Cup contenders aren't really looking for goaltenders, though.
- BINGO!

Calgary is a great candidate. They may not be a Cup contender right now, but they have a good young team with a weakness in net.

I'm from planet earth. But I just must be from the part where sportsmanship exists. You don't have to care about Nashville, but your blogger didn't even mention the name of the team that just walloped his team in what was supposed to be a "recap". You've got a long off-season to discuss the future of the club.
- Jakes_91

2015 still stings, I'd bet. You should worry about your own team as there is plenty to be concerned about. Nashville played with more intensity and determination, but this series came down to WANT, not skill or ability. From Toews to Tootoo, the Preds simply wanted it more, so congrats to them on a 1st Round victory. When they play a team that actually gives a frank, we'll see how "fantastic" they are.

No more retreads please (unless it's Frolik)....time to move forward with a new crop of Blackhawks.
- DarthKane

Yeah the retreads haven't done so well the second time around. Let's say a player like Brouwer.

I'm from planet earth. But I just must be from the part where sportsmanship exists. You don't have to care about Nashville, but your blogger didn't even mention the name of the team that just walloped his team in what was supposed to be a "recap". You've got a long off-season to discuss the future of the club.
- Jakes_91

I've made my statement on Nashville, it's well documented and it was very conciliatory. I took to task those thinking the Hawks would win in 5. Laughable. The Predators were the deeper, more determine and yes better talented team. They outskated the Hawks and outplayed them. The Hawks limited determination was the final piece of the 4-0 pie. But this blog is about "spinning" by the Hawks. This team is famous for that and it's part of the discussion. Nashville nor their fans should give two poops about what's going on here. After we beat them in 2015 I didn't rush off to their forum to make sure they were dealing up the requisite "sportsmanship" toward the Hawks. I left them alone to deal with the loss however they wanted. Perhaps you should try that.

Calgary is a great candidate. They may not be a Cup contender right now, but they have a good young team with a weakness in net.
- kwolf68

True, though that depends on their ability to offload Elliot too. A lot of moving parts there.

Spin or not. This isn't on Bowman or Q. The players lost the series with the effort they put forth. End of story.
- breadbag

WOW !!! I've only read the first post and already I too am "livid with this response. I am a 53 year season ticket holder and I've posted many times before that this team plays HO HUM hockey....... meaning nobody hits, nobody forechecks aggressively, nobody sticks up for each other when it's needed, there is no intensity until the team get down by 2 goals or more, etc. All are the responsibility of our "LEADERS" in management to get these players to give the effort that WE season ticket holders deserve. This series was NOT an anomaly !!! It has pretty much been the case for years now. That is.... the Quenneville/Bowman years. Yes their teams have thrilled all of us with 3 Stanley Cups, but not without thoughts occasionallly that these teams were doing all of the above. Fortunately, their talents always took over and when needed, they turned on the aggressive play and put forth GREAT effort. ie.....being down 5-0 to Calgary in 2010, then waking up and coming from behind to win 6-5.

The beginning of this year was that way as well.......... always playing soft and CC would bail them out with all the goalie wins. I can't tell you how many times I told people that I can't believe they're winning these games, but they did and ended up winning their division and were the #1 seed in the WC. I actuallly predicted last year that they would not make the playoffs this year....and had it not been for all the CC wins, that might have happened.

Quenneville and Bowman have not been on the same page for years now and maybe, just maybe, the product on the ice is a reflecion of the turmoil from above. There is absolutely NO REASON for these past 2 years to be out-hustled, out hit, out shot and now blown out of the 1st round. Somebody from up above needs to be held accountable. The question is.......... who do I feel from these 2 gentlemen will be able to make the bigger difference in the changes that need to be made ? OR.... do I feel that BOTH should be launched ??

Obviously, I want a team that COMPETES at the highest level, game in and game out. I want a team that shows intensity from the puck drop, not just when they're behind by 2 goals or more. The Chicago Blackhawks are the easiest team in the NHL to play against because of all of the above....And now because of age and diminishing skills they are an easy foe. That is on the Head Coach!! Poor special teams, poor ineffective communication with discipline, poor choices with game management (BLENDING), and a system that calls for a "no check " league.

As for Mr.Bowman ?? I don't have to revisit all of his horrendous decisions on the players, salaries, trades, etc..........................Those are painfully obvious and have been beaten to death on here for years now.

It's time for Major changes from the top down or this team will play this same HO HUM style of hockey again next year.

It is up to Management to make the changes necessary to put a product on the ice that we can all be proud of once again. If not, this is one season ticket holder that will bow out !!

Calgary is a great candidate. They may not be a Cup contender right now, but they have a good young team with a weakness in net.
- kwolf68

I live in Calgary and everyone here is saying Bishop, Fleury or Murray. Not a peep about CC but yes they could afford him. Don't see it though, the GM and team owners here are stingy on trades and big contracts.

Making major changes would be a knee jerk reaction and a HUGE mistake. Say what you want about the Hawks regular season, but you don't win the conference by luck. The roster nearly had seven 20 goal scorers. This in a season in which the Hawks were breaking in a lot of rookies.

I'm not saying they can't improve the team, but the window isn't closed. The Hawks need to let go of some of the slow broken vets on D. Campbell is done. Rozsival has been done for 3 years. Oduya isn't the player he was and in a lot of cases never was the player people claim he was.

A big glaring issue in this play series was getting through the middle of the ice and gaining the attacking zone. Towards the end it was hard to watch the Hawks D just throw the puck up the ice to the Preds in the neutral zone. When the Hawks gained the zone with the puck on their sticks, they generated some chances, but it was few and far between.

The Hawks rookies (especially Hartman) were invisible. It isn't that shocking but honestly I expected 38 to be a bit more ready and able to make a difference. Will be important to see what the offseason does for those guys, because like it or not they are a part of the future. There could be larger roles for some next year.

His value on the PAK line is over-stated. Don't think for a moment any other comparable center with 50% faceoff skills wouldn't do just as well with those two wingers. He doesn't do anything unique for them. I wish they could let him play wing, where he can still get to the net (especially on the PowerPlay), play defense and score his routine 40 points a year that way.
- kwolf68

I'm sure other centres could do well with Kane and Panarin, except maybe Toews (*rim shot*).

True, though that depends on their ability to offload Elliot too. A lot of moving parts there.
- BINGO!

Elliott is a UFA.

Cup contenders aren't really looking for goaltenders, though.
- BINGO!

I wouldn't say that is true. All it takes is a bad series or injury to change a team's mind.

Isn't CC pretty much impossible to move now? This will be a buyers market with the likes of Bishop, Fleury/Murray, Elliot, Lehtonen, Conden ect all free agents on the golaie market. Why trade for CC massive contract and have to give something up when you could get any of these guys for shorter term and AAV?
- Doc1200

Not as good!

The Chicago Blackhawks and Joel Quenneville with assistants Kevin Dineen and Mike Kitchen to part ways ...

Making major changes would be a knee jerk reaction and a HUGE mistake. Say what you want about the Hawks regular season, but you don't win the conference by luck. The roster nearly had seven 20 goal scorers. This in a season in which the Hawks were breaking in a lot of rookies.

I'm not saying they can't improve the team, but the window isn't closed. The Hawks need to let go of some of the slow broken vets on D. Campbell is done. Rozsival has been done for 3 years. Oduya isn't the player he was and in a lot of cases never was the player people claim he was.

A big glaring issue in this play series was getting through the middle of the ice and gaining the attacking zone. Towards the end it was hard to watch the Hawks D just throw the puck up the ice to the Preds in the neutral zone. When the Hawks gained the zone with the puck on their sticks, they generated some chances, but it was few and far between.

The Hawks rookies (especially Hartman) were invisible. It isn't that shocking but honestly I expected 38 to be a bit more ready and able to make a difference. Will be important to see what the offseason does for those guys, because like it or not they are a part of the future. There could be larger roles for some next year.
- breadbag

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein

"who's really hopeful about next year?"

I am. Man, am I disappointed in this year's early exit. But this team starts its offseason with a core that is a strong playoff contender next year.
1. Duncan Keith, if he's slipped, has slipped out of Norris conversation to only being one of the top 5 or 7 D in the league. Still solid as a rock. Still a STAR.
2. Add in Seabs and Hammer, and this team has 3 "1st pair" quality D.
3. Toews, Kane, Panarin, Anisimov, Hossa are a top 5 that is an immediate strong playoff team, and the base for building a cup contender.
4. Craw is a top goalie, and Darling certainly looks to be able to handle #1G. We're not hurting at G.
I'm on record that I feel Stan has over paid many of these contracts by about 10%. I'd much rather Toews and Kane had accepted $9.5m. Seabs for the length of his contract should be $6m. Panarin $5m. Craw $5m. I know there's many out there that say what they got was market. But Bowman should be more cutthroat like the Patriots. You either take a slight discount for the privilege of contending for a Super Bowl every year, or we will find a replacement for you that will.

But having said some of these are slightly overpaid, "it is what it is". Say what we want about the salaries, it IS a core that provides a base to build a cup contender.

Now think about trading from the Core: The minute you trade most of these, we'll all be discussing spending similar money to replace exactly that player.
Trade Seabrook...we'll be looking for some size on the back end.
Trade Hammer...we'll be searching to high heaven to find a 2nd pair D at $4m.
Trade Anisimov...we'll be moaing about lack of a 2nd line C, and willing to commit $4.5m to that search.

Now trade Craw...I think we have his replacement at lower cost in house. Lose Kruger...I love him, but we can find a replacement at lower cost.
Panik want $3m...refer to my Patriots comment above.

Yes, I am hopeful for 2017/2018.

So many great comments today, JJ, thanks for all of it.

The external audit of hockey operations sounds like a must do activity.

It seems like Stan and the Roundtable sometimes miss opportunities by not acting (no top 4 d-man in 2016, no 1LW or C depth this year) or not acting quickly enough (Leddy, Sharp, Oduya in 2016) but then signing players for too much and/or too long. Those trends need to stop.

The first assessment, though, needs to come from the team doctor (and maybe a second or third opinion outside the organization) about the physical health of Toews, Keith, Seabrook, Anisimov, Kruger, Desi, and Oduya; but especially those first three. Are they even capable of regaining their level of play from their prime? If not, at least one or two or maybe all three need to be moved while they have some value. The team can't afford to have all of that money tied up in players who are over the hill.

The second assessment is really about what they want the culture of this team to be. Are they going to stay with the Dynamic Duo of Toews and Kane or are they ready to break them up? My guess is that both of those players are back next year and the center of all things Blackhawks. But, it really depends a lot on Toews' physical ability.

After those two, though, I think a fair number of the guys making over $1m need to move on. Not all of them, but a significant number.

I'd keep Hossa, Hammer, and probably Keith (but I'd be open to moving him too if they can find a younger, healthier "quarterback" type replacement.)

I am also feeling reluctant to move Crawford. I think he's solid. Maybe Glass can back him up next year for about the same prices as Darling did this year. It seems like moving him might open a can of worms that the team regrets in about 9 months.

That means moving AA, Panarin, Kruger, and Seabrook.

Of the other players, I'd resign Panik and keep both Kempny and Forsling. Hartman, Kero, Schmaltz, Ras, Hino, Motte, etc.; keep some move some to make trades work.

You could say what I'm advocating for is to close this Cup window and open up another one. Get some guys that would fit into Q's system of 200 foot game, rolling four lines, playing d the right way, etc. and let's see what happens.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein
- riozzo

Nice quote and completely irrelevant . I guess you didn't read the part where I explained they could improve the team with some changes. The Hawks can get better, but a lot of teams make big changes and end up regretting them.

Listening now. Outstanding analysis so far. Enjoying the take, objective...everyone needs to listen to this.
- kwolf68

They just had to mention Phillip Danault. That one still burns

They just had to mention Phillip Danault. That one still burns
- grinder10

He is not exactly setting the Rangers on fire...

And before anyone piles on, yes he has more PPG than all but 2 hawks... So did Renne...

The Chicago Blackhawks and Joel Quenneville with assistants Kevin Dineen and Mike Kitchen to part ways ...
- gifman

And in other Onion esq news, The Preds ask permission to wear the BHawks uni's for the remainder of the season citing too may instances where players are mistaken for "Hot Dogs" with extra mustard...

I hope they don't participate.

Canada is awaiting word on Toews, Keith and Crawford. Would certainly add a great deal to World Championship roster. #TSNHockey

— Darren Dreger (@DarrenDreger) April 21, 2017

- DarthKane

If either Toews or Keith play in that tournament, then you can scratch the excuse that an injury is why they performed so poorly. Also if I'm Hawks management and they choose to play in that tournament I am really, really pissed off, core players or not.

Elliott is a UFA.
- DarthKane

As is their backup, Chad Johnson, whom - if we move Crow - would not be a bad backup.

If either Toews or Keith play in that tournament, then you can scratch the excuse that an injury is why they performed so poorly. Also if I'm Hawks management and they choose to play in that tournament I am really, really pissed off, core players or not.
- RetiredGoalie

Am I the only one who wants them to play in this and play well? At least it would prove that they still have the skill and drive to do it. These past four games put that in serious doubt.

>posted this one the other blog in response to 6628 & Rick J
>I think Lavy studied how Winnipeg played the Hawks the first 4 (?) games this year in the regular season -- believe the Jets won the first 4 games and the Hawks barely scored at all
>Then Lavy probably had some video sessions with his players and said -- "OK, you are Jets player X, etc. -- play the way he did against the Hawks."
>Agree on Q: a players' coach who can ride a great thoroughbred -- and I think being a players' coach caught up with him -- and Bowman -- who "trusted" this core too much
>The Hawks D have had terrible habits since most of last year, but they certainly do not appear to have been corrected.
>Some include: the pairings -- having #2 and #4 together and #4 on his right side -- you can count on one hand the number of forehand direct passes #4 made each game to a forward
>Keith's refusal to actually take all the open ice given to him and instead stand still with the puck, Keith's inability to skate with the puck for more than 3 strides
>The D constantly getting too wide in their own zone -- outside the dots -- when passing the puck D to D -- so easy to forecheck when a Dman is near the boards
>There's a ton more D stuff, but F it
>The inept PP and PK
>The pathetic team face-off ability
>PP, PK, Face-Offs can all be "coached up"
>This was a total org-an-I-zation fail -- something is indeed very wrong
>When players do not play for each other and stick up for each other
>The only player I would absolutely not trade is Patrick Kane
- SnapitUpstairs

In addition to how his team performed in this series, I give Laviolette and his staff a huge amount of credit for their game plan in this series.

I would take it a step further than them just studying Winnipeg's approach to playing the Hawks. I think they studied what Mike Babcock has done with his last Olympic team and this year's WCOH team. Those teams stifled every opponent's offence with big, mobile defenceman and by making it so difficult to set up in Team Canada's D zone to the point it was rarely more than one shot and the puck was heading the other way. Completely demoralizing to a good offensive team.

I would like to see a number for how many times the Hawks ever got a second shot from a rebound opportunity. Maybe one or 2 in 4 games? The Preds essentially frustrated and removed the will of the Hawks best forwards to do what was necessary to score. Who other than Hossa took it hard into the crease to try and jamb a puck past Rinne? One shot and the puck was either covered up or heading back up ice. The dog got frustrated and annoyed and eventually rolled over and died instead of ramping up its compete level further.

The Preds were full value for the series win because their 5 on 5 play made the Hawks look like an ECHL team with poor fundamentals and structure most of the time. After conceding theygot waxed by a superior opponent, about the only thing the Hawks might be able to say is what would have happened if Schmaltz had scored on his breakaway when it was 2-0 in Game 3 or if Panarin had scored at the end of the first last night after the whole team was a mess for the entire period. Apart from those chances, they posed no offensive threat at all to Nashville.

He had no leverage at that time, and they paid him like he did. THAT'S the point.

I have to be honest with you. If he didn't have an NMC, I'm not sure there's a huge market for him at $4.5 million per year for 4 more years. That's not a "bargain" for a guy with his skill set, who's about a 45-50 point player—ONLY when flanked by point a game guys.
- John Jaeckel

Anybody who could fill the role of 2C on this team already has leverage. Top 6 centers are not a dime a dozen. The Hawks had a glaring need and didn't have much of a pipeline for that role, and the market supply wasn't so good. I'd rather that the Hawks kept Saad, signed Panarin anyway, and found somebody who could patch up the second line, but they made the best out of a bad situation.

Even if we don't agree about Anisimov, I'm sure we agree that this team has much bigger problems to deal with right now. I really believe they need to consider a breakup with Q, as others have already said here. The magic was absent this time around, for whatever reasons.