30
|
Post by Tater on Nov 12, 2020 1:56:37 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. I like that idea, but if they are not REALLY sure DeHaan is healed up sufficiently then I'd keep Murph. Murphy just seems like less of a long-term injury risk.
|
|
|
Post by LordKOTL on Nov 12, 2020 9:01:01 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. Playing Devil's advocate, are DeHaan and/or Muprh good enough to command no roster D-men coming back even at half retained? Also, are they good enough that whatever does come back is not dead cap beyond what we'd pay for them? Murph? Maybe. DeHaan has more recent injury history and I think even at 2M and change we risk taking another team's offal. I wouldn't be against the move in the least, but I don't want a rob Peter to pay Paul situation. Also, depending on his performance, Zaddy might be someone we need to resign at the end of the upcoming season.
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Nov 12, 2020 9:01:45 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. We have to remember that Seabs couldn't even tie his shoes or throw a ball to his kids before his procedures and he'll have five more months to rehab between his practices with the team in July and a possible restart. I DON'T expect miracles but we might see a player more like the one from three years ago and that player was a decent D-man.
|
|
|
Post by ebonyraptor on Nov 12, 2020 12:13:51 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. Playing Devil's advocate, are DeHaan and/or Muprh good enough to command no roster D-men coming back even at half retained? Also, are they good enough that whatever does come back is not dead cap beyond what we'd pay for them? Murph? Maybe. DeHaan has more recent injury history and I think even at 2M and change we risk taking another team's offal. I wouldn't be against the move in the least, but I don't want a rob Peter to pay Paul situation. Also, depending on his performance, Zaddy might be someone we need to resign at the end of the upcoming season. I agree there would be no point in trading deHaan/Murphy if we had to take back a d-man, unless that d-man can be buried in Rockford. Re: Zaddy - I'm hoping he shows enough to warrant re-signing him. At 25, he's still young enough to be part of the future and he would be one less guy that needs to get NHL game experience between now and then like all the other guys need.
|
|
|
Post by LordKOTL on Nov 12, 2020 12:58:03 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. We have to remember that Seabs couldn't even tie his shoes or throw a ball to his kids before his procedures and he'll have five more months to rehab between his practices with the team in July and a possible restart. I DON'T expect miracles but we might see a player more like the one from three years ago and that player was a decent D-man. With Seabrook I think things will have to be what they have to be. I don't think he ever gets up to being 6.8M again...and again, this is just due to age. I also am skeptical that he becomes good enough that it would be easy to trade him out and not take a loss...again, just due to age. I think he'll be better...but just how much better in in question especially with how depleted our D is. It is very possible he'll be expected to fill a role he no longer can, and that will reflect on him negatively. It's why I think a solid 5 is what he comes back as. If that's the case then fine...I think that's the best we can hope for and there's also the aspect that he might be one of the best guys on the team to mentor incoming D-men. But again, we don't know how he'll come back yet. It might be we treat him like a late-career Rosival, or maybe he can get a regular slot in the lineup. However, I'm not about to count my weasels before they pop. Playing Devil's advocate, are DeHaan and/or Muprh good enough to command no roster D-men coming back even at half retained? Also, are they good enough that whatever does come back is not dead cap beyond what we'd pay for them? Murph? Maybe. DeHaan has more recent injury history and I think even at 2M and change we risk taking another team's offal. I wouldn't be against the move in the least, but I don't want a rob Peter to pay Paul situation. Also, depending on his performance, Zaddy might be someone we need to resign at the end of the upcoming season. I agree there would be no point in trading deHaan/Murphy if we had to take back a d-man, unless that d-man can be buried in Rockford. Re: Zaddy - I'm hoping he shows enough to warrant re-signing him. At 25, he's still young enough to be part of the future and he would be one less guy that needs to get NHL game experience between now and then like all the other guys need. It's true Zaddy could still develop...and I'm hoping for that. We haven't had a crease-clearer since Seabrook circa 2014. I'm partially worried his snarl will be sucked out of him...but let's be positive (and not in the Greg Luganis way), let's say he proves himself to be a top-pair guy (maybe not a 1 but a top-pair compliment). That's going to be a chunk of change...and if Koob also doesn't slow down that will be a lot of money to give out. I still think someone on D has to move--someone middle pair.
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Nov 13, 2020 8:45:13 GMT -6
We have to remember that Seabs couldn't even tie his shoes or throw a ball to his kids before his procedures and he'll have five more months to rehab between his practices with the team in July and a possible restart. I DON'T expect miracles but we might see a player more like the one from three years ago and that player was a decent D-man. With Seabrook I think things will have to be what they have to be. I don't think he ever gets up to being 6.8M again...and again, this is just due to age. I also am skeptical that he becomes good enough that it would be easy to trade him out and not take a loss...again, just due to age. I think he'll be better...but just how much better in in question especially with how depleted our D is. It is very possible he'll be expected to fill a role he no longer can, and that will reflect on him negatively. It's why I think a solid 5 is what he comes back as. If that's the case then fine...I think that's the best we can hope for and there's also the aspect that he might be one of the best guys on the team to mentor incoming D-men. But again, we don't know how he'll come back yet. It might be we treat him like a late-career Rosival, or maybe he can get a regular slot in the lineup. However, I'm not about to count my weasels before they pop. I agree there would be no point in trading deHaan/Murphy if we had to take back a d-man, unless that d-man can be buried in Rockford. Re: Zaddy - I'm hoping he shows enough to warrant re-signing him. At 25, he's still young enough to be part of the future and he would be one less guy that needs to get NHL game experience between now and then like all the other guys need. It's true Zaddy could still develop...and I'm hoping for that. We haven't had a crease-clearer since Seabrook circa 2014. I'm partially worried his snarl will be sucked out of him...but let's be positive (and not in the Greg Luganis way), let's say he proves himself to be a top-pair guy (maybe not a 1 but a top-pair compliment). That's going to be a chunk of change...and if Koob also doesn't slow down that will be a lot of money to give out. I still think someone on D has to move--someone middle pair. How much better is a huge question and better at all is a reasonable concern but the guy hadn't missed a start due to injury for YEARS before his procedures as far as health. Many didn't think he looked that far off in his practices this summer and what looks like another six months to get back to whatever form he has left could go a long way. Age waits for no one,especially a hockey player with a million games on the meter and I know this all too well but Seabs hasn't been able to workout much in the offseason if he couldn't even tie his shoes so I just see a chance at some resurgence with all the time to recover and condition himself. My hopeful scenario would be a healthy veteran who could offer 18 solid 2nd pair minutes a game and PK effectively. If a spot needs to be cleared for a deserving kid,then have the to balls to buy de Haan out for God's sake,he is NOT the future and the team has the space for his reasonable buyout amount. I thought Murph would be easy to move not long ago and I still think a shrewd GM(LOL) could get an actual return for the guy but moving him should be addressed and I like both Murph and de Haan to some degree but how many vet D-men does a rebuilding team need? The big Russian is an interesting factor and I'll be the first to applaud him if I see him offer what the team needs physically,he's brought it his whole career so far and it'll tell us all we need to know if his style changes here.......right? I just wonder what he looks like chasin' speedy forwards out to the blueline.
|
|
|
Post by LordKOTL on Nov 13, 2020 9:22:00 GMT -6
With Seabrook I think things will have to be what they have to be. I don't think he ever gets up to being 6.8M again...and again, this is just due to age. I also am skeptical that he becomes good enough that it would be easy to trade him out and not take a loss...again, just due to age. I think he'll be better...but just how much better in in question especially with how depleted our D is. It is very possible he'll be expected to fill a role he no longer can, and that will reflect on him negatively. It's why I think a solid 5 is what he comes back as. If that's the case then fine...I think that's the best we can hope for and there's also the aspect that he might be one of the best guys on the team to mentor incoming D-men. But again, we don't know how he'll come back yet. It might be we treat him like a late-career Rosival, or maybe he can get a regular slot in the lineup. However, I'm not about to count my weasels before they pop. It's true Zaddy could still develop...and I'm hoping for that. We haven't had a crease-clearer since Seabrook circa 2014. I'm partially worried his snarl will be sucked out of him...but let's be positive (and not in the Greg Luganis way), let's say he proves himself to be a top-pair guy (maybe not a 1 but a top-pair compliment). That's going to be a chunk of change...and if Koob also doesn't slow down that will be a lot of money to give out. I still think someone on D has to move--someone middle pair. How much better is a huge question and better at all is a reasonable concern but the guy hadn't missed a start due to injury for YEARS before his procedures as far as health. Many didn't think he looked that far off in his practices this summer and what looks like another six months to get back to whatever form he has left could go a long way. Age waits for no one,especially a hockey player with a million games on the meter and I know this all too well but Seabs hasn't been able to workout much in the offseason if he couldn't even tie his shoes so I just see a chance at some resurgence with all the time to recover and condition himself. My hopeful scenario would be a healthy veteran who could offer 18 solid 2nd pair minutes a game and PK effectively. If a spot needs to be cleared for a deserving kid,then have the to balls to buy de Haan out for God's sake,he is NOT the future and the team has the space for his reasonable buyout amount. I thought Murph would be easy to move not long ago and I still think a shrewd GM(LOL) could get an actual return for the guy but moving him should be addressed and I like both Murph and de Haan to some degree but how many vet D-men does a rebuilding team need? The big Russian is an interesting factor and I'll be the first to applaud him if I see him offer what the team needs physically,he's brought it his whole career so far and it'll tell us all we need to know if his style changes here.......right? I just wonder what he looks like chasin' speedy forwards out to the blueline. You're preaching to the choir on DeHaan. Not only should he have been gone this offseason, but I don't think we should have acquired him in the 1st place (or Maata--at least leave one of them on the table). Last offseason's moves by Bowman the Beancounter were geared more towards going for it, and I think that was a mistake. Right now, it's coming back to bite us. I don't think Murph is bad, even though he's nowhere near a prime Hjammer. But given what DeHaan is we might end up having to move Murph. Call my cynical if you want, but IMHO I don't want to get my hopes up on Seabs. If he's anything better than what I think he will be, it's gravy. I just think this late in his career we shouldn't be trying to chase miracles with him--and that's an area I think JC and Stan will botch it up. They'll try to use him as he was in his prime instead of giving one of the youths a shot to take over that role.
|
|
|
Post by ebonyraptor on Nov 13, 2020 10:25:00 GMT -6
How much better is a huge question and better at all is a reasonable concern but the guy hadn't missed a start due to injury for YEARS before his procedures as far as health. Many didn't think he looked that far off in his practices this summer and what looks like another six months to get back to whatever form he has left could go a long way. Age waits for no one,especially a hockey player with a million games on the meter and I know this all too well but Seabs hasn't been able to workout much in the offseason if he couldn't even tie his shoes so I just see a chance at some resurgence with all the time to recover and condition himself. My hopeful scenario would be a healthy veteran who could offer 18 solid 2nd pair minutes a game and PK effectively. If a spot needs to be cleared for a deserving kid,then have the to balls to buy de Haan out for God's sake,he is NOT the future and the team has the space for his reasonable buyout amount. I thought Murph would be easy to move not long ago and I still think a shrewd GM(LOL) could get an actual return for the guy but moving him should be addressed and I like both Murph and de Haan to some degree but how many vet D-men does a rebuilding team need? The big Russian is an interesting factor and I'll be the first to applaud him if I see him offer what the team needs physically,he's brought it his whole career so far and it'll tell us all we need to know if his style changes here.......right? I just wonder what he looks like chasin' speedy forwards out to the blueline. You're preaching to the choir on DeHaan. Not only should he have been gone this offseason, but I don't think we should have acquired him in the 1st place (or Maata--at least leave one of them on the table). Last offseason's moves by Bowman the Beancounter were geared more towards going for it, and I think that was a mistake. Right now, it's coming back to bite us. I don't think Murph is bad, even though he's nowhere near a prime Hjammer. But given what DeHaan is we might end up having to move Murph. Call my cynical if you want, but IMHO I don't want to get my hopes up on Seabs. If he's anything better than what I think he will be, it's gravy. I just think this late in his career we shouldn't be trying to chase miracles with him--and that's an area I think JC and Stan will botch it up. They'll try to use him as he was in his prime instead of giving one of the youths a shot to take over that role. Seabrook became one of my all time favorite Hawks in that pivotal playoff game against the Wings when he stuck his head in the penalty box and said what needed to be said to get Toews from imploding any more than he already had. That very well could have been the moment that propelled the Hawks to the Cup. For that alone, he has my undying respect and admiration. But, first and foremost, I'm a Hawks fan and loyalty to individual players is secondary. The truth is that even if Seabs is much improved after his surgeries - it is very unlikely he will be good enough 3 or 4 years from now when we hope to have a new d-corps capable of winning the Stanley Cup. Therefore, the only possible value Seabs has in this rebuilding process is as a mentor to the young d-men. That's not insignificant, but with deHaan and Murphy still on the team it works against the objective because Seabs would provide better mentorship by being on the ice with a young d-man rather than sitting in the press box - but there are only so many slots available, so something has to give ... or in this case go.
|
|
|
Post by LordKOTL on Nov 13, 2020 11:00:17 GMT -6
You're preaching to the choir on DeHaan. Not only should he have been gone this offseason, but I don't think we should have acquired him in the 1st place (or Maata--at least leave one of them on the table). Last offseason's moves by Bowman the Beancounter were geared more towards going for it, and I think that was a mistake. Right now, it's coming back to bite us. I don't think Murph is bad, even though he's nowhere near a prime Hjammer. But given what DeHaan is we might end up having to move Murph. Call my cynical if you want, but IMHO I don't want to get my hopes up on Seabs. If he's anything better than what I think he will be, it's gravy. I just think this late in his career we shouldn't be trying to chase miracles with him--and that's an area I think JC and Stan will botch it up. They'll try to use him as he was in his prime instead of giving one of the youths a shot to take over that role. Seabrook became one of my all time favorite Hawks in that pivotal playoff game against the Wings when he stuck his head in the penalty box and said what needed to be said to get Toews from imploding any more than he already had. That very well could have been the moment that propelled the Hawks to the Cup. For that alone, he has my undying respect and admiration. But, first and foremost, I'm a Hawks fan and loyalty to individual players is secondary. The truth is that even if Seabs is much improved after his surgeries - it is very unlikely he will be good enough 3 or 4 years from now when we hope to have a new d-corps capable of winning the Stanley Cup. Therefore, the only possible value Seabs has in this rebuilding process is as a mentor to the young d-men. That's not insignificant, but with deHaan and Murphy still on the team it works against the objective because Seabs would provide better mentorship by being on the ice with a young d-man rather than sitting in the press box - but there are only so many slots available, so something has to give ... or in this case go. You're preaching to the choir on Seabrook. Captaining the Captain was indeed a pivotal moment. Maybe as important as his FUCK YOU! to Steve Walkom by scoring the series-winning goal in overtime after we already won. Thing though about Seabrook is his contract is spilled milk at this point IMHO. It is what it is and with him holing all of the cards until the summer before 2023 when his NMC relaxes, he may be immovable. Also, if he wants to stay for whatever reason, that's his prerogative. I think Seabrook is beyond the point of complaining about his play unless it's a complete lack of hockey IQ he's proven in the past-type of moment. His age is his age and his healed-up on-ice play will be what it is. It's up to Stan and JC to properly leveage him (and the older old guys) to maximise the team and also bring the young guys along. The problem I see is that Stan backed himself into a corner with the middle-pair overload, and both he and JC may panic if the 'hawks start looking as bad as the 2018 'hawks in the backend without an insane-Crawford saving their skins. I can't be the only one that thinks JC will try to run Keith and Seabrook roughshod and use them like they're both their 2013 selves if it means making them (as in JC/Stan) look good instead of properly letting the youth go through growing pains and probably losing epically.
|
|
|
Post by ebonyraptor on Nov 13, 2020 12:20:48 GMT -6
Seabrook became one of my all time favorite Hawks in that pivotal playoff game against the Wings when he stuck his head in the penalty box and said what needed to be said to get Toews from imploding any more than he already had. That very well could have been the moment that propelled the Hawks to the Cup. For that alone, he has my undying respect and admiration. But, first and foremost, I'm a Hawks fan and loyalty to individual players is secondary. The truth is that even if Seabs is much improved after his surgeries - it is very unlikely he will be good enough 3 or 4 years from now when we hope to have a new d-corps capable of winning the Stanley Cup. Therefore, the only possible value Seabs has in this rebuilding process is as a mentor to the young d-men. That's not insignificant, but with deHaan and Murphy still on the team it works against the objective because Seabs would provide better mentorship by being on the ice with a young d-man rather than sitting in the press box - but there are only so many slots available, so something has to give ... or in this case go. You're preaching to the choir on Seabrook. Captaining the Captain was indeed a pivotal moment. Maybe as important as his FUCK YOU! to Steve Walkom by scoring the series-winning goal in overtime after we already won. Thing though about Seabrook is his contract is spilled milk at this point IMHO. It is what it is and with him holing all of the cards until the summer before 2023 when his NMC relaxes, he may be immovable. Also, if he wants to stay for whatever reason, that's his prerogative. I think Seabrook is beyond the point of complaining about his play unless it's a complete lack of hockey IQ he's proven in the past-type of moment. His age is his age and his healed-up on-ice play will be what it is. It's up to Stan and JC to properly leveage him (and the older old guys) to maximise the team and also bring the young guys along. The problem I see is that Stan backed himself into a corner with the middle-pair overload, and both he and JC may panic if the 'hawks start looking as bad as the 2018 'hawks in the backend without an insane-Crawford saving their skins. I can't be the only one that thinks JC will try to run Keith and Seabrook roughshod and use them like they're both their 2013 selves if it means making them (as in JC/Stan) look good instead of properly letting the youth go through growing pains and probably losing epically. That's a concern. Acknowledging that it's easier for me to say it than it probably will be for Stan/Colliton to do it - I'll say it anyway: wins and losses should not matter in the 2020/21 season. Therefore there should be no panic which could precipitate a change in the plan to play the young players to prepare them for 3-4 years from now. Stick to the plan - no matter what. The 2021 season will provide an easier path to suck big time and pay a lesser cost for it than if it were a normal season with 20K+ fans in the stands. If there were ever a season to suck big time - 2021 is shaping up to be that season. Take advantage of that. Play the young players and take it on the chin in the win/loss column and get a top-10 draft pick. That's the best case scenario. Addendum: the 2021 draft is projected to have 2 or 3 potential #1 d-men. The best case scenario would be to suck bad enough to get a top-3 draft pick and select a future #1 d-man. Add that stud to the group and everyone else slides down a notch and there you go.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2020 14:21:08 GMT -6
With Seabrook I think things will have to be what they have to be. I don't think he ever gets up to being 6.8M again...and again, this is just due to age. I also am skeptical that he becomes good enough that it would be easy to trade him out and not take a loss...again, just due to age. I think he'll be better...but just how much better in in question especially with how depleted our D is. It is very possible he'll be expected to fill a role he no longer can, and that will reflect on him negatively. It's why I think a solid 5 is what he comes back as. If that's the case then fine...I think that's the best we can hope for and there's also the aspect that he might be one of the best guys on the team to mentor incoming D-men. But again, we don't know how he'll come back yet. It might be we treat him like a late-career Rosival, or maybe he can get a regular slot in the lineup. However, I'm not about to count my weasels before they pop. It's true Zaddy could still develop...and I'm hoping for that. We haven't had a crease-clearer since Seabrook circa 2014. I'm partially worried his snarl will be sucked out of him...but let's be positive (and not in the Greg Luganis way), let's say he proves himself to be a top-pair guy (maybe not a 1 but a top-pair compliment). That's going to be a chunk of change...and if Koob also doesn't slow down that will be a lot of money to give out. I still think someone on D has to move--someone middle pair. How much better is a huge question and better at all is a reasonable concern but the guy hadn't missed a start due to injury for YEARS before his procedures as far as health. Many didn't think he looked that far off in his practices this summer and what looks like another six months to get back to whatever form he has left could go a long way. Age waits for no one,especially a hockey player with a million games on the meter and I know this all too well but Seabs hasn't been able to workout much in the offseason if he couldn't even tie his shoes so I just see a chance at some resurgence with all the time to recover and condition himself. My hopeful scenario would be a healthy veteran who could offer 18 solid 2nd pair minutes a game and PK effectively. If a spot needs to be cleared for a deserving kid,then have the to balls to buy de Haan out for God's sake,he is NOT the future and the team has the space for his reasonable buyout amount. I thought Murph would be easy to move not long ago and I still think a shrewd GM(LOL) could get an actual return for the guy but moving him should be addressed and I like both Murph and de Haan to some degree but how many vet D-men does a rebuilding team need? The big Russian is an interesting factor and I'll be the first to applaud him if I see him offer what the team needs physically,he's brought it his whole career so far and it'll tell us all we need to know if his style changes here.......right? I just wonder what he looks like chasin' speedy forwards out to the blueline. Unfortunately the buyout period ended (October 8th). I'm trying to figure out if they could put him on unconditional waivers to achieve the same affect. Either someone claims him, or if not then the buyout process begins. I'm just not clear on if this is correct, or if the Hawks are locked into de Haan contract for another year.
|
|
|
Post by nighbor on Nov 13, 2020 23:36:34 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. We have to remember that Seabs couldn't even tie his shoes or throw a ball to his kids before his procedures and he'll have five more months to rehab between his practices with the team in July and a possible restart. I DON'T expect miracles but we might see a player more like the one from three years ago and that player was a decent D-man. When we restarted last season Seabs looked pretty good. I also expect Seabs to be better than what he showed the last few years. To make himself even better according to the Bleacher Report he has like Dach late last season turned to Kane's personal trainer Ian Mac. Whatever the results Seabs is going to be the best he can be.
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Nov 14, 2020 10:07:40 GMT -6
You're preaching to the choir on Seabrook. Captaining the Captain was indeed a pivotal moment. Maybe as important as his FUCK YOU! to Steve Walkom by scoring the series-winning goal in overtime after we already won. Thing though about Seabrook is his contract is spilled milk at this point IMHO. It is what it is and with him holing all of the cards until the summer before 2023 when his NMC relaxes, he may be immovable. Also, if he wants to stay for whatever reason, that's his prerogative. I think Seabrook is beyond the point of complaining about his play unless it's a complete lack of hockey IQ he's proven in the past-type of moment. His age is his age and his healed-up on-ice play will be what it is. It's up to Stan and JC to properly leveage him (and the older old guys) to maximise the team and also bring the young guys along. The problem I see is that Stan backed himself into a corner with the middle-pair overload, and both he and JC may panic if the 'hawks start looking as bad as the 2018 'hawks in the backend without an insane-Crawford saving their skins. I can't be the only one that thinks JC will try to run Keith and Seabrook roughshod and use them like they're both their 2013 selves if it means making them (as in JC/Stan) look good instead of properly letting the youth go through growing pains and probably losing epically. That's a concern. Acknowledging that it's easier for me to say it than it probably will be for Stan/Colliton to do it - I'll say it anyway: wins and losses should not matter in the 2020/21 season. Therefore there should be no panic which could precipitate a change in the plan to play the young players to prepare them for 3-4 years from now. Stick to the plan - no matter what. The 2021 season will provide an easier path to suck big time and pay a lesser cost for it than if it were a normal season with 20K+ fans in the stands. If there were ever a season to suck big time - 2021 is shaping up to be that season. Take advantage of that. Play the young players and take it on the chin in the win/loss column and get a top-10 draft pick. That's the best case scenario. Addendum: the 2021 draft is projected to have 2 or 3 potential #1 d-men. The best case scenario would be to suck bad enough to get a top-3 draft pick and select a future #1 d-man. Add that stud to the group and everyone else slides down a notch and there you go. I agree that wins and losses shouldn't matter next year and maybe the one after it too but why then bring in two vets like the Marks Bros instead of playing kids?
|
|
|
Post by T-man2010 on Nov 14, 2020 10:25:29 GMT -6
That's a concern. Acknowledging that it's easier for me to say it than it probably will be for Stan/Colliton to do it - I'll say it anyway: wins and losses should not matter in the 2020/21 season. Therefore there should be no panic which could precipitate a change in the plan to play the young players to prepare them for 3-4 years from now. Stick to the plan - no matter what. The 2021 season will provide an easier path to suck big time and pay a lesser cost for it than if it were a normal season with 20K+ fans in the stands. If there were ever a season to suck big time - 2021 is shaping up to be that season. Take advantage of that. Play the young players and take it on the chin in the win/loss column and get a top-10 draft pick. That's the best case scenario. Addendum: the 2021 draft is projected to have 2 or 3 potential #1 d-men. The best case scenario would be to suck bad enough to get a top-3 draft pick and select a future #1 d-man. Add that stud to the group and everyone else slides down a notch and there you go. I agree that wins and losses shouldn't matter next year and maybe the one after it too but why then bring in two vets like the Marks Bros instead of playing kids? 💲💲💲💲💲💲💲💲💲💲💲💲💲💲💲💲💲💲💲💲💲💲💲💲💲💲💲💲💲💲💲💲💲 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Pretty much^^^^^^^^^^^
|
|
|
Post by ebonyraptor on Nov 14, 2020 12:18:56 GMT -6
That's a concern. Acknowledging that it's easier for me to say it than it probably will be for Stan/Colliton to do it - I'll say it anyway: wins and losses should not matter in the 2020/21 season. Therefore there should be no panic which could precipitate a change in the plan to play the young players to prepare them for 3-4 years from now. Stick to the plan - no matter what. The 2021 season will provide an easier path to suck big time and pay a lesser cost for it than if it were a normal season with 20K+ fans in the stands. If there were ever a season to suck big time - 2021 is shaping up to be that season. Take advantage of that. Play the young players and take it on the chin in the win/loss column and get a top-10 draft pick. That's the best case scenario. Addendum: the 2021 draft is projected to have 2 or 3 potential #1 d-men. The best case scenario would be to suck bad enough to get a top-3 draft pick and select a future #1 d-man. Add that stud to the group and everyone else slides down a notch and there you go. I agree that wins and losses shouldn't matter next year and maybe the one after it too but why then bring in two vets like the Marks Bros instead of playing kids? That's a good question, and one I don't have the answer for. It seems bringing in the Marks Bros is another one that goes on the "huh?" side of the ledger. I will say (speculate) that "growing" the new d-corps is a longer process than the new forward group simply because d-men need more game experience to reach their potential than forwards do. Therefore I don't think it's necessarily a sign that this "new direction" is more lip service than true intention, but then it begs the question - why not insert young d-men AND young forwards into the lineup at the same time? I will also say the young forwards group is more clearly defined in terms of numbers and experience than the young d-men group. With Dach, DCat and Kubalik at least somewhat established NHL players - there's 3 of the top-9. Strome and Nylander could be 2 more, whereas Boqvist is the only young d-man with more than a handful of NHL games and he has only half a season. Maybe that's a long winding road answer to how it makes sense to bring in the Marks Bros - the answer being that you need 12 forwards in the starting lineup and it isn't a good idea that more than half of them be young and inexperienced. There is a need to have other forwards in the lineup who provide solid NHL level play and the Marks Bros do that. Having Boqvist, Carlsson and Mitchell in the lineup would be 3 of the 6 (50%), similar to the forward group where Dach, DCat, Kubalik are in for sure with Strome, Nylander, Suter, and Highmore probably in, that's at least 50% too.
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Nov 14, 2020 20:28:04 GMT -6
I agree that wins and losses shouldn't matter next year and maybe the one after it too but why then bring in two vets like the Marks Bros instead of playing kids? That's a good question, and one I don't have the answer for. It seems bringing in the Marks Bros is another one that goes on the "huh?" side of the ledger. I will say (speculate) that "growing" the new d-corps is a longer process than the new forward group simply because d-men need more game experience to reach their potential than forwards do. Therefore I don't think it's necessarily a sign that this "new direction" is more lip service than true intention, but then it begs the question - why not insert young d-men AND young forwards into the lineup at the same time? I will also say the young forwards group is more clearly defined in terms of numbers and experience than the young d-men group. With Dach, DCat and Kubalik at least somewhat established NHL players - there's 3 of the top-9. Strome and Nylander could be 2 more, whereas Boqvist is the only young d-man with more than a handful of NHL games and he has only half a season. Maybe that's a long winding road answer to how it makes sense to bring in the Marks Bros - the answer being that you need 12 forwards in the starting lineup and it isn't a good idea that more than half of them be young and inexperienced. There is a need to have other forwards in the lineup who provide solid NHL level play and the Marks Bros do that. Having Boqvist, Carlsson and Mitchell in the lineup would be 3 of the 6 (50%), similar to the forward group where Dach, DCat, Kubalik are in for sure with Strome, Nylander, Suter, and Highmore probably in, that's at least 50% too. Wins and losses don't matter next year.....right my friend? Add the Marx Bros to Shaw and Smith,who'll both have had PLENTY of time to heal and 29yro Carpenter and that's a lot of veteran presence for a team not in need of wins. Kane and Toews will probably finish their deals here and that's a lot of solid NHL level play right there too and once again........do we want to win games or get kids in there? You ask the the same questions I ask like,"why not play the young D-men and the young forwards at the same time"? Isn't this how young teams grow and develop together? I appreciate your optimism,especially with Nolander....... but all he'll do next year is take a spot from a guy like Kurashev. If we see Seabs,Smith and Shaw back in the lineup that 'youngest team in the PO's' tag will change quite a bit and the Marks Bros are in their mid to late 20's also. Maybe the goaltending itself loses enough games to get a high pick but you gotta admit that the rest of the roster is good enough to sniff a spot and therefore I sniff a rat. If the young GT's do get creamed,that's not a good thing for young GT's and if the rest of the team can somehow carry the goaltending to a record around .500,it's more no man's land. I put a lot of stuff in the "huh?" side of the ledger myself and I'd amitt it if I saw what I thought was a real rebuild but I do NOT see a FO that's willing to be bad enough to achieve a rebuild's goal.
|
|
|
Post by ebonyraptor on Nov 14, 2020 20:56:40 GMT -6
That's a good question, and one I don't have the answer for. It seems bringing in the Marks Bros is another one that goes on the "huh?" side of the ledger. I will say (speculate) that "growing" the new d-corps is a longer process than the new forward group simply because d-men need more game experience to reach their potential than forwards do. Therefore I don't think it's necessarily a sign that this "new direction" is more lip service than true intention, but then it begs the question - why not insert young d-men AND young forwards into the lineup at the same time? I will also say the young forwards group is more clearly defined in terms of numbers and experience than the young d-men group. With Dach, DCat and Kubalik at least somewhat established NHL players - there's 3 of the top-9. Strome and Nylander could be 2 more, whereas Boqvist is the only young d-man with more than a handful of NHL games and he has only half a season. Maybe that's a long winding road answer to how it makes sense to bring in the Marks Bros - the answer being that you need 12 forwards in the starting lineup and it isn't a good idea that more than half of them be young and inexperienced. There is a need to have other forwards in the lineup who provide solid NHL level play and the Marks Bros do that. Having Boqvist, Carlsson and Mitchell in the lineup would be 3 of the 6 (50%), similar to the forward group where Dach, DCat, Kubalik are in for sure with Strome, Nylander, Suter, and Highmore probably in, that's at least 50% too. Wins and losses don't matter next year.....right my friend? Add the Marx Bros to Shaw and Smith,who'll both have had PLENTY of time to heal and 29yro Carpenter and that's a lot of veteran presence for a team not in need of wins. Kane and Toews will probably finish their deals here and that's a lot of solid NHL level play right there too and once again........do we want to win games or get kids in there? You ask the the same questions I ask like,"why not play the young D-men and the young forwards at the same time"? Isn't this how young teams grow and develop together? I appreciate your optimism,especially with Nolander....... but all he'll do next year is take a spot from a guy like Kurashev. If we see Seabs,Smith and Shaw back in the lineup that 'youngest team in the PO's' tag will change quite a bit and the Marks Bros are in their mid to late 20's also. Maybe the goaltending itself loses enough games to get a high pick but you gotta admit that the rest of the roster is good enough to sniff a spot and therefore I sniff a rat. If the young GT's do get creamed,that's not a good thing for young GT's and if the rest of the team can somehow carry the goaltending to a record around .500,it's more no man's land. I put a lot of stuff in the "huh?" side of the ledger myself and I'd amitt it if I saw what I thought was a real rebuild but I do NOT see a FO that's willing to be bad enough to achieve a rebuild's goal. If I were sitting in Stan's chair heading into the 2021 season, I would have done things differently. But, I have to offer this caveat: I'm not privy to inside information nor do I have an appreciation for the realities of trading players. It's easy for me to sit on my high horse and say I would do this and I would do that, but I suspect it's not quite as easy as I make it sound. Plus, there's still time before the 2021 season starts so let's see what happens.
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Nov 15, 2020 9:04:03 GMT -6
Wins and losses don't matter next year.....right my friend? Add the Marx Bros to Shaw and Smith,who'll both have had PLENTY of time to heal and 29yro Carpenter and that's a lot of veteran presence for a team not in need of wins. Kane and Toews will probably finish their deals here and that's a lot of solid NHL level play right there too and once again........do we want to win games or get kids in there? You ask the the same questions I ask like,"why not play the young D-men and the young forwards at the same time"? Isn't this how young teams grow and develop together? I appreciate your optimism,especially with Nolander....... but all he'll do next year is take a spot from a guy like Kurashev. If we see Seabs,Smith and Shaw back in the lineup that 'youngest team in the PO's' tag will change quite a bit and the Marks Bros are in their mid to late 20's also. Maybe the goaltending itself loses enough games to get a high pick but you gotta admit that the rest of the roster is good enough to sniff a spot and therefore I sniff a rat. If the young GT's do get creamed,that's not a good thing for young GT's and if the rest of the team can somehow carry the goaltending to a record around .500,it's more no man's land. I put a lot of stuff in the "huh?" side of the ledger myself and I'd amitt it if I saw what I thought was a real rebuild but I do NOT see a FO that's willing to be bad enough to achieve a rebuild's goal. If I were sitting in Stan's chair heading into the 2021 season, I would have done things differently. But, I have to offer this caveat: I'm not privy to inside information nor do I have an appreciation for the realities of trading players. It's easy for me to sit on my high horse and say I would do this and I would do that, but I suspect it's not quite as easy as I make it sound. Plus, there's still time before the 2021 season starts so let's see what happens. Me and my high horse are about the only chatter goin' on here but we can ride off into the sunset.
|
|
|
Post by ebonyraptor on Nov 15, 2020 10:42:08 GMT -6
If I were sitting in Stan's chair heading into the 2021 season, I would have done things differently. But, I have to offer this caveat: I'm not privy to inside information nor do I have an appreciation for the realities of trading players. It's easy for me to sit on my high horse and say I would do this and I would do that, but I suspect it's not quite as easy as I make it sound. Plus, there's still time before the 2021 season starts so let's see what happens. Me and my high horse are about the only chatter goin' on here but we can ride off into the sunset. I didn't mean you were on your high horse - I meant commenters in general, including me, tend to sit above the fray and make our proclamations as if we had some special insight into the subject. Internet blogs foster this expertise confidence because there's no cost to being wrong so it's the wild west of bloviation. I don't want to change anything about internet blogging, only to acknowledge that we all have a tendency to make our opinions sound like facts to support our positions when in reality things are usually more complex than we know.
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Nov 15, 2020 11:23:23 GMT -6
Me and my high horse are about the only chatter goin' on here but we can ride off into the sunset. I didn't mean you were on your high horse - I meant commenters in general, including me, tend to sit above the fray and make our proclamations as if we had some special insight into the subject. Internet blogs foster this expertise confidence because there's no cost to being wrong so it's the wild west of bloviation. I don't want to change anything about internet blogging, only to acknowledge that we all have a tendency to make our opinions sound like facts to support our positions when in reality things are usually more complex than we know. I don't mention things like a de Haan buyout because some wanna be inter-net reporter mentioned it,I mention it because other teams do it all the time and for much more money and I watch the other team's activities intently. I check out CF nearly every day to see who signed where,who's bought out and who's been moved with money retained. I can talk outta my ass as much as the next guy I guess but I can also explain why I'm doing it. When I've criticized SB's moves in the past,I've also pointed other players who were available at less money for the same or better performance. Do I need "special insight" to post my opinions and by the way,I've never suggested I have "special insight". I guess I do make "proclamations" too but I figured they were just my opinions stated in an effort to keep chatter going. I still struggle to see how a FO can say the core players should of saw the rebuild coming last summer after the FO added over 20M worth of veterans and two more this offseason. I still struggle to see how more than one of the D youngsters gets quality minutes with five veterans lookin' to play and I still see mixed messaging from on high. I enjoy our back n forth er(I can't quit you man!LOL!) but I just see the 'letter' as little more than cover for a failed FO until I see a bunch of kids learning and growing together.......do we have the right kids? How will we know until we get to see em in crucial roles? The 'mixed messaging' and 'cover' I mentioned will allow the FO to say "hey,we're rebuilding....remember" if the team falls flat on it's face and "hey,we're ahead of schedule" if the team's around .500 again. It's seems the FO can't really lose either way.
|
|
|
Post by T-man2010 on Nov 15, 2020 13:12:32 GMT -6
Only One Is on a high horse.
|
|
|
Post by ebonyraptor on Nov 15, 2020 14:22:10 GMT -6
I didn't mean you were on your high horse - I meant commenters in general, including me, tend to sit above the fray and make our proclamations as if we had some special insight into the subject. Internet blogs foster this expertise confidence because there's no cost to being wrong so it's the wild west of bloviation. I don't want to change anything about internet blogging, only to acknowledge that we all have a tendency to make our opinions sound like facts to support our positions when in reality things are usually more complex than we know. I don't mention things like a de Haan buyout because some wanna be inter-net reporter mentioned it,I mention it because other teams do it all the time and for much more money and I watch the other team's activities intently. I check out CF nearly every day to see who signed where,who's bought out and who's been moved with money retained. I can talk outta my ass as much as the next guy I guess but I can also explain why I'm doing it. When I've criticized SB's moves in the past,I've also pointed other players who were available at less money for the same or better performance. Do I need "special insight" to post my opinions and by the way,I've never suggested I have "special insight". I guess I do make "proclamations" too but I figured they were just my opinions stated in an effort to keep chatter going. I still struggle to see how a FO can say the core players should of saw the rebuild coming last summer after the FO added over 20M worth of veterans and two more this offseason. I still struggle to see how more than one of the D youngsters gets quality minutes with five veterans lookin' to play and I still see mixed messaging from on high. I enjoy our back n forth er(I can't quit you man!LOL!) but I just see the 'letter' as little more than cover for a failed FO until I see a bunch of kids learning and growing together.......do we have the right kids? How will we know until we get to see em in crucial roles? The 'mixed messaging' and 'cover' I mentioned will allow the FO to say "hey,we're rebuilding....remember" if the team falls flat on it's face and "hey,we're ahead of schedule" if the team's around .500 again. It's seems the FO can't really lose either way. Bob, my "high horse" comment was not directed at you or anyone else in particular - it was a generalized statement. If taken literally, I was directing at me - hence the first person I used - "It's easy for me to sit on my high horse and say I would do this and I would do that". Also, I did not mean you were speaking out of your ass - my point was that it is my opinion we all tend to think it is easier to be a GM than it actually is. I can and have many times given my opinion on what I think should be done but I readily admit I have only an outside perspective, albeit one where I have studied and kept up to date with the facts that are known to fans.
|
|
|
Post by LordKOTL on Nov 16, 2020 9:06:38 GMT -6
I agree that wins and losses shouldn't matter next year and maybe the one after it too but why then bring in two vets like the Marks Bros instead of playing kids? That's a good question, and one I don't have the answer for. It seems bringing in the Marks Bros is another one that goes on the "huh?" side of the ledger. I will say (speculate) that "growing" the new d-corps is a longer process than the new forward group simply because d-men need more game experience to reach their potential than forwards do. Therefore I don't think it's necessarily a sign that this "new direction" is more lip service than true intention, but then it begs the question - why not insert young d-men AND young forwards into the lineup at the same time? I will also say the young forwards group is more clearly defined in terms of numbers and experience than the young d-men group. With Dach, DCat and Kubalik at least somewhat established NHL players - there's 3 of the top-9. Strome and Nylander could be 2 more, whereas Boqvist is the only young d-man with more than a handful of NHL games and he has only half a season. Maybe that's a long winding road answer to how it makes sense to bring in the Marks Bros - the answer being that you need 12 forwards in the starting lineup and it isn't a good idea that more than half of them be young and inexperienced. There is a need to have other forwards in the lineup who provide solid NHL level play and the Marks Bros do that. Having Boqvist, Carlsson and Mitchell in the lineup would be 3 of the 6 (50%), similar to the forward group where Dach, DCat, Kubalik are in for sure with Strome, Nylander, Suter, and Highmore probably in, that's at least 50% too. Since it does take young D-men longer than FWDs to acclimate to the NHL game, then the logical choice is to get that process started 1st and early. IMHO that's where Bowman the Beancounter failed. That process should have been started in 2019, not 2021.
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Nov 16, 2020 10:05:44 GMT -6
I don't mention things like a de Haan buyout because some wanna be inter-net reporter mentioned it,I mention it because other teams do it all the time and for much more money and I watch the other team's activities intently. I check out CF nearly every day to see who signed where,who's bought out and who's been moved with money retained. I can talk outta my ass as much as the next guy I guess but I can also explain why I'm doing it. When I've criticized SB's moves in the past,I've also pointed other players who were available at less money for the same or better performance. Do I need "special insight" to post my opinions and by the way,I've never suggested I have "special insight". I guess I do make "proclamations" too but I figured they were just my opinions stated in an effort to keep chatter going. I still struggle to see how a FO can say the core players should of saw the rebuild coming last summer after the FO added over 20M worth of veterans and two more this offseason. I still struggle to see how more than one of the D youngsters gets quality minutes with five veterans lookin' to play and I still see mixed messaging from on high. I enjoy our back n forth er(I can't quit you man!LOL!) but I just see the 'letter' as little more than cover for a failed FO until I see a bunch of kids learning and growing together.......do we have the right kids? How will we know until we get to see em in crucial roles? The 'mixed messaging' and 'cover' I mentioned will allow the FO to say "hey,we're rebuilding....remember" if the team falls flat on it's face and "hey,we're ahead of schedule" if the team's around .500 again. It's seems the FO can't really lose either way. Bob, my "high horse" comment was not directed at you or anyone else in particular - it was a generalized statement. If taken literally, I was directing at me - hence the first person I used - "It's easy for me to sit on my high horse and say I would do this and I would do that". Also, I did not mean you were speaking out of your ass - my point was that it is my opinion we all tend to think it is easier to be a GM than it actually is. I can and have many times given my opinion on what I think should be done but I readily admit I have only an outside perspective, albeit one where I have studied and kept up to date with the facts that are known to fans. No offense taken or anything like that but I am missing your point a bit..... Is it fair to say a "generalized statement" is directed at all? Since I'm part of the whole,I just want to point out that I post my opinion......should I/WE not do this because we're not insiders? None of us ever sat in a GM's chair and that's a fact but should that fact keep us from posting our opinions? Isn't this what happens on message boards? I'M the one who said I speak out of my ass and make proclamations because like the rest of us......I do.....it's a message board. GM's a lot more successful than SB get criticized and critiqued on the inter-net......you see this too,right? Do want to stifle the LITTLE banter we have here or just the criticism of SB?
|
|
|
Post by BigT on Nov 16, 2020 15:56:03 GMT -6
Just to chime in for a hot minute here. I highly suggest everyone listen to the interview of Stan with Barstool chief that Vadar posted.
Stan said that Boqvist needs protection. So that’s why they got Zadorov. So there’s one partnership. It sounded like Mitchell will make it, but play limited minutes. So I’d look for a vet dman to be moved closer to the deadline so Mitchell can get larger mins.
It also sounds like Keith will not be part of the first PP. It sounds like it’s going to be Kane, Dcat, Dach, Boqvist and Kubalik. The 2nd unit will probably be Toews Strome Keith, Mitchell Shaw. Not chipped in stone, but it sounds like Stan wants to give the reigns over to the younger kids and let them live and die with it. So it doesn’t matter who’s gonna win an offensive zone faceoff, or who’s gonna be the muscle on a line, Stan has his plan and he’s gonna see it through.
The pp stuff I don’t mind so much, it’ll suck to see Toews at 32 get demoted to 2nd line center. I don’t think he’s there yet or even near. But it is a rebuild so the vets are supposed to be on board. I think the idea this year is to tank, and hide the good players where they won’t make a massive impact. If Stan can get Dach, Dcat and Kubalik a ton of points and the team sucks, it’s a win win for him. His guys are producing and he gets a solid pick again. This is the best case scenario for Stan!!!
|
|
|
Post by Tater on Nov 17, 2020 1:16:03 GMT -6
Just to chime in for a hot minute here. I highly suggest everyone listen to the interview of Stan with Barstool chief that Vadar posted. Stan said that Boqvist needs protection. So that’s why they got Zadorov. So there’s one partnership. It sounded like Mitchell will make it, but play limited minutes. So I’d look for a vet dman to be moved closer to the deadline so Mitchell can get larger mins. It also sounds like Keith will not be part of the first PP. It sounds like it’s going to be Kane, Dcat, Dach, Boqvist and Kubalik. The 2nd unit will probably be Toews Strome Keith, Mitchell Shaw. Not chipped in stone, but it sounds like Stan wants to give the reigns over to the younger kids and let them live and die with it. So it doesn’t matter who’s gonna win an offensive zone faceoff, or who’s gonna be the muscle on a line, Stan has his plan and he’s gonna see it through. The pp stuff I don’t mind so much, it’ll suck to see Toews at 32 get demoted to 2nd line center. I don’t think he’s there yet or even near. But it is a rebuild so the vets are supposed to be on board. I think the idea this year is to tank, and hide the good players where they won’t make a massive impact. If Stan can get Dach, Dcat and Kubalik a ton of points and the team sucks, it’s a win win for him. His guys are producing and he gets a solid pick again. This is the best case scenario for Stan!!! Dach ahead of Toews would be brutal at this point. Dach has a lot of work to do to improve his faceoffs. I guess if they want to tank then it's a good plan.
I say that as a huge Dach fan.
|
|
|
Post by BigT on Nov 17, 2020 6:49:20 GMT -6
Just to chime in for a hot minute here. I highly suggest everyone listen to the interview of Stan with Barstool chief that Vadar posted. Stan said that Boqvist needs protection. So that’s why they got Zadorov. So there’s one partnership. It sounded like Mitchell will make it, but play limited minutes. So I’d look for a vet dman to be moved closer to the deadline so Mitchell can get larger mins. It also sounds like Keith will not be part of the first PP. It sounds like it’s going to be Kane, Dcat, Dach, Boqvist and Kubalik. The 2nd unit will probably be Toews Strome Keith, Mitchell Shaw. Not chipped in stone, but it sounds like Stan wants to give the reigns over to the younger kids and let them live and die with it. So it doesn’t matter who’s gonna win an offensive zone faceoff, or who’s gonna be the muscle on a line, Stan has his plan and he’s gonna see it through. The pp stuff I don’t mind so much, it’ll suck to see Toews at 32 get demoted to 2nd line center. I don’t think he’s there yet or even near. But it is a rebuild so the vets are supposed to be on board. I think the idea this year is to tank, and hide the good players where they won’t make a massive impact. If Stan can get Dach, Dcat and Kubalik a ton of points and the team sucks, it’s a win win for him. His guys are producing and he gets a solid pick again. This is the best case scenario for Stan!!! Dach ahead of Toews would be brutal at this point. Dach has a lot of work to do to improve his faceoffs. I guess if they want to tank then it's a good plan.
I say that as a huge Dach fan.
If the goal is to truly rebuild, I don’t mind seeing what the kids can do. I doubt any kid starts the year as a starter. But they should end as one. They’ll never get better always waiting for more mins. Just like how Toews and Kane got them as rookies/2nd year guys. I see the same needed now. I’m just not sold we have the same amount or caliber of guys we did before!!!
|
|
|
Post by ebonyraptor on Nov 17, 2020 9:44:04 GMT -6
Bob, my "high horse" comment was not directed at you or anyone else in particular - it was a generalized statement. If taken literally, I was directing at me - hence the first person I used - "It's easy for me to sit on my high horse and say I would do this and I would do that". Also, I did not mean you were speaking out of your ass - my point was that it is my opinion we all tend to think it is easier to be a GM than it actually is. I can and have many times given my opinion on what I think should be done but I readily admit I have only an outside perspective, albeit one where I have studied and kept up to date with the facts that are known to fans. No offense taken or anything like that but I am missing your point a bit..... Is it fair to say a "generalized statement" is directed at all? Since I'm part of the whole,I just want to point out that I post my opinion......should I/WE not do this because we're not insiders? None of us ever sat in a GM's chair and that's a fact but should that fact keep us from posting our opinions? Isn't this what happens on message boards? I'M the one who said I speak out of my ass and make proclamations because like the rest of us......I do.....it's a message board. GM's a lot more successful than SB get criticized and critiqued on the inter-net......you see this too,right? Do want to stifle the LITTLE banter we have here or just the criticism of SB? Of course we should post our opinions - that's the purpose of message boards. My "high horse" post was as much a mea culpa as anything else - the point being that although my opinion is based on the information I have - past, present and realistic projection - it is still ignorant because I don't have all the information that the Hawks brain trust has. Acknowledging that doesn't mean I shouldn't participate in a forum designed for expressing opinions - only that sometimes I need to dismount, plant my feet on the ground and check myself.
|
|
|
Post by T-man2010 on Nov 17, 2020 9:56:51 GMT -6
No offense taken or anything like that but I am missing your point a bit..... Is it fair to say a "generalized statement" is directed at all? Since I'm part of the whole,I just want to point out that I post my opinion......should I/WE not do this because we're not insiders? None of us ever sat in a GM's chair and that's a fact but should that fact keep us from posting our opinions? Isn't this what happens on message boards? I'M the one who said I speak out of my ass and make proclamations because like the rest of us......I do.....it's a message board. GM's a lot more successful than SB get criticized and critiqued on the inter-net......you see this too,right? Do want to stifle the LITTLE banter we have here or just the criticism of SB? Of course we should post our opinions - that's the purpose of message boards. My "high horse" post was as much a mea culpa as anything else - the point being that although my opinion is based on the information I have - past, present and realistic projection - it is still ignorant because I don't have all the information that the Hawks brain trust has. Acknowledging that doesn't mean I shouldn't participate in a forum designed for expressing opinions - only that sometimes I need to dismount, plant my feet on the ground and check myself.Like the Hawks, checking is not allowed on these boards......<SARC>
|
|
|
Post by ebonyraptor on Nov 17, 2020 10:57:22 GMT -6
Of course we should post our opinions - that's the purpose of message boards. My "high horse" post was as much a mea culpa as anything else - the point being that although my opinion is based on the information I have - past, present and realistic projection - it is still ignorant because I don't have all the information that the Hawks brain trust has. Acknowledging that doesn't mean I shouldn't participate in a forum designed for expressing opinions - only that sometimes I need to dismount, plant my feet on the ground and check myself.Like the Hawks, checking is not allowed on these boards......<SARC> Or, as James Brown would sing "ooo, jump back n kiss m'self".
|
|