Bowman showed way too much loyalty to his guys. Either extending them or reacquiring them. There was no way to predict Seabrook's decline being so steep...in that sense you can extend some of the blame beyond Bowman/Q to players like him for not playing to their expected, much less peak level. It would have taken a lot to let him go (see this article, though it's behind a paywall so might have to incognito it: https://faxesfromuncledale.com/how-not-to-write-about-the-hawks-elimination/) Crawford is the 8th highest paid goalie in the NHL right now. No one could have known he was going to miss 60something games with some mysterious head injury, but his contract isn't the issue. The Bickell contract, sure, though Teuvo Teravainen isn't making this team a contender (and Scott Darling definitely isn't). Danault would look great in a Hawks uniform, but it took deadline deals to get us over the top in 2015, so I'm not going to be too mad about going that route again in 2016. You can make excuses for any particular contract, but the point is the cap issues were known in advance of signing all of them, and he should have made more difficult decisions earlier rather than resigning everybody. They dominated the league with great offense and defense and mixing and matching goalies, but then you commit to both the aging defenders and the no longer young an cheap goalie and you shoot yourself in the foot. It's obviously not the same thing, but teams like the Patriots let guys go all the time. Bowman showed loyalty to the elite of the elite and the mid tier guys. You can't just resign everybody and assume the wear and tear won't affect them in their's 30s.