Exactly....no one has said he is the answer but the Hawks are a better team with him than anyone who is in RFD.....an argument could be made for Nordstrom at this time and I think we will see him soon.
- UnnamedSource

You can add Morin and Pirri (once he's back) to that list short list along with Nordstrom. To a lesser degree, maybe McNeill, Winchester, Ross and Terry Broadhurst - if the organization might be willing to look at someone else.

I
watching PHUCKFACE grind his molars into dust


- philco28

Who doesn't?

Let's put this in the context of a team built to contend for a Cup, whose potential replacements (Pirri, Morin, Nordstrom) have failed to impress the boss.

I agree, Handzus is probably past his prime, but he doesn't get lost on lower lines, and (for better or worse, whether we agree or not) Q has more confidence in him than in the Rockford trio.

This team, this year, cannot afford to play players HOPING they will correct whatever deficiencies that Q sees in them (and Q sees more than we see). This is not a pretender to the throne, this is a contender for the CUP.

You may think the organization has not been fair to Pirri, Morin, etc., and has not given them a chance to prove themselves. Q obviously has a different opinion. He sees them in practice, looks at films of games differently, probably looks at films of Rockford games.
- StLBravesFan

Look while others fairly and unfairly mock me, I don't care about how fair anything is. I played a sport and was paid believe it or not. It is more about philosophy then anything else.

Believe it or not, I know that Q and team has more info than I do. I accept the fact he makes the decisions. What is funny and ironic is that many mock my views as fantasy, while at the same time interpretting the reasons behind all of Q's decisions. So be it.

Q has 10 Olympians, 3 others were clear bubble guys and one other went to an olympic camp. To ask a guy to find a way to work 2 or maybe 3 players into a scheme is not a deal breaker.

Another ironic thing you said, and it is not a shot at you directly, but everyone's default argument to me is that you can't afford to lose points as a cup contending team. Many of those same people then lecture me and others on how the cup is not won in the regular season or November.

This goes to my whole philosophy. In the big picture, it is does not matter what I or you think Q thinks about a player. It is about the fact that these are your players. These are your guys that you may need. If in the end they trade for another as EK suggests, then fine, but now as we watch stale hockey for the better part of a month and see a content roster...and more importantly see other teams rounding into form (Ducks, Blues, Sharks etc...) the Hawks clearly have their work cut out for them. All of those teams have had more injury issues as well and have played through them. Penguins the same, as usual. And in case nobody realizes, all of those teams are playing to win the Stanley Cup too.

Save all the cliches and Pirri and others, it is not about that and you all know that. Save all the I am trying to be smarter than Q stuff....its not that either, it is about remembering what got you here, what allowed this team to grow to be the type of team they are. It is not sitting on their laurels. It is not about some emotional touchy feely thing. Unamed harps on that greatly. Very funny too, I kind of left that open...so fine. But he knows that is not what I am talking about. It is the fact that many of you have seemed to gotten comfortable with your team. That is fine. But do we not see the evolution of excuse making for the team and false sense of comfort with the way we lose games etc.. You all are smarter than that. It is the bigger picture of this team stagnating at a time when many other teams have pushed forward. I would rather have Unamed at 3 o 4C and on PK than Zus.

You can add Morin and Pirri (once he's back) to that list short list along with Nordstrom. To a lesser degree, maybe McNeill, Winchester, Ross and Terry Broadhurst - if the organization might be willing to look at someone else.
- EKolb13

Hey, even if it is one of them for a week or so to sit someone to get their attention...Right now there is no sitting for anyone. It is stagnant.

Look while others fairly and unfairly mock me, I don't care about how fair anything is. I played a sport and was paid believe it or not. It is more about philosophy then anything else.

Believe it or not, I know that Q and team has more info than I do. I accept the fact he makes the decisions. What is funny and ironic is that many mock my views as fantasy, while at the same time interpretting the reasons behind all of Q's decisions. So be it.

Q has 10 Olympians, 3 others were clear bubble guys and one other went to an olympic camp. To ask a guy to find a way to work 2 or maybe 3 players into a scheme is not a deal breaker.

Another ironic thing you said, and it is not a shot at you directly, but everyone's default argument to me is that you can't afford to lose points as a cup contending team. Many of those same people then lecture me and others on how the cup is not won in the regular season or November.

This goes to my whole philosophy. In the big picture, it is does not matter what I or you think Q thinks about a player. It is about the fact that these are your players. These are your guys that you may need. If in the end they trade for another as EK suggests, then fine, but now as we watch stale hockey for the better part of a month and see a content roster...and more importantly see other teams rounding into form (Ducks, Blues, Sharks etc...) the Hawks clearly have their work cut out for them. All of those teams have had more injury issues as well and have played through them. Penguins the same, as usual. And in case nobody realizes, all of those teams are playing to win the Stanley Cup too.

Save all the cliches and Pirri and others, it is not about that and you all know that. Save all the I am trying to be smarter than Q stuff....its not that either, it is about remembering what got you here, what allowed this team to grow to be the type of team they are. It is not sitting on their laurels. It is not about some emotional touchy feely thing. Unamed harps on that greatly. Very funny too, I kind of left that open...so fine. But he knows that is not what I am talking about. It is the fact that many of you have seemed to gotten comfortable with your team. That is fine. But do we not see the evolution of excuse making for the team and false sense of comfort with the way we lose games etc.. You all are smarter than that. It is the bigger picture of this team stagnating at a time when many other teams have pushed forward. I would rather have Unamed at 3 o 4C and on PK than Zus.
- TrueGrit

You know what is ironic? Zus is one of those 10!

Red Wings of the late 90's/early millenium were great at this
- philco28

Also, no cap, as Paul said above.

Hawks lost 3 players to cap issues last summer: Bolland, Frolik, Stalberg. That means 3 newcomers had to be inserted into a 12-forward line up - that's 25%.

Plus deteriorating play for two others - Bickell and Handzus - now that's 5 out of 12.

If you can roll over one or two per year, and count on the other 10, that's one thing - you could afford to let a Pirri or Nordstrom or Morin or ??? play themselves in or out.

But: if you effectively are 5 down from last year, it becomes difficult to revolve new guys in and continue to compete for a Cup.

I'd be inclined that way myself but the guy who is paid to make that evaluation, the guy who's job hinges on his evaluations, and whose evaluations have won two cups, thinks otherwise.
- paulr

Fair enough.

Who doesn't?
- EKolb13

And the Hawks do and have infused 'new blood' into their lineup, have they not?

Another more important 'interesting thing' about historical dynasties is the Oilers, Islanders and Habs never had to deal with a salary cap. Imagine how the Hawks would be doing today if they didn't have to rip aprt that 2010 team.

Like any history lesson, you can't learn from it if you don't factor in all the historical facts, even those that don't support your argument.
- paulr

Paul, really....YOU KNOW that the point was that the core of any team is top 2 lines and top 4 D. From a practical sense. And all those guys came back this year, and most in 2010 too bTW, and that there are always new pieces that come in, some rookies, some through trade etc... But it was not me but guys from those teams that echoed my point, about the importance of a little new blood. If I had time I would find them.

So now that we are in 2014 after 2013 cup we debate 2010?

It is utterly amazing to me lengths some will go to filibuster a point rather than just acknowledge a legitimate opinion contrary to one they believe in.

You know what is ironic? Zus is one of those 10!
- paulr

I did think of that and had the same thought...But Paul, you were the next option for Slovakia...

Also, no cap, as Paul said above.

Hawks lost 3 players to cap issues last summer: Bolland, Frolik, Stalberg. That means 3 newcomers had to be inserted into a 12-forward line up - that's 25%.

Plus deteriorating play for two others - Bickell and Handzus - now that's 5 out of 12.

If you can roll over one or two per year, and count on the other 10, that's one thing - you could afford to let a Pirri or Nordstrom or Morin or ??? play themselves in or out.

But: if you effectively are 5 down from last year, it becomes difficult to revolve new guys in and continue to compete for a Cup.
- StLBravesFan

Cap or no cap...you're probably going to turnover the roster over at least by 2 or 3 guys a year, but i get the gist of your point.

I wonder if the Bulls would have won 8 straight had MJ not retired.
And i wonder if the Tomahawk would have at least one more ring without
the intrusion/inconvenience of the 'the cap'.

Hey, even if it is one of them for a week or so to sit someone to get their attention...Right now there is no sitting for anyone. It is stagnant.
- TrueGrit

I agree. However, the problem it seems is that no forward sits because the Hawks have chosen to carry 8 defensemen and the "13th forward in case of emergency" seems to be Brookbank.

Either Q needs to be rotating Brookbank in at forward, or their needs to be a 13th forward here. Given, I wouldn't expect Bowman to jettison defensive depth - it just doesn't seem to be his thing. But what has Kostka done for this team? At this point, I wouldn't be afraid to put Kostka on waivers to send him to Rockford. If the Hawks lose him, so what? With watching Dahlbeck over the past season and a half in Rockford, I would think that Dahlbeck could possibly be on this team now as a 7th defenseman and not hurt this team.

At this point I'd assign Kostka to Rockford and call up one of Morin or Nordstrom.

The Hawks got Zus for a bag of candy and a 7th rounder last year. They signed him for 2 bags of candy this year as a UFA.

My point is, yes I know we never really know what all GMS think, but it is safe to say, as many teams are rebuilding/up and coming mode, that you do not waste a minute of ice on a guy that is not part of the longer term plan. That was my point. The Sharks showed that you actually rid yourself of battleships and improve your team speed so you are able to play in modern NHL. Ducks too...

As for being on the roster as an insurance policy...then great, I am all for that. There is no doubt he has value there. To come in for a 2 or 3 game stint to give depth and experience should Shaw, Kruger or Toews go down for a week or two...fantastic. I would be grateful then if we had him. But skating 2C every game? And heading up the vaunted 28th ranked PK? No thanks...

Nordstrom at 4C and Kruger 3C...great. Pirri 3C, in lesser role than 2C, Shaw 2C and Kruger 4C...great again. The experience those guys would/could have been getting is the opportunity cost. This is not a Gasp pump piece, but as many point out how he is awful or can't do it, teams record with him in 24 games better than without. That is not crowning him anything, just pointing out there is not this huge drop off. Put him 3 or 4 C and bring in some young energy.

Like you Ogi, I study history, one of the interesting things about Dynasties of Islanders and Oilers, is there was a constant rotation of role guys around the core. You need the new blood to keep things from getting stagnant. And again, if not Gasp, then somebody else. It is not about Gasp, just the point that he is next up.
- TrueGrit

Trades may happen, I can't predict that, but the centers I listed are all available now. Gasp is hurt. If the Hawks aren't rolling with 4 centers they believe in by the time Pirri is healthy, then I'm ready to see part II.

I agree. However, the problem it seems is that no forward sits because the Hawks have chosen to carry 8 defensemen and the "13th forward in case of emergency" seems to be Brookbank.

Either Q needs to be rotating Brookbank in at forward, or their needs to be a 13th forward here. Given, I wouldn't expect Bowman to jettison defensive depth - it just doesn't seem to be his thing. But what has Kostka done for this team? At this point, I wouldn't be afraid to put Kostka on waivers to send him to Rockford. If the Hawks lose him, so what? With watching Dahlbeck over the past season and a half in Rockford, I would think that Dahlbeck could possibly be on this team now as a 7th defenseman and not hurt this team.

At this point I'd assign Kostka to Rockford and call up one of Morin or Nordstrom.
- EKolb13

Agreed!

Cap or no cap...you're probably going to turnover the roster at least by 2 or 3 guys a year, but i get the gist of your point.

I wonder if the Bulls would have won 8 straight had MJ not retired.
And i wonder if the Tomahawk would have at least one more ring without
the intrusion/inconvenience of the 'the cap'.
- philco28

I'm talkin minimum 8'pete. Daaaaaaaaaa Bulls.

It is utterly amazing to me lengths some will go to filibuster a point rather than just acknowledge a legitimate opinion contrary to one they believe in.
- TrueGrit

You are including yourself, me and about 2 dozen other guys who post here among this group, right?

I agree. However, the problem it seems is that no forward sits because the Hawks have chosen to carry 8 defensemen and the "13th forward in case of emergency" seems to be Brookbank.

Either Q needs to be rotating Brookbank in at forward, or their needs to be a 13th forward here. Given, I wouldn't expect Bowman to jettison defensive depth - it just doesn't seem to be his thing. But what has Kostka done for this team? At this point, I wouldn't be afraid to put Kostka on waivers to send him to Rockford. If the Hawks lose him, so what? With watching Dahlbeck over the past season and a half in Rockford, I would think that Dahlbeck could possibly be on this team now as a 7th defenseman and not hurt this team.

At this point I'd assign Kostka to Rockford and call up one of Morin or Nordstrom.
- EKolb13

Nordy.......

You are including yourself, me and about 2 dozen other guys who post here among this group, right?


- EKolb13

exactly.........

Agreed!
- TrueGrit

This is scary. Is this another sign of the apocalypse?

Paul, really....YOU KNOW that the point was that the core of any team is top 2 lines and top 4 D. From a practical sense. And all those guys came back this year, and most in 2010 too bTW, and that there are always new pieces that come in, some rookies, some through trade etc... But it was not me but guys from those teams that echoed my point, about the importance of a little new blood. If I had time I would find them.

So now that we are in 2014 after 2013 cup we debate 2010?

It is utterly amazing to me lengths some will go to filibuster a point rather than just acknowledge a legitimate opinion contrary to one they believe in.
- TrueGrit

I'm talkin minimum 8'pete. Daaaaaaaaaa Bulls.
- PhilMeister89

What an ERA OF CHAMPIONSHIP EXCELLENCE

Trades may happen, I can't predict that, but the centers I listed are all available now. Gasp is hurt. If the Hawks aren't rolling with 4 centers they believe in by the time Pirri is healthy, then I'm ready to see part II.
- Ogilthorpe2

Remember.....the sequel is usually not as good as the first movie.......and in this case the first movie wasn't very good.

exactly.........
- UnnamedSource

It was an honest observation.

Nordy.......
- UnnamedSource

Really, either or would be sufficient.

You are including yourself, me and about 2 dozen other guys who post here among this group, right?


- EKolb13

Maybe, of course, but believe it or not, I have had good clean discussions with Paul and even Unnamed where we draw lines in the sand and, though we do not agree, we acknowledge the different view point.

The mocking part is more about entertaining and have no problem with that. Keeps the board from getting too stale.