Kings aren't paying a 2nd for Nylander. I'm sure they'll just claim him once you place him on waivers.

You didn't really do anything to "fix Bowmans mess". Strome and Georgiev would get more money which would put you over the cap. NYR probably don't even come close to accepting that as well. Bowman's "mess" is the salary cap which you didn't fix. we can't get back guys like Panarin, Tuevo, or Danault who were traded and probably shouldn't have been, but honestly between good drafting and euro signings Stan has somewhat made up for it. I just don't see how what you did here is better. Team is worse off salary cap wise and worse defensively

ELC's don't go on waivers, but yeah Kings probably decline

Strome after both a down year/playoffs and the fact he can only seem to produce with Kane and DeBrincat is not slated to get the $4-6 million like he was at the start of the season. Also as an RFA w/o any arbitration rights he is going to get squeezed and will likely take a smaller deal to stay in Chicago or traded which he doesn't want after a bad experience in Arizona. Plus if you look at his quotes, and the desire to play with DeBrincat it all points to him staying on a lower value bridge deal.

Georgiev hasn't proven himself as a NHL starter, but has shown flashes of skill which point to him as a possible starter his save % is .914. Also don't forget the number has been trending down over past two years. Also back ups do not get paid alot without a proven track record. Also i said in the description the defense has to take a step back. Bowman created a logjam of "okay defenders" with term when he has a glut of high end prospects and with the Seabrook albatross of a contract its not possible to go out and add a high or even a medium priced defender. So next year has to be a step back in order for the Mitchell and Boqvist to cut their teeth in the NHL. Unless you move Matta and another defenseman its not likely Mitchell even has a spot on the roster. Preferably you'd keep Murphy over Dehaan, but injury history makes him a hard player to move particularly in a flat cap world.

However, the team structured as such would have greater forward depth which was a significant problem for them throughout the year. They also have less cap stuck in longterm deals for okay players. Under ideal situations you'd also move Shaw, but i can't imagine any NHL team risking that cap space on a player whose missed something close to a season's worth of games over past two years form concussions. So the team has roughly in an actual scenario 1.2 million in cap space with alot more being likely as the chances Dehaan or Shaw are both on LTIR for a long period of time is high.

Fixing Bowman's mess in the way traditionally thought is nearly impossible you cannot undue his bad trades or magically get rid of Seabrook's contract, a contract that he is not to blame for as what player would demand less money, so what mistakes can be fixed? Making the forward core deeper and removing bad contracts which prevent the next core from having a roster spot. Additionally, as you can tell most of my contracts are short term so the team actually has an ability to hit reset, depending on how the current core and the next core are playing in two years. Also under this scenario, as unless they draft Askarov who won't be there at 17 they don't have a legit NHL starter in the system and cannot pay for anyone other than Crawford on the market they could trade for a potential starter in Georgiev. New York also will certainly trying getting as much as possible, but unless Lundquist retires they're stuck with three goalies and are not in a place of strength in that trade. Getting a quality depth forward and a NHL back up quality goaltender who can also be sent to the minors is about market value on that trade.

Interesting points for sure. I still think the hawks are better off not trading Murphy. Yes forward depth is important but I would argue Murphy is currently our best defender. The hawks biggest issue isn't forward depth it's defense. Especially if you're going to ride a 36 year old concussion prone Crawford as the starter. We need to do a better job defensively. The hawks gave up the most high danger scoring chances in the league last year. This defense above if worse than what we had last year.Dehaan needs to go IMO. He was bad in the playoffs, is expensive and injury prone. I think we could get a mid round pick for him, but if we can't move him for free or even throw in a sweetener. Maata-koekkoek should be back next season. Our best shutdown D pair in the playoffs. If possible we need to find someone else on the left side who can take some minutes from Kieth, although it is looking unlikely that can happen. Rolling a defense of:
kieth-Boqvist
Murphy-Mitchell
Maata-koekkoek
works pretty solid IMO. Best case scenario is pulling off a Strome for Brodin trade to try to give Kieth less minutes. Forward depth is nice but it's a luxury. With all the bad contracts, the team is going to have some holes. You kind of have to decide what part of the roster is going to be weaker. We have played the "try to score 6 goals a game and hope you only give up 5" style of play for the last two years. It's time to shore up the defense. Unless we can get Lehner Back or bring in some goalie that can steal games, fixing the defense is our best shot at staying competitive IMO.

Regardless, it was nice to have a quality discussion out this. You bring up good points for sure.

Agreed. I appreciate the fact as generally those i talk to on Hockey aren't that knowledgeable of this type of stuff so its nice to be challenged and reevaluate some of things i was thinking. Who would be your sweetner for Dehaan? if you can get rid of him and keep Murphy i would agree its the better option as Murphy has been solid 3 or 4th defender. I really like your D pairings as they have balance and i would switch Mitchell and Boqvist to shelter him with a stay at home defender which allows Keith to be more active in the offensive zone. The reason why i went for forward depth is probably an overly optimistic view of how good Mitchell will be as everything, i have read projects him as not just a great puck mover, but a top 4 defender. If you can get a Brodin for Strome that would be a steal of a trade, but given his season and how he seems to need Kane or DeBrincat to produce i wasn't sure how strong a market for him is going to be plus trading him does bring lockerroom issues.

Though let me ask you would get rid of Colliton and/or Bowman in favor of a new voice at GM or a more experienced coach like a Gallant?

I honestly think we could get a third or a 4th for dehaan. But if we needed a sweetener it would be something like sikura or Krys. D pairs with Brodin look really good.
Brodin-Boqvist
Kieth-Murphy
Maata-koekkoek
If Mitchell is ready then Koekkoek sits and it gets shuffled a bit but if he's not it looks like that. As for Colliton/Stan.... I think that they are really on the hot seat this year. If the team doesn't compete and honestly if they miss the playoffs both will be gone I think. I would deffinelty be in favor of the change. Never liked the Colliton hire (thought they kinda rushed him to the NHL) and I don't think Colliton's scheme/system fits our personal very well. As for Stan, I don't hate him as much as most hawks fans do, but I would definelty be in favor of a change. He still thinks Kieth and Seabrook are 2015 Kieth and Seabrook which has been a big problem for us. They have this year ti figure it out out they're gone imo. That's why I think it could be a busier offseason than most expect from the hawks

agreed on Stan/Colliton they don't have many more chances left to fix it. Plus you can't fire the coach and let Stan pick the next one. Also with Brodin our defense does look much better. Also this scenario is already outdated Kapanen is being traded to Pittsburgh according to Freidman