30
|
|
Post by LordKOTL on Sept 17, 2020 11:12:35 GMT -6
Shaw and Smith both would require assets going along with em or money coming back unless AZ owes us one........two unforcd errors! It'd be a few pieces to this trade, similar to the Hoss trade to Arizona. It shouldn't take a high end prospect like Kurashev to move either Smith or Shaw considering they could be on the LTIR and don't have huge long contracts. They're huge contracts to the Hawks but a prospect like Krys or hopefully Sikura could do it, and maybe a later pick like a 4th or 5th. Plus they'd get Maatta, big young dman with 2 Cups and was productive in the playoffs. I don't understand why the Hawks would buy him out when he has value 🤔 I hope the rumors are true because Kuemper is a big Canadian boy with a .918 career save percentage. Late 20's, early 30's is when goalies usually hit their prime. 2yrs at 4.5 per and the backup making 1mill or less is a good goalie cap hit. Kuemper wouldn't be a bad option at all--unlike Andersen he's saw more than 31 SA/GP last season so we know he can put up good numbers while seeing a Craig Anderson-level of rubber like Crawford can, but I think it might take more than Maata to clear that cap especially with all of the other signings needed. Maata might have salary coming back but the question would be how much or what other sweeteners we can part with to keep the cap down. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2020 11:12:52 GMT -6
Obviously he is going to have to put the work in to win over the fanbase, but we should expect him to truly stake his claim as a middle 6 option for the Blackhawks with consistent offensive production and as a power-play specialist. The above quote is from this article and is as wishful as thinking can get IMO...... blackhawkup.com/2020/09/15/expect-blackhawks-forward-alex-nylander-20-21/Yep. My biggest concern with Nylander is effort. He's like Stan: Trying to ride on his daddy's coattails. Yes, I went there.  If he does go nose-to-the-grindstone this coming year I have no issues whatsoever keeping him here and in the lineup--and extending him with a paycheck commensurate with what he actually brings--so if he plays like a #2 winger? Pay him as such. As a #3 winger? Pay him as such. If he keep the same effort he did this past season and only brings it occasionally? Let him walk. Right now though? He's 100% completely bury-able so if Stan plays it smart he should absolutely not dump him for less than his actual worth on the ice. As a piece in a larger deal? Sure. But if there are no takers for Nylander, bury him in Rockford. Biggest concern I have with any player like Nylander in a contract year is he knows it, plays his ass off to get a pay day. Stan will see it as "Look, I knew he was going to be great" and sign him to some ridiculous long term deal with a NMC and Nylander will revert back to his lazy self. |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Sept 17, 2020 11:41:11 GMT -6
Shaw and Smith both would require assets going along with em or money coming back unless AZ owes us one........two unforcd errors! It'd be a few pieces to this trade, similar to the Hoss trade to Arizona. It shouldn't take a high end prospect like Kurashev to move either Smith or Shaw considering they could be on the LTIR and don't have huge long contracts. They're huge contracts to the Hawks but a prospect like Krys or hopefully Sikura could do it, and maybe a later pick like a 4th or 5th. Plus they'd get Maatta, big young dman with 2 Cups and was productive in the playoffs. I don't understand why the Hawks would buy him out when he has value 🤔 I hope the rumors are true because Kuemper is a big Canadian boy with a .918 career save percentage. Late 20's, early 30's is when goalies usually hit their prime. 2yrs at 4.5 per and the backup making 1mill or less is a good goalie cap hit. I don't think AZ is 'THAT' team any more with 17 guys signed next year and only 1M of space left over,Hoss'a deal is on their books for one more too. I agree as far as not having to buy Maata out but disagree on Sikura.......I doubt he has a shred ov value to anyone. As far as the goaltenders,Crawford's Canadian too!LOL! |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Sept 17, 2020 11:50:19 GMT -6
Obviously he is going to have to put the work in to win over the fanbase, but we should expect him to truly stake his claim as a middle 6 option for the Blackhawks with consistent offensive production and as a power-play specialist. The above quote is from this article and is as wishful as thinking can get IMO...... blackhawkup.com/2020/09/15/expect-blackhawks-forward-alex-nylander-20-21/Yep. My biggest concern with Nylander is effort. He's like Stan: Trying to ride on his daddy's coattails. Yes, I went there. If he does go nose-to-the-grindstone this coming year I have no issues whatsoever keeping him here and in the lineup--and extending him with a paycheck commensurate with what he actually brings--so if he plays like a #2 winger? Pay him as such. As a #3 winger? Pay him as such. If he keep the same effort he did this past season and only brings it occasionally? Let him walk. Right now though? He's 100% completely bury-able so if Stan plays it smart he should absolutely not dump him for less than his actual worth on the ice. As a piece in a larger deal? Sure. But if there are no takers for Nylander, bury him in Rockford. Nolander's offensive production was unimpressive but would have been acceptable for a guy who did other necessary things like play without the puck but that seems to be what gets under the skin of all three of his coaches so far. Things like going hard for loose pucks,throwing himself in front of shots or otherwise "putting his nose to the grindstone" as you put it seem absolutely foreign to him and burying him really means you buried Henri Jokiharju. |
|
|
|
Post by Tater on Sept 17, 2020 11:56:57 GMT -6
Biggest concern I have with any player like Nylander in a contract year is he knows it, plays his ass off to get a pay day. Stan will see it as "Look, I knew he was going to be great" and sign him to some ridiculous long term deal with a NMC and Nylander will revert back to his lazy self. Same here. I can see Scambo doing something stupid like that too, just to try to justify a crappy trade he made. |
|
|
|
Post by LordKOTL on Sept 17, 2020 12:32:46 GMT -6
Yep. My biggest concern with Nylander is effort. He's like Stan: Trying to ride on his daddy's coattails. Yes, I went there. If he does go nose-to-the-grindstone this coming year I have no issues whatsoever keeping him here and in the lineup--and extending him with a paycheck commensurate with what he actually brings--so if he plays like a #2 winger? Pay him as such. As a #3 winger? Pay him as such. If he keep the same effort he did this past season and only brings it occasionally? Let him walk. Right now though? He's 100% completely bury-able so if Stan plays it smart he should absolutely not dump him for less than his actual worth on the ice. As a piece in a larger deal? Sure. But if there are no takers for Nylander, bury him in Rockford. Nolander's offensive production was unimpressive but would have been acceptable for a guy who did other necessary things like play without the puck but that seems to be what gets under the skin of all three of his coaches so far. Things like going hard for loose pucks,throwing himself in front of shots or otherwise "putting his nose to the grindstone" as you put it seem absolutely foreign to him and burying him really means you buried Henri Jokiharju. I agree...but at what point is it acceptable to cut our losses? My opinion: this year we saw a Nylander who was given a very, very decent shot at developing--much more of a shot than Joker got under JC. Nylander simply didn't bring the effort consistently. Thus going into the next season we have a baseline for him as well as a direction of improvement: He needs to bring consistent effort game-in/game out. If he can't do that, then we lost the Joker trade pure and simple. It's a contract year so he's got all of the incentive in the world. If he can't put in consistent effort next year--take the loss and run. The more time the 'hawks spend trying to hammer square pegs in round holes is the less time they have see if someone else will actually fit. P.S. Because of his issues with consistency, I would be reticent to give Nylander term if he kills it this coming year. phill's got a point: I'd hold out for shorter term to see if he's down when he's not playing for his paycheck--like a 2 year deal. PPS. This is what I think is the best way forward...NOT what I think Stan will do. |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Sept 17, 2020 17:43:03 GMT -6
Nolander's offensive production was unimpressive but would have been acceptable for a guy who did other necessary things like play without the puck but that seems to be what gets under the skin of all three of his coaches so far. Things like going hard for loose pucks,throwing himself in front of shots or otherwise "putting his nose to the grindstone" as you put it seem absolutely foreign to him and burying him really means you buried Henri Jokiharju. I agree...but at what point is it acceptable to cut our losses? My opinion: this year we saw a Nylander who was given a very, very decent shot at developing--much more of a shot than Joker got under JC. Nylander simply didn't bring the effort consistently. Thus going into the next season we have a baseline for him as well as a direction of improvement: He needs to bring consistent effort game-in/game out. If he can't do that, then we lost the Joker trade pure and simple. It's a contract year so he's got all of the incentive in the world. If he can't put in consistent effort next year--take the loss and run. The more time the 'hawks spend trying to hammer square pegs in round holes is the less time they have see if someone else will actually fit. P.S. Because of his issues with consistency, I would be reticent to give Nylander term if he kills it this coming year. phill's got a point: I'd hold out for shorter term to see if he's down when he's not playing for his paycheck--like a 2 year deal. PPS. This is what I think is the best way forward...NOT what I think Stan will do. Three kicks at the can for the 1st rounder and Buffalo needed a top six forward desperately but two different HC's could stand Nolander for no more than eight games. FF to this year when he questioned his former Org.(big ones for a kid like him to say that)and there ability to develop players......that in itself shoulda been big time motivation but he was scratched three games in for his new coach and again in favor of a career AHL guy in the team's biggest game of the year. When people show you who they are.....believe em! |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Sept 18, 2020 8:59:03 GMT -6
I'm not payin' for it but I have 'paid for it' in the past....LOL! Look my friend,I don't don't doubt the numbers but the numbers can't show everything. How many of those minutes together were Strome and D-Cat on wing with Carpenter the pivot? 463 divided by the 58 games Strome played shows just under 8 a game with his old Jr's pal or about half the time or less and maybe some of those minutes together were with Nolander  he'll kill any line! I know my eyes saw JC go away from the combo in the 2nd period of the first game for some reason and my one good eye sees 8 minutes a game together about half or less of the time. If JC was intent on separating K&T(unless I'm wrong here too) why not put Kane with the two young forwards coming off exceptional years together and see what you had for a month or so but I believe SOMEBODY wanted Nolander in the top six. Strome had 34 helpers in 58 games last year and 26 in 58 this down year,he's a pretty good set up man and high 40's at the dot and I believe these things make him a center. He also went through a high ankle sprain that set him back. Since you didn't opine or elaborate why you posted these stats, ie; critique a player or support the HC's decision,I figured you just wanted to prove to me "that what I see and what's correct is not always the same" or in other words just prove me wrong and that's okay,nothing personal. We all need purpose. I state my opinion as I see it and I post why I think it's valid not just to prove someone wrong but maybe I'm wrong here too!LOL! I appreciate the chatter You have been very vocal regarding that JC didn´t play them together as much as he should have, so I can understand how you feel I just wanted to prove you wrong. That wasn´t my objective. It was more of showing that what you (not you in particular, but you as in anyone) see and what is facts doesn´t always come out the same. With that said, I too had very different opinions than the coach on how to set up the lines and distribute playing time. Yes I can be very vocal...LOL but I try to post my share to keep the chatter goin' and I willingly throw my opinion out there for scrutiny and I accept it when it happens. Maybe the two forwards in question did see more minutes together than it appeared but it also appeared that we didn't see Strome in the 2LC role like last year with D-Cat on his 2nd line wing like we saw in the 2nd half of the year before nearly as much. I saw both skating more bottom line minutes and Strome skating more wing which was a different use than the two players saw the year before.......JMO It also seems I saw other forwards like Nolander,Caggiula and even Queneville gettin' some of the 5 on 5,top six minutes that D-Cat saw the year before and Carpenter gettin' some of the 2LC minutes Strome saw the year before. I can't fully disagree if someone says their play deserved less 5 on 5,top six minutes but I'm not sure that's the way to develop good,young players coming off outstanding years. I still think JC lost faith in the two far too quickly separating them in the 1st game but again.....JMO To be honest,I'd like to hear your opinions on the lines and ice time and I'd appreciate the chatter. |
|
|
|
Post by acesandeights on Sept 18, 2020 11:27:23 GMT -6
Back to the main topic lol Crawford, it sounds like the Hawks are in contention to get Darcy Kuemper, he's 30 and makes 4.5 for 2 more years, if they get him does Crow sign the 1yr contract or does he walk? Would the Hawks consider a 30 yr. old Kuemper as the long term solution in goal or someone to fill in while Stan works on finding the long term solution. This is what's confused me about trying to fix the goaltending for the future. Does Stan want to get the long term starter now or work over the next 2-3 years to find one? I'd like to see the Hawks get Askarov in the draft as the future #1 but he'll be gone before 17. |
|
|
|
Post by mvr on Sept 18, 2020 14:45:09 GMT -6
I am not surprised if true that Crawford is balking at a one-year offer at $3.5M. It is a low bid - and somewhat insulting given the player's pedigree as a two cup Champ.
Unfortunately, Bowman can't really go higher in salary.
This is why I still feel the best approach is to offer longer term - 3 years, $9 M (with his first year guaranteed as a starter). The money could be front-loaded to the maximum reflecting the new rules. I believe Crawford will remain a useful goalie for the term of the contract in some capacity, but if he isn't, so be it.
No other team is likely to offer the three year term. To my mind, this is the most fair approach for both sides. The Hawks assume a risk because of Crawford's injury history, and the player takes a small cut in what he would make on the open market for the job security of three years.
|
|
|
|
Post by mvr on Sept 18, 2020 15:10:08 GMT -6
The way Bowman would divide the $9 M into three years would have to conform to the rules.
But for arguments sake, Bowman could suggest Crawford makes $5 M next year (which is close to what he would get on the open market), $3 M in year two, and $1 M in year three. This is fair.
|
|
|
|
Post by mvr on Sept 18, 2020 15:27:09 GMT -6
Would Nylander and Subban be the right package for Kuemper and a pick? I believe so.
If Crawford does walk, Kuemper is a wise second option.
|
|
|
|
Post by galaxytrash on Sept 18, 2020 15:41:39 GMT -6
Would Nylander and Subban be the right package for Kuemper and a pick? I believe so. If Crawford does walk, Kuemper is a wise second option. it would be the right package for us, that's for sure. i can't see it happening though. maybe i'm undervaluing our guys or overvaluing kuemper here. i'd definitely be all over that trade and arizona could keep the pick. |
|
|
|
Post by LordKOTL on Sept 18, 2020 16:09:52 GMT -6
I agree...but at what point is it acceptable to cut our losses? My opinion: this year we saw a Nylander who was given a very, very decent shot at developing--much more of a shot than Joker got under JC. Nylander simply didn't bring the effort consistently. Thus going into the next season we have a baseline for him as well as a direction of improvement: He needs to bring consistent effort game-in/game out. If he can't do that, then we lost the Joker trade pure and simple. It's a contract year so he's got all of the incentive in the world. If he can't put in consistent effort next year--take the loss and run. The more time the 'hawks spend trying to hammer square pegs in round holes is the less time they have see if someone else will actually fit. P.S. Because of his issues with consistency, I would be reticent to give Nylander term if he kills it this coming year. phill's got a point: I'd hold out for shorter term to see if he's down when he's not playing for his paycheck--like a 2 year deal. PPS. This is what I think is the best way forward...NOT what I think Stan will do. Three kicks at the can for the 1st rounder and Buffalo needed a top six forward desperately but two different HC's could stand Nolander for no more than eight games. FF to this year when he questioned his former Org.(big ones for a kid like him to say that)and there ability to develop players......that in itself shoulda been big time motivation but he was scratched three games in for his new coach and again in favor of a career AHL guy in the team's biggest game of the year. When people show you who they are.....believe em! Again, preaching to the choir.  When he 1st came I thought he was going to be a project, and he hasn't disappointed me in that respect. The worry I have at this point is that Stan, being Stan, may try something stupid--be it extending him before he's proven he's more than lazy, or trying to trade him out (package or alone) that causes us to get *worse* back, especially since the 'hawks are in some cap trouble. The situation reminds me of the Runblad one--Q and us fans knew Runblad was crap defensively but Stan was adamant in keeping him signed. If Nylander is who we think he is next year--a smart GM would bury him in Rockford and be done with it unless a move can be made that won't hurt the 'hawks. So adding waiver-eligible salary over multiple years for "project" players in exchange for Nylander? No thank you. Will Stan do it? I'm not getting that vibe. ~~~~~ As for Crawford, I think if you can get the cap hit down in exchange for Term that might be a good option. Goaltenders near his caliber have contracts in the 2-3M range--with the term variable--I think for Crawford that's the path to take. If they can get him tucked in for <3M over 2-3 years...there you go. He is older and does have some injury history working against him, but who else out there can work well behind a nonexistent team D and seeing more rubber than <censored by the insistence of my legal team>'s twat? Craig Anderson might retire and honestly, Crawford's an upgrade. Kuemper is a good idea but would require some cap moves to make work. |
|
|
|
Post by OldTimeHawky on Sept 18, 2020 16:12:10 GMT -6
Back to the main topic lol Crawford, it sounds like the Hawks are in contention to get Darcy Kuemper, he's 30 and makes 4.5 for 2 more years, if they get him does Crow sign the 1yr contract or does he walk? Would the Hawks consider a 30 yr. old Kuemper as the long term solution in goal or someone to fill in while Stan works on finding the long term solution. This is what's confused me about trying to fix the goaltending for the future. Does Stan want to get the long term starter now or work over the next 2-3 years to find one? I'd like to see the Hawks get Askarov in the draft as the future #1 but he'll be gone before 17. He's definitely not a long term solution at 30 but he'd be good to have for a couple years, especially if the Hawks can get Askarov. The Jets are open to moving their 10th overall pick and need a right handed dman, maybe they'll take a former 8th overall pick in Boqvist for it and the Hawks can draft Askarov. |
|
|
|
Post by mvr on Sept 18, 2020 17:36:54 GMT -6
Re Kuemper.
This is not the year for a team to shop a goaltender. There are plenty of good options available. I believe the Coyotes will have to settle for picks and b grade type prospects (or even less).
If I am Bowman, I low-ball any offers. Nylander was somewhat of a disappointment last year, but he still has value - certainly on par on more than a second round draft pick.
|
|
|
|
Post by vadarx on Sept 18, 2020 18:05:25 GMT -6
Would the Hawks consider a 30 yr. old Kuemper as the long term solution in goal or someone to fill in while Stan works on finding the long term solution. This is what's confused me about trying to fix the goaltending for the future. Does Stan want to get the long term starter now or work over the next 2-3 years to find one? I'd like to see the Hawks get Askarov in the draft as the future #1 but he'll be gone before 17. He's definitely not a long term solution at 30 but he'd be good to have for a couple years, especially if the Hawks can get Askarov. The Jets are open to moving their 10th overall pick and need a right handed dman, maybe they'll take a former 8th overall pick in Boqvist for it and the Hawks can draft Askarov. I'd make that trade, but I wouldn’t pick Askarov with the 10th pick. I think there is a chance he might still be around when the 'hawks pick at 17, honestly. edit: I probably shouldn't say I wouldn't take him there, obviously would need to monitor the winds, but he has consistently dropped in mocks as other prospects have become more valued over the past few months. not many teams want to use a first on a 'tender nowadays. |
|
|
|
Post by OldTimeHawky on Sept 18, 2020 18:34:30 GMT -6
He's definitely not a long term solution at 30 but he'd be good to have for a couple years, especially if the Hawks can get Askarov. The Jets are open to moving their 10th overall pick and need a right handed dman, maybe they'll take a former 8th overall pick in Boqvist for it and the Hawks can draft Askarov. I'd make that trade, but I wouldn’t pick Askarov with the 10th pick. I think there is a chance he might still be around when the 'hawks pick at 17, honestly. edit: I probably shouldn't say I wouldn't take him there, obviously would need to monitor the winds, but he has consistently dropped in mocks as other prospects have become more valued over the past few months. not many teams want to use a first on a 'tender nowadays. Picking a goalie in the first is a risk but Askarov seems legit. I've seen mock drafts having him go at 11 to 17, if the Hawks get the 10th, taking him or not will be a good probably to have. |
|
|
|
Post by vadarx on Sept 18, 2020 19:26:01 GMT -6
I'd make that trade, but I wouldn’t pick Askarov with the 10th pick. I think there is a chance he might still be around when the 'hawks pick at 17, honestly. edit: I probably shouldn't say I wouldn't take him there, obviously would need to monitor the winds, but he has consistently dropped in mocks as other prospects have become more valued over the past few months. not many teams want to use a first on a 'tender nowadays. Picking a goalie in the first is a risk but Askarov seems legit. I've seen mock drafts having him go at 11 to 17, if the Hawks get the 10th, taking him or not will be a good probably to have. agree. it is a problem I would LOVE to have! |
|
|
|
Post by Tater on Sept 18, 2020 23:15:11 GMT -6
If Nylander is who we think he is next year--a smart GM would bury him in Rockford and be done with it unless a move can be made that won't hurt the 'hawks. So adding waiver-eligible salary over multiple years for "project" players in exchange for Nylander? No thank you. Will Stan do it? I'm not getting that vibe. I hope he's buried in Rockford. He had a chance in the playoffs to shine, and right before his contract year to boot. If that didn't motivate the guy, nothing will. That was probably his last shot at playoff hockey.
He needs to be gone no matter how it's done. |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Sept 19, 2020 9:13:19 GMT -6
Three kicks at the can for the 1st rounder and Buffalo needed a top six forward desperately but two different HC's could stand Nolander for no more than eight games. FF to this year when he questioned his former Org.(big ones for a kid like him to say that)and there ability to develop players......that in itself shoulda been big time motivation but he was scratched three games in for his new coach and again in favor of a career AHL guy in the team's biggest game of the year. When people show you who they are.....believe em! Again, preaching to the choir. When he 1st came I thought he was going to be a project, and he hasn't disappointed me in that respect. The worry I have at this point is that Stan, being Stan, may try something stupid--be it extending him before he's proven he's more than lazy, or trying to trade him out (package or alone) that causes us to get *worse* back, especially since the 'hawks are in some cap trouble. The situation reminds me of the Runblad one--Q and us fans knew Runblad was crap defensively but Stan was adamant in keeping him signed. If Nylander is who we think he is next year--a smart GM would bury him in Rockford and be done with it unless a move can be made that won't hurt the 'hawks. So adding waiver-eligible salary over multiple years for "project" players in exchange for Nylander? No thank you. Will Stan do it? I'm not getting that vibe. ~~~~~ As for Crawford, I think if you can get the cap hit down in exchange for Term that might be a good option. Goaltenders near his caliber have contracts in the 2-3M range--with the term variable--I think for Crawford that's the path to take. If they can get him tucked in for <3M over 2-3 years...there you go. He is older and does have some injury history working against him, but who else out there can work well behind a nonexistent team D and seeing more rubber than <censored by the insistence of my legal team>'s twat? Craig Anderson might retire and honestly, Crawford's an upgrade. Kuemper is a good idea but would require some cap moves to make work. I get it but as far as CC's "caliber"....even Lehner put up tough numbers behind this defense and Kuemper's numbers would blow up here too. We paid Lehner 5M,he played well and we ended up in last place regardless........more of that? |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Sept 19, 2020 9:16:07 GMT -6
Would the Hawks consider a 30 yr. old Kuemper as the long term solution in goal or someone to fill in while Stan works on finding the long term solution. This is what's confused me about trying to fix the goaltending for the future. Does Stan want to get the long term starter now or work over the next 2-3 years to find one? I'd like to see the Hawks get Askarov in the draft as the future #1 but he'll be gone before 17. He's definitely not a long term solution at 30 but he'd be good to have for a couple years, especially if the Hawks can get Askarov. The Jets are open to moving their 10th overall pick and need a right handed dman, maybe they'll take a former 8th overall pick in Boqvist for it and the Hawks can draft Askarov. That would mean another first round pick bites the dust and that's embarrassing..........anyone but a liquor exec would realize this! |
|
|
|
Post by acesandeights on Sept 19, 2020 9:17:06 GMT -6
I'd make that trade, but I wouldn’t pick Askarov with the 10th pick. I think there is a chance he might still be around when the 'hawks pick at 17, honestly. edit: I probably shouldn't say I wouldn't take him there, obviously would need to monitor the winds, but he has consistently dropped in mocks as other prospects have become more valued over the past few months. not many teams want to use a first on a 'tender nowadays. Picking a goalie in the first is a risk but Askarov seems legit. I've seen mock drafts having him go at 11 to 17, if the Hawks get the 10th, taking him or not will be a good probably to have. I've tried reading quite a bit about him and he does seem to be the real deal; one that's been playing ahead of his age group. I think I've seen more mock drafts with Askarov going to the Wild at 11 than anywhere else, but I don't know anything about the Wild's needs in net. As you mention, some have him going a little later. Maybe YA would at least last long enough Stan would consider trying to move up a few spots, though I don't know what moving up a few spots in mid rd. 1 would cost. He does have an extra third rd. pick. I also don't know what teams drafting between 9 and 16 need a future starting G. With the Hawks needing a long term starter in goal, I would be curious what their thinking is on Askarov. Would Stan etal have strong interest in him in mid first rd., or do they want skaters ahead of him. |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Sept 19, 2020 9:23:11 GMT -6
If Nylander is who we think he is next year--a smart GM would bury him in Rockford and be done with it unless a move can be made that won't hurt the 'hawks. So adding waiver-eligible salary over multiple years for "project" players in exchange for Nylander? No thank you. Will Stan do it? I'm not getting that vibe. I hope he's buried in Rockford. He had a chance in the playoffs to shine, and right before his contract year to boot. If that didn't motivate the guy, nothing will. That was probably his last shot at playoff hockey.
He needs to be gone no matter how it's done. The kid came in expressing a chip on his shoulder toward his previous team and yet his 3rd HC sat his ass three games in........THREE games in! He had a full camp,for what that's worth here and plenty of opportunity with good players,a healthy scratch in the team's biggest game of the year in favor of John Queneville? What else can be said? |
|
|
|
Post by vadarx on Sept 19, 2020 10:44:52 GMT -6
Picking a goalie in the first is a risk but Askarov seems legit. I've seen mock drafts having him go at 11 to 17, if the Hawks get the 10th, taking him or not will be a good probably to have. I've tried reading quite a bit about him and he does seem to be the real deal; one that's been playing ahead of his age group. I think I've seen more mock drafts with Askarov going to the Wild at 11 than anywhere else, but I don't know anything about the Wild's needs in net. As you mention, some have him going a little later. Maybe YA would at least last long enough Stan would consider trying to move up a few spots, though I don't know what moving up a few spots in mid rd. 1 would cost. He does have an extra third rd. pick. I also don't know what teams drafting between 9 and 16 need a future starting G. With the Hawks needing a long term starter in goal, I would be curious what their thinking is on Askarov. Would Stan etal have strong interest in him in mid first rd., or do they want skaters ahead of him. Minny is and has been the popular landing spot for him since i started checking mocks last year. they are in need of a "goaltender of the future" as badly as we are. they would be the main concern about taking him before we pick at 17, imo. that being said, I've noticed lately some mocks moving away from him going to the mild, so.....🤷♂️ he is playing above his age group and does sound like he could be the real deal. if he were Canadian (or maybe I should say NOT Russian) I have to think he would be more likely to go higher. difficulty getting the player to NA is always a concern with the Russian players. |
|
|
|
Post by OldTimeHawky on Sept 19, 2020 11:08:08 GMT -6
He's definitely not a long term solution at 30 but he'd be good to have for a couple years, especially if the Hawks can get Askarov. The Jets are open to moving their 10th overall pick and need a right handed dman, maybe they'll take a former 8th overall pick in Boqvist for it and the Hawks can draft Askarov. That would mean another first round pick bites the dust and that's embarrassing..........anyone but a liquor exec would realize this! Well if it gets the Hawks another top 10 pick and Beaudin steps up, picked in the 1st round the same year as Boqvist, I wouldn't consider that "biting the dust" on another first rounder. I know Beaudin is another small dman but he's actually good at playing D. And he's not in the 160s anymore like you've mentioned a few times, most sites that are really up to date have him at 174 to 179. I'm sure he's working to add more weight so hopefully he's in the 180s for next season. And if the Hawks draft Askarov and he plays in a year or two and becomes the starter for many years, that'll look good. Lots of what ifs lol |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Sept 19, 2020 11:36:37 GMT -6
That would mean another first round pick bites the dust and that's embarrassing..........anyone but a liquor exec would realize this! Well if it gets the Hawks another top 10 pick and Beaudin steps up, picked in the 1st round the same year as Boqvist, I wouldn't consider that "biting the dust" on another first rounder. I know Beaudin is another small dman but he's actually good at playing D. And he's not in the 160s anymore like you've mentioned a few times, most sites that are really up to date have him at 174 to 179. I'm sure he's working to add more weight so hopefully he's in the 180s for next season. And if the Hawks draft Askarov and he plays in a year or two and becomes the starter for many years, that'll look good. Lots of what ifs lol Boqvist going means another 1st rounder traded away regardless the return and I've posted the handful of sub 180lb NHL D-men plying their trade with Spurgeon being the most successful.....how do these 170 pounders avoid situations like Devon Toews gettin' plastered by Bogosian and Palate? Beaudin's not a teenager any more,he turns 21 in three weeks and he's probably done growin',I guess tippin' the scales at more then the 168lbs the Hawks still list him at is somewhat encouraging but FEW his size make it or don't last long when they do. I'm sure we have the Org who can show him how to avoid any and all physicality but that's growin' old around here too. Mitchell is also 21 and done growing. |
|
|
|
Post by BlueFruit on Sept 19, 2020 12:45:44 GMT -6
You have been very vocal regarding that JC didn´t play them together as much as he should have, so I can understand how you feel I just wanted to prove you wrong. That wasn´t my objective. It was more of showing that what you (not you in particular, but you as in anyone) see and what is facts doesn´t always come out the same. With that said, I too had very different opinions than the coach on how to set up the lines and distribute playing time. Yes I can be very vocal...LOL but I try to post my share to keep the chatter goin' and I willingly throw my opinion out there for scrutiny and I accept it when it happens. Maybe the two forwards in question did see more minutes together than it appeared but it also appeared that we didn't see Strome in the 2LC role like last year with D-Cat on his 2nd line wing like we saw in the 2nd half of the year before nearly as much. I saw both skating more bottom line minutes and Strome skating more wing which was a different use than the two players saw the year before.......JMO It also seems I saw other forwards like Nolander,Caggiula and even Queneville gettin' some of the 5 on 5,top six minutes that D-Cat saw the year before and Carpenter gettin' some of the 2LC minutes Strome saw the year before. I can't fully disagree if someone says their play deserved less 5 on 5,top six minutes but I'm not sure that's the way to develop good,young players coming off outstanding years. I still think JC lost faith in the two far too quickly separating them in the 1st game but again.....JMO To be honest,I'd like to hear your opinions on the lines and ice time and I'd appreciate the chatter. I agree with you regarding playing Toews and Kane together from the start this year. And as the season progressed I would have liked Kubalik to be the third man. I would also have let DeBrinkat and Strome have more time together, to find their groove, before separating them. Probably with Saad as the third man. Load up the two first lines. Dach, Shaw and Caggiula or Smith on the third line. Kampf, Carpenter and Smith or Caggiula. That leaves Nylander as the odd man out. I might want him on the third line with Dach and Shaw, or maybe not. But I don´t know how long I would have sticked to these lines if we kept on losing. It´s easy to be coaching from the couch. I too appreciate the chatter, and your posts. |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Sept 19, 2020 13:06:16 GMT -6
Yes I can be very vocal...LOL but I try to post my share to keep the chatter goin' and I willingly throw my opinion out there for scrutiny and I accept it when it happens. Maybe the two forwards in question did see more minutes together than it appeared but it also appeared that we didn't see Strome in the 2LC role like last year with D-Cat on his 2nd line wing like we saw in the 2nd half of the year before nearly as much. I saw both skating more bottom line minutes and Strome skating more wing which was a different use than the two players saw the year before.......JMO It also seems I saw other forwards like Nolander,Caggiula and even Queneville gettin' some of the 5 on 5,top six minutes that D-Cat saw the year before and Carpenter gettin' some of the 2LC minutes Strome saw the year before. I can't fully disagree if someone says their play deserved less 5 on 5,top six minutes but I'm not sure that's the way to develop good,young players coming off outstanding years. I still think JC lost faith in the two far too quickly separating them in the 1st game but again.....JMO To be honest,I'd like to hear your opinions on the lines and ice time and I'd appreciate the chatter. I agree with you regarding playing Toews and Kane together from the start this year. And as the season progressed I would have liked Kubalik to be the third man. I would also have let DeBrinkat and Strome have more time together, to find their groove, before separating them. Probably with Saad as the third man. Load up the two first lines. Dach, Shaw and Caggiula or Smith on the third line. Kampf, Carpenter and Smith or Caggiula. That leaves Nylander as the odd man out. I might want him on the third line with Dach and Shaw, or maybe not. But I don´t know how long I would have sticked to these lines if we kept on losing. It´s easy to be coaching from the couch. I too appreciate the chatter, and your posts. It is easy to coach from the couch and to be fair,I'd say exactly that in defense of Q before we dumped him. I just thought the team had two lines basically figured out going into last year with the K&T and S&D combos having career years and doing so with a questionable 3rd wheel. I also feel replacing Sikura and Perlini with Kubalik and Saad as you mentioned could have made those two combos better if anything. Toews had his best year ever after a few down years skatin with Kane and Kane had his best ever skatin with JT.........these guys do eat up a lotta cap so why not get all you can outta them? |
|
|
|
Post by OldTimeHawky on Sept 19, 2020 13:56:54 GMT -6
Well if it gets the Hawks another top 10 pick and Beaudin steps up, picked in the 1st round the same year as Boqvist, I wouldn't consider that "biting the dust" on another first rounder. I know Beaudin is another small dman but he's actually good at playing D. And he's not in the 160s anymore like you've mentioned a few times, most sites that are really up to date have him at 174 to 179. I'm sure he's working to add more weight so hopefully he's in the 180s for next season. And if the Hawks draft Askarov and he plays in a year or two and becomes the starter for many years, that'll look good. Lots of what ifs lol Boqvist going means another 1st rounder traded away regardless the return and I've posted the handful of sub 180lb NHL D-men plying their trade with Spurgeon being the most successful.....how do these 170 pounders avoid situations like Devon Toews gettin' plastered by Bogosian and Palate? Beaudin's not a teenager any more,he turns 21 in three weeks and he's probably done growin',I guess tippin' the scales at more then the 168lbs the Hawks still list him at is somewhat encouraging but FEW his size make it or don't last long when they do. I'm sure we have the Org who can show him how to avoid any and all physicality but that's growin' old around here too. Mitchell is also 21 and done growing. I hear ya about the 1st rounders being traded away, I've been trying to defend Nylander but after these playoffs I don't see him working out and losing a solid top4 dman like Jokiharju stings even more. Boqvist was a gamble at 8 overall because of his concussions, size, and his lack of defense, and seeing big Dobson playing in the final 4 doesn't help. Boqvist has a lot of potential still but I agree about the Hawks having small dmen, so if they can trade one for a possible franchise goalie I'm ok with that, or maybe get a solid bigger dman in Sanderson, his dad was fun to watch. And the Hawks site doesn't seem to change players weights because Debrincat was 165lbs when drafted and Goodman has said he came to camp every year looking bigger. Beaudin was in the 160s when drafted and he's closer to 180 now. Mitchell and Beaudin should watch tapes of Makar and Hughes, both guys looked really good in their 1st seasons and both are under 6' between 170-80lbs. Of course they'd have to be paired with bigger dmen, not Keith. Boqvist wasn't ready for top2 minutes playing with Duncs, he should've been paired with de Haan or Maatta from the start. Unfortunately the Hawks style isn't physical or else Gilbert would've been a full time NHLer by now, so if they want skilled puck movers Mitchell and Beaudin are good options because both are smart 2way dmen who can skate. |
|
he'll kill any line!
When he 1st came I thought he was going to be a project, and he hasn't disappointed me in that respect.
