Is the right hockey move to trade Jonathan Toews?

[kliq 3,763]

Here are the facts:

Toews is 28 years old, and is signed until 2023 (6 seasons after this year) to a cap hit of 10.5 million per year which along with Kane is the largest cap hit in the NHL.

The cap-hits for the big 5 are collectively 39.4 million. 

Kane - $10,500,000
Toews - $10,500,000
Seabrook - $6,875,000
Keith - $5,538,462
Crawford - $6,000,000

Here is my opinion:

Being swept, and losing for the second year in a row in the first round signals that this core likely cannot win a cup again unless something changes as this core is not getting any younger or any better then what they are. Now I don't think by any stretch this team is going to be bad, what I am wondering is can they win the cup keeping the team as is. This kind of reminds me of us back in 2010/2011, we were good but unless our kids broke out (ie. Nyquist, Sheahan, Tatar etc.), we were headed for a major regression. I think a re-build/tank job is stupid as they still have ALOT of talent, and with some good moves likely can win another cup. What the question becomes, is what are those moves. What is fact, is moving Toews and his 10.5mil cap-hit opens up a lot of opportunity.  

The closest example I can think of to this situation in that a team could get better by moving on from their star is in baseball when the Cardinals let Albert Pujols walk opposed to giving him 30mil for 10 years. At the time Pujols was elite (a much better player in MLB then Toews today in the NHL), but all signs pointed towards a regression. Long story short they let him walk to LAA and now his contract with LA is considered one of the worst in all of sports. 

Obviously that was a UFA situation and this would require a trade, but the point is there. Right now Toews has trade value, and like the Cardinals in 2012 they have the ability to move on from him as I would put money on it that some team out there would take on that contract. If I am a Hawks fan, I want the Hawks to be like the Cardinals of 2012, not the Angels of 2012.

I think we can all agree that you don't trade Kane, as much as I despise him he is one of the best offensive players in the NHL. Keith and Seabrook are staples on D (I would love to have those 2 here), plus their cap hits combined are only about 2mil more then Toews alone. You could trade Crawford if you feel Darling is ready, but putting a kid in goal when you are a team who's objective every year is the cup can be a big risk.

60 points a year now appears to be Toews ceiling and his Selke days seem to be behind him. 

For the poll, I am looking at what people think is the right move, not what they want to happen. If I am telling you what I want, I want them to keep him as I think it hurts them, and there is nothing more I want then for Chicago to fall into a situation where they cannot win for a long time.

What do you all think?

Edited April 21, 2017 by kliq

[chaps80 1,591]

You think another team would take that massive cap hit for another 6 years? 10.5 mill a season is insane. Quite a few teams would need restructuring to fit him in. They're best plan if they wanted to move him would be to contact McPhee in LV. They need to reach cap floor, and snagging Toews for their  inaugural season would really help establish a fan base, get them an experienced team captain with three Cups on board to lead and help a brand new team with an assortment of players from every team in the league work together and gel.

But it would never happen. Toews means too much to the Hawks team and fans. He's their Yzerman or Sakic, and most likely a lifer in Chicago. Fans would probably riot. Lol 

[Echolalia 2,961]

who would want to pay 10.5M for <60 points a season?  Personally I think its one of the worst contracts in the league right now.

[Datsyukian-Deke 722]

No one would take that contract unless Chicago takes a bunch back, which would defeat the purpose. So we can just keep watching them sputter in the playoffs for the forseable future. 

[chaps80 1,591]

8 minutes ago, Echolalia said:

who would want to pay 10.5M for <60 points a season?  Personally I think its one of the worst contracts in the league right now.

Yeah I dunno how they ever reached the 10+ million mark with him. Honestly, no player is worth that, and Chicago has two. Gotta draw the line somewhere.

[Datsyukian-Deke 722]

8 minutes ago, chaps80 said:

Yeah I dunno how they ever reached the 10+ million mark with him. Honestly, no player is worth that, and Chicago has two. Gotta draw the line somewhere.

Both he and Kane were up for new contracts and they couldn't pay one more than the other at the team. It would have created a rift. So I understand why they did it. But it def has turned out to be over payment for Toews. Although he does things on both sides of the ice. It's not all about points for Toews.

[Buppy 1,720]

Poll lacks the IDGAS option.

Also, no good reason to write off Chicago permanently based on a couple poor runs. 

 

[chaps80 1,591]

4 minutes ago, Datsyukian-Deke said:

Both he and Kane were up for new contracts and they couldn't pay one more than the other at the team. It would have created a rift. So I understand why they did it. But it def has turned out to be over payment for Toews. Although he does things on both sides of the ice. It's not all about points for Toews.

Understandable that both are paid the same, but 10.5 mill is just a crazy sum to pay someone to play hockey, especially in the cap era. Two players take up 21 mill of your  entire available space. Whatever though, that's the Hawks problem, especially when they decline to the calibre of other $6 mill players. They have won three Cups with them though, so I guess it evens out? 

[Datsyukian-Deke 722]

13 minutes ago, chaps80 said:

Understandable that both are paid the same, but 10.5 mill is just a crazy sum to pay someone to play hockey, especially in the cap era. Two players take up 21 mill of your  entire available space. Whatever though, that's the Hawks problem, especially when they decline to the calibre of other $6 mill players. They have won three Cups with them though, so I guess it evens out? 

Yea they got their money's worth out of the cups for sure. And like I said, with Kane it's all about points with him. With Toews it's about points, face-offs, back-checking, penalty killing, leadership. So they can't get rid of him even if his price tag is high. 

[kliq 3,763]

1 hour ago, Datsyukian-Deke said:

No one would take that contract unless Chicago takes a bunch back, which would defeat the purpose. So we can just keep watching them sputter in the playoffs for the forseable future. 

That's definitely a possibility, but even more a reason to see if there is interest out there. Remember, all you need is 1 team to be interested. I never thought in a million years that the Leafs would move Clarkson.

 

48 minutes ago, Buppy said:

Poll lacks the IDGAS option.

Also, no good reason to write off Chicago permanently based on a couple poor runs. 

LMAO! I actually was going to put that as an option, but I figured everyone would select it. I'm not completely writing them off, my logic is they are getting older and younger teams are getting better. I think they will be very good for years to come, but to be the best of the best, I think is unlikely unless they make changes.

 

1 hour ago, chaps80 said:

You think another team would take that massive cap hit for another 6 years? 10.5 mill a season is insane. Quite a few teams would need restructuring to fit him in. They're best plan if they wanted to move him would be to contact McPhee in LV. They need to reach cap floor, and snagging Toews for their  inaugural season would really help establish a fan base, get them an experienced team captain with three Cups on board to lead and help a brand new team with an assortment of players from every team in the league work together and gel.

But it would never happen. Toews means too much to the Hawks team and fans. He's their Yzerman or Sakic, and most likely a lifer in Chicago. Fans would probably riot. Lol 

Ya probably not, but like I said in the quote above I think if you are Chicago you have to try.

*EDIT* I just saw he has a NMC, he's not going anywhere. That's even better.

Edited April 21, 2017 by kliq

[BadgerBob 297]

I put yes because I'd love to see all the Hawks "fans" here in MN flip out.

[PavelValerievichDatsyuk 1,935]

I think they're fortunes are tied that of J.T. because I don't think they could get value in a trade due to the contract. The only trade idea that popped into my head could be something with the Avs since there's been rumors of them moving McKinnon, Duchene, or Landeskog. Something there might make sense for both sides. But I don't know how they'd deal with the salary difference. I don't foresee a big thing like that happening, though (but also I never would have guessed Subban for Weber)

More doable, I'd try to shed the Hossa contract to add a new spark. Hossa's 38 and will be a 5.275 caphit for the next 4 years. He's still doing well and could still have demand, but his last 2 years are definitely his worst statistically and I think it will only continue at this point. And he's just outside the core, so he could be a way to shake things up, but not tear them down. He, like Toews, has a NMC, though, so I don't know if either could happen.

Maybe they'll just hope to lose someone like Kruger (make's 3.08 mill) in the expansion draft to gain the room to bring someone in.

Edited April 21, 2017 by PavelValerievichDatsyuk

[DatsyukianDekes 2,428]

1 hour ago, Buppy said:

Poll lacks the IDGAS option.

Also, no good reason to write off Chicago permanently based on a couple poor runs. 

 

They are in cap hell with bad contracts.

Toews, Seabrook, Hossa.

Keith isn't the same player he was. I don't see them as threats anymore baring some moves.

[Wing Across The Pond 196]

No. Trade Kane. IDGAS (yes should also be a poll option lol) that Kane is top tier offensive guy, no one will take that Toews contract but someone will take that Kane contract - because it's Kane. If it's purely salary Kane is the guy to move. Also you can replace scoring for 10+m fairly easily, and replace again if it dries up.

But also I don't think they're in as much trouble as some will after this loss. It's also worth noting how far Nashville have progressed so not that much of a #1 vs #8 shock.

Edited April 21, 2017 by Wing Across The Pond

[kliq 3,763]

29 minutes ago, Wing Across The Pond said:

No. Trade Kane. IDGAS (yes should also be a poll option lol) that Kane is top tier offensive guy, no one will take that Toews contract but someone will take that Kane contract - because it's Kane. If it's purely salary Kane is the guy to move. Also you can replace scoring for 10+m fairly easily, and replace again if it dries up.

But also I don't think they're in as much trouble as some will after this loss. It's also worth noting how far Nashville have progressed so not that much of a #1 vs #8 shock.

I feel like a lot of people are voting based on this logic which isnt want I was trying to assess. The point of the poll is do you think they should move Toews if there is a market for him.

1 hour ago, PavelValerievichDatsyuk said:

I think they're fortunes are tied that of J.T. because I don't think they could get value in a trade due to the contract. The only trade idea that popped into my head could be something with the Avs since there's been rumors of them moving McKinnon, Duchene, or Landeskog. Something there might make sense for both sides. But I don't know how they'd deal with the salary difference. I don't foresee a big thing like that happening, though (but also I never would have guessed Subban for Weber)

More doable, I'd try to shed the Hossa contract to add a new spark. Hossa's 38 and will be a 5.275 caphit for the next 4 years. He's still doing well and could still have demand, but his last 2 years are definitely his worst statistically and I think it will only continue at this point. And he's just outside the core, so he could be a way to shake things up, but not tear them down. He, like Toews, has a NMC, though, so I don't know if either could happen.

Maybe they'll just hope to lose someone like Kruger (make's 3.08 mill) in the expansion draft to gain the room to bring someone in.

I think he is done this offseason. His salary drops to 1 mil this upcoming season and stays there for the duration of the contract. I see him leaving and going to Europe similar to Datsyuk with a team like Arizona taking the cap hit.

[NerveDamage 4,176]

32 minutes ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

Toews isn't the problem on the blackhawks.  5 or 6 teams have gotten a lot better the last 2 years.  Nashville is one of them.  Sucking for 15 years straight has its benefits.

It'd be funny if Subban and the Preds faced the Habs/Weber in the Final

[kliq 3,763]

57 minutes ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

Toews isn't the problem on the blackhawks.  5 or 6 teams have gotten a lot better the last 2 years.  Nashville is one of them.  Sucking for 15 years straight has its benefits.

I never said Toews was a "problem", the logic is if these teams have gotten better, what does Chicago need to do to surpass them again. IMO that means sign someone better, or sign a few better guys, but to do this you need cap-space and moving Toews opens up the most cap.

Edited April 21, 2017 by kliq

[kliq 3,763]

9 minutes ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

It also means losing their best player.

Lol ok, you're still going with this. Move toews and bring in whomever and this team is still just as good for the most part.

[toby91_ca 620]

8 hours ago, kliq said:

I think he is done this offseason. His salary drops to 1 mil this upcoming season and stays there for the duration of the contract. I see him leaving and going to Europe similar to Datsyuk with a team like Arizona taking the cap hit.

I think that is possible as well and it would screw the Hawks because they'd be stuck with his $5.3M cap hit still.

[NerveDamage 4,176]

1 hour ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

Nashville is legit.  Habs not so much.  Pens are team to beat.

 

Do you think Toews is a top 10 player still?

I don't think he is a top 10 player. though I don't  know much about him. what I've seen from Chicago is from when we faced them in the playoffs and in their cup finals.

[Echolalia 2,961]

11 hours ago, Datsyukian-Deke said:

Both he and Kane were up for new contracts and they couldn't pay one more than the other at the team. It would have created a rift. So I understand why they did it. But it def has turned out to be over payment for Toews. Although he does things on both sides of the ice. It's not all about points for Toews.

Yeah his stellar leadership and defensive skills were on full display in this series /sarcasm

[GMRwings1983 8,803]

They should have put a clause in his contract about finishing top 10 in scoring every year.    

[Datsyukian-Deke 722]

59 minutes ago, Echolalia said:

Yeah his stellar leadership and defensive skills were on full display in this series /sarcasm

Takes more than one player to win....or lose a series.

 

[DickieDunn 2,571]

It is, but it won't happen.  He's their Yzerman/Sakic type.

[Bolgar 62]

Having EA Sports player rating as an argument about player level is one of the biggest nonsence I've read ever