Team Trajectory

[Dr Salt]

More or less curious about what people think the timeline of the rebuild is looking like. How many rebuilding years are left, jumping into playoff status, and even when certain prospects make the jump to the league. This is the first time since 2019 I've felt positive about the team's direction in a given offseason.

My personal thoughts are this next season isn't outright a tank year but more on development while having a poor roster anyways. 24/25 and 25/26 are the two years where the young pieces around Bedard start to blossom. A playoff return could be on the cards in those seasons if enough breaks are right but obviously no guarantees. Would like to hear how others see the long-term trajectory

Click to read more...

 

[HagelsBagels]

2023-24: Another tank year but more fun to watch because of Bedard. I was full-on angry after wins last year, that won't be the case this year. I'm rooting for wins and okay with the losses.

2024-25: Improvement and possibly competing for a playoff spot until the final few weeks.

2025-26: Same as 2024-25 unless they drastically overachieve the previous 2 years

2026-27: Should be competing for a playoff spot down to the final days of the regular season, if not making the playoffs.

2027-28: Should be firmly in the playoffs by now and competitive in a playoff series.

2028-: Window of serious contention probably begins

 

[TheFridge]

I think this next year is still very much a tank year. Bedard and Reichel will be in the league bc it doesn't make sense to play them anywhere else but outside of those two, and perhaps a graduate or two from Rockford, I don't think we're going to have a terrible young roster. We'll be bad next year, sell players for futures again but I think after next draft, they'll start making moves to actually improve the team long-term.

So the trajectory would be:

2023-24 - bad again by design
2024-25 - young and likely not great
2025-26 - young and much improved
2026-27 - young and ready to compete

 

[ChiHawks10]

2023-24: Another tank year but more fun to watch because of Bedard. I was full-on angry after wins last year, that won't be the case this year. I'm rooting for wins and okay with the losses.

2024-25: Improvement and possibly competing for a playoff spot until the final few weeks.

2025-26: Same as 2024-25 unless they drastically overachieve the previous 2 years

2026-27: Should be competing for a playoff spot down to the final days of the regular season, if not making the playoffs.

2027-28: Should be firmly in the playoffs by now and competitive in a playoff series.

2028-: Window of serious contention probably begins

I think contending 5 years from now would mean this is an awful rebuild. That essentially means all your top picks from this year and next year are probably all off of their ELC already. And that's not good for contending.

 

[EbonyRaptor]

I think contending 5 years from now would mean this is an awful rebuild. That essentially means all your top picks from this year and next year are ALL off of their ELC already. And that's not good for contending.

The alternative is paying high priced free agents which accelerates salary cap constraints and closes the Cup contending window sooner.

I think this next year is still very much a tank year. Bedard and Reichel will be in the league bc it doesn't make sense to play them anywhere else but outside of those two, and perhaps a graduate or two from Rockford, I don't think we're going to have a terrible young roster. We'll be bad next year, sell players for futures again but I think after next draft, they'll start making moves to actually improve the team long-term.

So the trajectory would be:

2023-24 - bad again by design
2024-25 - young and likely not great
2025-26 - young and much improved
2026-27 - young and ready to compete

This is pretty much my projection too.

 

[ChiHawks10]

The alternative is paying high priced free agents which accelerates salary cap constraints and closes the Cup contending window sooner.

The only reason we saw the Hawks win 3 in 6 was because their stars and best players were all on ELCs and bridge deals. Bridge deals basically don't exist at this point. So if you're not contending on your best players ELCs, then you essentially end up like Edmonton or Toronto. Just my opinion.

I'm only a year sooner than your prediction. I want them to be a WCF team, at minimum, in 25-26.

 

[TheFridge]

The only reason we saw the Hawks win 3 in 6 was because their stars and best players were all on ELCs and bridge deals. Bridge deals basically don't exist at this point. So if you're not contending on your best players ELCs, then you essentially end up like Edmonton or Toronto. Just my opinion.

I'm only a year sooner than your prediction. I want them to be a WCF team, at minimum, in 25-26.

Most of the Hawks best players in 2013 and 2015 were not on ELCs or bridge deals. What they were on was good contracts relative to the value they were providing. That's the secret to winning in a hard cap league. You need your best players outperforming their contracts. It's why contracts like Seth Jones' are such anchors bc no matter how well he plays, he'll never be worth that much.

 

[ChiHawks10]

Most of the Hawks best players in 2013 and 2015 were not on ELCs or bridge deals. What they were on was good contracts relative to the value they were providing. That's the secret to winning in a hard cap league. You need your best players outperforming their contracts. It's why contracts like Seth Jones' are such anchors bc no matter how well he plays, he'll never be worth that much.

Nonsense. T&K were 100% on bridge deals. Their big deals kicked in after that Cup was won in 2015. They signed them in July of 2014, and they kicked in for the 2015-2016 season. And I'm 99% positive when they won in 2010 they were still both on ELCs. I believe Saad was also on a bridge deal. Sharp was on a really good contract. As were Keith and Hossa. I don't disagree with what you're saying, as you definitely need guys outperforming their contracts, but yes, your star players essentially need to be on ELCs at this point, because bridge deals don't exist.

Guys making 10m+ are rarely ever going to outperform their contract. At best, the very best of those guys play up to the contract, but rarely ever outperform it. So, in short, you need your top tier talent on really good contracts, and your stars on ELCs. Otherwise you end up in limbo where you can't spend enough on the supporting cast to get over the hump, much like we've basically seen with Toronto and Edmonton.

 

[Dr Salt]

Most of the Hawks best players in 2013 and 2015 were not on ELCs or bridge deals. What they were on was good contracts relative to the value they were providing. That's the secret to winning in a hard cap league. You need your best players outperforming their contracts. It's why contracts like Seth Jones' are such anchors bc no matter how well he plays, he'll never be worth that much.

It's a combination of both things really. Bridge deals aren't it these days though. Pretty much in agreement with the trajectory, you posted earlier.

The alternative is paying high priced free agents which accelerates salary cap constraints and closes the Cup contending window sooner.

I think it's fine to go for one big fish and a couple of quality but not premium signings. It's just a shame that we already have an anchor deal that will prevent more.

 

[Hattrick Kane]

The only reason we saw the Hawks win 3 in 6 was because their stars and best players were all on ELCs and bridge deals. Bridge deals basically don't exist at this point. So if you're not contending on your best players ELCs, then you essentially end up like Edmonton or Toronto. Just my opinion.

I'm only a year sooner than your prediction. I want them to be a WCF team, at minimum, in 25-26.

This seems a little far fetched. I know Bedard is going to be really good, but we really don’t have the majority of our young players established yet, which will probably take a few years. For example Keith and Seabrook were in their fourth year when the Hawks made the WCF.

Seems like following that route, you’re looking at 26-27 at the earliest, but I’m not holding my breath.

In the cases of Toronto and Edmonton, it’s poor management more than anything else. For Toronto, they signed Tavares too soon. With Marner and Matthews already being better players than him, it basically meant you had to pay them more than 11 million, which screwed their cap. As for Edmonton, it was a complete failure to draft worth a damn outside McDavid and Draisaitl. I look to New Jersey who has managed their cap very well.

If the Hawks are truly run properly like we all hope, those issues shouldn’t pop up.

 

[ChiHawks10]

This seems a little far fetched. I know Bedard is going to be really good, but we really don’t have the majority of our young players established yet, which will probably take a few years. For example Keith and Seabrook were in their fourth year when the Hawks made the WCF.

Seems like following that route, you’re looking at 26-27 at the earliest, but I’m not holding my breath.

In the cases of Toronto and Edmonton, it’s poor management more than anything else. For Toronto, they signed Tavares too soon. With Marner and Matthews already being better players than him, it basically meant you had to pay them more than 11 million, which screwed their cap. As for Edmonton, it was a complete failure to draft worth a damn outside McDavid and Draisaitl. I look to New Jersey who has managed their cap very well.

If the Hawks are truly run properly like we all hope, those issues shouldn’t pop up.

Three seasons from now you should see the full new core of forwards in the NHL. Bedard, Reichel, Moore, Nazar, and potentially next summer's 1st rounder. And then Korchinski on D. Just my opinion, but they should definitely be close to a WCF team at that point, at least if thery hit on those guys like we hope they did.

 

[TheFridge]

Nonsense. T&K were 100% on bridge deals. Their big deals kicked in after that Cup was won in 2015. They signed them in July of 2014, and they kicked in for the 2015-2016 season. And I'm 99% positive when they won in 2010 they were still both on ELCs. I believe Saad was also on a bridge deal. Sharp was on a really good contract. As were Keith and Hossa. I don't disagree with what you're saying, as you definitely need guys outperforming their contracts, but yes, your star players essentially need to be on ELCs at this point, because bridge deals don't exist.

Guys making 10m+ are rarely ever going to outperform their contract. At best, the very best of those guys play up to the contract, but rarely ever outperform it. So, in short, you need your top tier talent on really good contracts, and your stars on ELCs. Otherwise you end up in limbo where you can't spend enough on the supporting cast to get over the hump, much like we've basically seen with Toronto and Edmonton.

Toews and Kane were the 2nd highest paid players on the team once they signed their contracts in terms of caphits and cap utilization. Their deals were each worth 11.5% of the cap. Those were absolutely not bridge deals. It's not up for debate. Not unless you think Mitch Marner signed a bridge deal when Toronto gave him 13% of Toronto's cap when he signed his second contract or that Jack Hughes signed a bridge deal when NJ committed 9.75% of their cap to him or that Leon Draisaitl signed a bridge deal when he got 11.33% of Edmonton's cap. All of those deals have worked out well for the clubs but they were not bridge deals.

Hossa, Keith and Sharp were definitely on great deals but part of that was simply bc they out-performed their contracts bc they were all in their primes. Each of them, when they were originally signed, signed for no less than 7.75% of CHIs cap, with Keith and Hossa both taking up 9%+ each. There's a reason why CHI had to jettison Byfuglien, Versteeg, Ladd and Niemi and bury Huet after the Cup win. It's because while their signed players were mostly out-performing their deals, they still had ~70% of their cap space invested in 9 players (Toews, Kane, Keith, Sharp, Hossa, Seabrook, Hjalmarsson, Campbell and Bolland).

 

[bwanajamba]

Nonsense. T&K were 100% on bridge deals. Their big deals kicked in after that Cup was won in 2015. They signed them in July of 2014, and they kicked in for the 2015-2016 season. And I'm 99% positive when they won in 2010 they were still both on ELCs. I believe Saad was also on a bridge deal. Sharp was on a really good contract. As were Keith and Hossa. I don't disagree with what you're saying, as you definitely need guys outperforming their contracts, but yes, your star players essentially need to be on ELCs at this point, because bridge deals don't exist.

Guys making 10m+ are rarely ever going to outperform their contract. At best, the very best of those guys play up to the contract, but rarely ever outperform it. So, in short, you need your top tier talent on really good contracts, and your stars on ELCs. Otherwise you end up in limbo where you can't spend enough on the supporting cast to get over the hump, much like we've basically seen with Toronto and Edmonton.

Colorado had Makar on an ELC and Pittsburgh had Guentzel for one of their two recent cups.. besides that I think you actually have to go back to the 2010 Blackhawks to find a cup-winning team where one or more of their stars were on ELCs, unless I'm missing someone obvious

I get that you're trying to project forward a bit with trends in the kind of contracts star players are signing, but it seems a little premature to declare the ELC period as make or break when a team like Vegas just played a team like Florida in the Finals, and that kind of match up isn't out of the norm in recent history. You absolutely need just about all of your key contributors outperforming their cap hit but that isn't anything new, and it is worth mentioning that Toronto/Edmonton were victimized by huge contracts signed before the COVID flat cap, which we will hopefully never have to worry about again. Even then I wouldn't point to lack of depth/roster construction as Toronto's biggest flaw

 

[ChiHawks10]

Toews and Kane were the 2nd highest paid players on the team once they signed their contracts in terms of caphits and cap utilization. Their deals were each worth 11.5% of the cap. Those were absolutely not bridge deals. It's not up for debate. Not unless you think Mitch Marner signed a bridge deal when Toronto gave him 13% of Toronto's cap when he signed his second contract or that Jack Hughes signed a bridge deal when NJ committed 9.75% of their cap to him or that Leon Draisaitl signed a bridge deal when he got 11.33% of Edmonton's cap. All of those deals have worked out well for the clubs but they were not bridge deals.

Hossa, Keith and Sharp were definitely on great deals but part of that was simply bc they out-performed their contracts bc they were all in their primes. Each of them, when they were originally signed, signed for no less than 7.75% of CHIs cap, with Keith and Hossa both taking up 9%+ each. There's a reason why CHI had to jettison Byfuglien, Versteeg, Ladd and Niemi and bury Huet after the Cup win. It's because while their signed players were mostly out-performing their deals, they still had ~70% of their cap space invested in 9 players (Toews, Kane, Keith, Sharp, Hossa, Seabrook, Hjalmarsson, Campbell and Bolland).

Their $6m deals were 100% bridge deals... like what are you even arguing? Lol. The Hawks won all three Cups with T&K on either an ELC, or their bridge deals. Their 10.5m contracts kicked in after the third Cup...

 

[EbonyRaptor]

The only reason we saw the Hawks win 3 in 6 was because their stars and best players were all on ELCs and bridge deals. Bridge deals basically don't exist at this point. So if you're not contending on your best players ELCs, then you essentially end up like Edmonton or Toronto. Just my opinion.

I'm only a year sooner than your prediction. I want them to be a WCF team, at minimum, in 25-26.

Hey - the sooner the better, for sure. The thing is that for the rebuild to be as successful as possible, all aspects have to be in sync. Mainly the defensive core group build organically through the draft and the salary cap. The forward group and goalies are easier to fill out and take less time to mature once they get to the NHL.

The salary cap is in great shape right now and nothing other than the S.Jones contract and the post-ELC Bedard contract are major considerations. The defensive core group is not close to being ready for prime time playoff contention yet and the prospects just starting to come online now will need 2-3 years minimum to mature and be good enough to be a contender. That's where I think the timeline lies - the time it takes to get the d-prospects into the NHL and get them 2-3 years NHL experience.

 

[HawksDub89]

2023-24: Another tank year but more fun to watch because of Bedard. I was full-on angry after wins last year, that won't be the case this year. I'm rooting for wins and okay with the losses.

2024-25: Improvement and possibly competing for a playoff spot until the final few weeks.

2025-26: Same as 2024-25 unless they drastically overachieve the previous 2 years

2026-27: Should be competing for a playoff spot down to the final days of the regular season, if not making the playoffs.

2027-28: Should be firmly in the playoffs by now and competitive in a playoff series.

2028-: Window of serious contention probably begins

I think you nailed it. I think we’re picking 11-15 in the 25 draft. So right outside of the playoffs.

I think how quickly our D core comes along is the key. It’ll also be interesting to see how aggressive KD is in free agency next summer.

 

[HawksDub89]

Three seasons from now you should see the full new core of forwards in the NHL. Bedard, Reichel, Moore, Nazar, and potentially next summer's 1st rounder. And then Korchinski on D. Just my opinion, but they should definitely be close to a WCF team at that point, at least if thery hit on those guys like we hope they did.

Some of these guys aren’t going to reach their ceiling. So assuming they’ll all be “core” players is foolish.

I’ll be thrilled if the hawks are in the playoffs by 25-26, let alone the WCF.

Rebuilds (done correctly) take time.

 

[Dominance]

We’d have to sink ourselves into free agency to seriously compete within three years. I think this team will have such incredible prospect depth after next year’s draft that we just need to avoid the pull of signing major free agents and stay the course after hopefully picking up a true 1D near the top of next year’s draft, and we’ll have the pieces to be a true cup contender for a decade starting around 2026-2027.

 

[Styles]

Their $6m deals were 100% bridge deals... like what are you even arguing? Lol. The Hawks won all three Cups with T&K on either an ELC, or their bridge deals. Their 10.5m contracts kicked in after the third Cup...

11% of the cap at the time of signing and 5 years is not a bridge deal.

 

[HeisenBaez]

By year three of Bedard's career, the Hawks should be competing for a playoff spot. By year 5, they better be a WC Final caliber team. By year 6, SC contender until Bedard starts slowing down around 35 or so.

Blackhawks will need to make a shrewd signing and/or trade for this to happen, which I believe KD can do. The next two years will be, imo, about finding the core to surround Bedard. Hopefeully that includes Kor, Nazar, Miller, Vlasic (I'd forgotten how big Vlasic is), etc. As I said before, the Blackhawks will have to make a move or two in FA in the next 2 seasons.

 

[DisgruntledHawkFan]

Their $6m deals were 100% bridge deals... like what are you even arguing? Lol. The Hawks won all three Cups with T&K on either an ELC, or their bridge deals. Their 10.5m contracts kicked in after the third Cup...

Their deals were equivalent to 9.6 million a piece with today's cap.

 

[ChiHawks10]

Their deals were equivalent to 9.6 million a piece with today's cap.

And we can go back and look at everyone on here talking about them being basically bridge deals back then when they were signed to them. Lots of revisionist history going on in here. I'm sure I could go back and point to plenty of posts that talked about how they were bridge deals, how we all knew they should have signed for bigger $$, etc. These deals were signed before they ever even won a Cup. They may not hit the exact definition of a bridge deal, but I'm sorry, we all knew they were signed to lower contracts than their worth back then. Without those deals, the Hawks 100% don't win 3 Cups, because they would have had to jettison far more talent than they did each year.

 

[TheFridge]

Their $6m deals were 100% bridge deals... like what are you even arguing? Lol. The Hawks won all three Cups with T&K on either an ELC, or their bridge deals. Their 10.5m contracts kicked in after the third Cup...

I did the math for you and you're still arguing. This is embarrassing.

 

[ChiHawks10]

Some of these guys aren’t going to reach their ceiling. So assuming they’ll all be “core” players is foolish.

I’ll be thrilled if the hawks are in the playoffs by 25-26, let alone the WCF.

Rebuilds (done correctly) take time.

I realize that. Both the first point, and the last point. Where did I ever argue otherwise?

 

[ChiHawks10]

All other arguing aside, if the Hawks aren't a playoff team by the time Bedard's ELC expires, I will consider the rebuild to have been a disappointment to that point. I think wanting the WCF 3-4 seasons from now isn't really a lofty ask, and will be year 5-6 of a rebuild. Somehow that's asking for too much?