It's not only the free agents that will take up whatever cap space remains, but also players that have to be moved from teams that are either over their internal budget (ARI), or have to sign their RFAs (TBL).

Speaking of TB, read where they will have to include a pick as a sweetener to move Johnson.
- boilermaker100

Johnson plus a 2nd for Smith. Trade Strome for a 2nd or 3rd. Smith goes on LTIR, so TB can do what Toronto did the last several years. Maybe TB can retain $500K, but we would have plenty of room for the next couple years. Johnson becomes our 3C.

o?

Keep nie change logo to tomahawk C.

Connects as a weapon of war that indigenous persons probably don't want to attach to?

- wiz1901

Johnson plus a 2nd for Smith. Trade Strome for a 2nd or 3rd. Smith goes on LTIR, so TB can do what Toronto did the last several years. Maybe TB can retain $500K, but we would have plenty of room for the next couple years. Johnson becomes our 3C.
- tvetter

I'd rather have a decent prospect as a throw in than a draft choice. Why wait 4 or 5 years for the 30% probablity of a 2nd round pick making it to the NHL.

It's not only the free agents that will take up whatever cap space remains, but also players that have to be moved from teams that are either over their internal budget (ARI), or have to sign their RFAs (TBL).

Speaking of TB, read where they will have to include a pick as a sweetener to move Johnson.
- boilermaker100

Haven't been following TB. Are they still in cap Hell?

Johnson still have somewhat near the spark and skill I saw when he was part of the Triplets in the 2015 Cup?

Ah, the constantly moving, impossible to achieve target......until it is hit (btw, who decides?), burn the mother down!

Back to re-education camp for me.....
- mohel

"If I Can Change, and You Can Change, Everybody Can Change!"
-Rocky Balboa

I know we are not exactly in cap heaven, but I would love to see Bowman take advantage of some other teams cap struggles to our advantage the way he was taken in the past...examples: The Teuvo/Bickell for trade picks trade, or Timonen for two 2nds.
Finding ways the "Help" cap strapped teams, while making your team better for the future is what we need. Does that mean Tyler Johnson from the Lightning, or Fleury from Vegas. I don't know, but if he really want to focus on the future, these are the things that help build that foundation.

"If I Can Change, and You Can Change, Everybody Can Change!"
-Rocky Balboa
- spudrock512

Kinda hard to change things to the point that nobody is offended, eh?

What number of people is the standard necessary for a sports team to change a name, logo, etc? More than half? 33%? 25%? 10%? 1%? Just 1? The post I responded to suggested that the removal of racism (and all isms, I presume) would mean nobody would be offended. That is magical thinking, and simply not possible in a human society. Somebody will always be offended. So how many need to be offended for the Hawks to change their logo?

FWIW, Craig Custance had a piece up this morning about what each team has done in FA and unnamed execs opinion(s).

Here’s a snippet from what was said about the Hawks offseason:

“I know a lot of people don’t like (Nikita) Zadorov. I like him. He has a dynamic that is hard to find, which is grit, size and decent mobility,” said one. “The guy is mean. He’s downright mean.”

Said another: “(Lucas) Wallmark for 975K? I think he’s a good player. Worst-case, he’s your fourth-line center. He wins faceoffs and kills penalties. They got (Mattias) Janmark, those are two good signings. They make their team deeper. Now they have to figure out their goalie.”

This executive gave them the edge in the Saad trade, although he downplayed the impact: “I don’t know who that deal really helped. I’m not a Saad fan. I’m not that big a Zadorov fan. It got the Saad money off the books. Zadorov is physical. I think Chicago won the deal but I know Colorado didn’t need Zadorov.”

New wheeler article on The Athletic.

Oh suddenly all of these experts see the deficiencies in Byram Bowen's defensive game...I guess my eyes were the only ones not focused in the hype?

Moere curieus is the fact he thinks Evan Bouchard has more future upside than Moritz Seider (who is not Booby Orr, but will soften you like Orr did!) and Thomas Harley.

At some point people have to realize defenseman has a big job and junior is where yo learn both ends...
- wiz1901

Sorry Wiz. You just served up a softball.

But something is always going to offend someone, so who gets to be be offended and who gets to be pacified? I do not know the answer.
- powerenforcer

I agree, you can't make everybody happy. I think the focus should be on what Blackhawks organization is today, not the historic acts against the natives many years ago. In my opinion the franchise is a positve thing for our community and is something to be proud of. Aside from a hockey team it creates jobs, youth hockey programs, the One West Side program, etc... Let go of the bad connotations from many decades ago and embrace the positve path the franchise is on.

From Elliotte Friedman's 31 Thoughts today:

"Chicago's decision making says to me that Blackhawks ownership doesn't feel the team can contend for a Stanley Cup, knows the economics are extremely challenging without fans and are punting on next season".

That's the most accurate explanation of Stan's moves so far.

Who really cares? In the end it’s just a logo for a sports team. This is not the life or death decision that many make it out to be. Nothing is forever, and everything evolves.

C’est la vie.
- Ogilthorpe2

I am really surprised with your position. Yes it is just a logo, but the question nobody seems to ask is where does all the nonsense end?

Do we need a 10 signature petition from people who have known or have been traumatized by a friend or family member who has been attacked by a shark or struck by lightning...attacked by a coyote...?

The victimhood of being offended is such backward thought process, not projecting that to you. Just the broader social acceptance that too many embrace.

Agree. I think it will be a sad day but I can see the other side of the coin and why the logo might need to change.

If it were me, I would start using the third jerseys as a way to roll out different logos. Through merchandise sales, they could get an idea what might resonate with fans.
- HawkintheD

Now there's an original thought and a damn good one. If there has to be a change this is a great way to implement it.

And therein lies the problem. As we pacify one, another pops up. So where does it end? Or does it ever?
- 67hawks

One thing I don't like is to be manipulated. There's a line but it needs to be negotiated. But where and by who and who is going to judge? Good luck with that.

Kinda hard to change things to the point that nobody is offended, eh?

What number of people is the standard necessary for a sports team to change a name, logo, etc? More than half? 33%? 25%? 10%? 1%? Just 1? The post I responded to suggested that the removal of racism (and all isms, I presume) would mean nobody would be offended. That is magical thinking, and simply not possible in a human society. Somebody will always be offended. So how many need to be offended for the Hawks to change their logo?
- mohel

Obviously, I was adding a little humor to a touchy subject.
For me, I see it as; yes, someone will always be offended - but does that person matter on the subject. In the Blackhawks case, it is a Native American issue. So have them vote on it. If the Native Americans, whom this issue actual affects them personally, are majority offended, then yes it needs to be changed. The problem is too many people that it has no barring to them and their life, try and make the decisions for everyone. Ask the people who might be offended, it they actually are...don't decide for them. I tend to lean left, but there are times it is taken to the extreme.

From Elliotte Friedman's 31 Thoughts today:

"Chicago's decision making says to me that Blackhawks ownership doesn't feel the team can contend for a Stanley Cup, knows the economics are extremely challenging without fans and are punting on next season".

That's the most accurate explanation of Stan's moves so far.
- scottak

And I have no problem with that strategy. That is why Stan is doing all these one year deals and also got one expiring contract out of the way. He is anticipating that there will be not much of a season, if any, next year and positioning the team for the time when things become more normal.

Obviously, I was adding a little humor to a touchy subject.
For me, I see it as; yes, someone will always be offended - but does that person matter on the subject. In the Blackhawks case, it is a Native American issue. So have them vote on it. If the Native Americans, whom this issue actual affects them personally, are majority offended, then yes it needs to be changed. The problem is too many people that it has no barring to them and their life, try and make the decisions for everyone. Ask the people who might be offended, it they actually are...don't decide for them. I tend to lean left, but there are times it is taken to the extreme.
- spudrock512

Agree with this. Didn't want to get sucked into this discussion, but here it is. I think reasonableness is a good standard here.

If we had the Pittsburgh Nazis, Toledo Chin*men or Miami Derogatory Name for African Americans, I'm sure none of us would be offended by movements to change those names or removal of those mascots.

It was only 40 years or so where Pekin Illinois had a mascot called the Ch*nks and had a gong introduce the football team and a mascot of a coolie-wearing Fu Manchu run out on the field. Asian Americans were offended, protested and the mascot was changed to the Dragons. Every part of that mascot was a mockery to Chinese Americans.

On the other hand, the Blackhawks organization is very charitable, depicts the Native Americans with pride and supports many local causes. Would like to hear what Native Americans feel… I do know that there is support of the logo from some tribes.

Oh goody, the usual suspects are pontificating on social justice again. Nothing I like more than coming to a hockey blog and having to suffer through political correct genuflecting by those who think they are enlightened.

Agree with this. Didn't want to get sucked into this discussion, but here it is. I think reasonableness is a good standard here.

If we had the Pittsburgh Nazis, Toledo Chin*men or Miami Derogatory Name for African Americans, I'm sure none of us would be offended by movements to change those names or removal of those mascots.

It was only 40 years or so where Pekin Illinois had a mascot called the Ch*nks and had a gong introduce the football team and a mascot of a coolie-wearing Fu Manchu run out on the field. Asian Americans were offended, protested and the mascot was changed to the Dragons. Every part of that mascot was a mockery to Chinese Americans.

On the other hand, the Blackhawks organization is very charitable, depicts the Native Americans with pride and supports many local causes. Would like to hear what Native Americans feel… I do know that there is support of the logo from some tribes.
- Popsghostly

If we could hear from Native Americans en masse, we'd hear that some are honored, some offended, and most somewhere in between. Same question exists, though..... what percentage need to be offended in order to "force" a change?

Oh goody, the usual suspects are pontificating on social justice again. Nothing I like more than coming to a hockey blog and having to suffer through political correct genuflecting by those who think they are enlightened.
- EbonyRaptor

I agree but I don't know what is worse- the people who are offended by people being offended or people who are offended.

Oggi was right we can discuss this since it was our Blackhawk statue which was defaced.

But yes, it would be best if this was focused on whether Strome is resigned or whether we will tank with the current roster at hand.

If we could hear from Native Americans en masse, we'd hear that some are honored, some offended, and most somewhere in between. Same question exists, though..... what percentage need to be offended in order to "force" a change?
- mohel

The. Crux of the issue or is it a problem

If we could hear from Native Americans en masse, we'd hear that some are honored, some offended, and most somewhere in between. Same question exists, though..... what percentage need to be offended in order to "force" a change?
- mohel

Agree with this. Not sure. If coming from Native Americans, I assume it should be at least a majority or close to that disapproves.

Johnson plus a 2nd for Smith. Trade Strome for a 2nd or 3rd. Smith goes on LTIR, so TB can do what Toronto did the last several years. Maybe TB can retain $500K, but we would have plenty of room for the next couple years. Johnson becomes our 3C.
- tvetter

$5 mil cap hit would be a lot for a 3C. Def better fit for 3C than Strome but gotta think Carpenter is the 3C going into the season. Strome is wing or trade fodder imo

Kinda hard to change things to the point that nobody is offended, eh?

What number of people is the standard necessary for a sports team to change a name, logo, etc? More than half? 33%? 25%? 10%? 1%? Just 1? The post I responded to suggested that the removal of racism (and all isms, I presume) would mean nobody would be offended. That is magical thinking, and simply not possible in a human society. Somebody will always be offended. So how many need to be offended for the Hawks to change their logo?
- mohel

Far left arguments don't make logical sense and no attempt is made to even try, so there's no real way to reason against them. But keep up the good fight.

I am really surprised with your position. Yes it is just a logo, but the question nobody seems to ask is where does all the nonsense end?

Do we need a 10 signature petition from people who have known or have been traumatized by a friend or family member who has been attacked by a shark or struck by lightning...attacked by a coyote...?

The victimhood of being offended is such backward thought process, not projecting that to you. Just the broader social acceptance that too many embrace.
- TrueGrit

Not to continue this conversation but are you honestly trying to equate random events, or violence conducted on an individual by a non-rational actor (such as shark attack), to decades/centuries of deliberate violence (physical/mental/economic) against entire races of people by other humans (including government sanctioned actors- hell its even in the US constitution)? Sorry, they are not even close to the same thing.