Jump to content
The Official Site of the Chicago Blackhawks


Full Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


mvr last won the day on November 30

mvr had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,380 Excellent

About mvr

  • Rank
    Hall of Famer
  1. Stan As Gm

    Here is Ron Francis' press release when acquiring Brian Bickell: "This deal allowed us to use some of our collected draft picks to improve our group of forwards for the coming season by added two Stanley Cup champions," said Francis."Teuvo is a young, highly-skilled player still on his entry-level contract who is coming off of a strong first full NHL season, and Bryan is a veteran who has experienced great success in his career. Both players give our organization more options and flexibility among the forward ranks." Did Francis want Bickell, or did he take him to get Teravainen? At the time, Johnsson was making $5.3 M on the last year of his deal. The season was at least 1/5 of the way from being completed.
  2. Stan As Gm

    Teams dump salaries all the time at the end of the year to save a few hundred K. The idea typically is to get draft picks or futures. Some times, however, an asset has negative trade value. Nobody wants the player. In these situations, the trading team will get nothing and be forced to pay the remainder of the contract unless they take back something bad back or offer a sweetener. In this case, the Hawks took back Johnsson to get Leddy. The Wild took Barker at his full salary in order to get rid of Johnsson. Both the Hawks and the Wild unloaded a financial dirty diaper here. Bowman presented it differently to the press for obvious reasons, but the focal point was always Leddy
  3. Stan As Gm

    The difference here is your interpretation about Johnsson's value. I see him as a negative value asset - not a player the Hawks wanted but took to get the deal done. Johnsson was still owed several hundred K in salary. The Wild did not want to pay it. They wanted to include him in the deal of Leddy for Barker to save money in the short term (in a way to subsidize the overpriced Barker contract). The Hawks did not covet Johnsson, though they pretended they did. Carolina welcomed Brian Bickell in much the same way. So did Altanta with Brent Sopel.
  4. Stan As Gm

    The Hawks certainly packaged the deal to the press as Barker for Johnsson (present) and Leddy (future). But Johnsson was basically done. We all knew that. He wasn't going to help much at that stage, even if he was healthy. Minnesota wanted to get rid of him. Chicago took him back to balance out the financials. If he provided some veteran depth for the playoffs, that would be a bonus. Before his injuries, Barker had demonstrated some obvious talent, but he was also a frustrating enigma (a high risk-high reward prospect whose development had stalled). At the time, his trade value was not high primarily because of his outrageous contract. He was not playing much in Chicago. Minnesota was willing to make the move only because the Hawks had the budget room to take the (equally) ugly Johnsson contract back for the remainder of the year. The Wild needed immediate help and did not have time to wait on Leddy. Barker was supposed to jump right into the lineup and solve their powerplay problems. In a way, the Barker/Leddy move was similar to the Forsling/Clendening trade (without the financial complications). Vancouver (like Minnesota) needed immediate help. The Hawks saw a better prospect and was willing to sacrifice a player on the present roster for the future.
  5. Stan As Gm

    I believe the Leddy/Barker deal was primarily a salary dump (on both sides). Bowman knew he needed to get rid of Barker because of the anticipated cap squeeze that coming summer. Barker had been one of Tallon's botched fax RFAs (who got paid far more than necessary - $3 M/year plus - on his second contract). Barker had 40 points in his contract year, but he had lost his spot on the powerplay the following year to Duncan Keith, and his defensive game was never strong. The Hawks had cap space during that year, but they knew what was coming moving forward. Johnsson was approaching UFA, but his expiring contract that year was something like $5.5 M - way too much for a non-playoff team like the Wild trying to save money. His skills had eroded dramatically that year, and nobody wanted him. Bowman managed to deal away his team's problem contract by taking on a larger negative value contract the Wild also wanted to unload. The bribe to make that deal happen was Nick Leddy.
  6. Stan As Gm

    Anyone who expects a person (professional or not) to perform in a certain way just because they are paid to do it is naive, especially if the money is guaranteed. Tonight the boys did what they had to do, but they did absolutely nothing more. Expect similar games all season. They will squeak into the playoffs. If Bowman provides them with enough incentive to go for it, they will.
  7. Stan As Gm

    I am not excusing what is happening, but I am explaining it. Players are professionals, which means they are paid for their work. Being a professional does not mean a player can separate emotions from work performance. Human beings need incentives, professional or not. They need recognition and reward (if not material, then through status). If there is no chance of a reward, there is likely to be little effort exerted.
  8. Stan As Gm

    Ken Dryden wrote about the difference between "good team" goalies and "bad team" goalies. A "good team" goalie (i.e. Dryden, Billy Smith) might be very successful for a good team, but would be a disaster playing for a loser because he would lack motivation and focus. A "bad team" goalie (ie Glenn Resch) could be spectacular and keep his team in plenty of games. But he might not have the stones to succeed when it counted. Both should be considered "good pros." Crawford has been a successful "good team" goalie. He is now on a mediocre team and is demonstrating that he can handle this role as well. I am not convinced his core teammates have adjusted to the new reality. They are "good team" players now playing with a mediocre lineup.
  9. Stan As Gm

    A professional is someone who is paid for providing a service he is skilled at. He is motivated by money or prestige. He will take what he gets for his service. Some pros are bad teammates because they consistently put their own needs ahead of the organization. All "pros" (because they are human) will become more self-centred if the atmosphere encourages this behaviour.
  10. Stan As Gm

    Goalies do their thing. Success for them is less about motivation/effort and more about concentration. I am quite certain the core players believe they are working hard.
  11. Stan As Gm

    Two things motivate people - money and prestige (which in sports typically translates into either team-winning or individual stat-building). It is very obvious that most players perform best on the last year of a contract. Clearly, many players perform more consistently when on a winning roster. Players put in more effort when they see rewards for their work (ie when the team is winning). Players will only block a shot or take the abuse in front of an opponent's net with effort and enthusiasm if they really believe the cause would likely lead to team success. Otherwise, they will do their own thing. In baseball, you see players on the non-contenders during key moments of the game selfishly swinging for the fences rather than moving the runner along. The outcome of the game itself becomes less important than the individual stats.
  12. Stan As Gm

    There is no such thing as a "true professional athlete" in the definition you are suggesting. At least, I have never seen one. They are human beings. They will be motivated when they see opportunity. They will pack it in when they do not. They are human.
  13. Stan As Gm

    It would do both.
  14. Stan As Gm

    When the time comes, I have every confidence that the core guys will rejuvenate. Bowman needs to give them some "hope." We saw this with the 2015 team. I was thrilled with the Vermette acquisition at the time. I knew it would have a compounding effect.
  15. Stan As Gm

    i used to work hourly pay with commission. Now I am on straight salary. Believe me, there is a difference. If everyone truly could motivate themselves without incentive, the Berlin Wall would never have come down. We'd all be operating with "five year plans."