30
|
Post by mvr on Apr 20, 2024 10:19:47 GMT -6
This present general manager has gotten away with too much (in my opinion).
He suggested that Kane and Toews would be negative influences on the team culture because they would crowd out the young leadership as it develops. Then he immediately added several veterans from other organizations. This seems highly hypocritical (at least to my mind). Few seem to be calling him out (in my opinion). Many seem to be making excuses (ie the Beach fallout) (in my opinion)
Machiavelli wrote about ends justifying means. I do not subscribe to this idea. If a thief robs a bank, he gets rich so long as he does not caught. The end result is great (at least for him). But the thief still robbed the bank. It was wrong to do it (in my opinion).
I see Davidson as disloyal and disingenuous (if this represents character assassination - so be it). Toews and Kane deserved a better final outcome (in my opinion). They made us all very happy for a long time (fact).
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Apr 20, 2024 14:23:38 GMT -6
Did 'Edzo' have the stench on him too? If so,why offer any contract? If not,why offer one sure to make him leave? Was his extraordinarily high level of hockey knowledge and player assessment seen as a negative for some reason? Anybody 100% sure Pat Foley was ready to retire?
It can appear the league's youngest owner and youngest GM see the 'dried-in-the-wool' hockey guy as nothing more than a relic,Luke and Maciver are really the only two with the Org. Derick King doesn't count.....he belongs in the AHL.
'Harry Potter' belonged in the AHL too......if that. His tenure here was a disaster,was the new GM in on that decision? Or just the good ones?
Few relics but ELEVEN of the best and brightest architects,analyists,data scientists and software engineers in the 'Hockey Strategy & Analitics' dept......what could go wrong?
|
|
Granada
4th Liner
Posts: 160
Likes: 182
|
Post by Granada on Apr 29, 2024 9:01:08 GMT -6
This present general manager has gotten away with too much (in my opinion). He suggested that Kane and Toews would be negative influences on the team culture because they would crowd out the young leadership as it develops. Then he immediately added several veterans from other organizations. This seems highly hypocritical (at least to my mind). Few seem to be calling him out (in my opinion). Many seem to be making excuses (ie the Beach fallout) (in my opinion) Machiavelli wrote about ends justifying means. I do not subscribe to this idea. If a thief robs a bank, he gets rich so long as he does not caught. The end result is great (at least for him). But the thief still robbed the bank. It was wrong to do it (in my opinion). I see Davidson as disloyal and disingenuous (if this represents character assassination - so be it). Toews and Kane deserved a better final outcome (in my opinion). They made us all very happy for a long time (fact). I've seen people play dumb a lot when it comes this and the bolded. I'm not sure why. Well actually, I guess I am sure why -- because it's convenient for their argument (that Davidson's the boogeyman because he executed common-sense moves that involved moving core members) -- but said convenience overshadows the easily-explainable notion that outside vets drastically differ from "lifelong" veterans when it comes to establishing a new leadership core. Strip Toews/Kane of their letters all you want, but if they were here, they'd still be the defacto leaders of that locker room, and we all know it. Let's not pretend otherwise. Also, I'm not sure why people choose to play dumb as to why outside veterans were brought in. First and foremost, because they're cost and term controlled. Second, every team in the NHL needs vets, even rebuilding teams. Outside vets aren't forever-established leaders/legends in the locker room. It isn't complicated why a GM would want to bring in new veterans for a new team/core.
|
|
|
Post by mvr on Apr 29, 2024 10:12:43 GMT -6
This present general manager has gotten away with too much (in my opinion). He suggested that Kane and Toews would be negative influences on the team culture because they would crowd out the young leadership as it develops. Then he immediately added several veterans from other organizations. This seems highly hypocritical (at least to my mind). Few seem to be calling him out (in my opinion). Many seem to be making excuses (ie the Beach fallout) (in my opinion) Machiavelli wrote about ends justifying means. I do not subscribe to this idea. If a thief robs a bank, he gets rich so long as he does not caught. The end result is great (at least for him). But the thief still robbed the bank. It was wrong to do it (in my opinion). I see Davidson as disloyal and disingenuous (if this represents character assassination - so be it). Toews and Kane deserved a better final outcome (in my opinion). They made us all very happy for a long time (fact). I've seen people play dumb a lot when it comes this and the bolded. I'm not sure why. Well actually, I guess I am sure why -- because it's convenient for their argument (that Davidson's the boogeyman because he executed common-sense moves that involved moving core members) -- but said convenience overshadows the easily-explainable notion that outside vets drastically differ from "lifelong" veterans when it comes to establishing a new leadership core. Strip Toews/Kane of their letters all you want, but if they were here, they'd still be the defacto leaders of that locker room, and we all know it. Let's not pretend otherwise. Also, I'm not sure why people choose to play dumb as to why outside veterans were brought in. First and foremost, because they're cost and term controlled. Second, every team in the NHL needs vets, even rebuilding teams. Outside vets aren't forever-established leaders/legends in the locker room. It isn't complicated why a GM would want to bring in new veterans for a new team/core. Nobody is playing dumb here. We reject the Davidson argument. The team did not need a new leadership core. The existing one had led the team to three cups and helped plenty of young players develop into NHL players (Debrincat, Panarin etc). Did Anze Kopitar and Drew Doughty's presence damage the Kings rebuild? Did Henri Richard and Yvon Cournoyer hold back Guy Lafleur and Steve Shutt? Was Mario a problem for Sidney? If anything, "lifelong" veterans help with a transition. Where is Davidson's evidence suggesting it hurts? Kane and Toews would not have damaged the young leadership. They would have been better for the team than "new leadership core" brought in from the outside. We have no idea what they would have re-signed for if given the opportunity. Davidson made the decision for them.
|
|
|
Post by mvr on Apr 29, 2024 10:18:21 GMT -6
We'll see if the return for Kane (a 2nd and a 4th) amounts to anything.
We know already that Davidson received nothing for showing Toews the door.
|
|
|
Post by LordKOTL on Apr 29, 2024 10:19:13 GMT -6
This present general manager has gotten away with too much (in my opinion). He suggested that Kane and Toews would be negative influences on the team culture because they would crowd out the young leadership as it develops. Then he immediately added several veterans from other organizations. This seems highly hypocritical (at least to my mind). Few seem to be calling him out (in my opinion). Many seem to be making excuses (ie the Beach fallout) (in my opinion) Machiavelli wrote about ends justifying means. I do not subscribe to this idea. If a thief robs a bank, he gets rich so long as he does not caught. The end result is great (at least for him). But the thief still robbed the bank. It was wrong to do it (in my opinion). I see Davidson as disloyal and disingenuous (if this represents character assassination - so be it). Toews and Kane deserved a better final outcome (in my opinion). They made us all very happy for a long time (fact). I've seen people play dumb a lot when it comes this and the bolded. I'm not sure why. Well actually, I guess I am sure why -- because it's convenient for their argument (that Davidson's the boogeyman because he executed common-sense moves that involved moving core members) -- but said convenience overshadows the easily-explainable notion that outside vets drastically differ from "lifelong" veterans when it comes to establishing a new leadership core. Strip Toews/Kane of their letters all you want, but if they were here, they'd still be the defacto leaders of that locker room, and we all know it. Let's not pretend otherwise. Also, I'm not sure why people choose to play dumb as to why outside veterans were brought in. First and foremost, because they're cost and term controlled. Second, every team in the NHL needs vets, even rebuilding teams. Outside vets aren't forever-established leaders/legends in the locker room. It isn't complicated why a GM would want to bring in new veterans for a new team/core. Even in the simplest form, how many guys like Kurashev would defer to guys like Toews and Kane over trying to make plays on their own? Plus, we can't forget that none of Toews, Kane, Keith, or Seabrook played with longtime established 'hawk vets who were the team anchors. No Roenik, Chelios, etc. Now, if Toews and Kane were willing to take secondary roles, less ice time, and defer their own stats to be mentors, then fine, but it didn't sound like it from anything in the media. It's s tricky situation. In one hand it would have been nice to keep Toews and Kane on paper to mentor the next Gen. On the other hand, if they wanted to play to win and not be in a rebuild, it was for the best to let them go.
|
|
|
Post by mvr on Apr 29, 2024 10:27:58 GMT -6
Would Kurashev (and Bedard) now have increased confidence if being set up by Kane on a regular basis?
Would Toews' defence and faceoff game helped in Reichel's development and settle down the young defence?
I am quite confident if Toews and Kane remained here, this team would have been much better.
|
|
Granada
4th Liner
Posts: 160
Likes: 182
|
Post by Granada on Apr 29, 2024 10:30:27 GMT -6
I've seen people play dumb a lot when it comes this and the bolded. I'm not sure why. Well actually, I guess I am sure why -- because it's convenient for their argument (that Davidson's the boogeyman because he executed common-sense moves that involved moving core members) -- but said convenience overshadows the easily-explainable notion that outside vets drastically differ from "lifelong" veterans when it comes to establishing a new leadership core. Strip Toews/Kane of their letters all you want, but if they were here, they'd still be the defacto leaders of that locker room, and we all know it. Let's not pretend otherwise. Also, I'm not sure why people choose to play dumb as to why outside veterans were brought in. First and foremost, because they're cost and term controlled. Second, every team in the NHL needs vets, even rebuilding teams. Outside vets aren't forever-established leaders/legends in the locker room. It isn't complicated why a GM would want to bring in new veterans for a new team/core. Nobody is playing dumb here. We reject the Davidson argument. The team did not need a new leadership core. The existing one had led the team to three cups and helped plenty of young players develop into NHL players (Debrincat, Panarin etc). Did Anze Kopitar and Drew Doughty's presence damage the Kings rebuild? Did Henri Richard and Yvon Cournoyer hold back Guy Lafleur and Steve Shutt? Was Mario a problem for Sidney? If anything, "lifelong" veterans help with a transition. Where is Davidson's evidence suggesting it hurts? Kane and Toews would not have damaged the young leadership. They would have been better for the team than "new leadership core" brought in from the outside. We have no idea what they would have re-signed for if given the opportunity. Davidson made the decision for them. The existing core was also in their mid-thirties and injury prone, including Kane at the time before his hip surgery. So yeah, they needed a new leadership core. How this is even up for a debate, I'm not sure. It's common sense. Having Toews/Kane here would have loomed too large for any other new leadership to rise, including Bedard. Having them not here makes this officially Bedard's team now, as it should be. And if you want to bring up Pittsburgh, where has retaining their old core gotten them recently? It was time to move on. Having either of them here another year or two would have been 100% pointless.
|
|
Granada
4th Liner
Posts: 160
Likes: 182
|
Post by Granada on Apr 29, 2024 10:43:22 GMT -6
I've seen people play dumb a lot when it comes this and the bolded. I'm not sure why. Well actually, I guess I am sure why -- because it's convenient for their argument (that Davidson's the boogeyman because he executed common-sense moves that involved moving core members) -- but said convenience overshadows the easily-explainable notion that outside vets drastically differ from "lifelong" veterans when it comes to establishing a new leadership core. Strip Toews/Kane of their letters all you want, but if they were here, they'd still be the defacto leaders of that locker room, and we all know it. Let's not pretend otherwise. Also, I'm not sure why people choose to play dumb as to why outside veterans were brought in. First and foremost, because they're cost and term controlled. Second, every team in the NHL needs vets, even rebuilding teams. Outside vets aren't forever-established leaders/legends in the locker room. It isn't complicated why a GM would want to bring in new veterans for a new team/core. Even in the simplest form, how many guys like Kurashev would defer to guys like Toews and Kane over trying to make plays on their own? Plus, we can't forget that none of Toews, Kane, Keith, or Seabrook played with longtime established 'hawk vets who were the team anchors. No Roenik, Chelios, etc.Now, if Toews and Kane were willing to take secondary roles, less ice time, and defer their own stats to be mentors, then fine, but it didn't sound like it from anything in the media. It's s tricky situation. In one hand it would have been nice to keep Toews and Kane on paper to mentor the next Gen. On the other hand, if they wanted to play to win and not be in a rebuild, it was for the best to let them go. The bolded is exactly right. And do you know who they (not just the core but guys like Buff, Bolland, etc.) did play with? Cost and term controlled short-term veterans like Lang, Lapointe, Aucoin, Smoke, Williams, etc. New vets that were brought in during the training-wheel phase and who were essentially jettisoned soon after.
|
|
|
Post by mvr on Apr 29, 2024 11:25:05 GMT -6
Nobody is playing dumb here. We reject the Davidson argument. The team did not need a new leadership core. The existing one had led the team to three cups and helped plenty of young players develop into NHL players (Debrincat, Panarin etc). Did Anze Kopitar and Drew Doughty's presence damage the Kings rebuild? Did Henri Richard and Yvon Cournoyer hold back Guy Lafleur and Steve Shutt? Was Mario a problem for Sidney? If anything, "lifelong" veterans help with a transition. Where is Davidson's evidence suggesting it hurts? Kane and Toews would not have damaged the young leadership. They would have been better for the team than "new leadership core" brought in from the outside. We have no idea what they would have re-signed for if given the opportunity. Davidson made the decision for them. The existing core was also in their mid-thirties and injury prone, including Kane at the time before his hip surgery. So yeah, they needed a new leadership core. How this is even up for a debate, I'm not sure. It's common sense. Having Toews/Kane here would have loomed too large for any other new leadership to rise, including Bedard. Having them not here makes this officially Bedard's team now, as it should be. And if you want to bring up Pittsburgh, where has retaining their old core gotten them recently? It was time to move on. Having either of them here another year or two would have been 100% pointless. Bedard is 18 years old. He is more than a few years from taking over as team leader. I see no evidence suggesting that having core veterans around for a few years showing a young phenom the ropes hurts that player's development. Clearly, Mario Lemieux's existence on the Penguin's roster (and later ownership group) did not damage Sidney Crosby in the slightest. It almost certainly helped. At the very least, Kane and Toews continued presence would have reduced Bedard's exposure to the hounding press everywhere he went (which is not "pointless"). The "new leadership core" Davidson brought in guided this team to a 31st place season - among the worst teams statistically in Hawks history. Several of the young kids, Reichel in particular, regressed under this "new leadership." The one big advantage of guys like Folingo and AA - they will largely keep their mouths shut so long as the money flows........ and really, that's the point here. Kane and Toews openly rejected the total scorched earth strip down. This is likely the main reason why they are gone.
|
|
|
Post by T-man2010 on Apr 29, 2024 11:33:48 GMT -6
The existing core was also in their mid-thirties and injury prone, including Kane at the time before his hip surgery. So yeah, they needed a new leadership core. How this is even up for a debate, I'm not sure. It's common sense. Having Toews/Kane here would have loomed too large for any other new leadership to rise, including Bedard. Having them not here makes this officially Bedard's team now, as it should be. And if you want to bring up Pittsburgh, where has retaining their old core gotten them recently? It was time to move on. Having either of them here another year or two would have been 100% pointless. Bedard is 18 years old. He is more than a few years from taking over as team leader. I see no evidence suggesting that having core veterans around for a few years showing a young phenom the ropes hurts that player's development. Clearly, Mario Lemieux's existence on the Penguin's roster (and later ownership group) did not damage Sidney Crosby in the slightest. It almost certainly helped. At the very least, Kane and Toews continued presence would have reduced Bedard's exposure to the hounding press everywhere he went (which is not "pointless"). The "new leadership core" Davidson brought in guided this team to a 31st place season - among the worst teams statistically in Hawks history. Several of the young kids, Reichel in particular, regressed under this "new leadership." The one big advantage of guys like Folingo and AA - they will largely keep their mouths shut so long as the money flows........ and really, that's the point here. Kane and Toews openly rejected the total scorched earth strip down. This is likely the main reason why they are gone. Is that the 26 games Sidney and Mario played together?
|
|
|
Post by mvr on Apr 29, 2024 11:35:15 GMT -6
The two not only played together, but they lived together, as Lemieux took the young phenom under his wing and allowed him to stay with his family for the first five seasons of his career.
|
|
|
Post by T-man2010 on Apr 29, 2024 11:57:45 GMT -6
They played all of 26 games. That ain't crap.
And who knows if Toews isn't giving advice to CB.
And Kane has always played with rookies from other teams during summer leagues.
|
|
|
Post by mvr on Apr 29, 2024 12:17:13 GMT -6
They played all of 26 games. That ain't crap. And who knows if Toews isn't giving advice to CB. And Kane has always played with rookies from other teams during summer leagues. Shooing your franchise players away like they were disposable parts is not going to encourage them to help build the next group. We have not seen or heard from Toews in a year. Kane's victory lap around the United Centre after scoring in overtime felt almost bitter, as if he was telling the present roster he had an axe to grind with their management group. Davidson cast his core players aside. He did not give them the option of making their own decisions (or at the very least, attempting negotiations on a contract offer). We will see how quickly they return to the organization. To me, we are now coming full circle. One thing Rocky did well was to repair the damage done by his father and Bob Pulford. He welcomed back Mikita, Hull, Esposito, Savard and others - core players from previous generations as "team ambassadors," each one of whom, it should be noted, had left the team for many years with a bitter taste. I always felt repairing this damage so was much more than just about marketing: it helped root a group of young players to the organization and its legacy. The players in the cup years felt there was no better organization to play for. I wonder if anyone feels that way now.
|
|
|
Post by mvr on Apr 29, 2024 12:40:17 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by OldTimeHawky on Apr 29, 2024 13:16:09 GMT -6
That doesn't prove he didn't want out, of course he said it'd be an honor and a privilege to play his entire career with one franchise, because it would be, but he also said he didn't want to be part of a rebuild. If KD kept Hagel, Debrincat, Strome, etc, Kane would still be here but the Hawks system would be depleted. As tough as it was to see Kane in NY and Detroit it's what was best for the franchise because he needed hip surgery and his future was unknown, so he was traded to a team that was supposed to be a contender and the Hawks at least got something. But now that he proved his hip is good KD should try and bring him back. I'm sure Bedard would like that.
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Apr 30, 2024 8:40:11 GMT -6
Would Kurashev (and Bedard) now have increased confidence if being set up by Kane on a regular basis? Would Toews' defence and faceoff game helped in Reichel's development and settle down the young defence? I am quite confident if Toews and Kane remained here, this team would have been much better. We've both mentioned the number of young players who absolutely excelled playing with K&T over the years. The Breadman is gonna be great regardless who he's with but his assimilation to the league was seamless with Kane,as was D-Cat's. Buff,Brouwer and Versteeg all played well on lines with Kane and/or Toews at times too. Saad played his formative years with JT and went on to be a reliable two-way NHL forward. Guys like Kubalik and Panik had solid years breaking-in with JT and TT went on to a good career after breaking-in with K&T.......as did 20yros Shaw and Kruger. Saad,Shaw and Kruger all broke-in @20 and all three contributed in the regular AND postseason because they must have felt comfortable.......they were also well coached. Strome also played well with Kane right from the start,but I guess it wasn't enough to impress the 'brain trust'! Alex DeBrincat was ecstatic to have his former linemate and best friend join his team last December,the mentoring bond created between the young player and the aging superstar remained strong. You'd think Patrick Kane's near point per game return would have left his doubters/critics with egg on their faces. Why convince JT to lace em up for another year or two when you can bring-in a 38yro D-bag who embarrassed the entire organization for 4M? Why offer Kane anything when you can acquire a 6M winger who didn't play? There's always been a decent sized contingent who wanted both gone,seeing their cap-hits as the root of all the team's Ill's their last few years here and that narrative was pushed hard by management through their podcaster/mouth pieces last year. It's the 'dog pile' effect my friend and maybe Bedard,Kurashev and Reichel are better off skatin' with Joey Anderson and Ryan Donato but it didn't appear so to me!
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Apr 30, 2024 9:14:01 GMT -6
They played all of 26 games. That ain't crap. And who knows if Toews isn't giving advice to CB. And Kane has always played with rookies from other teams during summer leagues. Shooing your franchise players away like they were disposable parts is not going to encourage them to help build the next group. We have not seen or heard from Toews in a year. Kane's victory lap around the United Centre after scoring in overtime felt almost bitter, as if he was telling the present roster he had an axe to grind with their management group. Davidson cast his core players aside. He did not give them the option of making their own decisions (or at the very least, attempting negotiations on a contract offer). We will see how quickly they return to the organization. To me, we are now coming full circle. One thing Rocky did well was to repair the damage done by his father and Bob Pulford. He welcomed back Mikita, Hull, Esposito, Savard and others - core players from previous generations as "team ambassadors," each one of whom, it should be noted, had left the team for many years with a bitter taste. I always felt repairing this damage so was much more than just about marketing: it helped root a group of young players to the organization and its legacy. The players in the cup years felt there was no better organization to play for. I wonder if anyone feels that way now. I'm not sure what else could have been expected from the youngest owner in the league with a background in a different business and the youngest GM in the league,who have both stated that they're "taking the game in a new direction". A direction that also included 'shooing away' it's HoF, veteran announcer crew and replacing it with another embarrassment. Did the Wirtz children put the team up for sale like the Melnyk children did when they lost their patriarch? Did 'Prince Daniel' have to concern himself with putting together an ownership group to gain control of the team? Forget about it.......he just inherited the whole 'shabang' like his daddy and his daddy before. Who needs those old,worn-out ambassadors when you have an ICON like Chris Chelios to anoint? His new Binny's commercial has him holding-up that retired jersey while hawking his new vodka........I think it's called 'Drunk and Disorderly'!
|
|
|
Post by BigT on Apr 30, 2024 11:51:17 GMT -6
I’m not in the boat to have them tossed aside. I’ve always relayed things I’ve heard to these boards. Before their final year, I said that ownership wants them gone. Due to the Beach bullshit. That’s what gave KD the green light to rebuild. If those two were gone, then anyone else is gone too. Now, that’s not my thoughts. It’s just the way it went.
Personally, for this year, I’d at least bring back Kane, if he was willing. It would only be a one year deal. And I’d leave the door open to more one year deals. With his hip and age, don’t wanna strap the team with a boat anchor contract. Hawks could pay him 7 million this year. If Toews was able to come back, I’d take him too. One year deal.
Then I’d try like hell to get Pinto in a Hawks Uni and have Bedard, Pinto, Toews, Nazar as my four centers. AA can always slide in as so can Dicky. But Nazar may have to be a winger to get the full package from him!!!
|
|
Granada
4th Liner
Posts: 160
Likes: 182
|
Post by Granada on Apr 30, 2024 11:57:45 GMT -6
The existing core was also in their mid-thirties and injury prone, including Kane at the time before his hip surgery. So yeah, they needed a new leadership core. How this is even up for a debate, I'm not sure. It's common sense. Having Toews/Kane here would have loomed too large for any other new leadership to rise, including Bedard. Having them not here makes this officially Bedard's team now, as it should be. And if you want to bring up Pittsburgh, where has retaining their old core gotten them recently? It was time to move on. Having either of them here another year or two would have been 100% pointless. Bedard is 18 years old. He is more than a few years from taking over as team leader. I see no evidence suggesting that having core veterans around for a few years showing a young phenom the ropes hurts that player's development. Clearly, Mario Lemieux's existence on the Penguin's roster (and later ownership group) did not damage Sidney Crosby in the slightest. It almost certainly helped. At the very least, Kane and Toews continued presence would have reduced Bedard's exposure to the hounding press everywhere he went (which is not "pointless"). The "new leadership core" Davidson brought in guided this team to a 31st place season - among the worst teams statistically in Hawks history. Several of the young kids, Reichel in particular, regressed under this "new leadership." The one big advantage of guys like Folingo and AA - they will largely keep their mouths shut so long as the money flows........ and really, that's the point here. Kane and Toews openly rejected the total scorched earth strip down. This is likely the main reason why they are gone. I don't know why you quoted me here because I literally said none of these counterpoints, lol. My point is, Toews and Kane aren't the only veterans that could provide leadership to this team and/or Bedard. And that outside vets -- who are term and cost controlled; and also not Franchise legends -- made more sense at the end of the day.
|
|
Granada
4th Liner
Posts: 160
Likes: 182
|
Post by Granada on Apr 30, 2024 12:06:40 GMT -6
That doesn't prove he didn't want out, of course he said it'd be an honor and a privilege to play his entire career with one franchise, because it would be, but he also said he didn't want to be part of a rebuild. If KD kept Hagel, Debrincat, Strome, etc, Kane would still be here but the Hawks system would be depleted. As tough as it was to see Kane in NY and Detroit it's what was best for the franchise because he needed hip surgery and his future was unknown, so he was traded to a team that was supposed to be a contender and the Hawks at least got something. But now that he proved his hip is good KD should try and bring him back. I'm sure Bedard would like that. I agree with everything here except bringing Kane back. If it did happen, I wouldn't be angry, but I still feel like it would be the wrong move. I don't think it makes sense for either side. Kane will be 36 years old this November. The Hawks aren't a prime destination right now. Now, in two years, and if Kane is available at the deadline on an expiring contract -- and he's still playing at an elite level (which is a big if to me, but I digress) -- and the Hawks are coming off a playoff year and have Cup aspirations heading into the post-season -- then yeah, it makes sense. But this off-season/year, it doesn't. Plus, Kane is going to want a multi-year deal somewhere after the year he's had, because it's probably the last time he can ever ask for one. I can't imagine him not wanting at least a 3-4 year deal; and/or he's going to want to go to a bonafide contender. I still believe investing in a mid/late 30's player for that amount of years is not worth the risk.
|
|
Granada
4th Liner
Posts: 160
Likes: 182
|
Post by Granada on Apr 30, 2024 12:15:40 GMT -6
Would Kurashev (and Bedard) now have increased confidence if being set up by Kane on a regular basis? Would Toews' defence and faceoff game helped in Reichel's development and settle down the young defence? I am quite confident if Toews and Kane remained here, this team would have been much better. We've both mentioned the number of young players who absolutely excelled playing with K&T over the years. The Breadman is gonna be great regardless who he's with but his assimilation to the league was seamless with Kane,as was D-Cat's. Buff,Brouwer and Versteeg all played well on lines with Kane and/or Toews at times too. Saad played his formative years with JT and went on to be a reliable two-way NHL forward. Guys like Kubalik and Panik had solid years breaking-in with JT and TT went on to a good career after breaking-in with K&T.......as did 20yros Shaw and Kruger. Saad,Shaw and Kruger all broke-in @20 and all three contributed in the regular AND postseason because they must have felt comfortable.......they were also well coached. Strome also played well with Kane right from the start,but I guess it wasn't enough to impress the 'brain trust'! Alex DeBrincat was ecstatic to have his former linemate and best friend join his team last December,the mentoring bond created between the young player and the aging superstar remained strong. You'd think Patrick Kane's near point per game return would have left his doubters/critics with egg on their faces. Why convince JT to lace em up for another year or two when you can bring-in a 38yro D-bag who embarrassed the entire organization for 4M? Why offer Kane anything when you can acquire a 6M winger who didn't play?There's always been a decent sized contingent who wanted both gone,seeing their cap-hits as the root of all the team's Ill's their last few years here and that narrative was pushed hard by management through their podcaster/mouth pieces last year. It's the 'dog pile' effect my friend and maybe Bedard,Kurashev and Reichel are better off skatin' with Joey Anderson and Ryan Donato but it didn't appear so to me! Toews has had a long and recent injury history himself and is in his mid-thirties -- and oh yeah, an entire year removed from hockey now. So other than fan nostalgia, how is he any better than a guy like Hall exactly? The argument holds zero water.
|
|
|
Post by LordKOTL on May 1, 2024 9:16:33 GMT -6
That doesn't prove he didn't want out, of course he said it'd be an honor and a privilege to play his entire career with one franchise, because it would be, but he also said he didn't want to be part of a rebuild. If KD kept Hagel, Debrincat, Strome, etc, Kane would still be here but the Hawks system would be depleted. As tough as it was to see Kane in NY and Detroit it's what was best for the franchise because he needed hip surgery and his future was unknown, so he was traded to a team that was supposed to be a contender and the Hawks at least got something. But now that he proved his hip is good KD should try and bring him back. I'm sure Bedard would like that. I agree with everything here except bringing Kane back. If it did happen, I wouldn't be angry, but I still feel like it would be the wrong move. I don't think it makes sense for either side. Kane will be 36 years old this November. The Hawks aren't a prime destination right now. Now, in two years, and if Kane is available at the deadline on an expiring contract -- and he's still playing at an elite level (which is a big if to me, but I digress) -- and the Hawks are coming off a playoff year and have Cup aspirations heading into the post-season -- then yeah, it makes sense. But this off-season/year, it doesn't. Plus, Kane is going to want a multi-year deal somewhere after the year he's had, because it's probably the last time he can ever ask for one. I can't imagine him not wanting at least a 3-4 year deal; and/or he's going to want to go to a bonafide contender. I still believe investing in a mid/late 30's player for that amount of years is not worth the risk. I wouldn't mind Kane being back, but it has to be with the right mindset. Bedard is the next guy and the goal of the team has to be to finalize his development. What we don't want is someone else coming in trying to make it their team--or others trying to make it someone else's team. And this is not a slight on anyone, really. Bedard is a teenager and if all pans out right will probably have something like 20+ years of hockey ahead of him. Kane might not have 5 years left. It would not be smart to have this as Kane (or anyone else's) team until Bedard is like 24. Plus if Bedard shares the team (kinda like Toews and Kane did as the faces of the franchise) it should be someone in his age range...like Toews and Kane. It was not Toews+Lang or Kane+Havlat or Kane+Lapoine. Anyone coming in should be support for Bedard & Co. should have the mindset of them being support, not to be THE guy. Some of us perceived there possibly being a schism between Jones and Bedard late this season--as if Jones might be upset that he wasn't the guy (speculation on my part). We don't need more of that. If Toews, Kane, or really anyone of the old core comes back they have to come in with they are passing the torch, so-to-speak.
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on May 1, 2024 10:01:23 GMT -6
We've both mentioned the number of young players who absolutely excelled playing with K&T over the years. The Breadman is gonna be great regardless who he's with but his assimilation to the league was seamless with Kane,as was D-Cat's. Buff,Brouwer and Versteeg all played well on lines with Kane and/or Toews at times too. Saad played his formative years with JT and went on to be a reliable two-way NHL forward. Guys like Kubalik and Panik had solid years breaking-in with JT and TT went on to a good career after breaking-in with K&T.......as did 20yros Shaw and Kruger. Saad,Shaw and Kruger all broke-in @20 and all three contributed in the regular AND postseason because they must have felt comfortable.......they were also well coached. Strome also played well with Kane right from the start,but I guess it wasn't enough to impress the 'brain trust'! Alex DeBrincat was ecstatic to have his former linemate and best friend join his team last December,the mentoring bond created between the young player and the aging superstar remained strong. You'd think Patrick Kane's near point per game return would have left his doubters/critics with egg on their faces. Why convince JT to lace em up for another year or two when you can bring-in a 38yro D-bag who embarrassed the entire organization for 4M? Why offer Kane anything when you can acquire a 6M winger who didn't play?There's always been a decent sized contingent who wanted both gone,seeing their cap-hits as the root of all the team's Ill's their last few years here and that narrative was pushed hard by management through their podcaster/mouth pieces last year. It's the 'dog pile' effect my friend and maybe Bedard,Kurashev and Reichel are better off skatin' with Joey Anderson and Ryan Donato but it didn't appear so to me! Toews has had a long and recent injury history himself and is in his mid-thirties -- and oh yeah, an entire year removed from hockey now. So other than fan nostalgia, how is he any better than a guy like Hall exactly? The argument holds zero water. But he wasn't removed from hockey when some backward baseball cap wearing welp of a GM called him into his office to notify him he would be done here and his 'night' was already scheduled in a few days so he could have his parents and a few friends attend.....he was playing at the time. His "injury history" was actually an 'illness history',he was dealing with long covid and possibly other conditions. Great players wear-down after opening a vein for their team for over a decade. Did Toews really have a relapse right before the TDL his last year here,or did he just not want to be 'whored-out' for a few months? He was playing well before and returned later that season. Does he step away from the game if he felt wanted here? Taylor Hall? He played TEN games after his 6MX2 contract was acquired w/o an ounce of sweetener or retained money.....Boston owes us one! The last GM woulda been roasted for wasting 10 million on Hall and Perry.....the new GM is celebrated for it .
|
|
|
Post by T-man2010 on May 1, 2024 10:31:57 GMT -6
Toews has had a long and recent injury history himself and is in his mid-thirties -- and oh yeah, an entire year removed from hockey now. So other than fan nostalgia, how is he any better than a guy like Hall exactly? The argument holds zero water. But he wasn't removed from hockey when some backward baseball cap wearing welp of a GM called him into his office to notify him he would be done here and his 'night' was already scheduled in a few days so he could have his parents and a few friends attend.....he was playing at the time. His "injury history" was actually an 'illness history',he was dealing with long covid and possibly other conditions. Great players wear-down after opening a vein for their team for over a decade. Did Toews really have a relapse right before the TDL his last year here,or did he just not want to be 'whored-out' for a few months? He was playing well before and returned later that season. Does he step away from the game if he felt wanted here? Taylor Hall? He played TEN games after his 6MX2 contract was acquired w/o an ounce of sweetener or retained money.....Boston owes us one! The last GM woulda been roasted for wasting 10 million on Hall and Perry.....the new GM is celebrated for it . To be fair, if SB had drafted Bedard, we would have roasted him just for the sake of roasting him.
|
|
|
Post by mvr on May 1, 2024 12:37:14 GMT -6
Toews has had a long and recent injury history himself and is in his mid-thirties -- and oh yeah, an entire year removed from hockey now. So other than fan nostalgia, how is he any better than a guy like Hall exactly? The argument holds zero water. But he wasn't removed from hockey when some backward baseball cap wearing welp of a GM called him into his office to notify him he would be done here and his 'night' was already scheduled in a few days so he could have his parents and a few friends attend.....he was playing at the time. His "injury history" was actually an 'illness history',he was dealing with long covid and possibly other conditions. Great players wear-down after opening a vein for their team for over a decade. Did Toews really have a relapse right before the TDL his last year here,or did he just not want to be 'whored-out' for a few months? He was playing well before and returned later that season. Does he step away from the game if he felt wanted here? Taylor Hall? He played TEN games after his 6MX2 contract was acquired w/o an ounce of sweetener or retained money.....Boston owes us one! The last GM woulda been roasted for wasting 10 million on Hall and Perry.....the new GM is celebrated for it . The "backward baseball cap wearing welp of a GM" says that the team needs a change of leadership because the young kids can't properly develop under the guidance of Stanley Cup winning future Hall of Famers. But he turns over more than half the roster every year as if he is playing Sega NHL 2024. There is no consistent lineup. Players are human beings. For a team to gel into something cohesive, the players need extended time together. To my mind, having guys who have been a part of the organization for years and know the city can only help. Adding veteran "leaders" from the outside such as Perry and Hall on short term deals is not going to cement the group together or settle the team down. Constant change and roster turnover only breeds anxiety.
|
|
Granada
4th Liner
Posts: 160
Likes: 182
|
Post by Granada on May 6, 2024 9:47:52 GMT -6
But he wasn't removed from hockey when some backward baseball cap wearing welp of a GM called him into his office to notify him he would be done here and his 'night' was already scheduled in a few days so he could have his parents and a few friends attend.....he was playing at the time. His "injury history" was actually an 'illness history',he was dealing with long covid and possibly other conditions. Great players wear-down after opening a vein for their team for over a decade. Did Toews really have a relapse right before the TDL his last year here,or did he just not want to be 'whored-out' for a few months? He was playing well before and returned later that season. Does he step away from the game if he felt wanted here? Taylor Hall? He played TEN games after his 6MX2 contract was acquired w/o an ounce of sweetener or retained money.....Boston owes us one! The last GM woulda been roasted for wasting 10 million on Hall and Perry.....the new GM is celebrated for it . The "backward baseball cap wearing welp of a GM" says that the team needs a change of leadership because the young kids can't properly develop under the guidance of Stanley Cup winning future Hall of Famers. But he turns over more than half the roster every year as if he is playing Sega NHL 2024. There is no consistent lineup. Players are human beings. For a team to gel into something cohesive, the players need extended time together. To my mind, having guys who have been a part of the organization for years and know the city can only help. Adding veteran "leaders" from the outside such as Perry and Hall on short term deals is not going to cement the group together or settle the team down. Constant change and roster turnover only breeds anxiety. I think it's naive to insinuate that only Stanley Cup champions can provide true influence and leadership. It's very reminiscent of the argument people made when Lehner was brought in (with Crawford), essentially arguing that there were no other options for a solid backup, which was and always is false. Murphy, Foligno, Jones, Hall, Perry, even a guy like Tinordi -- all of these guys hold sway with young players. You ask Bedard right now how he feels about a guy like Foligno, and he'll genuinely rave about the guy. I guess because the guy doesn't have 3 Stanley Cups, his leadership is less in your eyes. Again, fans only know what they're used to. You're used to Toews and Kane, so to you, those are the only two options that make sense. It's an outdated way of thinking to me. It's what the majority of fans do and why many love retreads. Lastly, has it ever occurred to you that perhaps Toews' and Kane's voices were falling flat in the room?
|
|
Granada
4th Liner
Posts: 160
Likes: 182
|
Post by Granada on May 6, 2024 10:06:21 GMT -6
Toews has had a long and recent injury history himself and is in his mid-thirties -- and oh yeah, an entire year removed from hockey now. So other than fan nostalgia, how is he any better than a guy like Hall exactly? The argument holds zero water. But he wasn't removed from hockey when some backward baseball cap wearing welp of a GM called him into his office to notify him he would be done here and his 'night' was already scheduled in a few days so he could have his parents and a few friends attend.....he was playing at the time. His "injury history" was actually an 'illness history',he was dealing with long covid and possibly other conditions. Great players wear-down after opening a vein for their team for over a decade. Did Toews really have a relapse right before the TDL his last year here,or did he just not want to be 'whored-out' for a few months? He was playing well before and returned later that season. Does he step away from the game if he felt wanted here? Taylor Hall? He played TEN games after his 6MX2 contract was acquired w/o an ounce of sweetener or retained money.....Boston owes us one! The last GM woulda been roasted for wasting 10 million on Hall and Perry.....the new GM is celebrated for it . Bob, he missed the entire 2020-21 season, did he not? And no, it wasn't just covid; we all know his injury history with concussions/back issues/etc. Same with Kane. Nobody could have predicted how the hip surgery was going to go and we all recall how Kane's game was before the surgery. I'm honestly curious: Do you give as much guff to Drury for not re-signing Kane, or do you solely reserve it for Davidson? It's easy to say in hindsight and after the surgery, but there was a valid reason why both GM's elected to move on. I don't see anyone celebrating KD for Hall. I simply understand the move, from an organizational and contractual standpoint. Also, Hall is a power-forward, unlike Kane -- and it makes sense why you'd want a power-forward on Bedard's line instead of a player like Kane. As far as the other stuff in your post, I don't believe in conspiracy theories, but if Toews willfully sat out without a legitimate reason, simply because he didn't like the current GM -- why in the world would you want a guy like that to be brought back for a leadership role? I don't believe he'd do that one bit, and I'm befuddled how you could. I'll agree with you here: great players wear down. That's why tough decisions need to be made.
|
|
|
Post by mvr on May 6, 2024 13:19:35 GMT -6
The "backward baseball cap wearing welp of a GM" says that the team needs a change of leadership because the young kids can't properly develop under the guidance of Stanley Cup winning future Hall of Famers. But he turns over more than half the roster every year as if he is playing Sega NHL 2024. There is no consistent lineup. Players are human beings. For a team to gel into something cohesive, the players need extended time together. To my mind, having guys who have been a part of the organization for years and know the city can only help. Adding veteran "leaders" from the outside such as Perry and Hall on short term deals is not going to cement the group together or settle the team down. Constant change and roster turnover only breeds anxiety. I think it's naive to insinuate that only Stanley Cup champions can provide true influence and leadership. It's very reminiscent of the argument people made when Lehner was brought in (with Crawford), essentially arguing that there were no other options for a solid backup, which was and always is false. Murphy, Foligno, Jones, Hall, Perry, even a guy like Tinordi -- all of these guys hold sway with young players. You ask Bedard right now how he feels about a guy like Foligno, and he'll genuinely rave about the guy. I guess because the guy doesn't have 3 Stanley Cups, his leadership is less in your eyes. Again, fans only know what they're used to. You're used to Toews and Kane, so to you, those are the only two options that make sense. It's an outdated way of thinking to me. It's what the majority of fans do and why many love retreads. Lastly, has it ever occurred to you that perhaps Toews' and Kane's voices were falling flat in the room? I did not insinuate that "only" Stanley Cup champions can provide quality leadership. I do think, however, Kane and Toews have proven they can do the job quite adequately. Given their track record (Panarin, Debrincat), there was no need to change direction after the firing of the mickey mouse coaching staff. If certain players felt the leaders' voices "were falling flat," would in not make more sense to trade those guys? Davidson is in charge. But he has won nothing at any level. His opinions about leadership are only theories. The evidence suggests Stanley Cup winners actually do make good leaders.
|
|
|
Post by 2old4this on May 6, 2024 13:30:22 GMT -6
So let's get him back here to do just that! Same with Toews. I'm sure he can still take face-offs. And perhaps a little penalty killing as well. I doubt that he can go for more than one season., but with Kaner, he has kept himself in top shape and could probably go several seasons yet. Time to say "thank you."
|
|