I have no issues with the letter, it's the truth and gives the transparency I've asked for in the past.

My issue is with what Stan's done.

Leaving the FA signings aside, he didn't get picks/prospects for Saad, which is what he should have done (my opinion). Instead he got a 3rd pair defenseman who has only shown marginal talent at the NHL level.

And, he screwed up the CC thing. He could have signed him for 2 years (without a NMC), let him be the #1 this year, while auditioning the other 3 through the backup slot. Plus, he could then flip CC at the deadline, if there was a playoff contender in need of goaltending help. Instead, he got nothing in return. That's poor use of an asset.

Before yesterday:
“Why can’t Stan just admit that they’re rebuilding....”

After Yesterday:
“All he did is tell what we already knew...”

And around, and around we go.

#ficklefans
- Ogilthorpe2

Seeing as being pissed makes me a fickle fan ... okay. I understand ebbs & flows of championships, I welcome the rebuild so we can be a top NHL team again. I could care less about what Bowman says or doesn't say, or who is told "the plan". I know what a rebuild is & looks like. It was happening years ago. The nature of his statement was piss poor. I don't see the hope that Ted saw.

I'm leery of Bowman as a gm for our rebuild. He's a risk taker of a gm, not bad because I've been fine with him & not one always asking for his head. The draft risks, I guess you could say, reclamation projects, players of those nature. Rebuilding, I want a definitively better player in return in trades. Maybe they aren't on the market or we just don't have those trade pieces, idk. Sure, one could say Bowman hasn't been given the chance to rebuild ... he's been in it, I say. I have no clue who to replace him, so I'm living with it (angrily).

But my big concern is how he continues to go after players when we're committed to youth. Sure, one year deals, could give players in Rock time to develop, but it's a trend I don't see stopping. I would rather the core be traded for best return, but I know the many factors that prevent it from happening.

Idk if Bowman is the man for the job, would much rather JC in Rock, & hope who we have in house can make it as impact players in the NHL. Would rather see them sooner than later, just to see any progress.

Out of curiosity, does anyone actually know how Seabrook's recovery is going?

Everyone's reference point is pre-surgeries and immediately after the surgery, neither of which means a whole lot given the amount of time he had under the knife.

It is not like he would have to make a lot of improvement from the pre-surgery play to be the 3rd or 4th best defenseman in this group, especially since he actually knows how to defend.

Seeing as being pissed makes a fickle fan ... okay. I understand ebbs & flows of championships, I welcome the rebuild so we can be a top NHL team again. I could care less about what Bowman says or doesn't say, or who is told "the plan". I know what a rebuild is & looks like. It was happening years ago. The nature of his statement was piss poor. I don't see the hope that Ted saw.

I'm leery of Bowman as a gm for our rebuild. He's a risk taker of a gm, not bad because I've been fine with him & not one always asking for his head. The draft risks, I guess you could say, reclamation projects, players of those nature. Rebuilding, I want a definitively better player. Maybe they aren't on the market or we just don't have those trade pieces, idk. Sure, one could say Bowman hasn't been given the chance to rebuild ... he's been in it, I say. I have no clue who to replace him, so I'm living with it (angrily).

But my big concern is how he continues to go after players when we're committed to youth. Sure, one year deals, could give players in Rock time to develop, but it's a trend I don't see stopping. I would rather the core be traded for best return, but I know the many factors that prevent it from happening.

Idk if Bowman is the man for the job, would much rather JC in Rock, & hope who we have in house can make it as impact players in the NHL. Would rather see them sooner than later, just to see any progress.
- I Am The Breadman

IMO Stan is not the man for the job, as evidenced by the fact that Colliton is not in Rockford. End of story.

We all have varying opinions some think chicago could with few solid trades possibly compete , others except the slow tinkering around the edges and call it retooling, while I say it was long overdue and lost opportunity.


I'm not going to rehash stans moves , trades and resignings to much , imo stan and rocky lost focus after 2010 season with making decisions necessary for the teams future and cap space. Sure everyone can say but we won 2 more cups ok however heading into that few year run chicago took a step back and competed but in the process allowed a young unproven goalie named Crawford to gain. Experience in the net and the team relied on solid prospects , shaw, Saad ect and a couple of good moves oduya and handzus.

Thats what made stan look brilliant, his biggest downfall was trading away to many young prospects and seabrook.


My guess is next summer chicago will trade away one or 2 of the remaining core with the expansion of Seattle freeing up more space amongst teams.
- Taylorst1

One more question - should Stan learn from his Saad experience and not wait until the 11th hour to deal Murphy. His deal is up next year, the team isn't contending for at least three years, and his salary demands are likely to be higher than what he has right now.

He is an UFA after 21-22, has a long injury history but has shows flashes that he can be a valuable piece for somebody looking for blue line help now.

To me, that would be the move that speaks to shifting younger. Seabrook's contract is not moveable in this environment, and buying him out doesn't really make sense either.

I have no issues with the letter, it's the truth and gives the transparency I've asked for in the past.

My issue is with what Stan's done.

Leaving the FA signings aside, he didn't get picks/prospects for Saad, which is what he should have done (my opinion). Instead he got a 3rd pair defenseman who has only shown marginal talent at the NHL level.

And, he screwed up the CC thing. He could have signed him for 2 years (without a NMC), let him be the #1 this year, while auditioning the other 3 through the backup slot. Plus, he could then flip CC at the deadline, if there was a playoff contender in need of goaltending help. Instead, he got nothing in return. That's poor use of an asset.
- scottak

Confirmed by another team source: there was no better offer available for Saad. Say what you will about Zadorov, but he brings a element that is sorely lacking from the team. He has size, can skate and play well, and has some nasty in his game. I'm not saying he is the second coming, but we don't have that in droves.

I actually agree with the Hawks thinking on Crow. He is not the goalie of the future. If you sign him now, he is the main starter. Whoever is behind him gets a minority of the games, and you still only get a glimpse of what they are. When Crow is finished, you are still basically in the same spot.

What happens if Crow gets injured (a valid concern at this point)? He is then not only untradeable, but taking up cap space.

Seabrooks agent should get sports agent of the decade for that contract. 8 years when he was past his prime and buyout proof.
- kmw4631

Same agent that got Milan Lucic his deal, and Carey Price, Ryan Getzlaf their deals.

- HawkintheD

I love using my hindsight glasses. How about you?

We could steal games. We could compete. Throw in a Kaner and Alex Debrincat snipage, we could steal a series. An opposition huge injury or two in the final and we might be able to sneak another Cup in
- just69sayin

Confirmed by another team source: there was no better offer available for Saad. Say what you will about Zadorov, but he brings a element that is sorely lacking from the team. He has size, can skate and play well, and has some nasty in his game. I'm not saying he is the second coming, but we don't have that in droves.

I actually agree with the Hawks thinking on Crow. He is not the goalie of the future. If you sign him now, he is the main starter. Whoever is behind him gets a minority of the games, and you still only get a glimpse of what they are. When Crow is finished, you are still basically in the same spot.

What happens if Crow gets injured (a valid concern at this point)? He is then not only untradeable, but taking up cap space.
- Chunk

This has neither been said or will be said by the organization, but the injury/missed games history for #50 absolutely came into play with this. They were fortunate that he actually stayed healthy in 2020 - that is the exception for the past three years. That is also why I think they walked from Caggiula.

This has neither been said or will be said by the organization, but the injury/missed games history for #50 absolutely came into play with this. They were fortunate that he actually stayed healthy in 2020 - that is the exception for the past three years. That is also why I think they walked from Caggiula.
- jrsamu

Considering they already are stuck with the same issue with Shaw and Smith, I believe you are correct here.

Unless you are God and know how Seabs is going to play, I think that is a very bold ( I wanted to use a different word, but I thought I would be nice about it) thing to say. No one has seen him play since his surgeries. Let's give him a chance to prove (or disprove) his worth.
- powerenforcer

I mean, yes, but I was giving him some benefit because last season he was below replacement level so being a #7 is already above that. Even if the surgeries are successful, he'll still have normal age related decline to contend with. Seabrook is my favorite Hawks d-man, but it's difficult to see a player his age with his health issues being able to improve to the point where his contract is tradable without serious retention and sweeteners.

I'm actively rooting to be disproven, though. It'd be absolute the best if Seabs could finish his career positively.

IMO Stan is not the man for the job, as evidenced by the fact that Colliton is not in Rockford. End of story.
- jrsamu

As a coach who is vocal & I think good for development, I think he's better suited for Rock. I question his decisions from time to time, but I did that with Q also. No coach is perfect. Hopefully, his po experience was beneficial also & he has good assistant coaches also. Crossed fingers because that's all we got.

I mean, yes, but I was giving him some benefit because last season he was below replacement level so being a #7 is already above that. Even if the surgeries are successful, he'll still have normal age related decline to contend with. Seabrook is my favorite Hawks d-man, but it's difficult to see a player his age with his health issues being able to improve to the point where his contract is tradable without serious retention and sweeteners.

I'm actively rooting to be disproven, though. It'd be absolute the best if Seabs could finish his career positively.
- L_B_R

If the team could not do better moving Brandon Saad (no injury history), in this frozen Cap environment, nobody will be excited with what they will have to also give up in addition to taking on the rest of Seabrook's salary. Unless someone wants Lucic for just as many years.

Below are the top 10 cap hits for defenseman for next year. I also added the age that the contract runs out. In their primes, which ones would you select over Seabs? How many teams are going to rue the contracts given out towards the end of the term. Should the teams that signed the below players just have let them walk? Looks like to some posters on the board, the only GM they would hire is a ENIAC computer, of course then you can blame the programmer.

1. Erik Karlsson $11,500,000 37
2. Drew Doughty $11,000,000 37
3. Roman Josi $9,059,000 38
4. P.K. Subban $9,000,000 33
5. Alex Pietrangelo $8,800,000 37
6. Oliver Ekman-Larsson$8,250,000 36
7. Jacob Trouba $8,000,000 32
8. John Carlson UFA $8,000,000 36
9. Brent Burns $8,000,000 40
10. Thomas Chabot $8,000,000 31

Out of curiosity, does anyone actually know how Seabrook's recovery is going?

Everyone's reference point is pre-surgeries and immediately after the surgery, neither of which means a whole lot given the amount of time he had under the knife.

It is not like he would have to make a lot of improvement from the pre-surgery play to be the 3rd or 4th best defenseman in this group, especially since he actually knows how to defend.
- jrsamu

Per Ben Pope from the SunTimes:

Seabrook
The 35-year-old defensemen underwent a trifecta of surgeries on his right shoulder, right hip and left hip in December and January and hasn’t played since.

Seabrook participated in most of the Hawks’ July training camp but announced shortly before the team departed for the playoff bubble that he didn’t feel game-ready enough to come along.

He said he physically felt better than he had in years, however, and expected to be ready for the 2020-21 season if the Hawks still had a place for him on the roster. The relationship between Seabrook and Hawks management, in large part due to his albatross contract, has grown strained in recent years.

Below are the top 10 cap hits for defenseman for next year. I also added the age that the contract runs out. In their primes, which ones would you select over Seabs? How many teams are going to rue the contracts given out towards the end of the term. Should the teams that signed the below players just have let them walk? Looks like to some posters on the board, the only GM they would hire is a ENIAC computer, of course then you can blame the programmer.

1. Erik Karlsson $11,500,000 37
2. Drew Doughty $11,000,000 37
3. Roman Josi $9,059,000 38
4. P.K. Subban $9,000,000 33
5. Alex Pietrangelo $8,800,000 37
6. Oliver Ekman-Larsson$8,250,000 36
7. Jacob Trouba $8,000,000 32
8. John Carlson UFA $8,000,000 36
9. Brent Burns $8,000,000 40
10. Thomas Chabot $8,000,000 31
- LAHawk

Add in Vlasic at $7M per year. What the heck was SJ thinking?

Add in Vlasic at $7M per year. What the heck was SJ thinking?
- Chunk

I just cut it off at the top 10, Seabs is # 18, from 10-17 include Hedman, but also Vlasic, Weber, Lehtang, Suter, Giordono, and Spurgeon.

I have no issues with the letter, it's the truth and gives the transparency I've asked for in the past.

My issue is with what Stan's done.

Leaving the FA signings aside, he didn't get picks/prospects for Saad, which is what he should have done (my opinion). Instead he got a 3rd pair defenseman who has only shown marginal talent at the NHL level.

And, he screwed up the CC thing. He could have signed him for 2 years (without a NMC), let him be the #1 this year, while auditioning the other 3 through the backup slot. Plus, he could then flip CC at the deadline, if there was a playoff contender in need of goaltending help. Instead, he got nothing in return. That's poor use of an asset.
- scottak

Above depends on how he uses the money save s by not resigning crow.
If we’re in a rebuild why could you sign a goalie good enough to win a few games lowering there draft position? Lehner as good as he was didn’t return a lot and there’s no guarantee crow wouldn’t have wanted a nmc if he resigned here.

I love using my hindsight glasses. How about you?
- Chunk

Hindsight glasses and lamenting winning 2 Cups like the Hawks trophy cabinet is littered with them.

Theo, I thought your take on this statement was the most compelling:

"...an effort that will require a stockpile of emerging talent to complement our top players"

My initial thought upon reading that in the Hawks press release was that by "top players" they meant the core-4 and that meant that the rebuild wasn't going to go far enough to be as effective as it could be. But after reading your take that it doesn't necessarily mean the core-4, it really opened up a different and better perspective for me.

It may end up being the core-4 stick around because they can't really force them out, but "top players" could mean the new wave of top players, such as Dach and Boqvist, and that tips the press release from "meh" to one of optimism.

Theo, I thought your take on this statement was the most compelling:

"...an effort that will require a stockpile of emerging talent to complement our top players"

My initial thought upon reading that in the Hawks press release was that by "top players" they meant the core-4 and that meant that the rebuild wasn't going to go far enough to be as effective as it could be. But after reading your take that it doesn't necessarily mean the core-4, it really opened up a different and better perspective for me.

It may end up being the core-4 stick around because they can't really force them out, but "top players" could mean the new wave of top players, such as Dach and Boqvist, and that tips the press release from "meh" to one of optimism.
- EbonyRaptor

So we don't set him up to fail, we saw enough of Dach at the end of last season and the playoffs to be excited about him as pretty much a lock for being a core guy down the road, if not sooner. Not sure we can say that about Boqvist other than the hype by the Hawks. He looked lost more often than not and was not physically ready for the NHL.

I have no issues with the letter, it's the truth and gives the transparency I've asked for in the past.

My issue is with what Stan's done.

Leaving the FA signings aside, he didn't get picks/prospects for Saad, which is what he should have done (my opinion). Instead he got a 3rd pair defenseman who has only shown marginal talent at the NHL level.

And, he screwed up the CC thing. He could have signed him for 2 years (without a NMC), let him be the #1 this year, while auditioning the other 3 through the backup slot. Plus, he could then flip CC at the deadline, if there was a playoff contender in need of goaltending help. Instead, he got nothing in return. That's poor use of an asset.
- scottak

I agree that I would have liked to see picks for Sadd and Crawford. However, do you give the benefit of the doubt and conclude no picks for Sadd was due to teams not offering them? My take on the Crawford situation is that Stan believes that he has something with the goaltending prospects and all that is needed is some consistent playing time for one of them to emerge. And that resigning Crow would have stymied this development and only gotten a mid round pick two years later. The time to get good picks for Crow is in the past. Again I'm speculating, but maybe McDounah wouldn't allow Stan to act on trading CC it in years past.

There is a number. I think I read on here a few years back that it goes from shortest to longest time to develop forwards being the shortest to develop, defense being next and goalies being the longest to develop. I believe in hockey goalies usually hit their strides at 25, defense somewhere around 20-23 and forwards are usually usually 19 or 20, sometimes 21. I know there's information on this.

I think the hawks aren't throwing in the towel, I think what they are discussing is that they are going to try to mimic the Oakland athletics where, when a player gets too expensive they trade them for lots of top quality prospects. But sprinkle in doing everything they can once they get back to the competitiveness to spend to get the cup year after year. The difference is the hawks can spend more as the Oakland athletics spend penny's annually and dont sign anyone above 10M annually.

Just my 2 cents