30
|
|
Post by ebonyraptor on Nov 7, 2020 11:28:55 GMT -6
Now that the Hawks have officially embarked on what is being called a new direction - where are we at - how far away from the destination are we?
In truth, this new direction unofficially started last season when the infusion of youth gained primacy over winning games. It might even be argued the new plan was in view when Colliton replaced Quenneville in 2018/19 - the "teach young players coach" replaced the "win games coach".
The topic of this thread is the future d-corps. While we know who we have, we don't know with certainty what we have. For the purpose of this discussion, I want to limit it to players 23 and younger with the idea that they will still be in their prime playing years 5 years from now when (hopefully) the Hawks will be a Cup contending team. (that's not to insinuate the Hawks won't be a contender sooner than 5 years - only that they should be after a 5-year rebuild) The 23 and under d-men under contract are: Boqvist, Mitchell, Carlsson, Kalynuk, Regula, Beaudin, and Krys. D-men prospects not under contract are: Vlassic, Demin, Kaiser, Ess, Galvas, Crevier, Krutil, and Laavainen.
Of that list, we've seen Boqvist for 41 games and Carlsson for 6 games last season. That's it. Not a whole lot to hang our hat on. In my opinion, Boqvist has proven he can play in the NHL, but the jury is still out if he will max out as a Gustafsson type with good offense and bad defense. I don't have a good gauge on Carlsson because he didn't play enough, but I'm leaning toward believing he can be at least a 5/6 guy, especially because he can play either side. I've seen Mitchell play only a handful of games when Denver was on TV and in a Junior tournament and I came away less impressed than the hype he gets - he seemed to be more in the "solid" category than in the "special" category - and that was playing against college and Junior players, not NHL players.
So, what are your thoughts? Do you think we have the players necessary to form the nucleus of our future d-corps?
|
|
|
|
Post by T-man2010 on Nov 7, 2020 11:36:35 GMT -6
The future "core" will be:
Draft year
2021-2022 Round 2 and 4
2022-2023 Round 1 and 6
2023-2024 Round 3 and 6
So by 2027 the Hawks will be close to playoffs.
|
|
|
|
Post by ebonyraptor on Nov 7, 2020 11:49:40 GMT -6
The future "core" will be: Draft year 2021-2022 Round 2 and 4 2022-2023 Round 1 and 6 2023-2024 Round 3 and 6 So by 2027 the Hawks will be close to playoffs. Are you suggesting there are no young d-men currently owned by the Hawks that will be part of the d-corps, let alone part of the core group? |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Nov 7, 2020 12:24:19 GMT -6
I still don't see how a rebuilding team doesn't buy out de Hahn and trade Murphy for a pick or two to make room for the kids. As it now stands,there's room for one of em. I could actually get behind a REAL rebuild but it looks like the FO isn't willing to be bad enough to be good again.
|
|
|
|
Post by BigT on Nov 8, 2020 19:49:05 GMT -6
The future "core" will be: Draft year 2021-2022 Round 2 and 4 2022-2023 Round 1 and 6 2023-2024 Round 3 and 6 So by 2027 the Hawks will be close to playoffs. Are you suggesting there are no young d-men currently owned by the Hawks that will be part of the d-corps, let alone part of the core group? As of now, Boqvist cannot be considered a core player when he’s not even an NHL regular yet. He needs to prove he belongs before he can be a core player. If he’s part of the core moving forward, we are doomed horribly. Now, I’m not saying he’s a bust and useless. I’m just stating the obvious. He was terrible at his best in the playoffs, he was benched. I don’t see how that helps a rebuilding team? Let him learn. As far as the other Dmen. I guess it’s wait and see. Mitchell may have stayed too long in college. He needed the next level of competition, as in the AHL. I hope we see something outta him instead of a lot of mistakes. Yea they’ll make mistakes, but at 22 Mitchell can’t take 2-3 years to get “it” at the pro level. If he was 19, then yea, they can wait on him. If he and Boqvist are better off in the AHL, then so be it!!! |
|
|
|
Post by ebonyraptor on Nov 8, 2020 22:05:37 GMT -6
I must apologize for doing what I too often do - get so wordy that the point I'm trying to make or the question I'm asking gets obscured. And, speaking of obscurity, the sooner this thread fades into the past, the better things will be.  |
|
|
|
Post by galaxytrash on Nov 9, 2020 0:16:58 GMT -6
I must apologize for doing what I too often do - get so wordy that the point I'm trying to make or the question I'm asking gets obscured. And, speaking of obscurity, the sooner this thread fades into the past, the better things will be. not a whole lot going on here so basically any thread is a good thread if it means a few posts to read. : ) |
|
|
|
Post by Tater on Nov 9, 2020 0:17:13 GMT -6
As far as the other Dmen. I guess it’s wait and see. Mitchell may have stayed too long in college. He needed the next level of competition, as in the AHL. I hope we see something outta him instead of a lot of mistakes. Yea they’ll make mistakes, but at 22 Mitchell can’t take 2-3 years to get “it” at the pro level. If he was 19, then yea, they can wait on him. If he and Boqvist are better off in the AHL, then so be it!!! I agree. Especially after the last several months of limited work-outs and practice.
Edit: In fact I'd rather see them both start in Rockford. If Stan doesn't get rid of a current Dman, there's only room for one anyways (I think?).
|
|
|
|
Post by BigT on Nov 9, 2020 6:47:13 GMT -6
As far as the other Dmen. I guess it’s wait and see. Mitchell may have stayed too long in college. He needed the next level of competition, as in the AHL. I hope we see something outta him instead of a lot of mistakes. Yea they’ll make mistakes, but at 22 Mitchell can’t take 2-3 years to get “it” at the pro level. If he was 19, then yea, they can wait on him. If he and Boqvist are better off in the AHL, then so be it!!! I agree. Especially after the last several months of limited work-outs and practice.
Edit: In fact I'd rather see them both start in Rockford. If Stan doesn't get rid of a current Dman, there's only room for one anyways (I think?).
I’m sure Stan will pay someone to take a contract back. He’ll make room for the kids. Sell them as the future. If they don’t work out, he’ll say they’re in full rebuild mode. I don’t like the looks of what’s going on. Especially with the cupboards as bare as they are. From the bar stool interview Vadarx posted, Stan himself said that Kelley has more say. As well as a few others. So maybe that helps out? I just think that every interview I see with Stan, he says nothing that other GMs say. Why? Because I don’t believe Stan knows what he’s doing. He gets trashed on every trade, and he still says the same type garbage day in and out. This is why you need a hockey guy in there!!! |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Nov 9, 2020 7:59:56 GMT -6
I must apologize for doing what I too often do - get so wordy that the point I'm trying to make or the question I'm asking gets obscured. And, speaking of obscurity, the sooner this thread fades into the past, the better things will be. Thought it was a good thread er. A team's D-core is important and it's future is good convo and needed convo. |
|
|
|
Post by ebonyraptor on Nov 9, 2020 10:32:03 GMT -6
I must apologize for doing what I too often do - get so wordy that the point I'm trying to make or the question I'm asking gets obscured. And, speaking of obscurity, the sooner this thread fades into the past, the better things will be. Thought it was a good thread er. A team's D-core is important and it's future is good convo and needed convo. I think the problem is I asked a question that is unanswerable because it relies almost exclusively on subjective projection. My hope was to start a conversation on the young d-men, not on where they are right now, but on where we think they can be in years to come. We have very little data with which to make projections so answers will be wildly diverse, but my hope was that they would be projections of what they can be rather than what they are now - more or less an impossible request. |
|
|
|
Post by acesandeights on Nov 9, 2020 12:12:46 GMT -6
As far as the other Dmen. I guess it’s wait and see. Mitchell may have stayed too long in college. He needed the next level of competition, as in the AHL. I hope we see something outta him instead of a lot of mistakes. Yea they’ll make mistakes, but at 22 Mitchell can’t take 2-3 years to get “it” at the pro level. If he was 19, then yea, they can wait on him. If he and Boqvist are better off in the AHL, then so be it!!! I agree. Especially after the last several months of limited work-outs and practice.
Edit: In fact I'd rather see them both start in Rockford. If Stan doesn't get rid of a current Dman, there's only room for one anyways (I think?).
I'd agree too. It wouldn't be the worst thing for Boqvist to spend the time at Rockford that he really should have gotten last season so he would have been better prepared for the NHL. He only played 15 games at Rockford after juniors then found himself in the NHL at 19. Was he truly the only option to replace Murphy while he was out? It's the same for Mitchell; I don't see how it would not be beneficial for him to start out at Rockford and learn the pro game. And especially to help him, along with AB and any other smaller size players, learn to adapt to playing against bigger players. I just don't want to see the youngsters in the NHL if they aren't really ready. Isn't that what Rockford is for? |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Nov 9, 2020 12:19:01 GMT -6
Thought it was a good thread er. A team's D-core is important and it's future is good convo and needed convo. I think the problem is I asked a question that is unanswerable because it relies almost exclusively on subjective projection. My hope was to start a conversation on the young d-men, not on where they are right now, but on where we think they can be in years to come. We have very little data with which to make projections so answers will be wildly diverse, but my hope was that they would be projections of what they can be rather than what they are now - more or less an impossible request. Impossible? Was it impossible when the Germans bombed Pearl harbor?LOL! The only youngster we've seen much of is Boqvist,he has a way to go but that should be a given @20. The jury's still out as far as how much he improves but improvement should follow with more games under his belt. I am concerned by the size of out top D kids but there are a few bigger guys comin' down the pike and I agree with you as far as the big Russian offering the young guys some protection. Mitchell could be a good one and we have to see with Beaudin.......I hope we get to see more of Carlsson but the logjam is still there....let's hope the kids get a shot sooner rather than later. |
|
|
|
Post by hawks27 on Nov 9, 2020 16:29:01 GMT -6
I think the problem is I asked a question that is unanswerable because it relies almost exclusively on subjective projection. My hope was to start a conversation on the young d-men, not on where they are right now, but on where we think they can be in years to come. We have very little data with which to make projections so answers will be wildly diverse, but my hope was that they would be projections of what they can be rather than what they are now - more or less an impossible request. Impossible? Was it impossible when the Germans bombed Pearl harbor?LOL! The only youngster we've seen much of is Boqvist,he has a way to go but that should be a given @20. The jury's still out as far as how much he improves but improvement should follow with more games under his belt. I am concerned by the size of out top D kids but there are a few bigger guys comin' down the pike and I agree with you as far as the big Russian offering the young guys some protection. Mitchell could be a good one and we have to see with Beaudin.......I hope we get to see more of Carlsson but the logjam is still there....let's hope the kids get a shot sooner rather than later. Quoting Blutarski, with the extended matriculation GPA of 0.00 will only cause more confusion on the topic. |
|
|
|
Post by ebonyraptor on Nov 9, 2020 16:39:38 GMT -6
I think the problem is I asked a question that is unanswerable because it relies almost exclusively on subjective projection. My hope was to start a conversation on the young d-men, not on where they are right now, but on where we think they can be in years to come. We have very little data with which to make projections so answers will be wildly diverse, but my hope was that they would be projections of what they can be rather than what they are now - more or less an impossible request. Impossible? Was it impossible when the Germans bombed Pearl harbor?LOL! The only youngster we've seen much of is Boqvist,he has a way to go but that should be a given @20. The jury's still out as far as how much he improves but improvement should follow with more games under his belt. I am concerned by the size of out top D kids but there are a few bigger guys comin' down the pike and I agree with you as far as the big Russian offering the young guys some protection. Mitchell could be a good one and we have to see with Beaudin.......I hope we get to see more of Carlsson but the logjam is still there....let's hope the kids get a shot sooner rather than later. I think there's a fine line to walk between opening up slots for the kids to play and keeping a veteran presence in the lineup to keep things settled down. With Keith in the lineup and Seabrook probably playing a role, if not in the starting lineup then at least as part of a rotation, do the Hawks have to keep both deHaan and Murphy? I would argue no - Stan should offload one of them, but with the caveat that only one of those four veteran d-men have managed to stay off IR over the past couple years - so how much can Seabrook, deHaan and Murphy be counted on to stay healthy? I think Zadorov tips the scales in favor of trading one of deHaan or Murphy because although he's still relatively young, he's past the point in his career where he's susceptible to confidence crushing "yips" so chalk him up as a veteran settling force and trade one of deHaan or Murphy to free up 2 spots for young d-men, 3 when Seabrook doesn't play. |
|
|
|
Post by BigT on Nov 9, 2020 19:05:32 GMT -6
Impossible? Was it impossible when the Germans bombed Pearl harbor?LOL! The only youngster we've seen much of is Boqvist,he has a way to go but that should be a given @20. The jury's still out as far as how much he improves but improvement should follow with more games under his belt. I am concerned by the size of out top D kids but there are a few bigger guys comin' down the pike and I agree with you as far as the big Russian offering the young guys some protection. Mitchell could be a good one and we have to see with Beaudin.......I hope we get to see more of Carlsson but the logjam is still there....let's hope the kids get a shot sooner rather than later. I think there's a fine line to walk between opening up slots for the kids to play and keeping a veteran presence in the lineup to keep things settled down. With Keith in the lineup and Seabrook probably playing a role, if not in the starting lineup then at least as part of a rotation, do the Hawks have to keep both deHaan and Murphy? I would argue no - Stan should offload one of them, but with the caveat that only one of those four veteran d-men have managed to stay off IR over the past couple years - so how much can Seabrook, deHaan and Murphy be counted on to stay healthy? I think Zadorov tips the scales in favor of trading one of deHaan or Murphy because although he's still relatively young, he's past the point in his career where he's susceptible to confidence crushing "yips" so chalk him up as a veteran settling force and trade one of deHaan or Murphy to free up 2 spots for young d-men, 3 when Seabrook doesn't play. I’m not sold yet that Stan trades a Dman. As it stands, I think you’ll see DeHaan, Murphy as the 1/2. Keith Seabs as the 3/4, Stan said in the interview with Barstool Chief that Zadorov will be with Boqvist for protection. I think Mitchell will be the 7th. That’s what it sounded like to me!!! |
|
|
|
Post by T-man2010 on Nov 9, 2020 19:10:22 GMT -6
I think there's a fine line to walk between opening up slots for the kids to play and keeping a veteran presence in the lineup to keep things settled down. With Keith in the lineup and Seabrook probably playing a role, if not in the starting lineup then at least as part of a rotation, do the Hawks have to keep both deHaan and Murphy? I would argue no - Stan should offload one of them, but with the caveat that only one of those four veteran d-men have managed to stay off IR over the past couple years - so how much can Seabrook, deHaan and Murphy be counted on to stay healthy? I think Zadorov tips the scales in favor of trading one of deHaan or Murphy because although he's still relatively young, he's past the point in his career where he's susceptible to confidence crushing "yips" so chalk him up as a veteran settling force and trade one of deHaan or Murphy to free up 2 spots for young d-men, 3 when Seabrook doesn't play. I’m not sold yet that Stan trades a Dman. As it stands, I think you’ll see DeHaan, Murphy as the 1/2. Keith Seabs as the 3/4, Stan said in the interview with Barstool Chief that Zadorov will be with Boqvist for protection. I think Mitchell will be the 7th. That’s what it sounded like to me!!! I'd rather have Mitchell in Rockford playing sitting. Let Seeler sit and if a long period injury happens, then Mitchell can come up. |
|
|
|
Post by BigT on Nov 9, 2020 21:26:51 GMT -6
I’m not sold yet that Stan trades a Dman. As it stands, I think you’ll see DeHaan, Murphy as the 1/2. Keith Seabs as the 3/4, Stan said in the interview with Barstool Chief that Zadorov will be with Boqvist for protection. I think Mitchell will be the 7th. That’s what it sounded like to me!!! I'd rather have Mitchell in Rockford playing sitting. Let Seeler sit and if a long period injury happens, then Mitchell can come up. I’m not against that. I just think Stan has to get these kids up to save his bacon. Mitchell won’t be sitting much, they’ll sit Keith a shift here and there and also a couple others. I think that’s what Stan meant by the core 4 have to “buy in”. This more than likely means that Dach will be on the top pp unit with Kane Dcat Boqvist and Mitchell. They’re gonna get a good look at what they’ve got, whether we like it or not!!! |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Nov 10, 2020 8:58:36 GMT -6
Impossible? Was it impossible when the Germans bombed Pearl harbor?LOL! The only youngster we've seen much of is Boqvist,he has a way to go but that should be a given @20. The jury's still out as far as how much he improves but improvement should follow with more games under his belt. I am concerned by the size of out top D kids but there are a few bigger guys comin' down the pike and I agree with you as far as the big Russian offering the young guys some protection. Mitchell could be a good one and we have to see with Beaudin.......I hope we get to see more of Carlsson but the logjam is still there....let's hope the kids get a shot sooner rather than later. I think there's a fine line to walk between opening up slots for the kids to play and keeping a veteran presence in the lineup to keep things settled down. With Keith in the lineup and Seabrook probably playing a role, if not in the starting lineup then at least as part of a rotation, do the Hawks have to keep both deHaan and Murphy? I would argue no - Stan should offload one of them, but with the caveat that only one of those four veteran d-men have managed to stay off IR over the past couple years - so how much can Seabrook, deHaan and Murphy be counted on to stay healthy? I think Zadorov tips the scales in favor of trading one of deHaan or Murphy because although he's still relatively young, he's past the point in his career where he's susceptible to confidence crushing "yips" so chalk him up as a veteran settling force and trade one of deHaan or Murphy to free up 2 spots for young d-men, 3 when Seabrook doesn't play. This debate,like most of em going forward will boil down to,are we truly rebuilding or is this some hybrid or another 'retool'? IMO,a true rebuilding team would keep Keith for veteran presence and maybe Seabs too since he's untradeable and RARELY missed a single game for years before his maintenance procedures and might be healthier than he's been in years too. How good will Seabs be next year is a valid question and to that,I say,how good does the team really want to be next year? Murphy and de Haan ARE pretty much hurt every year(Murph less so)and this is another reason to move them. Murp might fetch a decent pick or two which are more valuable to the team's future than Murph and biting the bullet on de Haan in a buyout or the last retained money spot would assure spots for Mitchell and Carlsson.......when is now for players their age. As displeased as I am with SB,I'd still get behind a true rebuild at this point and I'd resign myself to a few tough years or should I say a few more,but this isn't what I see. I'd also get behind moving core players that I've slugged it out defending and always will to reach that goal since we can no longer win with them.......we won't see that either. It looks like the FO has convinced ownership that they don't have to get bad before they good again and this is a 'bill of goods' IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Nov 10, 2020 9:15:26 GMT -6
I’m not sold yet that Stan trades a Dman. As it stands, I think you’ll see DeHaan, Murphy as the 1/2. Keith Seabs as the 3/4, Stan said in the interview with Barstool Chief that Zadorov will be with Boqvist for protection. I think Mitchell will be the 7th. That’s what it sounded like to me!!! I'd rather have Mitchell in Rockford playing sitting. Let Seeler sit and if a long period injury happens, then Mitchell can come up. We might end up with one very disgruntled young player if Mitchell spends a large part of the year in Rockford. It sounded like assurances were made to get him to sign and he woulda got a look before the virus hit. He also turned down a chance to start his ELC this summer,I have NO idea why it was offered but that probably included more assurances. He'll turn 22 right after the year starts......when is now with this player too IMO. Carlsson paid his dues in Rockford,he looked comfortable in his six games with a sheltered +3,he's a defensive D-man,he's not undersized and he's 23......when is now with him too. A rebuild with five veteran D-men in the lineup is a rebuild in name only! |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Nov 10, 2020 9:22:03 GMT -6
I'd rather have Mitchell in Rockford playing sitting. Let Seeler sit and if a long period injury happens, then Mitchell can come up. I’m not against that. I just think Stan has to get these kids up to save his bacon. Mitchell won’t be sitting much, they’ll sit Keith a shift here and there and also a couple others. I think that’s what Stan meant by the core 4 have to “buy in”. This more than likely means that Dach will be on the top pp unit with Kane Dcat Boqvist and Mitchell. They’re gonna get a good look at what they’ve got, whether we like it or not!!! "Getting a look at what they've got" is what a rebuilding team should be doing but this should include clearing spots to get that good look. If they're just gonna give Mitchell Keith's minutes and Dach JT's minutes,then go to the veterans,ask em to waive and get the best return you can. Who takes the draws on the top PP unit? |
|
|
|
Post by ebonyraptor on Nov 10, 2020 9:39:09 GMT -6
I think there's a fine line to walk between opening up slots for the kids to play and keeping a veteran presence in the lineup to keep things settled down. With Keith in the lineup and Seabrook probably playing a role, if not in the starting lineup then at least as part of a rotation, do the Hawks have to keep both deHaan and Murphy? I would argue no - Stan should offload one of them, but with the caveat that only one of those four veteran d-men have managed to stay off IR over the past couple years - so how much can Seabrook, deHaan and Murphy be counted on to stay healthy? I think Zadorov tips the scales in favor of trading one of deHaan or Murphy because although he's still relatively young, he's past the point in his career where he's susceptible to confidence crushing "yips" so chalk him up as a veteran settling force and trade one of deHaan or Murphy to free up 2 spots for young d-men, 3 when Seabrook doesn't play. This debate,like most of em going forward will boil down to,are we truly rebuilding or is this some hybrid or another 'retool'? IMO,a true rebuilding team would keep Keith for veteran presence and maybe Seabs too since he's untradeable and RARELY missed a single game for years before his maintenance procedures and might be healthier than he's been in years too. How good will Seabs be next year is a valid question and to that,I say,how good does the team really want to be next year? Murphy and de Haan ARE pretty much hurt every year(Murph less so)and this is another reason to move them. Murp might fetch a decent pick or two which are more valuable to the team's future than Murph and biting the bullet on de Haan in a buyout or the last retained money spot would assure spots for Mitchell and Carlsson.......when is now for players their age. As displeased as I am with SB,I'd still get behind a true rebuild at this point and I'd resign myself to a few tough years or should I say a few more,but this isn't what I see. I'd also get behind moving core players that I've slugged it out defending and always will to reach that goal since we can no longer win with them.......we won't see that either. It looks like the FO has convinced ownership that they don't have to get bad before they good again and this is a 'bill of goods' IMO. Not trading deHaan and/or Murphy does seem at odds with the stated "new direction". One thing that all of us on the outside don't have an appreciation for is how difficult it may be to trade a player who isn't "cheap" and has had injuries - deHaan especially. Taking into account the old rule of thumb that d-men need 200-300 games under their belt before reaching their potential, that's 3-4 seasons and that's the best case scenario that they actually rise on that trajectory and reach that potential. Not to turn this thread into another Stan basher, but I think it's fair to question whether FO actions are lagging behind FO proclamations. From many years of observing Stan, he seems a more passive type than aggressive type and doing an actual rebuild is not something that can be done passively, at least not one that achieves maximum results. We wait and see ... with fingers crossed. |
|
|
|
Post by BigT on Nov 10, 2020 9:46:23 GMT -6
I’m not against that. I just think Stan has to get these kids up to save his bacon. Mitchell won’t be sitting much, they’ll sit Keith a shift here and there and also a couple others. I think that’s what Stan meant by the core 4 have to “buy in”. This more than likely means that Dach will be on the top pp unit with Kane Dcat Boqvist and Mitchell. They’re gonna get a good look at what they’ve got, whether we like it or not!!! "Getting a look at what they've got" is what a rebuilding team should be doing but this should include clearing spots to get that good look. If they're just gonna give Mitchell Keith's minutes and Dach JT's minutes,then go to the veterans,ask em to waive and get the best return you can. Who takes the draws on the top PP unit? I agree. Did you watch the video that Vadar posted? The interview with Stan and Barstool Chief? I thought it was funny how much chief laid into him and sighed at Stan’s answers. That’s what I see from the last few Stan interviews, how he says he wants the core to buy in and allow the kids a chance. But the problem is, most teams have a good crop to look at. We have literally 4-5 kids to look at. If they don’t work out, what do we have? I think that letter was very very premature. It may take 3-4 more years of draft picks and development to see what we got. Stan also said that reason he let Crawford go was for cap flexibility. He believes he’ll have the cap space to pluck out a good player from another team that needs to shed salary. So he’s looking to steal a player from a cash strapped team. So I think his plan is wishful thinking, and his approach is ruining the report with the vets on this team. So I’m not very confident in what he has said. I urge everyone to listen to that podcast!!! |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Nov 10, 2020 9:59:04 GMT -6
This debate,like most of em going forward will boil down to,are we truly rebuilding or is this some hybrid or another 'retool'? IMO,a true rebuilding team would keep Keith for veteran presence and maybe Seabs too since he's untradeable and RARELY missed a single game for years before his maintenance procedures and might be healthier than he's been in years too. How good will Seabs be next year is a valid question and to that,I say,how good does the team really want to be next year? Murphy and de Haan ARE pretty much hurt every year(Murph less so)and this is another reason to move them. Murp might fetch a decent pick or two which are more valuable to the team's future than Murph and biting the bullet on de Haan in a buyout or the last retained money spot would assure spots for Mitchell and Carlsson.......when is now for players their age. As displeased as I am with SB,I'd still get behind a true rebuild at this point and I'd resign myself to a few tough years or should I say a few more,but this isn't what I see. I'd also get behind moving core players that I've slugged it out defending and always will to reach that goal since we can no longer win with them.......we won't see that either. It looks like the FO has convinced ownership that they don't have to get bad before they good again and this is a 'bill of goods' IMO. Not trading deHaan and/or Murphy does seem at odds with the stated "new direction". One thing that all of us on the outside don't have an appreciation for is how difficult it may be to trade a player who isn't "cheap" and has had injuries - deHaan especially. Taking into account the old rule of thumb that d-men need 200-300 games under their belt before reaching their potential, that's 3-4 seasons and that's the best case scenario that they actually rise on that trajectory and reach that potential. Not to turn this thread into another Stan basher, but I think it's fair to question whether FO actions are lagging behind FO proclamations. From many years of observing Stan, he seems a more passive type than aggressive type and doing an actual rebuild is not something that can be done passively, at least not one that achieves maximum results. We wait and see ... with fingers crossed. Good point on the SB bashing I guess,he is the guy with the title but I believe the messaging we see is organization wide and I bet 'Prince Daniel's' fingerprints are all over it. I called for de Haan's buy out since the PO's ended,we see many teams do it and for much more money. This clears a spot for a 22yro like Mitchell or a 23yro like Carlsson and I believe that 200 games that used to be a measuring stick is shorter in today's youthful game. The sooner you start the games played clock on a young D-man and the closer you are to end of it too. Our top D prospects besides Boqvist are now 21-23 and that really isn't that young any more.......I'd rather see these kids messing up than five veterans leading us to a .500 record. The entire Org doesn't seem to have the stomach to get bad enough to be good enough again and there's always the decade's old........"who'll buy our beer" if attendance drops and there will be attendance again and Wirtz Beverage knows that. |
|
|
|
Post by T-man2010 on Nov 10, 2020 10:31:53 GMT -6
I'd rather have Mitchell in Rockford playing sitting. Let Seeler sit and if a long period injury happens, then Mitchell can come up. We might end up with one very disgruntled young player if Mitchell spends a large part of the year in Rockford. It sounded like assurances were made to get him to sign and he woulda got a look before the virus hit. He also turned down a chance to start his ELC this summer,I have NO idea why it was offered but that probably included more assurances. He'll turn 22 right after the year starts......when is now with this player too IMO. Carlsson paid his dues in Rockford,he looked comfortable in his six games with a sheltered +3,he's a defensive D-man,he's not undersized and he's 23......when is now with him too. A rebuild with five veteran D-men in the lineup is a rebuild in name only! Maybe I got ebonyraptor syndrome, What I meant was that Mitchell going to Rockford and actually playing and working on his skills than sitting in the press box and playing maybe once a week. He can practice with the team all he can while sitting but it is not the same as getting hit hard during a game. We saw that Boqvist needs some Keith type training before he gets killed out there. Yes I agree that Mitch and Carlsson need to be out there, but with deHaan, Murphy, Seabs still with us, we don't have much choice. We don't know if Stan tried to trade these guys or not. Maybe no takers for them. Too little offered in return or too much asked for. We will never know for certain. |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Nov 10, 2020 10:39:39 GMT -6
"Getting a look at what they've got" is what a rebuilding team should be doing but this should include clearing spots to get that good look. If they're just gonna give Mitchell Keith's minutes and Dach JT's minutes,then go to the veterans,ask em to waive and get the best return you can. Who takes the draws on the top PP unit? I agree. Did you watch the video that Vadar posted? The interview with Stan and Barstool Chief? I thought it was funny how much chief laid into him and sighed at Stan’s answers. That’s what I see from the last few Stan interviews, how he says he wants the core to buy in and allow the kids a chance. But the problem is, most teams have a good crop to look at. We have literally 4-5 kids to look at. If they don’t work out, what do we have? I think that letter was very very premature. It may take 3-4 more years of draft picks and development to see what we got. Stan also said that reason he let Crawford go was for cap flexibility. He believes he’ll have the cap space to pluck out a good player from another team that needs to shed salary. So he’s looking to steal a player from a cash strapped team. So I think his plan is wishful thinking, and his approach is ruining the report with the vets on this team. So I’m not very confident in what he has said. I urge everyone to listen to that podcast!!! I have a problem listening too or watching anything with SB in it these days and I'll leave it at that........I've seen some and I'll leave that at that too but to your points. The team may only have 4 or 5 ready,few teams have many more BUT we could have a dozen......where do they play? and remember,we're rebuilding. I have a suspicion that "we're getting younger" only means look at how good I did with Dach and Boqvist and little else or spots would be cleared.....even if we only have 4-5 ready........and remember we're rebuilding. The Marks Bros are both decent,hard working,useful players for a contending team but are we a contending team or a rebuilding team. Do these two do little more here than stand in the way of two of those 4-5 ready youngsters.....and remember,we're rebuilding. Should a 21yro 6'0" 190lb Kurashev who looks as ready as ever get an EXTENDED look? and remember,we're rebuilding. Does playing a 29yro journeyman like Carpenter make more sense than getting an extended look at a 21yro 6'4" Entwistle who saw a solid 2-way season at Rockford after three in the OHL? Is a 32yro Smith gummin' up the works @3.25M a path forward for a rebuilding team? IMO keeping the vets and actually adding a few more could easily result in the team being a bit better than most think and this could easily result in the FO saying look how far ahead of schedule we when the team just misses at a few over but his will be nothing more than a mirage if it happens because those vets played well. More no man's land too. |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Nov 10, 2020 10:47:37 GMT -6
We might end up with one very disgruntled young player if Mitchell spends a large part of the year in Rockford. It sounded like assurances were made to get him to sign and he woulda got a look before the virus hit. He also turned down a chance to start his ELC this summer,I have NO idea why it was offered but that probably included more assurances. He'll turn 22 right after the year starts......when is now with this player too IMO. Carlsson paid his dues in Rockford,he looked comfortable in his six games with a sheltered +3,he's a defensive D-man,he's not undersized and he's 23......when is now with him too. A rebuild with five veteran D-men in the lineup is a rebuild in name only! Maybe I got ebonyraptor syndrome, What I meant was that Mitchell going to Rockford and actually playing and working on his skills than sitting in the press box and playing maybe once a week. He can practice with the team all he can while sitting but it is not the same as getting hit hard during a game. We saw that Boqvist needs some Keith type training before he gets killed out there. Yes I agree that Mitch and Carlsson need to be out there, but with deHaan, Murphy, Seabs still with us, we don't have much choice. We don't know if Stan tried to trade these guys or not. Maybe no takers for them. Too little offered in return or too much asked for. We will never know for certain. Keeping top D prospects in the AHL at 22&23 seems to be a luxury only a loaded contender can afford these days and we're supposedly getting younger. YES,moving vets to play younger players isn't always easy but de Haan could have and should have been bought out to clear one spot and it's hard to believe Murph can't fetch some return to clear another. Neither veteran will be here when the team is supposed to be good again anyway so get those kids in now! edit: I hope you do have ebonyraptor syndrome........the more good posts to respond to,the better! I'm bored AF! |
|
|
|
Post by ebonyraptor on Nov 10, 2020 15:39:16 GMT -6
We might end up with one very disgruntled young player if Mitchell spends a large part of the year in Rockford. It sounded like assurances were made to get him to sign and he woulda got a look before the virus hit. He also turned down a chance to start his ELC this summer,I have NO idea why it was offered but that probably included more assurances. He'll turn 22 right after the year starts......when is now with this player too IMO. Carlsson paid his dues in Rockford,he looked comfortable in his six games with a sheltered +3,he's a defensive D-man,he's not undersized and he's 23......when is now with him too. A rebuild with five veteran D-men in the lineup is a rebuild in name only! , What I meant was that Mitchell going to Rockford and actually playing and working on his skills than sitting in the press box and playing maybe once a week. He can practice with the team all he can while sitting but it is not the same as getting hit hard during a game. We saw that Boqvist needs some Keith type training before he gets killed out there. Yes I agree that Mitch and Carlsson need to be out there, but with deHaan, Murphy, Seabs still with us, we don't have much choice. We don't know if Stan tried to trade these guys or not. Maybe no takers for them. Too little offered in return or too much asked for. We will never know for certain. If you find a cure - let me know. |
|
|
|
Post by LordKOTL on Nov 11, 2020 17:42:59 GMT -6
The major issue I see with the future D-corps is that Bowman the Beancounter effectively locked it in a year where we're supposed to rebuild:
Keith is good if his minutes/deployment are managed. He can't really carry another player anymore--not his fault that he got old. But on the flipside when they are manages he's still a strong shade of his Norris self and still very close to his cap hit.
Seabrook shouldn't be playing. Even if there's a chance he's not Culli-slow after his surgery, the wear and tear, and age on him might make him a 5-at-best. Still, 6.8M is a lot for a bottom pair or for Eddie-O's valet.
Murph is ehh. He's not bad, but he's certainly not a Hjammer...at least not in his prime.
DeHaan is about the same as Murph.
Zaddy is interesting, as long as he doesn't lose his snarl. Still between him, DeHaan, and Murph that's 3 mid-pairing guys.
The we got Boqvist. Wasn't really impressive in his 1st year but neither was Keith (and Keith is arguably the best 'hawk D-man the 'hawks have had). He makes 6.
The future can't be now unless someone moves. Even if Boqvist is tagged for Rockford that's still 1 slot for a young D-man. Even if Seabs is pressboxed we're not going to sit 6.8M night in/night out. The 'hawks were reticent to sit 1M and change in Runblad, and he was worse than Seabrook ever was. We have too many mid-tier guys and we likely take a loss on moving one of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by ebonyraptor on Nov 11, 2020 21:31:15 GMT -6
I believe the mindset of the Hawks should be the 2020/21 and 2021/22 seasons should be used exclusively to prepare the young players they have to be as NHL ready as possible by the 2022/23 season. One of the tactics should be to use the cap space they have to get the young players into the lineup so they can get NHL games under their belt.
One idea would be to use the remaining salary retention slot to trade either deHaan or Murphy to move them out to open a slot for one of the young d-men. Both have 2 years remaining but the Hawks don't have any major players to re-sign until after the 2021/22 season so retaining 2 years will not be a problem from a salary cap perspective. Saad's retention comes off the books after the 2020/21 season so they would have one to use next off season if they choose. Trade one of them and retain 50% to improve the return.
|
|
