I find talk on this board favoring the drafting of a dman #3 instead of a forward just incredible! Mark Kelly and wiz both say that they are projecting what the player can become after development in three or four years. So because we have more too end forwards than dmen, draft a dman ...the board majority concludes.

Oh so how do you develoo ANITHER dman prospect. Play him along side a sucks veteran or another young prospect. Oh how wonderful for development. You can only break in so many dmen in one season or onmy so many in two seasons. And btw is Byram going to fit in the right left pairings?

I suggest that there is not much difference as ti best prosoect or best skill prospect #3 - #6. That is assuming Hughes and the Finn go top two.

I would make a trade and use that salary cap room first and foremost to improve the quality of our veterans onnthe blueline. This may or may not include trading Gus.
Adding a Tanev would be a luxury and to concentrate upon after you shore up the defense position

We have made an investment in dmen and it is ridiculous to trade any if them on the cheap. If one is traded, it happens after they have given signs or actually are becoming descent nhl dmen. It has nothing to do with not liking Byram.. I would love to draft him and even if he never became really sound defensively, i love his puck carry and wilingness to knock an opponent off the puck.

Anyway my biggest concern is that our forward group, collctively, as comprised presently is creme puff and would be man-handled by most if nor all the playiff teams.

It is great to see and expect somesize skill and grit forthcoming in prospects filter in on bottom two lines. But there needs to be a TOUGH willing physical combantant on the first line. Preferable on seoond line too.

Wiz has told me that Kelly and Bowman are aware of new age players. Forwards who can make plays at top skating speed is a desirable part of the forward's game.

So is that type of player available at #3? And not that this player is a hands up or down better than other prospects - i think it is a close call. Close like two race horses in a photo finish. We need a thoroughbread on a top line and wr get one from our #3 selection. Oh happy day.
- jhawk59

To sum it all up, you’re saying the Hawks should draft Cole Caufield. I concur.

To sum it all up, you’re saying the Hawks should draft Cole Caufield. I concur.
- DarthKane

i think Cole Caufield will turn out to be an excellent goal scoring machine..He is not what the Blackhawks need most insofar as to become a better more competitive team.

I would be concerned that he has always nagging injuries due to his playing style - which is to say ultra competitive against larger players. I would invest in a large.physical performing wing to play on his line.

Very curious where he goes and to whom in draft..i like him, Broberg, Dach, the.Russian forward.as strong value picks should none be taken real early.

It is about a whole lot more than speed when I look at them
- wiz1901

Of course, and I'm not trying to mess with you or poop on him. But from the day he got here he would fall down by himself when he was getting spun around and toe pick. His weight is too far forward. He skates more with his ankles than his legs most of the time. He doesn't stride well, it's like he waddles. Have you not noticed how many times he falls after a puck battle in the corner? All that is a testament to just how good a player he really is accomplishing what he has with his skating limitations. But the better the league skates the more he struggles and there's reasons for that, and it's not due to age completely. He just can't get there. At the junior level when all the "experts" were so impressed with him it's easier to get away with a stride that's not the greatest when being on stronger teams like the world junior team back then.

I'm sure you're busy, especially now. But when things settle down watch some tape or video of Bret Hedican. Outside of Bobby Orr (in my opinion the best player ever) Hedican was the best powerskating D man I ever saw. He was as good in a radius as he was in a straight line. He had balance and was strong on his skates.

I do get down to the Tampa area every year or two, or if you ever get back up here I think it would be a good time to pull up a bar stool and have at it for a bit. In the mean time take care.

Mark Kelly and wiz both say that they are projecting what the player can become after development in three or four years.
- jhawk59

Thank you, but I am not worthy this heap of praise.

I don't think Seabrook was a great skater by any means but he wasn't terrible either. His skating was average. What made him a very good player IMO was his hockey smarts and leadership.
- paulr

Don't you just love the criticism of #7's skating deficiencies by the internet hockey scout experts? This of a guy with 14 NHL seasons and 1000+ games on his resume.

The reason he has lasted as long as he has is because he knows how to play the game And brings other intangibles just like guys like Chara, Bortuzzo, Polak, Girardi and many other long term NHL defenceman. Seabs will never be what he was in his prime but a smart coach will use him what he can still be effective at, even if it is only 12 minutes a night.

Of course, and I'm not trying to mess with you or poop on him. But from the day he got here he would fall down by himself when he was getting spun around and toe pick. His weight is too far forward. He skates more with his ankles than his legs most of the time. He doesn't stride well, it's like he waddles. Have you not noticed how many times he falls after a puck battle in the corner? All that is a testament to just how good a player he really is accomplishing what he has with his skating limitations. But the better the league skates the more he struggles and there's reasons for that, and it's not due to age completely. He just can't get there. At the junior level when all the "experts" were so impressed with him it's easier to get away with a stride that's not the greatest when being on stronger teams like the world junior team back then.

I'm sure you're busy, especially now. But when things settle down watch some tape or video of Bret Hedican. Outside of Bobby Orr (in my opinion the best player ever) Hedican was the best powerskating D man I ever saw. He was as good in a radius as he was in a straight line. He had balance and was strong on his skates.

I do get down to the Tampa area every year or two, or if you ever get back up here I think it would be a good time to pull up a bar stool and have at it for a bit. In the mean time take care.
- 6628

I will "hedican when I can."
Will be in Chicago soon before the draft.
I think that Seabrook was never considered a burner, but the years of his Phauef and SUTER's arrival where the start of the era on the importance of strong jump defenders and he wasn't out of place as the dynamic changed.
And remember that (was it Olympic) team of Canadian all-stars...they picked sea brook for it - he did play as a lesser minute guy, but it begs the question, team Canada has ALL these talented defenders and they choose Seabrook. They didn't see him as unable to play against the world quick guys back then and to me that is based on not leadership or past laurels it is on how well you move. (There was hubbud talk then about why Seabrook?)

I liked the comment someone made about him come g in trimmer. That would be great but I do agree there are still ways he can defend but closing even from front to corner is becoming a regular happening.

And I guess I am more loyal to the leaders on that 3 Cup dee...I heard this from an insider:
That the reluctance to elevate Gus into rotation with the various units and on PP had a lot to do with the PLAYERS and coaches being reluctant to basically demote Keith and Seabrook because they value their stature as teammates / players. It was this that held back the offensive change and elevation of Gustafson, not that the top two hawk defenders were going to be angry disappointed as much as the rest of the "family" worrying about the possible toe stepping" a move like this makes.

Everybody talking about moving Seabrook with someone to get him be "taken"...well, you would thin k demotions of Keith or him, would drive them out...because along the lines on the Kessel talks...even with these no trade phoney lists that include impossible destinations and Cap fat trade candidates who NEVER could accommodate that type of contract...IF your PRESENT TEAM, says "we feel it is time for you to go, you receive the message and kinda accept the "divorce" as coming...but I am not sure the timing on the two Hawk Cup/ Cap defenders is at the point, but I wasn't at the exit interviews or if new situations on other teams might now make a move more amicable.

I will "hedican when I can."
Will be in Chicago soon before the draft.
I think that Seabrook was never considered a burner, but the years of his Phauef and SUTER's arrival where the start of the era on the importance of strong jump defenders and he wasn't out of place as the dynamic changed.
And remember that (was it Olympic) team of Canadian all-stars...they picked sea brook for it - he did play as a lesser minute guy, but it begs the question, team Canada has ALL these talented defenders and they choose Seabrook. They didn't see him as unable to play against the world quick guys back then and to me that is based on not leadership or past laurels it is on how well you move. (There was hubbud talk then about why Seabrook?)

I liked the comment someone made about him come g in trimmer. That would be great but I do agree there are still ways he can defend but closing even from front to corner is becoming a regular happening.

And I guess I am more loyal to the leaders on that 3 Cup dee...I heard this from an insider:
That the reluctance to elevate Gus into rotation with the various units and on PP had a lot to do with the PLAYERS and coaches being reluctant to basically demote Keith and Seabrook because they value their stature as teammates / players. It was this that held back the offensive change and elevation of Gustafson, not that the top two hawk defenders were going to be angry disappointed as much as the rest of the "family" worrying about the possible toe stepping" a move like this makes.

Everybody talking about moving Seabrook with someone to get him be "taken"...well, you would thin k demotions of Keith or him, would drive them out...because along the lines on the Kessel talks...even with these no trade phoney lists that include impossible destinations and Cap fat trade candidates who NEVER could accommodate that type of contract...IF your PRESENT TEAM, says "we feel it is time for you to go", you receive the message and kinda accept the "divorce" as coming...but I am not sure the timing on the two Hawk Cup/ Cap defenders is at the point, but I wasn't at the exit interviews or if new situations on other teams might now make a move more amicable.
- wiz1901

*NEW* blog: http://bit.ly/2YZUIaM

Welcome back to Re-Draft Friday... unfortunately today is 2014.

Look at who the Hawks draft to understand why I say "unfortunately".

Don't you just love the criticism of #7's skating deficiencies by the internet hockey scout experts? This of a guy with 14 NHL seasons and 1000+ games on his resume.

The reason he has lasted as long as he has is because he knows how to play the game And brings other intangibles just like guys like Chara, Bortuzzo, Polak, Girardi and many other long term NHL defenceman. Seabs will never be what he was in his prime but a smart coach will use him what he can still be effective at, even if it is only 12 minutes a night.
- RickJ

I agree with Paul - Seabrook was never a great skater, nor is he a terrible skater. However, either he doesn't get from point-A to point-B as quick as he used to or the league is faster than it used to be, or both, but the result is that he has a split second less to make a good play than he used to and therefore the good plays he used to make have turned into not so good plays. I'm not laying all of his poor play at his feet because the team defense often didn't provide good options for Seabrook or the other d-men trying to clear the puck - but his inability to get to the puck quick enough to have time to make the good play is often the difference.

I agree with Paul - Seabrook was never a great skater, nor is he a terrible skater. However, either he doesn't get from point-A to point-B as quick as he used to or the league is faster than it used to be, or both, but the result is that he has a split second less to make a good play than he used to and therefore the good plays he used to make have turned into not so good plays. I'm not laying all of his poor play at his feet because the team defense often didn't provide good options for Seabrook or the other d-men trying to clear the puck - but his inability to get to the puck quick enough to have time to make the good play is often the difference.
- EbonyRaptor

The league has never been as fast as it is now and it gets faster every year. But a significant part of playing defence in the NHL is positioning and interacting with your other 4 men on the ice. The Blues have no burners on their back end and look where they are. I don't hear Berube squwaking about all his slow defenceman who can't play in the league anymore. But on an individual basis would you want to trade for any of their Dmen other than Pietrangelo?

Re : trading Saad.

Bowman traded Panarin for the NEXT two seasons of Saad. I doubt Saad get moved Im a Bowman fan , he has to prove he was right about this.
As of now he is losing that trade. If Saad nets 40-50 goals the next 2 season combined it looks a lot better
- mrpaulish

no it doesn't