No, just Panarin for Saad bad!
- BMWChiFan

I have to wonder if there was an unstated reason for this trade. Worst case, they could have kept him until now and then look to unload him for premium picks and prospects at the deadline. This trade seemingly had a sense of urgency attached to it.

I have to wonder if there was an unstated reason for this trade. Worst case, they could have kept him until now and then look to unload him for premium picks and prospects at the deadline. This trade seemingly had a sense of urgency attached to it.
- 333inthe3rd

Word was that Panarin did an interview before leaving for the world championships in a russian news thing. This was after we were swept by Nash. He said he ran out of gas and was tired and then went to the Worlds and led the tourney in scoring.

Justin,

Well written as always.

I am a little perplexed by the half in half out with Quenville. You have been around sports for a long time. Either the players are "in" or "out" when it comes to the coach and the message. There is no middle ground.

And you do not have to be "in the room" to know the messages are not resonating throughout the the players. Q was a great coach for this group when they were young and immature, they needed the father figure and discipline. Toews and Kane are not 20 anymore.

While you very well may be right in that firing Q may not change this seasons outcome, but that should not be a reason to do nothing. Changing coaches is the path of least resistance and is actually the most efficient path to a rebuild, if indeed one is needed.

Reason being, you remove Q and you put the rest of the season on the backs of the players. If indeed the group keeps sinking, then you will know there are bigger problems, as many believe. You will never know this unless you change the coach.

We have been living ground hog day for close to 3.5 years now. The optics to the die hard fans tell the story. Yes it is a tough league, but there clearly is something missing.

Delaying the inevitable, no matter who ends up being right, only wastes the primes of a couple of future hall of famers.

Disagree. Young players coming in all over the league, over a period of the past 2-3 years means it's no longer unusual. Times have changed, and young players today, who are following advanced diets, strength training and attending skill camps and private are far more developed than young players in prior years.

A good GM would have new developing young players coming in each year to supplement the core and not waste Toews/Kane/Keith remaining good years. Stanbo has been a disaster, and Q is stuck in his ways. Both need to go immediately. I'd like to see Colliton promoted before we lose him to another team. As to GM, I'd bring in someone from outside who has had nothing to do with Stanbo or his 85 year old father.
- BMWChiFan

Actually this goes to point regarding placeholders. I really don’t mind a few placeholders as Colliton develops young players in Rockford this season.

Personally I’d like to Colliton finish the season with the IceHogs, getting another full season under his belt. That’s also why I’d like to see Dineen or Granato take over as head coach at some point this season (again as a placeholder).

I have to wonder if there was an unstated reason for this trade. Worst case, they could have kept him until now and then look to unload him for premium picks and prospects at the deadline. This trade seemingly had a sense of urgency attached to it.
- 333inthe3rd

Urgency was Stanbo pissed off press conference where it was clear he would do something. Problem was his ridiculous contracts (Seabs exhibit A) and NMCs meant he was limited in who he could move. So he ended up moving two of the Hawks best players -- Breadman and Hammer.

I say bring back Dale Tallon and Rick Dudley. They know talent and how to build a team.

I say bring back Dale Tallon and Rick Dudley. They know talent and how to build a team.
- mmurray892

Because he's won so much in Florida.

Is Pulford still alive? (Was he ever?)

People tend to forget that Q has blatantly not played two defenseman who went on to be contributors on cup teams. But let's blame bowman for trading guys who were just healthy scratches every night. Let's blame bowman for the team consistently not playing a 60 minute effort and showing more excitement. Let's blame bowman for the horrible powerplay. Q has such a bad hand with players who two years ago were 3 of the top 100 players ever to play the game?

I am not against cleaning house, but this team no matter what talent bowman brought in Q plays them so unusual. He takes murphy and puts him on his off side all season. He played Jeff Glass over Forsberg for some reason even though Forsberg should've played every game when Crawford went down. He healthy scratched Daley to the point we had to give him away and same with Kempny.
- lilmookie630

You should go back a re read what You wrote and you may rethink things. Just because the coach does or does not play a player he is not the one who can trade or offer a contract too. That decision and job is squarely on the head of the General Manager so if the GM trades a player whom the coach hasnt played it is his decision to part ways with if he wanted that player to play and the coach refuses to play that player then trading away that player the problem then lies with the GM for not firing the coach or not controlling his team or maybe the discussion between GM and coach both agreed to move the player out for reasons only they know.


The bottom line is the GM is ultimately responsible for the players he acquires and signs to contracts. If the GM does not acquire personnel that can field a winning team then the blame solely rests on him.


Example Stan acquires kunitz,ward, manning, Davidson after the team fails to make the playoffs and this team still is losing and not performing is that the coaches problem or the GM ?



St Louis acquires bozak and ROR and a few other nice moves but yet struggles ? Is this a GM OR COACHING PROBLEM ? I'm gonna say it@ a coaching change that needs to happen.

You should go back a re read what You wrote and you may rethink things. Just because the coach does or does not play a player he is not the one who can trade or offer a contract too. That decision and job is squarely on the head of the General Manager so if the GM trades a player whom the coach hasnt played it is his decision to part ways with if he wanted that player to play and the coach refuses to play that player then trading away that player the problem then lies with the GM for not firing the coach or not controlling his team or maybe the discussion between GM and coach both agreed to move the player out for reasons only they know.


The bottom line is the GM is ultimately responsible for the players he acquires and signs to contracts. If the GM does not acquire personnel that can field a winning team then the blame solely rests on him.


Example Stan acquires kunitz,ward, manning, Davidson after the team fails to make the playoffs and this team still is losing and not performing is that the coaches problem or the GM ?



St Louis acquires bozak and ROR and a few other nice moves but yet struggles ? Is this a GM OR COACHING PROBLEM ? I'm gonna say it@ a coaching change that needs to happen.
- Taylorst1

From my 3 years living up in Blaine, I was able to go to 20 Wild games a year... From that sample size I feel Yeo just gets nothing out of his team. Same is going on in St Louis.

Great blog as usual.

I stayed up to watch the Calgary game, and what concerned me was how they lost in the third period. At first, I thought they had ran out of gas from being out on the West Coast. Then as I watched I realized they were simply outskated. Nothing they did seemed to break Calgary's pressure. It took almost 10 minutes before they had a shot on goal. Calgary broke the team's will, and then it was only a matter of time before they scored the tying goal.

However, the loss does point to bigger problems:
1. I think there are some subtle changes in team play when Crawford is in goal. They lean on him a lot; way more than they should. I think many of the players are just used to him being outstanding. It is almost like the Bulls when they would stand around and watch Michael Jordan try to rescue the team.

2. Similarly, I think the team waits for Patrick Kane to make the power play go, and when he doesn't, nothing works.

3. I watched the CBC broadcast for two periods, and I really appreciate their candor about the Hawks. They pointed out that the Hawks have had the highest player turnover of any of the three multi-cup winners since 2010...and it is not even close compared to Pittsburgh or LA. They focused on the salary cap problems caused by retaining the Big 4 (Kane, Toews, Seabrook, and Keith), but not the salaries handed out to Crawford (not part of the core?), Kruger (not part of the core?), and Saad (ok, Columbus paid him, but we have the salary now). They thought that was the biggest reason the Hawks had problems. I switched back to the Hawks broadcast for the third period. Should have stuck with CBC. I wonder what they had to say about the third period. Now I wish I could remember which broadcast team CBC was using.

4. Loved the Saad bull-rush for the third goal. Sounds like Q finally got through to him. Keep doing that please. I like Martisen's motor. Even if he is not much of a goal scorer, I like what he does on the ice.

5. Most importantly, no silver bullet fixes this team. Sure, it would be nice if Q left the lineup alone for a few games to let them develop some chemistry. Sure it would be nice if they team got hot if Q was fired (no guarantee that it would, and what replacement coach would light that fire?). Sure it would be nice if the team got hot if Stan was fired (not sure the players care about this as much as we do).

I do believe that, whenever it happens, Q and Stan should be fired together either mid-season or after the season is over. Ideally, you stagger your leadership turnover, but one of them (or both) has been there too long, so both now need to go together, or in quick succession.

1. Fire Bowman
2. Fire Q
3. Fire McD
4. Trade Toews
5. Trade Saad
6. Trade Keith
7. Trade Seabrook
8. Trade Crawford
9. Fire Zamboni Driver
10. Fire Ice Crew Gals
11. Fire Red Top Parking Attendants
12. Fire Jim Cornelison
13. Fire Gene Honda
14. Renegotiate really bad deals with WGNTV, Radio, & Comcast Sportsnet
15. Retire Pat Foley
16. Renegotiate that What Toews & Kane Ad - another really, really bad deal
17. Plan Parade

I don't even think, thanks to Bowman that we have many moving parts to move anymore. NHL now is youth and speed, even last few years that's the only ones other GM s want and bowman got fleeced. With our long term contracts and no tradee clauses there are no blockbusters even at trade deadline to blow this ship up if we wanted to. Just have to wait for those young D to develop and start to have a manageable cap in four years. This year don't look good, and it may get worse for a bit.

I say bring back Dale Tallon and Rick Dudley. They know talent and how to build a team.
- mmurray892

And we can bring back Mike Keenan as HC while we're at it. That ship has sailed, been scuttled, sold and parted out at the salvage yard.

1. Fire Bowman
2. Fire Q
3. Fire McD
4. Trade Toews
5. Trade Saad
6. Trade Keith
7. Trade Seabrook
8. Trade Crawford
9. Fire Zamboni Driver
10. Fire Ice Crew Gals
11. Fire Red Top Parking Attendants
12. Fire Jim Cornelison
13. Fire Gene Honda
14. Renegotiate really bad deals with WGNTV, Radio, & Comcast Sportsnet
15. Retire Pat Foley
16. Renegotiate that What Toews & Kane Ad - another really, really bad deal
17. Plan Parade
- StutzBlackhawk

Can't trade this guy, Stan gave him a NTC.

1. Fire Bowman
2. Fire Q
3. Fire McD
4. Trade Toews
5. Trade Saad
6. Trade Keith
7. Trade Seabrook
8. Trade Crawford
9. Fire Zamboni Driver
10. Fire Ice Crew Gals
11. Fire Red Top Parking Attendants
12. Fire Andy Frain ushers
13. Fire Jim Cornelison
14. Fire Vendors
15. Fire Gene Honda
16. Renegotiate really bad deals with WGNTV, Radio, & Comcast Sportsnet
17. Fire Tommy Hawk
18. Retire Pat Foley
19. Retire Chelsea Dagger
20. Fire Frank Pellico
21. Renegotiate that What Toews & Kane Ad - another really, really bad deal
22. Fire Steve Konroyd
23. Rehire Susannah Collins
24. Fire Drum Core
25. Retire the Kid, the Geek and the sensibly dressed woman shooting contest
26. Plan Parade
- StutzBlackhawk

Stan Bowman is in this job for 1 reason and 1 reason alone...his Daddy is Scotty Bowman. The guy never played hockey at a high level and apparently his math skills aren't so great either given his contracts. Way too many sub 180lb guys that love the fancy play but don't get their noses dirty.

When you look at the amount of money Bowman has spent/acquired in the last 12 months on bottom of the roster or AHL talent....just wow.


Rutta $2.3mil, Ward $3mil, Kunitz $1mil, Manning $2.25 mil, Murphy $3.8mil, Gustafson $1.2 = $13.55 mil

Can't trade this guy, Stan gave him a NTC.
- DarthKane

Is he the one that was also given a clause where he can block trades of other players too?

Justin,

Well written as always.

I am a little perplexed by the half in half out with Quenville. You have been around sports for a long time. Either the players are "in" or "out" when it comes to the coach and the message. There is no middle ground.

And you do not have to be "in the room" to know the messages are not resonating throughout the the players. Q was a great coach for this group when they were young and immature, they needed the father figure and discipline. Toews and Kane are not 20 anymore.

While you very well may be right in that firing Q may not change this seasons outcome, but that should not be a reason to do nothing. Changing coaches is the path of least resistance and is actually the most efficient path to a rebuild, if indeed one is needed.

Reason being, you remove Q and you put the rest of the season on the backs of the players. If indeed the group keeps sinking, then you will know there are bigger problems, as many believe. You will never know this unless you change the coach.

We have been living ground hog day for close to 3.5 years now. The optics to the die hard fans tell the story. Yes it is a tough league, but there clearly is something missing.

Delaying the inevitable, no matter who ends up being right, only wastes the primes of a couple of future hall of famers.
- TrueGrit

I think we can all agree the horses are their like they used to be. Clearly Stan has done a pretty poor job the last few years managing salaries and talent. However, why does Q keep running out guys like Kunitz and Manning? BC Q likes those type of guys.

Q's system worked for many years. He had the players to play it while the rest of the league was slow and heavy still.

Now the NHL has adjusted. It is all about speed speed and more speed.

What adjustments has Q made to his overall system? None. The Hawks are trying to play a system that just doesn't work anymore. Q has failed to adapt. For 3 years now it has been then same issues over and over and over again. Q just keeps doing the same thing thinking it will eventually work. It won't. He needs to go.

Will it solve the big issues salary and player wise? No, but Q has shown he cannot adapt to the new modern game. What is the point in keeping him around?

Edit: He has made a few changes a passive box PK and a 1-3-1 crap PP.

Disagree. Young players coming in all over the league, over a period of the past 2-3 years means it's no longer unusual. Times have changed, and young players today, who are following advanced diets, strength training and attending skill camps and have private skills and skating tutors are far more developed than young players in prior years.

A good GM would have one or two young players in each position group coming in each year to supplement the core (unlike Hawks 6 Dmen high draft picks over last 2 years) and not waste Toews/Kane/Keith/Crow remaining good years.

Stanbo has been a disaster, and Q is stuck in his ways. Both need to go immediately. I'd like to see Colliton promoted before we lose him to another team. As to GM, I'd bring in someone from outside who has had nothing to do with Stanbo or his 85 year old father.
- BMWChiFan

1-2 at each position might be a bit much, but the Hawks have been bringing in young players to play int he NHL each season. They aren't behind the pack in that regard.

The NHL is embracing some young players. Hawks fans are enjoying the introduction of Jokiharju, but he isn't alone as far as young dmen coming in and playing some significant minutes.

Miro Heiskanen in Dallas is 19
Maxime Lajoie in Ottawa is 21
Dennis Cholowski in Detroit is 21

I didn't mind the Manning signing at the time, but I'll admit he has been BRUTAL. He game has taken a huge step in the wrong direction since coming over and it seems like he is costing us a goal every single game. They really need to resolve that issue, because it seems like whenever we get destroyed by a bad goal, Manning is always 50% of the D unit that got victimized. I know the coaches said they are working with him on changing his game, but it isn't working.

The team needs to demote him and bring someone in or pull a trade. Honestly, with the timing and nature of his mistakes so far, if they had someone solid, we'd probably be sitting about 2nd/3rd in the division and not 6th.

I don't even think, thanks to Bowman that we have many moving parts to move anymore. NHL now is youth and speed, even last few years that's the only ones other GM s want and bowman got fleeced. With our long term contracts and no tradee clauses there are no blockbusters even at trade deadline to blow this ship up if we wanted to. Just have to wait for those young D to develop and start to have a manageable cap in four years. This year don't look good, and it may get worse for a bit.
- holyJumpin_NL

Agreed !

Certainly the defense in front of him has been atrocious at times (or mostly) but:

In 8 games, he has allowed 2 goals once, 3 goals twice, and four or more five times.

32 goals in eight games, a save percentage of .887. Only all of the OT games kept his GPG average below 4.

In front of a just-as-bad defense last season, Forsberg, in 35 games, had a better GPF average (2.97) and save percentage (.908).

Now, all of this is hindsight, but would it have hurt to have Forsberg backing up Crawford this season, giving him more experience and seeing what they really had in one of the pieces coming back for Panarin?
- StLBravesFan

Didnt know if crow would be back or not which was the biggest problem. My guess is they wanted a veteran around to show some of those other guys how to be pros if necessary

Urgency was Stanbo pissed off press conference where it was clear he would do something. Problem was his ridiculous contracts (Seabs exhibit A) and NMCs meant he was limited in who he could move. So he ended up moving two of the Hawks best players -- Breadman and Hammer.
- BMWChiFan

The diff between Saad and Panarin moneywise in the near term was negligible. The spin offered was cost certainty after Panarin's contract, and that they will still be guaranteed to have an asset after that two years. The problem with this spin is that if they were really worried about losing him, they can still trade him at the deadline and get a big haul of picks and prospects for him. In fairness, most of us thought that Saad would be better than he was last year, but still, it's pretty obvious who the better player is here. How does this trade happen in a vacuum?

Add: If it's true what nickmo says, that is probably reason enough to deal him. I had heard something to that effect, also. I don't know the truth of the matter, though, and sometimes things get lost in the translation.

I didn't mind the Manning signing at the time, but I'll admit he has been BRUTAL. He game has taken a huge step in the wrong direction since coming over and it seems like he is costing us a goal every single game. They really need to resolve that issue, because it seems like whenever we get destroyed by a bad goal, Manning is always 50% of the D unit that got victimized. I know the coaches said they are working with him on changing his game, but it isn't working.

The team needs to demote him and bring someone in or pull a trade. Honestly, with the timing and nature of his mistakes so far, if they had someone solid, we'd probably be sitting about 2nd/3rd in the division and not 6th.
- breadbag

Actually, the word out of Philly was that he had a great year and took major steps as a Dman for a 4-5-6 spot. What happened to his game now I have no idea.

Also, I have noticed that when players move from conference to conference, sometimes the speed is different. The Western Conference has serious speed up and down where the East plays a bit more physical brand game. Just something I noticed as we look for answers in Manning and Kunitz even though he is just old.

Stan Bowman is in this job for 1 reason and 1 reason alone...his Daddy is Scotty Bowman. The guy never played hockey at a high level and apparently his math skills aren't so great either given his contracts. Way too many sub 180lb guys that love the fancy play but don't get their noses dirty.

When you look at the amount of money Bowman has spent/acquired in the last 12 months on bottom of the roster or AHL talent....just wow.


Rutta $2.3mil, Ward $3mil, Kunitz $1mil, Manning $2.25 mil, Murphy $3.8mil, Gustafson $1.2 = $13.55 mil
- EnzoD

Agreed. Once the Bowman's got brought in you knew Stan taking over as GM would be the move. Basically hope that Scotty would coach Stan up to make good moves which he did, but yeah just too many bad moves out weigh the good ones he's done.

The hope is that maybe Murphy turns into a solid D option or he gets traded same with Gus and we then have almost 15M to work with in FA going into next year depending on what kinda deal Schmaltz will get and some of the other RFA. Manning is stuck on this team. I can't see anyone taking him with how bad he's played. Only thing you can hope is a one for one contract swap with a team desperate for D OR you move other contracts out that you can then bury his contract in Rockford or waive him and buy him out