Full Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Granada last won the day on April 25

Granada had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,081 Excellent

About Granada

  • Rank
    Hall of Famer

Recent Profile Visitors

7,267 profile views
  1. The whole "letter changing" thing has just always struck me as a bit pointless in all honesty. Can it happen? Sure, anything can. Should it? No (not in my opinion). Toews under-performed as much as anybody, but it's not like he pulled an Ovechkin effort-wise for the majority of the year or something. I think that would be an over-reaction to strip him or anyone else for that matter.
  2. We need a mix I'd say. We need to get stronger up the middle first and foremost, particularly with Kruger (presumably) being jettisoned -- no kid is going to make us such (Kero, Hino). We need a veteran PK'er bottom sixer who can win draws; that shouldn't necessarily break the bank. We also need a veteran scoring wing (or two) with decent speed on the cheap for the bottom six. Let Schmaltz keep the 1LW spot, and then perhaps pick up a 1LW on an expiring contract at the deadline. People all say, "look to Pittsburgh, look to Pittsburgh" to Bowman, but in some ways, he already is. They picked up Schultz -- a player with great potential but bombed out in Edmonton -- for picks. They pick him up, and his potential is realized in Pittsburgh. Bowman tried the same thing, many times, with similar players in Schultz's position (Sekac, his pursuit of Yakupov last off-season, now Jurco) -- he's just picking the wrong choices. Same with the vets he picked last year in Tootoo, etc. If he picks the right choices, and doesn't rely as much on rookies in his own system, it will work. Easier said than done, but nonetheless, the obvious point is always the more correct one.
  3. ^ The core needs to play better -- yes -- and one way to ensure that, assuming the cash is there and/or freed up, is by surrounding them with the proper role players instead of rookies. That's really all I'm saying. Of course, you can't have all role players in every available spot; but my preference (again, if possible; I doubt it will be for Bowman because I doubt he makes a substantial trade other than Kruger) would be more role players compared to rookies/2nd years.
  4. Toews won't lose the C next year. How would that help anything? It would simply cause more disarray and unwanted attention.
  5. So then, who does Rutta replace instead? Your boy Kempny?
  6. Exactly right. Losing either one of them (at either of the two instances their contracts were up) would have 10 times more catastrophic than over-paying them.
  7. I'm not saying that, Jack -- I guess I'm just suggesting being a bit more consistent in your argument and less muddled, that's all. I think that if the right role players are brought in and the team is less reliant on rookies, that the Hawks can still win at least one more cup in the 2-3 seasons. People like to pin it all on the core and yes, they played like dog zit, but let's not completely ignore the fact that we had too many rookies in the lineup and that our depth was exploited once the playoffs rolled around. Asking any core to prop up that amount of rookies was a bit too much to ask in the end.
  8. ^ Me too. It makes the most sense in a way, assuming AA would be willing to move his no trade clause. I'm still of the belief (as I was before the year started) that the team relied on too many rookies this year, which caught up to us in the playoffs. If the right role players could be brought in to round out the forward core, this can still be a Cup contending team. Much easier said than done though, regarding the cap and the huge need for a top 6 LW.
  9. ^ Yes, I think that's the most likely scenario also. I don't really think he has another choice, considering all the NMC's; and there's no way he's moving Panarin in my opinion.
  10. The alternative would have been losing them, which alone makes the decision on Bowman's part understandable. I don't really get continuously complaining about certain moves (in hindsight) that you yourself even admit you'd probably make just the same. It's double-speak.
  11. Ecklund's latest, FWIW: "On Anisimov....There have been a ton of swirling rumors surrounding the possibility that the Hawks could move Anisimov in a cap space clearing move...I have heard the Rangers and Sabres mentioned already, but the Sabres are a strong (e4). They love the player."
  12. In other words, you don't blame Bowman for signing them again (in 2014), but you do. I'm curious to know where you think the team would be if they let one or the other go in 2014. Meaning, do you think they'd be better than a first round exit the past 2 years?
  13. ^ Man, do I hope you're right. Quite a bounce-back by Anderson. He'll have to be just as good, if not even better, for the Sens to pull out Game 7. If he isn't, they won't win.
  14. Again, the Cups of 2013 and 2015 were after they were re-signed in 2009. Their ELC's would have run out after 2010. 6.5 million, at that time (2009) was as comparable a pay day as the 10 million today. They were given raises almost 7X higher than their ELC's, and at that time, they hadn't even had one Cup to their names yet. Like I said, in hindsight, of course you don't mind those contracts now, considering they resulted in 2 more Cups in 13 and 15. You even say yourself you probably would have given them the 10.5. Yes, it's a gamble that you take sometimes, but before any gamble, if you're not prepared to live with the results, good or bad, then you shouldn't make it in the first place. I don't blame for gambling in 2009 and I don't blame him for gambling in 2014.