No doubt about it so that's why this is the year to take the big run at it, with pretty much the team they have now. No trading futures like Ray Shero did to bring in the likes of Douglas Murray, Brendan Morrow, Stepniak, Goc and even Iginla.

The Hawks can lose Roszival, Richards, Oduya, Bickell and probably Sharp and replace them from the farm - won't be as good but still pretty competitive.
- RickJ

Dunno if they will have to lose all those guys, maybe Oduya stays depending on where the cap sets.

I am certain my words will get taken out of context and blasted all over twitter by some children who are apparently poorly supervised by their parents.

But I am of the belief, as I always have been, that goalies are made by this defense, not the other way around. The goalies themselves admit it

So that said, assuming you had to move Sharp and Bickell and say another $6 million, do you keep this defense intact , deal Crawford (when his value will never be higher) and roll with Darling and Raanta?

Or do you lose Seabrook and keep Crawford?

The good news is, they have pretty much a full season and playoffs left to find out what they really have with these two guys. And my point is, they have to look at ALL their big deals, if the cap goes down.

Plus, if Saad keeps playing like he has the last few games, cha-ching

I am certain my words will get taken out of context and blasted all over twitter by some children who are apparently poorly supervised by their parents.

But I am of the belief, as I always have been, that goalies are made by this defense, not the other way around. The goalies themselves admit it

So that said, assuming you had to move Sharp and Bickell and say another $6 million, do you keep this defense intact , deal Crawford (when his value will never be higher) and roll with Darling and Raanta?

Or do you lose Seabrook and keep Crawford?
- John Jaeckel

We know what Crawford can do behind this team - as shown over four seasons and two long play-off runs - he keeps them in games - especially tournament games - usually giving up two or less. He's wong a seventh game in OT and several othe OT games, and lost a couple.

Darling Raanta has yet to be in a play-off game, let alone a long play-off run - has yet to show consistency as the main man over 50-60 regular season games. They've looked good in short runs, but - at this point isn't it like saying "we have TvR or Dahlbeck - we don't need Seabrook".

So my short answer is - I don't know.

I am certain my words will get taken out of context and blasted all over twitter by some children who are apparently poorly supervised by their parents.

But I am of the belief, as I always have been, that goalies are made by this defense, not the other way around. The goalies themselves admit it

So that said, assuming you had to move Sharp and Bickell and say another $6 million, do you keep this defense intact , deal Crawford (when his value will never be higher) and roll with Darling and Raanta?

Or do you lose Seabrook and keep Crawford?

The good news is, they have pretty much a full season and playoffs left to find out what they really have with these two guys. And my point is, they have to look at ALL their big deals, if the cap goes down.

Plus, if Saad keeps playing like he has the last few games, cha-ching
- John Jaeckel

I think this whole team is made by this defense. Their whole philosophy is based on the defensemen being mobile and good puck movers. We saw what happened earlier in the year when the passing out of the D zone was off and the transition game wasn't really clicking.

I'll go out on a limb and say they are going to do everything they can to keep Oduya and Seabrook in the fold. The cap casualties will be elsewhere.

Dunno if they will have to lose all those guys, maybe Oduya stays depending on where the cap sets.
- John Jaeckel

I know you mentioned Oduya might be willing to give a friendly deal, but my thinking is if by some chance the HAwks win a Cup this season he is outta here...he'll hve 2 CUPS and will want to cash in, and I don't blame the guy....And I also don't believe in this CAP doomsday...just like I didn't believe the cap was going to jump to 72-73 this last offseason, I think it will be somewhere in the middle, and in the case you send Bickell packing and hopefully you can hang on to Sharp one more year...I wouldn't be the least surprised to see them send Bickell packing and perhaps Shaw, that will clear out 6 mil, as it will probably be time to give guys like McNeil and Danault a try next season

We know what Crawford can do behind this team - as shown over four plays seasons and two long play-off runs - he keeps them in games - especially tournament games - usually giving up two or less. He's wong a seventh game in OT and several othe OT games, and lost a couple.

Darling Raanta has yet to be in a play-off game, let alone a long play-off run - has yet to show consistency as the main man over 50-60 regular season games. They've looked good in short runs, but - at this point isn't it like saying "we have TvR or Dahlbeck - we don't need Seabrook".

So my short answer is - I don't know.
- StLBravesFan

I don't either. I just think there is a scenario out there where it could come down to Seabrook or Crawford. Could.

My gut tells me you keep the core of the defense intact and take your chances with the current guys or possibly a cheaper alternative like say, for example, Niemi or Anderson.

I think this whole team is made by this defense. Their whole philosophy is based on the defensemen being mobile and good puck movers. We saw what happened earlier in the year when the passing out of the D zone was off and the transition game wasn't really clicking.

I'll go out on a limb and say they are going to do everything they can to keep Oduya and Seabrook in the fold. The cap casualties will be elsewhere.
- MartiniMan

I agree...I mentioned not trading Seabs in the last blog and JJ said they had HAmmer...that is very true, but isn't that what makes this team so dangerous? You basically have 3 top pairing d-men in Seabs,Keith and HAmmer, that is a luxury a lot of the teams in the NHL would love to have

I am certain my words will get taken out of context and blasted all over twitter by some children who are apparently poorly supervised by their parents.

But I am of the belief, as I always have been, that goalies are made by this defense, not the other way around. The goalies themselves admit it

So that said, assuming you had to move Sharp and Bickell and say another $6 million, do you keep this defense intact , deal Crawford (when his value will never be higher) and roll with Darling and Raanta?

Or do you lose Seabrook and keep Crawford?

The good news is, they have pretty much a full season and playoffs left to find out what they really have with these two guys. And my point is, they have to look at ALL their big deals, if the cap goes down.

Plus, if Saad keeps playing like he has the last few games, cha-ching
- John Jaeckel

A team can win with a fairly average goaltender but a great goaltender really can't win with junk directly in front of him. (Ryan Miller in Buffalo and Bobrovsky in Columbus a 2 examples).

After the Circus Trip I was convinced Crawford was the team MVP so far this year. But now he has given the team 15 -20 games to watch his understudies in action and they look fairly qualified. And they also have big Anders Nilsson from the Leddy trade that nobody knows anything about, but he could be a player too.

I'd always keep Seabrook over CC if it was just a coin toss, but it isn't that simple. Part of the problem is that goaltenders don't have huge trade value, veteran defenceman with Stanley Cups on their resume definitely do.

I don't either. I just think there is a scenario out there where it could come down to Seabrook or Crawford. Could.

My gut tells me you keep the core of the defense intact and take your chances with the current guys or possibly a cheaper alternative like say, for example, Niemi or Anderson.
- John Jaeckel

I think that is an extreme worst case scenario, that after you move Sharp, Bickell, and Oduya, you STILL need to move Seabrook/Crawford. I just dont see it being that severe. I think Sharp and Bickell, and Oduya are the only major pieces that go, and i really think the Hawks(especially 2-3 years from now, maybe not quite as soon as next season) will be making people feel very silly about declaring this season as their last chance at a Cup with Toews and Kane.

A team can win with a fairly average goaltender but a great goaltender really can't win with junk directly in front of him. (Ryan Miller in Buffalo and Bobrovsky in Columbus a 2 examples).

After the Circus Trip I was convinced Crawford was the team MVP so far this year. But now he has given the team 15 -20 games to watch his understudies in action and they look fairly qualified. And they also have big Anders Nilsson from the Leddy trade that nobody knows anything about, but he could be a player too.

I'd always keep Seabrook over CC if it was just a coin toss, but it isn't that simple. Part of the problem is that goaltenders don't have huge trade value, veteran defenceman with Stanley Cups on their resume definitely do.
- RickJ

Yeah but the value you would be getting is cap relief to keep a Seabrook...I agree with JJ, if it comes down to Crow or Seabs you try and get what you can for Crow...this team is in win now mode, and getting a young prospect a young player and draft picks for Seabrook doesn't help them win now, whereas getting cap relief, and perhaps a prospect and some picks for Crow let's you keep your D in tact and keep you closer to the promised land

1st in the division
1st in goal differential
1st in GA
6th in GF(after a long drought to start the season)
1st in PK
2nd in SV%
2nd in 5v5 F/A
1st in SF
1st in CF60
1st in CF%
5th in FO%
1st in OZFO%

Yes, this is the best team in the NHL.

I think that is an extreme worst case scenario, that after you move Sharp, Bickell, and Oduya, you STILL need to move Seabrook/Crawford. I just dont see it being that severe. I think Sharp and Bickell, and Oduya are the only major pieces that go, and i really think the Hawks(especially 2-3 years from now, maybe not quite as soon as next season) will be making people feel very silly about declaring this season as their last chance at a Cup with Toews and Kane.
- SimpleJack

Honestly I'm still not convinced they have to move Sharp...Bickell should be sent packing,but if you send Shaw with him that is 6 mil that you have cleared, much easier to replace Shaw rather than Sharp

As a team, FO% is 52.4%, Kruger is even better than last year, say what you want about Richards, that deal is looking really good right now, as the Hawks added a legit C who, slow as he is, is light years faster than Handzus—and healthier and more productive.

So far sacrificing Leddy for the cap and filling in with youngsters has come up 7's for Stanley.
- John Jaeckel

You know, if he's playing craps, we're in trouble

Dunno if they will have to lose all those guys, maybe Oduya stays depending on where the cap sets.
- John Jaeckel

Im really intrigued as to what the Oduya "discount" comes in at from what you've mentioned before

Ive said before, is his concept of a discount compared to what his value on the market is?

Or is it a Brad Richards type discount where he will stay for pennies so he can remain a competitor?

So is it his market value is $5-5.5 and hes going to stay for like $4.25, or is his discount along the lines of "I know the team is tight on the cap, so Ill stay for 3 per"

Dunno if they will have to lose all those guys, maybe Oduya stays depending on where the cap sets.
- John Jaeckel

I know you like Johnny O and so do I, but they aren't giving him $4M + on a multi year deal this summer. Excluding Rosy, he is the oldest of the defence group and in the NHL you don't want 3 rearguards to be in their 30's on long deals.

I agree...I mentioned not trading Seabs in the last blog and JJ said they had HAmmer...that is very true, but isn't that what makes this team so dangerous? You basically have 3 top pairing d-men in Seabs,Keith and HAmmer, that is a luxury a lot of the teams in the NHL would love to have
- captainserious

Agreed, my Hammer response there was to what felt like you were saying Seabrook is the only guy with certain attributes. You by all means want both.

A team can win with a fairly average goaltender but a great goaltender really can't win with junk directly in front of him. (Ryan Miller in Buffalo and Bobrovsky in Columbus a 2 examples).

After the Circus Trip I was convinced Crawford was the team MVP so far this year. But now he has given the team 15 -20 games to watch his understudies in action and they look fairly qualified. And they also have big Anders Nilsson from the Leddy trade that nobody knows anything about, but he could be a player too.

I'd always keep Seabrook over CC if it was just a coin toss, but it isn't that simple. Part of the problem is that goaltenders don't have huge trade value, veteran defenceman with Stanley Cups on their resume definitely do.
- RickJ

This

Agreed, my Hammer response there was to what felt like you were saying Seabrook is the only guy with certain attributes. You by all means want both.
- John Jaeckel

Well then just a miscommunication ...and yes...you definitely want bot

This
- John Jaeckel

If the Edmonton Oilers were smart, which they clearly are not, they would do whatever it takes after this season to bring Seabrook in, make him their captain and then extend him for $8M + on a long deal the Hawks can't afford and start building from there.

But they won't because they think Andrew Ference is good enough.

A team can win with a fairly average goaltender but a great goaltender really can't win with junk directly in front of him. (Ryan Miller in Buffalo and Bobrovsky in Columbus a 2 examples).

After the Circus Trip I was convinced Crawford was the team MVP so far this year. But now he has given the team 15 -20 games to watch his understudies in action and they look fairly qualified. And they also have big Anders Nilsson from the Leddy trade that nobody knows anything about, but he could be a player too.

I'd always keep Seabrook over CC if it was just a coin toss, but it isn't that simple. Part of the problem is that goaltenders don't have huge trade value, veteran defenceman with Stanley Cups on their resume definitely do.
- RickJ

Good post RickJ! Nilsson is having a very good season in KHL so far. He is playing behind strong team Ak Bars Kazan (leads currently eastern conference) and in 22 GP he has 1,77 GAA and 0,936 SVS%.

>Think the Hawks will move heaven and earth to keep Seabrook
>Hopefully, everything happens to make that a reality

If the Edmonton Oilers were smart, which they clearly are not, they would do whatever it takes after this season to bring Seabrook in, make him their captain and then extend him for $8M + on a long deal the Hawks can't afford and start building from there.

But they won't because they think Andrew Ference is good enough.
- RickJ

Seabrook has this year plus one more on his Hawks deal. To get him this summer means a trade, and I don't see the Hawks doing that (unless the Oil get crazy with their first pick, which won't happen).

Good post RickJ! Nilsson is having a very good season in KHL so far. He is playing behind strong team Ak Bars Kazan (leads currently eastern conference) and in 22 GP he has 1,77 GAA and 0,936 SVS%.
- MjulQvist

Thanks for the information.

I know he was stuck in the Islanders organization at the worst of times. Maybe Father and Son Bowman had their Euro spies telling them they should insist on him being part of the trade. Do you think he has NHL capability?

I am certain my words will get taken out of context and blasted all over twitter by some children who are apparently poorly supervised by their parents.

But I am of the belief, as I always have been, that goalies are made by this defense, not the other way around. The goalies themselves admit it

So that said, assuming you had to move Sharp and Bickell and say another $6 million, do you keep this defense intact , deal Crawford (when his value will never be higher) and roll with Darling and Raanta?

Or do you lose Seabrook and keep Crawford?

The good news is, they have pretty much a full season and playoffs left to find out what they really have with these two guys. And my point is, they have to look at ALL their big deals, if the cap goes down.

Plus, if Saad keeps playing like he has the last few games, cha-ching
- John Jaeckel

Yep

Seabrook has this year plus one more on his Hawks deal. To get him this summer means a trade, and I don't see the Hawks doing that (unless the Oil get crazy with their first pick, which won't happen).
- mohel

No chance the Oil would give up their #1 this year. But the Hawks won't lose Seabrook for nothing either, they never do that. Much as I'd hate to see it, if they determine his market price and term is above their limit, they will move him. Accomodations with another team can be made - like 'let us trade you to Edmonton, we can't pay you what you want, they can and will look after you'.