Laz highlighting how the Hawks will have a lot of cap space...

Saad-Toews-DeBrincat
JVR-Schmaltz-Kane
Ejdsell-Anisimov-Sikura
Hinostroza-Kampf-Hayden
Duclair

Keith-FAULK
Murphy-Seabrook
Forsling-Rutta
Gustafsson
Oesterle

Crawford
HUTTON

Let's assume:
JvR 6M
Hutton 3.5M
Duclair 1.5M
Total cap hit: 80.8M

I hate that fourth line...I still think Wingles Johnson Hayden or something similar with those kinds of players needs to be installed, and will be very effective.

I think he was a useful player, but the evidence is there that he regressed last season. It was apparent watching him play and the stats show it.

A good chunk of his production was in a few blowout games and when it mattered 5v5 in close games he was a lot less of a factor. The Hawks had fewer minutes with the game in control with a close score but he scored exactly 3 5v5 goals for the Hawks when the score was close and that was after 13 in his rookie season where he trailed only Kane in that department.

Rookie season he put a ton of shots on goal 5v5 in close games again second only to Kane with 135 and lead all Hawks with high danger chances in that situation. Last year he fell way down the list with just 46 shots and much fewer chances.

Just to put it in perspective from his rookie season to last.

His goal scoring rate in that situation was 39% of the previous season.
His shots on goal 58% of the previous.
Scoring chance 92%
High danger chances 82%

All this with more favorable deployment (since he had some more defensive deployment with Hossa/Kruger) but also against arguably tougher opposition getting slotted higher in the lineup.

IMO, He got more opportunity last year and he regressed in terms of being a real factor in the game. Playing with some stronger linemates helped him maintain some of his stats, but what he did on the ice failed to impress me.
- breadbag

First, it was one blow out game, not a few.

Second, how many times was Hartman used in a situation in a close game this season vs last? How many close games did the Hawks have compared to last season considering the goaltending? Context and situational data is useful for those types of arguments. Shot volume was down in close, but his shot rate was up overall. I'm not surprised though there might be some drop as he was tasked with being a playmaking center last year between two shooters in Sharp-Debrincat.

Third, I showed that he maintained his production with lower quality linemates - unless you think 34 yo Sharp+Debrincat are in the Kane/Hossa category? In fact, if you remove the blow out game you're fixated on, that puts Hartman's production to be more favorable away from Kane than with.

Anyway, more data suggests that Hartman improved in a many areas. Below is a side-by-side of Hartman's 2nd and 1st years. And to me, the eye test backed up these stats.




Though again, none of this really matters because even if Hartman did have a slump, then it's not out of the norm and even star quality players have them in second season (MacKinnon, Larkin). But man, if that's all it takes to get traded, better hope Debrincat doesn't have a down year next season least he be on another team by after the TDL.

Edit to add: Again, I'm not even arguing the value of the trade anymore - just that it is not unreasonable that some might have preferred Hartman, who had decent usefulness. That's it.

Laz highlighting how the Hawks will have a lot of cap space...

Saad-Toews-DeBrincat
JVR-Schmaltz-Kane
Ejdsell-Anisimov-Sikura
Hinostroza-Kampf-Hayden
Duclair

Keith-FAULK
Murphy-Seabrook
Forsling-Rutta
Gustafsson
Oesterle

Crawford
HUTTON

Let's assume:
JvR 6M
Hutton 3.5M
Duclair 1.5M
Total cap hit: 80.8M

I hate that fourth line...I still think Wingles Johnson Hayden or something similar with those kinds of players needs to be installed, and will be very effective.
- SoftServe

I really hope if the Hawks get JVR its 3-4 years MAX term.

Did he really overachieve if his numbers were repeated the next season minus a low sh%? That seems an odd conclusion to make, but I guess we won't know until next year to see if he continues to put up consistent 3rd line numbers at 5v5 with a skew towards high primary points.

Also playing with Kane will help most players obvs, but the fact that Hartman has a large % of points that are primary indicates that he was a high contributor to the goals. I'd agree with your argument more if they were secondary and thus less likely to due to Hartman, but they weren't. On top of that, Hartman's production actually was consistent for a while away from Kane - Kane-Hartman were on a line for about 20 games in which Hartman got 10 points (5 if you want to remove that first game) and then he got 10 points in his next 20 games primarily playing with Sharp-Debrincat (in a position that he'd never played). All this tells me is that Hartman is doing something right in terms of his assist rate if he was able to change linemates and still have similar numbers. It may simply be that Hartman can be a compliment to skilled players rather than being any type of star / driving force himself, but that's a decent thing to be imo - Shaw made a career out of it with the Hawks, even.

And last, if the supposed sandpaper was easy to replace with his production, wouldn't they have more of those types of players since it's been lacking from the team in general? People always say 3rd liners are easy to come by but I've yet to see that be true.

I don't hate the return or anything btw, even if I don't think you can call it decent until one of Edjsell or he #27 is useful at the NHL level - I just think it's kind of silly to knock anyone that thinks Hartman is a useful player and would have preferred to keep him. No one has to agree, but it def is a valid point with a decent amount of empirical evidence to support it.
- L_B_R

Is it really fair to say that we have to wait for the #27 to pan out to judge the value of the trade?. I see the idea thrown around a lot that when trading for draft picks, the outcome of the pick somehow retroactively effects the value of the trade. I think that this concept is a logical fallacy.

I think that when judging how well teams did in a trade, particularly when draft picks and prospects are involved, you really have to consider the expected value of the assets that each side received. If there’s a pretty good chance when the trade is made that the combination of Edjsell and #27 pick are more valuable than Hartman a couple years down the line to the Blackhawks, then I think it is a good trade, regardless of how the pick turns out, because of how much uncertainty there is in drafting.

I have an example to illustrate the point that I’m trying to make. Let’s say that the Blackhawks had traded a Hartman-esque player for the number 1 pick in the draft in 2012. Clearly, this is a lopsided trade. Then, the Blackhawks select consensus first pick Yakupov. If we look at this trade based on expected value at the time, there is a high probability that the player selected far exceeds the one traded, so this should definitely be considered a good trade for the Hawks. However, by waiting for the pick to develop to make a call on whether it was a good trade for the Blackhawks, we would conclude it was actually a bad trade because Hartman has more value than Yakupov does today.

Basically, I don’t think it is very fair to judge the value of a trade retroactively based on whether or not the player selected pans out. What should really be considered is the value that both teams are receiving at the time the trade was made.

I see a lot of posters saying they will wait to see whether picks pan out to determine who won a trade so I just wanted to bring it up as a topic of discussion because I don’t think it’s a very fair way to judge these moves.

I really hope if the Hawks get JVR its 3-4 years MAX term.
- EnzoD

I'll take JVR at 24 mil over 4 years!

Is it really fair to say that we have to wait for the #27 to pan out to judge the value of the trade?. I see the idea thrown around a lot that when trading for draft picks, the outcome of the pick somehow retroactively effects the value of the trade. I think that this concept is a logical fallacy.

I think that when judging how well teams did in a trade, particularly when draft picks and prospects are involved, you really have to consider the expected value of the assets that each side received. If there’s a pretty good chance when the trade is made that the combination of Edjsell and #27 pick are more valuable than Hartman a couple years down the line to the Blackhawks, then I think it is a good trade, regardless of how the pick turns out, because of how much uncertainty there is in drafting.

I have an example to illustrate the point that I’m trying to make. Let’s say that the Blackhawks had traded a Hartman-esque player for the number 1 pick in the draft in 2012. Clearly, this is a lopsided trade. Then, the Blackhawks select consensus first pick Yakupov. If we look at this trade based on expected value at the time, there is a high probability that the player selected far exceeds the one traded, so this should definitely be considered a good trade for the Hawks. However, by waiting for the pick to develop to make a call on whether it was a good trade for the Blackhawks, we would conclude it was actually a bad trade because Hartman has more value than Yakupov does today.

Basically, I don’t think it is very fair to judge the value of a trade retroactively based on whether or not the player selected pans out. What should really be considered is the value that both teams are receiving at the time the trade was made.

I see a lot of posters saying they will wait to see whether picks pan out to determine who won a trade so I just wanted to bring it up as a topic of discussion because I don’t think it’s a very fair way to judge these moves.
- LaheysBRandy

I believe so. It's all about asset management, right? If neither Edjsell nor the #27 pick turn into a NHL player, then you've essentially give away a useful middle 6 player with no valuable return. Picks have value based on projected NHL impact, so you cannot disconnect the two imo. Otherwise, you're comparing a useful player in Hartman to something that has no correlative value and thus it doesn't work. Hartman to Edjsell is easier, but it's still hard because the context surrounding them is so different. It's a faulty comparison until the variables of the situation are more similar - i.e. how the perform in the NHL.

Your example is an outlier - how many #1 picks in the last two decades have actually turned out poorly? And conversely, how many of them are franchise players? There are always busts, but the chanses of a #1 overall not being pretty great, especially lately, is low. The chances of a late 1st round pick not working out is, historically, around 70% - meaning, only about 30% of guys picked at #27 make it to play 100 NHL games. That is not to say that quality players cannot be found here, just that there is inherent risk.

(your example is also situational because Yakupov on a different, better team maybe doesn't bust but that is hypothetical)

I'll take JVR at 24 mil over 4 years!
- SoftServe

I think JVR will probably want something like what Oshie got.

I think JVR will probably want something like what Oshie got.
- L_B_R

46 mil over 8 years? How about 46 mil over 4 years....11.5 mil per year, yikes lol.

I'll take JVR at 24 mil over 4 years!
- SoftServe

Does JVR help or is part of the future core going forward?

This mess that this organization has let created over the last few years cannot be fixed in one offseason and getting JVR only signals that the hawks brass is going for it one more time with this core. Even if bowman makes significant moves like signing JVR and say DeHann and trading for Faulk there are still too many holes at center and size physical players more speed back goalie healthy crow and Towes Kieth Seabrook turning the clock back 4 or 5 years to the players they once were. That's a lot of heavy lifting for one offseason and bowman is in charge of it the past 3 three years have been horrible. Rocky missed the boat in the offseason by not firing bowman and Q. To me its going to be more of the same next year, hope I am proven wrong but this offseason should about the future beyond this current core and start a rebuild. I know it won't happen but IMO that is what should happen.

I think JVR will probably want something like what Oshie got.
- L_B_R

Or is he going to want Evander Kane money?

Hey moron,

You forgot to mention trading Kane - because you state he is the worst player ever, and that no one here has a clue.....

You are slipping - did you run out of your meds and mommy forgot to pick up more??


- dahawks8819

Please read the CoC rule number 6. Only warning that will be given.

Or is he going to want Evander Kane money?
- Justin Lowe

Hard pass if that's the case.

He's not worth more what he'll fetch on the open market.

Hard pass if that's the case.

He's not worth more what he'll fetch on the open market.
- TommyHawk

I'm with you there.

Or is he going to want Evander Kane money?
- Justin Lowe

Justin any concrete info that you can share on what the hawks might do from now and until and including the draft day. Also and this my personal gut feeling that the hawks will make a big trade or signing that nobody will see coming.

Keep up the excellent work Justin!!

Or is he going to want Evander Kane money?
- Justin Lowe

Totally possible - Oshie was the comparable for him going into the summer because they're closer in age. E.Kane is either going to inflate every player this summer or other GMs are going to ignore it as a aberration.

Justin any concrete info that you can share on what the hawks might do from now and until and including the draft day. Also and this my personal gut feeling that the hawks will make a big trade or signing that nobody will see coming.

Keep up the excellent work Justin!!
- Scott1977

Thanks Scott - I haven't heard too much lately. I knew they were really exploring a lot of options and was told that we could be in for another crazy off-season. I wouldn't be surprised to see that 27th pick+ moved for a top 4 defenceman.

I don't have any specifics to share at this time with the Hawks but know there is a ton of discussions the last couple of days leading up to the draft.

It's going to be a lot of fun and I will update you guys if anything hits my phone/inbox.

Please read the CoC rule number 6. Only warning that will be given.
- Makita

Hey Makita how can I talk to you offline?
Pm possibly...

Thanks Scott - I haven't heard too much lately. I knew they were really exploring a lot of options and was told that we could be in for another crazy off-season. I wouldn't be surprised to see that 27th pick+ moved for a top 4 defenceman.

I don't have any specifics to share at this time with the Hawks but know there is a ton of discussions the last couple of days leading up to the draft.

It's going to be a lot of fun and I will update you guys if anything hits my phone/inbox.
- Justin Lowe

Thanks

Or is he going to want Evander Kane money?
- Justin Lowe

I’d do $6 million for 3 years, but I doubt that will be enough. The only hope would be for Stan to acquire Trevor so the brothers can play together. Maybe then JvR is willing to take less. Maybe, but unlikely.

I’d do $6 million for 3 years, but I doubt that will be enough. The only hope would be for Stan to acquire Trevor so the brothers can play together. Maybe then JvR is willing to take less. Maybe, but unlikely.
- DarthKane

Maybe the parents can convince them to play together, so their travel plans can become simpler - just 1 trip!

I’d do $6 million for 3 years, but I doubt that will be enough. The only hope would be for Stan to acquire Trevor so the brothers can play together. Maybe then JvR is willing to take less. Maybe, but unlikely.
- DarthKane

Agree & Hutton is the best back up out there but if not Cam Ward isn't far behind.

I’d do $6 million for 3 years, but I doubt that will be enough. The only hope would be for Stan to acquire Trevor so the brothers can play together. Maybe then JvR is willing to take less. Maybe, but unlikely.
- DarthKane

It'd be stupid of him to settle for anything less than 5 years tbh. And that would be ~fine - it'd put him going out around the age of many contract, like Sharp's, while getting his final prime years. As long as it's $6.25m ish or below, I'd go up to 5 years. Any more years and the cap hit better be lower, but less years probably means more money.

It'd be stupid of him to settle for anything less than 5 years tbh. And that would be ~fine - it'd put him going out around the age of many contract, like Sharp's, while getting his final prime years. As long as it's $6.25m ish or below, I'd go up to 5 years. Any more years and the cap hit better be lower, but less years probably means more money.
- L_B_R

I think you’d give him $10 million for 7 years

Seriously, I could live with 5 years at $6 million per as long as it doesn’t prevent Stan from re-signing Schmaltz and DeBrincat. It would probably be the end of Anisimov but that’s a trade off I could live with.

Hartman produced on pace year over year though - the only difference was that he scored less because his sh% was down which was something that was wrong with 90% of the team. If so many of the team had a low sh%, it typically means it's a symptom of something higher than individual players.

Even if Hartman did have a sophomore slump (he didn't really), it's not out of the norm. Even guys like MacKinnon have them (he went from 63 to 38 points from year 1 to 2). If every team got rid of a player after a sophomore slump, then a lot of teams wouldn't have the rosters they currently do. Hartman isn't near MacKinnon's level, but he looked to be a solid useful player - something we don't know either Edjsell or whoever is taken at #27 will be (and if they are, it might be years before we see them). Personally, I just dislike moving proven useful players that could help with the team now for risk down the line. Just me.

On top of that, Hartman was 23 this past year, so if a player who hasn't "put it all together" by that age is to be written off, then I guess Edjsell is dead on entry since he is already 23. Kinda silly logic, no?

I've made by peace with the trade and we disagree about whether the return was good / the trade should have happened at all - but it seems a bit revisionist to claim Hartman was a bad or invisible player for the Hawks when he had a great rookie year and then had, at worst, a so-so one this past year when like pretty much all players on the Hawks were meh.

PS. For those who claim Hartman took bad penalties, not going to disagree in general, just that his penalty differential was positive. Most forwards on the team were though - only Toews and Martinsen were negative.
- L_B_R

Hartman stinks!

Was a healthy scratch for NASH in Playoffs a few times

Hes a 4th liner or AHL player

One of the only good moves Bowman made was dumping Hartman & his bad attitude

Terrible penalties at terrible times

And hes not a fighter either

I was fiddling around with CapFriendly to plug in some rumored moves that have been swirling around lately and came up with this mock lineup that would be for both the upcoming season but possibly in place for 1-2 more barring some tweaks here and there. This lineup assumes the following mock trades, free agent signings, and 1st round pick at 8th:

TRADES

Hossa + Gustafsson to Coyotes for 2018 3rd + 2019 3rd

Anisimov + Rutta + Forsling + 2018 3rd + 2019 4th round for Duchene

FREE AGENTS
(all are UFAs)

Forward: Maroon, Nash (Riley, not Rick)

Defense: de Haan, Moore, Pateryn

DRAFT

Kotkaniemi, Tkachuk, or Wahlstrom

Zadina would be a dream if he fell to 8th but I doubt he drops of out the top 5

LINEUP

Saad - Toews - X
Maroon - Schmaltz - Kane
DeBrincat - Duchene - Sikura
Hinostroza - Nash - Hayden
Martinsen

Keith - Seabrook
de Haan - Murphy
Moore - Pateryn
Oesterle

Crawford
Forsberg

Assumes cap set at $80MM
Remaining cap at $4.8MM

The X right winger with Saad and Toews could be their 1st rounder assuming they draft a forward like Kotkaniemi, Tkachuk, Wahlstrom, or Zadina, but it could also be a free agent or some acquired in a trade.

Also, I didn't spend up to the cap to allow wiggle room to resign Schmaltz, DeBrincat, and/or Sikura in 1-2 years and Duchene next year (or move him at the 2019 TDL).

I haven't tried a mock lineup yet if Duchene was replaced with a trade for O'Reilly instead. I was thinking about Duchene as a highly skilled center to consider, so O'Reilly is worth considering if not Duchene (Tavares is just too unrealistic, IMHO). If I have time, I'll try a mock lineup with O'Reilly instead. Maybe another mock lineup with the van Riemsdyk brothers.

Using CapFriendly is new to me and I know Bowman is likely not going to sign 3 UFA d-men and may stick with one (or none) to go along with Oesterle, Gustafsson, and Rutta. Having more than one of 82, 56, and 44 is not ideal. Two is okay if one is the 7th defender but would rather just have only one on the roster.

Flame away!