True but how many teams have a coach known to play used up vets ahead of rookies?
- Quicky72

I think the whole "Q doesn't like to play rookies" is blown out of proportion. Lots of rookies have been played by Q and some in some good spots. Guys like TVR/Leddy got ice-time with Keith early in their careers. Personally, I think he plays the rookies when they are ready.

Let's take a look at the top 10 teams in terms of winning hockey games during Q's time as coach in Chicago. Here is how the Hawks rank in terms of rookies skaters used. The average # of rookies played for all teams is 62

Boston 71 Rookies
Chicago 68 Rookies
Vancouver 66 Rookies
Anaheim 62 Rookies
Pittsburgh 60 Rookies
Detroit 59 Rookies
Washington 50 Rookies
San Jose 50 Rookies
New York Rangers 49 Rookies
St Louis 40 Rookies

The Hawks have had 16 players play at least half a season as a rookie (by definition). How does that rank with these same teams. League average is 14-15 players.

Chicago - 16
New York Rangers - 16
Boston - 15
Anaheim - 15
Vancouver - 12
Detroit - 12
San Jose - 11
Pittsburgh - 9
St Louis - 9
Washington - 7

Sure, the Hawks have had to retool a bit more than some other teams, but they also have had some vets come in one "sweetheart" deals. All in all, with the recent changes to the lineup, I think the Hawks are a great destination for rookies looking to earn a spot. I think Q has just had a soft spot for a couple players because they were safe choices.

Those rights mean little if Butcher has a plan (like a guarantee to get a top six slot somewhere where there IS an easy slide with little competition)

You are gifting Colorado a pick when the kid holds the cards.
- wiz1901

Bartlett (agent) also claims that Butcher, 22, wouldn’t demand an immediate spot on an NHL roster. That’s nice to hear … although you wonder if a team offering as much would get a better chance to land him, especially since entry-level contract limits mean that a “bidding war” would come down to what team, situation, and location he’d prefer.

Why give up anything when Stan can wait two week a and sign him for free?
- DarthKane

Two reasons.

1) 4th round picks don't often turn into Hjalmarssons, so you're not giving up much.

2) Show the kid, and his agent that you're serious about him.

Every team is going to be calling on 8/16. Why not try to sign him before that?

Realistically, how many teams offer a bigger opportunity to get a Top 6 NHL spot this year than the Hawks??
- EnzoD

Probably one of the best arguments to suggest the Hawks won't be that good this year.

Every team is going to be calling on 8/16. Why not try to sign him before that?
- tvetter

Butcher will probably sign August 15th, the day after he becomes a ufa on Aug.14th, as there won't be as much hubbub as Vesey.

He did tell Colorado he would reconsider now that the guy who had his underlings TELL Butcher's reps they weren't interested.
(Butcher DID show a jump in development after he told Coloeado was not going to sign him)
Remember when the Sabres did pay a 3rd for early Vesey communications, remember the comments on their Buzzsite about the waste of a pick?



I suggest you google best late round picks and when you see how many there are, you might see that as an added reason to not waste a 4th....


the agent barley said they will listen to all pitches so, it would be a waste.

I know it has nothing to do with anything right now, but I'm just curious.

Why would the Hawks depth chart now not list Bouma or Wingels on it, but it would show Rutta.

They are shown on the active roster, but not on the depth chart

I know it has nothing to do with anything right now, but I'm just curious.

Why would the Hawks depth chart now not list Bouma or Wingels on it, but it would show Rutta.

They are shown on the active roster, but not on the depth chart
- vabeachbear

most staff is off for the summer and no one there even cares about that stuff until they get the lowdown of just where/who the pecking order stands/is.

most staff is off for the summer and no one there even cares about that stuff until they get the lowdown of just where/who the pecking order stands/is.
- wiz1901

Ya figured that's probably why, just thought it was weird that they took time on the website to add them to the active roster but not the depth chart.

Ya figured that's probably why, just thought it was weird that they took time on the website to add them to the active roster but not the depth chart.
- vabeachbear

Wiz has a point that the Hawks probably aren't too concerned about that stuff in the middle of the summer, another possible reason is Wingels and Bouma are both veteran NHL players and not waiver exempt - so the assumption is they will be on the opening day roster. Rutta, on the other hand, has never played in the NHL before and is waiver exempt so the possibility of him making the Hawks opening night roster is in question.

Realistically, how many teams offer a bigger opportunity to get a Top 6 NHL spot this year than the Hawks??
- EnzoD

Might've been the same sales pitch to Rutta a couple months ago and Kempny the year prior. But Tom Wilson tho

Anyone interested in donating to Chicago Hockey Charity Classic, which benefits the Special Olympics, link is below.

@BarstoolChief
Chicago Charity Hockey Classic has now raised $52,645 (of $100k goal). The game featuring Kane, Hinostroza, & Eddie O is in 6 days. https://www.givegab.com/n...go-hockey-charity-classic

I think the whole "Q doesn't like to play rookies" is blown out of proportion. Lots of rookies have been played by Q and some in some good spots. Guys like TVR/Leddy got ice-time with Keith early in their careers. Personally, I think he plays the rookies when they are ready.

Let's take a look at the top 10 teams in terms of winning hockey games during Q's time as coach in Chicago. Here is how the Hawks rank in terms of rookies skaters used. The average # of rookies played for all teams is 62

Boston 71 Rookies
Chicago 68 Rookies
Vancouver 66 Rookies
Anaheim 62 Rookies
Pittsburgh 60 Rookies
Detroit 59 Rookies
Washington 50 Rookies
San Jose 50 Rookies
New York Rangers 49 Rookies
St Louis 40 Rookies

The Hawks have had 16 players play at least half a season as a rookie (by definition). How does that rank with these same teams. League average is 14-15 players.

Chicago - 16
New York Rangers - 16
Boston - 15
Anaheim - 15
Vancouver - 12
Detroit - 12
San Jose - 11
Pittsburgh - 9
St Louis - 9
Washington - 7

Sure, the Hawks have had to retool a bit more than some other teams, but they also have had some vets come in one "sweetheart" deals. All in all, with the recent changes to the lineup, I think the Hawks are a great destination for rookies looking to earn a spot. I think Q has just had a soft spot for a couple players because they were safe choices.
- breadbag

The problem with this analysis is there is not enough context. There is a difference between merely dressing rookies or young players and truly letting them have responsibility. In Pittsburgh if a rookie or young player is dressed he is truly given the opportunity to contribute. Q does little to grow rookies or young players - often they take a step backwards with him. Growing young players is not Q's forte. It takes a special young player to excel under Q - either undeniably talented (Kane) or stubborn (Saad) or a combo of both. Even they had problems.

The problem with this analysis is there is not enough context. There is a difference between merely dressing rookies or young players and truly letting them have responsibility. In Pittsburgh if a rookie or young player is dressed he is truly given the opportunity to contribute. Q does little to grow rookies or young players - often they take a step backwards with him. Growing young players is not Q's forte. It takes a special young player to excel under Q - either undeniably talented (Kane) or stubborn (Saad) or a combo of both. Even they had problems.
- Z3Hawk

It might have helped had Rockford's coaches been able to develop some of these young players before they got to Q - it shouldn't be the coaches in the Show that develop young players - they should be given quality rookies who needed acclimation to the NHL, not development in hockey skills.

Maybe going forward with Colliton....

The problem with this analysis is there is not enough context. There is a difference between merely dressing rookies or young players and truly letting them have responsibility. In Pittsburgh if a rookie or young player is dressed he is truly given the opportunity to contribute. Q does little to grow rookies or young players - often they take a step backwards with him. Growing young players is not Q's forte. It takes a special young player to excel under Q - either undeniably talented (Kane) or stubborn (Saad) or a combo of both. Even they had problems.
- Z3Hawk

No, the problem is it doesn't fit your narrative.

The problem with this analysis is there is not enough context. There is a difference between merely dressing rookies or young players and truly letting them have responsibility. In Pittsburgh if a rookie or young player is dressed he is truly given the opportunity to contribute. Q does little to grow rookies or young players - often they take a step backwards with him. Growing young players is not Q's forte. It takes a special young player to excel under Q - either undeniably talented (Kane) or stubborn (Saad) or a combo of both. Even they had problems.
- Z3Hawk

I get what you are saying, but what evidence is there to back this up? There is a fine line between giving opportunity and putting players in over their head as rookies. The info I was showing was just to illustrate the Q doesn't hesitate to put rookies in the lineup. (more so than many other coaches) The Hawks also haven't exactly had many sure fire NHL prospects lately. The Hawks have typically had the depth to take the pressure off the rookies and let them ease in, which is usually best. Here are some recent examples of rookies given some great opportunities.

TVR - Made the Hawks out of camp. Then he was a guy who had 18 games under his belt before getting injured and when he came back he was playing in the Stanley Cup Final. Q had more experienced options on the bench, but he went with the guy who deserved to play based on performance/ability.

TT - the kid was given lots of different opportunities and got chances often.

Even last season, all the rookies were playing 11-15 minutes per game. Guys like Tootoo, Desjardins, Jurco played less. The Hawks could have brought in more cheap vets, but they didn't. In the end some guys who aren't so special (example: Hartman, Schmaltz, Kero) ended up with decent rookie seasons, given their talent and expectations.

The reality right now is that the Hawks prospect pool (and team depth) isn't what it once was. That comes with winning a lot of hockey. People in the hockey world like to talk about how much the Hawks have had to rework their roster in the last decade. IMO, a lot of that success is Q getting the most out of the players he is given.

How many players have been on the outs with Q but come to rise as good solid NHL contributors? Most, if not all the decent players the Hawks have parted with were for salary cap reasons. The guys Q didn't give a chance to haven't proven much anywhere in the NHL.

I get what you are saying, but what evidence is there to back this up? There is a fine line between giving opportunity and putting players in over their head as rookies. The info I was showing was just to illustrate the Q doesn't hesitate to put rookies in the lineup. (more so than many other coaches) The Hawks also haven't exactly had many sure fire NHL prospects lately. The Hawks have typically had the depth to take the pressure off the rookies and let them ease in, which is usually best. Here are some recent examples of rookies given some great opportunities.

TVR - Made the Hawks out of camp. Then he was a guy who had 18 games under his belt before getting injured and when he came back he was playing in the Stanley Cup Final. Q had more experienced options on the bench, but he went with the guy who deserved to play based on performance/ability.

TT - the kid was given lots of different opportunities and got chances often.

Even last season, all the rookies were playing 11-15 minutes per game. Guys like Tootoo, Desjardins, Jurco played less. The Hawks could have brought in more cheap vets, but they didn't. In the end some guys who aren't so special (example: Hartman, Schmaltz, Kero) ended up with decent rookie seasons, given their talent and expectations.

The reality right now is that the Hawks prospect pool (and team depth) isn't what it once was. That comes with winning a lot of hockey. People in the hockey world like to talk about how much the Hawks have had to rework their roster in the last decade. IMO, a lot of that success is Q getting the most out of the players he is given.

How many players have been on the outs with Q but come to rise as good solid NHL contributors? Most, if not all the decent players the Hawks have parted with were for salary cap reasons. The guys Q didn't give a chance to haven't proven much anywhere in the NHL.
- breadbag

This is a well reasoned thought out response. There is no evidence to support his position. In fact, all the evidence supports the idea that his position is a boatload of hooey.

Probably one of the best arguments to suggest the Hawks won't be that good this year.
- kwolf68

I've been saying for weeks that an experienced NHL dman has got to be added ASAP after cap space from Hossa's LTIR is available. Maybe Rutta can have a similar impact to Zaitsev in Toronto? or maybe he will be David Rundblad??....time will tell, but Bowman can't take that kind of risk in the last few years of Keith + Seabs playing at a high level.

I've been saying for weeks that an experienced NHL dman has got to be added ASAP after cap space from Hossa's LTIR is available. Maybe Rutta can have a similar impact to Zaitsev in Toronto? or maybe he will be David Rundblad??....time will tell, but Bowman can't take that kind of risk in the last few years of Keith + Seabs playing at a high level.
- EnzoD

I agree with that. I'm hoping the lesson from last year is that you can't expect unproven NHL players to play major roles in the playoffs. Another Dman or two would be very helpful.

I have no idea how good Rutta will be but the benchmark in my mind is Kempny.

Butcher will probably sign August 15th, the day after he becomes a ufa on Aug.14th, as there won't be as much hubbub as Vesey.

He did tell Colorado he would reconsider now that the guy who had his underlings TELL Butcher's reps they weren't interested.
(Butcher DID show a jump in development after he told Coloeado was not going to sign him)
Remember when the Sabres did pay a 3rd for early Vesey communications, remember the comments on their Buzzsite about the waste of a pick?



I suggest you google best late round picks and when you see how many there are, you might see that as an added reason to not waste a 4th....


the agent barley said they will listen to all pitches so, it would be a waste.
- wiz1901

I know that there are good players to be had in later rounds (I specifically referenced one), but if the draft was today, knowing what you know about Butcher, where would you take him? I doubt he'd go higher than mid second round. I think getting the jump on all other teams would be worth a fourth.

I've been saying for weeks that an experienced NHL dman has got to be added ASAP after cap space from Hossa's LTIR is available. Maybe Rutta can have a similar impact to Zaitsev in Toronto? or maybe he will be David Rundblad??....time will tell, but Bowman can't take that kind of risk in the last few years of Keith + Seabs playing at a high level.
- EnzoD

Unless they already have a handshake deal in place (like with Vegas) or are hoping a vet PTO will make a splash at camp, they might wait a little bit to really see how the young d-men do before trading for anyone.

I've been saying for weeks that an experienced NHL dman has got to be added ASAP after cap space from Hossa's LTIR is available. Maybe Rutta can have a similar impact to Zaitsev in Toronto? or maybe he will be David Rundblad??....time will tell, but Bowman can't take that kind of risk in the last few years of Keith + Seabs playing at a high level.
- EnzoD

Yep. And any projections of the "unknowns" to do great things is nothing dissimilar to every! other! team! IoW, the days of the Hawks fielding a known, proven commodity are over. The newbies could turn out to be special, but chances are they will all experience some level of struggles. Just how much those players struggle will determine if the Hawks have a good season, a "chance" in the post season or simply not even making the playoffs. I think the potential for the Hawks is very wide-ranged....

I've been saying for weeks that an experienced NHL dman has got to be added ASAP after cap space from Hossa's LTIR is available. Maybe Rutta can have a similar impact to Zaitsev in Toronto? or maybe he will be David Rundblad??....time will tell, but Bowman can't take that kind of risk in the last few years of Keith + Seabs playing at a high level.
- EnzoD

Totally agree, Enzo... We really need help. As far as Seabrook goes, he is still a fine passer, with a great shot, but is days playing at a high overall level are very much over. He's been awful in the D-Zone for the past 2 years. Last year he was a liability more than anything. Love the guy, but his overall game fallen off considerably.

I am not saying it's the hawks busy, but as all the RFA / almost arbirtration rulings finish, GMs will them know exactly how much space they have to add players or take on when making deals.
August may be a time where the trade discussions step up, because the GMs actually know that Cap $$ space is to the penny and don't have to be hesitant that a deal might jam the signings of their own.


Also interesting that Wild's Niederreiter's deal is yet another where the actual cash value for the 2020-21 season drops to the lowest payout of $4.25 mil.
Looks like the players see a lockout coming, and Fehr is already talking about fixing the Salary Cap, talking about the Baseball "cap' in his interviews.

Also, you notice many teams are extending deals up to 2020 to lesser lights.

So trades might start shaking loose, and the future looks confrontational.

Totally agree, Enzo... We really need help. As far as Seabrook goes, he is still a fine passer, with a great shot, but is days playing at a high overall level are very much over. He's been awful in the D-Zone for the past 2 years. Last year he was a liability more than anything. Love the guy, but his overall game fallen off considerably.
- Lysiak

I keep reading on so many places about how "Seabrook has fallen."

I guess my eyes missed that or they had fanboy glasses on.

I don't need season numbers or incidence reports for anyone on the blog, I am willing to watch the season unfold and find the evidence or not by watching closer.

No, the problem is it doesn't fit your narrative.
- TTtime

Was gonna say the same thing. The "Q hates young guys" argument is junk. It ignored Saad, Leddy, Tuevo, and more recently, Schmaltz, Hinostroza, and Kero. All of those guys got meaningful NHL playing time. Schmaltz and Kero were staples last year.