|
Latest: Crawford, Dineen & "Housecleaning" Notes |
|
|
|
|
|
I heard from a reliable source yesterday on the latest rumblings within the Hawk organization. There's a lot to cover here, so from the top:
"(Team President John) McDonough remains beyond p--sed."
As spelled out in his own post-playoffs presser last week, GM Stan Bowman is doing a top to bottom assessment of the entire organization. What Bowman didn't mention, I was told, is that an assessment is being conducted of his performance, by McDonough, with the blessing of owner Rocky Wirtz.
We know the initial results of the first assessment: longtime assistant coach and Joel Quenneville buddy Mike Kitchen and Rockford head coach Ted Dent were asked to pack up and leave.
Kitchen has been a favorite whipping boy of fans for a long time.
Is that, and his virtually immediate dismissal this offseason, deserved? I honestly don't know.
One thing I have heard fairly consistently over the years is that the players themselves are loyal to Quenneville and his staff. Which leads to another question? is that always a good thing? I guess it depends on whether that loyalty is borne out of indulgence and co-dependency or respect. And my guess is, in light of what this team has accomplished since 2009, it is out of respect.
Was Kitchen the reason the Hawk penalty kill started off so miserably this year or that the power play has pretty much underperformed for the last several seasons? Is it the players' failure to execute (which in some instances, I think it has been), or is it the steady drip of talent out of the Chicago faucet over the last several years? I think that's part of it, too.
All that said, in my opinion and from 30,000 feet the Hawk penalty kill has typically been better than the power play over the years, and the power play does always seem stymied by a lack of movement and creativity. Some of that is, without question, due to the fact that while Duncan Keith has many strengths, running a power play is not really one of them.
And who does that come back to?
A Rockford friend was sharing a tweet yesterday of Dent's wherein he lamented how the organization's trade deadline deals always seemed to hurt his club. That alone may have gotten him fired. But I also heard yesterday that at least some in the organization are bitterly disappointed over a lack of prospect development coming out of Rockford. Again, take a harder look at that with your BS detector turned to 11. Was it Dent, or possibly that the prospects aren't as great as advertised? My hunch is, a little of both.
Bowman has been pumping the tires of his prospects for several years, but never more than the last couple of years, when the salary cap became more and more consumed by big money deals given to Hawk veterans—leaving money only for entry level and league minimum deals.
This may be the most important insight in this blog, but it's one I have repeated many times in the past.
Handing out big money deals to retain talent is typically not going to make your team better. At best, it's keeping you at par, assuming you don't have to cut elsewhere to pay the player in question. Typically, the Hawks have had to cut elsewhere. So actually, the practice slowly erodes the overall quality of your roster.
It's even worse when it's rewarding the past performance of older players who may begin to decline over the course of the deal.
It's the price of success, clearly. But there are a few deals Bowman (and the organization, because he doesn't make larger decisions in a vacuum) has handed out, as well as the timing of said deals, that today raise questions.
In my opinion, the Hawks reached a tipping point last summer, where the talent cupboard was basically cleaned out, forcing the Hawks to really rush along players like Nick Schmaltz, Tyler Motte, and Gustav Forsling—the much heralded "youth movement" of 2016. It wasn't that any or all of them were or are so bad (all three have some talent), it's just that they all probably (or definitely) weren't ready for the NHL duties being asked of them.
The same can be said of the clearance bin deal for Brian Campbell, who clearly has lost more than a step.
The cold light of reflection, with the painful reality of a first round sweep at the hands of Nashville, might cause some, like me, to see that this team really had some holes this year, in spite of its stellar regular season record. Watching the Eastern Conference semifinal games last night, it was my opinion that at least 3 of the 4 teams I was watching were/are better than this year's Hawk team.
That's not good for a team and salary structure built for yearly Cup contention for at least 2-3 more seasons.
So you have to wonder if McDonough's assessment of Bowman is attempting to discern whether, as the architect of this roster and the aforementioned big money deals with no-movement clauses, is Bowman the right guy to dispassionately and objectively fix it?
I know if I were McDonough, that's a question I'd be asking at least.
As for Kevin Dineen . . .
I was told his job was saved ("for now") because of a "frank" season-end interview in which he compellingly outlined some "flaws and shortcomings" of the team.
Reading between the lines there, I come away with a strong sense that no one is really safe right now—and whether you like McDonough or not—his alleged anger may drive ultimately to what the real problems are and some needed re-tooling of the roster and the organization as a whole this summer.
And Corey Crawford . . .
I've been reporting for a while that there's a real possibility of the Hawks moving Crawford this summer for mostly salary cap-related reasons—and extending Scott Darling as a much less expensive, new #1.
What that would involve, I've been told, would be Crawford submitting a list of other teams he would accept a trade to or not accept a trade to (I don't know the particulars of that).
What I heard yesterday is that Crawford and his agent might not be amenable to the scenario. Sure, he likely is required to submit a list if asked. But the "list" can be crafted in a way that makes dealing him very difficult—like stocking it with teams that have no cap space or need for a goalie.
Does that end the discussion? Not always—I recall Rick Nash's exit from Columbus involved several rounds of negotiating over his list. Because once the list is asked for, there's a certain inertia that develops around the feeling that the team wants to move the player and the player no longer feels wanted. And it often results in a trade—sooner or later.
All that said, the dynamics of the larger situation with the Hawks this summer have likely changed. And expanded. While I have not heard this specifically, the Hawks may want to look at the contracts of a couple of other highly paid veterans—albeit those would involve a complete waiver of the player's no-movement clause, a somewhat trickier proposition.
It's not all bad news (but also don't get too excited about this either, as that may be part of what got us here), the Hawks signed a pretty nice RW prospect out of the Czech league yesterday named David Kampf, beating at least two other NHL teams. Apparently Bowman still has the ability to close the deal with quality Euro prospects, and that is encouraging. However, it's likely not an immediate fix, just as the aforementioned prospects did not provide that this past season.
That's all I have for now.
More as I hear it,
JJ
Chicago Blackhawks Blogger • 
Join the Discussion:
»