Is Zadorov a $3.2M player? IMO no, obviously SB may be seeing something different.
- TheTrob

Keep in mind Boqvist as he stands now more than likely will be making that after next year.

Chunk, you might be right. Problem is Z has 400 games played, not 40. Expectations are different. Advanced stats in this case I think are misleading. Eye test to me says he is not very good. Yes he adds a physical element that no one else on the club does, but thats pretty much it. All I know is I saw a whole bunch of extended time in the D-zone, broken coverage, etc. and 8 out of 10 times I looked Z was on the ice. Maybe I have just become myopic when it comes to what I see with Z.
- TheTrob

How much better does he have to be to be worth $4M and not too much better to be worth $8M?

But honestly.... measuring Z against the other Hawk dmen was not a very high bar.
- -Doh-

Indeed! Which is why I think he was simply just telling the truth (that no one really wants to admit) as opposed to trying to pump his tires.

3rd period goals when vegas was leading 4-0.
- -Doh-

On the ice to prevent someone important from getting injured before playoffs.

Chunk, you might be right. Problem is Z has 400 games played, not 40. Expectations are different. Advanced stats in this case I think are misleading. Eye test to me says he is not very good. Yes he adds a physical element that no one else on the club does, but thats pretty much it. All I know is I saw a whole bunch of extended time in the D-zone, broken coverage, etc. and 8 out of 10 times I looked Z was on the ice. Maybe I have just become myopic when it comes to what I see with Z.
- TheTrob

Hey Trob. I wholeheartedly agree with the bolded. That can be true at the same time as the statement "Z was among the best 2 or 3 defensemen on the team."

IMO, the young guys showed occasional flashes of really good, with extended mediocre/questionable play. Boqvist showed the most growth. Kalynuk, I believe, showed the best overall game. All of them showed they DEFINITELY need to show much more growth to be considered a starter.

Z was 100% terrifying with the puck on his blade (especially in the D-zone). He also had several mind lapses. That said, I would say he played better than de Haan, Carlsson, all the youngsters, and possibly even Keith.

From Larry Brooks NY Post

I talked with several individuals in the league familiar with Gallant. Their scouting reports were close to identical. To wit: Gallant is a no-nonsense guy who commands respect, communicates well with his players and staff but not necessarily the media and public. He is low-key and shuns the spotlight, but is not necessarily known for bringing structure to a team. He can coach prospects but cuts them little slack.

Perusing his résumé, I found it interesting that in each of his previous three stops, the first in Columbus beginning in 2003-04, he was fired during the middle of his third season. That does not represent much of a shelf life.

Not known for structure, and impatient with prospects. Doesn’t sound like a good fit with the current stage of the Hawks.
- LAHawk

I've made it clear I'm not a JC fan & I'm not -
The Board supports him & as many point out a better coach wouldn't help much with this average non playoff team.
BTW - Hawks won't be in the playoffs next year & I doubt will contend for a Cup in the Kane & Toews era. So be it.

As for Gallant - your right
it all doesn't matter.
But
He's from PEI & I'm from PEI.
You don't know him but I do. Great Family- great person- great coach.

Here's the part of the article you failed to include-
Have a nice off season - see ya,


Gallant believes in up-tempo, puck-pursuit, puck-pressure hockey. He was successful with a very young group in Florida that featured 20-year-old Aleksander Barkov, 19-year-old Aaron Ekblad, and 22-year-olds Jonathan Huberdeau and Vincent Trocheck as core pieces. They combined with 43-year-old Jaromir Jagr and 36-year-old netminder Roberto Luongo in leading the Cats to the 2016 playoffs before Gallant was kicked to the curb the following year after a philosophical fallout with ownership.


And he was successful in Vegas with a group of castoffs who had something to prove, molding discards with chips on their shoulders into a Stanley Cup finalist in the franchise’s first season in 2017-18 before being replaced two years later when Pete DeBoer came on the market.

Hey Trob. I wholeheartedly agree with the bolded. That can be true at the same time as the statement "Z was among the best 2 or 3 defensemen on the team."

IMO, the young guys showed occasional flashes of really good, with extended mediocre/questionable play. Boqvist showed the most growth. Kalynuk, I believe, showed the best overall game. All of them showed they DEFINITELY need to show much more growth to be considered a starter.

Z was 100% terrifying with the puck on his blade (especially in the D-zone). He also had several mind lapses. That said, I would say he played better than de Haan, Carlsson, all the youngsters, and possibly even Keith.
- Chunk

Yep that sums it up. I like what Z brings as a 6-7 Dman but not anything more. 3.2 or more is an overpay for a 6-7 especially when a cheaper Stillman can do the same thing.

Keith and DeHaan were turnover monsters this year. Z just couldn't reach pucks in time and would lose it under the pressure of a forecheck. Again, with sheltered minutes as a 6-7 no problem here but with this corps they were playing him as a 3-4.

I've made it clear I'm not a JC fan & I'm not -
The Board supports him & as many point out a better coach wouldn't help much with this average non playoff team.
BTW - Hawks won't be in the playoffs next year & I doubt will contend for a Cup in the Kane & Toews era. So be it.

As for Gallant - your right
it all doesn't matter.
But
He's from PEI & I'm from PEI.
You don't know him but I do. Great Family- great person- great coach.

Here's the part of the article you failed to include-
Have a nice off season - see ya,


Gallant believes in up-tempo, puck-pursuit, puck-pressure hockey. He was successful with a very young group in Florida that featured 20-year-old Aleksander Barkov, 19-year-old Aaron Ekblad, and 22-year-olds Jonathan Huberdeau and Vincent Trocheck as core pieces. They combined with 43-year-old Jaromir Jagr and 36-year-old netminder Roberto Luongo in leading the Cats to the 2016 playoffs before Gallant was kicked to the curb the following year after a philosophical fallout with ownership.


And he was successful in Vegas with a group of castoffs who had something to prove, molding discards with chips on their shoulders into a Stanley Cup finalist in the franchise’s first season in 2017-18 before being replaced two years later when Pete DeBoer came on the market.



- Colbyboy

Hey Colby. I don't think the board "supports" Colliton. It's just that you can see this team is still in the trying-to-find-pieces stage of construction. We can never truly know if Gallant would make this team more competitive than it is. Maybe he could get them to sneak into the playoffs. This is what I mean when I say it doesn't matter right now. They are not going to compete for a cup.

This young Hawks team if vastly different than a team that included a young Barkov, Huberdeau, and Ekblad. Not to mention the difference in talent of that first Vegas team.

I have no problem with Gallant per se. I think he is an above average coach (for reference, I think JC is below average). I just look at the fact that Hawks re-upped JC on the offseason and see that as they think he is doing precisely what they want. Winning is just gravy right now. The moment that he is seen as a hindrance to their goal (i.e. when they think they can start consistently winning) I'm sure he will be booted for a better option.

I've made it clear I'm not a JC fan & I'm not -
The Board supports him & as many point out a better coach wouldn't help much with this average non playoff team.
BTW - Hawks won't be in the playoffs next year & I doubt will contend for a Cup in the Kane & Toews era. So be it.

As for Gallant - your right
it all doesn't matter.
But
He's from PEI & I'm from PEI.
You don't know him but I do. Great Family- great person- great coach.

Here's the part of the article you failed to include-
Have a nice off season - see ya,


Gallant believes in up-tempo, puck-pursuit, puck-pressure hockey. He was successful with a very young group in Florida that featured 20-year-old Aleksander Barkov, 19-year-old Aaron Ekblad, and 22-year-olds Jonathan Huberdeau and Vincent Trocheck as core pieces. They combined with 43-year-old Jaromir Jagr and 36-year-old netminder Roberto Luongo in leading the Cats to the 2016 playoffs before Gallant was kicked to the curb the following year after a philosophical fallout with ownership.


And he was successful in Vegas with a group of castoffs who had something to prove, molding discards with chips on their shoulders into a Stanley Cup finalist in the franchise’s first season in 2017-18 before being replaced two years later when Pete DeBoer came on the market.



- Colbyboy

Did I say he wasn't? Yes I highlighted the negatives, because that is the reason I do not think he is the right coach for where the Hawks are currently. I am concerned that he would wear out his welcome in 3 years. If the Hawks are to replace JC, they need to consider someone who will be the coach thru the rebuild and beyond.

Have a nice day.

Yep that sums it up. I like what Z brings as a 6-7 Dman but not anything more. 3.2 or more is an overpay for a 6-7 especially when a cheaper Stillman can do the same thing.

Keith and DeHaan were turnover monsters this year. Z just couldn't reach pucks in time and would lose it under the pressure of a forecheck. Again, with sheltered minutes as a 6-7 no problem here but with this corps they were playing him as a 3-4.
- Popsghostly

Some here believe that Keith wants to play forever, with only $3.5M in total salary the next two years, I’m not so sure. Don’t be surprised if he hangs up his skates.

Yep that sums it up. I like what Z brings as a 6-7 Dman but not anything more. 3.2 or more is an overpay for a 6-7 especially when a cheaper Stillman can do the same thing.

Keith and DeHaan were turnover monsters this year. Z just couldn't reach pucks in time and would lose it under the pressure of a forecheck. Again, with sheltered minutes as a 6-7 no problem here but with this corps they were playing him as a 3-4.
- Popsghostly

For being such a big human, he struggles with the very basic concept of protect the front of the net and stay between the forward and the goalie. He's probably the worst dman at this.

Hey Colby. I don't think the board "supports" Colliton. It's just that you can see this team is still in the trying-to-find-pieces stage of construction. We can never truly know if Gallant would make this team more competitive than it is. Maybe he could get them to sneak into the playoffs. This is what I mean when I say it doesn't matter right now. They are not going to compete for a cup.

This young Hawks team if vastly different than a team that included a young Barkov, Huberdeau, and Ekblad. Not to mention the difference in talent of that first Vegas team.

I have no problem with Gallant per se. I think he is an above average coach (for reference, I think JC is below average). I just look at the fact that Hawks re-upped JC on the offseason and see that as they think he is doing precisely what they want. Winning is just gravy right now. The moment that he is seen as a hindrance to their goal (i.e. when they think they can start consistently winning) I'm sure he will be booted for a better option.
- Chunk

A few Stan quotes to my point here:

Stan Bowman on Jeremy Colliton: "The way we get back (to being a top team) is through development. ... I really was impressed with the developmental approach" this season. Highlighted all the progress made by young players this season, says that has to continue.

"That's something that Jeremy and his staff have embraced wholeheartedly."

"The payoff for what I'm talking about now isn't immediate."

Hey Colby. I don't think the board "supports" Colliton. It's just that you can see this team is still in the trying-to-find-pieces stage of construction. We can never truly know if Gallant would make this team more competitive than it is. Maybe he could get them to sneak into the playoffs. This is what I mean when I say it doesn't matter right now. They are not going to compete for a cup.

This young Hawks team if vastly different than a team that included a young Barkov, Huberdeau, and Ekblad. Not to mention the difference in talent of that first Vegas team.

I have no problem with Gallant per se. I think he is an above average coach (for reference, I think JC is below average). I just look at the fact that Hawks re-upped JC on the offseason and see that as they think he is doing precisely what they want. Winning is just gravy right now. The moment that he is seen as a hindrance to their goal (i.e. when they think they can start consistently winning) I'm sure he will be booted for a better option.
- Chunk

Fair enough- development it is.
Gallant's opportunities will come & I doubt the Hawks or Sabres would be a job he would take so it's all a moot point

I'm Old School & would take
Toccecht- Boudreau- AV- Babcock & Q over Collitan

I'll learn to live with Stans's guy 🤦‍♂️

Some Kane comments (via Roumeliotis) on missing Toews the whole year. I'm not a huge face-off guy, but the point made is important:

"I miss him in a lot of ways," Patrick Kane said. "Off the ice, he's a great leader, great friend. So you miss him just in that sense. And then obviously on the ice, for me, it makes things a lot easier, too. Whether we’re playing together or not, you have that 1-2 punch that gives the other team something to think about, about who they’re going to defend. They've got to be more aware when he’s on the ice and I can come on next and maybe get easier matchups."

Kane wasn't finished.

"You miss him a lot in the faceoff department," he continued. "We saw that a lot with the power play this year. It gets to a point where it becomes frustrating you’re losing the draws and you've got to start on the breakout on the power play. He was so good at that. You took that for granted where you were always starting with the puck in the offensive zone. It seems like when we did that this year, we had a little bit more success and could create more. Miss him there.

Keep in mind Boqvist as he stands now more than likely will be making that after next year.
- rpeters01

The only way Boqvist gets close to 3.2M after next year is if he puts up the numbers Gus had that one year. Besides he's a RFA in a flat cap era. 3x2M tops and if he proves himself he could cash in on his next contract.

Theo,

A couple of blogs ago you mentioned the podcast that had Bowman on it mentioning he wanted to add impact players to the team in 12 to 18 months. I couldn't find it. Once you listen to it could you possibly summarize Stan's thoughts and add yours in a future blog? Thanks.

Fair enough- development it is.
Gallant's opportunities will come & I doubt the Hawks or Sabres would be a job he would take so it's all a moot point

I'm Old School & would take
Toccecht- Boudreau- AV- Babcock & Q over Collitan

I'll learn to live with Stans's guy 🤦‍♂️
- Colbyboy

But can you learn to live with Bowman?

Hey Colby. I don't think the board "supports" Colliton. It's just that you can see this team is still in the trying-to-find-pieces stage of construction. We can never truly know if Gallant would make this team more competitive than it is. Maybe he could get them to sneak into the playoffs. This is what I mean when I say it doesn't matter right now. They are not going to compete for a cup.

This young Hawks team if vastly different than a team that included a young Barkov, Huberdeau, and Ekblad. Not to mention the difference in talent of that first Vegas team.

I have no problem with Gallant per se. I think he is an above average coach (for reference, I think JC is below average). I just look at the fact that Hawks re-upped JC on the offseason and see that as they think he is doing precisely what they want. Winning is just gravy right now. The moment that he is seen as a hindrance to their goal (i.e. when they think they can start consistently winning) I'm sure he will be booted for a better option.
- Chunk

Even though the Hawks are miles from being a contender, I don't think too many would disagree that the team played hard for JC over the whole 56 game season. I can't think of too many games where the team got waxed and quit on him or didn't give great effort in a game following a lopsided loss. They played hard to the end and many of the kids (who belong in Rockford) were given some games with the big club.

Meanwhile teams like the Kings, Sharks. Blue Jackets cashed it in early and made their coaches look real bad.

Some here believe that Keith wants to play forever, with only $3.5M in total salary the next two years, I’m not so sure. Don’t be surprised if he hangs up his skates.
- Angotti

At the time Keith's front loaded contract was signed would it not fall under a heavy penalized cap hit clause for us for the duration of his contract if he were to retire? In that case it would be better for us if he just played out the rest of his contract.

Hey Trob. I wholeheartedly agree with the bolded. That can be true at the same time as the statement "Z was among the best 2 or 3 defensemen on the team."

IMO, the young guys showed occasional flashes of really good, with extended mediocre/questionable play. Boqvist showed the most growth. Kalynuk, I believe, showed the best overall game. All of them showed they DEFINITELY need to show much more growth to be considered a starter.

Z was 100% terrifying with the puck on his blade (especially in the D-zone). He also had several mind lapses. That said, I would say he played better than de Haan, Carlsson, all the youngsters, and possibly even Keith.
- Chunk

I guess my expectations for a guy with 400+ games and making $3.2M are just vastly different. In Zadorov I see a guy who is not a great skater, is a nightmare with the puck on his stick, and worst of all has no Hockey sense whatsoever. Was he better than deHaan, I would say probably, Carlsson he of 18 pro games, non-issue, Keith, no way was he better.

I understand mistakes, all players make them, but, the expectation for me is that a guy you are paying to be a 2nd pairing defenseman is not making the same mistakes as a kid with <40 games. I expect a guy with 400+ games not to make the fundamental mistakes he makes on a regular basis. Does anyone here seriously see him as a 2nd pairing D-man?

Even though the Hawks are miles from being a contender, I don't think too many would disagree that the team played hard for JC over the whole 56 game season. I can't think of too many games where the team got waxed and quit on him or didn't give great effort in a game following a lopsided loss. They played hard to the end and many of the kids (who belong in Rockford) were given some games with the big club.

Meanwhile teams like the Kings, Sharks. Blue Jackets cashed it in early and made their coaches look real bad.
- RickJ

I agree Rick. I’ve said it before but Colliton may or may not prove to be a good NHL coach, but judging him for nor making the playoffs with a rag tag line up is unfair.

I guess my expectations for a guy with 400+ games and making $3.2M are just vastly different. In Zadorov I see a guy who is not a great skater, is a nightmare with the puck on his stick, and worst of all has no Hockey sense whatsoever. Was he better than deHaan, I would say probably, Carlsson he of 18 pro games, non-issue, Keith, no way was he better.

I understand mistakes, all players make them, but, the expectation for me is that a guy you are paying to be a 2nd pairing defenseman is not making the same mistakes as a kid with <40 games. I expect a guy with 400+ games not to make the fundamental mistakes he makes on a regular basis. Does anyone here seriously see him as a 2nd pairing D-man?
- TheTrob

Our expectations are not vastly different at all. A player with that experience and at that cap should provide much better performance. He's big. That's his selling point. He used that to his advantage some this year but not nearly enough to make it worth the consternation he caused.

I see him as a 2nd pairing D-man on this team. That does not mean that he is what you would expect from a 2nd pair, actually playing to that level or worth what he is being paid. It simply means that he was better than a lot of the other options on this particular team.

The only way Boqvist gets close to 3.2M after next year is if he puts up the numbers Gus had that one year. Besides he's a RFA in a flat cap era. 3x2M tops and if he proves himself he could cash in on his next contract.
- boilermaker100

I think you're wrong. You think I'm wrong. Only one way to find out and yes I do believe strongly that there are going to be greatly reduced salaries in the flat cap era, moreso than most but I don't think it will affect Boqvist very much...

At the time Keith's front loaded contract was signed would it not fall under a heavy penalized cap hit clause for us for the duration of his contract if he were to retire? In that case it would be better for us if he just played out the rest of his contract.
- 67hawks

Keith isn’t the same Keith from five years ago but he can still help most NHL teams but not playing 20 plus minutes a game anymore. And regardless of what many on here say, he’s still the best defenseman the Hawks have. One or more of the kids will undoubtedly overtake him but none has as yet. Zadorov? Not a chance. Murphy? No. Boqvist? He’s better offensively but Keith is still much better defensively. Keith’s presence on Chicago’s blue line is more positive than negative.

Our expectations are not vastly different at all. A player with that experience and at that cap should provide much better performance. He's big. That's his selling point. He used that to his advantage some this year but not nearly enough to make it worth the consternation he caused.

I see him as a 2nd pairing D-man on this team. That does not mean that he is what you would expect from a 2nd pair, actually playing to that level or worth what he is being paid. It simply means that he was better than a lot of the other options on this particular team.
- Chunk

I think this is where we diverge in opinion. Keith and Murphy are still going to be holding down your 1st and 2nd pairs, doesn't matter which one is in which pair. I personally would rather see Boqvist, Kalynuk, Mitchell, Stillman or Beaudin in the other 2 spots than Z. Other than the physical aspect, what does he do better?