Despite the Q news, we are forgetting the most blasphemous comments made the other day, which was that this team as constructed is a playoff team

Literally was getting ready to post this very comment.

Add to that, we could not have afforded getting more value/cost in return.

It took 5 years for some, not you, to understand what impacts the Cap has on teams, the league, parity and competition.
- TrueGrit

Is this a sign of the apocalypse? JK and...agree.

I agree with all of this. Schmaltz defers to Kane every time he touches the puck. Saad has been their best forward during the last week so not sure why Colliton put him on line 3.....
- EnzoD

Saad on line 3 - maybe because in this 5 loss streak the Hawks have scored only 9 goals - and given up 22.

In only 4 of the 15 games have skaters other than 12/19/88 scored more than one goal.

They need to get at least SOME depth scoring.

Saad on line 3 - maybe because in this 5 loss streak the Hawks have scored only 9 goals - and given up 22.

In only 4 of the 15 games have skaters other than 12/19/88 scored more than one goal.

They need to get at least SOME depth scoring.
- StLBravesFan

OUCH

Panarin - At the time Chicago couldn't afford his upcoming contract
Leddy - At the time Chicago couldn't afford his upcoming contract and had to choose between him and Oduya. The cup win proved they made the correct choice.
Tevo - They needed to get someone to take Bickell's contract, TT was the guy.
Denault - They made a trade at the deadline to try to lift the Hawks over the top for a guy Q never used. Bad move.
Shaw - At the time Chicago couldn't afford his upcoming contract and he wasn't worth what he was asking.

There are many "bad" moves Bowman has made, either for cap purposes or to try to prolong the time the Hawks contended. But you have to look at each trade to assess why they were made. I'm more upset about the bad contract for Seabs or the signings of guys like Davidson, Manning and Kunitz than I am about the ones, other than Danault, you've mentioned.
- paulr

Right on Paul, Revisionist history is always easy. In a vaccuum those deals all look horrible, but at the time were necessary (ok maybe not Panarin, that could have been kicked down the road for a little while longer).
Let's not forget that at the time Bickell received his $4mil contract, he was going to get that or more on the open market. The real issue was not signing him to the more reasonable deal earlier in the season.
Does the fault with the Danault deal lie more in the hands of Stan or the coach who didn't play them in Q? Again, in hindsight its easy to say Weise and Flieschman didn't work out how you expected, but at the time you were giving away a kid who Q wasn't utilizing for the promise of a past playoff performer and a vet with known skills.
The Seabs deal is by far his worst. His skills were already in decline, so even if you valued his leadership as the reason for the cap hit, the term was awful.

I agree with all of this. Schmaltz defers to Kane every time he touches the puck. Saad has been their best forward during the last week so not sure why Colliton put him on line 3.....
- EnzoD

Schmaltz - i agree with your observation.

Saad - Sending a subtle message he is in charge?

I hope Colliton lives by the wise words of Michael Corleone or more properly:

"Keep your friends close and your enemies closer."

Niccolò Machiavelli

Doesn't it seem that way to you? Bowman went and got Q guys that he wanted to put out there, and Q kept putting those guys out there, and look where he is now. Sealed his own fate...if this is true, but certainly seems plausible.
- ToewsdNKanefusd

Or he just waited to long to pull the trigger on a deal and was left with that

Schmaltz - i agree with your observation.

Saad - Sending a subtle message he is in charge?

I hope Colliton lives by the wise words of Michael Corleone or more properly:

"Keep your friends close and your enemies closer."

Niccolò Machiavelli
- riozzo

I wouldn't read too much into these initial lines. Colliton is likely trying to get a feel for everyone. Saad is still on the PP, so that's a plus.

I'm really interested to see how he deploys some of the younger guys being that he knows quite a bit about them.

Looks like Hayden, Manning and Johnson are the scratches tonight.

So is Mike Sullivan now a lousy coach or is the supporting cast for Malkin & Crosby just average?

Looks familiar 😳

Malkin gets away with another headshot.

If you read my post, the time horizon I give is two years, not "all of a sudden."

Why would the core believe that suddenly Stan is going to get talent to add to the roster when he hasn't for the past year when he had a HOF head coach? Why would any free agents come here when there is so much uncertainty with the future of the organization?

Do you think this roster is good enough to make the playoffs this year competing in the division they do? I don't. So that's two years in a row missing the playoffs and Corey Crawford heading into his final contract year. If they resign Crawford, that would be a good sign. But given his past with the club, and McD holding a grudge for what he said at the rally a few years back, the more likely scenario is they trade him - maybe even before the coming TDL - and let the younger guys compete for the goaltending duties. But is there anyone in the organization ready to fill his skates? Not for a few years.

If the CBA gets opened next fall and buyouts are allowed again, isn't Seabrook a good candidate? He's probably the third best Dman on the team right now, and the fourth best is a drop-off, even if Murphy and Forsling come back strong. So, a couple / few years before the defense corps develops in to a contender, best case.

Meanwhile, 2, 19, and 88 see their careers winding down. Why would they stay? Loyalty to whom?
- matt_ahrens

Do I think this roster is good enough to compete for a Cup......no.
Do I think this roster can compete for a playoff spot.......yes.

Some of what ails the Hawks, such as a horrid PP and PK, and stale system of play are correctable based on the players on the roster now. Improvements in just the PP and PK would give them a few more points that would place them in 3 or 4 spot in the division. A hot goalie at the right time does wonders in the playoffs.

Stan deserves plenty of the blame, as does Q. The worse part about Q's firing is the timing of it. The time had probably come 2 years ago to get a fresh voice in the room.

Why would a FA come to the Hawks? Money and/or opportunity. Same reason as always. What uncertainty with the future of the org? Whether Stan stays or Goes? McD? Most players don't give a crap. They want to #1 - play, #2 - be paid, #3 - have a chance to win. You can switch the order of those depending on the player. In the big picture, Rocky is still the face of what is considered a 1st class organization. None of the players who have left have bashed the org. most speak highly of their experience with the Hawks. Some may complain about how they were used(or not used), but NONE have thrown shade on the org.

If you think McD holds a grudge against Crawford from an incident a few years ago, again, that's foolish. If he held grudges that deep then Kane would have been gone years ago.

Yes, if they allow buyouts again, then Seabrook will be gone. I don't even think he is a #3, maybe when compared to Manning, Davidson,Rutta but at this point In both salary considerations and/or potential I would put Murphy and Forsling ahead of him.

In terms of 2,19,88 why would they stay? Because in reality it isn't really their choice. They are under contract, so they can ask all they want, but the Hawks are under no obligation to trade them unless they get a return they deem acceptable. Their loyalty is the the Organization, not the coach or the gm, but the org. The one that drafted, developed, and pays them.

Panarin - At the time Chicago couldn't afford his upcoming contract
Leddy - At the time Chicago couldn't afford his upcoming contract and had to choose between him and Oduya. The cup win proved they made the correct choice.
Tevo - They needed to get someone to take Bickell's contract, TT was the guy.
Denault - They made a trade at the deadline to try to lift the Hawks over the top for a guy Q never used. Bad move.
Shaw - At the time Chicago couldn't afford his upcoming contract and he wasn't worth what he was asking.

There are many "bad" moves Bowman has made, either for cap purposes or to try to prolong the time the Hawks contended. But you have to look at each trade to assess why they were made. I'm more upset about the bad contract for Seabs or the signings of guys like Davidson, Manning and Kunitz than I am about the ones, other than Danault, you've mentioned.
- paulr

Those signings are just a further reflection of the awful job Stan has or is doing. Bickell should have not been given that contract , that is on Stans part to know wht the future room will be by signing a guy for 4 million with no history of consistency to earn that deal . Stan got fleeced because of his own lack of judgement with how he handled contracts , basically he gave out money to the wrong people when he shouldnhaveneither traded or let them walk.


Saad never in his career had the numbers that panarin produced and is still producing, both where paid 6 million the difference is 2 years longer on a lesser productive player.

The entire point here is Stan knew from the first cup about the cap and being more consistent in how you pay guys . His choices where bad choices in his signings, trades and his ability to discern the long term goals and needs of this team.




Look at Rockford and as of now and it has no real young promising group of top 6 forwards ? Or for that matter any outstanding bottom 6 guys .

already i see posters writing off Cotilon:

I consider an incredibly bold, refreshing and creative move instead of the steady recycling of fired coaches else where...

This is Stan's pick and all the pressure is on him to make it work and also get the right mix of players in here.

Watch the coming roster moves it will tell you alot what this organization's vision is...
- bogiedoc

Totally agree! If a change was needed — and I agree it was, not because Q was a bad coach, but because I didn’t see him adapting to what he had instead of trying to force what he wanted — I am glad they didn’t just bring in a retread. I can’t think of one old coach not coaching today that I would rather see that Q. This team needed a new and fresh mindset.

The old adage is “a coach is hired to be fired.” I have been and am a huge fan of Q’s, but it was time for him to move on.

On a gm side, I am intrigued by the hawks bringing in yzerman (spelling?). He is one retread that I see still being relevant and dialed into today’s game.

Is this a sign of the apocalypse? JK and...agree.
- HawkintheD

Exactly....

buy a lottery ticket today.

Despite the Q news, we are forgetting the most blasphemous comments made the other day, which was that this team as constructed is a playoff team
- nickmo2699

Anyone hear McD on the Score yesterday when he was talking about Scotty and his role?. He got pretty testy. His quotes were:

"The one thing I would really like if I may ... I would really like to debunk the fact that Scotty Bowman runs the Blackhawks," McDonough said. "I would really like to see the media stop reporting that. It's fantasy. It's not real. Scotty plays a micro-fractional role here. He's a consultant. But this is one of those perpetuating things because Stan is Scotty's son and someone wrote this nine years ago. Now all of a sudden, it's become reality. Stan's his guy. Period. He's his own man. But this just keeps on rolling and a lot of it is then tethered to, 'Well, Scotty runs the Blackhawks.'"

Asked why it bothered him, McDonough repsonded, "It doesn't bother me, it's just not true."

"It's not even accurate," McDonough said. "People think that he's running the organization -- and I have a lot of respect for Scotty, I see him a couple times a year -- but I don't think it's fair to Stan either. Because I think sometimes it can get a little tough on him if that's the perception. So I just wanted to say that."

Full interview here: https://670thescore.radio...hawks-stan-bowman-own-man

Those signings are just a further reflection of the awful job Stan has or is doing. Bickell should have not been given that contract , that is on Stans part to know wht the future room will be by signing a guy for 4 million with no history of consistency to earn that deal . Stan got fleeced because of his own lack of judgement with how he handled contracts , basically he gave out money to the wrong people when he shouldnhaveneither traded or let them walk.


Saad never in his career had the numbers that panarin produced and is still producing, both where paid 6 million the difference is 2 years longer on a lesser productive player.

The entire point here is Stan knew from the first cup about the cap and being more consistent in how you pay guys . His choices where bad choices in his signings, trades and his ability to discern the long term goals and needs of this team.




Look at Rockford and as of now and it has no real young promising group of top 6 forwards ? Or for that matter any outstanding bottom 6 guys .
- Taylorst1

Why do you believe that Bickell should not have gotten that contract. He had improved every year, was a big bodied power winger that we desperately needed (just listen to everyone here on how we don't have any toughness anywhere), just came off a playoffs where he was dominant, and they didn't break the bank for him (4X4). He got MS. Not much you can do there.

I am with you 100% on Saad/Panarin, although I understand the theory they used in the trade. You simply do not trade away a talent like Panarin until the very last minute and you can't sign him.

How do you know that there is nothing in Rockford? Most of these players are around 20 years old. Let them develop a bit. Most players take some development time to turn into true NHLers.

Is this a sign of the apocalypse? JK and...agree.
- HawkintheD

When you debate sensibly it's funny how you can find common ground.

When you debate sensibly it's funny how you can find common ground.
- paulr

Will have to give that a try. My usual preference is yelling, screaming and straw man arguments.

Malkin gets away with another headshot.
- riozzo

Is there a video?

Those signings are just a further reflection of the awful job Stan has or is doing. Bickell should have not been given that contract , that is on Stans part to know wht the future room will be by signing a guy for 4 million with no history of consistency to earn that deal . Stan got fleeced because of his own lack of judgement with how he handled contracts , basically he gave out money to the wrong people when he shouldnhaveneither traded or let them walk.


Saad never in his career had the numbers that panarin produced and is still producing, both where paid 6 million the difference is 2 years longer on a lesser productive player.

The entire point here is Stan knew from the first cup about the cap and being more consistent in how you pay guys . His choices where bad choices in his signings, trades and his ability to discern the long term goals and needs of this team.




Look at Rockford and as of now and it has no real young promising group of top 6 forwards ? Or for that matter any outstanding bottom 6 guys .
- Taylorst1

What did Bickell do to earn that contract, do you remember? He was arguably the best Hawks player against the Bruins when they won the 2013 Stanley Cup. $4M for what he brought to the table was an excellent contract by Bowman. I guess you're thinking Bowman should have anticipated Bickell would be be diagnosed with MS?

Why doesn't Rockford have allot of depth at forward? Could it be after 10 years of drafting in the lower half of the draft and having to package prospects and draft picks to stay cap compliant and try to keep the team in contention? The last two years the Hawks have targeted defensmen, one of whom looks pretty decent so far in a Hawk jersey and three more look to be solid prospects.

While the way Q was fired was pretty unprofessional and the roster was kind of half baked - it was pretty clear a lot of the things they were trying to do didn't work and with some of the players, trying to fit square pegs into round holes instead of adjusting for the guys he had wasn't working.

Certainly an amazing coach and the body of work speaks for itself but I'm also interesting to see what they can do, especially with the speed at forward, if they simplify things.

Also, Saad + Kamf + Fortin did some good things when they were together and could have similar success to the Ladd + Bolland + Verbeauty line that scored a crap ton of points, flipped the ice and had a lot of success.

Those signings are just a further reflection of the awful job Stan has or is doing. Bickell should have not been given that contract , that is on Stans part to know wht the future room will be by signing a guy for 4 million with no history of consistency to earn that deal . Stan got fleeced because of his own lack of judgement with how he handled contracts , basically he gave out money to the wrong people when he shouldnhaveneither traded or let them walk.


Saad never in his career had the numbers that panarin produced and is still producing, both where paid 6 million the difference is 2 years longer on a lesser productive player.

The entire point here is Stan knew from the first cup about the cap and being more consistent in how you pay guys . His choices where bad choices in his signings, trades and his ability to discern the long term goals and needs of this team.




Look at Rockford and as of now and it has no real young promising group of top 6 forwards ? Or for that matter any outstanding bottom 6 guys .
- Taylorst1

Bickell would have received that money elsewhere. Consistency or not the Hawks needed what he brought. In hindsight it turned into a bad deal, but after the playoff series he had, Stan would have been vilified had he not signed him. Damned if you do Damned if you don't.

Panarin/Saad deal was bad. No arguments.

In terms of the draft, Hawks have actually done quite well for the most part. Saad, Debrincat, TT, Hartman and Schmaltz are all lower first and second round picks that are contributors in the NHL. In addition, recently they have focused the draft more on D-men like Jokiharju, Boquist, Beaudin, Mitchell, etc. with the higher picks. You are not going to find a lot of top 6 forwards in the lower rounds. Hawks draft picks from every since 2010 making contributions in the NHL, I'd say that's a pretty good track record.

Not a Stan apologist, he has made mistakes, but your expectations are just way off. Name me a GM that fits your qualifications and I can point out to you all their failed trades and/or picks.

Is there a video?
- powerenforcer

https://www.12up.com/post...-elbow-to-tj-oshie-s-head

Bring up Sikura ,Highmore and Ejdsell, what do you have to lose ?,Let’s see if some of these kids without Q up the rear ends will be more relaxed. I was totally against firing the coach, I felt the GM was the first one that should’ve went, but moving forward, let’s just see what this young coach can do.And why isn’t John Hayden playing, Chris Kunitz had a great career but he should not see the ice for a little while let some of these kids play.

The revisionist history on some of Stan's trades here is a bit over the top lately. MS for Bickell is not something you see coming.

Lombardi traded his first round pick 5 times during LA's window to go for cups, They have poop to show for it now. At least we have some decent prospects, we could be way worse off...