17th!!

Hawks need to score first.

Don't Panic. Go Hawks!
- Beaver-Warrior

Don't shortchange yourself you were #15

My mind goes to 2-7-10-19-36-81-88.
- Al

Mine's a tad bit shorter 19 & 81. The rest could be had for the right price.

Don't shortchange yourself you were #15


- jhawk159

Someone was counting....

Two edges the Hawks had coming into this series...3rd line and defense 1-6.

I like to bring up the importance of a vg 3rd line....so does Babcock.

From Sun Times today...Mark Lazures

Talking about the top 2 lines canceling each out...

That's normally what happens in hockey," Babcock said. "That's why they give you a third line, and that third line's supposed to win you the series. That's what happened for Chicago and Anaheim in the regular season -- their third line was better than everyone else's. ... That's what's happened for us, is our third line's gotten better. The third line, like the rest of our group the other night, was not very good. If we're going to be successful, we need our third and fourth lines to be good. Their third and fourth lines were better than ours the other night."

Babcock goes on to say the 3rd line was also the reason the Hawks and Ducks were better than everyone else during the regular season.

Mine's a tad bit shorter 19 & 81. The rest could be had for the right price.
- Beaver-Warrior

It could come down to 19 only...

But after the Cup it was the 7 mentioned.

Mine's a tad bit shorter 19 & 81. The rest could be had for the right price.
- Beaver-Warrior

You just can't trade 88, 2, and 7 - who would you replace these guys with. I always found the talk of trading Keith funny. He may not be a PP specialists but he's excellent in every other scenario. Seabrook may be having an off season, but you don't trade him (he was our best defenseman in 2011/2012). You could argue trading Sharp, but I would rather keep him.

Bolland has made himself expendable, no question about it.

Hossa is an interesting situation though. I have absolutely no issue with his play, but given his contract his name could be thrown around as a compliance buyout. I don't seriously think this will happen, but if we're talking about one of the core moving it's as likely as anything else.

It could come down to 19 only...

But after the Cup it was the 7 mentioned.
- Al

Very true on both counts. At this moment, just don't see 19 & 81 being moved. Anyone else,I can see being moved after the season is over. Just my spin on things.

You just can't trade 88, 2, and 7 - who would you replace these guys with. I always found the talk of trading Keith funny. He may not be a PP specialists but he's excellent in every other scenario. Seabrook may be having an off season, but you don't trade him (he was our best defenseman in 2011/2012). You could argue trading Sharp, but I would rather keep him.

Bolland has made himself expendable, no question about it.

Hossa is an interesting situation though. I have absolutely no issue with his play, but given his contract his name could be thrown around as a compliance buyout. I don't seriously think this will happen, but if we're talking about one of the core moving it's as likely as anything else.
- DarthKane

As I said Brother, IF the price is right. Not saying to trade anyone. I won't be shocked if it did happen.

As I said Brother, IF the price is right. Not saying to trade anyone. I won't be shocked if it did happen.
- Beaver-Warrior

Everyone can be traded for the right price, no doubt about it. If a deal made the team better then I have no problem trading anyone.

Everyone can be traded for the right price, no doubt about it. If a deal made the team better then I have no problem trading anyone.
- DarthKane

Seabrook has appeared to be less than aware the whole season.

Leddy has outplayed Seabrook during the playoffs but Kitchen has orders to use 4 men and if you look at TOI 3 of 4 all were similar playing time.

Actually Oduya had the most TOI after 40 mins and and Keith and Seabrook were within about 60 seconds of him

Leddy will play more at some point if there is a next series, but he should have more PP time now.
- Al

Al, thanks -- always find your insight quite interesting. No question Leddy has outplayed Seabrook. And maybe then I read too much into this -- but if Kitchen is told to use 4 guys -- then I have to believe (given Leddy's play and Seabrook's lack thereof) that this is as much as anything about Leddy's RFA value.

Guess they can't have Leddy play top 4 minutes while demoting Seabrook (even though that's well deserved IMO).

So, Seabrook gets a free pass
Leddy sits more than he should
Chicago gets the short end of the stick -- because this could be one of the things that costs them the series.

Leddy has the ability to change the game. But Q's hard-headedness is coming through most loud and clear.

I'm hoping the boys pull off the W tonight -- but at the same time, I really want Q gone. NOW!

You just can't trade 88, 2, and 7 - who would you replace these guys with. I always found the talk of trading Keith funny. He may not be a PP specialists but he's excellent in every other scenario. Seabrook may be having an off season, but you don't trade him (he was our best defenseman in 2011/2012). You could argue trading Sharp, but I would rather keep him.

Bolland has made himself expendable, no question about it.

Hossa is an interesting situation though. I have absolutely no issue with his play, but given his contract his name could be thrown around as a compliance buyout. I don't seriously think this will happen, but if we're talking about one of the core moving it's as likely as anything else.
- DarthKane

Pretty much spot on. Although Seabrook's cap it is near 6mil. I would add 4 to that given his near perfect defensive play day in and day out and his reasonable cap hit.

You just can't trade 88, 2, and 7 - who would you replace these guys with. I always found the talk of trading Keith funny. He may not be a PP specialists but he's excellent in every other scenario. Seabrook may be having an off season, but you don't trade him (he was our best defenseman in 2011/2012). You could argue trading Sharp, but I would rather keep him.

Bolland has made himself expendable, no question about it.

Hossa is an interesting situation though. I have absolutely no issue with his play, but given his contract his name could be thrown around as a compliance buyout. I don't seriously think this will happen, but if we're talking about one of the core moving it's as likely as anything else.
- DarthKane

Well, get Stan's ass out there to see - probably not enough, but he ain't appraising and evaluating, he ain't doing his job.

Al, thanks -- always find your insight quite interesting. No question Leddy has outplayed Seabrook. And maybe then I read too much into this -- but if Kitchen is told to use 4 guys -- then I have to believe (given Leddy's play and Seabrook's lack thereof) that this is as much as anything about Leddy's RFA value.

Guess they can't have Leddy play top 4 minutes while demoting Seabrook (even though that's well deserved IMO).

So, Seabrook gets a free pass
Leddy sits more than he should
Chicago gets the short end of the stick -- because this could be one of the things that costs them the series.

Leddy has the ability to change the game. But Q's hard-headedness is coming through most loud and clear.

I'm hoping the boys pull off the W tonight -- but at the same time, I really want Q gone. NOW!
- savvyone-1

I don't think this has anything to do with free agency. The coaches want to win too. If they are going to be fired if they lose this series why on earth would they not play the players they think gives them the best shot to win? Because the management that is about to fire them tells them too? No. Q is playing the defense that he thinks give him the best shot at winning the game. Lets not forget the Leddy of last year- too much ice time and constantly getting burned defensively. Yes hes improved, but maybe part of the reason is also the way he is being used. I find it hard to criticize the defensive decisions when they played the way they did game 5.

3-2 Chicago .... Kane scores twice.

3-2 Chicago .... Kane scores twice.
- imsorry66

You are welcome to post here anytime.

I don't think this has anything to do with free agency. The coaches want to win too. If they are going to be fired if they lose this series why on earth would the not play the players they think gives them the best shot to when? Because the management that is about to fire them tells them too? No. Q is playing the defense that he thinks give him the best shot at winning the game. Lets not forget the Leddy of last year- too much ice time and constantly getting burned defensively. Yes hes improve, but maybe part of the reason is also the way he is being used. I find it hard to criticize the defensive decisions when they played the way they did game 5.
- wkol2593

Agree. Good comment.

3-2 Chicago .... Kane scores twice.
- imsorry66

Kane took a WICKED slash from Ericsson late in Game 5. Hope he's o.k. .

Other than that TOMAHAWKS ACTIVATE !!!!!!!!

Two edges the Hawks had coming into this series...3rd line and defense 1-6.

I like to bring up the importance of a vg 3rd line....so does Babcock.

From Sun Times today...Mark Lazures

Talking about the top 2 lines canceling each out...

That's normally what happens in hockey," Babcock said. "That's why they give you a third line, and that third line's supposed to win you the series. That's what happened for Chicago and Anaheim in the regular season -- their third line was better than everyone else's. ... That's what's happened for us, is our third line's gotten better. The third line, like the rest of our group the other night, was not very good. If we're going to be successful, we need our third and fourth lines to be good. Their third and fourth lines were better than ours the other night."

Babcock goes on to say the 3rd line was also the reason the Hawks and Ducks were better than everyone else during the regular season.
- Al

Good thing Q went away from things that worked in games 1 and 2

Let's go HAWKS!

Jamal Mayers fined for shooting pucks by the Wings into their net during Game 5 warmups.

http://www.chicagotribune...-20130527,0,1031917.story

"I was trying to get under their skin, I'm not going to hide behind it or lie to you," Mayers said after the Hawks' morning skate before Game 6 on Monday at Joe Louis Arena. "The league fined me and took the appropriate action and I'll pay the piper.

"All of us in there will do anything to win. I don't want the focus to be me. I was just trying to get under their skin."

First goal tonight, like any night, is HUGE. My fear is that they come out hard and have nothing to show for it and then revert back to 2011 Hawks. We saw it against PHX last year in the elim game. First period was neck and neck and then the dam started to leak and finished with a 4-0 loss.

First goal tonight, like any night, is HUGE. My fear is that they come out hard and have nothing to show for it and then revert back to 2011 Hawks. We saw it against PHX last year in the elim game. First period was neck and neck and then the dam started to leak and finished with a 4-0 loss.
- eburgio

I kind of thought games 2-4 had the Phoenix feel to them too--or, rather, some of these games have the pre-2005 lockout feel to them. Goals are just hard to come by, and if you can't score on the power play it isn't a good feeling. Regular season, 'Hawks scored plenty 5-5--until the other night, of course, nothing on the power play.

Not rocket science, but perhaps it comes down to whichever team capitalizes on its pp tonight. Last two games, pp goals were really the deciding factor.

>JJ, well put
>As mentioned yesterday, I am very curious to see how having only one day off affects the Wings -- cuts down on the time their older players have to rest and their younger players have to be "coached up" off the ice
>Hopefully the Hawks finally understand the level of effort needed in all phases of the game to beat a Babcock-led Wings team
>They finally reached that effort in puck retrieval on the PP in Game 5

You just can't trade 88, 2, and 7 - who would you replace these guys with. I always found the talk of trading Keith funny. He may not be a PP specialists but he's excellent in every other scenario. Seabrook may be having an off season, but you don't trade him (he was our best defenseman in 2011/2012). You could argue trading Sharp, but I would rather keep him.

Bolland has made himself expendable, no question about it.

Hossa is an interesting situation though. I have absolutely no issue with his play, but given his contract his name could be thrown around as a compliance buyout. I don't seriously think this will happen, but if we're talking about one of the core moving it's as likely as anything else.
- DarthKane

Not to pick on you, but do you see the Texas-sized contradiction in what you just said. You can't trade Keith, Seabrook or Kane—because they can't be replaced. But you can buy out Hossa (assuming he would be replaced)?

The reason I am going to sort of tear this apart is because you are not alone—there is a cross-section of Hawk fans who think the same way.

First, what do you think the Hawks would get back in a deal for Patrick Kane? A box of tape and a couple of minor leaguers? But let's just say you dealt him to Florida for the #2 overall pick (Nathan McKinnon or Jonathan Drouin) and Dmitry Kulikov. The return for Kane would be closer to that than a bag of pucks. Trust me. Does that make the Hawks a worse team? I don't think so. Maybe even a better team, even if the kids in the bars can't oooh and ahhh anymore over "Kaner" lighting up Colorado for 4 points in February.

If you buy out Hossa, what do you get back—and please don't say "cap relief" because that's now been proven to be basically false. Answer, nothing.

The only guy, today, I put an untouchable tag on is Toews and that is because of both his ability and his intangibles on and off the ice.

After that, Keith (even though the Hawks probably use him in too many situations), Hossa, Sharp and Hjalmarsson would be my next tier. That is not to say they are better players than Kane (well, I think Hossa actually is a better player all around), but because they contribute on so many levels, where Kane, while he's fun to watch at times, doesn't.

My next tier would be Kane, Seabrook, Leddy.

Even though Kane likely brings you back more in trade than any of the above except Toews, he might not be worth more to your franchise. Kane is an exciting, marquee player who will sell tickets. I'm not sure he's all that great of an all around hockey player.