People are vandalizing the Hawks logo outside the united center.The bs is starting.

Is the posse meeting tonight?
- mohel

No

People are vandalizing the Hawks logo outside the united center.The bs is starting.
- Tatoo

Happened yesterday because it was or used to be Columbus Day.

No
- NamedSources

Damn.

Aaron Dell to the Leafs 1 year 800K.

People are vandalizing the Hawks logo outside the united center.The bs is starting.
- Tatoo

I hope the police lock them up. There is no malice or disrespect meant with this Indian head. No one had a problem ever which I am aware until recently (last year or two there was some rumbling although I am uncertsin if the rumbling goes back a bit farther). No one ever meant and no one is disrespecting anything to do with Blackhawk or any Indians AS IT RELATES TO THIS STATUE. The statue was fine until some people starting to invoke racism and discourse over other statues in this country. Dimwit people acting either on their own accord but most vandalizing destruction in our country last six months is traced to wealthy people with ulterior motives who incite others to damage remove or pilfer.. In the minds of pundits and John Q Public, media may or may not report this news coverage in a forthright manner BUT this Blackhawk statue is a much less grandiose people filled event. I suspect we hear the proper presentation of this news occurance. As hockey club ownner and as fans we should be appalled and expect any vandalism or destruction to be stopped in its tracks. What rules are you taught, what you learn as you grow up is important. Laws exist for the protection of society. I wish those perpetrators would go in front of a judge and explain. Let a judge determine if they have valid concerns and whether their actions are validated or criminal

It was "multiple sources" taking the same story and trying to add their hot take onto it.

When in reality both Toews and Kane reached out to Zadorov almost immediately after the trade to welcome him to the team..
- Elbows15

Very easy (and probably not uncommon) to be both unhappy with the direction your organization is going and still welcoming and encouraging to new coworkers. I would be very surprised to see any of the players take out their frustrations with management on any other player. Much like Crow did not like sharing the net, but apparently was nothing but respectful and helpful to Lehner.

Hi, I'm Wizardofi and this team drives me to drink... oh wait, no meeting tonight?

Aaron Dell to the Leafs 1 year 800K.
- boilermaker100

I thought Stan might sign Dell as a veteran option.

Sorry, but I'll take Toews' word over Bowman's.
- BMWChiFan

I was talking about with Q and/or the core. I’ve got no problem with your stance. It still doesn’t make much difference outside of opinion.

Whether you agree with the moves (or direction of the team) or not, Stan had to do his job to the satisfaction of his superiors while apparently also catering to the wants/needs of his coach (at least with Q), and now the last remaining core. Thus far they haven’t been sufficiently displeased to fire him.

Theo,

This goes out to many bloggers who contribute solid opinion and counter with response when a comment is made which is wrong or shallow or whatever

Since Theo follows the Icehigs closely and has written about comoete level on the future Blackhawk team, i want to be sure he reviews this and if appropriate can respond

...

So what you say about this fast doggedly pursuant set of forwards? And the gialtending has to be adequate. Chris Ogood comparison would be fine if we can hope it happens
- jhawk59

If I get the gist of what you said, I would generally agree with you.

My take is that the team would benefit greatly with a roster where every single player -- regardless of their size, skillset, or years of experience -- competes hard every shift and contests every puck.

There was a long span of time from 2015 onward when the team would just mail it in. That was unfuriarating to watch as a fan.

It also wasn't that long ago when there was the perspective that the veterans were "just saving it" for the stretch run and playoffs and could flip a switch to pour on the talent.

Whether true or false, I absolutely hated that philosophy. I don't care how many accolades certain players have. Mailing it in is lazy. If you're hurt or exhausted, then sit out games to rest up.

Even if a team still loses, make the other team work hard for ever inch of ice and earn every shot and every goal. You do that by competing every shift and contesting every puck.

Do the Hawks have those types of players on the roster now and in the system? Yes, they have some but what's lacking is an investment by those who need to match that work ethic and intensity.

Again, it takes every single player to make it work. If this happens and everyone also executes on the smart, fundamental hockey, then that's a winning formula no matter what systems they employ.

Keep systems simple because why complicate compete level and fundamentals.

And I'm not a fan of the Incompetent Bowman running the asylum. And if you think Bowman holds a stronger hand than the Core Four with their NMCs, you're sadly mistaken. Stanbo just better hope that they don't openly revolt against him and his hand-picked, learning on the job coach.
- BMWChiFan

And what would the core do as an open revolt? Go home (and not get paid).: Not try (the fans would quickly sour on the players). This isn’t t the same as when Arthur Wirtz refused to pay Bobby Hull what he was worth. BTW that ended with Bobby when he came back having to hold a press conference apologizing. There is no WHA anymore for the players to go to.

Maybe Stan should do what Doug Wilson did to Thornton and Marleau and strip there letters from their jerseys.

And what would the core do as an open revolt? Go home (and not get paid).: Not try (the fans would quickly sour on the players). This isn’t t the same as when Arthur Wirtz refused to pay Bobby Hull what he was worth. BTW that ended with Bobby when he came back having to hold a press conference apologizing. There is no WHA anymore for the players to go to.

Maybe Stan should do what Doug Wilson did to Thornton and Marleau and strip there letters from their jerseys.
- LAHawk

Consonants or vowels?

Consonants or vowels?
- Chief4Feathers

K ne
Se brook

I hope the police lock them up. There is no malice or disrespect meant with this Indian head. No one had a problem ever which I am aware until recently (last year or two there was some rumbling although I am uncertsin if the rumbling goes back a bit farther). No one ever meant and no one is disrespecting anything to do with Blackhawk or any Indians AS IT RELATES TO THIS STATUE. The statue was fine until some people starting to invoke racism and discourse over other statues in this country. Dimwit people acting either on their own accord but most vandalizing destruction in our country last six months is traced to wealthy people with ulterior motives who incite others to damage remove or pilfer.. In the minds of pundits and John Q Public, media may or may not report this news coverage in a forthright manner BUT this Blackhawk statue is a much less grandiose people filled event. I suspect we hear the proper presentation of this news occurance. As hockey club ownner and as fans we should be appalled and expect any vandalism or destruction to be stopped in its tracks. What rules are you taught, what you learn as you grow up is important. Laws exist for the protection of society. I wish those perpetrators would go in front of a judge and explain. Let a judge determine if they have valid concerns and whether their actions are validated or criminal
- jhawk59

I get where you're coming from. I'm a Hawks fan. I like their history and love the logo. But as a white male in this society, I'm a recipient of a lot of built-in advantages. The laws in this country have been tailored to protect white men and white property. This society was built for me and people like me. The advantages I've received have been encoded in our institutions (and the fact that white males have been running them) since the beginning of our country.

Unfortunately, that means that others have been at a disadvantage. They've had their families wiped out, their lands taken away, their freedom taken away. They've literally been owned as property, disenfranchised and terrorized for centuries. And our laws have allowed this. As much as we might not want to acknowledge it, our laws were written to protect white society. We've never had an inclusive society. We've tried. We've gotten closer, but we've never achieved one.

I don't know if you can (it's hard to do), but imagine yourself being on the receiving end of those actions. Imagine your family was murdered and your land was taken away. Imagine if your family was owned as property, beaten, raped, murdered. Imagine your home and business being burned down just after you'd built them because the ruling class was threatened by your family's success. And because you weren't in the ruling class, they got away with it and no justice was done. Then, just for good measure, imagine your church being bombed because members of your community were meeting there to plan a protest for the justice that never came.

I love the Hawks, the logo, everything. But do we really need to continue to thumb our noses at people who have historically been treated like less than human and had so much taken from them? All I, as a member of the historical ruling class in this nation, would have to endure is looking at an image of a bird instead of a face. Is that so much to ask in order to be respectful of a group of human beings who have been "otherized" in this country for centuries?

I get where you're coming from. I'm a Hawks fan. I like their history and love the logo. But as a white male in this society, I'm a recipient of a lot of built-in advantages. The laws in this country have been tailored to protect white men and white property. This society was built for me and people like me. The advantages I've received have been encoded in our institutions (and the fact that white males have been running them) since the beginning of our country.

Unfortunately, that means that others have been at a disadvantage. They've had their families wiped out, their lands taken away, their freedom taken away. They've literally been owned as property, disenfranchised and terrorized for centuries. And our laws have allowed this. As much as we might not want to acknowledge it, our laws were written to protect white society. We've never had an inclusive society. We've tried. We've gotten closer, but we've never achieved one.

I don't know if you can (it's hard to do), but imagine yourself being on the receiving end of those actions. Imagine your family was murdered and your land was taken away. Imagine if your family was owned as property, beaten, raped, murdered. Imagine your home and business being burned down just after you'd built them because the ruling class was threatened by your family's success. And because you weren't in the ruling class, they got away with it and no justice was done. Then, just for good measure, imagine your church being bombed because members of your community were meeting there to plan a protest for the justice that never came.

I love the Hawks, the logo, everything. But do we really need to continue to thumb our noses at people who have historically been treated like less than human and had so much taken from them? All I, as a member of the historical ruling class in this nation, would have to endure is looking at an image of a bird instead of a face. Is that so much to ask in order to be respectful of a group of human beings who have been "otherized" in this country for centuries?
- 4_in_7

Please stick to hockey.

I get where you're coming from. I'm a Hawks fan. I like their history and love the logo. But as a white male in this society, I'm a recipient of a lot of built-in advantages. The laws in this country have been tailored to protect white men and white property. This society was built for me and people like me. The advantages I've received have been encoded in our institutions (and the fact that white males have been running them) since the beginning of our country.

Unfortunately, that means that others have been at a disadvantage. They've had their families wiped out, their lands taken away, their freedom taken away. They've literally been owned as property, disenfranchised and terrorized for centuries. And our laws have allowed this. As much as we might not want to acknowledge it, our laws were written to protect white society. We've never had an inclusive society. We've tried. We've gotten closer, but we've never achieved one.

I don't know if you can (it's hard to do), but imagine yourself being on the receiving end of those actions. Imagine your family was murdered and your land was taken away. Imagine if your family was owned as property, beaten, raped, murdered. Imagine your home and business being burned down just after you'd built them because the ruling class was threatened by your family's success. And because you weren't in the ruling class, they got away with it and no justice was done. Then, just for good measure, imagine your church being bombed because members of your community were meeting there to plan a protest for the justice that never came.

I love the Hawks, the logo, everything. But do we really need to continue to thumb our noses at people who have historically been treated like less than human and had so much taken from them? All I, as a member of the historical ruling class in this nation, would have to endure is looking at an image of a bird instead of a face. Is that so much to ask in order to be respectful of a group of human beings who have been "otherized" in this country for centuries?
- 4_in_7

I believe I read somewhere that the Blackhawk Indian logo is supposed to represent the chief Blackhawk in a positive way. In reality the Blackhawk Indian may be too controversial for some due to its Midwestern heritage. But "the Blackhawks won't change the nickname because it honors the life of an active native American, " a CNN story reported.

In a The Chicago Tribune story after the defacing occured, Blackhawks spokesperson said that the statue, covered in red paint graffiti, was then covered in a canvass and it would be removed and repaired later."

I want to add, there is no possible derision by the actual name itself as compared to "redskins." The Washington Redskins, an NFL team, changed their name to the Washington Football Team as seen in boxscores and elsewhere. There was a cartoonist type decal or patch of an redskins Indian on the uniform.

Yet I agree you are correct in that the statue is offensive to some. A call to action to damage it with graffiti and paint may be due more to the purported incitor who riles up statue tear downs these past six months. But indigenous Indian groups have also been against this Blackhawk statue, its existence and promulgation for years even decades, according to news reports. That is a distinguished fact aside from one source pundits claim is the incitor of statue removal and graffiti of stautes elsewhere in this country the past ~ six months.

I cannot disagree with your presentation of the hurtful
(although unintended) affect on the whole of society. The best choice may be to remove the statue. But changing team name from Blackhawk would be going too far since the statue has been intended to be complimentary. So this whole issue should not carry over into changing of team name as did occur with the Washington team. Now the question becomes whether some people are willing to accept this particular statue as nonnoffensive. I have not the knowledge all circumstances the court would study, such as a distinct attempt made not to deride the Blackhawk logo.

This could become a Supreme court ruling. And whatever the court's ruling, just to have a ruling is a slap in the face of Blackhawk owner, the NHL, and Blackhawk fandom. Moreover a case such as this is bound to leave some people in disagreement.

Oh bye and bye and perhaps bye begone but did you know that this Blackhawk logo is the number one sold NHL jersey. Hmmm....dollars do carry leverage but this is not about a business decision as it is about a life denigrating statement. As aforementioned does the Supreme Court decide?

Please stick to hockey.
- z1990z

there is a connection to the Blackhawks logo. I know it does seem a bit of a stretch to some. But it cannot be shoved aside perhaps without a court ruling in a Democratic country. Unless you want to endure punch and counter punch each year. Meaning the statue gets defaced and then repaired annually.

Please stick to hockey.
- z1990z

Tell that to the people complaining about vandalizing the statue. I'm just responding with the fuller picture.

I believe I read somewhere that the Blackhawk Indian logo is supposed to represent the chief Blackhawk in a positive way. In reality the Blackhawk Indian may be too controversial for some due to its Midwestern heritage. But "the Blackhawks won't change the nickname because it honors the life of an active native American, " a CNN story reported.

In a The Chicago Tribune story after the defacing occured, Blackhawks spokesperson said that the statue, covered in red paint graffiti, was then covered in a canvass and it would be removed and repaired later."

I want to add, there is no possible derision by the actual name itself as compared to "redskins." The Washington Redskins, an NFL team, changed their name to the Washington Football Team as seen in boxscores and elsewhere. There was a cartoonist type decal or patch of an redskins Indian on the uniform.

Yet I agree you are correct in that the statue is offensive to some. A call to action to damage it with graffiti and paint may be due more to the purported incitor who riles up statue tear downs these past six months. But indigenous Indian groups have also been against this Blackhawk statue, its existence and promulgation for years even decades, according to news reports. That is a distinguished fact aside from one source pundits claim is the incitor of statue removal and graffiti of stautes elsewhere in this country the past ~ six months.

I cannot disagree with your presentation of the hurtful
(although unintended) affect on the whole of society. The best choice may be to remove the statue. But changing team name from Blackhawk would be going too far since the statue has been intended to be complimentary. So this whole issue should not carry over into changing of team name as did occur with the Washington team. Now the question becomes whether some people are willing to accept this particular statue as nonnoffensive. I have not the knowledge all circumstances the court would study, such as a distinct attempt made not to deride the Blackhawk logo.

This could become a Supreme court ruling. And whatever the court's ruling, just to have a ruling is a slap in the face of Blackhawk owner, the NHL, and Blackhawk fandom. Moreover a case such as this is bound to leave some people in disagreement.

Oh bye and bye and perhaps bye begone but did you know that this Blackhawk logo is the number one sold NHL jersey. Hmmm....dollars do carry leverage but this is not about a business decision as it is about a life denigrating statement. As aforementioned does the Supreme Court decide?
- jhawk59

There's no need to change the name, really. Just have it refer to a hawk, the bird. Not a native person of this land.

Gotta change the logo, though. My beloved logo. I'll be sad to see it go, but really, in the bigger picture, it's the least we can do. I mean, the very least... And I'm well aware of it's popularity.

The arbitration hearing dates came out today. The name that sticks out to me is Virtanen. Supposedly in Travis Green’s doghouse because he came back to the bubble overweight. He probably is going to get an arbitration number between $2.5 - $3 mil.Nwhich would put Vancouver over the cap.

Guy has all the potential in the world to be a Top 6 power forward. Wonder what kind of deal Stan could make to get him. I would put him with Toews and Kubalik

I was just wondering where nice sweet smart Mohel was...Hawks rule!!! Hawks beat Edmonton and almost beat Vegas. Who's female doging about Stan? Get a clue

interesting if you call him a cocksmoker, its allowed. or a cocksucking idiot. also allowed. just a tip from your ol uncle Bows
- Elbows15

And what would the core do as an open revolt? Go home (and not get paid).: Not try (the fans would quickly sour on the players). This isn’t t the same as when Arthur Wirtz refused to pay Bobby Hull what he was worth. BTW that ended with Bobby when he came back having to hold a press conference apologizing. There is no WHA anymore for the players to go to.

Maybe Stan should do what Doug Wilson did to Thornton and Marleau and strip there letters from their jerseys.
- LAHawk

Ya, the 3C of the core takes a beating here for a while now, and some of it deserved, remember the diet......again, he's the only I see female dogin about anything.

I've seen Lazerus story say "sources" but Toews is the only one I've seen quoted.
Makes me believe its Toews, and Lazerus is covering for him by saying sources, and its all 4 of them.

And what would the core do as an open revolt? Go home (and not get paid).: Not try (the fans would quickly sour on the players). This isn’t t the same as when Arthur Wirtz refused to pay Bobby Hull what he was worth. BTW that ended with Bobby when he came back having to hold a press conference apologizing. There is no WHA anymore for the players to go to.

Maybe Stan should do what Doug Wilson did to Thornton and Marleau and strip there letters from their jerseys.
- LAHawk

Yeah, I don't see it happening either. In the Herald this morning Dietz shares Kris Versteeg's thoughts from an interview on Sirius/XM as far as what he thinks we might see this year.

Anything's possible, but I don't really see it playing out this way...or I should say I don't see Toews losing his role as 1C and I don't see Keith being completely taken off the PP.

It makes one wonder how ugly things could get.

Would Keith be yanked off the power play? Will Toews lose his role as No. 1 center? Will Seabrook -- assuming his rehab goes well -- continue sitting out? Will young players be on the ice in the waning moments of a tight game?

Versteeg wouldn't bet against any of it.

"I would be interested to see ... whether young guys will start taking situations away," Versteeg said. "It'll be interesting going forward where you see time on ice for players and how they're going to manage that. I can't see (the veterans) getting a lot of the prime opportunity anymore."

Wait. All of them?

"I think everyone but Kane, yep," Versteeg said.