I would prefer moving Shaw to the wing....
- UnnamedSource

I agree. I think that's where his long term future is.

If you did that, you are now short 2 centers for next year.

- Because the Hawks didn't win the Cup, some people want to make major changes. Really?
- Hawks came one lucky bounce from returning to the SCF where they likely would have won their second straight Cup. This is hardly a failure of a season.
- While the Kings deserved to advance, I do NOT think they were the better team. The better team doesn't need a lucky bounce in OT of Game 7 to prove it. At least they could have won Game 7 decisively.
- By the same token, Hawks were NOT a lucky bounce away from getting beat by the Blues or Wild. They won both series in six games and were clearly the better team.
- The fact the Hawks gave up a 2-goal lead is painful, but it doesn't diminish how really close they were. Kings nearly blew a 3-games-to-1 lead.

Therefore I can't understand anyone saying the team needs major changes. I even further can't understand anyone saying they need depth. I mean, they do, but show me a NHL team that doesn't need depth.

I would:

- NOT break up the Keith-Seabrook-Hjalmarsson trio. To me, this trio is what separates the Hawks from all other teams. Nobody can touch this.
- NOT overpay for Kesler. Kane will get over it.
- Trade Sharp but only if it makes the team better.
- Trade Bickell if it makes the team better -- yeah he's big and can skate but he's a role player. You can find guys like that.
- Trade TT if it brings someone who can help the team win now. Some think TT will be a superstar. Others say he will be a bust. That's the thing with prospects, either one could be true. We just don't know.

I love the draft. For one day I get to see what TSN is all about.

I drink and watch my twitter melt down. It's better then the trade deadline. This year, I bet it's even better with cap space going up and teams needing to hit the floor.
- SteveRain

I can't believe there is no way to get TSN in the States. The phone app does not do it any justice

LA wins again last night - you can't help but think of what have been had the Hawks not been so sloppy in their own end during the WCFs. I'm also reminded of the 85 Bears who should have won multiple titles, but were outdone by the Niners and the Giants even during that time. The Kings are now the model franchise and they're not going anywhere. The pressure is on the Bowmans now more than ever.

Pass on Richards. Kane wants Kesler and they should try to accommodate him. Whether the Canucks will be willing to move him to Chicago remains to be seen.
But again will Bowman actually make a move. Bowman's inability to get a 2nd line center over several years here is disappointing to say the least and now he knows it may have well cost him a Cup.

I still think defensive improvements should be the higher priority. Another big physical dman to pair with Hammer would be a good start. Leddy continues to have great offensive upside and skating ability, but he was bad defensively throughout the playoffs. I can't see him as your #4. The Hawks let the other teams camp out in front of Craw and did little to move them out throughout the playoffs.

So are either Oduya or Leddy moved in a package for a center? I can't see them doing nothing not with the way McD operates. I'm sure he'd like nothing better than to trot out a couple of new big names at the convention.
- DK002

And yet despite no 2C, and despite being sloppy in our own end, we could have just as easily had a bounce go our way in OT of game 7 and then we're the model franchise and LA is sitting here nit picking at every little thing.

Every team has their weaknesses, even LA wasn't perfect against us. Such a thin margin, i think only minor tweeking is needed going into next season. We aren't that far off at all to the point where we should consider reconstructing the D or trading our leading scorer. Hey if we could be aggressive at making major moves to improve and somehow not create other holes on our team, then id be all for it...

I can't believe there is no way to get TSN in the States. The phone app does not do it any justice
- mrpaulish

I'm with you...

Don't punish me too hard Eli.....

BUT....

What is an E4?

In a salary cap world you can't have everything....think of how close to the SC we came without one.....and think of how many SC's we've won with out one......and over the past six years we've been the WCF's without one....this is not a one time thing...or an anomaly......in a salary cap world you have to make choices....you can only have 2 out of three per say....which do you pick?

1- Bottom six depth
2- 2C
3- Defensive depth....
- UnnamedSource

Coming close to a SC doesn't mean anything. If we play the "look how close they came" game, how stupid was it to hold off on acquiring a 2C?

Not being able to roll 4 lines is a product of not having the proper piece in place to begin with. Fixing the 2C hole fixes the depth issue IMO.

What good is it for a puck possession team to play someone at C that can't win FO's? The Kings feasted on the Hawks in the FO circle in the WCF. Is Andrew Shaw going to raise his FO% 7+ points in one offseason? Is Marcus Kruger going to develop an offensive game that's even passable as a 2C? That being said, I would be comfortable with them as the bottom 6 C's next season.

- Because the Hawks didn't win the Cup, some people want to make major changes. Really?
- Hawks came one lucky bounce from returning to the SCF where they likely would have won their second straight Cup. This is hardly a failure of a season.
- While the Kings deserved to advance, I do NOT think they were the better team. The better team doesn't need a lucky bounce in OT of Game 7 to prove it. At least they could have won Game 7 decisively.
- By the same token, Hawks were NOT a lucky bounce away from getting beat by the Blues or Wild. They won both series in six games and were clearly the better team.
- The fact the Hawks gave up a 2-goal lead is painful, but it doesn't diminish how really close they were. Kings nearly blew a 3-games-to-1 lead.

Therefore I can't understand anyone saying the team needs major changes. I even further can't understand anyone saying they need depth. I mean, they do, but show me a NHL team that doesn't need depth.

I would:

- NOT break up the Keith-Seabrook-Hjalmarsson trio. To me, this trio is what separates the Hawks from all other teams. Nobody can touch this.
- NOT overpay for Kesler. Kane will get over it.
- Trade Sharp but only if it makes the team better.
- Trade Bickell if it makes the team better -- yeah he's big and can skate but he's a role player. You can find guys like that.
- Trade TT if it brings someone who can help the team win now. Some think TT will be a superstar. Others say he will be a bust. That's the thing with prospects, either one could be true. We just don't know.
- RomanF

Love the optimism....but....

The Hawks were badly outplayed in long stretches vs STL and Minnesota. Lost 2 in OT vs STL, won 2 in OT vs STL. Corey Crawford saved their bacon in both series.

Hawks can play with the Kings, they just need their depth shored up and to get their big guys producing.

The rest I agree with.

Don't punish me too hard Eli.....

BUT....

What is an E4?
- SteveRain

It can be found here: http://www.hockeybuzz.com/faq.php

I was under the impression that Seabrook is on the top pairing. I don't get how talking about the Kings defensive grouping answers how dealing Seabrook makes the Hawks better. It doesn't.
- mohel

If they can round out their top lines so they have a more effective 1 - 2 punch and a suffocating forcheck on lines 3 and 4 it would make them more difficult to play against in my opinion. Keeps the puck as far away from their goal as possible.

It can be found here: http://www.hockeybuzz.com/faq.php
- EKolb13

that was supposed to be in red....

Saw their are black beers running wild up in Rockford.

Love the optimism....but....

The Hawks were badly outplayed in long stretches vs STL and Minnesota. Lost 2 in OT vs STL, won 2 in OT vs STL. Corey Crawford saved their bacon in both series.

Hawks can play with the Kings, they just need their depth shored up and to get their big guys producing.

The rest I agree with.
- SteveRain

Agreed, the series against the Blues was about as even as it can get. (Except for one bad 3rd period in game 6)

that was supposed to be in red....

Saw their are black beers running wild up in Rockford.
- SteveRain

You mean "bears," right?

Yeah, I guess there is supposedly "one" on the loose in this county and the neighboring county, with more sightings in the two counties to the West of Rockford.

It doesn't bother me at all.

You mean "bears," right?

Yeah, I guess there is supposedly "one" on the loose in this county and the neighboring county, with more sightings in the two counties to the West of Rockford.

It doesn't bother me at all.
- EKolb13

I phone...apparently I type "beers" a lot.....

be careful. A hungry black BEAR is nothing to write off. Especially if you have a cat or dog.

I would prefer moving Shaw to the wing....
- UnnamedSource

I would too - but they're still a center short in my fantasy there.

Coming close to a SC doesn't mean anything. If we play the "look how close they came" game, how stupid was it to hold off on acquiring a 2C?

Not being able to roll 4 lines is a product of not having the proper piece in place to begin with. Fixing the 2C hole fixes the depth issue IMO.

What good is it for a puck possession team to play someone at C that can't win FO's? The Kings feasted on the Hawks in the FO circle in the WCF. Is Andrew Shaw going to raise his FO% 7+ points in one offseason? Is Marcus Kruger going to develop an offensive game that's even passable as a 2C? That being said, I would be comfortable with them as the bottom 6 C's next season.
- Hawks82

The point is not how close they came.....the point is what is needed and how to achieve the end goal which is to win stanley cups....2 of which have been won in 4 years.....

Adding a 2C doesn't guarantee rolling 4 lines......yes the came close, but evidence suggest the need for a 2C is overrated.

And honestly....if Hossa or Sharp show up in that series or even Bickell, Hawks are on the verge of a repeat.

Depth needs to improve. Get me bigger sized guys, who can skate, bang a little, and are responsible defensively.

As I said yesterday, it's a very interesting summer for Bowman. Needs to make the right decision to keep this team LEGIT contenders before they morph into the Penguins.

As far as 19/88 goes, it'll be at least 9 probably around 9.25. NHLPA needs those salaries up there to slide in the next 2 tiers as the cap rises and guys will get paid.
- SteveRain

The current CBA only allows for 8 year deals (7 years is the limit for signing a player not already on your team).

The current CBA only allows for 8 year deals (7 years is the limit for signing a player not already on your team).
- BreakoutHockey

I meant 9 million to 9.25 million.

I phone...apparently I type "beers" a lot.....

be careful. A hungry black BEAR is nothing to write off. Especially if you have a cat or dog.
- SteveRain

I will be.

Don't punish me too hard Eli.....

BUT....

What is an E4?
- SteveRain

Error on the second baseman.

Error on the second baseman.
- StLBravesFan

Well played.

New (and big) blog coming around 4 Central: Hawk centers, Kesler, Sharp, Hawk front office civil war brewing.

Love the optimism....but....

The Hawks were badly outplayed in long stretches vs STL and Minnesota. Lost 2 in OT vs STL, won 2 in OT vs STL. Corey Crawford saved their bacon in both series.

Hawks can play with the Kings, they just need their depth shored up and to get their big guys producing.

The rest I agree with.
- SteveRain

Another need - backup goalie for 1mil or less. Raanta needs to play alot and he will not get much time behind our 6million dollar goalie. Raanta needs to play in rockford.
Bowman cannot afford another 2mil dollar screw up.

New (and big) blog coming around 4 Central: Hawk centers, Kesler, Sharp, Hawk front office civil war brewing.
- John Jaeckel

Great - now I'll get NOTHING done at work for the next 2 1/2 hours in anticipation....

My turn for armchair GM:

To Arizona (new name kicks in at the draft) - Sharp, Versteeg (and maybe a pick)

To Chicago - Vermette, Chipchura (some pick and/or prospect)

_____

To Calgary - Leddy (and possibly a pick)

To Chicago - Glencross (maybe a pick or prospect)


So then you have

29-19-81
20-(Vermette)-88
65-16-Glencross
52-Chipchura-28
Nordy, Morin

2-7
4-27
Dahlbeck-32
Rundblad

You get two centers, one who can play top 6 and one who can play bottom 6. Glencross is solid player who could contribute nicely on the 3rd line but also probably move up for short amounts of time in case of injury. The depth is better and you actually have a little bit of cap space (a little under $6mil) to make a deadline move if need be, or to sign a free agent or two.

Fantasy land, but it makes some sense for the teams involved (except for Versteeg, thats strictly fantasy i think)