They can, but Darling is a UFA after this season. He is going to seek the highest bidder.
- Return of the Roar

Hometown boy === true hometown discount

Last blog I mentioned a what if--

Trading Crawford - Shaw allowed the Hawks to resign Ladd and Matt Martin-- and run with Darling in net --- and start banking some money for Panarin extension--
- jb3333

I would love to see this as well...

One thing with moving Crawford, I think Stan needs to start having extension talks with Darling NOW (if he is the plan moving forward) so we get him locked in when he is the #2 on the depth chart. If we sign him before he's the man, then we have a better shot at a value deal. "Scott... We love what you've brought to the team and we believe you will continue to contribute to this team for many years... We want to reward you with a $2 mil raise and an extension that will keep you with the organization for the next 4-5 years ($2.5 x 5 or 2.5 x 4)" that contract puts him at 31-32 years old by the end and still time for another payday

The above would be a win (if moving Crawford) in locking in a good goaltender for term at below market value, and he is the ideal person to do this for given his path to the NHL. This is a guy who grew up a Hawks fan, lost his spot at University of Maine due to alcoholism and played for 10 different teams in 5 years before making it to the Hawks...his hockey career was almost over before it started but he turned it around... He's the type of guy who doesn't take this for granted and given the opportunity to have a solidified place to be for the next 4-5 years and good money I think he goes for it. Could be wrong though...

Point of that rant was, that if we deal Crow I think we need to address Darling's contract NOW rather than wait

Up Ladd to 5.5

Trade Crawford

Sign Vet to back up Scotty D and then it can work, maybe


Probably have to make Shaw 3mm per
- mrpaulish

Totally agree.

Also, If I'm Shaw, and they don't give me at least what Kruger is making, I'm not happy at all.

If the cap settles at $73MM, here is how it can work:

Forwards
Toews 10,500,000
Kane 10,500,000
Hossa 5,275,000
AA 4,550,000
Ladd 4,000,000
Kruger 3,083,333
Shaw 2,500,000
Motte/Hartman 925,000
Panik 875,000
Panarin 812,500
Desi 800,000
Lundberg 692,500

$44,513,333

Seabrook 6,875,000
Keith 5,538,461
Hammer 4,100,000
TVR 825,000
Svedberg 750,000 (not on a two-way any more)
Kempny 700,000

$18,788,461

Crawford 6,000,000
Darling 587,500

$6,587,500

Overages for Scuds, Panarin, Rozy and Rundblad

$3,070,000

TOTAL $72,959,294

I might be dreaming on Shaw, Ladd, and the cap, but this lineup could work at $73MM
- Return of the Roar

Hey Roar, I think you are required to have a 23-man roster. Putting aside the unrealistic (IMHO) contract numbers for Shaw and Ladd, that still leaves you three players short, and not much money to spend on them.

If Shaw takes $3M, and they don't sign Ladd, then you have to fill 4 spots with the money you had attributed to Ladd's salary. Still no easy task, but doable.

Totally agree.

Also, If I'm Shaw, and they don't give me at least what Kruger is making, I'm not happy at all.
- Lido_Shuffle

I hear that If I am Shaw but Freddy took a 1 year super low ball offer first and was resigned mid season I believe .

I would love to see this as well...

One thing with moving Crawford, I think Stan needs to start having extension talks with Darling NOW (if he is the plan moving forward) so we get him locked in when he is the #2 on the depth chart. If we sign him before he's the man, then we have a better shot at a value deal. "Scott... We love what you've brought to the team and we believe you will continue to contribute to this team for many years... We want to reward you with a $2 mil raise and an extension that will keep you with the organization for the next 4-5 years ($2.5 x 5 or 2.5 x 4)" that contract puts him at 31-32 years old by the end and still time for another payday

The above would be a win (if moving Crawford) in locking in a good goaltender for term at below market value, and he is the ideal person to do this for given his path to the NHL. This is a guy who grew up a Hawks fan, lost his spot at University of Maine due to alcoholism and played for 10 different teams in 5 years before making it to the Hawks...his hockey career was almost over before it started but he turned it around... He's the type of guy who doesn't take this for granted and given the opportunity to have a solidified place to be for the next 4-5 years and good money I think he goes for it. Could be wrong though...

Point of that rant was, that if we deal Crow I think we need to address Darling's contract NOW rather than wait
- Frenchy4488

If only he were an RFA and not at UFA this might have a chance.

Hey Roar, I think you are required to have a 23-man roster. Putting aside the unrealistic (IMHO) contract numbers for Shaw and Ladd, that still leaves you three players short, and not much money to spend on them.

If Shaw takes $3M, and they don't sign Ladd, then you have to fill 4 spots with the money you had attributed to Ladd's salary. Still no easy task, but doable.
- Hank_Greenberg

20 minimum - 18 plus two goalies. 23 is the max allowed.

Unfortunately, I agree.

For those of you who know the mechanics of playing the game better, is it possible for Anisimov to drastically improve his FO %? To me, if he can't do 50%, then he loses some of his usefulness to the possession game.
- phantasmo

Without question it is possible for him to improve his faceoffs percentage.

Where was this robust scouting apparatus when they traded for Timonen, Sekac, Daley, garbutt, Fleishman, and Weise....ALL players who gave little to nothing...brought in for three 2nd round picks, and two good (one potentially very good) prospects.

I hope THAT isn't what is meant by Bowman "doing his homework".

The scouting that landed Shaw, Saad, Leddy, Oduya seems prehistoric compared to what has been going on the last couple years.

Also, IF the Hawks do NOT trade Crawford, then Scott Darling could end up taken in the expansion draft. There may be more proven goalies out there taken, but you never know.
- kwolf68

If you want to look at it as pure misses, and some would say Daley, Garbutt, Flieshmann, Weise and Ladd were fits, you have to say recently Panarin, Vermette, AA (to a lesser degree) were hits. The jury on recents like Schmaltz, Motte, Olofsson, Forsling, Kempny, Lundberg and Johansson is still out.

20 minimum - 18 plus two goalies. 23 is the max allowed.
- Return of the Roar

Gotcha. Still walking that razor's edge, tho ....

If the cap settles at $73MM, here is how it can work:

Forwards
Toews 10,500,000
Kane 10,500,000
Hossa 5,275,000
AA 4,550,000
Ladd 4,000,000
Kruger 3,083,333
Shaw 2,500,000
Motte/Hartman 925,000
Panik 875,000
Panarin 812,500
Desi 800,000
Lundberg 692,500

$44,513,333

Seabrook 6,875,000
Keith 5,538,461
Hammer 4,100,000
TVR 825,000
Svedberg 750,000 (not on a two-way any more)
Kempny 700,000

$18,788,461

Crawford 6,000,000
Darling 587,500

$6,587,500

Overages for Scuds, Panarin, Rozy and Rundblad

$3,070,000

TOTAL $72,959,294

I might be dreaming on Shaw, Ladd, and the cap, but this lineup could work at $73MM
- Return of the Roar

Yep, you were dreaming. I liked it, but didnt seem feasible. Here's your error, the overages:
Carry-over from 2015/16 year for bonuses: $3.07m
But Scud $1.125m and Runbad $100k are NOT in that $3.07m figure.
So you're $1.2m short of the money needed for that roster.

BTW, I would bet if they dont have plans for Runbad he will be dealt. They wont have him in Rock w $100k or buried cost. Just my bet on what happens to him.

Considering that cap wise, the Hawks are only slightly better off than they were (netting the Bickell gain and the overage loss) and a small cap increase - and cap increases for Kruger, Anisimov, Seabrook - and Shaw not signed, TT gone, and last year's holes still unfilled:

Is there any internal discussion about perhaps looking at a partial rebuild, recognizing that next season at least (and maybe more) will not produce a true contender?

Maybe identify a long-term core that would be viable going out several years, moving other currently perceived core out (CC, Seabrook....) who wouldn't likely be part of a 2018-19 and later push, returning quality picks and prospects, and sacrificing a year or two to rebuild around Toews, Kane, Panerin, Schmaltz, Motte, Darling, etc.?

I know Wirtz loves the $2MM+ per game haul from the tournament, but it seems that this team could easily become the Milwaukee Bucks, who specially with no major cap increases in sight.
- StLBravesFan

IMO, I would move Crawford at the draft. I think there is enough of a sample size to roll with Darling, and I would move CC to an eastern team of his choosing.

I just posted something similar about the lack of cap space moving forward with a top heavy cap team.

IMO, moving Crawford for a pick and either a cheap cost controlled F or D would work for me. The most vital part is freeing up cap space. Period. Take that money and throw it right to panarin. Hopefully less, but nobody here can say with 100% conviction he's taking less then 6, especially if he has another year like last year.

Lastly, what every needs to understand come to grips with is simple......75% of the Hawks roster will continually change every 2-4 years as these guys on ELC want to be paid, you read Bowman alluding to it during his Teuvo conference call. IT's the reality of the cap. Does it suck? yes, but to pay Kane, Toews, Crawford, Keith, Seabrook, hammer, Hossa, and soon to be Panarin, you have to have a revolving door down below and hit on the European and college UFAs.

ImO, I give bowman and his team a TON of credit because they are leaps and bounds ahead of the NHL in the European world....lets hope that continues.....because they probably will never get a top pick, baring a trade, until they get a major injury or just blow it up.

>Shaw's rights could very well be the "sweetener" to take all of CC's contract
>And is a big distinction from other teams trying to deal a high-priced goalie
>For the Hawks to do this, they need to again get ahead of the market
- SnapitUpstairs

Do we think a sweetener is needed to move a two time cup winning goalie at a fair 6 mil hit?

JJ's is hearing, and has heard, a 1st rounder would come back.

If only he were an RFA and not at UFA this might have a chance.
- Return of the Roar

Yeah... It may not be feasible and he may want to ride it out and wait for the big $$, but that won't be known until the convo happens... He could just as easily be happy with being able to call a place home for the first time in many years. The ability to negotiate a cap-friendly deal w/ Darling is MUCH easier when Crow is still here... Sign Darling, then deal Crow (again... If Darling is the plan moving forward) because your signing him while he is the #2... The second you deal Crow, Darlings agent can negotiate as his client being a #1

No sweetener is needed at all to move CC's contract. He is worth the deal he is signed to and it is at worst, at market value. He is also coming off his best year IMO

If teams are interested in Fleury, there would be no shortage of interest in Crawford

Yep, you were dreaming. I liked it, but didnt seem feasible. Here's your error, the overages:
Carry-over from 2015/16 year for bonuses: $3.07m
But Scud $1.125m and Runbad $100k are NOT in that $3.07m figure.
So you're $1.2m short of the money needed for that roster.

BTW, I would bet if they dont have plans for Runbad he will be dealt. They wont have him in Rock w $100k or buried cost. Just my bet on what happens to him.
- Cmonalready

So Ladd is not coming back then under any scenario. Our luck it will be worse news when the real cap comes out at like $72.4MM.

Go Cubs?

No sweetener is needed at all to move CC's contract. He is worth the deal he is signed to and it is at worst, at market value. He is also coming off his best year IMO

If teams are interested in Fleury, there would be no shortage of interest in Crawford
- hawkeytalkman

Probably because CC has already said no.

Your suggestion makes even less sense.

That means the acquiring team would need close to $10 mill in cap space available. Look at the list of teams with that type of coin available and then factor in Crawford has to agree to the trade.

As I said it will be difficult.

As far as Shaw....Unless the Hawks know a team is going to write a sheet for over $3.6 mill they have control of the negotiations. Shaw isn't arbitration eligible and his only leverage is an offer sheet. I think the Hawks pay Shaw Kruger money or close to it...But maybe they give him a one year deal with a raise and a wink, and then sign him later on this season to a bigger contract.

Otherwise if someone writes a huge offer sheet for Shaw, better off to take the 1st and 3rd rounder and then use the cap space to sign a UFA.
- Al

Agree on all of this.

Think the fact that the agent is putting out there they will talk at the Draft and they aren't even close to a deal says the Hawks are using your logic and know no one is paying him 3.6 in an offer sheet.

Shaw's a good dude and a great guy to have, you cannot pay him 3.5 for 4 or 5 years though, unless you know the cap is going to 80 mil next year.

>The numbers are beyond stiffling
>Doubtful Shaw will be giving any kind of discount
>Could see a CC/Shaw's rights package trade
>Would not want a crappy goalie coming back with any kind of cap hit
>Cap space will be gold for some time
>CC has been wonderful, but think he would even admit he got outplayed by Elliot in this year's playoff series
>To win without CC, the Hawks must regain their possession dominance game
>And Darling must be aggressive and confident -- thought Darling was pretty average this year -- tentative, deep in his net, and seldom poke-checked
>And if Darling wants too much $ next year -- find another goalie
- SnapitUpstairs

Well said as always, and agree on Darling.

I know recapture is always lurking, but after this year, Hossa cap hit of 5.275 but only a salary of 1 million. A wink-wink where do you want to go and not retire on us could happen....especially out east. As Hossa's production goes down, and while his 200 ft game is incredible and his mentoring is important, ROI has to be looked at.

Not saying it will happen, but wouldn't shock me.

Was thinking this for Dustin Brown for the bottom 6
- mrpaulish

Brown is not being bought out by the Kings

Confirmed

So, we are back to the Goalie is an inconsequential position that they can go for cheap on if they can tilt the ice in the other direction. In 2010 that was certainly the case with the exception of the Sharks series.

If they get enough quality bodies at forward and at least one other defender who can make a tape to tape pass (god forbid they get someone that can use their feet) then they will be in pretty good shape.

Totally fine with Crawford gone for salary or Crawford for a guy like Yakupov and futures. They can have an all Russian line and Patrick Kane can rejuvenate Toews. Hossa and Kooga can eat all the defensive drawings and the other teams better players.

That gets them another shot before Keith gets too old and Seabrook too fat.

Edit: Shaw doesn't get me hard like he does a lot of other folks. Especially with the injuries he has sustained later in the season and playoffs. I think his time as an "energy" player with upside is reaching an end and I'd rather not be holding that contract with the lil guy hits a wall. So, rights for futures works for me there.

Would anyone here do a Seabrook for Trouba trade?
- Dannyboy

I've been a big t Trouba and and I watched a bunch of Jets games this year. I know he's young but Trouba wasn't that impressive.

However, it's not a bad suggestion depending on Trouba's asking price. If Trouba wants $5-$6 million per season long term it's not work it. If he signs for $4 million long term and the Jets throw in another asset (unlikely) like Morrissey, then maybe.

Thanks as always JJ.

My two targets this offseason on D are Schlemko (Dude is just steady and dependable) and Travis Sanheim.

If the Hawks could deal Shaw and CC for #4 and Talbot I would be thrilled. If the Hawks dealt Shaw they could give his $ toward keeping Ladd

Mrazek is a RFA.....hmmm....
- Dabearshawks

The problem there is, same with TBL and PITT, that they will have to make him available in the expansion draft. As is those clubs stand to lose Mrazak, Vaselevisky or Murray if the don't move Howard, Bishop or Fluery as they all have to be protected.

This is the 800 pound gorilla when talking about moving Crow. Add Andersen (ANA) is an RFA, Reimer is a UFA and Carolina isn't an option since they resigned Ward and the market is saturated with few teams looking for a high priced #1.

IMO CAL ends up trading for Fluery.

BTW, I would bet if they dont have plans for Runbad he will be dealt. They wont have him in Rock w $100k or buried cost. Just my bet on what happens to him.
- Cmonalready

I would love for this to be true, and I hope that it is...

However, we all saw Rundblad exiled to Switzerland only to come back and skate with the team in the playoffs. Someone in the front office loves this guy. I can't understand why, but Rundblad is still here - despite the lack of effort he puts out.

Sadly, I wouldn't be shocked if Rundblad is still here next season.