Blackhawks 2022-23 SEASON THREAD

[ytsejam]

That's more like it!

 

[LordKOTL]

They will still need to be above the cap floor. It’s unlikely any good FA will choose to sign in Chicago when the Hawks will need to spend cash with so much money coming off the books. I could see Kane returning to chase franchise records but Toews is likely to move on.

That does have to be a concern--cap floor.

As it stands now the 'hawks have 7 FWDs signed next year for a total of about 8.11M in cap--so they'll need to sign 5-6 more FWDs--and all of those FWDS have an expiry in 2024.

There are 4 D signed next year for a total of 18.25M in cap, only one of those is signed only through next season (Roos), and he's sub 1M; the rest are signed for the duration. They'll need at least 2, maybe 3 D-men

In net Mrazek is is signed through next season for 3.5M. Everyone else of note expires this season. They'll need at least 1 more goalie, if not 2.

Tyler Johnson is 5M next year and on LTIR.

Keith hits with a RCH under 2M next year on recapture.

Then we have ~3M in buyouts from Borg and Connely.

That leaves about $40M in cap hit, about $42M in cap space to be spread out over 10 positions. More, if we jettison some dead weight in the backend. We'll need to get to about 62M minimum to jump above the floor. So, that means ~2M/player min, $4M/play max. If we start to pull in some youth like Reichel, Phillips, etc. there will be slots taken over by Sub-1M players, meaning we have to sign players for more.

That's the conundrum.

I get what @Diehardfan and @Granada are saying; if we're going to rebuild then rebuild and don't pull in retreads. On the other hand, we are going to have to shore up the cap and roster with decent cap hits and vet presence anyway. I could think of worse players than Toews or Kane to be those vets; we have a few on our blueline.

I think if Toews and Kane are going to be resigned, it has to be on rebuild terms; short duration, movable deals (i.e. no clauses), and reasonable cap that other teams would take off of our hands with respect to their production on ice. They need to understand they will have to defer to the up-and-comers and be subject to be re-slotted when we find someone better (Ditto on the backend but that's a given for all those players). If they can't deal with that; if they want duration, huge cap hits, clauses in their deals, etc. then no dice; thanks for the cups.

It would suck to lose them for nothing if they don't get traded out for assets and sign elsewhere, but I would rather deal with that then either of them have a crippling Seth Jones-like contract just for old time's sake.

 

[MassHavoc]

That does have to be a concern--cap floor.

As it stands now the 'hawks have 7 FWDs signed next year for a total of about 8.11M in cap--so they'll need to sign 5-6 more FWDs--and all of those FWDS have an expiry in 2024.

There are 4 D signed next year for a total of 18.25M in cap, only one of those is signed only through next season (Roos), and he's sub 1M; the rest are signed for the duration. They'll need at least 2, maybe 3 D-men

In net Mrazek is is signed through next season for 3.5M. Everyone else of note expires this season. They'll need at least 1 more goalie, if not 2.

Tyler Johnson is 5M next year and on LTIR.

Keith hits with a RCH under 2M next year on recapture.

Then we have ~3M in buyouts from Borg and Connely.

That leaves about $40M in cap hit, about $42M in cap space to be spread out over 10 positions. More, if we jettison some dead weight in the backend. We'll need to get to about 62M minimum to jump above the floor. So, that means ~2M/player min, $4M/play max. If we start to pull in some youth like Reichel, Phillips, etc. there will be slots taken over by Sub-1M players, meaning we have to sign players for more.

That's the conundrum.

I get what @Diehardfan and @Granada are saying; if we're going to rebuild then rebuild and don't pull in retreads. On the other hand, we are going to have to shore up the cap and roster with decent cap hits and vet presence anyway. I could think of worse players than Toews or Kane to be those vets; we have a few on our blueline.

I think if Toews and Kane are going to be resigned, it has to be on rebuild terms; short duration, movable deals (i.e. no clauses), and reasonable cap that other teams would take off of our hands with respect to their production on ice. They need to understand they will have to defer to the up-and-comers and be subject to be re-slotted when we find someone better (Ditto on the backend but that's a given for all those players). If they can't deal with that; if they want duration, huge cap hits, clauses in their deals, etc. then no dice; thanks for the cups.

It would suck to lose them for nothing if they don't get traded out for assets and sign elsewhere, but I would rather deal with that then either of them have a crippling Seth Jones-like contract just for old time's sake.

The other component is we can't severely overpay someone to try to come in and anchor the rebuild. Last thing they need is an albatross contract that makes it hard to sign the up and coming rebuild talent.

 

[Granada]

2 points.
****!

That win was awesome actually. **** New York and Trouba. Great seeing Khaira stand up for himself after getting destroyed by Trouba last year. Tazer even dropping the gloves with Trouba later too (okay, it wasn't a fight, but still). I was more than happy the Hawks got two points and the Rangers got zero in that game.

 

[Granada]

That's the conundrum.

I get what @Diehardfan and @Granada are saying; if we're going to rebuild then rebuild and don't pull in retreads. On the other hand, we are going to have to shore up the cap and roster with decent cap hits and vet presence anyway. I could think of worse players than Toews or Kane to be those vets; we have a few on our blueline.

I think if Toews and Kane are going to be resigned, it has to be on rebuild terms; short duration, movable deals (i.e. no clauses), and reasonable cap that other teams would take off of our hands with respect to their production on ice. They need to understand they will have to defer to the up-and-comers and be subject to be re-slotted when we find someone better (Ditto on the backend but that's a given for all those players). If they can't deal with that; if they want duration, huge cap hits, clauses in their deals, etc. then no dice; thanks for the cups.

It would suck to lose them for nothing if they don't get traded out for assets and sign elsewhere, but I would rather deal with that then either of them have a crippling Seth Jones-like contract just for old time's sake.

Snipped to address specific points.

The only logical reason as to why Toews and Kane should be re-signed would be if they would re-sign for no more than 3-4 million dollars per for one year. Honestly, that's the only way it makes sense; and even then, it doesn't make much sense because of this: every day they are both on the team, their value diminishes all the more. I hate talking about players like they're cars or something, but when it comes to players in their mid-thirties, you have to look at it that way.

Yes, vets are needed on a rebuilding team, but ideally, you want vets you can flip who are not in their mid-thirties. You keep Toews and Kane for one more year, this will diminish their returns all the more and will be all the more harder to move the longer they're retained. Not to mention the risk of one of them suffering a prolonged injury early next year.

 

[LordKOTL]

The other component is we can't severely overpay someone to try to come in and anchor the rebuild. Last thing they need is an albatross contract that makes it hard to sign the up and coming rebuild talent.

Exactly. We are already doing that on defense...for multiple personnel.

Snipped to address specific points.

The only logical reason as to why Toews and Kane should be re-signed would be if they would re-sign for no more than 3-4 million dollars per for one year. Honestly, that's the only way it makes sense; and even then, it doesn't make much sense because of this: every day they are both on the team, their value diminishes all the more. I hate talking about players like they're cars or something, but when it comes to players in their mid-thirties, you have to look at it that way.

Yes, vets are needed on a rebuilding team, but ideally, you want vets you can flip who are not in their mid-thirties. You keep Toews and Kane for one more year, this will diminish their returns all the more and will be all the more harder to move the longer they're retained. Not to mention the risk of one of them suffering a prolonged injury early next year.

Exactly, hence the 2nd paragraph you quoted of mine. If Toews/Kane cannot deal with having low cap, no clauses, short term, and the fact that they might be leapfrogged on the depth chart have to come into play. If they can't, we say goodbye--preferably with them waiving their NMC and we get assets back.

Truth be told we do need to spend cap dollars to hit the floor. If we look at the centers hitting FA next season, There are guys who would either be nonconductive to the rebuild (i.e. not placeholders) who might cost more, or players who fit into that gap who Toews is an equal or better (assuming Toews wants to stay and wants to be a mentor--which this all hinges on). Assuming that he does, Bergeron's 1yr/2.5M deal could be a comparable: Bergeron was 36 upon singing, Toews will be 35. Bergreon's has an NMC, we don't need to give Toews that. Bergeron and Toews have very similar pedigree as well. So, Toews getting, say, 1yr/3M with no clauses is not far fetched. There's not many other guys in that bracket side from maybe Bergeron who fill that position. Strome? Domi? I'd rather have Toews if he was willing to be the mentor in the above conditions since we will need players taking ~2-4M to just hit the cap floor.

And if they don't want to stay? Then we wish them the best of luck and look elsewhere. But, we could do far worse than Toews or Kane on 3-4M 1Y deals.

 

[Diehardfan]

Snipped to address specific points.

The only logical reason as to why Toews and Kane should be re-signed would be if they would re-sign for no more than 3-4 million dollars per for one year. Honestly, that's the only way it makes sense; and even then, it doesn't make much sense because of this: every day they are both on the team, their value diminishes all the more. I hate talking about players like they're cars or something, but when it comes to players in their mid-thirties, you have to look at it that way.

Yes, vets are needed on a rebuilding team, but ideally, you want vets you can flip who are not in their mid-thirties. You keep Toews and Kane for one more year, this will diminish their returns all the more and will be all the more harder to move the longer they're retained. Not to mention the risk of one of them suffering a prolonged injury early next year.

They need to bring in more guys like Domi...he should garner a nice return at the deadline. Guy's on pace for close to 30 goals.....of course, putting up those numbers without Kaner on his line would be a stretch.

 

[Granada]

Exactly. We are already doing that on defense...for multiple personnel.

Exactly, hence the 2nd paragraph you quoted of mine. If Toews/Kane cannot deal with having low cap, no clauses, short term, and the fact that they might be leapfrogged on the depth chart have to come into play. If they can't, we say goodbye--preferably with them waiving their NMC and we get assets back.

Truth be told we do need to spend cap dollars to hit the floor. If we look at the centers hitting FA next season, There are guys who would either be nonconductive to the rebuild (i.e. not placeholders) who might cost more, or players who fit into that gap who Toews is an equal or better (assuming Toews wants to stay and wants to be a mentor--which this all hinges on). Assuming that he does, Bergeron's 1yr/2.5M deal could be a comparable: Bergeron was 36 upon singing, Toews will be 35. Bergreon's has an NMC, we don't need to give Toews that. Bergeron and Toews have very similar pedigree as well. So, Toews getting, say, 1yr/3M with no clauses is not far fetched. There's not many other guys in that bracket side from maybe Bergeron who fill that position. Strome? Domi? I'd rather have Toews if he was willing to be the mentor in the above conditions since we will need players taking ~2-4M to just hit the cap floor.

And if they don't want to stay? Then we wish them the best of luck and look elsewhere. But, we could do far worse than Toews or Kane on 3-4M 1Y deals.

Every veteran (be it free agents or Toews and Kane) is non-conducive to a rebuild though. And Bergeron is an extremely rare case of a player who has a history of taking pay cuts over his career. It's pretty insane how underpaid he was throughout his entire career, but that was his choice (because he wanted to be on a winning team). The most he ever made annually was 6.5, which is just insane. And he'll also turn 38 this summer, but anyways.

Does having Toews and Kane as mentors for one more year make that much of a difference in development? Especially if either are relegated to bottom six/lesser roles? I'd say no. Honestly, I'd rather have hard-nosed vets who are a bit younger and who are more flip-able at the deadline, who can drop the gloves to boot. They don't all have to be goons, but still. Sometimes, new voices are actually stronger in the room.

If you're just going to trade them at the deadline next year anyway, I don't see a reason to not trade them at the deadline this year. That's where it doesn't make sense.

 

[Diehardfan]

They're value is not on the rise, it's on the decline because of aging....the longer you wait, the less you're going to get.

 

[LordKOTL]

Every veteran (be it free agents or Toews and Kane) is non-conducive to a rebuild though. And Bergeron is an extremely rare case of a player who has a history of taking pay cuts over his career. It's pretty insane how underpaid he was throughout his entire career, but that was his choice (because he wanted to be on a winning team). The most he ever made annually was 6.5, which is just insane. And he'll also turn 38 this summer, but anyways.

Does having Toews and Kane as mentors for one more year make that much of a difference in development? Especially if either are relegated to bottom six/lesser roles? I'd say no. Honestly, I'd rather have hard-nosed vets who are a bit younger and who are more flip-able at the deadline, who can drop the gloves to boot. They don't all have to be goons, but still. Sometimes, new voices are actually stronger in the room.

If you're just going to trade them at the deadline next year anyway, I don't see a reason to not trade them at the deadline this year. That's where it doesn't make sense.

The concern about this year's TDL is their clauses. If we CAN move them at this year's deadline, then we abso-freaking-lutely should. That should not be in any sort of question.

When it comes to filling out next year's roster though, we are going to need some guys making some decent enough cap--like I said on average of 2-4M for I think about 10 players. Some of them will have to be vets--we even had them in the previous build--guys like Lang (except he was more expensive than we want--given cap inflation), Augroin, Lapointe, etc. In that case, I think we need to look at everyone available weighed against the criteria we want; and that will include Toews and Kane as part of the group. We shouldn't be focused on them and them alone of course, but we shouldn't exclude them unless they are looking for a deal that doesn't fit within the rebuild.

So, hypothetically, if the choice for a 2-3C next year is between Toews and, say, Jordan Staal for a 3M/1Y deal: Toews every day of the week. If Max Domi wants to stay instead I think we go with him since he is not at as-big of a risk of being a declining asset, plus he has better numbers and it wouldn't be as-bad if he takes a multiyear one. Plus, Domi is making his numbers playing for us, while someone else might have their numbers propped up by a decent team around them. In that case I would say Domi over Toews.

Unfortunately, what Toews and Kane want is pure speculation at this point. They might want to win. They might want to chase Blackhawk records. I get the feeling they, their agents, or both know the score on what the Blackhawks future holds. Like I said, I have no problems with them coming back simply because we could do far worse--Bowman did do far worse. But, I'm not so naive that I think we can't do better--if we can we should. There just might not be a "better" without extra cap, extra duration, or clauses which we should eb avoiding if we can.

 

[Granada]

The concern about this year's TDL is their clauses. If we CAN move them at this year's deadline, then we abso-freaking-lutely should. That should not be in any sort of question.

When it comes to filling out next year's roster though, we are going to need some guys making some decent enough cap--like I said on average of 2-4M for I think about 10 players. Some of them will have to be vets--we even had them in the previous build--guys like Lang (except he was more expensive than we want--given cap inflation), Augroin, Lapointe, etc. In that case, I think we need to look at everyone available weighed against the criteria we want; and that will include Toews and Kane as part of the group. We shouldn't be focused on them and them alone of course, but we shouldn't exclude them unless they are looking for a deal that doesn't fit within the rebuild.

So, hypothetically, if the choice for a 2-3C next year is between Toews and, say, Jordan Staal for a 3M/1Y deal: Toews every day of the week. If Max Domi wants to stay instead I think we go with him since he is not at as-big of a risk of being a declining asset, plus he has better numbers and it wouldn't be as-bad if he takes a multiyear one. Plus, Domi is making his numbers playing for us, while someone else might have their numbers propped up by a decent team around them. In that case I would say Domi over Toews.

Unfortunately, what Toews and Kane want is pure speculation at this point. They might want to win. They might want to chase Blackhawk records. I get the feeling they, their agents, or both know the score on what the Blackhawks future holds. Like I said, I have no problems with them coming back simply because we could do far worse--Bowman did do far worse. But, I'm not so naive that I think we can't do better--if we can we should. There just might not be a "better" without extra cap, extra duration, or clauses which we should eb avoiding if we can.

I get you, we agree for the most part, but I disagree with entertaining the notion that Toews and/or Kane should be re-signed for one more year instead of other available vets. Again, there's just no point to do so. It's time to move on, for all parties. They both have good hockey left in them; there's no point in sticking around for one more year, for either the Hawks or for them.

 

[LordKOTL]

I get you, we agree for the most part, but I disagree with entertaining the notion that Toews and/or Kane should be re-signed for one more year instead of other available vets. Again, there's just no point to do so. It's time to move on, for all parties. They both have good hockey left in them; there's no point in sticking around for one more year, for either the Hawks or for them.

I get you and @Diehardfan as well; I think if we do end up re-signing them it should be because they acquiesce to the conditions of being elder skatesmen in a rebuild with the appropriate contracts and there's no one who fits the rebuild better that's willing to come here.

If we can't get better, they don't acquiesce, and/or we can move them for assets, we should definitely move on.

 

[RacerX]

The concern about this year's TDL is their clauses. If we CAN move them at this year's deadline, then we abso-freaking-lutely should. That should not be in any sort of question.

When it comes to filling out next year's roster though, we are going to need some guys making some decent enough cap--like I said on average of 2-4M for I think about 10 players. Some of them will have to be vets--we even had them in the previous build--guys like Lang (except he was more expensive than we want--given cap inflation), Augroin, Lapointe, etc. In that case, I think we need to look at everyone available weighed against the criteria we want; and that will include Toews and Kane as part of the group. We shouldn't be focused on them and them alone of course, but we shouldn't exclude them unless they are looking for a deal that doesn't fit within the rebuild.

So, hypothetically, if the choice for a 2-3C next year is between Toews and, say, Jordan Staal for a 3M/1Y deal: Toews every day of the week. If Max Domi wants to stay instead I think we go with him since he is not at as-big of a risk of being a declining asset, plus he has better numbers and it wouldn't be as-bad if he takes a multiyear one. Plus, Domi is making his numbers playing for us, while someone else might have their numbers propped up by a decent team around them. In that case I would say Domi over Toews.

Unfortunately, what Toews and Kane want is pure speculation at this point. They might want to win. They might want to chase Blackhawk records. I get the feeling they, their agents, or both know the score on what the Blackhawks future holds. Like I said, I have no problems with them coming back simply because we could do far worse--Bowman did do far worse. But, I'm not so naive that I think we can't do better--if we can we should. There just might not be a "better" without extra cap, extra duration, or clauses which we should eb avoiding if we can.

The team gets to the cap floor and then some by taking on a couple miserable contracts for overpaid dogs (which nets us draft capital, the ultimate goal atm), at least contracts that expire in the next 2 seasons.

Toews/Kane? If I'm GM, there is no circumstance under which they are resigned for the sake of the team but mostly for their own sake - go compete somewhere in your final chapter., ain't gonna be in Chi.

 

[LordKOTL]

The team gets to the cap floor and then some by taking on a couple miserable contracts for overpaid dogs (which nets us draft capital, the ultimate goal atm), at least contracts that expire in the next 2 seasons.

Toews/Kane? If I'm GM, there is no circumstance under which they are resigned for the sake of the team but mostly for their own sake - go compete somewhere in your final chapter., ain't gonna be in Chi.

We're already doing that on defense. Bowman the Beancounter did it for us with Jones, Murph, McCabe, and Johnson at FWD. We could take on more but how long would you to keep our prospects in Rockford because an overpaid slug is blocking them? Or do you have them play on a losing team where they show promise but the losing culture makes a real prospect asset want to leave--like we're risking with Soderblom?

I'm all for weaponizing cap space but I think we still need guys who can help bring the youth along as well. It *could* be Toews and Kane if they are so inclined to do so, but it doesn't have to be them. The year to bottom out is this year and we got the miserable, overpaid dogs courtesy of the H&RBlock Reject. Beyond that? We'll need guys who we can cycle out, jettison, or keep in the pressbox at a moments notice--and unfortunately the overpaid dogs on miserable contracts don't really qualify for that (would anyone want to have $6M rotting in the pressbox?). It's the 2-5M realm on short term deals without clauses that the 'hawks need--the guys who could play the Lapointe, Lang, Aucoin, etc who can lay the foundation for the next gen. What we don't want is to be stuck with player who can't be moved if one of our prospects hits. We could weaponize an albatross deal or two for draft capital coming back, but we can't do the whole lineup that way.

 

[KBIB]

Guys, guys, guys…

If you don’t trade the big two, you HAVE to resign them.

You have to look at this from a certain perspective;

Kane and Toews have more respect then 95% of the league. The guys are winners and first ballot hall of famers. There is nobody the Hawks can bring in next summer who touch those guys. They have to take pay cuts, sure, but there’s no way they’re resigning on one year deals. If KD offered them one year deals, their agent would completely shit all over the org thru the media and make Wirtz look like more of a putz then he already does.

And unless they hit Bedard and another NHL ready prospect in the draft, next year is going to be another wasted season anyways. Reichel is ready, but they’re not bringing him up, Korchinski can run a PP in the NHL right now, but he’s better off in Seattle.

The perfect scenario is nabbing first round picks for both, and right now, you can. Then you just stink for two more years and accumulate draft capital.

They need either Bedard or Fantilli. If you are going to lose the two biggest contributors (arguably) to the Hawks resurgence then you need to replace them.

You gotta trade these two and completely blow up everything Blowman did. We’re stuck with Seth who some games looks like a top dog and others he looks like dog shit.
KD needs three more years of top three draft picks and weaponizing cap space. He needs to sucker the cup contenders the next two years into taking their bloated contracts for first round picks and then hit on those picks. That’s a tall order. And while he hit on the Korchinski pick at the cost of a guy who would be leading the team in goals playing with Kane, his other picks are sus. And while many fans are hyped on Nazar, the kids 5’9 and relies on his skating. I’m not buying the whole groin tear and think he has the bad hip somebody from Michigan said on Reddit that was quickly deleted. And if he does have a bad hip, that will effect his skating, so hopefully it is just a groin tear.

Tallon tried building this team around Havlat until he saw the right thing was completely going nuclear for a couple years while the kids developed. KD has a lot of work to do for the next two years.

 

[Granada]

Guys, guys, guys…

If you don’t trade the big two, you HAVE to resign them.

You have to look at this from a certain perspective;

Kane and Toews have more respect then 95% of the league. The guys are winners and first ballot hall of famers. There is nobody the Hawks can bring in next summer who touch those guys. They have to take pay cuts, sure, but there’s no way they’re resigning on one year deals. If KD offered them one year deals, their agent would completely shit all over the org thru the media and make Wirtz look like more of a putz then he already does.

And unless they hit Bedard and another NHL ready prospect in the draft, next year is going to be another wasted season anyways. Reichel is ready, but they’re not bringing him up, Korchinski can run a PP in the NHL right now, but he’s better off in Seattle.

The perfect scenario is nabbing first round picks for both, and right now, you can. Then you just stink for two more years and accumulate draft capital.

They need either Bedard or Fantilli. If you are going to lose the two biggest contributors (arguably) to the Hawks resurgence then you need to replace them.

You gotta trade these two and completely blow up everything Blowman did. We’re stuck with Seth who some games looks like a top dog and others he looks like dog shit.
KD needs three more years of top three draft picks and weaponizing cap space. He needs to sucker the cup contenders the next two years into taking their bloated contracts for first round picks and then hit on those picks. That’s a tall order. And while he hit on the Korchinski pick at the cost of a guy who would be leading the team in goals playing with Kane, his other picks are sus. And while many fans are hyped on Nazar, the kids 5’9 and relies on his skating. I’m not buying the whole groin tear and think he has the bad hip somebody from Michigan said on Reddit that was quickly deleted. And if he does have a bad hip, that will effect his skating, so hopefully it is just a groin tear.

Tallon tried building this team around Havlat until he saw the right thing was completely going nuclear for a couple years while the kids developed. KD has a lot of work to do for the next two years.

We don't need to "replace" Toews and Kane next year. We just have to find somewhat adequate-at-best replacements on controlled-term contracts who are maybe flippable. People need to remember that this team is going to suck ass for at least the next 3 years and that's if we're lucky and Davidson doesn't pull a Bowman. It's not like we'll be doomed if we don't exactly replace either player -- that is what the draft will be for.

I think we're on the same page, at least in the belief that re-signing either Toews or Kane for one year is pointless. Where we may differ is, I would also argue it's pointless -- and outright irresponsible -- to re-sign them 2-3 years as well.

I also disagree that letting them walk isn't a possibility. It would suck for the organization of course, but if either one goes to Davidson and says, "You know, I'd like to retire a Hawk. I'd appreciate it if you don't move me," you (as Davidson) would have to take the player's word for it, even if he changes his mind in the off-season.

Also, if teams are trying to low-ball you this deadline, Davidson has shown he will not play that game and let guys walk (De Haan, etc). So, it is somewhat of a possibility.

 

[KBIB]

We don't need to "replace" Toews and Kane next year. We just have to find somewhat adequate-at-best replacements on controlled-term contracts who are maybe flippable. People need to remember that this team is going to suck ass for at least the next 3 years and that's if we're lucky and Davidson doesn't pull a Bowman. It's not like we'll be doomed if we don't exactly replace either player -- that is what the draft will be for.

I think we're on the same page, at least in the belief that re-signing either Toews or Kane for one year is pointless. Where we may differ is, I would also argue it's pointless -- and outright irresponsible -- to re-sign them 2-3 years as well.

I also disagree that letting them walk isn't a possibility. It would suck for the organization of course, but if either one goes to Davidson and says, "You know, I'd like to retire a Hawk. I'd appreciate it if you don't move me," you (as Davidson) would have to take the player's word for it, even if he changes his mind in the off-season.

Also, if teams are trying to low-ball you this deadline, Davidson has shown he will not play that game and let guys walk (De Haan, etc). So, it is somewhat of a possibility.

We’re 100% on the same page.

But…you have to look at the Hawks in general when it comes to possibly resigning K and T.

People WILL come out to see them.
The Hawks, with what’s looking like 40 million in cap space next year, need to hit the floor.

I hate to go all EA sports, but unless KD is actually going to put his GM panties on and weaponize his cap space, he’s going to need that buffer for the next two/three years. Which is why trading them is the smartest thing he can do and just completely scorching the earth around the UC and signing guys they can flip at the next few deadlines.

Truth being, if the Hawks were to land Bedard and still have Kane, they’re going to put up a lot of points together and then the Hawks will be right back picking at seven and rolling the dice instead of getting the elite talents in the next couple drafts (2024 is also starting to look top heavy in high end talent in the top four). Toews and that ungodly 64% faceoff percentage is putting him in late first round pick territory. Trade him.

Honestly, I think the Hawks are going to resign both to contracts that lock them up until they’re 40. That’s not what I want, that’s what I see. I don’t think KD has the balls to trade these guys nor do I think he’s retaining 50% on their contracts if he would to maximize their value. I hope I’m wrong, but I doubt it.

 

[Granada]

We’re 100% on the same page.

But…you have to look at the Hawks in general when it comes to possibly resigning K and T.

People WILL come out to see them.
The Hawks, with what’s looking like 40 million in cap space next year, need to hit the floor.

I hate to go all EA sports, but unless KD is actually going to put his GM panties on and weaponize his cap space, he’s going to need that buffer for the next two/three years. Which is why trading them is the smartest thing he can do and just completely scorching the earth around the UC and signing guys they can flip at the next few deadlines.

Truth being, if the Hawks were to land Bedard and still have Kane, they’re going to put up a lot of points together and then the Hawks will be right back picking at seven and rolling the dice instead of getting the elite talents in the next couple drafts (2024 is also starting to look top heavy in high end talent in the top four). Toews and that ungodly 64% faceoff percentage is putting him in late first round pick territory. Trade him.

Honestly, I think the Hawks are going to resign both to contracts that lock them up until they’re 40. That’s not what I want, that’s what I see. I don’t think KD has the balls to trade these guys nor do I think he’s retaining 50% on their contracts if he would to maximize their value. I hope I’m wrong, but I doubt it.

I don't know, maybe I should be more concerned about the Hawks hitting the cap floor than I am. I like to think that there are other ways of hitting the floor besides re-signing T/K for multiple years.

I just did some quick math, but it looks like the Hawks will be at about 45 million next year (again, did this quickly while at work, so maybe I'm wrong). That's factoring in Keith's recapture penalty and the Connolly buyout, etc. The floor next year is around 62 if I'm not mistaken. So that's 18 mill, roughly. And you have C. Jones, P. Kurashev, and Ian Mitchell all needing new contracts that year. That's 2-3 million each right there -- now, maybe their playing doesn't exactly warrant that, but if you factor inflation and if you want to lock them up short-term and not long-term, I'd say that's doable. Plus you obviously have the free agent market at your disposal.

I think Davidson doesn't give a shit about getting fans in seats, which is good. If we still had Bowman, I'd be more concerned with re-signing T/K for another 5 years, but thankfully we don't anymore.

 

[KBIB]

I don't know, maybe I should be more concerned about the Hawks hitting the cap floor than I am. I like to think that there are other ways of hitting the floor besides re-signing T/K for multiple years.

I just did some quick math, but it looks like the Hawks will be at about 45 million next year (again, did this quickly while at work, so maybe I'm wrong). That's factoring in Keith's recapture penalty and the Connolly buyout, etc. The floor next year is around 62 if I'm not mistaken. So that's 18 mill, roughly. And you have C. Jones, P. Kurashev, and Ian Mitchell all needing new contracts that year. That's 2-3 million each right there -- now, maybe their playing doesn't exactly warrant that, but if you factor inflation and if you want to lock them up short-term and not long-term, I'd say that's doable. Plus you obviously have the free agent market at your disposal.

I think Davidson doesn't give a shit about getting fans in seats, which is good. If we still had Bowman, I'd be more concerned with re-signing T/K for another 5 years, but thankfully we don't anymore.

Ok, I might be wrong but I’ll try…

If the floor is 60 million, and the hawks are say five million short, they pay a five million dollar fine and lose five million on their cap ceiling for that year and the next. So say they stink that year it’s not that bad, but become a super team the next year it’s bad. Whatever amount they are under they lose on their ceiling but the fine is locked at five million.

They might have dropped the two year penalty tho. And I think they lose a retain salary spot for the year. I’m not a capologist and I know the fines were ridiculous when it was first drawn up but has been toned down a lot.

 

[LordKOTL]

I don't know, maybe I should be more concerned about the Hawks hitting the cap floor than I am. I like to think that there are other ways of hitting the floor besides re-signing T/K for multiple years.

I just did some quick math, but it looks like the Hawks will be at about 45 million next year (again, did this quickly while at work, so maybe I'm wrong). That's factoring in Keith's recapture penalty and the Connolly buyout, etc. The floor next year is around 62 if I'm not mistaken. So that's 18 mill, roughly. And you have C. Jones, P. Kurashev, and Ian Mitchell all needing new contracts that year. That's 2-3 million each right there -- now, maybe their playing doesn't exactly warrant that, but if you factor inflation and if you want to lock them up short-term and not long-term, I'd say that's doable. Plus you obviously have the free agent market at your disposal.

I think Davidson doesn't give a shit about getting fans in seats, which is good. If we still had Bowman, I'd be more concerned with re-signing T/K for another 5 years, but thankfully we don't anymore.

According to CapFriendly, We'll be around 41M--their cap spending number next year factors in guys in LTIR like Johnson, Keith's buyout, etc., (it's about 20M committed to the cap for roster players only). The cap floor will be 61M (according to ESPN). We'll need to spend $20M in cap to reach the floor divided over anywhere between 7 bare minimum and 10 ideal players (7 fills the 12F/6D/2G minimum, 10 gives an extra player for F/D/G on the roster), so that means about $2M per player if we go for the 10-player; we'll need more per player if we go 7 players minimum. No matter who they are (re-signing, UFA signing, etc.), we'll need to outlay that cap. By my count we'll need 4-5 FWDs, 2-3 D-men, and 1-2 G.

If I was KD, I would be tapping Kane and Toews right now and asking if they're willing to waive and what criteria they have for being traded. If they say no, I'd say "I'll ask again closer to the TDL. If you still don't want to waive, that's fine. If you change your mind feel free to reach out."

Assuming they still don't, want to waive, I would lay down reasonable for the rebuild offers. Even though you indicated it was lowball, I would offer Toews 1Yr/2.5M. Bergeron comparable. Kane, you might be able to stretch an additional year since he's not 35+, but I would prefer 1. I would no go more than 2 for 2M or 1 for 3.5M....MAX. Less is better to the $2M low end. No clauses or anything. If they want to retire a 'hawk, then take it year-to-year only if they're willing to work with that salary, that duration, and the role of being a mentor. But, I would hold hard on the max cap and the duration. Any following year it's 1 year max and salary commensurate with their role--and that's if they want to take lower cap to retire a 'hawk. If not? If they want cap, duration, clauses, or want to win, we thank them for all they done and look for other personnel to fit that role.

At those salaries it would not hurt the team even if we let them lapse and got nothing. Buried value is 1.125M nest season and 1.15M after. We still have a shit-tonne of room for weaponizing cap if needed, and even .5M or 1.5M over the 2M/player to meet the cap floor gives the 'hawks room to play some prospects who are making sub-1M.