Rumor: Lots of smoke around the Hawks tonight ...

[thedoughboy]

A lesson for the gullible types who frequent hockeybuzz...

Seems more like someone got in trouble for leaking information and back peddling to me.

 

[thesaadfather]

If the Hawks were going to trade Crawford, they probably would have held on to Darling. I don't see Crawford moving.

 

[HawkeyTalkMan]

There are other prospects + a 3rd overall pick + another first available, but we can continue to say I only offered up trash if you'd like.

I must've forgot how killer of a return you got last time you traded a top 10 LW to us.

Sharp was no longer a top 10 LW when we traded him to you. He was coming off his worst production year of his career.

16 goals in 68 games doesnt make you a top 10 LW anymore

 

[ChiHawk21]

There are other prospects + a 3rd overall pick + another first available, but we can continue to say I only offered up trash if you'd like.

I must've forgot how killer of a return you got last time you traded a top 10 LW to us.

only person who benefited from that trade was the penguins

 

[thesaadfather]

There are other prospects + a 3rd overall pick + another first available, but we can continue to say I only offered up trash if you'd like.

I must've forgot how killer of a return you got last time you traded a top 10 LW to us.

Sharp definitely wasn't a top 10 LW at the time, he wasn't even the best LW on the team. He was more cap dump than anything.

 

[Spectra]

There are other prospects + a 3rd overall pick + another first available, but we can continue to say I only offered up trash if you'd like.

I must've forgot how killer of a return you got last time you traded a top 10 LW to us.

Faksa + 3rd overall for Panarin.

Wait, why are we sending one our best players to a division rival again? You will getting nothing from us, Texan, nothing...

 

[Liferleafer]

I have lingering feeling Panarin will be moved if the cap stays the same. For something like a Kapanen or similar prospect, either F or D. Sad if true.

Leafs would rather deal for Hammer, they need D, not forwards.

 

[Spectra]

Leafs would rather deal for Hammer, they need D, not forwards.

Yeah, just meant that tier of prospect + something more obviously.

 

[Zrhutch]

only person who benefited from that trade was the penguins

Oh come on. A division title and a decent defenseman isn't chopped liver.

 

[Blackhawks26]

Crawford for Lehner?

Yes, honestly I wouldn't mind this trade.

 

[mikee]

I must've forgot how killer of a return you got last time you traded a top 10 LW to us.

You mean when we traded you our declining second line LW, with a huge cap hit and a crippling NTC that limited his market?

Let's not pretend that the two situations are even remotely equivalent beyond the fact that they both play the same position with the same salary. Without the NTC the Hawks wouldn't even have considered trading Sharp within the division.

 

[HawkeyTalkMan]

Sharp definitely wasn't a top 10 LW at the time, he wasn't even the best LW on the team. He was more cap dump than anything.

He was the 31st scoring LW in the league when we traded him.

He was a far cry from a top tier LW he was in the past

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

Hawks aren't giving away Hammer

If Panthers want Hammer they would have to pay a high price

 

[Uncle Scrooge]

I still don't understand why the Hawks would move any of their top 3 defensemen.

Can somebody tell me why would a contending team like the Hawks take a major step back like that. If anything, i could see them trying to add a d-man. Im sure Bowman realizes as their core guys get older, to win another cup requires a bit more than just relying on that top 3 playing a million minutes every night. Especially after getting manhandled by the Predators and seeing how good their top 4 was.

And some people say "they should trade Hammer/Seabrook for a d-man on his ELC", why on earth would anyone give up a good young d-man like that for those guys ??

And why would they trade Crawford, the guy who backstopped them to 2 cup runs, after just getting rid of Darling ? He's still a very good goalie.

Defensive depth is the weakness of the Blackhawks organization. You don't trade your few good pieces from your area of weakness. The idea is to improve that weakness and trade from your area of strength, which is the forward depth.

Besides, trading Seabrook and getting solid value that the Hawks need is absurd. He makes 18M over the next 2 years and carries a 6.875M cap hit for the next 7 years for christ sake.

 

[chethejet]

Hawks are stuck with declining assets at a high cost. With no cap room to speak of this year and next and no real trades that can be done unless a really stupid GM is on the other side, Hawks better hope the ELC talent can play. Swept by the Preds and it wasn't competitive is very telling.

 

[scarbrow21]

I still don't understand why the Hawks would move any of their top 3 defensemen.

Can somebody tell me why would a contending team like the Hawks take a major step back like that. If anything, i could see them trying to add a d-man. Im sure Bowman realizes as their core guys get older, to win another cup requires a bit more than just relying on that top 3 playing a million minutes every night. Especially after getting manhandled by the Predators and seeing how good their top 4 was.

And some people say "they should trade Hammer/Seabrook for a d-man on his ELC", why on earth would anyone give up a good young d-man like that for those guys ??

And why would they trade Crawford, the guy who backstopped them to 2 cup runs, after just getting rid of Darling ? He's still a very good goalie.

Defensive depth is the weakness of the Blackhawks organization. You don't trade your few good pieces from your area of weakness. The idea is to improve that weakness and trade from your area of strength, which is the forward depth.

Besides, trading Seabrook and getting solid value that the Hawks need is absurd. He makes 18M over the next 2 years and carries a 6.875M cap hit for the next 7 years for christ sake.

The ONLY reason CHI is (rumored) to be willing to move a guy like Hammer is because of a flat CAP. Even if the rumored TVR + Kruger+Pick to vegas deal is done. If that CAP only goes up by 2% escalator (which NHLPA hasn't stated they will yet) that's only 1.5M increase to the CAP where CHI only has 500K AFTER the vegas deal and needs to sign at least one more player to a league minimum to have a 23 man roster.

A move of 4M (Hammer) frees up some drastically needed CAP space and would be the ONLY reason they're making these moves. The return would have to be good too.

 

[DarthProbert]

I still don't understand why the Hawks would move any of their top 3 defensemen.

Can somebody tell me why would a contending team like the Hawks take a major step back like that. If anything, i could see them trying to add a d-man. Im sure Bowman realizes as their core guys get older, to win another cup requires a bit more than just relying on that top 3 playing a million minutes every night. Especially after getting manhandled by the Predators and seeing how good their top 4 was.

And some people say "they should trade Hammer/Seabrook for a d-man on his ELC", why on earth would anyone give up a good young d-man like that for those guys ??

And why would they trade Crawford, the guy who backstopped them to 2 cup runs, after just getting rid of Darling ? He's still a very good goalie.

Defensive depth is the weakness of the Blackhawks organization. You don't trade your few good pieces from your area of weakness. The idea is to improve that weakness and trade from your area of strength, which is the forward depth.

Besides, trading Seabrook and getting solid value that the Hawks need is absurd. He makes 18M over the next 2 years and carries a 6.875M cap hit for the next 7 years for christ sake.

This post reads like it was written in a world where the salary cap doesn't exist. Hawks aren't making hockey trades. They're making whatever trades they can just to be able to play next season. And everyone knows it, and nobody owes them any favours.

 

[Linds]

I wonder if it's Toews @ 20% retained for Mikael Backlund.

I think the hawks have to add a 6th or 7th round pick to this

 

[Uncle Scrooge]

This post reads like it was written in a world where the salary cap doesn't exist. Hawks aren't making hockey trades. They're making whatever trades they can just to be able to play next season. And everyone knows it, and nobody owes them any favours.

The ONLY reason CHI is (rumored) to be willing to move a guy like Hammer is because of a flat CAP. Even if the rumored TVR + Kruger+Pick to vegas deal is done. If that CAP only goes up by 2% escalator (which NHLPA hasn't stated they will yet) that's only 1.5M increase to the CAP where CHI only has 500K AFTER the vegas deal and needs to sign at least one more player to a league minimum to have a 23 man roster.

A move of 4M (Hammer) frees up some drastically needed CAP space and would be the ONLY reason they're making these moves. The return would have to be good too.

So you guys are telling me a team that's been there and done that with the cap virtually every year suddenly trades a key player from an area of weakness just to make it under the cap ?

Oh please.. I understand the situation but again, i don't understand why people are looking at the d-men. To me there's a higher chance Panarin gets traded for a young defenseman (Debrincat coming up + some of their young forwards likely taking another step forward, unlikely to re-sign Panarin after 2 years) rather than any of their current d-men moving, and that's saying something.


There's zero chance the Hawks roll with 2 good defensemen and 4 scrubs to the 17/18 season. If people can at least give some legit examples of what kind of Hammer/Seabrook trade would fix their cap situation and keep their defense competitive i'll be happy to listen.

"They have to trade Seabrook/Hammer just to play next season and everybody knows it" - hilarious.

They signed Panik before the news of flat cap, doesn't mean they keep him if the situation forces them to. That's 2.8M cap space. Send him off for a pick.

Kruger/Tvr to Vegas = 3.908.333M cap space.

Cap goes up 2% = 1.46M cap space.

I bring up Debrincat and Rutta, have ~2M cap space to sign Rasmussen, maybe Jurco too.

I now have 12/13 forwards, 7 defenseman and 2 goalies on my roster, and im under the cap. Didn't trade a single key player. Call me a wizard.

If Bowman wants to bring the same team back (-couple minor changes) he can. That's not the problem. Problem is they got swept in the playoffs. He's looking to do something to change the outlook of this team, and it's definitely NOT blowing up the defense and icing one of the worst d-corps in the entire league. If someone wants to give Bowman a good top 4 defenseman making less money than Hammer/Seabrook then by all means, Bowman would take it. I just can't see anybody doing that.

 

[odishabs]

To Chicago: Charles Hudon, Nathan Beaulieu and a 2nd round pick
To Montreal: Niklas Hjalmarsson and Mark McNeil

 

[Esq]

To Chicago: Charles Hudon, Nathan Beaulieu and a 2nd round pick
To Montreal: Niklas Hjalmarsson and Mark McNeil

McNeil was already traded

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

That deal is crap and McNeill was traded months ago

 

[Liferleafer]

To Chicago: Charles Hudon, Nathan Beaulieu and a 2nd round pick
To Montreal: Niklas Hjalmarsson and Mark McNeil

As a Leafs fan, i would counter with Kapanen or Brown+ 17OA+Carrick for Hammer alone.