Jump to content
The Official Site of the Chicago Blackhawks
Big-T

Stan As Gm

Recommended Posts

Hmmmmm. Goats are good????? Huh? I like you're society you live in. And wish to live amongst you and your kind.

Just..... I'll stay away from the Cubs. Nothing personal. But not winning in "four score and twain". Makes me stay away. Kinda like the Leaves. Its hard to root for a team that has sucked for half a century, and people are going crazy over them.

Besides that. I'm a movin in your neighborhood!!!

T... you move to chicago...and I am getting you your own "demon" mask!! :lol:

2011309.jpg

Then you can join my buddy and I as we all three get seats behind the visitors bench.. :lol:

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No offense Pops. I love you as a poster on here. But I think you fell into the "Hawks can do no wrong crowd". Instead of looking at the moves he made from a realistic point of view.

This offseason, yes most definitely. No offense is taken for the bolded part, as for the most part I did fall into that crowd without doing enough critical thinking. The product on the ice this year speaks for itself.

That said, I'm not so sure about the rest though. Is it an indictment of myself or the environment on these boards this past offseason? I'm guessing probably both if not in all areas? I'm pretty good about saying when I do or do not know about a player. I actively make an effort not to pretend I have more knowledge than I do.

For better or worse I was familiar with the play of most of these guys, Mayers being the exception. I watched a lot of Buffalo the last 2 years, and was excited about Montador. Brunette is pretty much what we all expected, but underperforming right now even for him. Even as optimistic as I was this past offseason, I did still voice my concerns about not filling Campbell's hole this season & the loss of guys like Kopy.

Also on some topics none of us have firsthand knowledge, especially in regards to the mood & evironment in both the locker room and other aspects of the organization. There is where we have to form our best opinions and debate based on what inferences we can make along with any reports that can be cited.

I know where you're coming from with going against the masses and not getting the credit until the smoke clears (if at all), but that's how the world turns unfortunately. For me the mark of real power in this age of social media is when: other people start taking, adopting, and/or otherwise repurposing your ideas without attributing the source. That's when you know you're being heard and you have influence.

Sometimes opinions are right, sometimes they're wrong. We're all human, and all of us have been on both sides at one point or the other.

Edited by PopsMauler
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Big-T, during the playoffs the year the Hawks won the cup, one of the announcers (I believe it was a network game and could have been Regis who said it) made a comment that Scotty Bowman compared Hjalmarsson to little Nik Lidstrom. Once I heard that I knew there was no way Stan wasn't going to sign him. There is some references if you google the phrase "Bowman calls Hjalmarsson Little Nick Lidstrom" that goes on to say there are no primary sources there are a lot of references to the comment being made. Regardless, I think that if this was said it is the reason Little Stan Bowman wants to be like daddy Scotty.

I have been trying to stay fair regarding the past couple of seasons under Stan. But as you have stated, he has done very little to prove he is a qualified NHL GM to date.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T and I ran numbers this past summers with the 55m cap last season plus the 7m from Campbell and was still able to keep Ladd and Buff. I may try to dig it up for you. I have moved on and they are gone and I can deal with that. The only reason I provide the numbers showing that they could have fit in is, to prove to those who say they would have not fit in are wrong.

Edit: can't open the old thread where T and I ran the numbers. It was in "Dismantling Of The Cup Dynasty" by Elbowsup

I have no doubt they could have fit with their old contracts. But who had to leave so they could stay? How did you fill out the roster? Again this all in hindsight and everyone is a great arm chair GM after the fact when you can cherry pick your moves. None of us know what takes place behind the scenes and we have no idea who they could move and couldn't and for what. Did you plan for this off season as well? Buffs new contract, Ladd's new contract, Sharps new contract as well as Seabs? Again this is all a moot point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no doubt they could have fit with their old contracts. But who had to leave so they could stay? How did you fill out the roster? Again this all in hindsight and everyone is a great arm chair GM after the fact when you can cherry pick your moves. None of us know what takes place behind the scenes and we have no idea who they could move and couldn't and for what. Did you plan for this off season as well? Buffs new contract, Ladd's new contract, Sharps new contract as well as Seabs? Again this is all a moot point.

Believe me, I swear to God :lol:, we ran the numbers, but the thread is closed. And the roster I posted yesterday has their new numbers as if we kept them instead of trading them......please do not make me have to do it again.

Edit: yes it was done with hindsight but doing it in realistic way...it's not hard to do.

Edited by dlrob315
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Believe me, I swear to God :lol:, we ran the numbers, but the thread is closed. And the roster I posted yesterday has their new numbers as if we kept them instead of trading them......please do not make me have to do it again.

No worries man. It's all moot anyway. My only true point is armchair GM'ing is real simple in hindsight. You can cherry pick everything because its all already played out. I would like to know who would've stayed and who would've gone in your scenario if they hadn't been able to move Soupy.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No worries man. It's all moot anyway. My only true point is armchair GM'ing is real simple in hindsight. You can cherry pick everything because its all already played out. I would like to know who would've stayed and who would've gone in your scenario if they hadn't been able to move Soupy.....

Most definitely moot, I am not wishing they were here. I just can prove that some could have stayed when I crunch the numbers...that is all I am proving and that is a fact. It is not about being an armchair GM...it is just math. When a poster says it couldn't be done but not back it up with numbers, I will probably show them how it could have...that's all.

Edit: T and I retraced move by move and did not just cherry pick a player without doing the whole scenario. Some of us play armchair GM and some don't...it's whatever floats your boat.

Edited by dlrob315

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again. stan CHOSE to unload guys. Buff was gone by the end of the parade. How the hell can the "stars align" with that?

Ladd was lost because stan didn't understand the CBA and how RFA's work. Nothing to assume there.

If you're going to sit there and tell us all that the Hawks would of had a rough time trading Buff, Steeg, and Ladd. You must be stan.

Maybe if stan waited. Maybe he didn't get the return he wanted. Maybe he would a got more? We'll never know that. I'll give you that.

But to think that the NHL did not know that the Hawks had to purge. And no one but the teams that traded with the Hawks were available for trade, is ignorant.

AGAIN. stan made those choices. He did not have to move anyone when he did. He had a plan, that did not work. When he traded Buff. That deal was in the works when the Cup was being presented. How do I know that? Well Buff was gone shortly after the parade. And stan was a busy man with all of that. So he obviously had talks with people about jettisoning certain players.

All in all. The numbers work out to keeping more of the Cup team together. Nothing needed to align. Except for stan not making horrible horrible moves. Keeping Hammer over Ladd is just not a hockey decision. It just isn't.

Its actually laughable if your not a Hawks fan. And I think the problem with these boards is, every things Hawks all the time. And no one understands the rest of the league. Or even cares.

And how am I so sure of that? Well. Just look in the threads like "What are the Hawks options on D", and other threads like that. There's maybe 6-8 posters talking about the guys around the NHL. Out of the 100's of regulars on here!!!

T, were you not complaining recently about how hard it is to have a discussion or debate on these boards because too many posters were not reading others posts completely before replying, questioning others fandom of the team, calling them hockey stupid, not trying to debate, etc. Odd how you have done most of that with your post above albeit passive....in any case, no big deal to me as I deal with a lot worse on a daily basis where I work (and there are people who are real subject mater experts with the degrees to prove it).

Below are my responses broken out (and into several posts due to how many blocks of quotes there can be).

Again. stan CHOSE to unload guys. Buff was gone by the end of the parade. How the hell can the "stars align" with that?

Stan had to choose to unload guys, something about the cap and some hard decisions needed to be made. We may not all be happy with the exact choices, but there is no doubt that something was going to give. I have also never stated that I am 100% pleased with the decisions.

Cup was won on the June 6th, the parade was several days later. Buff was traded on June 24th. Versteeg on June 30th. Ladd on July 1st. Hammer his offer sheet on July 9th.

There was obviously plenty discussion behind the scenes on how to make the numbers work, and who was available to be moved or picked up. It was also during that time that Niemi and Hammer would have been provided offers from the team. Offers they both obviously rejected...which most likely adjusted some of the planning and would have occured before Versteeg was moved. Cap Space laid all of this out in another thread about this very subject along with the timing not too long ago.

If you're going to sit there and tell us all that the Hawks would of had a rough time trading Buff, Steeg, and Ladd. You must be stan.

When have I stated such? Remember my stance is that while what you proposed is possible, I do not think it was probable give the cap overage, and the unknowns of many things like Huet, Niemi, and Hammer; along with the potential of what Sharp, Buff, Versteeg, Seabrook, etc migh make with their extensions. These are unknowns that cannot be ignored and usually cannot be planned to fit as perfectly as hingsight might suggest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But to think that the NHL did not know that the Hawks had to purge. And no one but the teams that traded with the Hawks were available for trade, is ignorant.

When have I stated such? It is more than obvious that a team above the cap, and hit with addition overage due to it's Captain winning the Conn Smythe, was going to beed to make moves. That also means that the other teams could also have more leverage in the negotiation. That will have an impact on when to act, especially with other unknowns to factor in.

AGAIN. stan made those choices. He did not have to move anyone when he did. He had a plan, that did not work. When he traded Buff. That deal was in the works when the Cup was being presented. How do I know that? Well Buff was gone shortly after the parade. And Stan was a busy man with all of that. So he obviously had talks with people about jettisoning certain players.

Not going to rehash the dates I listed above, but yes there were choices. Yes he was a busy man. Knowing as to if the plan was going to work out as expected is always hindsight. It is pretty well known that you do not like Stan and that is fine. Sometimes I think the dislike clouds skews towards the hindsight.

All in all. The numbers work out to keeping more of the Cup team together. Nothing needed to align. Except for Stan not making horrible horrible moves. Keeping Hammer over Ladd is just not a hockey decision. It just isn't.

Possibility and probability are distinctly different things. Not hard for anyone on this board to play the numbers to have received Malkin on this team along with retaining Buff and Ladd and losing most of the rest that were moved. Possibility and probability.

In hindsight, Hammer is playing far below his worth. Obviously the team felt he was worth it. I seem to remember a time when there was tons of chatter on these boards about how bad Buff was and how he was playing far below his worth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its actually laughable if your not a Hawks fan. And I think the problem with these boards is, every things Hawks all the time. And no one understands the rest of the league. Or even cares.

And how am I so sure of that? Well. Just look in the threads like "What are the Hawks options on D", and other threads like that. There's maybe 6-8 posters talking about the guys around the NHL. Out of the 100's of regulars on here!!!

Not a fan....not going to bite that unnecessary jab.

As far as these boards, it is a 'Hawks board after all so the focus will be the 'Hawks. And really there is little different is most things being about the Hawks as it is with any other team board for any sport. I read plenty of them to get perspective from other fans knowing full well that perspective is skewed toward that team's fans.

I know that there are plenty of posters that don't want to bother to go outside of the 'Hawk talks as it is sometimes not worth their time due to posters that like to profess their hockey IQ on evangelical levels. Doesn't mean they do not pay attention or even care to read outside of the 'Hawks. There are many regulars here that I have seen on other boards that are more geared to the NHL from a general level. Perhaps that is just more of a forum for their thoughts and opinions.

With all that, just keep in mind that I agree about the possibility of what you have proposed with the numbers; however I am debating the probability as fully certain. Just questioning about how the probability could be so high with so many unknowns at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most definitely moot, I am not wishing they were here. I just can prove that some could have stayed when I crunch the numbers...that is all I am proving and that is a fact. It is not about being an armchair GM...it is just math. When a poster says it couldn't be done but not back it up with numbers, I will probably show them how it could have...that's all.

Edit: T and I retraced move by move and did not just cherry pick a player without doing the whole scenario. Some of us play armchair GM and some don't...it's whatever floats your boat.

In your planning did you plan beyond last season?

Edited by Blackwater13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all that, just keep in mind that I agree about the possibility of what you have proposed with the numbers; however I am debating the probability as fully certain. Just questioning about how the probability could be so high with so many unknowns at the time.

Agree. This is my point as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because its in hindsight and the moves have already been made. Thus you have the ability to like and dislike what you want based on how they played out.

Exactly....it's just an exercise we chose to play. As I told you already, I am cool with the moves because there is nothing I can do about it but it's alright to discuss on the forum....I am not mad about, just responding to post.

Yes, it's hindsight in critiquing the moves by the GM, you may take as gospel once the move is made and that was the only way to do it or you are being realistic and saying it's nothing you can do about it. I get it, but we are just crunching numbers in knowing it's nothing can be done about it because as you said...it's a moot point. It is just conversation on the BH forum..what's the harm? And I get your stance too, and respect your stance as where you do not want to play the game. Like I said above....whatever floats your boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a fan....not going to bite that unnecessary jab.

As far as these boards, it is a 'Hawks board after all so the focus will be the 'Hawks. And really there is little different is most things being about the Hawks as it is with any other team board for any sport. I read plenty of them to get perspective from other fans knowing full well that perspective is skewed toward that team's fans.

I know that there are plenty of posters that don't want to bother to go outside of the 'Hawk talks as it is sometimes not worth their time due to posters that like to profess their hockey IQ on evangelical levels. Doesn't mean they do not pay attention or even care to read outside of the 'Hawks. There are many regulars here that I have seen on other boards that are more geared to the NHL from a general level. Perhaps that is just more of a forum for their thoughts and opinions.

I'm not out to call you out. I'm sorry. I guess I'm just too passionate about my Hawks. When you've waited as long as we have for a Cup. It felt ohhhh so great. And I see someone ruining it before my eyes. It reminds me of the Pulford days. And I don't think I have it in me to suffer again.

With the amount of money this team makes and spends. I just don't see a reason for this team not to be solid for a long long time.

On a different note. All the Hawks need to do is hit a draft pick every 3-4 years and be set. As long as you keep Toews and Kane. Its not that hard to build around.

Even the Wings only had a few decent picks in the late 90's. But those guys happened to be Datsyuk, Zetterberg and Franzen. Which was easy to build around Yzerman and Fedorov.

I just hope that the Hawks have the same success in the draft!!!

Edited by Big-T
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Big-T, during the playoffs the year the Hawks won the cup, one of the announcers (I believe it was a network game and could have been Regis who said it) made a comment that Scotty Bowman compared Hjalmarsson to little Nik Lidstrom. Once I heard that I knew there was no way Stan wasn't going to sign him. There is some references if you google the phrase "Bowman calls Hjalmarsson Little Nick Lidstrom" that goes on to say there are no primary sources there are a lot of references to the comment being made. Regardless, I think that if this was said it is the reason Little Stan Bowman wants to be like daddy Scotty.

I have been trying to stay fair regarding the past couple of seasons under Stan. But as you have stated, he has done very little to prove he is a qualified NHL GM to date.

I know what your talking about. But I like you. Have only heard second hand.

I will say this though. The only other person I've heard comparing a player to Lidstrom, was John Ferguson Jr. He compared Anton Stralman to Lidstrom. And where is JFJ now? He's no longer a GM. But a pro scout in San Jose.

And if stan or his daddy compared anyone to one of the greatest of all time. Especially stan. He'll be a pro scout with another organization before we know it. That is just lunacy if he did say it.

But I'll give both of them the benefit of the doubt. Since I only heard second hand!!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not gonna comment about past players and who should have stayed instead of who, etc. All G.M.'s make both correct and incorrect decisions and hindsight is always 20/20.

My major beef with Bowman is he seems to have a strong preference for finesse players over players who play a more complete, physical style.

Just a smidge more of Brian Burke's mentality would be helpful IMO.

Edited by rinkrat21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do I like the returns Stan got for all of our losses after we won the cup? Not really, but I believe Stan believed, and rightfully so, that he had to act fast, because the rest of the league knew that he was going to be hooped to keep all his playoff heroes and that some would have to be moved. Nobody, Hawks fans included, knew just how much he had to move, so the quicker he unloaded them the quicker he could be in a power position to get good talent and high draft picks back in return. He had to play his cards close, which is why he said things like how he wouldn't have to make any moves after Versteeg and then proceeded to trade Ladd for a bunch of prospects. He was in serious cap hell, and while he definitely didn't hit a home run, I don't envy him at all, and I think he did alright given the circumstances. It's easy to look at what Ladd and Buff have done in Winterpeg or Steeger in FLA and say they should have been kept, but before the playoffs he was seen as inconsistent and lazy. Ladd was a checker who could get mid-range points. Versteeg turned the puck over too much. Again, hindsight is 20/20.

I love the guys we lost. I still think we should have tried to get Ben Eager this year. That guy epitomizes the grit we need (but with speed that can keep up). But you have to move on, and Stan has certainly working hard to find that winning formula. It's going to take time, but the last two years he's been pretty much the most active GM in the NHL. Sure, everything he's doing might not be working 100%, but the reality is that we're winning games, 3rd overall in the league, and still trying to tweak our team. That's a great situation to be in. Carcillo and Mayers have proven to be good fits, Montador has shown flashes and Brunette is coming on as a bottom line threat. Leddy (Stan's trade) is starting to really hold his own, moving from being a promising rookie to a legitimate force on both ends of the ice. Kruger (again, Stan's) is surprising the entire board (myself included) with his work ethic, offensive shiftiness and defensive responsibility, seemingly getting better and better each game. Saad I can't wait to see play full time, and on top of all this we have cap space that will only help us going forward.

Stan, like every other GM, has made good and bad decisions, and I guess the jury is still out as to whether or not all his moves will make this team a success. But this far into the year, with the record we have, the prospects we have developing and the stars we have locked up long term...I like our odds.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really not so sure that he is doing a terrible job, we need a center and a D man, it's simple. You really can't put any of the salary issues on him because as we all know they went all in to win the cup. How good is Dustin Byfuglien really. Check his stats yeah he scores from the back end but defensively he is awful and he is a river boat gambler. I love the guy but you have to look at it rationally. He had one heck of a run in the playoffs but his regular season stats with the hawks were average at best and he was playing with great players on a nightly basis. But Big T I would much rather have Ladd then Hammer. Ladd is the guy who does all the little things to win. When I think of Ladd I think of Dirk Graham except on the wing. Not flashy but boy does he get the job done. How about Leddy for Barker what do you think of that trade? It is also possible that Kruger could be that second line center I don't know if he is quite ready for it yet but he is fearless when going to the net and is not afraid to get to the dirty areas on the ice. We shall see, what he does at the deadline and then we can bring this topic up again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not out to call you out. I'm sorry. I guess I'm just too passionate about my Hawks. When you've waited as long as we have for a Cup. It felt ohhhh so great. And I see someone ruining it before my eyes. It reminds me of the Pulford days. And I don't think I have it in me to suffer again.

With the amount of money this team makes and spends. I just don't see a reason for this team not to be solid for a long long time.

On a different note. All the Hawks need to do is hit a draft pick every 3-4 years and be set. As long as you keep Toews and Kane. Its not that hard to build around.

Even the Wings only had a few decent picks in the late 90's. But those guys happened to be Datsyuk, Zetterberg and Franzen. Which was easy to build around Yzerman and Fedorov.

I just hope that the Hawks have the same success in the draft!!!

It is all good and I know you are passionate about the 'Hawks and this sport, so no need to apologize to me. It is all just friendly debate of opinions anyway.

In any case, I am with you on the Pulford thing but I do think that this team will be strong for some time. There is a decent core of players, and as you said if a draft pick or two is a hit every several years then the team being competitive can be sustained. Just need to get over the current bump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not gonna comment about past players and who should have stayed instead of who, etc. All G.M.'s make both correct and incorrect decisions and hindsight is always 20/20.

My major beef with Bowman is he seems to have a strong preference for finesse players over players who play a more complete, physical style.

Just a smidge more of Brian Burke's mentality would be helpful IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A problem that no one has mentioned here is the big contracts we gave out to 'core' players who have not played the same since. A few examples come to mind (Keith, Hjalmarrson, and to some degree Seabrook). I think it's human nature to play better when you have little to no security in your contract and are trying to prove yourself. Once you hit your mega-payday and/or lifetime contract it only seems natural that you would relax a bit mentally cause you know you are set.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really do you believe that! Then shouldn't Bowman have been let go instead of Tallon?

I am surprised how many laypersons have intimate knowledge of how an NHL team front office responsibilities are distributed. :unsure:

Yes, I believe that because Stan said it after Dale was let go. It doesn't require intimate knowledge to read a quote from someone. McD said he was responsible and then later Stan said he was...that's after Dale said he was responsible so at least three people claimed responsibilty for the gaffe, but Dale was the one sent packing.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×