30
|
|
Post by vadarx on Oct 20, 2020 14:14:32 GMT -6
so, in other words, they pretty much can't retain anything for any of the "core 4" until the 21-22 season? if i am reading this correctly, that is what I got out of it. No, I think they can retain 1 this upcoming season, which would leave them with Saad, Maatta, and a 3rd. Next season Saad falls off so they can then retain 2 salaries (unless they do one of the core this season).
But what that does mean is Bowman has once again tied his hands by retaining any salary of Saad and Maatta.
I was addressing the last line, the one about a player's contract could only have 2 instances of salary retained. edit: if that is how it works, I suppose in a trade the agreement could be we retain for 2 seasons and the final one is on you, but that would naturally lead to less of a return.... |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Oct 20, 2020 14:23:55 GMT -6
so, in other words, they pretty much can't retain anything for any of the "core 4" until the 21-22 season? if i am reading this correctly, that is what I got out of it. No, I think they can retain 1 this upcoming season, which would leave them with Saad, Maatta, and a 3rd. Next season Saad falls off so they can then retain 2 salaries (unless they do one of the core this season).
But what that does mean is Bowman has once again tied his hands by retaining any salary of Saad and Maatta.
Retaining money on Saad without at least a mid-round pick coming back is incredibly weak! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2020 14:27:04 GMT -6
No, I think they can retain 1 this upcoming season, which would leave them with Saad, Maatta, and a 3rd. Next season Saad falls off so they can then retain 2 salaries (unless they do one of the core this season).
But what that does mean is Bowman has once again tied his hands by retaining any salary of Saad and Maatta.
I was addressing the last line, the one about a player's contract could only have 2 instances of salary retained. edit: if that is how it works, I suppose in a trade the agreement could be we retain for 2 seasons and the final one is on you, but that would naturally lead to less of a return.... I honestly didn't understand that last line. And I don't think it's what you said either. I was looking under Cap Friendly and Edmonton has $750,000 of Milan Lucic salary retained for the next 3 seasons. |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Oct 20, 2020 14:33:32 GMT -6
The Rangers did a few other thing when they wrote a letter to THEIR fans......
Traded Ryan McDonagh
Bought out Brad Richards
Bought out Dan Girardi
Retained 50% of Rick Nash's deal in a trade
Traded Derek Stepan's 6.5M and included Raanta to do so
Bought out Kevin Shattenkirk and did the same with Lundquist this year.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2020 14:39:38 GMT -6
The Rangers did a few other thing when they wrote a letter to THEIR fans...... Traded Ryan McDonagh Bought out Brad Richards Bought out Dan Girardi Retained 50% of Rick Nash's deal in a trade Traded Derek Stepan's 6.5M and included Raanta to do so Bought out Kevin Shattenkirk and did the same with Lundquist this year. If you look on Cap Friendly, this upcoming season the Rangers have just shy of $13 million dollars tied up just in buyouts. Next season it drops to just over $4 million. |
|
|
|
Post by ebonyraptor on Oct 20, 2020 15:07:45 GMT -6
Don't quote me on this but I think a team can retain only 3 salaries concurrently. The Hawks have Saad and Maatta salary retained in 2021 and Maatta again in 2022. So if the limit is 3, the Hawks could do only one more in 2021 and then another one in 2022. Found this on Cap Friendly:
What is a retained salary transaction/trade
When a team trades a player, they have the option to retain a part of their salary (and cap hit). The team who retains the salary then pays the retained percentage of the salary, and also retains the percentage of the cap hit until the contract expires. The following requirements must be met to retain salary:
The percentage retained cannot exceed 50 percent of the player’s salary (including all bonuses) and Salary Cap Hit.
The same percentage must be retained for both the player’s salary and Salary Cap Hit, and cannot be modified.
All teams are limited to a maximum of 3 retained salary contracts per season.
Teams cannot retain an aggregate amount of more than 15 percent of the Salary Cap Upper Limit.
Players’ contracts are limited to 2 retained salary transactions per contract.
Thanks for the info. I completely forgot about the 15% of upper cap limit. They would still be able to retain 50% on Kane this season and 50% on Toews next season. Git-r-done Stan. Let's get this rebuild party started. |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Oct 20, 2020 15:46:02 GMT -6
The Rangers did a few other thing when they wrote a letter to THEIR fans...... Traded Ryan McDonagh Bought out Brad Richards Bought out Dan Girardi Retained 50% of Rick Nash's deal in a trade Traded Derek Stepan's 6.5M and included Raanta to do so Bought out Kevin Shattenkirk and did the same with Lundquist this year. If you look on Cap Friendly, this upcoming season the Rangers have just shy of $13 million dollars tied up just in buyouts. Next season it drops to just over $4 million. Well now,that takes balls doesn't it? Our idiot won't even buy out a useless de Haan to make room for the next Keith or Carlsson!LOL! |
|
|
|
Post by T-man2010 on Oct 20, 2020 17:45:00 GMT -6
Well what time is this big announcement supposed to happen? After that "Letter" released I can't see the announcement being nothing more that Prince Daniel's coronation |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2020 19:28:27 GMT -6
Well what time is this big announcement supposed to happen? After that "Letter" released I can't see the announcement being nothing more that Prince Daniel's coronation Pretty sure that "Letter" WAS the big announcement |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Oct 20, 2020 20:47:30 GMT -6
I thought I'd hear something new but this is basically what already's been said,a letter that's signed by NO ONE isn't a confidence booster. The article I posted above quotes our brain dead GM as saying "this isn't a rebuild in tense of we're tearing this down and we're just getting rid of all the players",so it's a rebuild with the 33M+ paid to the core remaining? How are additional picks and prospects acquired? This smacks of 'Prince Daniel' inspired 'mission speak'..... "reach the summit again"......when? "further establish a culture".......BLAH....BLAH....BLAH!!! "provide roster flexibility and depth throughout the lineup".......thought we did that last summer? "we'll make some mistakes" and "we'll miss the mark sometimes".......been doin'that the last three years and you can bet your ass they'll keep on doin' that. Is it me or did anyone else get any direction other than we're just gonna be bad with no intention of moving any more cup winners from all that doublespeak? Ownership is hangin' on to the meal tickets with no intention of asking anyone to waive....not even Seabs? I said it before and I'll say it again,keeping Kane,Toews and Keith along with some improvement from a few kids and a HC that doesn't really know how to develop those kids can easily result in a team just close enough to get more mid-round picks and that's a poorly designed rebuild. I knew this Org doesn't have the balls to move one of the three time cup winning core and that's from the Wirtz's on down. Thought I was editing but somehow quoted my own post.......DAM,I was pissed off when I wrote that shit!LOL. Tryin' to figure out why I still care. |
|
|
|
Post by ebonyraptor on Oct 20, 2020 22:52:41 GMT -6
"What are we next year?"
I don't know about you but I'll be 67 next year, so let's get this rebuild going already. Some of us ain't gettin any younger. Nyuk nyuk nyuk.
|
|
|
|
Post by BigT on Oct 21, 2020 7:33:41 GMT -6
They were talking on Sports net and TSN about the Hawks letter and Scambo’s comments. It really sounds like he’s got full reign now to complete the killing of the Chicago Blackhawks. They said the same things. Looks like more of the same for a long while folks!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by ebonyraptor on Oct 21, 2020 21:23:30 GMT -6
They were talking on Sports net and TSN about the Hawks letter and Scambo’s comments. It really sounds like he’s got full reign now to complete the killing of the Chicago Blackhawks. They said the same things. Looks like more of the same for a long while folks!!! I suppose in hindsight we coulda woulda shoulda but sometimes things just have to run it's course. What doomed Q and McD with the Hawks is that neither wanted to go through the lean times that were eventually going to come - an inevitability in a salary cap league. They were allowed to keep trying to squeeze another Cup run out of the old core group probably 2 or 3 years longer than they should have. I can't blame them for that because there's no guarantee the Hawks will ever again have the confluence of HoF players that they had through those glory days - so continuing to mortgage future potential for another grab at glory is something I was happy they tried to do. But at some point over the last 2 or 3 years it went from a valiant effort to a fool's errand. Head coaches have a shelf life and Q lasted longer than most, thanks to the winning. I doubt he wanted to embrace the inevitable lean years of a rebuilding process. So he was a square peg / round hole and needed to move on. I'm not sure what kind of friction, if any, there was between Q and Stan but I'm pretty sure McD wouldn't have had Stan's back because McD was of the same mindset as Q - keep the party going for as long as possible. McD's worth to the team was marketing the Hawks and making tons of money for Rocky. He was top notch in that regard. Inherent in that marketing success was the team's success on the ice. While they were winning - no problems from a marketing perspective. McD brought no value to the team if the marketing money making dried up so he certainly didn't want to go through the lean years of a rebuild. So he became another square peg / round hole and needed to move on. The only one of the three main management positions that would embrace the new direction was Stan - the other two were obstacles. Stan remains. I don't know if he is the right guy for the job, because quite frankly he has never had complete autonomy before, but I'm pretty sure Q and McD were the wrong guys for the job that is necessary for the position the Hawks are currently in. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2020 21:35:19 GMT -6
They were talking on Sports net and TSN about the Hawks letter and Scambo’s comments. It really sounds like he’s got full reign now to complete the killing of the Chicago Blackhawks. They said the same things. Looks like more of the same for a long while folks!!! I suppose in hindsight we coulda woulda shoulda but sometimes things just have to run it's course. What doomed Q and McD with the Hawks is that neither wanted to go through the lean times that were eventually going to come - an inevitability in a salary cap league. They were allowed to keep trying to squeeze another Cup run out of the old core group probably 2 or 3 years longer than they should have. I can't blame them for that because there's no guarantee the Hawks will ever again have the confluence of HoF players that they had through those glory days - so continuing to mortgage future potential for another grab at glory is something I was happy they tried to do. But at some point over the last 2 or 3 years it went from a valiant effort to a fool's errand. Head coaches have a shelf life and Q lasted longer than most, thanks to the winning. I doubt he wanted to embrace the inevitable lean years of a rebuilding process. So he was a square peg / round hole and needed to move on. I'm not sure what kind of friction, if any, there was between Q and Stan but I'm pretty sure McD wouldn't have had Stan's back because McD was of the same mindset as Q - keep the party going for as long as possible. McD's worth to the team was marketing the Hawks and making tons of money for Rocky. He was top notch in that regard. Inherent in that marketing success was the team's success on the ice. While they were winning - no problems from a marketing perspective. McD brought no value to the team if the marketing money making dried up so he certainly didn't want to go through the lean years of a rebuild. So he became another square peg / round hole and needed to move on. The only one of the three main management positions that would embrace the new direction was Stan - the other two were obstacles. Stan remains. I don't know if he is the right guy for the job, because quite frankly he has never had complete autonomy before, but I'm pretty sure Q and McD were the wrong guys for the job that is necessary for the position the Hawks are currently in. I think we can all agree that change is inevitable as players age, retire, or move on. But Stan has been and will continue to be the main problem. Not Q, not McD. How do you fire a HOF coach 15 games into a season with a 6-6-3 record? If they had started 2-10-3 then yes, I could see it. But this to me was the final straw of Stan's backstabbing his way to the top. I didn't like how he screwed Tallon, I didn't care for many, if any, of his moves. I also hate the fact he gets any credit for building cup winning teams when it was other GM's players that brought the championships to Chicago. But when Rocky put both Q and Bowman on notice, and then only Q gets fired, that was it for me. I've rarely watched a Hawks game since. Seeing Colliton behind the bench turns my stomach. And now with McD also gone I'm left shaking my head that the man who singlehandedly ripped this team apart is now being entrusted to build it again? If they love this guy so much, move him over to work with Pulford, because that's what we are about to see again. A 5 year plan that will take several decades to fail before Bowman is shown the door. History repeating itself.....Dollar Bill and Pulford to Rocky and Stan. All cut from the same cloth. I'll be 60 in a few weeks and I truly believe I've seen my last championship for the Hawks. That's why I've chosen to follow Q and the Panthers. Even if they don't win, I at least don't have to see that smug face of Stan Bowman as he continues to ruin the final years of the careers of Keith, Seabrook, Kane, and Toews. These 4 players, along with Crawford, deserve better. |
|
|
|
Post by ebonyraptor on Oct 22, 2020 1:22:02 GMT -6
I suppose in hindsight we coulda woulda shoulda but sometimes things just have to run it's course. What doomed Q and McD with the Hawks is that neither wanted to go through the lean times that were eventually going to come - an inevitability in a salary cap league. They were allowed to keep trying to squeeze another Cup run out of the old core group probably 2 or 3 years longer than they should have. I can't blame them for that because there's no guarantee the Hawks will ever again have the confluence of HoF players that they had through those glory days - so continuing to mortgage future potential for another grab at glory is something I was happy they tried to do. But at some point over the last 2 or 3 years it went from a valiant effort to a fool's errand. Head coaches have a shelf life and Q lasted longer than most, thanks to the winning. I doubt he wanted to embrace the inevitable lean years of a rebuilding process. So he was a square peg / round hole and needed to move on. I'm not sure what kind of friction, if any, there was between Q and Stan but I'm pretty sure McD wouldn't have had Stan's back because McD was of the same mindset as Q - keep the party going for as long as possible. McD's worth to the team was marketing the Hawks and making tons of money for Rocky. He was top notch in that regard. Inherent in that marketing success was the team's success on the ice. While they were winning - no problems from a marketing perspective. McD brought no value to the team if the marketing money making dried up so he certainly didn't want to go through the lean years of a rebuild. So he became another square peg / round hole and needed to move on. The only one of the three main management positions that would embrace the new direction was Stan - the other two were obstacles. Stan remains. I don't know if he is the right guy for the job, because quite frankly he has never had complete autonomy before, but I'm pretty sure Q and McD were the wrong guys for the job that is necessary for the position the Hawks are currently in. I think we can all agree that change is inevitable as players age, retire, or move on. But Stan has been and will continue to be the main problem. Not Q, not McD. How do you fire a HOF coach 15 games into a season with a 6-6-3 record? If they had started 2-10-3 then yes, I could see it. But this to me was the final straw of Stan's backstabbing his way to the top. I didn't like how he screwed Tallon, I didn't care for many, if any, of his moves. I also hate the fact he gets any credit for building cup winning teams when it was other GM's players that brought the championships to Chicago. But when Rocky put both Q and Bowman on notice, and then only Q gets fired, that was it for me. I've rarely watched a Hawks game since. Seeing Colliton behind the bench turns my stomach. And now with McD also gone I'm left shaking my head that the man who singlehandedly ripped this team apart is now being entrusted to build it again? If they love this guy so much, move him over to work with Pulford, because that's what we are about to see again. A 5 year plan that will take several decades to fail before Bowman is shown the door. History repeating itself.....Dollar Bill and Pulford to Rocky and Stan. All cut from the same cloth. I'll be 60 in a few weeks and I truly believe I've seen my last championship for the Hawks. That's why I've chosen to follow Q and the Panthers. Even if they don't win, I at least don't have to see that smug face of Stan Bowman as he continues to ruin the final years of the careers of Keith, Seabrook, Kane, and Toews. These 4 players, along with Crawford, deserve better. The question "how can you fire a HoF coach 15 games into the seas ..." tells us it wasn't based on the team's record. The conclusion I draw is that Q was fired because he wasn't on the same page as his boss. Whether you agree or disagree with the particular hierarchy, command structure matters and is necessary. I consider it highly plausible that there was too much daylight between what Q wanted and what Stan wanted. I don't think an organization can survive allowing insubordination so Stan wanted young players to play more than Q wanted to play them - something had to give and as much as I liked Q (a lot more than Stan) - I agree that he needed to go. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2020 7:36:48 GMT -6
I think we can all agree that change is inevitable as players age, retire, or move on. But Stan has been and will continue to be the main problem. Not Q, not McD. How do you fire a HOF coach 15 games into a season with a 6-6-3 record? If they had started 2-10-3 then yes, I could see it. But this to me was the final straw of Stan's backstabbing his way to the top. I didn't like how he screwed Tallon, I didn't care for many, if any, of his moves. I also hate the fact he gets any credit for building cup winning teams when it was other GM's players that brought the championships to Chicago. But when Rocky put both Q and Bowman on notice, and then only Q gets fired, that was it for me. I've rarely watched a Hawks game since. Seeing Colliton behind the bench turns my stomach. And now with McD also gone I'm left shaking my head that the man who singlehandedly ripped this team apart is now being entrusted to build it again? If they love this guy so much, move him over to work with Pulford, because that's what we are about to see again. A 5 year plan that will take several decades to fail before Bowman is shown the door. History repeating itself.....Dollar Bill and Pulford to Rocky and Stan. All cut from the same cloth. I'll be 60 in a few weeks and I truly believe I've seen my last championship for the Hawks. That's why I've chosen to follow Q and the Panthers. Even if they don't win, I at least don't have to see that smug face of Stan Bowman as he continues to ruin the final years of the careers of Keith, Seabrook, Kane, and Toews. These 4 players, along with Crawford, deserve better. The question "how can you fire a HoF coach 15 games into the seas ..." tells us it wasn't based on the team's record. The conclusion I draw is that Q was fired because he wasn't on the same page as his boss. Whether you agree or disagree with the particular hierarchy, command structure matters and is necessary. I consider it highly plausible that there was too much daylight between what Q wanted and what Stan wanted. I don't think an organization can survive allowing insubordination so Stan wanted young players to play more than Q wanted to play them - something had to give and as much as I liked Q (a lot more than Stan) - I agree that he needed to go. And so did Stan |
|
|
|
Post by ebonyraptor on Oct 22, 2020 7:51:34 GMT -6
The question "how can you fire a HoF coach 15 games into the seas ..." tells us it wasn't based on the team's record. The conclusion I draw is that Q was fired because he wasn't on the same page as his boss. Whether you agree or disagree with the particular hierarchy, command structure matters and is necessary. I consider it highly plausible that there was too much daylight between what Q wanted and what Stan wanted. I don't think an organization can survive allowing insubordination so Stan wanted young players to play more than Q wanted to play them - something had to give and as much as I liked Q (a lot more than Stan) - I agree that he needed to go. And so did Stan Just to clarify - I meant I liked Q more than I like Stan from a personality perspective. Q seems like a cool guy it would be fun to have a beer with whereas Stan seems like a wet blanket accountant type that's boring as hell. Hey - anyone that can stand on the bench, grab his junk and tell the referee what he thinks about him - on TV - is OK in my book.  |
|
|
|
Post by Modry-Jazyk on Oct 22, 2020 8:18:24 GMT -6
I am pretty sure not only this but next season is over too, maybe even more.Things are getting worse day to day in the Eur. and it will not be different in the US/CAN.Back in the July ppl were optimistic but now we know it was only illusion.After all countries incl. Slovakia had opened their borders, let ppl fly to summer vacations and let come tourist from abroad incl. from US/Asia, that f*** chinese virus made big comeback and now it's worse than back in april/may.Slovakia has bought 13M test kits in South Korea and going to test the entire population in the next weekend days, many other euro countries are preparing the complete lockdown.
So for the team owners the best thing to do would be save the money, not sign/prolong big contracts and focus only on really young players.
|
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Oct 22, 2020 10:39:06 GMT -6
They were talking on Sports net and TSN about the Hawks letter and Scambo’s comments. It really sounds like he’s got full reign now to complete the killing of the Chicago Blackhawks. They said the same things. Looks like more of the same for a long while folks!!! I suppose in hindsight we coulda woulda shoulda but sometimes things just have to run it's course. What doomed Q and McD with the Hawks is that neither wanted to go through the lean times that were eventually going to come - an inevitability in a salary cap league. They were allowed to keep trying to squeeze another Cup run out of the old core group probably 2 or 3 years longer than they should have. I can't blame them for that because there's no guarantee the Hawks will ever again have the confluence of HoF players that they had through those glory days - so continuing to mortgage future potential for another grab at glory is something I was happy they tried to do. But at some point over the last 2 or 3 years it went from a valiant effort to a fool's errand. Head coaches have a shelf life and Q lasted longer than most, thanks to the winning. I doubt he wanted to embrace the inevitable lean years of a rebuilding process. So he was a square peg / round hole and needed to move on. I'm not sure what kind of friction, if any, there was between Q and Stan but I'm pretty sure McD wouldn't have had Stan's back because McD was of the same mindset as Q - keep the party going for as long as possible. McD's worth to the team was marketing the Hawks and making tons of money for Rocky. He was top notch in that regard. Inherent in that marketing success was the team's success on the ice. While they were winning - no problems from a marketing perspective. McD brought no value to the team if the marketing money making dried up so he certainly didn't want to go through the lean years of a rebuild. So he became another square peg / round hole and needed to move on. The only one of the three main management positions that would embrace the new direction was Stan - the other two were obstacles. Stan remains. I don't know if he is the right guy for the job, because quite frankly he has never had complete autonomy before, but I'm pretty sure Q and McD were the wrong guys for the job that is necessary for the position the Hawks are currently in. You know what pal.....you're another guy!LOL! Another guy who I deeply respect and appreciate even though we disagree and it's great to have you back! Gm's have a shelf life too my friend and our's has been on that shelf longer than any,the other cup winners ALL cleaned house after their downward trends and I personally see Q as a better teacher than anyone on this inexperienced staff. |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Oct 22, 2020 10:46:28 GMT -6
I think we can all agree that change is inevitable as players age, retire, or move on. But Stan has been and will continue to be the main problem. Not Q, not McD. How do you fire a HOF coach 15 games into a season with a 6-6-3 record? If they had started 2-10-3 then yes, I could see it. But this to me was the final straw of Stan's backstabbing his way to the top. I didn't like how he screwed Tallon, I didn't care for many, if any, of his moves. I also hate the fact he gets any credit for building cup winning teams when it was other GM's players that brought the championships to Chicago. But when Rocky put both Q and Bowman on notice, and then only Q gets fired, that was it for me. I've rarely watched a Hawks game since. Seeing Colliton behind the bench turns my stomach. And now with McD also gone I'm left shaking my head that the man who singlehandedly ripped this team apart is now being entrusted to build it again? If they love this guy so much, move him over to work with Pulford, because that's what we are about to see again. A 5 year plan that will take several decades to fail before Bowman is shown the door. History repeating itself.....Dollar Bill and Pulford to Rocky and Stan. All cut from the same cloth. I'll be 60 in a few weeks and I truly believe I've seen my last championship for the Hawks. That's why I've chosen to follow Q and the Panthers. Even if they don't win, I at least don't have to see that smug face of Stan Bowman as he continues to ruin the final years of the careers of Keith, Seabrook, Kane, and Toews. These 4 players, along with Crawford, deserve better. The question "how can you fire a HoF coach 15 games into the seas ..." tells us it wasn't based on the team's record. The conclusion I draw is that Q was fired because he wasn't on the same page as his boss. Whether you agree or disagree with the particular hierarchy, command structure matters and is necessary. I consider it highly plausible that there was too much daylight between what Q wanted and what Stan wanted. I don't think an organization can survive allowing insubordination so Stan wanted young players to play more than Q wanted to play them - something had to give and as much as I liked Q (a lot more than Stan) - I agree that he needed to go. The start of the 17-18 season saw Q immediately insert SB's 1st round pick Jokiharju @19 and his 2nd round pick D-Cat @20 into his opening night lineup and the 19yro Boqvist dam near made it too.......how is this insubordination? I posted the number of rookies Q started in his last 2-3 years here on the old boards and I believe it was like 20 or more. Draft picks Saad and Shaw were in there to stay @20 also. |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Oct 22, 2020 17:59:16 GMT -6
They were talking on Sports net and TSN about the Hawks letter and Scambo’s comments. It really sounds like he’s got full reign now to complete the killing of the Chicago Blackhawks. They said the same things. Looks like more of the same for a long while folks!!! He'll also be operating under the full cover of this toothless rebuild for years now apparently...... Last place again next year.....we're rebuiling,haven't you heard? Last place again the next few years.......rebuilds don't happen over night! Somewhere around .500 and a near miss........look at our progress. Never mind the no man's land existence. Make the postseason.....wake up from your dream. Anybody seen our new president.......he's supposed to be here by now!LOFL! |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Oct 22, 2020 18:14:10 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by vadarx on Oct 22, 2020 18:50:18 GMT -6
They were talking on Sports net and TSN about the Hawks letter and Scambo’s comments. It really sounds like he’s got full reign now to complete the killing of the Chicago Blackhawks. They said the same things. Looks like more of the same for a long while folks!!! He'll also be operating under the full cover of this toothless rebuild for years now apparently...... Last place again next year.....we're rebuiling,haven't you heard? Last place again the next few years.......rebuilds don't happen over night! Somewhere around .500 and a near miss........look at our progress. Never mind the no man's land existence. Make the postseason.....wake up from your dream. Anybody seen our new president.......he's supposed to be here by now!LOFL! isn't kinda starting to seem like they are waiting to hire a team president that will be ok with Stan's plan? in other words, they can't find anyone..... other than the obvious choice.... I don't know why they don't just announce it. I doubt anyone would blink an eye at this point. |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Nov 28, 2020 9:19:21 GMT -6
It's hard to predict a record with the wildcard nature of our goaltending but I still see too much talent to be a conference bottom feeder.
I see somewhere around .500 either way,over if Dach breaks through and D-Cat finds his game and under if the struggles in net persist and very possibly another mid round pick.
I'll go with the same,boring two over we've seen the last two year.
|
|
|
|
Post by ebonyraptor on Nov 28, 2020 11:19:18 GMT -6
It's hard to predict a record with the wildcard nature of our goaltending but I still see too much talent to be a conference bottom feeder. I see somewhere around .500 either way,over if Dach breaks through and D-Cat finds his game and under if the struggles in net persist and very possibly another mid round pick. I'll go with the same,boring two over we've seen the last two year. You're probably correct that we won't be bad enough to "earn" a top-5 pick, but if we were playing the over/under game I would put my 2 cents on under .500 by a few games. Having said that, allow me to drag this dead horse into the picture so I can beat it some more - trade Kane. That one move will accomplish 2 things that will make a big difference in the rebuild - (1) improve the draft position by winning fewer games, and (2) acquire assets to improve the team's future. |
|
|
|
Post by BigT on Nov 28, 2020 12:01:47 GMT -6
It's hard to predict a record with the wildcard nature of our goaltending but I still see too much talent to be a conference bottom feeder. I see somewhere around .500 either way,over if Dach breaks through and D-Cat finds his game and under if the struggles in net persist and very possibly another mid round pick. I'll go with the same,boring two over we've seen the last two year. You're probably correct that we won't be bad enough to "earn" a top-5 pick, but if we were playing the over/under game I would put my 2 cents on under .500 by a few games. Having said that, allow me to drag this dead horse into the picture so I can beat it some more - trade Kane. That one move will accomplish 2 things that will make a big difference in the rebuild - (1) improve the draft position by winning fewer games, and (2) acquire assets to improve the team's future. I’m not against this. I still propose this. Kane to the Rangers for Kakko, 1st rounder pick in 2021, and K’Andre Miller. Hawks retain half of Kane’s Salary. I believe the Hawks could do this and afford it financially. This would be a fast track to rebuilding. Then I’d trade Toews (obviously next year due to monies retained). I’d try Colorado. If they lose this year, they’ll be desperate. We could trade Toews to the Avs for Byram, 1st rounder in 2022, and one of either Newhook, Kaut, or Barron. Hawks may have to add a 3rd or 2nd rounder back to offset the purge of Avs stockpile. But it’s a trade I would do. This way the Hawks get back a massive haul and a clear path to rebuilding. Add in our guaranteed top 5 picks due to losing those two, I think we could be on the right path within 3 years!!! |
|
|
|
Post by ebonyraptor on Nov 28, 2020 18:23:36 GMT -6
You're probably correct that we won't be bad enough to "earn" a top-5 pick, but if we were playing the over/under game I would put my 2 cents on under .500 by a few games. Having said that, allow me to drag this dead horse into the picture so I can beat it some more - trade Kane. That one move will accomplish 2 things that will make a big difference in the rebuild - (1) improve the draft position by winning fewer games, and (2) acquire assets to improve the team's future. I’m not against this. I still propose this. Kane to the Rangers for Kakko, 1st rounder pick in 2021, and K’Andre Miller. Hawks retain half of Kane’s Salary. I believe the Hawks could do this and afford it financially. This would be a fast track to rebuilding. Then I’d trade Toews (obviously next year due to monies retained). I’d try Colorado. If they lose this year, they’ll be desperate. We could trade Toews to the Avs for Byram, 1st rounder in 2022, and one of either Newhook, Kaut, or Barron. Hawks may have to add a 3rd or 2nd rounder back to offset the purge of Avs stockpile. But it’s a trade I would do. This way the Hawks get back a massive haul and a clear path to rebuilding. Add in our guaranteed top 5 picks due to losing those two, I think we could be on the right path within 3 years!!! Not sure how the cap would work for NY, even with Kane at 50% - but I'm sure NY would love to pair up Kane and Panarin and let them do their magic. I'd like to get Kakko for the rebuild and Miller has good size and pretty good potential so I'd be onboard with this trade proposal. |
|
|
|
Post by BigT on Nov 28, 2020 19:21:04 GMT -6
I’m not against this. I still propose this. Kane to the Rangers for Kakko, 1st rounder pick in 2021, and K’Andre Miller. Hawks retain half of Kane’s Salary. I believe the Hawks could do this and afford it financially. This would be a fast track to rebuilding. Then I’d trade Toews (obviously next year due to monies retained). I’d try Colorado. If they lose this year, they’ll be desperate. We could trade Toews to the Avs for Byram, 1st rounder in 2022, and one of either Newhook, Kaut, or Barron. Hawks may have to add a 3rd or 2nd rounder back to offset the purge of Avs stockpile. But it’s a trade I would do. This way the Hawks get back a massive haul and a clear path to rebuilding. Add in our guaranteed top 5 picks due to losing those two, I think we could be on the right path within 3 years!!! Not sure how the cap would work for NY, even with Kane at 50% - but I'm sure NY would love to pair up Kane and Panarin and let them do their magic. I'd like to get Kakko for the rebuild and Miller has good size and pretty good potential so I'd be onboard with this trade proposal. I’m sure they could move out a 5 million dollar guy. Plus, I’m sure Kakko ate up a couple million with 2nd overall bonuses. He could potentially earn 3.75, but probably only got 2-2.5 I’m guessing. So the Rags would only need 3 million in space to fit Kaner!!! |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Nov 29, 2020 8:53:58 GMT -6
Even though I realize and have advocated for moving Kane and Toews myself,it still puts the Hawks in a new category all together and brings back some dark memories of purges past. The team without K&T is immediately the Sens or the Ducks star power-wise,no road draw if K&T ain't comin' to town AND a dramatic drop off in home attendance once the fans come back.......or do they? It'd be a shock to my system too but Center Ice would allow me to watch the two greats as it does all my favorite ex-Hawks,the two would have a better shot at another cup and my hockey interests would become less Hawks-centered and I wouldn't be alone because empty barns have followed those purges of the past........who'll buy our beer then?
Ownership is also acutely aware of this because they're the unproud owners of a 49 year drought.
I know what needs to happen for a true rebuild just like everyone else does,one of the core forwards(maybe both) and one of the core D-men would have to go but will the Liquor salesmen play with fire to that extent?
|
|
|
|
Post by BigT on Nov 29, 2020 10:06:18 GMT -6
Even though I realize and have advocated for moving Kane and Toews myself,it still puts the Hawks in a new category all together and brings back some dark memories of purges past. The team without K&T is immediately the Sens or the Ducks star power-wise,no road draw if K&T ain't comin' to town AND a dramatic drop off in home attendance once the fans come back.......or do they? It'd be a shock to my system too but Center Ice would allow me to watch the two greats as it does all my favorite ex-Hawks,the two would have a better shot at another cup and my hockey interests would become less Hawks-centered and I wouldn't be alone because empty barns have followed those purges of the past........who'll buy our beer then? Ownership is also acutely aware of this because they're the unproud owners of a 49 year drought. I know what needs to happen for a true rebuild just like everyone else does,one of the core forwards(maybe both) and one of the core D-men would have to go but will the Liquor salesmen play with fire to that extent? To answer the last question there. An old buddy of mine who is indigenous, he always told me this saying..... “Life is like the flame, without change, you can’t remain”. So like a fire, if you let it die out, it’ll die out long before it’s time. If you rearrange the sticks and the wood in the fire, you’ll get not just a longer life, but a brighter life outta it. I think the Hawks were a solid fire burning and not much was done to rearrange the burning logs and nothing new was brought in to sustain it longer. If we’re afraid of change, including ownership, there will be another 40+ year drought guaranteed. Cant be afraid to lose, always gotta go for the win. Can the Hawks be built back up in a few years time. Absolutely not. It’s impossible. The amount of players you need is tough to get them all in a 3 year span. It’s probably a 5-8 year plan if done correctly. Look at the Avs for example. They’ve been truly building this thing for the last 7-9 years and are finally starting to emerge as a contender. But........ they’re set for a decade now. They have assets to deal to make their team stronger, also are loaded on the roster. They have cap space and are doing things the right way. They’re trading guys like Zadorov who will want 5 million. They got a rental in Saad, and will let him walk cuz they got Newhook and Kaut coming. They also have Byram coming on D so why pay Zadorov 5 million when they have his replacement in tow? They’re doing it right over there and will last a lot longer than the other teams. They don’t trade many of any 1st rounders. They’ll have the options to trade away guys to save money cuz they have replacements in tow. They’ll have money and assets that o go for it for some time. Plus they’ve got an absolute beauty in Mackinnon who has made it clear he wants to win and will take less to achieve that goal. He’s saving them probably 3-4 million a year now. Anyways. If the Hawks are only concerned about the bottom line. Fair enough. But after 3-4 years straight of no playoffs and fading stars. No one will want to see them anymore, and the bottom line will be affected. Horribly. In Canada, we have an old saying. Every time you bend down to pick up a dime, a loonie will fall out of your pocket. The point? Don’t be cheap and stupid!!! |
|
