And by hurt you mean hungover right
- rollpards19

When it comes to Khabby, if "hurt" is the code word for hungover, is "stinking drunk" the code word for healthy?

I heard a young Hawk family wanted CC to take a picture with their new baby. The dad handed CC the baby, but on the glove side. Baby fell but was OK...






- TrueGrit

Brutal... give CC a break. He did keep us in it. Everyone has bad games. Lets not forget that he out dueled several damn good net minders in Howard, Quick and the great Rask.

Brutal... give CC a break. He did keep us in it. Everyone has bad games. Lets not forget that he out dueled several damn good net minders in Howard, Quick and the great Rask.
- z1990z

'twas a joke. Lighten up.

And a surprise to nobody......Jagr goes to the team with the best offer $$ wise. What a clown. All this guy wants is $$, and will be pawned off on some stupid GM at the deadline this spring.
- SteveRain

I don't have an issue with this. Jagr's career won't last much longer and he doesn't have many years left to many money at hockey. This way he takes a big deal and he'll likely play for a contender in the spring. It sounds much better than taking a paycut now to play for a contender.

Because I'm bored at work and there's no Hawks news, a little hypothetical action. Try to remove all bias (its hard haha) What players at the same position (ie center for center, wing for wing, d for d) would you trade Toews, Kane, and Keith straight up for. For example, I'd trade Toews for Crosby (my homerism bone hurts), but not Stamkos or Malkin. I'd trade Kane for Ovechkin, but not Nash or St. Louis. I'd trade Keith for Weber, but not Subban or Pietrangelo. Just curious to see what the boys have to say. Fire away

Because I'm bored at work and there's no Hawks news, a little hypothetical action. Try to remove all bias (its hard haha) What players at the same position (ie center for center, wing for wing, d for d) would you trade Toews, Kane, and Keith straight up for. For example, I'd trade Toews for Crosby (my homerism bone hurts), but not Stamkos or Malkin. I'd trade Kane for Ovechkin, but not Nash or St. Louis. I'd trade Keith for Weber, but not Subban or Pietrangelo. Just curious to see what the boys have to say. Fire away
- rollpards19

Ok, I'll bite. I'd trade Kane for Stamkos.

As for Toews or Keith, I wouldn't trade either one.

'twas a joke. Lighten up.
- biegs

Wasnt remotely bothered by it... just like to prop CC when the chance presents itself.

Ok, I'll bite. I'd trade Kane for Stamkos.

As for Toews or Keith, I wouldn't trade either one.
- EKolb13

I agree with all of this. Most would do the Keith for Weber deal, though. But not me.

Yet the U.S. beat them in Pool play and then lost in OT.
- nickmo2699

It's hockey - outcomes can be a bit random, especially with all of the low-scoring games when great teams play each other.

I agree with all of this. Most would do the Keith for Weber deal, though. But not me.
- tomcat24

Me neither. Not for the extra $2.5 million cap hit for the next 12 or 13 seasons.

Considering Seabrook played like HELL vs Detroit in the playoffs, rode the pine the entire gold medal game in Vancouver while rocking his Eddie Munster hair style, I don't see how he makes Team Canada. Baring an injury to major guy, he's not going....
- SteveRain

Seabrook got benched in the Vancouver Olympics on an NHL ice surface. Guys are going to walk around him on an international surface like he's standing still. I agree, he doesn't belong in Sochi, and I think Babcock (who benched him in Vancouver) realizes that. Still take him on my team, just not the olympics.

Seabrook got benched in the Vancouver Olympics on an NHL ice surface. Guys are going to walk around him on an international surface like he's standing still. I agree, he doesn't belong in Sochi, and I think Babcock (who benched him in Vancouver) realizes that. Still take him on my team, just not the olympics.
- 6628

Agreed....and I like the guy, just don't think he's Olympian.

Outside of the USA, I could care less about the other teams...If Toews, Keith, Sharp, Seabrook, Hossa, don't play for their countries...I won't complain....

Trying to guess what thoughts going through Biwman's mind on his prospects.

The safe plan is to go with what you have in house given the salary cap constraint and with the belief that your own prospects have not yet shown they are close to replacing a current roster player. This is not the ideal choice, given that Bowman prefers a mobile skating team. Now, however, Bowman has one year to see how kids develop and to continue thinking and planning what veteran core player(s) may later on regretfully be moved.

Expect Rozival skates well enough to play here in the second year of his contract? Expect that Olsen's skating and decision making improves? I would guess Dahlbeck is the one who wins a spot over both of them, but we wait and see how capable Rozival and Olsen prove to be by the end of next season. Or even by the one quarter mark two years away.

Meanwhile, the timetable for a Clendenning and McNeill is an even greater unknown. Clendenning may need a third AHL season and McNeill does appear to be talented but enigmatic. McNeill looks like he would be the player who you would like to plug in if Sharp is moved after next season.

These Rockford call ups the past couple years are going to determine their fate by showing whether they are willing and capable to become better rounded players. They are not likely ever top six players in Chicago and none of them skate well enough to become entrenched on a third or fourth line.

Smith probably has the better game so he would be the top choice to stick around for a while. With the prospect pipeline churning out more NHL possible projected, you keep an eye on the development of a Broadhurst, the skinny light Nordstrom. You know that Danault and Tervainen will play NHL when their time comes.

I like what wiz said about the Pirri/Hayes/Morin/Smith group....that the one who is best or quickest at getting back into the flow, into center ice in backchecking [therefore gets Q's attention] is more likely to receive playing time.

But in the final call on that group, their NHL performance is hopefully encouraging enough as to recoup a draft choice when they are moved. As i was saying....you cannot skate well enough and your talent is not top six, then you will not stay here. I know that Bickel hung around, but he was in a different situation. He was always cheap insurance and his game/talent just enough of a tease to keep him around. Turned out after the first Cup that a spot was there for him. There is not going to be a spot in two years for the Hayes and Morin and maybe Smith as well. And seriously, the skating could not improve enough for those guys (believe it).

The one thing I keep thinking could possible hold up a final decision on those guys, however, is in regard to Morin. He has that shot and is willing to play chippy. I see how he could win a game being spotted on a fourth or even a top line. He could sit or even if plying his performance could even lend itself to a description of being invisible...until say Kane sets him up for the game winner.

Hayes just falls down and is not going to improve on that turning radius or getting to his check too late. Pirri has to become better at face offs and physically be stronger. Perhaps he may want it bad enough, but until I see that....his skill level like others say on the board is to be a top six or not at all. The Islanders may take a look at him?

Stanton is just a 7th dman. Can he be a # 6? I will take the word of bloggers like EKolb. No, he is a depth #7 until we hear otherwise. Beach actually may get a look but he won't play here any significant # of games. And it is only his board work and warrior mentality that gets him consideration. Teams need physical players. Beach has game and skating improvement. Bowman has gambled, he sees something, so I guess he may get a look. More as a motivational tool than anything else as far as Beach's mindset needs to be challenged. He does have ability but it is his toughness and physical attributes that get him a look.

You know...I am going to go off the reservation here a bit....

I have read countless entries about Crawford and how he is blessed with the Hawks D and system. Similar to the arguments you hear about NFL qbs like Drew Brees or Tom Brady who are "system qbs".

Crawford, like Niemi, let in some very bad goals in the playoffs...Clutterbuck, game 6 vs Detroit, etc. However, like Niemi he bounced back and what game did he truly $hit the bed that gave the Hawks NO chance to win?

Is he the 2nd coming of Patrick Roy? NO...but I think at some point the hatred for him has to end and people need to realize that he is good enough to win and win consistently in this league...Without him in 2011, they may not make the playoffs OR sniff game 7 vs Vancouver. Yes, he sucked vs Phoenix, but the whole team did...

I'm not a huge CC guy, but all this talk about about Raanta is just that....talk. Raanta is very raw, very unproven ,and may not prove anything at the NHL level before it's time for this management to make a very hard decision on what to pay CC and/or roll the dice with a very large unknown Finn.

It'll take at least 4.5-5.5 to ink Crawford depending upon the years. It'll cost the Hawks at least the same to sign Hammer. from there, they'll have to make a decision on buying out Hossa, trading a Sharp or Seabrook or Oduya....and the last big one is the wonder twins...

If an @ss clown like Gagner can get 4.8 and LIttle can get 4.7 what will Toews and Kane get? 2 unmatched comparables that are going to cost Rocky some serious coin. No coincidence Kruger and Leddy's deals both expire in time to sign Kane and Toews, because Bowman knows he'll need every penny to get it done.

And yes, the cap will go up, but to sky rocket 15-20 million in 2 years? I think not....Maybe to 75 million by the start of the 2015-16 season, at best.
- SteveRain

Hypothetically speaking, lets assume that you are in the ballpark. That would mean that you have $11million more than current to play with. Lets assume you get Toews and Kane for $8.5 each. Thats $4.5 million gone. Lets next assume you can get Hjarm for $5 mil. Now $6 of the $11 mil is gone. Assuming you are keeping the same team together this long (longshot), and you have identified the "expanded core", You have $5million left for increases to whomever you choose to keep of Leddy, Oduya, Kruger and Saad.

Of course this also assumes that whomever is plugging into the other 4-5 open slots each year are drawing around $1mil or less in salary.

I will take the word of bloggers like EKolb.
- jhawk59

1) I'm not a "blogger." Nor do I run a blog, facilitate a blog or write a blog. I'm just a guy who posts comments in the thread, or comments section of someone's blog. From the looks of things, so are you.

2) Just in case if it didn't sink in the first time, I'm not a "blogger."

3) Refrain from calling me out or "dropping" my name in the middle of your posts. I don't want to be associated with you, or whatever thought or other useless drivel you spew, whether it be about hockey or which tablet you care to use.

4) If you feel the need to "discuss" a certain topic, hit the "quote" button and actually reply to the point. This thread is not your personal "blogging" dump site, but rather it is used for the matters of conversing, debating and arguing thoughts and points.

Because I'm bored at work and there's no Hawks news, a little hypothetical action. Try to remove all bias (its hard haha) What players at the same position (ie center for center, wing for wing, d for d) would you trade Toews, Kane, and Keith straight up for. For example, I'd trade Toews for Crosby (my homerism bone hurts), but not Stamkos or Malkin. I'd trade Kane for Ovechkin, but not Nash or St. Louis. I'd trade Keith for Weber, but not Subban or Pietrangelo. Just curious to see what the boys have to say. Fire away
- rollpards19

I would not trade Toews for ANYONE.

I would trade Keith for Weber , Suter or even Pietrangelo (7 years younger)

I would trade Kane for Stamkos or Giroux

1) I'm not a "blogger." Nor do I run a blog, facilitate a blog or write a blog. I'm just a guy who posts comments in the thread, or comments section of someone's blog. From the looks of things, so are you.

2) Just in case if it didn't sink in the first time, I'm not a "blogger."

3) Refrain from calling me out or "dropping" my name in the middle of your posts. I don't want to be associated with you, or whatever thought or other useless drivel you spew, whether it be about hockey or which tablet you care to use.

4) If you feel the need to "discuss" a certain topic, hit the "quote" button and actually reply to the point. This thread is not your personal "blogging" dump site, but rather it is used for the matters of conversing, debating and arguing thoughts and points.
- EKolb13

Dont's have a cow, man. I read his reference to you as either: 1. innocuous or 2. complimentary. He probably meant "posters" where he said "bloggers".

Dont's have a cow, man. I read his reference to you as either: 1. innocuous or 2. complimentary. He probably meant "posters" where he said "bloggers".
- Cmonalready

It wasn't directed at you. Mind your own business.

Uh... No. Hammer.
- busmaster

What do you think my comment concerned?

Do not commit a huge amount to CC long term...period.

If you're referring to HJalmarsson, I do want him resigned for 3 years minimum.

If you're referring to Hjalmarsson, I do want him resigned for 3 years minimum.
- ArlingtonRob

Agreed. I'd love to see Hjalmarsson locked up long term.

It wasn't directed at you. Mind your own business.
- EKolb13

Eli....are you ok man? You're post was fine but you seem a little more cranky pants than usual.

Agreed. I'd love to see Hjalmarsson locked up long term.
- EKolb13

5 years $25 million should do it.

Eli....are you ok man? You're post was fine but you seem a little more cranky pants than usual.
- DarthKane

"More cranky pants than usual?"

I'm fine, or rather I'm my usual "crankypants" self, thanks for asking.

I guess I don't appreciate somebody else stepping in the middle of the pissing contest I'm involved in, that's all.

I'm not ripping Niemi but there was a very large difference at that point vs what may transpire by June of 2014.

1. Crawford was seasoned AHL goalie.
2. He battled Niemi in camp, and proved he could at least play at the NHL level
3. Raanta is neither proven or seasoned in the north America game.
4. So if they let Crawford walk, you save money, you still have to resign Raanta as he will be a RFA, and THEN bring in a patch work goalie that gives you a chance to compete in arguably your last year to win with the current roster, as bodies will have to leave with Toews and kane impending cap hit increases.

That's all I am saying. The Crawford saga will pan itself out very quickly....NO waite, see how he shows up in camp conditioning wise, and how his performance pans out.

I wouldn't bet against C2. He passed up for the likes of Khabibulin, Lalime, Huet, Turco, and Niemi.

Contract years have a funny way of playing themselves out....
- SteveRain

As I said above, not sure it is really the last Hurrah. Lets assume we are talking about going into the '15-16 season, and the cap is $75 mil. Assume the "core" to be those signed thru that season or beyond, and assume that Toews and Kane, Hjaamarsson will be retained. That means the "core" based on this definition is Toews, Kane, Hossa, Sharp, Bickell, Keith, Seabrook, Hjalmarsson.

Here is where the cap hit assumption come in. Assume $8.5 is reasonable for Toews and Kane (Crosby, Perry, Getzlaf, Giroux, etc all around that number). Assume Hjalmarsson is at $5mil (he possibly gets more as a #1 somewhere, but lets just assume). That leaves $5mil to give raises to Kruger, Leddy, Saad & Shaw, again assuming they are the players identified as "keepers". Completely doable, unless any of them prove to have "breakout" years. Assume that Oduyas $3.4, Rosivals $2.2 and Handzus' $1mil are spread over replacements, resignings or 'youth".

The last thing you have is the Goalie position. If all the above assumptions are more or less correct, you have about $6mil to spend on 2 goalies. If CC wants $5-6 he is gone, as it does not fit into the structure. I would assume the Hawks would be more apt to have the $3.5-4 million starter (or less) and the $1-$2million backup than a $5.5 mil starter and a minimum salary backup.

It wasn't directed at you. Mind your own business.
- EKolb13

Everyone needs to calm down. Eat some fruit or something...