SalarySwishSalarySwish
Forums/Armchair-GM

2019 Offseason Re-do

Created by: bhawks30
Team: 2019-20 Chicago Blackhawks
Initial Creation Date: Sep. 19, 2019
Published: Sep. 19, 2019
Salary Cap Mode: Basic
Description
When Gus is ultimately traded or not re-signed, that's Boqvist's spot.

As for forward lines, don't read too much into it. The entire Top 9 wouldn't really have a true "top line." The idea is that from a chemistry standpoint, you have Toews/Saad, Strome/Cat, and Arty/Kane, with Kubalik, Shaw, and Sareela being interchangeable in the the 3 wing spots.

Also more cap space... I would've been much higher on this team for the present and future.
Trades
1.
2.
3.
4.
DraftRound 1Round 2Round 3Round 4Round 5Round 6Round 7
2020
Logo of the CHI
Logo of the CHI
Logo of the CHI
Logo of the CHI
Logo of the CHI
2021
Logo of the CHI
Logo of the CHI
Logo of the CHI
Logo of the CHI
Logo of the CHI
Logo of the CHI
Logo of the MTL
2022
Logo of the CHI
Logo of the CHI
Logo of the CHI
Logo of the CHI
Logo of the CHI
Logo of the CHI
Logo of the CHI
ROSTER SIZESALARY CAPCAP HITOVERAGES TooltipBONUSESCAP SPACE
23$81,500,000$66,457,586$0$6,715,000$15,042,414
Left WingCentreRight Wing
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$5,000,000$5,000,000
LW, RW
UFA - 2
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$10,500,000$10,500,000
C
NMC
UFA - 4
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$925,000$925,000 (Performance Bonus$850,000$850K)
LW, RW
UFA - 1
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$753,333$753,333 (Performance Bonus$82,500$82K)
C, LW
RFA - 1
Logo of the Ottawa Senators
$4,550,000$4,550,000
C, LW
UFA - 2
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$2,625,000$2,625,000
RW
NMC
UFA - 4
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$778,333$778,333 (Performance Bonus$32,500$32K)
LW, RW
UFA - 1
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$863,333$863,333 (Performance Bonus$2,475,000$2M)
C
UFA - 1
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$3,900,000$3,900,000
C, RW
UFA - 3
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$1,500,000$1,500,000
LW, RW
UFA - 1
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$1,000,000$1,000,000
RW, C
UFA - 3
Logo of the Pittsburgh Penguins
$925,000$925,000 (Performance Bonus$2,850,000$3M)
LW, RW, C
UFA - 1
Left DefenseRight DefenseGoaltender
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$5,538,462$5,538,462
LD
NMC
UFA - 4
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$1,200,000$1,200,000
LD
UFA - 1
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$6,000,000$6,000,000
G
M-NTC, NMC
UFA - 1
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$4,550,000$4,550,000
LD/RD
UFA - 3
Logo of the Buffalo Sabres
$925,000$925,000 (Performance Bonus$425,000$425K)
RD
RFA - 2
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$1,400,000$1,400,000
G
UFA - 1
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$3,850,000$3,850,000
RD
UFA - 3
Logo of the Colorado Avalanche
$925,000$925,000
LD/RD
RFA - 4
ScratchesInjured Reserve (IR)Long Term IR (LTIR)
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$6,875,000$6,875,000
RD
NMC
UFA - 5
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$874,125$874,125
RW, LW
UFA - 1
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$1,000,000$1,000,000
C
UFA - 2

Embed Code

  • To display this team on another website or blog, add this iFrame to the appropriate page
  • Customize the height attribute in the iFrame code below to fit your website appropriately. Minimum recommended: 400px.

Text-Embed

Click to Highlight
Sep. 19, 2019 at 4:14 p.m.
#1
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2019
Posts: 2,350
Likes: 851
Honestly, with the exception of line combinations, everything about this just makes sense. It actually follows the process we were following before this offseason. I like your ideas and really wish this is what we were able to do. This just goes back to the idea that we should have just accepted we were in a rebuild and not a retooling. At number 3 overall and a desperate need for defense, take the best damn available player! Take a center next year! Offense is not our problem!

Love you ideas dude, definitely would have written this up as a successful offseason.
exo2769 and Hockeyplayer1 liked this.
Sep. 19, 2019 at 4:18 p.m.
#2
exo2769
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2015
Posts: 15,536
Likes: 9,582
Edited Sep. 19, 2019 at 4:25 p.m.
I would have drafted Byram with the #3OA and I would NOT have traded away Joki for Nylander. BUT there's a bunch we don't know. Would drafting Byram affect Ian Mitchell's decision? I'm not in those convos. Also, the Hawks need another Center...so that could be a factor, but I hope not. I'm a firm believer in best available no matter what with that high a pick. Lastly, I would send Byram back to Vancouver. He might be ready...maybe...but it doesn't hurt the Hawks (as a team) to have him develop a little more on the defensive side before bringing him to the bigs. Allow other guys that are further along to develop even more. Look at Miro Hesk! Similar story to Boqvist...except Boqvist is looking even better offensively than Byram.
HatterTParty liked this.
Sep. 19, 2019 at 4:43 p.m.
#3
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2019
Posts: 2,350
Likes: 851
Quoting: exo2769
I would have drafted Byram with the #3OA and I would NOT have traded away Joki for Nylander. BUT there's a bunch we don't know. Would drafting Byram affect Ian Mitchell's decision? I'm not in those convos. Also, the Hawks need another Center...so that could be a factor, but I hope not. I'm a firm believer in best available no matter what with that high a pick. Lastly, I would send Byram back to Vancouver. He might be ready...maybe...but it doesn't hurt the Hawks (as a team) to have him develop a little more on the defensive side before bringing him to the bigs. Allow other guys that are further along to develop even more. Look at Miro Hesk! Similar story to Boqvist...except Boqvist is looking even better offensively than Byram.


Exo, I think I might have brought it up in one of our conversations. A huge problem with the Hawks right now is too many vets getting the chances young players probably deserve. This is severely the case on defense, as I don't see any room for Boqvist on this team, and that's even before de Haan comes back. We have so much promise on offense and people like Saarela deserve a chance, but he probably won't get it because of too much room for vets. Add Byram and Joki to the defensive equation, its rough. But, take away maatta, trade gus, sit seabrook (which should happen anyway), and you may actually get the youngsters chances they deserve. I also believe in best player available as well, and I'd even stretch and say Turcotte would have been acceptable at #3 as well. I don't necessarily believe we needed a center so bad as to take Dach, but we definitely should have waited till next year and taken the sure thing #1 dman.

Also, I get the Miro Heiskanen comparison. He did get one more year to mature before reaching the NHL. But remember, Miro is Finnish, meaning his year before the NHL was in the Finnish Pro League, where he played against players in their 20s and 30s. Byram would only play players from 16-21. So, in all honesty, I do believe the only way for Byram to go this season with the Avs (or theoretically with the Hawks) is in the NHL. He cant get anything out of the WHL anymore, even defensively. He needs to try and (most likely) fail in the NHL. Players like him are truly rare.
exo2769 liked this.
Sep. 19, 2019 at 4:48 p.m.
#4
Avatar of the user
Joined: Feb. 2016
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 199
This is the offseason I had envisioned when the Hawks won the draft lottery. Sets them up unbelievably for the future. All they needed to do in the offseason was trade for a solid top-4 LHD.
Drafting Bowen makes sense as he replaces Keith as #1 LHD in a year or 2. You still have Toews and Strome for several more years and all you need is a young 3C down the road. Boqvist & Joki or Mitchell take the right side D spots after Gus is gone, Seabs scratches.

Quoting: exo2769
I would have drafted Byram with the #3OA and I would NOT have traded away Joki for Nylander. BUT there's a bunch we don't know. Would drafting Byram affect Ian Mitchell's decision?


I agree with this. We don't know. But in this scenario you have Jokiharju which makes Mitchell a trade-able asset if he says he won't sign. Try to trade him for a 3C throughout this year or next. If The hawks are pegging him as a top-4 D you should certainly be able to get a decent 3C for that.
exo2769 liked this.
Sep. 19, 2019 at 4:54 p.m.
#5
Thread Starter
bhawks30
Avatar of the user
Joined: Apr. 2016
Posts: 73
Likes: 1
That would have been the beauty of this too, the lines could have mixed a lot of different ways. You could have seen Colliton going with Toews-Kane together more, keeping Saad and Anisimov together on the 3rd as a checking line. Even guys like Caggiula and Kahun (shown 4th line here) demonstrated the ability to play anywhere in the lineup. Point is, TONS of skill and versatility in this group.

Exo I'm with you on the Byram thing, picking that high I think it's a complete sin to do anything BUT take the best player and highest ceiling available. Byram, Boqvist, Joki, Mitchell, and Beaudin would have been one impressive young core on D.

Oh Well... Fun to think about
Sep. 19, 2019 at 5:00 p.m.
#6
exo2769
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2015
Posts: 15,536
Likes: 9,582
Edited Sep. 19, 2019 at 5:05 p.m.
Quoting: HatterTParty
Exo, I think I might have brought it up in one of our conversations. A huge problem with the Hawks right now is too many vets getting the chances young players probably deserve. This is severely the case on defense, as I don't see any room for Boqvist on this team, and that's even before de Haan comes back. We have so much promise on offense and people like Saarela deserve a chance, but he probably won't get it because of too much room for vets. Add Byram and Joki to the defensive equation, its rough. But, take away maatta, trade gus, sit seabrook (which should happen anyway), and you may actually get the youngsters chances they deserve. I also believe in best player available as well, and I'd even stretch and say Turcotte would have been acceptable at #3 as well. I don't necessarily believe we needed a center so bad as to take Dach, but we definitely should have waited till next year and taken the sure thing #1 dman.

Also, I get the Miro Heiskanen comparison. He did get one more year to mature before reaching the NHL. But remember, Miro is Finnish, meaning his year before the NHL was in the Finnish Pro League, where he played against players in their 20s and 30s. Byram would only play players from 16-21. So, in all honesty, I do believe the only way for Byram to go this season with the Avs (or theoretically with the Hawks) is in the NHL. He cant get anything out of the WHL anymore, even defensively. He needs to try and (most likely) fail in the NHL. Players like him are truly rare.


Good thoughts! As for the 1st part. The Hawks can still do any/all of those moves. There's nothing stopping Stan and Co. from trading Gus or sitting Seabrook. Also, worst case Maatta gets bought out...ok not ideal, but that's only $700k and an admission (in my mind) that Stan messed up. I don't think..that he thinks...he made a bad trade.. None of these are likely...I agree. I guess my point though is that these options are available whether we trade Joki / draft Byram or not.

I never really considered waiting until next year for a center. It's brought a new frame of thinking. Drafting a #1C later in the 1st round. I guess my quick thoughts (could be wrong) would be how many #1 Dmen are in the 2nd half of the 1st or 2nd round? How many #1C are in the 2nd half of the 1st or 2nd round? It's an interesting because I'm a big fan of best OA, but maybe they're using drafting sabermetrics??? I don't know. Thanks for the thought. I'll ponder that.

As for Byram in the WHL. I can see that. To your point. Look at Joki. 48 points...back to Portland. Then 71 points (ironically) to the Hawks / Rockford. I actually have ZERO issue allowing prospects to develop in the AHL like Sandin or Brannstrom. The one caveat might be the contract year is lost in that 1st year. That's probably 1 reason GMs send players back to juniors. It's actually a HUGE factor in baseball that I think we're starting to see in hockey because it's difficult to say he'll be worse off going back to Vancouver. He'll likely still crush it at the very least. He needs some work defensively if we're being honest and GMs (I think) and trending toward allowing that development (even if it's minor) to be done during a "free" year.
HatterTParty liked this.
Sep. 19, 2019 at 6:14 p.m.
#7
Avatar of the user
Joined: Feb. 2016
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 199
Quoting: exo2769
The one caveat might be the contract year is lost in that 1st year. That's probably 1 reason GMs send players back to juniors.


Players contracts slide when they play in the AHL at 18 & 19 years old. In theory Boqvist could have played last year and this year entirely in the AHL and still have 3 years remaining on his ELC entering the 2020-21 season. The same thing would have applied to Byram except he was drafted out the CHL so he is not allowed to play in the AHL until he is 20 (aged out of juniors), similar to Dach.
exo2769 liked this.
Sep. 19, 2019 at 7:23 p.m.
#8
exo2769
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2015
Posts: 15,536
Likes: 9,582
Quoting: Hockeyplayer1
Players contracts slide when they play in the AHL at 18 & 19 years old. In theory Boqvist could have played last year and this year entirely in the AHL and still have 3 years remaining on his ELC entering the 2020-21 season. The same thing would have applied to Byram except he was drafted out the CHL so he is not allowed to play in the AHL until he is 20 (aged out of juniors), similar to Dach.


I think we're 99.9% saying the same thing. I thought it was juniors because A.) he was drafted, but also B.) the AHL is an NHL affiliate in which the player can be brought up or down. Example being Cal Foote. (link below) He only spent 6 games on an NHL roster in his career, but he lost a year of eligibility last year with the Syracuse Crunch last year despite being 19 for most of the year. I actually think the CBA states an exact date...August 15th comes to mind. I'd have to go check the CBA. But if you're 18 or 19 as of August 15th...I believe.

https://www.capfriendly.com/players/cal-foote
Sep. 20, 2019 at 10:24 a.m.
#9
Avatar of the user
Joined: Feb. 2016
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 199
Edited Sep. 20, 2019 at 10:36 a.m.
Quoting: exo2769
I think we're 99.9% saying the same thing. I thought it was juniors because A.) he was drafted, but also B.) the AHL is an NHL affiliate in which the player can be brought up or down. Example being Cal Foote. (link below) He only spent 6 games on an NHL roster in his career, but he lost a year of eligibility last year with the Syracuse Crunch last year despite being 19 for most of the year. I actually think the CBA states an exact date...August 15th comes to mind. I'd have to go check the CBA. But if you're 18 or 19 as of August 15th...I believe.

https://www.capfriendly.com/players/cal-foote


So Cal Foote's contract didn't slide because he turned 20 before January 1st. If his birthday was after Jan 1st it would have slid.
I'm not sure of CHL birthdate cutoffs for when a player is considered an overager (I'd guess the CBA follows the CHL dates here), but i"m guessing that is why Cal was allowed to play in the AHL and not sent back to juniors.

EDIT: After further research, a player is considered an overager in the CHL if he turns 20 before Dec 31st of that playing season. So the CBA rules do follow CHL rules in regards to eligibility for CHL players to play in the AHL and contract slides for non-CHL players playing in the AHL.

Hope this makes sense. Sometimes this stuff is hard to articulate via text. ESPECIALLY LTIR rules. That stuff is complicated as hell.
 
Reply
To create a post please Login or Register
Question:
Options:
Add Option
Submit Poll