As Mex pointed out in saying how valuable Shaw is to the team, he mentioned standing in front of the net and taking abuse to screen the goalie. Mex focused on that he stands there and takes it for the good of the team without retaliation - which is true. But what also needs to be said is that Shaw has the "Holmstrom knack" better than anyone else on the team. That thing that Thomas Holmstrom turned into an art form where he could move with the puck to always be blocking the goalies vision. Holmstrom did it better than anyone I can think of and Shaw does it better than anyone else on the Hawks. That's why he is on the 1st PP unit and it's not something anyone can do. A lot of players have the guts to do it, but very few have the knack to do it as well as Shaw does it. That would be missed big time if Shaw were traded.

Actually, once the cap hell is broken for 2015/16, I think the problem is smaller for 16/17. I dont feel he mortgaged the future for this coming year at all (not that you're saying he did, Mex).

Every current player we're discussing for this year has the same cap number next year except for three: Seabs, Steeg and Shaw. Steeg, even if he stays this year, is assumed to be gone next year. That cuts $1.3m (his $2.2m less a $900k rockford replacement). Seabs is at $5.8m. Assume he signs for $7m, that eats up the cap saved from losing Steeg. Shaw is at $2m now, I assume an extension is around that figure...maybe $2.5, but thats a rounding error.

So they can field the same exact team next year at same cost.

EXCEPT...bonuses. Probably $3m in bonuses, mostly about $2.5 to Panarin. They've got to fit that into the numbers for 2016/17.

If the cap goes up by $3, they're probably good. If no cap increase, they probably lose Craw (or Daley, I suppose).

Either way, quick math indicates the cap problem next year is $3-5m, versus the $10+m problem that had to be solved this year.
- Cmonalready

Great post. It's close to working out… though I don't think the cap is going up at all… It went from $64.3 to $69.4 and then to $71.4 for next year. Let's hope it doesn't go down!

I could see Crawford being dealt in the next year to deal with the bonuses and a Bickell buyout, perhaps… To be honest, if Dano, Teuvo, and Panarin light it up and there's another Cup in the next two years, then Crawford would have to go just to keep 2 of the 3 of them. Or they are flipped, Saader-style, for more 20-year-olds on ELC's. Not a bad problem to have if there's another Cup in the next two years.

This. Every word.
- tredbrta

Thanks tred!
Just staying calm, grateful for the guys that are the CORE and w/o a CAP and this generation of Wirtz ownership, I have little doubt that most (if not nearly all) of the guys that have been launched in some fashion would still be on this roster. Egads, if the rest of the NHL hates us now, can only imagine in a cap-free world . . .

Of course, I think then we'd be expecting regular season records of 72-10 and playoff record of 16-2 (or something close to each).

If the Hawks have to take salary back, why not take it back in the form of a #6 vet defenseman? It will cost, but it only has to cost a lttle more than $1m so Kruger can be resigned. And with names like Ehrhoff, Volchenkov and Schlemko being bandied about, none are without some serious flaws. What about Bickell to Calgary for Engelland? He makes 2.9 for 2 more years...not ideal, but I imagine Calgary needs to get rid of some of the expensive depth dmen (all 6 make at least 2.6). The 1.1 difference might actually be just enough for Kruger. Otherwise, would they part with Russell? Any other similar suggestions for taking salry back?

Agree for the most part, although the lynch pin was the Sharp trade from the standpoint of the result being only about 1.7 mill in cap space created.

As far as Dallas....I had heard as did others Buffalo really wanted him but Dallas is a better team. I think Oduya could have made more in Buffalo but he probably was backstopped in a couple of places.
- Al

The Sharp deal actually saved about $2.6MM - the difference between Sharp's salary and his "replacement" (Daley).

Garpatt will replace someone on the 23-man roster, whether it's Johns or someone else - so his $900,000 hit is offset by that guy.

I was thinking about the youth movement and acquisition of talent veterans at a lower cost for next year.

Of Anisimov, Dano, Garbutt, Daley, Panarin, and Tikhonov, only Panarin and Tikhonov have more than 6 games of playoff experience in the last 2 seasons, and that's in the KHL. They have the whole regular season to gel with the team, but they aren't coming off of playing 60+ playoff games the last three seasons…

You might argue that playoff experience helps, and it does… but I think with the core leading the way, these newcomers (who include some players with some elite talent) will be pumped to get in there and win. Look at Teuvo… he came into his own IN the playoffs much more than in his brief look in the regular season.

Actually, Calgary has 7 dmen all making at least 2.6. Maybe they are trying to dump one like Smid? Then THEY will add a sweetener for us! Smid was hurt but not sure how badly or how. Maybe instead of a sweetener they take Versteeg with Bicks for Smid and a prospect? I'm bored.

Stupid question.

Would you guys have traded Seabrook for Hamilton........?

If the Hawks have to take salary back, why not take it back in the form of a #6 vet defenseman? It will cost, but it only has to cost a lttle more than $1m so Kruger can be resigned. And with names like Ehrhoff, Volchenkov and Schlemko being bandied about, none are without some serious flaws. What about Bickell to Calgary for Engelland? He makes 2.9 for 2 more years...not ideal, but I imagine Calgary needs to get rid of some of the expensive depth dmen (all 6 make at least 2.6). The 1.1 difference might actually be just enough for Kruger. Otherwise, would they part with Russell? Any other similar suggestions for taking salry back?
- Kentxo

I bet you Bowman is looking at this now… I think even taking a $3M salary back that can potentially be flipped is going to be great.

Could you imagine the conversation when talking to Calgary? "Hello, Brian Burke? How about a $4M entree of truculence with a side of vertigo and shaky knees??"

I am just wondering why Oduya only took a 2 year deal and a low salary ? Could it be Oduya is keeping is options open to come back to the Hawks?
- spanky

i think it sets up a nice possibility of a bickell for oduya trade

Eric Stephens ‏@icemancometh · 4m4 minutes ago
Kesler's new deal is huge. Six years, $41.25 million. ($6.875M AAV).

Makes Anisimov look like a bargain.

Kesler's last three years: -5, -15, -5; 105 points in 171 games.
Kesler turns 31 next month.
- KingB

Yeah i was about to rant earlier on when someone was discussing the "curious timing" of re-uppping ArtemII right away.

Curious Timing?

Our young player Saad who talked hometown discount to stay was talking through one side of his mouth while his agent (with his knowledge) was talking another...that equaled goodbye.
The veteran return was a guy ArtemII was a player whose point totals have never been commensurate his abilities, heart and energy.
A guy who has always be a team first player and who looks to be an excellent fit in that regard and plays a position BIG CENTRE that there was an opening.

You trade for Anisimov and he is totally thrilled to come be part of it and will do anything to win the silver, and he is not a FLY-BY NIGHT come over and threaten departure back to Russia...never played that card. Wants to play with the best against the best.
You know he's got a year left and Seabrook's gonna be a UFA so you do the smart thing, you sign him until 2021 at $4,550,000 when he is 33.
If anyone here thinks 4.55 million is a bad deal in five years, well you are fooling yourself. There are going to a dozen young centremen drafted early by Buffalo, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, etc asking for that as their BRIDGE money.

So the "curious timing" was more the hawks had a newly acquired vet who was thrilled and ready to stay. Why wait?
Because you refused Saad a CRAZY high bridge deal?

If the Hawks have to take salary back, why not take it back in the form of a #6 vet defenseman? It will cost, but it only has to cost a lttle more than $1m so Kruger can be resigned. And with names like Ehrhoff, Volchenkov and Schlemko being bandied about, none are without some serious flaws. What about Bickell to Calgary for Engelland? He makes 2.9 for 2 more years...not ideal, but I imagine Calgary needs to get rid of some of the expensive depth dmen (all 6 make at least 2.6). The 1.1 difference might actually be just enough for Kruger. Otherwise, would they part with Russell? Any other similar suggestions for taking salry back?
- Kentxo

Not a bad idea. Never considered it, actually.

But I think the problem with that thinking is that teams know that Stan is still up against the cap and NEEDS to move Bickell, whereas other teams could like to clear up some salary, but don't necessarily have to. Teams would take Bickell back in the instance that the 'Hawks throw a sweetener as has been mentioned plenty of times on here.

However, if the 'Hawks entice a team by throwing a sweetener that could definitely peek interest, maybe they can sneak back a d-man in the same manner that Daley was acquired.

While they certainly couldn't land a player of Russell's caliber, I'd have to imagine that they could certainly land a #5/#6 defense-man, should they opt to pursue that route.

I bet you Bowman is looking at this now… I think even taking a $3M salary back that can potentially be flipped is going to be great.

Could you imagine the conversation when talking to Calgary? "Hello, Brian Burke? How about a $4M entree of truculence with a side of vertigo and shaky knees??"
- DMChi2010

Burke likes his big wingers, who knows, bicks might waive for calgary

He's a UFA as of July 1. I don't think he's been cleared medically to try to continue playing, but I might have missed that news if he has.
- MartiniMan

Right on. Thanks for the info. When thinking about his incident, I'm reminded of one of the greatest memes of all time:

DK, it's been pretty good, hopefully yours as well. After all, we ARE the SC champs so that's been a nice "salve" to put on any salary cap wounds that are inflicted.

Yes, I know all about posting things that don't exactly hold the company line.

Considering Saad's demands, Stan IMO did a great job of getting valuable assets and saving $ over what our best offer ($5M/5yrs) would have cost us. Sorry to see another young, very good player go, but I also understand pro careers are short and unforseen things happen, so I wish Saad the best.

I just don't and maybe never will get Stan's fascination with Rundblad. For me, a guy has to be a + skater and that is something Rundblad is not and will never be. Very little quickness, no acceleration to speak of and certainly very average speed. Put that into the bag with his need of finding the Wizard so he can get a heart. Don't think it is ever happening.

I am intrigued by Daley and will withhold judgment on him until I've seen him firsthand after going through camp and presumably having the staff tell him what they expect. Physical talent sure seems to be there, so if he can fit into what Q wants and expects, I think he could fill Oduya's skates.

I haven't posted much because I'm honestly waiting for the smoke to clear -- and based on what Stan did with Leddy, I'm not sure we are not in for the same ride here this summer. I hope not but ultimately, it is all tolerable because we did come away with the CUP this year. I'm not a kool aid drinker, maker and server by any stretch, just willing to let the dust settle before I get my shorts in a real knot.



- savvyone-1

Agreed. The guy just isn't a good hockey player. Period. No idea why Stan continues to pay the guy when it's clear he isn't good enough to play for the Hawks or frankly anyone else in the NHL. He's an AHL player or should go back and play in Sweden. He's not even as good as Cuminsky who is a very fringe NHL guy. Stan over the years has made some good moves and some bad moves. This is one of his bad ones. And he keeps making it.

Stupid question.

Would you guys have traded Seabrook for Hamilton........?
- JIwasinskiJr

Seabroook KNOWS how to play both ways and most importantly DEFENSE zone.

hamilton did not, could fill in in Chara absent, is a giant finesse defender who is years away from being able to be defensively capable.

Calgary had the money the time, and most importantly the fan base that backs a move like this to the point they can stay at the present level of accomplishemenst for a year and they will be happy. They have been oh so patient this long...

Agreed. The guy just isn't a good hockey player. Period. No idea why Stan continues to pay the guy when it's clear he isn't good enough to play for the Hawks or frankly anyone else in the NHL. He's an AHL player or should go back and play in Sweden. He's not even as good as Cuminsky who is a very fringe NHL guy. Stan over the years has made some good moves and some bad moves. This is one of his bad ones. And he keeps making it.
- PitMartin7

I think one of Rundblad's strengths is his shot from the point. He can fire off a quick one and can get them through most of the time.

If the Hawks have to take salary back, why not take it back in the form of a #6 vet defenseman?
- Kentxo

That is the ONLY way the Hawks lose Bickell and take on salary.

Outside of being an armchair GM, I think Q needs to consider the following strategies with how this roster is shaping out to be.

Dano needs to play in a scoring role if he is going to develop into a scoring player.
Hossa needs to play less minutes to extend his career and servicability in the playoffs.
The Hawks are light at the natural LW position but I would rather see Teravainen there than Dano(who is said to be far better on the right).

Teravainen - Toews - Dano

Panarin - Aninsimov- Kane

Garbutt- Kruger - Hossa

Dsjardins - Danault - Baun/McNeill

I think it's safe to say that Bickell, Versteeg, and probably Shaw will have to go in order to move the former 2 but I could be wrong. If not then Shaw in for Baun/McNeill.

I like this because it A) creates scoring balance and defense on all lines B) reduces Hossa's minutes and allows him to play the possession/defensive game that hasn't seen much decline C) puts Teravainen and Dano into a position, with Toews, to contribute offensively.

Thoughts?
- Bjm84

Your line combinations look impressive on paper, and your arguments seem reasonable enough, but with all the new faces let's see what happens at training camp, and then let Q experiment with line combinations during the season. It may take him 82 regular season games and three and one-half playoff rounds to get them, but he usually has the right combinations in the end.

Yeah i was about to rant earlier on when someone was discussing the "curious timing" of re-uppping ArtemII right away.

Curious Timing?

Our young player Saad who talked hometown discount to stay was talking through one side of his mouth while his agent (with his knowledge) was talking another...that equaled goodbye.
The veteran return was a guy ArtemII was a player whose point totals have never been commensurate his abilities, heart and energy.
A guy who has always be a team first player and who looks to be an excellent fit in that regard and plays a position BIG CENTRE that there was an opening.

You trade for Anisimov and he is totally thrilled to come be part of it and will do anything to win the silver, and he is not a FLY-BY NIGHT come over and threaten departure back to Russia...never played that card. Wants to play with the best against the best.
You know he's got a year left and Seabrook's gonna be a UFA so you do the smart thing, you sign him until 2021 at $4,550,000 when he is 33.
If anyone here thinks 4.55 million is a bad deal in five years, well you are fooling yourself. There are going to a dozen young centremen drafted early by Buffalo, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, etc asking for that as their BRIDGE money.

So the "curious timing" was more the hawks had a newly acquired vet who was thrilled and ready to stay. Why wait?
Because you refused Saad a CRAZY high bridge deal?
- wiz1901

first, saad didnt sign a bridge deal. he signed a long term deal. second, in f airness to saad and his contract demands, i think it was reported that even he was shocked and he and his agent had some miscommunication in terms of his priorities and what he was looking to do. probably need the full story before throwing saad under the bus.

Adding Erhoff and Krueger will redeem it some.
- tredbrta

FERGIT EARNednone of his pay.....just do it.

Thanks tred!
Just staying calm, grateful for the guys that are the CORE and w/o a CAP and this generation of Wirtz ownership, I have little doubt that most (if not nearly all) of the guys that have been launched in some fashion would still be on this roster. Egads, if the rest of the NHL hates us now, can only imagine in a cap-free world . . .

Of course, I think then we'd be expecting regular season records of 72-10 and playoff record of 16-2 (or something close to each).

- savvyone-1

I think Rosenbloom wrote something saying Dollar Bill fought for a hard cap for years. I guess this is Dollar Bill's legacy to Blackhawk fans... Instead of 3 in 6 that 10 team plus some of the better additions.... Hawks could have been an Oilers style dynasty.

Where is he buried? I feel the need to urinate.

Seabroook KNOWS how to play both ways and most importantly DEFENSE zone.

hamilton did not, could fill in in Chara absent, is a giant finesse defender who is years away from being able to be defensively capable.

Calgary had the money the time, and most importantly the fan base that backs a move like this to the point they can stay at the present level of accomplishemenst for a year and they will be happy. They have been oh so patient this long...
- wiz1901

I understand that Seabrook is a solid top pairing guy.

And that Hamilton has a lot to learn. But, he is only 22 and signed for $5.5.

Reason I ask is because I have seen trade rumors about Seabrook AND I would assume that he will be getting $7.5 plus when his extension comes around.

If you have to eventually trade Seabrook........do you honestly think a greater return than Hamilton would be had........?

first, saad didnt sign a bridge deal. he signed a long term deal. second, in f airness to saad and his contract demands, i think it was reported that even he was shocked and he and his agent had some miscommunication in terms of his priorities and what he was looking to do. probably need the full story before throwing saad under the bus.
- flyershockey

Thanks for your input, as always.

Stupid question.

Would you guys have traded Seabrook for Hamilton........?
- JIwasinskiJr

Not stupid at all. If I were a Bruins fan I would have been asking this about a lot of teams.

I'm not sure the Hawks would have traded Seabrook for Hamilton. I would have no doubt though the offer could have been used to go to Seabrook and ask him to sign an extension for a reasonable amount to stay or they would have to move him... then you have to deal with the NTC. Also, Sweeney would have still had a huge cap issue to deal with.

I do think the Bruins could have gotten more than what they got from Calgary from someone else like Dallas.