK forwards if the PK D is always gassed?

The C position for the Hawks is an interesting beast. You've basically got 3 guys who are going into next season overpaid.

Toews isn't earning 10.5 mil with his contribution, but obviously he is a superstar and at the heart of the core.

AA is about to get his 4.5 mil and honestly that is a lot for a guy who is realistically a 3C from a talent perspective. He has an okay year, except he was terrible at faceoffs and has limited offensive skill. I'm not saying he isn't a useful center, but Kane/Panarin definitely boosted his offensive output and value.

Kruger at 3+ mil. He is a 4th line C who can kill penalties, but he wasn't the Hawks best PK forward. He isn't elite at the PK. He wins some board battles, but he also gets knocked on his rear a lot in board battles too. He just isn't a 3+ million dollar player.

I like the pillars of the trade proposal, but I think it would take more than Shaw+Crow to pry TVR out of Leaf Nation AND take Bickell's cap hit.
- EnzoD

Well the Hawks would be taking Bernier back for the Bickell debacle as well

I think Craw and Shaw for JVR is more than fair - with possibly CHI on the losing side of that deal

TOR hasn't had a netminder since. what, Belfour from 02-04? Craw will give them that and more for the next 3-4yrs behind a young team and D group

Tor can mix up their top 6 of - and they can sort this better than me, but -
Marner - Kadri - Lupol
XXXXX - Matthews - Nylander (Stamkos somewhere in top 6?)
Komarov - Bozak - Shaw
Bickell - Laich - Michalek - probably with Bick in the minors..

And in another year, Bickell, Laich, Michalek will be off their books (12+ mil) to add more.

So the salaries (adding Bickell, specifically) wouldn't kill them and they get a 2 time cup winning goaltender and a very versitile "winner", tough to play against Shaw for JVR

Not being a D at all and besides I have thick lawyers skin anyway so if I am wrong or my hockey logic sucks call me out on it. I appreciate all of your insight and I enjoy learning a lot about the game through the perspective of the more experienced hockey guys on this blog.

I am actually a big defensive first kind of person and do think Kruger is critical to this teams success. I remember the '14 Kings just dominating us down the middle b/c we lacked quality centers. I just think the Hawks are going to need him to chip in some scoring like the '13-'14 Kruger and not like this last years Kruger.

Do you or anyone else have insight into why we changed into a very passive box PK that doesn't really challenge entries? Wouldn't a more aggressive PK better utilize Kruger's great stick, small area quickness, overall skating ability, etc? Same for Toews and Hossa.
- bhawks2241

You would think! The PK was certainly better before they settled into stationary trapezoid mode. Did whichever coach was handling the PK change?

Does he have a heart? Rundblad, much like the Tinman, doesn't have one.
- bhawks2241

I just don't understand doing a medium-term contract (3 years) for an unproven NHL asset. Maybe the agents (particularly for D-men) hold all the power these days, but I'm not giving more than 1-2 years to anyone who hasn't shown they can and want to/will play at the NHL level. Also gives the player the incentive to prove himself early and often.

Yeah, there is a risk you develop, then lose them, but risk of dead weight contracts, like Runblad's, in a salary cap situation is greater, IMO. Maybe this one is a two-way, so the risk is minimal on the latter. Didn't see details in the press release.

JJ...I think you are spot on with CC being the one to move with taking back a goalie coming back. I think Al is missing on not the savings next year with taking a goalie back, but the 6mil savings the following year when Panarin will be up AND an expansion draft

Philly...not sure about.

I mentioned it before I could see CC going to Winn with Pavelec (1 more year at 3.9mil left) with maybe pick/prospects (LW Brendan Lemieux) coming back or getting exchanged

The other team I think could be CC going to TOR who will have a TON of cap room, Matthews and other young players (Marner, Nylander) in the fold. A vet goalie can go a long way there

You may be able to do a bigger deal with them -
Rights to RFA Shaw (2mil last year)
CC - 6mil
Bickell (4mil)

for -
Bernier (last year of 4.15)
JVR - (4.25 x 2)


The Bernier for Bickell is a wash of 4mil/last year of bad contracts...and Hawks get a backup

So it's essentially Shaw's rights and Crow for JVR.

For TOR...they get the goalie. While they lose JVR (old regime trade), they have a young top 6 next year of Matthews, Kadri, Marner, Nylander, Kapanen....and Stamkos

Lamoriello has always been a Crawford fan and this is a trade that can help both teams
- PatShart

I agree 100%... I think Toronto is a very viable option and would stand to benefit from taking on a bad 1-year contract if it meant getting someone that could help them 2-3 years down the road when they become relevant. I am a huge JVR fan and it helps us fill a need. Do you think we would be able to get anything else in that deal as Shaw + Crow is a ton of value (albeit for a strong NHL player at a reasonable cost) or does he Bickell contract going negate any additional value we could ask for? Either way I agree that would be a very interesting trade situation and agree that Toronto needs to def be a team we try to work with.

I also like the Stamkos plug haha... I would also wager he's wearing a Leafs sweater next year

I agree 100%... I think Toronto is a very viable option and would stand to benefit from taking on a bad 1-year contract if it meant getting someone that could help them 2-3 years down the road when they become relevant. I am a huge JVR fan and it helps us fill a need. Do you think we would be able to get anything else in that deal as Shaw + Crow is a ton of value (albeit for a strong NHL player at a reasonable cost) or does he Bickell contract going negate any additional value we could ask for? Either way I agree that would be a very interesting trade situation and agree that Toronto needs to def be a team we try to work with.

I also like the Stamkos plug haha... I would also wager he's wearing a Leafs sweater next year
- Frenchy4488

I think Bickell probably does negate anything additional

Would CC waive for Toronto? Or I wonder if Stamkos ending up there would make him more likely to do so?

My sources don't work where you work. They work for owners and GMs. And after having done this for seven years and accumulating a pretty good batting average because of credible sources (who read here and PM me after comments like these sometimes and we have a good laugh), your attempts at shooting the messenger(s) are just kind of laughable.

Unless you're, like, 12. But I digress.

I did not, and I have stated earlier in the thread, have a source tip me on that.So again, aim before you fire maybe?

It was conjecture, because it made some sense.

But, you know what, yeah, unlikely they would deal a Mason for a Crawford, even though you STILL have not acknowledged that between them, Neuvirth and Mason have never won a playoff series, and Crawford has won 10 series and two Cups.

So that whole importance of a goalie who can win a Cup, like Michael Freaking Leighton was not enough evidence for you, is just silly and dismissible. OK.

You and your cubemates have a great afternoon. I will too!
- John Jaeckel

Some sense? It makes no sense for the Flyers. It may for the Blackhawks if they're trying to lower their cap hit, but that's about it.

I have no idea what Mason and Neuvirth did before they got to Philly, but I'll accept that neither has ever won a series. But now you accept that it wouldn't have mattered who the Flyers had in net this last series because when you get shut out twice and score 1 goal twice...odds are you're going to lose. Which, using logic, should mean that it makes more sense to upgrade somewhere else.

Crawford won 2 cups. He's good. But they didn't win those cups because of him. And they also won 1 with Nieme (?). They won 2 out of the 3 with low dollars allocated to goalie. Who are the highest paid goaltenders in the league? Have any of them won a cup while at that high salary? Your whole article just assumes that other teams want the Blackhawks pieces that they can't afford anymore. High priced goalies are not worth it anymore. Not just Crawford...anybody. I'd rather have an elite defense with an average goalie than the other way around. And he's not even elite.

And I just went over to more of my sources that are in the offices. They also agreed. Tomorrow I'll check the the cafeteria guy, but him and I are usually on the same page.

I just don't understand doing a medium-term contract (3 years) for an unproven NHL asset. Maybe the agents (particularly for D-men) hold all the power these days, but I'm not giving more than 1-2 years to anyone who hasn't shown they can and want to/will play at the NHL level. Also gives the player the incentive to prove himself early and often.

Yeah, there is a risk you develop, then lose them, but risk of dead weight contracts, like Runblad's, in a salary cap situation is greater, IMO. Maybe this one is a two-way, so the risk is minimal on the latter. Didn't see details in the press release.
- pdx2ord

I don't understand them either. Especially as I see less and less bridge deals around the league. If you have to pay a player like Saad 6m/year in his first post-ELC contract that has a domino effect on your other contracts. So giving a 3 year contract (regardless of the dollar amount) to someone who might not be able to hack it in the NHL seems so risky