Awful lot of sunshine and rainbows from these bloggers, TC and Theo. I see this Blackhawks team as a mess of mediocrity. A huge collection of 3rd and 4th line forwards, 3rd paring defensemen and hopelessly overpaid and untradeable veterans. I hope they DON'T win the play in series. Does anyone seriously think this bunch would win an actual playoff series if they somehow got past Edmonton? I'd much rather have a shot at Lafreniere with a worst case of the #10 pick in the draft.

Face it, people. Talk about Hossa all you want. He's gone. There needs to be an unsentimental, top down rebuild of this mess, starting with an outside hire for head of hockey ops. Bowman needs to be kicked upstairs (pretty clear they're not going to fire him) and the new guy needs free reign to evaluate EVERYTHING. Colliton needs to be gone.

They need to look at trading players who can bring back some youth, speed and cost control in return. Saad should be shopped. They should see what they can get for Murphy, Maata and DeHaan. They'll probably get underwhelming return offers on all of them which means they'll be stuck with what they've got - and that tells you all you need to know. This team is full of worker bee players at zero to negative trade value.

And they should seriously stop being delusional about Duncan Keith being a #1 D. I love the guy as much as you all do but he's nowhere near that level anymore and will only go further into decline. I'd ask him if he's be willing to waive his rights to go to a team that can win right away (Paging Coach Q in Florida.) He may refuse and once again, they'd be stuck. But the hope-and-prayer stuff has got to stop. The Hawks defense is historically bad and will stay that way without huge changes.

Furthermore, the Hawks farm system is bad. Who is an impact player waiting to happen? There are none. Ian Mitchell looks like a nice player but NOT a #1 D. Regula has some promise but again, not a #1. Teply is promising but is he an true impact guy? Highly doubt it. Okay, so go ahead and argue that Dach and Boqvist are up with the big team and that's why the fam looks weak. Well, what does that tell you? On a good team both of those guys would have been getting some much needed experience in the minors last year instead of being shoved into NHL action before they're ready.

And I'm going to be sacreligious and further say I haven't seen anything from either of those 2 that says "special talent." Maybe they'll bust out and become that but I don't see it. Boqvist has offensive potential, he could be Bryan Campbell (who mentored him.) But that's not a #1. Dach could be good but I don't see greatness.

You want to talk what they REALLY should at least consider? Talking to Kane (confidentially of course) to see if he would entertain the notion being dealt to Buffalo. He'd probably say no and even if he'd consider it, I doubt the Sabres would give up the ransom it would take to make this worthwhile. But my point is, they need to consider radical change.

They should do anything and everything to clear cap space and then make a serious run at Torey Krug. A difference making D who's still young and great at both ends of the ice. Pietrangelo will be unattainable but Krug could be in the realm of possibility if the Hawks got serious about changing the whole program. They need impact, difference making players, especially on D and it will take radically different thinking to make this possible.

Short of trying for Krug and of the other things I've mentioned, they should be seeing what they can get for Strome. They should re-sign Kubalik. They should try to move every single member of the D corps as it stands who is not named Boqvist or Mitchell. Obviously easier said than done and I in no way endorse give aways of guys like Murphy, who is valuable and under appreciated. But all considered, it's time to start identifying who to build around. Who will be on the next Cup contending team... EVERYONE else should be the subject of intelligent, diligent attempts to trade for better value, younger, faster players or meaningful draft picks.

The Mad House on Madison has become the Mediocrity on Madison and if they don't start making fast, decisive and unsentimental changes, the Hawks are headed for being the Red Wings version 2.0, who are now in their 4th straight season of not making the playoffs with a long, long way to go before they're relevant again.

Break the cycle. Change from the top down. Stop being delusional. And pray for another lucky ping pong ball.
- Korab

Let's see if we've got everything covered here:

Trade all of the vets to get younger even though we are already one of the youngest teams in the league? Check

Try to trade Kane to Buffalo? Check

Try to clear cap space only to use said cap space on one player from another team (exacerbating the cap problem)? Check

See if Keith will waive to be traded to get back with Q? Check

Contradictions: Murphy is expendable, yet also valuable and underpaid.

Boqvist and Mitchell are not #1's (despite one being 19 and the other never playing a minute in the NHL) and nothing special, but they definitely need to be held onto.

Re: Sunshine and rainbows - Hossa was an immense talent that everyone could appreciate. The entirety of the article written was lamenting the fact that we don't have him anymore, and put forth a hopeful roadmap as to a means of getting more players on the team to play "like" him.

Hey, I'm all for theoretical GMing. I would never deny anyone stating whatever they want, but at least be consistent. Cheers!

Well said. . Finally I'm not alone in here saying the same things and expressing the same frustration with this team.

Having had the chance to watch Chicago's 3 cup runs on sports channel you can clearly see how the team got slower , but experience and a hall of fame coach was the recipe to overcome age and speed.


I'm hoping chicago gets bounced in order to have a shot at either the number 1 pick or 10. I don't believe this team has what it takes to go all the way and that includes a inexperienced head coach who's record is pathetic to say the least.
- Taylorst1

You can say the same about the coach the last 3 plus years he was at the helm of the team.

Torey Krug? I'd rather have Boqvist and probably Mitchell too, all things considered.

Let's see if we've got everything covered here:

Trade all of the vets to get younger even though we are already one of the youngest teams in the league? Check

Try to trade Kane to Buffalo? Check

Try to clear cap space only to use said cap space on one player from another team (exacerbating the cap problem)? Check

See if Keith will waive to be traded to get back with Q? Check

Contradictions: Murphy is expendable, yet also valuable and underpaid.

Boqvist and Mitchell are not #1's (despite one being 19 and the other never playing a minute in the NHL) and nothing special, but they definitely need to be held onto.

Re: Sunshine and rainbows - Hossa was an immense talent that everyone could appreciate. The entirety of the article written was lamenting the fact that we don't have him anymore, and put forth a hopeful roadmap as to a means of getting more players on the team to play "like" him.

Hey, I'm all for theoretical GMing. I would never deny anyone stating whatever they want, but at least be consistent. Cheers!

- Chunk

I realize there is impatience when with our eye test. We see our team is too slow and chok full of veterans

So order a rebuild and dump everyone. The sky is falling. Right! I like your approach overall to the blog you responded to; I have additional input which I believe you will agree is the way to go

Reality check: Bowman is going the youth route BUT to remain competitive he had some veterans more as place holders until youngsters can move in. Rocky and McDonough did not want to suck so bad which is inevitable if a team is gutted. Three Stanley Cups with retooling and Bowman accomplished this by identifying core pieces and winning again with them.

No Bowman cannot be graded since post last Cup with the each transaction as win win: you can be sure no GM’s each move is always a great one. I believe he is on the right track and has been drafting and signing f/agents with aplomb.

Let him continue with drafting kids. You want to cry foul over Colliton? Fine, I am not a fan of this coach either. As long as we are going with kids though, he might be ok for a year or two. As long as he doesn’t try that crazy defense schematic again.

Now about all these prospects: Usually this is accomplished by prospects improving in their development to the point wherein they can challenge for a veterans job. But no team can win with all youth. On defense too many kids too soon will not work.

Keith is needed to lead the defense until a couple of kids become better. And yes Keith should be off the pp.

Now since the plan is going to be going with youth, you have to to commit to that plan.

Augment the youth for a while with Murphy too on defense

Murphy is one of the few who bring some toughness and he is pretty good. Like Keith he should help the kids out by being a descent player in a pairing. The kids cannot be thrown to the wolves with nothing but third pair and worse partners.

Long term perhaps Murphy’s skating could be somewhat an issue, but if he can play and has experience then he at least could be third pair if some kids develop. You ideally want to move the older guys, but keep them here to balance things out for a while. And do not be concerned what you fetch for them once they are moved

A big help would be to draft Askarov or a top forward with that tenth overall selection. The top six forwards needs an upgrade. We committed to Kubalik and any Nylander; let us see how good they become. Play them.

Thanks in large part to AEL_FoX we are aware there are several candidates whom could make our bottom lines very good. Some prospects on defense emerge and we draft a couple top forwards: We are on the right path. You can see that. It is a viable plan.

Stop with this blow up everything. A lot of veterans are going to be moving on during the next three seasons. Wipe off your glasses and examine what I have said. This is what Bowman is going to do so LIKE IT:

OK, let's see if we've got everything covered on your silly, cherry-picking misrepresentation of what I wrote:

Trade "all the vets" - no. I never said any such thing. I said who they should TRY to trade, while making clear that in many or most cases the return would be unsatisfactory, in which case I said NOT to trade them. In any event, you ignore that I made no mention of other vets as to trading them, including Toews and DeBrincat just to name 2. And as to "already" one of the youngest teams in the league, that's a misrepresentation. The Hawks are only "one of the youngest" because of all the injuries during the season, which forced call ups of young players. The roster itself is not that young. Unless and until they offload veterans, a number of those "young" slots will be reclaimed by Shaw, deHaan, Caggiula, et al. And then there's the fact that "young" does not mean "good."

OK, now let's tackle "Try to trade Kane to Buffalo..." Did you not read ANYTHING else in that paragraph? That I acknowledged that he has the right to waive? That Buffalo wouldn't likely be willing to surrender enough for him even if he did? And that I was making an overall point that the team needed to explore every way to get out of the tailspin of mediocrity, even "radical" notions? I suspect you did read but that didn't fit with your mission to mock the premise so you ignored it.

"Try to clear cap space only to use said cap space on one player from another team (exacerbating the cap problem)?" This one is a real beauty of deliberate misrepresentation. First off, OF COURSE you clear cap space to make other moves. Nobody clears cap space just to have cap space. You do it to target other players, or to aim for a future year when you think the market will be better, If you want to have an issue with clearing cap space to go after one player instead of spreading it around, that would be valid. Or if you don't agree Torey Krug in particular would be worth the losses from clearing space, you could argue that. But you instead just tried to mock the larger idea. And failed.

Let's move on to "See if Keith will waive to be traded to get back with Q?" Uh, I believe it's been reported more than once that the Hawks have inquired with DK and his agent whether he would consider waiving for a trade. Keith actually addressed it directly when a reporter asked him and said he had no intention of leaving. The Coach Q part of what I wrote was parenthetical, with a question mark. But you deliberately ignored that, too. So, to sum up, it's not some mad idea I came up with. The Blackhawks themselves have explored it. It's my way of saying that if you approached from a different place - flat-out telling him the team was going into a rebuild, you might get a different answer. Or not...

And here is my favorite: "Contradictions: Murphy is expendable, yet also valuable and underpaid." WHAT? That is not contradictory, my friend. He's valuable as a workmanlike, professional D-man and fans tend not to give him credit. UNDERPAID? Where did you see that? I said "underappreciated." Try reading carefully. The point is, he is both tradeable and has some value. That's how you MAKE trades. Jesus...

Next up: "Boqvist and Mitchell are not #1's (despite one being 19 and the other never playing a minute in the NHL) and nothing special, but they definitely need to be held onto." Oh boy, more gems of distortion. Let me ask you, who in the hockey world thinks Boqvist profiles as a #1? He has very high offensive upside, and could develop into being a capable defender. Certainly a PP QB. I compared him to Campbell, as have others. But he lacks the size, the mentality and the toughness to profile as a #1 D. At least I think he does and so would the majority of people who care and know enough about hockey to be aware of him. Maybe he'll prove me wrong but I doubt it. So would most observers. And Mitchell - what does having played in the NHL have to do with projecting his slot? He's undersized, not very physical, profiles as a good, solid all around defenseman but no one outstanding skill. Where did I ever say that only projectable #1 defensemen are worth keeping and building around? I didn't, and wouldn't say that. They are both young and have talent. OF COURSE they should be kept. You made up "nothing special" as if I said that about them, which I didn't, and acted as if it's inconsistent that I say they're not #1 material but still advocated keeping them, which is NOT inconsistent. Lord above, you should be in politics.

Then there's "Re: Sunshine and rainbows - Hossa was an immense talent that everyone could appreciate. The entirety of the article written was lamenting the fact that we don't have him anymore, and put forth a hopeful roadmap as to a means of getting more players on the team to play "like" him." Uhh, your point is...? I read the article, I know what it means. If you bothered to read what I wrote as carefully as you did the article, you'd know I wasn't referring ONLY to that article. I said the things coming from those 2 bloggers LATELY were sunshine and rainbows. But of course you either missed or misrepresented that as well.

Hey, I'm all for spirited discussion and welcome anyone disagreeing with my points. But be accurate about it. Cheers!

I realize there is impatience when with our eye test. We see our team is too slow and chok full of veterans

So order a rebuild and dump everyone. The sky is falling. Right! I like your approach overall to the blog you responded to; I have additional input which I believe you will agree is the way to go

Reality check: Bowman is going the youth route BUT to remain competitive he had some veterans more as place holders until youngsters can move in. Rocky and McDonough did not want to suck so bad which is inevitable if a team is gutted. Three Stanley Cups with retooling and Bowman accomplished this by identifying core pieces and winning again with them.

No Bowman cannot be graded since post last Cup with the each transaction as win win: you can be sure no GM’s each move is always a great one. I believe he is on the right track and has been drafting and signing f/agents with aplomb.

Let him continue with drafting kids. You want to cry foul over Colliton? Fine, I am not a fan of this coach either. As long as we are going with kids though, he might be ok for a year or two. As long as he doesn’t try that crazy defense schematic again.

Now about all these prospects: Usually this is accomplished by prospects improving in their development to the point wherein they can challenge for a veterans job. But no team can win with all youth. On defense too many kids too soon will not work.

Keith is needed to lead the defense until a couple of kids become better. And yes Keith should be off the pp.

Now since the plan is going to be going with youth, you have to to commit to that plan.

Augment the youth for a while with Murphy too on defense

Murphy is one of the few who bring some toughness and he is pretty good. Like Keith he should help the kids out by being a descent player in a pairing. The kids cannot be thrown to the wolves with nothing but third pair and worse partners.

Long term perhaps Murphy’s skating could be somewhat an issue, but if he can play and has experience then he at least could be third pair if some kids develop. You ideally want to move the older guys, but keep them here to balance things out for a while. And do not be concerned what you fetch for them once they are moved

A big help would be to draft Askarov or a top forward with that tenth overall selection. The top six forwards needs an upgrade. We committed to Kubalik and any Nylander; let us see how good they become. Play them.

Thanks in large part to AEL_FoX we are aware there are several candidates whom could make our bottom lines very good. Some prospects on defense emerge and we draft a couple top forwards: We are on the right path. You can see that. It is a viable plan.

Stop with this blow up everything. A lot of veterans are going to be moving on during the next three seasons. Wipe off your glasses and examine what I have said. This is what Bowman is going to do so LIKE IT:
- jhawk59

Your first sentence is the source of the issues I have with several comments. Everyone wants the Hawks to get back to the team they were immediately. It rarely is that simple. Look at NSH, LA, ANA, SJ, VAN (for the previous 6 years). PIT is really the only team that has been able to maintain success.

The second sentence is interesting because most of our veterans (save for Smith, Maatta, Seabrook and maybe Carpenter) are still our best performers. Almost the entirety of the rest of the team is still on their ELC.

I'll admit I'm one of the more optimistic fans out there. Cautiously optimistic but optimistic no matter how you slice it.

And I can be overly verbose. I'm working on it!

You can say the same about the coach the last 3 plus years he was at the helm of the team.
- LAHawk

Hey lahawk, not to sure what exactly you meant ? However I was pointing out that from watching all 3 cup runs you can see the difference in those teams but speed and age are seemed to stand out more so now after watching the 3rd cup run that chicago was a slow team. Nashville and tampa both outpaced chicago and if it wasn't for Crawford, coach q timely coaching moves and some puckluck , chicago never makes it out of round 1 or wins the cup. But it's clear Chicago did become a slower team.


That's all my point was

I'll admit I'm one of the more optimistic fans out there. Cautiously optimistic but optimistic no matter how you slice it.

And I can be overly verbose. I'm working on it!
- AEL_Fox

Verbose ist verbotten? Well ... there goes my writing career aspirations.

Optimistic? Me too.

Hey lahawk, not to sure what exactly you meant ? However I was pointing out that from watching all 3 cup runs you can see the difference in those teams but speed and age are seemed to stand out more so now after watching the 3rd cup run that chicago was a slow team. Nashville and tampa both outpaced chicago and if it wasn't for Crawford, coach q timely coaching moves and some puckluck , chicago never makes it out of round 1 or wins the cup. But it's clear Chicago did become a slower team.


That's all my point was
- Taylorst1

Darling gets a lot more credit for the Predators series. He bailed out Crawford to a large degree before Crow got back on track the rest of the way.

Your first sentence is the source of the issues I have with several comments. Everyone wants the Hawks to get back to the team they were immediately. It rarely is that simple. Look at NSH, LA, ANA, SJ, VAN (for the previous 6 years). PIT is really the only team that has been able to maintain success.

The second sentence is interesting because most of our veterans (save for Smith, Maatta, Seabrook and maybe Carpenter) are still our best performers. Almost the entirety of the rest of the team is still on their ELC.
- Chunk

Your points are correct. The Penguins have been a resilient team. They have used their farm system wisely to plug in. Crosby and Malkin is like the EverReady Buny (battery)that gets a beating but still keeps on ticking. I sort of got carried away with a long post which the essence of it is that you cannot just gut a team. I know Tallin tried to do that in Florida if you remember that one year he moved tons of players and contracts so he could try to rebuild. That is not going to happen again, especially not with the uncertainty of revenue due to ticket sales at least for the foreseeable future

I do totally agree about the team’s ELC contract situation. And I do believe all teams sooner or later are going to try to be as young as possible, or use a modified approach of being a young team. Player salaries are going to be reigned in since operating a professional sports franchise is a new ballgame due in large part to covid 19 and our nation/world economy the next many years

OK, let's see if we've got everything covered on your silly, cherry-picking misrepresentation of what I wrote:

Trade "all the vets" - no. I never said any such thing. I said who they should TRY to trade, while making clear that in many or most cases the return would be unsatisfactory, in which case I said NOT to trade them. In any event, you ignore that I made no mention of other vets as to trading them, including Toews and DeBrincat just to name 2. And as to "already" one of the youngest teams in the league, that's a misrepresentation. The Hawks are only "one of the youngest" because of all the injuries during the season, which forced call ups of young players. The roster itself is not that young. Unless and until they offload veterans, a number of those "young" slots will be reclaimed by Shaw, deHaan, Caggiula, et al. And then there's the fact that "young" does not mean "good."

OK, now let's tackle "Try to trade Kane to Buffalo..." Did you not read ANYTHING else in that paragraph? That I acknowledged that he has the right to waive? That Buffalo wouldn't likely be willing to surrender enough for him even if he did? And that I was making an overall point that the team needed to explore every way to get out of the tailspin of mediocrity, even "radical" notions? I suspect you did read but that didn't fit with your mission to mock the premise so you ignored it.

"Try to clear cap space only to use said cap space on one player from another team (exacerbating the cap problem)?" This one is a real beauty of deliberate misrepresentation. First off, OF COURSE you clear cap space to make other moves. Nobody clears cap space just to have cap space. You do it to target other players, or to aim for a future year when you think the market will be better, If you want to have an issue with clearing cap space to go after one player instead of spreading it around, that would be valid. Or if you don't agree Torey Krug in particular would be worth the losses from clearing space, you could argue that. But you instead just tried to mock the larger idea. And failed.

Let's move on to "See if Keith will waive to be traded to get back with Q?" Uh, I believe it's been reported more than once that the Hawks have inquired with DK and his agent whether he would consider waiving for a trade. Keith actually addressed it directly when a reporter asked him and said he had no intention of leaving. The Coach Q part of what I wrote was parenthetical, with a question mark. But you deliberately ignored that, too. So, to sum up, it's not some mad idea I came up with. The Blackhawks themselves have explored it. It's my way of saying that if you approached from a different place - flat-out telling him the team was going into a rebuild, you might get a different answer. Or not...

And here is my favorite: "Contradictions: Murphy is expendable, yet also valuable and underpaid." WHAT? That is not contradictory, my friend. He's valuable as a workmanlike, professional D-man and fans tend not to give him credit. UNDERPAID? Where did you see that? I said "underappreciated." Try reading carefully. The point is, he is both tradeable and has some value. That's how you MAKE trades. Jesus...

Next up: "Boqvist and Mitchell are not #1's (despite one being 19 and the other never playing a minute in the NHL) and nothing special, but they definitely need to be held onto." Oh boy, more gems of distortion. Let me ask you, who in the hockey world thinks Boqvist profiles as a #1? He has very high offensive upside, and could develop into being a capable defender. Certainly a PP QB. I compared him to Campbell, as have others. But he lacks the size, the mentality and the toughness to profile as a #1 D. At least I think he does and so would the majority of people who care and know enough about hockey to be aware of him. Maybe he'll prove me wrong but I doubt it. So would most observers. And Mitchell - what does having played in the NHL have to do with projecting his slot? He's undersized, not very physical, profiles as a good, solid all around defenseman but no one outstanding skill. Where did I ever say that only projectable #1 defensemen are worth keeping and building around? I didn't, and wouldn't say that. They are both young and have talent. OF COURSE they should be kept. You made up "nothing special" as if I said that about them, which I didn't, and acted as if it's inconsistent that I say they're not #1 material but still advocated keeping them, which is NOT inconsistent. Lord above, you should be in politics.

Then there's "Re: Sunshine and rainbows - Hossa was an immense talent that everyone could appreciate. The entirety of the article written was lamenting the fact that we don't have him anymore, and put forth a hopeful roadmap as to a means of getting more players on the team to play "like" him." Uhh, your point is...? I read the article, I know what it means. If you bothered to read what I wrote as carefully as you did the article, you'd know I wasn't referring ONLY to that article. I said the things coming from those 2 bloggers LATELY were sunshine and rainbows. But of course you either missed or misrepresented that as well.

Hey, I'm all for spirited discussion and welcome anyone disagreeing with my points. But be accurate about it. Cheers!
- Korab

Hey Korab. The "check" portion of my post was trying to be funny by insisting that these ideas have been previously been put forth numerous times and I was just making a list of "dead horse" arguments. I will freely admit that I reduced some of them down to single quote without nuance, but I was just trying to make light of the overall points.

I will also admit that I misquoted you about Murphy. I think my point still stands though. If Murphy is valuable and under appreciated, why would you try to trade him? He is still relatively young, I think widely accepted as a good player and will not command high dollars. I would think that is exactly the type of player you want.

I'm not going to budge on the idea of making cap space for Krug. Obviously, you make space to try and sign other players. We don't have one guy that we can get rid of that would provide the kind of space needed to sign Krug. I specifically stated that you don't make cap space to sign a single player, since this puts you behind the 8-ball for filling in the rest of the roster. Not to mention that Krug is 29 now. We would run into the same issue of having an older vet on a high dollar deal. This could simply be a difference of opinion in how to construct a roster, and I will yield that I can't be sure or prove that my way is the best.

On Boqvist and Mitchell: I may have misunderstood your point at the beginning. "A huge collection of 3rd and 4th line forwards, 3rd paring defensemen and hopelessly overpaid and untradeable veterans". I took this comment, along with your comments about Mitchell and Boq not being #1 material to mean that you thought they were basically expendable, and I didn't think that matched up with wanting to keep them. Additionally, I guess I have a problem with projecting what players will be without seeing them on the ice at the NHL level. Boqvist, for one, was much stronger defensively this year than advertised. Mitchell we have no idea on. We have his body of work in college and some scouting reports. I'm personally bullish on him, but he still has to prove it on the ice. Few, if any, defensemen are at their peak or fully developed when they debut, and that is the basis of my point.

Finally, I certainly read the entirety of what you wrote. I guess I just see it differently. The previous two articles (before Marian Hossa) were outlining how the team is looking to use youth and innovation (on and off the ice) to better the team. I didn't think that was "sunshine and rainbows" so much as detailing what the process and direction was going forward. Theo is high on some of the prospects and I give his viewpoint a bit more credence simply because he puts in more time evaluating them. I'm happy to go back and forth on the pluses and minuses of our players in the AHL and minors simply because it ultimately gives me more information and perspective on them. I'll give you the first Hossa article was very positive, but come on... it's Hossa. Again, I didn't think there were any overt comments that the Hawks were in some great position going forward (more hopeful than literal).

Sorry if I came off as a jerk. It's not my intention. I'm just poor at humor. On the other hand, this is some of the best hockey dialogue that I've been a part of in a while, so if you'd like to add, let's keep this going. I'd much rather this than read complaints about Cornelison!

Sorry to everyone for the War and Peace responses, but this is actually interesting to me.

Your points are correct. The Penguins have been a resilient team. They have used their farm system wisely to plug in. Crosby and Malkin is like the EverReady Buny (battery)that gets a beating but still keeps on ticking. I sort of got carried away with a long post which the essence of it is that you cannot just gut a team. I know Tallin tried to do that in Florida if you remember that one year he moved tins of players and contracts so he could try to rebuild. That is not going to happen again, not with the uncertainty of revenue due to ticket sales at least for the foreseeable future

I do totally agree about the team’s ELC contract situation. And I do believe all teams sooner or later are going to try to be as young as possible, or use a modified approach of being a young team. Player salaries are going to be reigned in since operating a professional sports franchise is a new ballgame due in large part to covid 19 and our nation/world economy the next many years
- jhawk59

I'm giving you a run for your money today boss!

Hey lahawk, not to sure what exactly you meant ? However I was pointing out that from watching all 3 cup runs you can see the difference in those teams but speed and age are seemed to stand out more so now after watching the 3rd cup run that chicago was a slow team. Nashville and tampa both outpaced chicago and if it wasn't for Crawford, coach q timely coaching moves and some puckluck , chicago never makes it out of round 1 or wins the cup. But it's clear Chicago did become a slower team.


That's all my point was
- Taylorst1

I may (probably) misinterpreted your comment regarding Colliton, that with Q behind the bench, the Hawks record would be so much better. Q is a hall of fame coach, no ifs ands or butts, but I do not think he would of done any better with the group Colliton has had to work with. I just think his half life with the team was over.

If Erik Karlsson is considered a #1 defenseman (sure is paid like one), isn't Bovquist a comparable at the same age? Karlsson didn't break out until his third year in the league. If not Karlsson, then at least John Klingberg.

As far as Bovquist not having special talent, then he has all the scouts fooled. Yes he is undersized, and has concussion history, but he oozes with talent (hard accurate shot, great first pass out of the zone, great skating edgework).

Keith isn't a #1 anymore? Keith might not be Norris trophy material anymore, but there are plenty of teams where he would be #1. Q would love to have him with Florida, because he would immediately become their #1 defenseman.

Man...if only we had Torey Krug...then we’d really be a legit contender...

I agree Tyler, that Mitchell not being able to play this year is a GOOD thing. Save a year on the entry-level deal.

Who has all the Expansion-rule knowledge here? I think we can protect 7 forwards, 3 D-men and 2 goalies???...or something pretty close to that.

I don't think we have to worry about losing a good young forward, but what D-men are exempt from being taken and which ones do we need to protect???

Actually, be interested from the forward perspective as well. Can any of you give me a good guess of where we stand in this respect???

A lot more are skating at the voluntary trainings:

Kampf, Sikura, Hagel, Maatta, de Haan, Boqvist, Carlsson, Gilbert, Lankinen, and Tomkins have now joined.

Previously been at practices:

Forwards:
Kane, DeBrincat, Strome, Nylander, Caggiula, Kurashev, Entwistle, Highmore

Defensemen:
Murphy, Koekkoek, Seeler, Regula, Beaudin

Goalies:
Subban, Delia

If Erik Karlsson is considered a #1 defenseman (sure is paid like one), isn't Bovquist a comparable at the same age? Karlsson didn't break out until his third year in the league. If not Karlsson, then at least John Klingberg.

As far as Bovquist not having special talent, then he has all the scouts fooled. Yes he is undersized, and has concussion history, but he oozes with talent (hard accurate shot, great first pass out of the zone, great skating edgework).

Keith isn't a #1 anymore? Keith might not be Norris trophy material anymore, but there are plenty of teams where he would be #1. Q would love to have him with Florida, because he would immediately become their #1 defenseman.
- LAHawk

When we are anxious to see the highly touted newbies arrive as competent NHL dmen, the older warhorse Keith can remain counted upon for valuable contributions still although he is of course not the same #1 pair caliber he was several years ago. He probably serves as a first pair still on many teams as was pointed out. Remember he still skates well even if he has slipped a bit lately. And no he should not be your first choice on the pp

Keith always liked to gamble on defense: Therefore the Keith/Seabrook pair was fairly solid as they were able to cover or complement each other. But oh that experience and skating ability do matter so much.

Rick was quick to point out Keith’s value in accordance with what this veteran still brings and in light of my musing once about how we can overlook his value to the team

Haven’t seen you post in a while, Rick. Maybe you too have gone to cottage and I do hope all is well for you and your family

Anyway you said something along the line of....,,minus Keith and watch how fast the opposition figures out how to pile up the goals against us.

A lot more are skating at the voluntary trainings:

Kampf, Sikura, Hagel, Maatta, de Haan, Boqvist, Carlsson, Gilbert, Lankinen, and Tomkins have now joined.

Previously been at practices:

Forwards:
Kane, DeBrincat, Strome, Nylander, Caggiula, Kurashev, Entwistle, Highmore

Defensemen:
Murphy, Koekkoek, Seeler, Regula, Beaudin

Goalies:
Subban, Delia
- AEL_Fox

Hey Theo. Are all these new guys skating at the same time? How are the sessions organized? I thought it was supposed to be limited to 6 skaters at a time. Are there just multiple sessions per day, or do they alternate? Trying to think of any more questions I can pepper in here...

Hey Theo. Are all these new guys skating at the same time? How are the sessions organized? I thought it was supposed to be limited to 6 skaters at a time. Are there just multiple sessions per day, or do they alternate? Trying to think of any more questions I can pepper in here...
- Chunk

They do seem to be on the ice in set groups with one group at a time. There is some mixing of groups but not within the same day.

Torey Krug? I'd rather have Boqvist and probably Mitchell too, all things considered.
- EbonyRaptor

Ditto. No free agent D-men, please, even if the market has some coveted ones this offseason, i.e. Pietrangelo, Krug, Barrie, Vatanen, Tanev, Brodie, etc.

Hopefully Bowman isn't tempted either to bring back Gustafsson on an affordable contract. No deal is worth it.

Just go with the youth. Boqvist, Carlsson, Beaudin, and Mitchell are a good start. Regula could be a dark horse.

I may (probably) misinterpreted your comment regarding Colliton, that with Q behind the bench, the Hawks record would be so much better. Q is a hall of fame coach, no ifs ands or butts, but I do not think he would of done any better with the group Colliton has had to work with. I just think his half life with the team was over.
- LAHawk

Anytime you can bring in an analogy using isotopes is a plus in my book!

By the way, I agree with the focus of your post. Coaches can get stale if they don't adapt.

I believe this could be a reason why Bowman talked about going more towards youth and innovation.

Yes, some of Colliton's strategies are head scratchers. But as long as he's willing to adapt and listen to the players, then let's see what he can do.

A lot more are skating at the voluntary trainings:

Kampf, Sikura, Hagel, Maatta, de Haan, Boqvist, Carlsson, Gilbert, Lankinen, and Tomkins have now joined.

Previously been at practices:

Forwards:
Kane, DeBrincat, Strome, Nylander, Caggiula, Kurashev, Entwistle, Highmore

Defensemen:
Murphy, Koekkoek, Seeler, Regula, Beaudin

Goalies:
Subban, Delia
- AEL_Fox

Almost enough for an intra-squad scrimmage.

I thought I saw that Dach was there a couple days ago - is my addled mind acting up again?

I agree Tyler, that Mitchell not being able to play this year is a GOOD thing. Save a year on the entry-level deal.

Who has all the Expansion-rule knowledge here? I think we can protect 7 forwards, 3 D-men and 2 goalies???...or something pretty close to that.

I don't think we have to worry about losing a good young forward, but what D-men are exempt from being taken and which ones do we need to protect???

Actually, be interested from the forward perspective as well. Can any of you give me a good guess of where we stand in this respect???
- hawk35

Teams can protect either 6F, 3D and 1G, or 8 skaters (F & D) and 1G. Non protected players have to be signed for the 21-22 season. 2 year or less pros (e.g. Dach and Boqvist) are exempt and don't have to be protected. Players with NMC have to be protected unless they waive.

So if Hawks opt for the 6F, 3D and 1G option, protected players could be Kane, Toews, Cat, Kubalik, Strome, Nylander, Keith, Seabrook, one of deHaan/Maata/Murphy/Carlsson (if extended) and a goalie, probably either Delia or Lankinen.