30
|
|
Post by LordKOTL on May 8, 2024 10:00:26 GMT -6
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 It's an outdated way of thinking to me.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. I don't disagree with that. I am not convinced, though that (a) they were willing to step down from being the guys to developing the guys, (b) that the coaching staff would be willing to not use them as crutches, or (c) both. I think there is a lot behind the scenes that we don't know. Maybe KD was getting the bulldozer out and completely cleaning house irrespective of who was there and how good they were--he just couldn't find a taker for Jones (although to be fair I'm wondering why King is still with us). Maybe Toews and Kane were playing hardball. I don't know. |
|
|
|
Post by Granada on May 8, 2024 10:01:19 GMT -6
Right, and none of them are here now, which was the right move. Their "proven championship leadership" sure wasn't helping anything the last 7 years they were here. It was time to move on. . This year the team went through the motions most nights. What was different ?I'd say a proper rebuild was implemented. Star players like Hagel were flipped, Kubalik, etc. Although that roster was not good, it was a deeper roster overall. The proper rebuild began the year after. |
|
|
|
Post by Granada on May 8, 2024 10:03:42 GMT -6
Right, and none of them are here now, which was the right move. Their "proven championship leadership" sure wasn't helping anything the last 7 years they were here. It was time to move on. So if leadership is based on results Flo is one of the worse leaders out there It's based on results and circumstance. Foligno's circumstance is much different, as he took the reigns during the true rebuild, not a soft rebuild. |
|
|
|
Post by mvr on May 8, 2024 11:57:37 GMT -6
What do you mean by the phrase "a proper rebuild?" Is there only one way to do it? Is there any evidence that teams cannot rebuild while retaining Hall of Famers? I don't think past history (ie Mario Lemieux in Pittsburgh, Montreal - from the 1960s to the 1990s) suggests this to be true by any stretch. Not a soft rebuild, which Bowman was redoing. Yes, there is only one way to truly do it; and when it's truly needed, it should be done. Pittsburgh catered to their veterans and now they're fucked because they gave up all their draft capital, when they could have flipped those veterans. So the Montreal Canadiens approach from the 1950s-1990s is not a model to use....? Jean Beliveau, Henri Richard and Yvon Cournoyer pass the torch to Guy Lafleur, Serge Savard and Larry Robinson, who hand it to Patrick Roy (four cups, two teams), Claude Lemieux (four cups, three teams), Guy Carboneau (3 cups, two teams) and Vinny Damphouse among others. To my mind, the Canadiens lost their way after moving out their core Stanley Cup champions and starting one of these "proper rebuilds." The tradition (and the mystique) which had held the team above all others was squandered by a know-it-all management team during the 1990s. They should have kept their stars and built around them like they had for 50 plus years. Roy won two more cups in Colorado, and Lemieux was a winner wherever he ended up. Montreal, it should be noted, is still rebuilding. |
|
|
|
Post by Granada on May 8, 2024 13:46:06 GMT -6
Not a soft rebuild, which Bowman was redoing. Yes, there is only one way to truly do it; and when it's truly needed, it should be done. Pittsburgh catered to their veterans and now they're fucked because they gave up all their draft capital, when they could have flipped those veterans. So the Montreal Canadiens approach from the 1950s-1990s is not a model to use....? Jean Beliveau, Henri Richard and Yvon Cournoyer pass the torch to Guy Lafleur, Serge Savard and Larry Robinson, who hand it to Patrick Roy (four cups, two teams), Claude Lemieux (four cups, three teams), Guy Carboneau (3 cups, two teams) and Vinny Damphouse among others. To my mind, the Canadiens lost their way after moving out their core Stanley Cup champions and starting one of these "proper rebuilds." The tradition (and the mystique) which had held the team above all others was squandered by a know-it-all management team during the 1990s. They should have kept their stars and built around them like they had for 50 plus years. Roy won two more cups in Colorado, and Lemieux was a winner wherever he ended up. Montreal, it should be noted, is still rebuilding. No, I would say. That's one example and that was 30+ years ago. Bowman tried this for 7 years. It wasn't working. |
|
|
|
Post by mvr on May 8, 2024 14:08:32 GMT -6
Bowman actually turned over more than half the roster each offseason for seven years, pretty much exactly the opposite of what I believe is the correct approach.
|
|
|
|
Post by mvr on May 8, 2024 14:37:25 GMT -6
What's actually needed here is less change, not more.
We need consistency on the roster, behind the bench and especially within the leadership of the room.
I believe a team should aim to turn over no more than five or six players each off-season. Some change is inevitable, especially in the cap world. But too much can be catastrophic as we are witnessing right now.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigbarn27 on May 8, 2024 15:54:59 GMT -6
So if leadership is based on results Flo is one of the worse leaders out there It's based on results and circumstance. Foligno's circumstance is much different, as he took the reigns during the true rebuild, not a soft rebuild. Flo wore a C for a long time in Columbus |
|
|
|
Post by Granada on May 9, 2024 6:48:46 GMT -6
Bowman actually turned over more than half the roster each offseason for seven years, pretty much exactly the opposite of what I believe is the correct approach. He kept the core players though. It was a soft rebuild during his tenure, we all know this. |
|
|
|
Post by Granada on May 9, 2024 6:52:10 GMT -6
What's actually needed here is less change, not more. We need consistency on the roster, behind the bench and especially within the leadership of the room. I believe a team should aim to turn over no more than five or six players each off-season. Some change is inevitable, especially in the cap world. But too much can be catastrophic as we are witnessing right now. You need a true core before leadership. Your core guys are the ones that become leaders long-term. In the mean time, you sprinkle in some solid vets to help short-term. I don't see this as a catastrophe. I see it as a necessary teardown and rebuild. Change is good when the time is right. You can't just hang onto the past and beyond-prime players; holding onto said players until the wheels fall off (i.e. the Bowman path) would have been the true catastrophe. |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on May 9, 2024 7:15:29 GMT -6
You know what they say bout opinions my friend. Point to the team that was good enough to succeed with Jeremy Colliton in charge,they moved on from him and they'll move on from Jr too. Moving on to cripples and drunks for 10M bucks but it's all just play money for Jr ...........it won't be for long though. You've been bashing Hall a lot and now you're calling him a cripple, did you not see the hit that injured his knee? Very reckless. Plus he injured it last season and that's why his production dropped and he only played 61gms, but he played 81gms the season before, pretty good for a cripple. KD seems pretty smart with his "play money", he hasn't taken on long contracts that go past Bedards ELC, and the contracts he signed have been refreshing compared to the one's Stan handed out. He probably would've started at 6 million a year for Vlasic, full NMC. I never realized how wildly popular Taylor Hall was around here. The term was unnecessary,heated rhetoric in a heated debate and I wish the guy good health and a continued career. I didn't know it was a knee that kept Hall out of 20 games last year and I'm not sure that fact makes the 6MX2 any more palatable without some sweetener or $$$ retained. The last guy's been gone for three years and his performance here his last 3-4 years is a LOW bar for comparison's sake IMO. That being said,there was only one long term contract left for the new guy to deal with,Jones gets a lotta grief and he is over-paid but he also eats a lotta minutes and puts up offense. I don't think the team would have to retain more than 2-3M per if they decided his cap-hit was unmanageable going forward,the cap'll be rising fast and capable D-men under 30 have value but he'd leave a bigger hole than most think. The Vlasic re-do was well done,putting up offensive numbers was hard for everybody on the team last year and I believe Vlasic's will improve,his defensive play was the best I've seen from a Hawk's rookie in some time though. He's big,he can skate very well,he seems durable and he developed some snarl as the year went along,but the one-year sample size limited the money amount somewhat. It is the kind of signing that can make the new GM look real good in a few years and I hope that's the case. |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on May 9, 2024 7:31:03 GMT -6
Bowman actually turned over more than half the roster each offseason for seven years, pretty much exactly the opposite of what I believe is the correct approach. In general,I compleatly agree,especially if a team considers itself a contender or close. The team we see at the moment is in transition though and has to rid itself of a good deal of 'dead wood' so some more turn-over is called for in this instance IMO. The new GM has stated the path to competitiveness starts this summer,let's see how well the mountains of cap-space and draft capitol are utilized in this effort. |
|
|
|
Post by 2old4this on May 9, 2024 9:01:45 GMT -6
Don't you spammers ever sleep? Give it a proper rest, please.
|
|
|
|
Post by mvr on May 9, 2024 9:13:12 GMT -6
Bowman actually turned over more than half the roster each offseason for seven years, pretty much exactly the opposite of what I believe is the correct approach. In general,I compleatly agree,especially if a team considers itself a contender or close. The team we see at the moment is in transition though and has to rid itself of a good deal of 'dead wood' so some more turn-over is called for in this instance IMO. The new GM has stated the path to competitiveness starts this summer,let's see how well the mountains of cap-space and draft capitol are utilized in this effort. The key then is to add less "dead wood" each off-season. Focus mostly on pieces which have potential to stick around for awhile. Stop trading or giving away young players each offseason. I look at the success of players like Hartman, Forsling, Hagel etc. If Bowman had been more patient with his roster (and leaned on Hall of Fame Coach Quenneville for advice rather than hiring an inexperienced kid to replace him), my guess is that none of this would have happened..... The core guys would have groomed the younger players; the coach would have seamlessly righted the ship without any real bleeding necessary. Change is always best if it comes organically, slowly, from the bottom up. When Bowman started blowing things up - ie trading Saad one year, then Hjalmarsson and Panarin the next, (and then fired Kitchen and targeted Quenneville), everything fell apart. Will Davidson slow it down? We will see. |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on May 9, 2024 9:24:19 GMT -6
Don't you spammers ever sleep? Give it a proper rest, please. Would you prefer a 'ghost town' with no offseason hockey chatter? |
|
|
|
Post by 2old4this on May 9, 2024 11:22:57 GMT -6
Don't you spammers ever sleep? Give it a proper rest, please. Would you prefer a 'ghost town' with no offseason hockey chatter? Of course not...just keeping it down to 8 hrs a day would be nice. Or at least come up with some new material. Most of you guys are arguing the same points over and over again. |
|
|
|
Post by ebonyraptor on May 9, 2024 13:02:40 GMT -6
I could be all wrong on this but I think Kane wants the American born career scoring title more so than winning another Cup. He is currently 90 points behind Modano and 107 points behind Brett Hull. He's also 81 assists behind Phil Housley for most assists by an American born player. Those records are within his reach with 2 more seasons.
The Hawks need a legit top-6 winger to play with Bedard.
Kane is a legit top-6 winger who is a free agent who wouldn't cost the Hawks assets to acquire.
I know it's not supposed to happen - but acquiring Kane on a high AAV 2-year contract to play RW with Bedard seems like such a no-brainer that it makes me wonder if it isn't literally a no-brainer.
Course - even if the Hawks wanted to do it, which apparently they don't - Kane would also need to want to do it and I wouldn't blame him for harboring ill will from the way he was shown the door.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigbarn27 on May 9, 2024 21:12:20 GMT -6
Would you prefer a 'ghost town' with no offseason hockey chatter? Of course not...just keeping it down to 8 hrs a day would be nice. Or at least come up with some new material. Most of you guys are arguing the same points over and over again. You are not wrong!!! Lots of juice on the subject |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on May 10, 2024 5:37:53 GMT -6
Of course not...just keeping it down to 8 hrs a day would be nice. Or at least come up with some new material. Most of you guys are arguing the same points over and over again. You are not wrong!!! Lots of juice on the subject In other words .........a message board,and a hockey message board at that. This one's a 'Sunday school' compared to most as far as civility,but the quality of the discussions is as good or better than the 'nut houses' IMO! If someone finds my posts boring or redundant(not you BB).......I app.........no I suggest you ignore em. I'm off to open-up the church and prey at the altar of the hallowed Walleye tomorrow with the 'Square heads'.....it's opening weekend. |
|
|
|
Post by LordKOTL on May 10, 2024 8:45:10 GMT -6
In general,I compleatly agree,especially if a team considers itself a contender or close. The team we see at the moment is in transition though and has to rid itself of a good deal of 'dead wood' so some more turn-over is called for in this instance IMO. The new GM has stated the path to competitiveness starts this summer,let's see how well the mountains of cap-space and draft capitol are utilized in this effort. The key then is to add less "dead wood" each off-season. Focus mostly on pieces which have potential to stick around for awhile. Stop trading or giving away young players each offseason. I look at the success of players like Hartman, Forsling, Hagel etc. If Bowman had been more patient with his roster (and leaned on Hall of Fame Coach Quenneville for advice rather than hiring an inexperienced kid to replace him), my guess is that none of this would have happened..... The core guys would have groomed the younger players; the coach would have seamlessly righted the ship without any real bleeding necessary. Change is always best if it comes organically, slowly, from the bottom up. When Bowman started blowing things up - ie trading Saad one year, then Hjalmarsson and Panarin the next, (and then fired Kitchen and targeted Quenneville), everything fell apart. Will Davidson slow it down? We will see. You have to have the right players to build around, first and foremost. We might have had that up front with Debincat and Hagel, but we absolutely didn't in the backend and I think if the 'hawks would have stayed the course there would have been no way to get the right players in the backend. But I think you hit a crux of the issue in your 2nd paragraph: I think Q knew way more about hockey than Stan and Stan thought he was the smartest guy in the room--even though he wasn't and felt threatened by Q. Maybe if Stan was gone earlier the damage wouldn't have been severe enough to need a complete tear-down and a rebuild-in-situ would have been possible. We don't know. Same with whether or not Kyle from Chicago has the chops to complete this build. I don't know. But from my standpoint it seemed like Stan, at best, would have kept us in mediocrity like the Wild. Kyle got the teardown done and we have been in the cellar. He got the next franchise player in Bedard. We'll see if he can't build back from there. |
|
|
|
Post by Granada on May 10, 2024 10:17:53 GMT -6
Would you prefer a 'ghost town' with no offseason hockey chatter? Of course not...just keeping it down to 8 hrs a day would be nice. Or at least come up with some new material. Most of you guys are arguing the same points over and over again. Don't you just love it when people who aren't interested in the one out of 100's of threads on this site enters said thread strictly to tell you he's not interested in it? Here's a thought: go read one of the other 100 threads. Nobody cares if you don't like this particular subject. Plenty of us do, hence why we're discussing it. |
|
|
|
Post by Granada on May 10, 2024 10:27:07 GMT -6
I could be all wrong on this but I think Kane wants the American born career scoring title more so than winning another Cup. He is currently 90 points behind Modano and 107 points behind Brett Hull. He's also 81 assists behind Phil Housley for most assists by an American born player. Those records are within his reach with 2 more seasons. The Hawks need a legit top-6 winger to play with Bedard. Kane is a legit top-6 winger who is a free agent who wouldn't cost the Hawks assets to acquire. I know it's not supposed to happen - but acquiring Kane on a high AAV 2-year contract to play RW with Bedard seems like such a no-brainer that it makes me wonder if it isn't literally a no-brainer. Course - even if the Hawks wanted to do it, which apparently they don't - Kane would also need to want to do it and I wouldn't blame him for harboring ill will from the way he was shown the door. If he is interested in that, I'd imagine he'd want to go somewhere with a more potent offense. Personally, I don't think he cares about that. I don't think he's doing the math and studying records. If he wants anything, it's this: to go to a contender, and to cash in on a long-term deal of at least 3-4 years. |
|
|
|
Post by mvr on May 10, 2024 17:19:47 GMT -6
The "backward-baseball hat wearing welp" of a general manager has this theory that the Hall of Famers Kane and Toews would somehow stall or block the leadership development of the young kids.
So even if Kane would like to come back (and I believe he would given that he has a home here), the present management team does not want him.
|
|
|
|
Post by BigT on May 10, 2024 17:51:37 GMT -6
The "backward-baseball hat wearing welp" of a general manager has this theory that the Hall of Famers Kane and Toews would somehow stall or block the leadership development of the young kids. So even if Kane would like to come back (and I believe he would given that he has a home here), the present management team does not want him. I don’t think it’s the GM. I think ownership doesn’t want either around. I think it’s easier for a newer younger GM to let them go. I’m not saying I agree at all. But this is what I’ve heard and what many have been told. I don’t believe they’re welcome due to ownership!!! |
|
|
|
Post by romonadropout on May 10, 2024 19:32:55 GMT -6
The "backward-baseball hat wearing welp" of a general manager has this theory that the Hall of Famers Kane and Toews would somehow stall or block the leadership development of the young kids. So even if Kane would like to come back (and I believe he would given that he has a home here), the present management team does not want him. I don’t think it’s the GM. I think ownership doesn’t want either around. I think it’s easier for a newer younger GM to let them go. I’m not saying I agree at all. But this is what I’ve heard and what many have been told. I don’t believe they’re welcome due to ownership!!! Three curtain calls be damned ?? |
|
|
|
Post by ebonyraptor on May 10, 2024 20:23:50 GMT -6
The "backward-baseball hat wearing welp" of a general manager has this theory that the Hall of Famers Kane and Toews would somehow stall or block the leadership development of the young kids. So even if Kane would like to come back (and I believe he would given that he has a home here), the present management team does not want him. Yep - if only he wore his baseball hat correctly, like us paragons of virtue and tradition do - things would be much better. I say we draft a petition and present it to the league for a minimum age requirement to be an NHL GM - what do you think - would 55 be too young?  |
|
|
|
Post by vadarx on May 10, 2024 21:01:36 GMT -6
a couple notes here (to consider along with Big-T's comments on ownership) and then I'll see myself back out...
re: Kane. one should keep in mind that KfC knew that Kane would need to have a surgery that nary a single NHL player has come back from with any extended success. should he have given him an extension and then hoped he came back a-ok? if he had and 88 was never ok again, would the fans be ok with that cap hit and subsequent LTIR juggling or would they question why he signed someone he knew was injured and might never be right again?
re: Toews. one should consider that someone had to be the one to tell him to sit down and take a break. he wasn't going to do it on his own, just like Seabs did for years until he finally couldn't. we all know Tazer was approaching that state and we all know he did not want to go out like that and would keep fighting through it to keep playing until he couldn't. there is a pretty strong possibility he never plays again and them forcing his decision was actually the best thing for him. it also allowed him to have his night with the fans, which he may have never had a chance to do beyond that night.
|
|
|
|
Post by malagahawks on May 23, 2024 12:25:48 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by OldTimeHawky on May 23, 2024 13:01:35 GMT -6
If that were to happen that'll change how some view KD. I'd offer him a high cap hit for 2yrs, or he takes less for 3yrs, as we know that's when Bedards new contract kicks in. |
|
|
|
Post by T-man2010 on May 23, 2024 13:19:43 GMT -6
|
|
