Someone will overpay for Ferland, both in terms of what goes to Carolina in trade and what he will sign for as a UFA. Don't let it be the Hawks. Ferland is a nice piece for a contending team, he isn't what a rebuilding club needs to build around.
- paulr

Yep.

According to the guys who work the Canes beat Ferland is asking for over $6 million per in order to avoid free agency.

By all accounts he just wants to go to UFA status.

Allegedly he's looking for more than $6 million per to keep him from getting there. He claims to like Raleigh, and he brings something that they haven't had in a long time, but I think he also understands that he's probably going to have a short career because of the way he plays and he's probably only going to get this one chance to cash in.

So he's asking for the Hurricanes to overpay him, or he's going to look to get overpaid in UFA instead. Everybody likes him, but there's a real high risk of him being David Clarkson all over again here.
- BINGO!

This is where the Nino Niederreiter trade comes in, by the way. They know they're going to trade Ferland, because losing him for nothing is not an option, so instead they go get Nino who is signed for three more years for the kind of cap hit they were probably looking at for Ferland anyway, AND they get rid of their $4 million 4C.

This is where the Nino Niederreiter trade comes in, by the way. They know they're going to trade Ferland, because losing him for nothing is not an option, so instead they go get Nino who is signed for three more years for the kind of cap hit they were probably looking at for Ferland anyway, AND they get rid of their $4 million 4C.
- BINGO!

He is a great player for the lineup, dont get me wrong. But I don't see him getting 6 million anywhere.

He is a great player for the lineup, dont get me wrong. But I don't see him getting 6 million anywhere.
- nickmo2699

I don't think so either. But I guess if you don't ask for the moon you'll never get it, right? He's got a better chance of it with 31 GM's bidding than with just one, so away he goes.

Going along with the thrust of the blog: the Blackhawks' record when:

Scoring less than 3 goals - 3-11-4=10 (18 games)
Scoring more than 3 goals - 14-13-5=33 (32 games)

Scoring less than 4 goals - 6-22-8 =20 (36 games)
Scoring more than 4 goals - 11-2-1=23 (14 games)

GIVING UP less than 4 goals - 14-2-4=32 (20 games)
GIVING UP more than 4 goals - 3-22-5=11 (30 games)

While I do think that depth scoring is a big issue for this team, they seem to be scoring enough to win (64% scoring 3+, 28% scoring 4+), defense is the big let-down (only 40% giving up less than 4).

Someone will overpay for Ferland, both in terms of what goes to Carolina in trade and what he will sign for as a UFA. Don't let it be the Hawks. Ferland is a nice piece for a contending team, he isn't what a rebuilding club needs to build around.
- paulr

And regret it afterwards. This happens over and over again. Someone get nice cramps for a season or two, goes UFA and cashes in... Ferland is a nice player but no way I would pay him more than 4 millions per year. But some Gm will..just look.

I don't think so either. But I guess if you don't ask for the moon you'll never get it, right? He's got a better chance of it with 31 GM's bidding than with just one, so away he goes.
- BINGO!

He is a 3.5-4 mil a year player. If he has a 50 point season, yeah, he could swing 6 mil in the free agency market. Tom Wilson is making 5.1, you can't tell me Ferland is as effective. He also doesn't have a cup. I know youre agreeing with me, just posting to opine on the subject as a whole.

And regret it afterwards. This happens over and over again. Someone get nice cramps for a season or two, goes UFA and cashes in... Ferland is a nice player but no way I would pay him more than 4 millions per year. But some Gm will..just look.
- MjulQvist

Yep.

Hence, trading for Nino and trading Ferland away to the highest bidder (while still trying to move whatever RHD gets you the best forward in return)

The idea would never fly because it would be financial suicide for the league. Teams like Carolina, Nashville, Columbus, Arizona, Florida and Dallas would lose a boatload of money each year.
- -Doh-

Honestly, I wouldn’t have an issue with teams losing money, except for the fact that it drags down the league as a whole.

Not personally convinced a 32-team league is good. But then I’m not the owner taking in millions in fees for the expansion.

One of the things I think everyone agrees to in this board is that there are a bunch of unskilled, unqualified teams in the league. Reducing league size by 4 teams would ultimately squeeze out many of these players. If the league could eliminate the teams not paying their fair share, the on-ice product would be better.

Tyler I just read a article and it states saad , anismov and Keith are available for trade. According to the article Chicago is looking for picks and young nhl ready prospects . Then it goes on to say Chicago future looks bright with free agency , their young defensive prospects and Chicago's standings being in last place guarantees them either kako or Hughes.


Will Stanley be able to turn things around.
- Taylorst1

Which article is this Taylor?

Keith, Saad and Anisimov make sense if the Hawks are looking to get decent return and shake things up.

Stan will be around IMO. I think he gets this trade deadline and summer to turn things around. I believe it's his last chance though.

Honestly, I wouldn’t have an issue with teams losing money, except for the fact that it drags down the league as a whole.

Not personally convinced a 32-team league is good. But then I’m not the owner taking in millions in fees for the expansion.

One of the things I think everyone agrees to in this board is that there are a bunch of unskilled, unqualified teams in the league. Reducing league size by 4 teams would ultimately squeeze out many of these players. If the league could eliminate the teams not paying their fair share, the on-ice product would be better.
- Spec41971

I don't agree with that at all.

I think what there are are a lot of teams that are keeping talented prospects in minor leagues artificially while they employ poopty players on the big club instead.

If GM's ever figured out that guys that can only defend and can't score aren't more valuable than guys that only score and can't defend, the league will be much better off for it.

Here's a link to an article with Colliton commenting on Crow's current health status. Based on this I don't see Corey returning this year which I am not surprised at.

Looks like Stan will be in the same pickle he was last summer regarding the goalie situation. i.e Will Corey be available for next season? Does he sign sign a veteran backup as a placeholder if he's not ready? Go on the cheap with Delia and Forsberg?

https://mynhltraderumors....d-maple-leafs/2019/01/22/
- boilermaker100

Imo it was always a far stretch to think Crawford after going down for a 2nd time in less than a year would return this year.

Nothing personal against Crawford, but this is now a huge wrench in Chicago's plans for next year.

They need to move Crawford to a team that is willing to take him on just to hit the floor, however what is the cost and if Stan doesn't move Crawford that's less money in free agency to spend , also LTIR next year is not a solid plan, nor is bringing Crawford back to only get hit and be out again or worse seriously injure him even more.

Imo it was always a far stretch to think Crawford after going down for a 2nd time in less than a year would return this year.

Nothing personal against Crawford, but this is now a huge wrench in Chicago's plans for next year.

They need to move Crawford to a team that is willing to take him on just to hit the floor, however what is the cost and if Stan doesn't move Crawford that's less money in free agency to spend , also LTIR next year is not a solid plan, nor is bringing Crawford back to only get hit and be out again or worse seriously injure him even more.
- Taylorst1

I have bad news....

The only team in that situation right now is Arizona, and even then it's a big "Maybe"

EDIT:

Ottawa may be interested.

Which article is this Taylor?

Keith, Saad and Anisimov make sense if the Hawks are looking to get decent return and shake things up.

Stan will be around IMO. I think he gets this trade deadline and summer to turn things around. I believe it's his last chance though.
- Justin Lowe

I want to say second city but I can't recall I was looking up Chicago trade rumors and started reading a article and then found another article I believe the date was the 17th? But it was very incitefull.

Honestly, I wouldn’t have an issue with teams losing money, except for the fact that it drags down the league as a whole.

Not personally convinced a 32-team league is good. But then I’m not the owner taking in millions in fees for the expansion.

One of the things I think everyone agrees to in this board is that there are a bunch of unskilled, unqualified teams in the league. Reducing league size by 4 teams would ultimately squeeze out many of these players. If the league could eliminate the teams not paying their fair share, the on-ice product would be better.
- Spec41971

Your on to something here because some of these markets are awful and a lot of talent out their should not be playing at the nhl level especially when your paying a garbage player 2.5 million or more who can barely skate

I have bad news....

The only team in that situation right now is Arizona, and even then it's a big "Maybe"

EDIT:

Ottawa may be interested.
- BINGO!

The problem with ottowa is The owner, stan would have to sweeten the deal beyond what chicago is willing to except.

Honestly, I wouldn’t have an issue with teams losing money, except for the fact that it drags down the league as a whole.

Not personally convinced a 32-team league is good. But then I’m not the owner taking in millions in fees for the expansion.

One of the things I think everyone agrees to in this board is that there are a bunch of unskilled, unqualified teams in the league. Reducing league size by 4 teams would ultimately squeeze out many of these players. If the league could eliminate the teams not paying their fair share, the on-ice product would be better.
- Spec41971

The main reason for getting into some of those "bad markets" - and staying in them - is the national TV market in the US.

The only way to get a high-revenue national TV contract is to be a "national" (small-n) league - not a regional, cold weather combination of teams. That's the major reason there are still franchises in Phoenix, Miami, Raleigh....

Going along with the thrust of the blog: the Blackhawks' record when:

Scoring less than 3 goals - 3-11-4=10 (18 games)
Scoring more than 3 goals - 14-13-5=33 (32 games)

Scoring less than 4 goals - 6-22-8 =20 (36 games)
Scoring more than 4 goals - 11-2-1=23 (14 games)

GIVING UP less than 4 goals - 14-2-4=32 (20 games)
GIVING UP more than 4 goals - 3-22-5=11 (30 games)

While I do think that depth scoring is a big issue for this team, they seem to be scoring enough to win (64% scoring 3+, 28% scoring 4+), defense is the big let-down (only 40% giving up less than 4).
- StLBravesFan

Yes this 150%.

They need to bring the GAA down about 1 whole goal per game. I think a lot of it is commitment to pay the price to win. I know it's been said before, but consider this. Hawks are 30th in shots against at 35 per game. Hawks also have blocked 642 shots, which is near the fewest in the league (27th). That means, either they are not positioned to block it (breakdown), unwilling to block it or the goalies/coaches want them to let it through clean. I hope they figure it out.

That's the problem is they have owners who are to cheap to bother trying to actually market and put together a winning organization.

Don't take my word , but just look at teams such as Arizona, Ottowa, Carolina, islanders . Arizona is the poster child of mismanagement going from Winnipeg to phoniex only years of horrible management go into bankruptcy. Yet Winnipeg finally got a team back into their market and the turnaround is amazing.

Ottowa the owner says enough about how cheap he is or the islanders with their previous owner.


Imo if the league is going to handout franchises , these owners must be financially sound with a solid financial and business plan to survive the market but exceed and in doing so produce a product that shows the fans and league they are committed to winning.

Why did it take this long to put a team in Las Vegas,. I think they set the standard as to how a new team should approach and come into it's first season I applaud them.



- Taylorst1

You sure do know a lot about a lot!

But here's the thing...rich people don't get rich by spending money. And while we would all love EVERY SINGLE CONTRACT to be fair to both the team and the player, there are waaaaaaayyyy too many factors for that to be the case.

How does one justify paying players? If you pay players based on potential, you take the chance the player will never live up to the contract, or he gets injured, or is inconsistent.

If you pay a player based on prior performance, you take the chance he won't get back to those numbers, or again, gets injured, or is good, but not good enough for the contract numbers.

So, how do you justify a contract? The correct answer is: Too much for us to speculate on a message board. In other words, you oversimplify everything.

That's the problem is they have owners who are to cheap to bother trying to actually market and put together a winning organization.

Don't take my word , but just look at teams such as Arizona, Ottowa, Carolina, islanders . Arizona is the poster child of mismanagement going from Winnipeg to phoniex only years of horrible management go into bankruptcy. Yet Winnipeg finally got a team back into their market and the turnaround is amazing.

Ottowa the owner says enough about how cheap he is or the islanders with their previous owner.


Imo if the league is going to handout franchises , these owners must be financially sound with a solid financial and business plan to survive the market but exceed and in doing so produce a product that shows the fans and league they are committed to winning.

Why did it take this long to put a team in Las Vegas,. I think they set the standard as to how a new team should approach and come into it's first season I applaud them.



- Taylorst1

It is not marketing or being cheap. It is simple cash flow. They are smaller market teams, that do not have a huge base of true hockey fans, and limited revenue streams. They are not playing to packed houses. In Dallas you can buy a ticket for $10. For $84 bucks you can get just about the best seat in the house.

The main reason for getting into some of those "bad markets" - and staying in them - is the national TV market in the US.

The only way to get a high-revenue national TV contract is to be a "national" (small-n) league - not a regional, cold weather combination of teams. That's the major reason there are still franchises in Phoenix, Miami, Raleigh....
- StLBravesFan

A friend and I watched some of the Panthers game last night and noted how empty the stands were. How can you operate a franchise like that?

This morning I thought that I should check the box score to see what the attendance was. Well you used to be able the see that stat on box scores but I could not find that info on any network. All I was able to find was graphs/charts for season attendance. Florida showed 69%. Sure did not look like 69% last night.

It is not marketing or being cheap. It is simple cash flow. They are smaller market teams, that do not have a huge base of true hockey fans, and limited revenue streams. They are not playing to packed houses. In Dallas you can buy a ticket for $10. For $84 bucks you can get just about the best seat in the house.
- -Doh-

Must see games here are only known to hockey people. I sat 5 rows behind the Leafs net on a Thursday for 35 a ticket. The Stars have actually drawn pretty well and have done a lot in the community. The thing is, the team has to be good. THere is no room for inept teams in these smaller markets.

For those with a subscription to TheAthletic, Powers has a nice piece that shows all of DeBrincat's 25 goals this season with some commentary from DeBrincat on some of them.

https://theathletic.com/6...g-to-tell-us-this-season/

You sure do know a lot about a lot!

But here's the thing...rich people don't get rich by spending money. And while we would all love EVERY SINGLE CONTRACT to be fair to both the team and the player, there are waaaaaaayyyy too many factors for that to be the case.

How does one justify paying players? If you pay players based on potential, you take the chance the player will never live up to the contract, or he gets injured, or is inconsistent.

If you pay a player based on prior performance, you take the chance he won't get back to those numbers, or again, gets injured, or is good, but not good enough for the contract numbers.

So, how do you justify a contract? The correct answer is: Too much for us to speculate on a message board. In other words, you oversimplify everything.
- CanOCorn

The entire point about capatilism and owning a business is you have to have a passion for it, the credit and capital to enter the business and a solid business , financial, and marketing plan.

The NHL, nba,nfl,MLB are business models for billionaires , the good ole boys club and to enter those clubs you pay a heavy upfront fee that only a select few people in this world have that kind of money to throw around .

These sports clubs have strict rules and standards which I just dont see those same rules and standards applied in the nhl. You have Smith of watered down talent , owners who for years havent bothered to produce a product that shows they want to win.

Arizona went bankrupt that tells you something about the nhl not really holding these owners to a certain degree of standards.

A friend and I watched some of the Panthers game last night and noted how empty the stands were. How can you operate a franchise like that?

This morning I thought that I should check the box score to see what the attendance was. Well you used to be able the see that stat on box scores but I could not find that info on any network. All I was able to find was graphs/charts for season attendance. Florida showed 69%. Sure did not look like 69% last night.
- 67hawks

Back in the old days, the attendance at the Chicago Stadium was always officially announced at 16,666. Didn't need a box score to tell you that. LOL.

That 69% Florida attendance figure probably includes tickets given away for marketing purposes and not used, and other tickets sold but not used.