I personally don't think the Hawks owe the "core" anything else. They haven't won a playoff series in 5 years. A playoff game in 4, or even been to the playoffs in 3 (considering they would not have made it last year if the season played out).

They've filled in around the core while Q was still here, and after. The biggest weakness on the team was supposedly the D-corps and it was completely revamped.

You can appreciate what the core has done without giving them any say in the front office moves. I don't think you can allow for that to happen and remain competitive. Between the cap and the current state of the league, Stan has to do what is required to rebuild the team into a competitive one. If I had to venture a guess, I would say that maybe only Kane should be resigned at the end of his deal if he is still producing, simply because that type of player is much harder to find/develop.

Should the FO tell these four the direction of the team? Yes. Should they give them any say in how that is done? Absolutely not. My disdain for the idea of a "core" is well documented. You have to be able to move on from players once they are not producing or providing value equal to their contract.
- Chunk

See New England Patriots...

How about Tony O, although he started in the Canadians organization, but I believe that he only played NHL games with the Hawks.
- Angotti

Dennis Hull, Steve Larmer?

In my puttering around time today I gave some more thought to Theo's question - should the Hawks trade 2/7/19/88 or not? My previous response was keep 88 and trade 2/7/19. I started thinking about what the Hawks could realistically get in return for those players and the realistic impact it could have on the rebuild. I came to the conclusion their cap hits would minimize the return to the point that they would be almost cap dumps versus prospect cupboard restocking. Now, gaining cap space is a good thing and can be used to acquire players but those players would probably be veteran free agents which would not be in line with the youth rebuild.

But what if the Hawks retained 50% - that would mean a better return of either prospects or draft picks who could be part of the rebuild - BUT - that would mean carrying 50% on the books for 3 more years (4 in the case of Seabrook) - how would that impact the rebuild. Right off the bat it would probably mean the first season the Hawks could realistically be contenders would be the year the retained cap hits of 2/19/88 come off the books - 2023/24. Would Rocky allow a 3-year rebuild instead of a 1 or 2 year rebuild? It might end up taking that long or longer anyway but trading 2/7/19/88 would almost guarantee it's a few years out before the young players we have mature and the young players we will acquire over the next 2-3 years get their NHL sea legs.

Kane is still an elite player who isn't slowing down. Getting him for 3 years at $5.25M AAV would be very attractive and could probably get at least a 1st round pick and a top prospect. Toews has slowed down a bit but at $5.25M AAV would pull in a good haul and same with Keith who is no longer a #1 but at $2.75M AAV for 3 more years is a bargain. That roughly $13M cap space cleared out over the next 3 years should be enough to pay 2nd contracts for Dach/Boqvist/Kubalik as they come off their ELC's during those 3 years. Then those retained salaries come off going into the 2024 season which opens up another 13M.

The Hawks will have their own draft picks which should be at least top-10, if not top-5 which means some of those draft pick should be ready to be in the NHL by 2024 to be added to the young players we already have and the prospects we acquired in the trades of 2/19/88.
- EbonyRaptor

Well thought out. Imo opinion hawks no matter what will have retain money if hawks want to move seabrook towes or kane. But like you wrote the more retained the better the return.

Yep. If they wanted to maximize the assets that are Kane, Toews and Keith, they should have traded them two years ago. Trouble is, that you only get a championship level 1C and 1D at the very top of the draft (generally); and those guys wouldn't go for a trade to a team that will finish with a lottery record.
- mohel

Keith was a 2nd round pick.

In my puttering around time today I gave some more thought to Theo's question - should the Hawks trade 2/7/19/88 or not? My previous response was keep 88 and trade 2/7/19. I started thinking about what the Hawks could realistically get in return for those players and the realistic impact it could have on the rebuild. I came to the conclusion their cap hits would minimize the return to the point that they would be almost cap dumps versus prospect cupboard restocking. Now, gaining cap space is a good thing and can be used to acquire players but those players would probably be veteran free agents which would not be in line with the youth rebuild.

But what if the Hawks retained 50% - that would mean a better return of either prospects or draft picks who could be part of the rebuild - BUT - that would mean carrying 50% on the books for 3 more years (4 in the case of Seabrook) - how would that impact the rebuild. Right off the bat it would probably mean the first season the Hawks could realistically be contenders would be the year the retained cap hits of 2/19/88 come off the books - 2023/24. Would Rocky allow a 3-year rebuild instead of a 1 or 2 year rebuild? It might end up taking that long or longer anyway but trading 2/7/19/88 would almost guarantee it's a few years out before the young players we have mature and the young players we will acquire over the next 2-3 years get their NHL sea legs.

Kane is still an elite player who isn't slowing down. Getting him for 3 years at $5.25M AAV would be very attractive and could probably get at least a 1st round pick and a top prospect. Toews has slowed down a bit but at $5.25M AAV would pull in a good haul and same with Keith who is no longer a #1 but at $2.75M AAV for 3 more years is a bargain. That roughly $13M cap space cleared out over the next 3 years should be enough to pay 2nd contracts for Dach/Boqvist/Kubalik as they come off their ELC's during those 3 years. Then those retained salaries come off going into the 2024 season which opens up another 13M.

The Hawks will have their own draft picks which should be at least top-10, if not top-5 which means some of those draft pick should be ready to be in the NHL by 2024 to be added to the young players we already have and the prospects we acquired in the trades of 2/19/88.
- EbonyRaptor

All you have to do is get the three to waive their NTC's and make the trades. It only works in Fantasy sports that easily.

Keith was a 2nd round pick.
- rpeters01

Which is why I added "generally"......

All you have to do is get the three to waive their NTC's and make the trades. It only works in Fantasy sports that easily.
- rpeters01

Not that hard to get them to waive....

Which is why I added "generally"......
- mohel

My Alzheimer's kicking in.

Yep. If they wanted to maximize the assets that are Kane, Toews and Keith, they should have traded them two years ago. Trouble is, that you only get a championship level 1C and 1D at the very top of the draft (generally); and those guys wouldn't go for a trade to a team that will finish with a lottery record.
- mohel

Offer sheet Pettersson or Hughes in 2021 with part of the Toews 10.5M cap savings. You may get either 1C or a 1D. Time to start thinking out of tbe box.

If that would happen - after Seattle takes him - won’t the NMC come back on?
- StLBravesFan

No guarantee Seattle takes the player, either. Like Pittsburgh, Chicago would have to trade something to the Kraken to ensure they select that player.

Dennis Hull, Steve Larmer?
- rpeters01

No, and no. Darryl Sutter?

My Alzheimer's kicking in.
- rpeters01

I happens. Wait, what happens? What were we talking about?

No, and no. Darryl Sutter?
- stanleyhawk

Nope. SJS, CGY. LAK after the Hawks.

I happens. Wait, what happens? What were we talking about?
- mohel

Toews to Seattle.

Toews to Seattle.
- boilermaker100

Yes that was it.

Toews to Seattle.
- boilermaker100

Let's say Toews accepts the idea of a trade, given that he gets to approve of the team. That would likely be a team ready to win very soon. By win, I mean contend for the Cup (one exception could be Winnipeg). If he was down with playing for a bad team, he'd just stay here.

Of the teams in contention over the next several years, we need to find one with the ability to fit a $7M - $8M (with the Hawks retaining the rest) cap hit for the next three years (two if it is next summer). Otherwise, the Hawks need to take some salary back (and what would be the point of trading him then). In addition, this team needs to have the financial strength to pay the salary during these extremely challenging times for the league.

Given that they are very good, their #1 pick will be low, so they need a high-end prospect to give back. Or they need to have the #1 pick of another team who happens to be bad.

Other than that it should be easy.

Let's say Toews accepts the idea of a trade, given that he gets to approve of the team. That would likely be a team ready to win very soon. By win, I mean contend for the Cup (one exception could be Winnipeg). If he was down with playing for a bad team, he'd just stay here.

Of the teams in contention over the next several years, we need to find one with the ability to fit a $7M - $8M (with the Hawks retaining the rest) cap hit for the next three years (two if it is next summer). Otherwise, the Hawks need to take some salary back (and what would be the point of trading him then). In addition, this team needs to have the financial strength to pay the salary during these extremely challenging times for the league.

Given that they are very good, their #1 pick will be low, so they need a high-end prospect to give back. Or they need to have the #1 pick of another team who happens to be bad.

Other than that it should be easy.
- mohel

Eazy peazy.

Let's say Toews accepts the idea of a trade, given that he gets to approve of the team. That would likely be a team ready to win very soon. By win, I mean contend for the Cup (one exception could be Winnipeg). If he was down with playing for a bad team, he'd just stay here.

Of the teams in contention over the next several years, we need to find one with the ability to fit a $7M - $8M (with the Hawks retaining the rest) cap hit for the next three years (two if it is next summer). Otherwise, the Hawks need to take some salary back (and what would be the point of trading him then). In addition, this team needs to have the financial strength to pay the salary during these extremely challenging times for the league.

Given that they are very good, their #1 pick will be low, so they need a high-end prospect to give back. Or they need to have the #1 pick of another team who happens to be bad.

Other than that it should be easy.
- mohel

Hasn't Toews already said he wouldn't waive clauses in his contract?

And the reputation of the team and its ownership as it relates to trading a player of Toews' stature is a huge consideration. Its one thing to buyout a player like Henrik Lundqvist at 38 and 1 year left on his contract, quite another matter to deal with a player who has been the team leader for 13 seasons and can still play and wants to win. And his legacy in Chicago is likely very important to him.

Now if he really wants to move - I'd like to see him with Montreal. The fans would be overjoyed to have him and I love what Bergevin has been doing to try to win.

Not that hard to get them to waive....
- mohel

Btw it'll be interesting about the census, supreme court to rule on undocumented workers, if they are counted or not, wonder if that would have an impact on the electorals since the Prez said they shouldn't count.

Btw it'll be interesting about the census, supreme court to rule on undocumented workers, if they are counted or not, wonder if that would have an impact on the electorals since the Prez said they shouldn't count.
- BetweenTheDots

Well, those changes won't have an impact this year - they go into effect next year after the census. The projections for electoral votes doesn't seem to be impacted by that one way or the other. It is more about population movement between the states. I believe when I was a Ute, NY had 41 electoral votes and FL something in the high teens. Now NY will have fewer than FL. Lots of people moving to FL and TX in the last 10 years.

Dennis Hull, Steve Larmer?
- rpeters01

Nope, Larmer went on to win a cup with the Rangers, and LA mentioned earlier that Dennis Hull went to the Wings (not sure Alzheimer’s kicking in here as well).

Btw it'll be interesting about the census, supreme court to rule on undocumented workers, if they are counted or not, wonder if that would have an impact on the electorals since the Prez said they shouldn't count.
- BetweenTheDots

Not for this election.

See New England Patriots...
- rpeters01

..and this isn't the NBA where the players run the league. Mgmt doesn't even owe them to tell them the direction of the team imo. The direction is we're doing what we feel is best for the blackhawks, period. The players are paid to play hockey and produce up to their contracts. If toews or any player doesn't like it then request a trade. Sorry I'm more going off on toews' comments, not these fine posters lol.

Dennis Hull, Steve Larmer?
- rpeters01[/quote

Dennis finished his career with Detroit, Larmer won a cup with the Rangers

None of this matters.... Stan Blowman ruined the glory says that we had and should still have.... needs to be on a rocket to the center of the sun