Blackhawks 2022-23 SEASON THREAD

[ytsejam]

Hockey time!
Go Jets!

 

[Raskolnikov]

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.

Make Bedard play a year in London or Ohl to compete with Cat/Kane numbers.

Tank hard.
A year longer than seemingly possible. Pretty sure Bedard gets a broken collarbone in his second season(first in NHL).

We just went 8 periods without a goal. If Kane isn’t ready after that he never will be.

 

[Savard18]

Make Bedard play a year in London or Ohl to compete with Cat/Kane numbers.

Tank hard.
A year longer than seemingly possible. Pretty sure Bedard gets a broken collarbone in his second season(first in NHL).

We just went 8 periods without a goal. If Kane isn’t ready after that he never will be.

No chance of Bedard playing in the OHL, unless he gets released(never gonna happen) or waived in the Dub. Players never get traded across the CHL only within their League. Besides the Dub is a tougher league for travel and also can only legitimately have 15yrs old (OHL and Q need to apply for special status)

 

[Raskolnikov]

No chance of Bedard playing in the OHL, unless he gets released(never gonna happen) or waived in the Dub. Players never get traded across the CHL only within their League. Besides the Dub is a tougher league for travel and also can only legitimately have 15yrs old (OHL and Q need to apply for special status)

I understand there are CHL rules I just didn’t want to research them or where Bedard is from and heading.

 

[MassHavoc]

Reddit - Dive into anything

v.redd.it

https://www.reddit.com/r/hockey/comments/zi1iyj

 

[HSBOB]

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.

He let a LOT of guys walk for nothing,Strome and Kubalik were signed the 2nd day of FA and both are playing big roles for their new teams and Lankinen,Carpenter and Gustafsson make their new lineups too.........all of these players had a combined value of ZERO to the team.

I'd rather see K&T both finish on more competitive and better run teams too, but if one of the Org's all-time greats expressed their desire to finish their career in a Black Hawk's jersey..........you're out?

You,me and most of the rest of us want picks or other assets for the rebuild vs keeping either guy and you said "KD doesn't give a shit about getting fans in seats"in another post but I doubt Rocky gives a shit about what you,me or KD think. An empty barn might not concern you or me but I guarantee 'The Family' takes a different,bottom-line motivated view of the issue. The Org has a right to stay financially healthy and who sells more tickets/jerseys and who's a better ROI.....JT@4.5MX3 or S Jones for 9.5MXforever?

If Kane waives and brings a good return,bringing him back for three years at a sizeable discount would be irresponsible?
His numbers are down for only two reasons,D-Cat was traded and Strome was booted.

Kurashev and C Jones might not make another roster and Mitchell can barely make his one ,would you really rather pay all three 3M before bringing JT back for the same amount?

Like I said,both deserve to finish their careers on more competitive,better run teams and losing their salaries would allow the team to continue to pay S Jones,T Johnson and Mrazak over 18 million bucks.......all three should wear a ski mask for the wat they steal the Org's money IMO.

 

[Diehardfan]

"S Jones,T Johnson and Mrazak over 18 million bucks.......all three should wear a ski mask for the wat they steal the Org's money IMO"

Kindly explain how you are going to be able to draft the best young players if you have a better team....the three stiffs you mentioned are here for a reason. Well, two of them anyway.....Jones is here because you can't get rid of him with the contract Bowman gave him. But by keeping it in the family, his brother sucking is a far better value.

 

[Probie2429]

As it stands right now, Kane, Toews, and Domi could each fetch a first rounder. I wouldn’t have thought that earlier until Toews and Domi started winning 70 % of their draws. That’s super valuable come playoff time. Just think how important Vermette was for playing matchups when Bowman acquired him. What KD will have to decide is if he really wants up to 5, first rounders in one draft. My guess is that he will opt for a mix of prospect and/or 2024/25 picks to balance the asset pool.

The only other guy that I could see being traded is Jack Johnson for a conditional pick based on his play with Colorado last year. Contenders will want as much depth they can get.

 

[KBIB]

Well, one kid just got exceptional status and destroyed records by McDavid who will come out in 2025.

Bedard? Or Misa?

The numbers Bedard has put up are insane. But, the numbers Misa has put up so far are frightening.

This is how I would hope it falls out

23 draft pick two Fantilli
24 draft pick three Kivi
25 draft pick one Misa

2026 the hawks are a playoff team.

 

[Granada]

He let a LOT of guys walk for nothing,Strome and Kubalik were signed the 2nd day of FA and both are playing big roles for their new teams and Lankinen,Carpenter and Gustafsson make their new lineups too.........all of these players had a combined value of ZERO to the team.

I'd rather see K&T both finish on more competitive and better run teams too, but if one of the Org's all-time greats expressed their desire to finish their career in a Black Hawk's jersey..........you're out?

You,me and most of the rest of us want picks or other assets for the rebuild vs keeping either guy and you said "KD doesn't give a shit about getting fans in seats"in another post but I doubt Rocky gives a shit about what you,me or KD think. An empty barn might not concern you or me but I guarantee 'The Family' takes a different,bottom-line motivated view of the issue. The Org has a right to stay financially healthy and who sells more tickets/jerseys and who's a better ROI.....JT@4.5MX3 or S Jones for 9.5MXforever?

If Kane waives and brings a good return,bringing him back for three years at a sizeable discount would be irresponsible?
His numbers are down for only two reasons,D-Cat was traded and Strome was booted.

Kurashev and C Jones might not make another roster and Mitchell can barely make his one ,would you really rather pay all three 3M before bringing JT back for the same amount?

Like I said,both deserve to finish their careers on more competitive,better run teams and losing their salaries would allow the team to continue to pay S Jones,T Johnson and Mrazak over 18 million bucks.......all three should wear a ski mask for the wat they steal the Org's money IMO.

Okay, there's a lot to address in this post, but I'll start with the bolded:

If Kane and Toews said they want to finish their careers as Hawks, it would depend on how long they would want to be signed for. If they say 3 years, you have to say no. If they say one, sure, if they're willing to be signed at a discount. You have to respect their wishes, but it has to be within reason; just as I said I would respect their wishes if they said they don't want to be traded at this year's deadline -- that's a fair compromise, but saying they want to sign for 3 or 4 more years makes zero sense for either party. You don't sign players strictly to put fans in seats, even when you know the team will be terrible for the foreseeable future -- to me, that is absolutely irresponsible for any GM to do, yes.

Second bolded: that's the point. Again, this team is going to be terrible for the foreseeable future. These players (Kurashev, Jones, Mitchell) are all low risk, cost-controlled players that are not great but are serviceable NHL players that make sense on a rebuilding team.

Yes, bringing back Kane for 3 years would be irresponsible. If you want a rebuild, you rebuild. You don't bring back Kane for 3 years, it's as simple as that. His value would never be higher than it is right now and will only diminish and then some in 3 years.

I just hear a lot of people talking out of both sides of their mouths: "I want to move Kane and Toews and want a rebuild, BUT if they want to sign for 3 years....." It doesn't really work that way, you either want a rebuild, or you don't and want to sign them for them 3 years, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

I know I'm always the bad guy when it comes to moving players. It happened with Bolland, Crawford, etc. It is what it is. You have to do what is best for the team. The Toews/Kane era was the greatest era in Blackhawks history, I'll miss it more than anybody, but it's over.

 

[Granada]

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.

If they absolutely want to sign for one-year at those prices, sure, but I can't possibly fathom why either would be willing to do so. Kane has the records he's chasing, but why would he want to risk injury, with no term security, when he no doubt could get more in the open-market and/or be playing for a contender? I just don't see how it would possibly be worth it for him here. You have to remember that these guys have agents in their ears as well.

I still think it's more logical to let them walk now, rather than postponing the inevitable and waiting a year or two. Re-signing them runs counterproductive to a rebuild, as they will be taking up spots for not only young players, but veteran players who are flip-able and can field assets. Whether it's 18 million or 20 million, there will be no problem reaching the cap floor without them.

 

[HSBOB]

Okay, there's a lot to address in this post, but I'll start with the bolded:

If Kane and Toews said they want to finish their careers as Hawks, it would depend on how long they would want to be signed for. If they say 3 years, you have to say no. If they say one, sure, if they're willing to be signed at a discount. You have to respect their wishes, but it has to be within reason; just as I said I would respect their wishes if they said they don't want to be traded at this year's deadline -- that's a fair compromise, but saying they want to sign for 3 or 4 more years makes zero sense for either party. You don't sign players strictly to put fans in seats, even when you know the team will be terrible for the foreseeable future -- to me, that is absolutely irresponsible for any GM to do, yes.

Second bolded: that's the point. Again, this team is going to be terrible for the foreseeable future. These players (Kurashev, Jones, Mitchell) are all low risk, cost-controlled players that are not great but are serviceable NHL players that make sense on a rebuilding team.

Yes, bringing back Kane for 3 years would be irresponsible. If you want a rebuild, you rebuild. You don't bring back Kane for 3 years, it's as simple as that. His value would never be higher than it is right now and will only diminish and then some in 3 years.

I just hear a lot of people talking out of both sides of their mouths: "I want to move Kane and Toews and want a rebuild, BUT if they want to sign for 3 years....." It doesn't really work that way, you either want a rebuild, or you don't and want to sign them for them 3 years, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

I know I'm always the bad guy when it comes to moving players. It happened with Bolland, Crawford, etc. It is what it is. You have to do what is best for the team. The Toews/Kane era was the greatest era in Blackhawks history, I'll miss it more than anybody, but it's over.

Thanks for your reasonable and respectful reply to my rant.......I appreciate it. It's tough losin' the last links to the glory era and I knew it'd be but this too will pass.

I dunno if wanting them traded for a good return and understanding if them and the team both wanted to finish together is "talking out of both sides of my mouth", but I guess it is wishful thinking........I think "wanting my cake and eating it too" is more accurate.

My stance of wanting a return in trade for both and a more competitive team for both to finish with on one hand and understanding if the Org wanted one or both back on the other might seem confusing(it confuses me at times too LOL).

My only question is,how would a team that has to spend 62M somehow with most of its' best prospects 2-3 years away hurt their rebuild by bringing either back for 2-3 years at a big discount? Well,two questions,don't you see either or both offering mentorship for young players?

MY biggest concern is Rocky becoming impatient if attendance really craters and puts pressure on his young GM to speed things up. I still wish a veteran Pres of hockey opps was added because as it is,the only buffer between Rocky and his young GM is Danny and Danny is just an extension of Rocky. Hopefully all unnecessary concerns in the long run!

Happy Holidays buddy boy!

 

[HSBOB]

"S Jones,T Johnson and Mrazak over 18 million bucks.......all three should wear a ski mask for the wat they steal the Org's money IMO"

Kindly explain how you are going to be able to draft the best young players if you have a better team....the three stiffs you mentioned are here for a reason. Well, two of them anyway.....Jones is here because you can't get rid of him with the contract Bowman gave him. But by keeping it in the family, his brother sucking is a far better value.

S Jones and T Johnson were the mistakes of the prior regime and Mrazak was the frail,well past his prime,3.8MX2 mistake of the current regime.
Why wouldn't a rebuilding team keep a 27yro GT they had development time into,Kevin Lankinen signed with the Preds for 1.5M and is putting up better numbers(2.27/.934) than Saros.

I know they'll be place-holders and I also know the team needs all the ping-pong balls it can get in next summer's DEEP draft. I'm just tryin' to figure out who's worth what.

 

[KBIB]

S Jones and T Johnson were the mistakes of the prior regime and Mrazak was the frail,well past his prime,3.8MX2 mistake of the current regime.
Why wouldn't a rebuilding team keep a 27yro GT they had development time into,Kevin Lankinen signed with the Preds for 1.5M and is putting up better numbers(2.27/.934) than Saros.

I know they'll be place-holders and I also know the team needs all the ping-pong balls it can get in next summer's DEEP draft. I'm just tryin' to figure out who's worth what.

Well….Mazark or however you spell his name was signed to buffer if Comesso has an nhl future. That deal was solid considering they got a first out of it.

Comesso currently isn’t looking like anything but a decent NHL goalie. He’s a .910 save percentage which isn’t bad. But, I don’t think he’s NHL ready by the time Mazarks deal is up. Comesso is a draft and stash type like Crow was.

 

[Granada]

Thanks for your reasonable and respectful reply to my rant.......I appreciate it. It's tough losin' the last links to the glory era and I knew it'd be but this too will pass.

I dunno if wanting them traded for a good return and understanding if them and the team both wanted to finish together is "talking out of both sides of my mouth", but I guess it is wishful thinking........I think "wanting my cake and eating it too" is more accurate.

My stance of wanting a return in trade for both and a more competitive team for both to finish with on one hand and understanding if the Org wanted one or both back on the other might seem confusing(it confuses me at times too LOL).

My only question is,how would a team that has to spend 62M somehow with most of its' best prospects 2-3 years away hurt their rebuild by bringing either back for 2-3 years at a big discount? Well,two questions,don't you see either or both offering mentorship for young players?

MY biggest concern is Rocky becoming impatient if attendance really craters and puts pressure on his young GM to speed things up. I still wish a veteran Pres of hockey opps was added because as it is,the only buffer between Rocky and his young GM is Danny and Danny is just an extension of Rocky. Hopefully all unnecessary concerns in the long run!

Happy Holidays buddy boy!

Same to you!

Like I said, I don't see it as an issue to reach the floor without signing them. We are 18-20 million from reaching it next year, that really isn't hard to reach.

The thing about a rebuild, for me, is this: you don't want those two spots wasted, so to speak. We know what Toews and Kane are. We know what they can and can't do. We know their ages. Having them take up those spots when they can be better utilized with flip-able players and/or prospects just doesn't make sense to me. Imagine how many assets could be acquired from the multiple flip-able vets that could fill those spots for those 2-3 years. Also, those spots are important for evaluating prospects as well. To commit to them, in those spots, for 3 years -- that's just unwise to me on multiple levels, from a rebuild standpoint. It's not just about the discount they'd be willing to take.

Lastly, their leadership isn't worth signing them for three years. Like I said in another post, you can always bring in more flip-able vets instead. I get it: Toews and Kane won 3 Stanley Cups -- yes -- but it's hard to lead when your team has been cellar dwellers the last 6 or 7 years. Newer veteran voices might actually register more than Kane's and Toews', considering the team's prolonged slump at this point.

 

[Granada]

S Jones and T Johnson were the mistakes of the prior regime and Mrazak was the frail,well past his prime,3.8MX2 mistake of the current regime.
Why wouldn't a rebuilding team keep a 27yro GT they had development time into,Kevin Lankinen signed with the Preds for 1.5M and is putting up better numbers(2.27/.934) than Saros.

I know they'll be place-holders and I also know the team needs all the ping-pong balls it can get in next summer's DEEP draft. I'm just tryin' to figure out who's worth what.

One thing about Lanks is that, he's putting up these numbers as a backup on a better team. I'm happy for the guy, and I don't say that a lot about ex-Hawk players. Once they're gone, in all honesty, I don't really care about them, with the exception of the core guys (i.e. Keith). But Lankinen is a class act and I hope he does well, sucks he's on Nashville of all teams though.

I don't blame the Hawks from walking away from Lankinen and/or signing Mrazek. I've always said you need a competent NHL goalie even on a rebuild, and Mrazek is that. He's perfect for a tanking rebuild team especially.

 

[LordKOTL]

If they absolutely want to sign for one-year at those prices, sure, but I can't possibly fathom why either would be willing to do so. Kane has the records he's chasing, but why would he want to risk injury, with no term security, when he no doubt could get more in the open-market and/or be playing for a contender? I just don't see how it would possibly be worth it for him here. You have to remember that these guys have agents in their ears as well.

I still think it's more logical to let them walk now, rather than postponing the inevitable and waiting a year or two. Re-signing them runs counterproductive to a rebuild, as they will be taking up spots for not only young players, but veteran players who are flip-able and can field assets. Whether it's 18 million or 20 million, there will be no problem reaching the cap floor without them.

"Why they would be willing to do so?" is the salient point. They do have agents in their ear, they likely want to win again, they probably want job security as well. On the flipside they can break some 'hawk records, they might have families established in Chicago, or have some other reasons for wanting to stay. We just don't know what's in their heads No one outside of their immediate family and possibly their agents do.

In my opinion, the rebuild at this point is paramount, and you're right, logically the best solution right now is for them to waive, and then we trade them out for some rebuild assets. But if that's not possible we do need to look at them and what they are bringing to the ice in a vacuum. Are there players out there better conducive to a rebuild than Kane or Toews? Yes. Can we land them? Who knows; maybe those players want something the 'hawks cannot provide and are unwilling to sign with us unless the asking price puts them out of the running as rebuild fodder. Are there players out there who would be worse than Toews and Kane for a rebuild (who are not already on our blueline)? Yes.

If we can't move Toews and Kane for real assets and they want to stay, they should be in direct competition with all other FA's and trade bait like every other player with their current on-ice production values weighted against their potential future. If it turns out they are the best-value pieces we have a chance of bringing in, then we shouldn't discount them. If we can get better pieces than them for the rebuild, we absolutely should.

In my opinion, KD needs to stand firm on what's needed for the rebuild for bringing in transition pieces that can stay until the next core is built. He should not be changing that criteria just to keep Toews and Kane around for nostalgia's sake. On the other hand, if Toews and Kane are willing to work for and with the rebuild and accept acceptable cap, no clauses, and short-term deals, KD shouldn't dismiss them out-of-hand, either.

 

[LordKOTL]

His numbers are down for only two reasons,D-Cat was traded and Strome was booted.

...

Kane is currently leading the team in assists with 16. He goals are down at 4. The leading goal scorers are Domi (9), and then Raditz and Toews tied at 8. HappyToSeeYou is down at 6.

I think if you want to maximize Toews and Kane's value, see if Raditz can play left wing and have him on a line with Toews and Kane since Kane can start feeding him. Drop HappyToSeeYou to Domi's line (who's 2nd on assists with 10). My $0.02. If it doesn't work flip back to how it is now.

The rest is touching on my point; there are worse players to have in the rebuild than Toews and Kane; most are on our blueline. BUT, Toews and Kane need deals commensurate with their current on-ice play, weighted against their ages and what's conducive to the rebuild. Couple that with Toews being a 35+ player next season.

Looking at this deeper: Assuming Toews and Kane don't waive now: We are then losing them for nothing--be it in the FA market, or because their contracts expire and they retire at any point down the road. Given that the 'hawks need ~2-3M/player for every vacant slot next season, if Toews and Kane sign for around that amount (1yr max for Toews, *maybe* 2yr max for Kane but 1 is preferred and only if he's $2-2.5M), I don't see it as a huge deal to keep them. If they don't waive this season it's unlikley we can flip them for assets anyway, so if they take out we're on the hook next year for ~4-6M in dead cap for that year only, and possibly ~2-2.5M the following year. The 'hawks can take that hit this early in the rebuild and wouldn't have an issue pressboxing that any more than they are suffering the dead cap this year or next. If they can get better assets conducive to the rebuild then they should, of course, but given the way some guys like Kurashev, Roos, Jones, Entwhistle, etc. are playing, signing them for 2-3M would get us in the same position as a worst-case scenario of Toews and Kane resigning--their games are not good enough to flip them at that cost, and right now they are playing worse than Toews and Kane.

I do think that Toews and Kane have to have the duration restricted *and* no clauses. From a team standpoint we also should be able to weaponize cap space for the sake of the rebuild so giving Toews and Kane much more than ~3-3.5M would be foolish as well. If they want more, longer, and clauses, they should try elsewhere.

 

[Granada]

Jack Johnson was an absolute shit-show last night. It was straight embarrassing how he coughed up the puck on the forecheck for Putin-lover's 800th.

For as offensively-gifted as Seth Jones should be, he sure misses a lot of breakaways. The pairing of he and Johnson was a combined -7.

The defense was garbage in front of him, but I felt like Mrazek let in a couple softies as well. Perfect storm for a beatdown: shit defense and a soft goalie.

How many open-net goals did Washington have last night, seriously? Three? Four? What a fucking embarrassment, against a barely-playoff team missing two of their best players. This team had zero interest in actually playing last night from the start.

And thanks ESPN for subjecting us to 3 dipshits who blew Ovi for literally the entire game. This year sucks enough without having to hear mumble-mouth Chelios in the booth.

 

[LordKOTL]

Jack Johnson was an absolute shit-show last night. It was straight embarrassing how he coughed up the puck on the forecheck for Putin-lover's 800th.

For as offensively-gifted as Seth Jones should be, he sure misses a lot of breakaways. The pairing of he and Johnson was a combined -7.

The defense was garbage in front of him, but I felt like Mrazek let in a couple softies as well. Perfect storm for a beatdown: shit defense and a soft goalie.

How many open-net goals did Washington have last night, seriously? Three? Four? What a fucking embarrassment, against a barely-playoff team missing two of their best players. This team had zero interest in actually playing last night from the start.

And thanks ESPN for subjecting us to 3 dipshits who blew Ovi for literally the entire game. This year sucks enough without having to hear mumble-mouth Chelios in the booth.

Agreed on all counts. And it was poor broadcast work showing Chelios reading the lineup instead of the 1st goal...even if it was againt.

If you're going to show Chelios over playing hockey, at least show Hextall kicking the shit out of him.