Same here. Like DeBrincat, Knott was the Hawks first overall pick in a draft where they didn't have a first rounder so that for me is an extra reason to root for him to succeed. Maybe he emerges as a solid grinder in the bottom 6. Reports are that he's strong along the boards. Plus he has size at 6'3" and can play physical.
- AEL_Fox

Also ...... would like to hear Foley call the tieing goal by Knott ...."Knotts up the game"

Too bad Tyler Motte not with Hawks anymore ... love to hear Foley's call as Motte and Knott come in on a two on one ......... to Knott the game up

@ByScottPowers
21m21 minutes ago
More
The Blackhawks' lines and pairings for tonight appear to be:
Ejdsell-Anisimov-Sikura
Hayden-Kruger-Martinsen
Fortin-Kurashev-Highmore
Noel-Samuelsson-Kahun

Gustafsson-Dahlstrom
Hillman-Jokiharju
Davidson-Boqvist
- Justin Lowe

I like how Q is putting some size on the lines to go with the little guys. Or at least having somebody who "plays big". Need some size or strength to cycle the puck in the offensive zone. Also like how he pairs a smaller puck moving defensemen with stay at home defensemen, with more size. Good balance in that regard

is it the players fault for signing for what management has offered to pay them?
- glennjpawlak22

Is it the management's fault for offering their value based on market predictions of the cap rising?

This is always such a silly debate to me. They signed a year before they needed to and the cap was expected to rise significantly over the years after, but it did not and that sucks. Doesn't mean it wasn't market value at the time, especially when you consider cap % at signing being comparable to other stars. This means while the cap hit was more, the share of the cap was practically the same. For example, Toews/Kane's cap hit $ was about within 1% of other stars, like Crosby/Malkin (slightly more) and Ovechkin (slightly less). Share or percentage of cap is more important than actual hit amount and the Hawks were in-line with previous star signings.

It's also a tired debate. It rolls around like every two weeks lol.

Is it the management's fault for offering their value based on market predictions of the cap rising?

This is always such a silly debate to me. They signed a year before they needed to and the cap was expected to rise significantly over the years after, but it did not and that sucks. Doesn't mean it wasn't market value at the time, especially when you consider cap % at signing being comparable to other stars. This means while the cap hit was more, the share of the cap was practically the same. For example, Toews/Kane's cap hit $ was about within 1% of other stars, like Crosby/Malkin (slightly more) and Ovechkin (slightly less). Share or percentage of cap is more important than actual hit amount and the Hawks were in-line with previous star signings.
- L_B_R

Management must take many more things into account when running their business - the player ONLY has to look out for themselves and if they are presented with a contract they are happy with and sign it, good for the player - they have the option to not sign and ask for less (not likely). But if management is prudent (IE: Tampa) they could potentially discuss with said player why taking less than market is beneficial to the team (signing other players, potential flat cap increases in future, etc). If the team offers contracts in a vacuum and player signs, team is not managing their business prudently. What player would ever go the the team and say, lets scale my contract back a bit so you can sign other players or scale me back because i am worried the cap will remain flat the next few years. Yzerman seems to have mastered this....and his players are on same page....this is a skilled GM!!!!

Toews captained the Hawks to the best decade in Blackhawk hockey. He signed a contract that in part rewarded what he did the previous ten years. He and Kane could have signed for more but decided not to. The cap stagnation wasn't forseen by anyone. Toews' slide in play wasn't anticipated by anyone and certainly not by him. Yes a part of the decline in the Hawks play is attributed to the decline play of Toews but lets not forget the decline in Seabrook and Keith's play, the loss of Marion Hossa, the injury to Crawford, the lack of vereran depth and the mediocrity of the prospect pool directly related to the Hawks success are also contributing factors.

If Toews' play hadn't deteriorated at all last year do the Hawks make the playoffs? I don't know? But if Keith, Seabrook, Crawford and Hossa all had good seasons and the Hawk's still had some of their depth do they make the playoffs even with Toews' poor season? I'd bet the farm they would have.

It's a shame Toews' career seems to be at a crossroads but after the last ten years of the best hockey Hawk fans have ever witnessed I find it hard to be critical of the front office, coaching staff or any of the core players who are all on the downside of their careers.
- paulr

Very well said.

Management must take many more things into account when running their business - the player ONLY has to look out for themselves and if they are presented with a contract they are happy with and sign it, good for the player - they have the option to not sign and ask for less (not likely). But if management is prudent (IE: Tampa) they could potentially discuss with said player why taking less than market is beneficial to the team (signing other players, potential flat cap increases in future, etc). If the team offers contracts in a vacuum and player signs, team is not managing their business prudently. What player would ever go the the team and say, lets scale my contract back a bit so you can sign other players or scale me back because i am worried the cap will remain flat the next few years. Yzerman seems to have mastered this....and his players are on same page....this is a skilled GM!!!!
Its not a tired debate but sheds light on skilled GMs versus the rest of the pack
- glennjpawlak22

Is it the management's fault for offering their value based on market predictions of the cap rising?

This is always such a silly debate to me. They signed a year before they needed to and the cap was expected to rise significantly over the years after, but it did not and that sucks. Doesn't mean it wasn't market value at the time, especially when you consider cap % at signing being comparable to other stars. This means while the cap hit was more, the share of the cap was practically the same. For example, Toews/Kane's cap hit $ was about within 1% of other stars, like Crosby/Malkin (slightly more) and Ovechkin (slightly less). Share or percentage of cap is more important than actual hit amount and the Hawks were in-line with previous star signings.

It's also a tired debate. It rolls around like every two weeks lol.
- L_B_R

Sick of it also, all your points are good ones, and why this is a stupid thing to debate year after year.

That said, this time, it came up because Toews answered a question to a reporter, which I even have to say, was poorly answered. I don't know the context of it, so I won't go nuts, but he could've left it at, I took what was market at the time, when everyone thought cap was going up.

Or not answered it at all. He does come across as Richard with the full answer, at least what is written in the story.

Management must take many more things into account when running their business - the player ONLY has to look out for themselves and if they are presented with a contract they are happy with and sign it, good for the player - they have the option to not sign and ask for less (not likely). But if management is prudent (IE: Tampa) they could potentially discuss with said player why taking less than market is beneficial to the team (signing other players, potential flat cap increases in future, etc). If the team offers contracts in a vacuum and player signs, team is not managing their business prudently. What player would ever go the the team and say, lets scale my contract back a bit so you can sign other players or scale me back because i am worried the cap will remain flat the next few years. Yzerman seems to have mastered this....and his players are on same page....this is a skilled GM!!!!
- glennjpawlak22

Who’s team has won nothing and has been removed as gm.
I would rather have won 3 cups and complain about missing out on more.
Than have won’t nothing but looked good doing so.
Also the hawks were the first team to have superstars looking for a raise before the cap flattened giving us a problem that’s other teams used to show taking a little less will help

Who’s team has won nothing and has been removed as gm.
I would rather have won 3 cups and complain about missing out on more.
Than have won’t nothing but looked good doing so.
Also the hawks were the first team to have superstars looking for a raise before the cap flattened giving us a problem that’s other teams used to show taking a little less will help
- Abadseed

Agreed.

Management must take many more things into account when running their business - the player ONLY has to look out for themselves and if they are presented with a contract they are happy with and sign it, good for the player - they have the option to not sign and ask for less (not likely). But if management is prudent (IE: Tampa) they could potentially discuss with said player why taking less than market is beneficial to the team (signing other players, potential flat cap increases in future, etc). If the team offers contracts in a vacuum and player signs, team is not managing their business prudently. What player would ever go the the team and say, lets scale my contract back a bit so you can sign other players or scale me back because i am worried the cap will remain flat the next few years. Yzerman seems to have mastered this....and his players are on same page....this is a skilled GM!!!!
- glennjpawlak22

Yes, but would you rather have that skilled GM with no cups?

if I was toews, I would gladly give back millions. i mean wouldn't. i wouldn't do that.

Glad you stopped by, I've been saving this meme just for you!



- EnzoD

Enzo that is the post of the day!!!

Yes, but would you rather have that skilled GM with no cups?
- ToewsdNKanefusd

I was waiting for someone to respond with, "but it wasn't because of Bowman that the Hawks won the cups", but I will just state my case for why I think he has his (probably more so Bowman Sr.'s) fingerprints all over it.

First, everyone understands that Stan Bowman was hired in 2001 as assistant to the GM, correct?

Do you think they hired him just for the hell of it? Obviously, they hired him so that they would have his (and probably more so his fathers) advice on certain prospects and draft picks. I bet that some of the draft picks and trades they made over those first ten years before he became GM were made due to the Bowman's advice. I obviously have no proof of it, but I just doubt that he didn't have anything to do with who was on that 2010 team.

Yes, but would you rather have that skilled GM with no cups?
- ToewsdNKanefusd

no doubt we are all happy with 3 cups. but we all have to agree that there have been a number of bad contracts handed out by this GM. and those contracts are having serious impacts on the organization.

Toews captained the Hawks to the best decade in Blackhawk hockey. He signed a contract that in part rewarded what he did the previous ten years. He and Kane could have signed for more but decided not to. The cap stagnation wasn't forseen by anyone. Toews' slide in play wasn't anticipated by anyone and certainly not by him. Yes a part of the decline in the Hawks play is attributed to the decline play of Toews but lets not forget the decline in Seabrook and Keith's play, the loss of Marion Hossa, the injury to Crawford, the lack of vereran depth and the mediocrity of the prospect pool directly related to the Hawks success are also contributing factors.

If Toews' play hadn't deteriorated at all last year do the Hawks make the playoffs? I don't know? But if Keith, Seabrook, Crawford and Hossa all had good seasons and the Hawk's still had some of their depth do they make the playoffs even with Toews' poor season? I'd bet the farm they would have.

It's a shame Toews' career seems to be at a crossroads but after the last ten years of the best hockey Hawk fans have ever witnessed I find it hard to be critical of the front office, coaching staff or any of the core players who are all on the downside of their careers.
- paulr

Nice

no doubt we are all happy with 3 cups. but we all have to agree that there have been a number of bad contracts handed out by this GM. and those contracts are having serious impacts on the organization.
- glennjpawlak22

"A number of bad contracts"?

Toews, Kane, Seabrook - Kruger? Bickell?

Who else would you be referring to that had "serious impacts on the organization"?

So - of those - which ones were "bad" at the time they were negotiated?

I think only one - Seabrook - at his age at the time, length was an issue.

It turned out that Toews' and Kane's deals were problematic because the cap didn't increase the way "everyone" in the league thought it would; Kruger's was a "catch-up" for taking a below-market deal the year before; Bickell - absent injury and the awful MS diagnosis - would have quite possibly been a quality power forward for several years.

Panik and Anisimov - probably a bit above market value, but not excessively so.

And all of the NMC / NTC clauses - I looked at it about a year ago (don't have time to do it again) and the Hawks were on the high end with something like 7 contracts containing one or the other, but other Cup contending teams were mostly at 5 and 6 - so not really terrible, I think. The Hawks have 9 now, but 2 went to the one-year deals for Kunitz and Ward, and Kruger has one.

I think the worst decisions that Bowman has made have been some of the TDL deals (altho 3 Cups say maybe not) and waiting too long to pull the trigger on moves to make the team cap-compliant (I'm thinking of Leddy and Sharp in particular, altho many people think I'm wrong about this).

All that said - just like I have doubts that Q is the right coach for this rebuilding squad, I'm not that confident in Bowman's ability to do a rebuild in his position.

"A number of bad contracts"?

Toews, Kane, Seabrook - Kruger? Bickell?

Who else would you be referring to that had "serious impacts on the organization"?

So - of those - which ones were "bad" at the time they were negotiated?

I think only one - Seabrook - at his age at the time, length was an issue.

It turned out that Toews' and Kane's deals were problematic because the cap didn't increase the way "everyone" in the league thought it would; Kruger's was a "catch-up" for taking a below-market deal the year before; Bickell - absent injury and the awful MS diagnosis - would have quite possibly been a quality power forward for several years.

Panik and Anisimov - probably a bit above market value, but not excessively so.

And all of the NMC / NTC clauses - I looked at it about a year ago (don't have time to do it again) and the Hawks were on the high end with something like 7 contracts containing one or the other, but other Cup contending teams were mostly at 5 and 6 - so not really terrible, I think. The Hawks have 9 now, but 2 went to the one-year deals for Kunitz and Ward, and Kruger has one.

I think the worst decisions that Bowman has made have been some of the TDL deals (altho 3 Cups say maybe not) and waiting too long to pull the trigger on moves to make the team cap-compliant (I'm thinking of Leddy and Sharp in particular, altho many people think I'm wrong about this).

All that said - just like I have doubts that Q is the right coach for this rebuilding squad, I'm not that confident in Bowman's ability to do a rebuild in his position.
- StLBravesFan

Kane has been worth every penny of his 10.5M cap hit.

Kane has been worth every penny of his 10.5M cap hit.
- Slofire94

I like how Q is putting some size on the lines to go with the little guys. Or at least having somebody who "plays big". Need some size or strength to cycle the puck in the offensive zone. Also like how he pairs a smaller puck moving defensemen with stay at home defensemen, with more size. Good balance in that regard
- chuckdahammer

Good post. Agree on both points and hope that's something that we see more of during the upcoming season and beyond.

"Plays big" is the operative term, too, as you stated. Height and weight can be factors but I care most about the competitive drive to pursue every puck, consistency to defend the house like your life depends on it, and courage to stick up for your mates.

Who are you guys and gals looking forward to seeing tonight?

I will have my eye on the defence more than anything. I am really curious to see how Joki, Boqvist and Hillman look in game action.

Up front, I am intrigued to see if Fortin can have a preseason like he did 2 years ago.

why is Keith on the 1st unit PP? that ship has sailed
- glennjpawlak22

Exactly. Plus there are now plethora of offensive dmen current and prospects forthcoming whom would be better choices on pp.

I like this outcome but Q is sure to screw it up. A fresh Keith means a stronger performance from him

Not trying to be negative nancy but does anyone else feel like this is going to be another tough year for the hawks? maybe another no show at the playoffs.. idk. I feel like we're really gonna be missing Panarin
- MichaeLionheart

Don't know why I feel this way but I think the Hawks will be either a highly competitive team who storms into the playoffs or a team that shows more of the same (if not worse) than last year.

As for missing Panarin, did you mean missing his offense or missing out on signing him to a new deal? I say no to missing his offense as I don't think he is the missing piece to the puzzle and will fix what ails the Hawks. The team could still be bad with him on the team. And I say "wait and see" about whether the Hawks are in the running to sign him. I prefer to invest elsewhere but I know many pine for his return.

Exactly. Plus there are now plethora of offensive dmen current and prospects forthcoming whom would be better choices on pp.

I like this outcome but Q is sure to screw it up. A fresh Keith means a stronger performance from him
- jhawk59

Not sure Keith is going to touch the puck with Kane, Schmaltz, Toews and Debrincat on that first PP.

Maybe he's just out there to play defence and try to prevent SHGs. ha.

Exactly. Plus there are now plethora of offensive dmen current and prospects forthcoming whom would be better choices on pp.

I like this outcome but Q is sure to screw it up. A fresh Keith means a stronger performance from him
- jhawk59

Others have mentioned this before in the past but is the fact that Keith is a staple on the PP more out of ego than talent? Guessing that's just rumor mill.

Yes he has experience and has been all world for much of his career but being a PP specialist has not been his calling card. And like you said, the Hawks have new toys to play with who could bring the same (if not more or better) than Keith.

I'd be interested in seeing Jokiharju playing QB on one of the units with Gustafsson the QB on the other. Forsling should get a shot as well once he is fully healed and recalled.

Who are you guys and gals looking forward to seeing tonight?

I will have my eye on the defence more than anything. I am really curious to see how Joki, Boqvist and Hillman look in game action.

Up front, I am intrigued to see if Fortin can have a preseason like he did 2 years ago.
- Justin Lowe

Kahun, Ejdsell, Sikura and Kruger. I l think Kruger is far from a lock to make the team which is why he’s part of this “try-out” game roster.

The entire defense group and Cam Ward should be tested tonight by a decent amount of Columbus’ NHL regulars.