I think none of this really matters in the end. Buff wanted to play defense. The Hawks wanted him to play forward. End of story.
I think had he really wanted to stay and play forward next to 19 and 88, he would have shown that he wanted it. He showed no desire or will to do that for the long-term, or even for 82 games.
Sometimes players and organizations want different things and have to part ways. I don't see that as a mistake, just a difference of opinion.
Hypothetically if the Hawks kept Buff, and it was on defense, he likely would be in Hammer's spot. Do the Hawks win any more games with him instead of Hammer in that spot?
Scenario 2 would be to keep him and force him to play forward, resulting in him being unhappy and playing at less then full capacity, likely resulting in him leaving anyway.
- andru2797
Scenario 1. 100% yes. You want to talk about dissapointment. Hammer has been a huge one. The next Nik Lidstrom has struggled. Has zero offense. And brings dissapointing limited physical game. I don't recall teams gameplanning for Hammer in Cup year. I am not saying he is a bad player.. but come on. Today.. would you trade Hammer for Buff? 7-8 / 33-2
Scenario 2. Again... this to me is way overblown. He kicked tail for two straight years in his so called "unhappy" state. Pay the guy 4.5 mil per year and he would have played forward all day. Easy to blame the player for getting yo-yo'd around. Did Brouwer complain? Is that why he was moved first, to third to fourth line to scratch? This is on Q. Same crap he has pulled with Stalberg. Everyone except 10-19-88-81 walks on egg shells.
