30
|
|
Post by OldTimeHawky on Sept 19, 2020 16:25:35 GMT -6
It sounds like Crawford isn't happy with the 1yr 3.5 offer, he said he'd take a hometown discount so I wonder what he thinks one is 🤔. If it's around 5 I say thank you for the great years and you're forever one of the Hawks legends, but good bye 👋
Make a push for Kuemper and try to move Maatta for him, Yotes free up half a million and get a big solid dman entering his prime. Of course the Hawks would have to sweeten the deal but it shouldn't involve the 17th pick or any top prospects.
Then move Saad for maybe Nurse and free up almost 2 million and Nurse can help limit Keiths ice time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tater on Sept 20, 2020 0:33:47 GMT -6
It sounds like Crawford isn't happy with the 1yr 3.5 offer, he said he'd take a hometown discount so I wonder what he thinks one is 🤔. If it's around 5 I say thank you for the great years and you're forever one of the Hawks legends, but good bye 👋 Make a push for Kuemper and try to move Maatta for him, Yotes free up half a million and get a big solid dman entering his prime. Of course the Hawks would have to sweeten the deal but it shouldn't involve the 17th pick or any top prospects. Then move Saad for maybe Nurse and free up almost 2 million and Nurse can help limit Keiths ice time. I love when you think outside the box! |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Sept 20, 2020 6:55:08 GMT -6
It sounds like Crawford isn't happy with the 1yr 3.5 offer, he said he'd take a hometown discount so I wonder what he thinks one is 🤔. If it's around 5 I say thank you for the great years and you're forever one of the Hawks legends, but good bye 👋 Make a push for Kuemper and try to move Maatta for him, Yotes free up half a million and get a big solid dman entering his prime. Of course the Hawks would have to sweeten the deal but it shouldn't involve the 17th pick or any top prospects. Then move Saad for maybe Nurse and free up almost 2 million and Nurse can help limit Keiths ice time. Maybe term is the issue but if I'm CC and I'd play cheap,I'd also want to play for a team with a chance and one who'd protect me.....he has neither in Chicago. Will Kuemper put us over the top? Did Lehner get us out of last place? 'Hooby' will be a UFA and probably cheaper,he'd obviously require no return but does he want to play for a winner too? |
|
|
|
Post by OldTimeHawky on Sept 20, 2020 9:25:42 GMT -6
It sounds like Crawford isn't happy with the 1yr 3.5 offer, he said he'd take a hometown discount so I wonder what he thinks one is 🤔. If it's around 5 I say thank you for the great years and you're forever one of the Hawks legends, but good bye 👋 Make a push for Kuemper and try to move Maatta for him, Yotes free up half a million and get a big solid dman entering his prime. Of course the Hawks would have to sweeten the deal but it shouldn't involve the 17th pick or any top prospects. Then move Saad for maybe Nurse and free up almost 2 million and Nurse can help limit Keiths ice time. Maybe term is the issue but if I'm CC and I'd play cheap,I'd also want to play for a team with a chance and one who'd protect me.....he has neither in Chicago. Will Kuemper put us over the top? Did Lehner get us out of last place? 'Hooby' will be a UFA and probably cheaper,he'd obviously require no return but does he want to play for a winner too? Lehner got us out of the basement but not by much, I doubt Kuemper will put us over the top but he's a good option. Holtby is in his mid 30s and I'm sure he'd sign for 2-3mill, that's definitely another option to help whoever gets the backup position but yeah he probably wants to go too a winner, Hawks aren't contenders. There's no way management will let unproven goalies like Subban, Lankinen, Delia, Tomkins, or Namilov be the goalies so they'll need someone like Crow, Kuemper, or Holts. We'll soon find out what direction they're going. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2020 11:00:00 GMT -6
Maybe term is the issue but if I'm CC and I'd play cheap,I'd also want to play for a team with a chance and one who'd protect me.....he has neither in Chicago. Will Kuemper put us over the top? Did Lehner get us out of last place? 'Hooby' will be a UFA and probably cheaper,he'd obviously require no return but does he want to play for a winner too? Lehner got us out of the basement but not by much, I doubt Kuemper will put us over the top but he's a good option. Holtby is in his mid 30s and I'm sure he'd sign for 2-3mill, that's definitely another option to help whoever gets the backup position but yeah he probably wants to go too a winner, Hawks aren't contenders.
There's no way management will let unproven goalies like Subban, Lankinen, Delia, Tomkins, or Namilov be the goalies so they'll need someone like Crow, Kuemper, or Holts. We'll soon find out what direction they're going.  |
|
|
|
Post by LordKOTL on Sept 20, 2020 21:20:20 GMT -6
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? There is no cheap option to fix the team. We have something like 24M committed on D--and most of them are mid-pairing guys. We have a lot of players who are virtually immovable. There is little money free to bring in any players who can actually help the aging core by taking over some of the responsibilities, and the aging core proved it can't to it by themselves anymore. In that respect you might as well get the youth in and start to develop them (as should have been happening for the past few years). Instead of clogging up the D with Murph, DeHaan, and Maata, you might as well let one of them go and give another rookie D a shot. Instead of spending 4M+ for a proven goaltender in net, you might as well get a transitional vet in net and see if some of these prospects we got actually have it in them to be NHL netminders. The goal of resigning Crawford would not be to win. The goal of re-signing Crawford (or a netminder of his ilk) would be to provide a last-chance insurance policy, as well as be a direct mentor to a young netminder to teach them how to play behind a D that leaks like a sieve. Sure, he might get the majority of starts year 1 (~50), but the goal would be to taper him off--kinda like the purpose of Turco back in 2011--except we don't have the next netminder remotely identified. |
|
|
|
Post by BigT on Sept 21, 2020 6:38:37 GMT -6
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? There is no cheap option to fix the team. We have something like 24M committed on D--and most of them are mid-pairing guys. We have a lot of players who are virtually immovable. There is little money free to bring in any players who can actually help the aging core by taking over some of the responsibilities, and the aging core proved it can't to it by themselves anymore. In that respect you might as well get the youth in and start to develop them (as should have been happening for the past few years). Instead of clogging up the D with Murph, DeHaan, and Maata, you might as well let one of them go and give another rookie D a shot. Instead of spending 4M+ for a proven goaltender in net, you might as well get a transitional vet in net and see if some of these prospects we got actually have it in them to be NHL netminders. The goal of resigning Crawford would not be to win. The goal of re-signing Crawford (or a netminder of his ilk) would be to provide a last-chance insurance policy, as well as be a direct mentor to a young netminder to teach them how to play behind a D that leaks like a sieve. Sure, he might get the majority of starts year 1 (~50), but the goal would be to taper him off--kinda like the purpose of Turco back in 2011--except we don't have the next netminder remotely identified. You’re close to perfect here. The dream is over, the team will not be good or quite some time. I doubt the Hawks can dump much salary in the flat cap era. We’re stuck in neutral and if these kids don’t pan out, it gets much worse. And to be honest, I don’t think many of these kids pan out. Right now, I’m just hoping Boqvist is an actual NHL player. Take away the 8th overall price tag, he’s just a mediocre prospect at this point. If he has another year of no points and terrible to non existent defensive play, I think it’s time to look to move him before Runblad 2.0 is a foot. Dach should be ok, but we’ve got a coach who literally has let others take a step backwards and just demoted them further. The only reason why JC had success in Rockford was simply due to Stan demoting NHL players to go there. I believe 3 players were demoted and then Rockford took off. Wingels (although traded), Bouma and Franson. That was in 2017/18, and really nothing has actually come up from the farm. So I don’t see the point to that plan? It was all just to make JC look good and justify firing Q. It’s just time to blow it up. It’s over. And by blow it up, I mean every one. From the top on down. If Toews and Kane etc wanna stay, fair enough. I just don’t think a re-signing would be possible. I think dealing them away and retaining half their salary would be a huge plus and many teams would give up a lot for them. Tough times a head my friends. I think this was the best we can expect for a long time. Imagine if Toews or Kane got injured? For like half a year? Or even the whole year. As far as goal tending goes, I think what you said is the most logical move forward. We cannot afford to get into multiple years with a 35 year old tender with a history of concussions. This team didn’t do much with him, and they’d probably allow him to get hurt again. Unacceptable, but it’s just time to let these guys go and move on to the absolute bottom!!! |
|
|
|
Post by LordKOTL on Sept 21, 2020 10:52:53 GMT -6
There is no cheap option to fix the team. We have something like 24M committed on D--and most of them are mid-pairing guys. We have a lot of players who are virtually immovable. There is little money free to bring in any players who can actually help the aging core by taking over some of the responsibilities, and the aging core proved it can't to it by themselves anymore. In that respect you might as well get the youth in and start to develop them (as should have been happening for the past few years). Instead of clogging up the D with Murph, DeHaan, and Maata, you might as well let one of them go and give another rookie D a shot. Instead of spending 4M+ for a proven goaltender in net, you might as well get a transitional vet in net and see if some of these prospects we got actually have it in them to be NHL netminders. The goal of resigning Crawford would not be to win. The goal of re-signing Crawford (or a netminder of his ilk) would be to provide a last-chance insurance policy, as well as be a direct mentor to a young netminder to teach them how to play behind a D that leaks like a sieve. Sure, he might get the majority of starts year 1 (~50), but the goal would be to taper him off--kinda like the purpose of Turco back in 2011--except we don't have the next netminder remotely identified. You’re close to perfect here. The dream is over, the team will not be good or quite some time. I doubt the Hawks can dump much salary in the flat cap era. We’re stuck in neutral and if these kids don’t pan out, it gets much worse. And to be honest, I don’t think many of these kids pan out. Right now, I’m just hoping Boqvist is an actual NHL player. Take away the 8th overall price tag, he’s just a mediocre prospect at this point. If he has another year of no points and terrible to non existent defensive play, I think it’s time to look to move him before Runblad 2.0 is a foot. Dach should be ok, but we’ve got a coach who literally has let others take a step backwards and just demoted them further. The only reason why JC had success in Rockford was simply due to Stan demoting NHL players to go there. I believe 3 players were demoted and then Rockford took off. Wingels (although traded), Bouma and Franson. That was in 2017/18, and really nothing has actually come up from the farm. So I don’t see the point to that plan? It was all just to make JC look good and justify firing Q. It’s just time to blow it up. It’s over. And by blow it up, I mean every one. From the top on down. If Toews and Kane etc wanna stay, fair enough. I just don’t think a re-signing would be possible. I think dealing them away and retaining half their salary would be a huge plus and many teams would give up a lot for them. Tough times a head my friends. I think this was the best we can expect for a long time. Imagine if Toews or Kane got injured? For like half a year? Or even the whole year. As far as goal tending goes, I think what you said is the most logical move forward. We cannot afford to get into multiple years with a 35 year old tender with a history of concussions. This team didn’t do much with him, and they’d probably allow him to get hurt again. Unacceptable, but it’s just time to let these guys go and move on to the absolute bottom!!! I don't mind keeping some of the core around for mentorship. They've already proven that they can't get it done alone but who better for the upcoming kids to learn from? I think the alpha and omega for the 'hawks moving forward is to get out from under Stan. I think he thinks that the core is viable enough that they just need that missing piece to bring another cup. Until that time I think the 'hawks will be wallowing in the bottom 3rd of the league--maybe at the top of it so we're just out of a top-10 pick. P.S. I won't mind a term of up to 3 years with Crawford as long as (1) the AAV is kept low (and a 2 year or 3 year deal might be a good way to keep the deal low), and that there's the understanding that he'll be transitioning out of the starter position once a successor has been found. Ideally, the 'hawks should give him no more salary than they would expect from a seasoned vet netminder who would be a backup--so ~2-3M MAX. Yes, he's been injured, but again the point of possibly keeping Crawford is not so he can help the team win, but to help mentor a young goalie and also have an insurance factor when young Boqvist-esque D-men screw the pooch--and not put the pressure to have to cover for one of the worst D's in the league to a rookie netminder. To wit: If the 'hawks are having a very bad game to the point where the next-gen netminder is so in over his head he needs water wings, would you rather have another rookie come in to try to settle things down, or Crawford? Crawford is the answer as long as he's inexpensive enough. And yes, I reiterate, it doesn't have to be Crawford proper, but of the goalies available he fits the bill the best. I could suffer through Howard or Greg Luganis (Mike Smith), but Crawford is better than both. |
|
|
|
Post by T-man2010 on Sept 21, 2020 11:09:10 GMT -6
Just who is our "core" now?
Kaner, Toews, Keith and maybe a real healthy Seabs, Crow?
Gone are Hossa, Sharp, Hammer...Those were the core 8.
Are we ready for the core to include D-Cat, Kubalik...I just am having a hard time picturing our future core right now with out T&K anchoring it.
|
|
|
|
Post by BigT on Sept 21, 2020 13:04:40 GMT -6
Just who is our "core" now? Kaner, Toews, Keith and maybe a real healthy Seabs, Crow? Gone are Hossa, Sharp, Hammer...Those were the core 8. Are we ready for the core to include D-Cat, Kubalik...I just am having a hard time picturing our future core right now with out T&K anchoring it. To be honest, I don’t think we have much of a core these days. Core guys are “untouchables”. It seems Stan brings in deplorables. I’d have to think if anyone could be moved for the right price, you do it. I think it’s a process and things change. Like Lordy said, the best move would be to get away from Stan. He still believes this team is a piece or two away, and he wants the olde “we’re trying to get better every day” tactic with fans, but that’s getting old as the team keeps getting worse. It seems like he’ll chase the dream till they fire him. And that’s gonna set the team back years if not decades. It’s been 5 years since the last Cup win. I promise it ain’t happening in the next 5. So, if the team doesn’t really have a viable core group going forward, it’s starting look like we will have a mishmash until the owners get serious about a better situation. Van rebuilt in 4-5 years. Also they got zero luck in the lottery dept. But they made the best out of every situation and plowed through. I’d like to see a rebirth like that here. I think the fans will be here for a while now. I think if they keep Toews and Kane people will watch them. Then maybe in the final year of their deals, they can see if they want to go elsewhere and get massive returns for them. They could always re-sign them in the offseason. So there is a way to a newer core. But it’s gonna take a fresh set of eyes!!! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2020 15:32:14 GMT -6
Just who is our "core" now? Kaner, Toews, Keith and maybe a real healthy Seabs, Crow? Gone are Hossa, Sharp, Hammer...Those were the core 8. Are we ready for the core to include D-Cat, Kubalik...I just am having a hard time picturing our future core right now with out T&K anchoring it. To be honest, I don’t think we have much of a core these days. Core guys are “untouchables”. It seems Stan brings in deplorables. I’d have to think if anyone could be moved for the right price, you do it. I think it’s a process and things change. Like Lordy said, the best move would be to get away from Stan. He still believes this team is a piece or two away, and he wants the olde “we’re trying to get better every day” tactic with fans, but that’s getting old as the team keeps getting worse. It seems like he’ll chase the dream till they fire him. And that’s gonna set the team back years if not decades. It’s been 5 years since the last Cup win. I promise it ain’t happening in the next 5. So, if the team doesn’t really have a viable core group going forward, it’s starting look like we will have a mishmash until the owners get serious about a better situation. Van rebuilt in 4-5 years. Also they got zero luck in the lottery dept. But they made the best out of every situation and plowed through. I’d like to see a rebirth like that here. I think the fans will be here for a while now. I think if they keep Toews and Kane people will watch them. Then maybe in the final year of their deals, they can see if they want to go elsewhere and get massive returns for them. They could always re-sign them in the offseason. So there is a way to a newer core. But it’s gonna take a fresh set of eyes!!! Mentioning Vancouver and then Toews and Kane make me see a familiarity between where Toews and Kane are now what the Sedins were for the Canucks their entire career. They are going to waste the rest of their careers staying just below relevant (or worse) and never win another Cup. The obvious difference is at least Kane and Toews will retire with their names on the Cup numerous times. |
|
|
|
Post by BigT on Sept 21, 2020 15:46:31 GMT -6
To be honest, I don’t think we have much of a core these days. Core guys are “untouchables”. It seems Stan brings in deplorables. I’d have to think if anyone could be moved for the right price, you do it. I think it’s a process and things change. Like Lordy said, the best move would be to get away from Stan. He still believes this team is a piece or two away, and he wants the olde “we’re trying to get better every day” tactic with fans, but that’s getting old as the team keeps getting worse. It seems like he’ll chase the dream till they fire him. And that’s gonna set the team back years if not decades. It’s been 5 years since the last Cup win. I promise it ain’t happening in the next 5. So, if the team doesn’t really have a viable core group going forward, it’s starting look like we will have a mishmash until the owners get serious about a better situation. Van rebuilt in 4-5 years. Also they got zero luck in the lottery dept. But they made the best out of every situation and plowed through. I’d like to see a rebirth like that here. I think the fans will be here for a while now. I think if they keep Toews and Kane people will watch them. Then maybe in the final year of their deals, they can see if they want to go elsewhere and get massive returns for them. They could always re-sign them in the offseason. So there is a way to a newer core. But it’s gonna take a fresh set of eyes!!! Mentioning Vancouver and then Toews and Kane make me see a familiarity between where Toews and Kane are now what the Sedins were for the Canucks their entire career. They are going to waste the rest of their careers staying just below relevant (or worse) and never win another Cup. The obvious difference is at least Kane and Toews will retire with their names on the Cup numerous times. One thing to keep in mind. If Toews and Kane stay here, does that ruin a good next contract for them? They’ll be 34 and 33 entering free agency. Both could easily see close to the same pay if not more if they were on a different team that was much better. I think Colliton was brought in to make things a wee bit more difficult for them so they’ll wave and leave. Just some grub for thought!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Tater on Sept 22, 2020 0:55:54 GMT -6
One thing to keep in mind. If Toews and Kane stay here, does that ruin a good next contract for them? They’ll be 34 and 33 entering free agency. Both could easily see close to the same pay if not more if they were on a different team that was much better. I think Colliton was brought in to make things a wee bit more difficult for them so they’ll wave and leave. Just some grub for thought!!! I'd love to see them retire as Hawks. It seems like in the past, more players stayed with the same team through their whole career. Seems less likely to happen these days. I might be mis-remembering though. |
|
|
|
Post by LordKOTL on Sept 22, 2020 8:24:18 GMT -6
Just who is our "core" now? Kaner, Toews, Keith and maybe a real healthy Seabs, Crow? Gone are Hossa, Sharp, Hammer...Those were the core 8. Are we ready for the core to include D-Cat, Kubalik...I just am having a hard time picturing our future core right now with out T&K anchoring it. Kane and Toews are definite. I would classify Keith somewhat there even though we shouldn't be building around him. Ditto with Crawford if re-signed. You don't want to really build around guys that old nor should your gameplan hinge on them having to play like they did in their prime, but they are good to have around to bring the next guys in and aren't completly useless. Seabs is a weird one. He could classify the same as Keith or Crawford, but his on-ice game may very well be too far gone to be useful in that realm. D-cat has a lot to prove after this past season. Koob? We still have to see more continued from him. He could continue plowing along like Panarin. He could have a sophomore slump and bounce back, or he could be a Samsonov. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2020 14:41:56 GMT -6
One thing to keep in mind. If Toews and Kane stay here, does that ruin a good next contract for them? They’ll be 34 and 33 entering free agency. Both could easily see close to the same pay if not more if they were on a different team that was much better. I think Colliton was brought in to make things a wee bit more difficult for them so they’ll wave and leave. Just some grub for thought!!! I'd love to see them retire as Hawks. It seems like in the past, more players stayed with the same team through their whole career. Seems less likely to happen these days. I might be mis-remembering though. This has much to do with the fact there are 31 (soon to be 32) teams for players to choose from, as well as many times moving on allows the player to maximize their contracts. Case in point is Panarin: There was no way the Hawks could have paid him at or near what Kane/Toews were being paid. So he was traded and eventually signed his mega deal with New York when he became a free agent. |
|
|
|
Post by T-man2010 on Sept 23, 2020 7:33:58 GMT -6
I'd love to see them retire as Hawks. It seems like in the past, more players stayed with the same team through their whole career. Seems less likely to happen these days. I might be mis-remembering though. This has much to do with the fact there are 31 (soon to be 32) teams for players to choose from, as well as many times moving on allows the player to maximize their contracts. Case in point is Panarin: There was no way the Hawks could have paid him at or near what Kane/Toews were being paid. So he was traded and eventually signed his mega deal with New York when he became a free agent. The problem was the Hawks signed Panarin to a bridge deal for 2 years @ 6m per. Then traded him to Columbus for Saad who had 4 years left at the same price. I like Saad of course but the chemistry between Kane and Panarin was legendary. I think they needed someone who fit in with Toews and Saad was a logical choice. I would have kept Panarin even though we knew he was going to have to walk after those 2 years. |
|
|
|
Post by LordKOTL on Sept 23, 2020 10:26:27 GMT -6
This has much to do with the fact there are 31 (soon to be 32) teams for players to choose from, as well as many times moving on allows the player to maximize their contracts. Case in point is Panarin: There was no way the Hawks could have paid him at or near what Kane/Toews were being paid. So he was traded and eventually signed his mega deal with New York when he became a free agent. The problem was the Hawks signed Panarin to a bridge deal for 2 years @ 6m per. Then traded him to Columbus for Saad who had 4 years left at the same price. I like Saad of course but the chemistry between Kane and Panarin was legendary. I think they needed someone who fit in with Toews and Saad was a logical choice. I would have kept Panarin even though we knew he was going to have to walk after those 2 years. Ditto. Think of the HAUL we could have got for Panarin at the TDL. Saad...I get. Kane can usually produce on his own and Toews needed some help to perform close to his salary, and Saad & Toews had chemistry before his sojurn to Cbus. In retrospect though it was a bad move. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2020 11:31:09 GMT -6
The problem was the Hawks signed Panarin to a bridge deal for 2 years @ 6m per. Then traded him to Columbus for Saad who had 4 years left at the same price. I like Saad of course but the chemistry between Kane and Panarin was legendary. I think they needed someone who fit in with Toews and Saad was a logical choice. I would have kept Panarin even though we knew he was going to have to walk after those 2 years. Ditto. Think of the HAUL we could have got for Panarin at the TDL. Saad...I get. Kane can usually produce on his own and Toews needed some help to perform close to his salary, and Saad & Toews had chemistry before his sojurn to Cbus. In retrospect though it was a bad move. The trade also coincided with the unexpected retirement of Marian Hossa. The thought was Saad could fill his shoes, which was nowhere close to happening. I liked Saad and wasn't totally against the trade to bring him back, but to lose Panarin for basically Saad straight up was a colossal failure on Bowman. |
|
|
|
Post by LordKOTL on Sept 23, 2020 16:06:10 GMT -6
Ditto. Think of the HAUL we could have got for Panarin at the TDL. Saad...I get. Kane can usually produce on his own and Toews needed some help to perform close to his salary, and Saad & Toews had chemistry before his sojurn to Cbus. In retrospect though it was a bad move. The trade also coincided with the unexpected retirement of Marian Hossa. The thought was Saad could fill his shoes, which was nowhere close to happening. I liked Saad and wasn't totally against the trade to bring him back, but to lose Panarin for basically Saad straight up was a colossal failure on Bowman. On paper I thought the move was acceptable as well, but I didn't expect Saad to have that down of a year and for him to completely fail to help Toews' game and give him some needed chemistry. In retrospect that was a major loss in the trade department but in the same vein that I got the concept of the trade. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2020 16:13:37 GMT -6
Not sure this is the right thread but since it has gotten into talking about the future overall and rebuilding, etc. then I'll just add that the ONLY way out of this is full rebuild and the only way to fully rebuild is to convince Kane/Toews to accept a trade.
I've been against trading them, especially Kane because I don't see how a team improves by trading a top-3/world class player. But they aren't improving with either of them anyway, so you either keep putting out a very below average product or you start the painful 4-5 year rebuild process now.
And what expedites that rebuild is getting a massive haul of young players/prospects/draft picks back for 19 and 88.
Unfortunately, however, I don't trust Bowman to get back the right quality pieces to make it worthwhile. And that is the biggest issue. Because if he fails to identify the right prospects/youngsters and/or make the right draft picks, then we're doomed for a decade to come.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2020 16:40:04 GMT -6
Not sure this is the right thread but since it has gotten into talking about the future overall and rebuilding, etc. then I'll just add that the ONLY way out of this is full rebuild and the only way to fully rebuild is to convince Kane/Toews to accept a trade. I've been against trading them, especially Kane because I don't see how a team improves by trading a top-3/world class player. But they aren't improving with either of them anyway, so you either keep putting out a very below average product or you start the painful 4-5 year rebuild process now. And what expedites that rebuild is getting a massive haul of young players/prospects/draft picks back for 19 and 88. Unfortunately, however, I don't trust Bowman to get back the right quality pieces to make it worthwhile. And that is the biggest issue. Because if he fails to identify the right prospects/youngsters and/or make the right draft picks, then we're doomed for a decade to come.So it's kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't. Either Bowman sits on his hands and continues to bring in has beens to fill spots at low salaries and the Hawks languish in mediocrity, OR, Bowman makes the trades for a rebuild and screws it up and we reminisce about the good old days when the Hawks were mediocre but Kane and Toews filled the seats. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2020 16:56:26 GMT -6
Not sure this is the right thread but since it has gotten into talking about the future overall and rebuilding, etc. then I'll just add that the ONLY way out of this is full rebuild and the only way to fully rebuild is to convince Kane/Toews to accept a trade. I've been against trading them, especially Kane because I don't see how a team improves by trading a top-3/world class player. But they aren't improving with either of them anyway, so you either keep putting out a very below average product or you start the painful 4-5 year rebuild process now. And what expedites that rebuild is getting a massive haul of young players/prospects/draft picks back for 19 and 88. Unfortunately, however, I don't trust Bowman to get back the right quality pieces to make it worthwhile. And that is the biggest issue. Because if he fails to identify the right prospects/youngsters and/or make the right draft picks, then we're doomed for a decade to come.So it's kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't. Either Bowman sits on his hands and continues to bring in has beens to fill spots at low salaries and the Hawks languish in mediocrity, OR, Bowman makes the trades for a rebuild and screws it up and we reminisce about the good old days when the Hawks were mediocre but Kane and Toews filled the seats. it doesn't have to be this way if we had a decent GM... I mean at the end of this day almost all of the problems currently are related to the bad contracts and trades Bowman handed out over the years... as I have said many times on the old board, he gets way too much credit for filling in pieces of Cup teams when the top guys... the core... were either drafted for or traded for by his predecessors (Hossa being the exception)... Outside of the core, Stan gets credit for: the vermette deal, saad/shaw draft picks... am I missing any? |
|
|
|
Post by vadarx on Sept 23, 2020 19:04:57 GMT -6
Not sure this is the right thread but since it has gotten into talking about the future overall and rebuilding, etc. then I'll just add that the ONLY way out of this is full rebuild and the only way to fully rebuild is to convince Kane/Toews to accept a trade. I've been against trading them, especially Kane because I don't see how a team improves by trading a top-3/world class player. But they aren't improving with either of them anyway, so you either keep putting out a very below average product or you start the painful 4-5 year rebuild process now. And what expedites that rebuild is getting a massive haul of young players/prospects/draft picks back for 19 and 88. Unfortunately, however, I don't trust Bowman to get back the right quality pieces to make it worthwhile. And that is the biggest issue. Because if he fails to identify the right prospects/youngsters and/or make the right draft picks, then we're doomed for a decade to come. I've stated here (and on the old board) many times my desire for 2/19/88 to play their entire careers in one sweater. that would still be my preference, but as the years have passed, it has become obvious that this was probably not a likely scenario. you are likely correct as to a rebuild not happening unless one of the three (or maybe just one of 19/88) is moved. as this is likely the case, there is only one of three I would move and that player is Kane. he would easily net the largest return and he is likely the easiest of the three to trade. as much as it would anger folks, he is the guy I would move. Keith is a risk because of his recapture (although I don't see him retiring before his contract is played out). I also don't see a huge need to move him because his cap hit is pretty reasonable and you likely don't get a great return for him. of the three, he would be the second I would move. Toews would clear the same amount of space that 88 would, but he wouldn't bring back nearly the return. I have doubts that many teams are going to want to give up too much for that cap hit. the only way I see him being moved is if he waived in the final season of his deal and was moved at the deadline. he would be the last of the three I would consider. having said all that, with the cap looking the way it does and the likelihood of it remaining so for the next couple years, what are the odds that any team is going to want to trade for any of them? heck, Keith might actually be easier than Kane to move now that I think about it..... |
|
|
|
Post by BigT on Sept 23, 2020 19:17:17 GMT -6
So it's kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't. Either Bowman sits on his hands and continues to bring in has beens to fill spots at low salaries and the Hawks languish in mediocrity, OR, Bowman makes the trades for a rebuild and screws it up and we reminisce about the good old days when the Hawks were mediocre but Kane and Toews filled the seats. it doesn't have to be this way if we had a decent GM... I mean at the end of this day almost all of the problems currently are related to the bad contracts and trades Bowman handed out over the years... as I have said many times on the old board, he gets way too much credit for filling in pieces of Cup teams when the top guys... the core... were either drafted for or traded for by his predecessors (Hossa being the exception)... Outside of the core, Stan gets credit for: the vermette deal, saad/shaw draft picks... am I missing any? I hate to be the resident dick. But most trades people think were awesome, I don’t really buy into that as much. I’ll even say it, Vermette wasn’t even that great of a pickup, for the first half of the playoffs I believe he wasn’t used every game. Q couldn’t trust him, and it seemed like Vermette just wasn’t fitting in. He obviously helped some. But he’s not why we won. And if that was more than likely his best trade, a Dawe damn rental? That’s sad. Personally, I think his best trade by far was getting Oduya. I’ll always give credit when due. Oduya fit in perfectly and was a huge part of winning the Cups. He also was not a rental. That was a good positive trade. The Hawks got a lot of value for him. I even thought Handzus was detrimental. Q still had to play the hell out of Toews and he rode his top guys all the way up, and all the way down. The top guys got burnt out, but you could never tell a warrior that they can’t. I thought the same type thing with Roszy, and Timonen. Those guys made Q play Keith, Seabs, Hammer and Oduya much more!!! |
|
|
|
Post by BigT on Sept 23, 2020 19:28:09 GMT -6
Not sure this is the right thread but since it has gotten into talking about the future overall and rebuilding, etc. then I'll just add that the ONLY way out of this is full rebuild and the only way to fully rebuild is to convince Kane/Toews to accept a trade. I've been against trading them, especially Kane because I don't see how a team improves by trading a top-3/world class player. But they aren't improving with either of them anyway, so you either keep putting out a very below average product or you start the painful 4-5 year rebuild process now. And what expedites that rebuild is getting a massive haul of young players/prospects/draft picks back for 19 and 88. Unfortunately, however, I don't trust Bowman to get back the right quality pieces to make it worthwhile. And that is the biggest issue. Because if he fails to identify the rightprospects/youngsters and/or make the right draft picks, then we're doomed for a decade to come. I've stated here (and on the old board) many times my desire for 2/19/88 to play their entire careers in one sweater. that would still be my preference, but as the years have passed, it has become obvious that this was probably not a likely scenario. you are likely correct as to a rebuild not happening unless one of the three (or maybe just one of 19/88) is moved. as this is likely the case, there is only one of three I would move and that player is Kane. he would easily net the largest return and he is likely the easiest of the three to trade. as much as it would anger folks, he is the guy I would move. Keith is a risk because of his recapture (although I don't see him retiring before his contract is played out). I also don't see a huge need to move him because his cap hit is pretty reasonable and you likely don't get a great return for him. of the three, he would be the second I would move. Toews would clear the same amount of space that 88 would, but he wouldn't bring back nearly the return. I have doubts that many teams are going to want to give up too much for that cap hit. the only way I see him being moved is if he waived in the final season of his deal and was moved at the deadline. he would be the last of the three I would consider. having said all that, with the cap looking the way it does and the likelihood of it remaining so for the next couple years, what are the odds that any team is going to want to trade for any of them? heck, Keith might actually be easier than Kane to move now that I think about it..... How about this. Trade Kane to the Rangers, he reunited with Panera. Hawks get Kappo Kakko, next years first rounder and one of K’Andre Miller or Lias Anderson. The Hawks retain half of Kane’s salary. So the Hawks clear out 5.25 in cap space. Why would the Rags do this? Kakko didn’t exactly set the world on fire. Neither has Miller or Anderson. They would have Kane, Lafreniere, Panera and that would be amazing. So it wouldn’t hurt them to give up a 2021 first rounder. The Rags would be losing one good prospect in Kakko, a B prospect in one of the other two. And more than likely a late 1st rounder. This is the type of thinking we need. The Hawks in rebuild mode will need picks and prospects. We have the ability to eat salary, which makes our guys that much more valuable!!! |
|
|
|
Post by vadarx on Sept 23, 2020 20:29:17 GMT -6
I've stated here (and on the old board) many times my desire for 2/19/88 to play their entire careers in one sweater. that would still be my preference, but as the years have passed, it has become obvious that this was probably not a likely scenario. you are likely correct as to a rebuild not happening unless one of the three (or maybe just one of 19/88) is moved. as this is likely the case, there is only one of three I would move and that player is Kane. he would easily net the largest return and he is likely the easiest of the three to trade. as much as it would anger folks, he is the guy I would move. Keith is a risk because of his recapture (although I don't see him retiring before his contract is played out). I also don't see a huge need to move him because his cap hit is pretty reasonable and you likely don't get a great return for him. of the three, he would be the second I would move. Toews would clear the same amount of space that 88 would, but he wouldn't bring back nearly the return. I have doubts that many teams are going to want to give up too much for that cap hit. the only way I see him being moved is if he waived in the final season of his deal and was moved at the deadline. he would be the last of the three I would consider. having said all that, with the cap looking the way it does and the likelihood of it remaining so for the next couple years, what are the odds that any team is going to want to trade for any of them? heck, Keith might actually be easier than Kane to move now that I think about it..... How about this. Trade Kane to the Rangers, he reunited with Panera. Hawks get Kappo Kakko, next years first rounder and one of K’Andre Miller or Lias Anderson. The Hawks retain half of Kane’s salary. So the Hawks clear out 5.25 in cap space. Why would the Rags do this? Kakko didn’t exactly set the world on fire. Neither has Miller or Anderson. They would have Kane, Lafreniere, Panera and that would be amazing. So it wouldn’t hurt them to give up a 2021 first rounder. The Rags would be losing one good prospect in Kakko, a B prospect in one of the other two. And more than likely a late 1st rounder. This is the type of thinking we need. The Hawks in rebuild mode will need picks and prospects. We have the ability to eat salary, which makes our guys that much more valuable!!! they'd have to throw in another pick for me to consider that. had Kakko had a better first season, I would be more inclined to consider it as is. all 3 plus their '21 first, ok then I'd think on it. add in their second first rounder this year and I'm in. |
|
|
|
Post by BigT on Sept 23, 2020 20:47:23 GMT -6
How about this. Trade Kane to the Rangers, he reunited with Panera. Hawks get Kappo Kakko, next years first rounder and one of K’Andre Miller or Lias Anderson. The Hawks retain half of Kane’s salary. So the Hawks clear out 5.25 in cap space. Why would the Rags do this? Kakko didn’t exactly set the world on fire. Neither has Miller or Anderson. They would have Kane, Lafreniere, Panera and that would be amazing. So it wouldn’t hurt them to give up a 2021 first rounder. The Rags would be losing one good prospect in Kakko, a B prospect in one of the other two. And more than likely a late 1st rounder. This is the type of thinking we need. The Hawks in rebuild mode will need picks and prospects. We have the ability to eat salary, which makes our guys that much more valuable!!! they'd have to throw in another pick for me to consider that. had Kakko had a better first season, I would be more inclined to consider it as is. all 3 plus their '21 first, ok then I'd think on it. add in their second first rounder this year and I'm in. I’d be fine with the return I said, but heyyyyyy, if they’ll give more I’d take. I guess I’d be heavily looking at Kakko with his huge frame to become something special. I’d also love to take Miller, he’s a big body and we just don’t have enough of them. Maybe some of the smaller kids here could thrive like the guys in Tampa if they had some size out there to compliment them!!! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2020 22:15:23 GMT -6
it doesn't have to be this way if we had a decent GM... I mean at the end of this day almost all of the problems currently are related to the bad contracts and trades Bowman handed out over the years... as I have said many times on the old board, he gets way too much credit for filling in pieces of Cup teams when the top guys... the core... were either drafted for or traded for by his predecessors (Hossa being the exception)... Outside of the core, Stan gets credit for: the vermette deal, saad/shaw draft picks... am I missing any? I hate to be the resident dick. But most trades people think were awesome, I don’t really buy into that as much. I’ll even say it, Vermette wasn’t even that great of a pickup, for the first half of the playoffs I believe he wasn’t used every game. Q couldn’t trust him, and it seemed like Vermette just wasn’t fitting in. He obviously helped some. But he’s not why we won. And if that was more than likely his best trade, a Dawe damn rental? That’s sad. Personally, I think his best trade by far was getting Oduya. I’ll always give credit when due. Oduya fit in perfectly and was a huge part of winning the Cups. He also was not a rental. That was a good positive trade. The Hawks got a lot of value for him. I even thought Handzus was detrimental. Q still had to play the hell out of Toews and he rode his top guys all the way up, and all the way down. The top guys got burnt out, but you could never tell a warrior that they can’t. I thought the same type thing with Roszy, and Timonen. Those guys made Q play Keith, Seabs, Hammer and Oduya much more!!! Given how much I hate on Stan I have to put Vermette in the good trade pile... 1) I really liked the guy and wanted the guy, him clashing with Q is not Stan's fault... 2) with kane hurt, they had the cap space and the need for another center with offensive ability, he was one of if not the biggest names available and stan got him and 3) he came thru big in the cup final |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2020 22:19:47 GMT -6
Not sure this is the right thread but since it has gotten into talking about the future overall and rebuilding, etc. then I'll just add that the ONLY way out of this is full rebuild and the only way to fully rebuild is to convince Kane/Toews to accept a trade. I've been against trading them, especially Kane because I don't see how a team improves by trading a top-3/world class player. But they aren't improving with either of them anyway, so you either keep putting out a very below average product or you start the painful 4-5 year rebuild process now. And what expedites that rebuild is getting a massive haul of young players/prospects/draft picks back for 19 and 88. Unfortunately, however, I don't trust Bowman to get back the right quality pieces to make it worthwhile. And that is the biggest issue. Because if he fails to identify the right prospects/youngsters and/or make the right draft picks, then we're doomed for a decade to come. I've stated here (and on the old board) many times my desire for 2/19/88 to play their entire careers in one sweater. that would still be my preference, but as the years have passed, it has become obvious that this was probably not a likely scenario. you are likely correct as to a rebuild not happening unless one of the three (or maybe just one of 19/88) is moved. as this is likely the case, there is only one of three I would move and that player is Kane. he would easily net the largest return and he is likely the easiest of the three to trade. as much as it would anger folks, he is the guy I would move. Keith is a risk because of his recapture (although I don't see him retiring before his contract is played out). I also don't see a huge need to move him because his cap hit is pretty reasonable and you likely don't get a great return for him. of the three, he would be the second I would move. Toews would clear the same amount of space that 88 would, but he wouldn't bring back nearly the return. I have doubts that many teams are going to want to give up too much for that cap hit. the only way I see him being moved is if he waived in the final season of his deal and was moved at the deadline. he would be the last of the three I would consider. having said all that, with the cap looking the way it does and the likelihood of it remaining so for the next couple years, what are the odds that any team is going to want to trade for any of them? heck, Keith might actually be easier than Kane to move now that I think about it..... It's hard for fans to separate things out. I would love for 2/19/88 to finish here as well. But we have to weigh, if they do we aren't winning anything again soon. If they are moved we can win again within the decade. Goes back to the whole thing about being a fan of the logo on the front of the jersey more than any name on the back. My reason I'd really hate seeing Kane go the most is cause he is still so damn entertaining and as bad as they have been he will do something at least once a game that is jaw dropping and fun to see. As for Toews and what he brings back, I do think it would be less than Kane but still think it would be a hefty haul. I know he doesn't score as much as a true No. 1 but he brings SO MUCH to any team. The locker room leadership, the cup experience, the ability to play both PP and PK, the faceoff greatness. He'd be an immediate great addition to the Panthers, Canadiens, Flyers, Hurricanes, Blue Jackets, Islanders, Rangers, Oilers, Canucks Coyotes (I'd like to get him out of the division if possible) |
|
|
|
Post by vadarx on Sept 24, 2020 2:05:24 GMT -6
they'd have to throw in another pick for me to consider that. had Kakko had a better first season, I would be more inclined to consider it as is. all 3 plus their '21 first, ok then I'd think on it. add in their second first rounder this year and I'm in. I’d be fine with the return I said, but heyyyyyy, if they’ll give more I’d take. I guess I’d be heavily looking at Kakko with his huge frame to become something special. I’d also love to take Miller, he’s a big body and we just don’t have enough of them. Maybe some of the smaller kids here could thrive like the guys in Tampa if they had some size out there to compliment them!!! fair enough. I wouldn't mind having both of them either. I just dunno that 2 unproven prospects and a probable mid to late first rounder is enough for likely the greatest American born player ever. but..... what would be? |
|
When he 1st came I thought he was going to be a project, and he hasn't disappointed me in that respect.
