Jump to content
The Official Site of the Chicago Blackhawks
Modry-Jazyk

Michal Kempny D

Recommended Posts

Modry-Jazyk said on 4 minutes ago:

sure, and Seabrook is also worth 10x more cap hit and Murphy big turtle 5x more  ... this is nice fairytale ...

btw.,  Seabrook is not only worst dman in plusminus, but in all other stats.

Didn't say that. That's a completely separate argument.

I said, they're better than Kempny, because they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Is this where you pretend that number of games played, TOI, and quality of opposition faced doesn't matter?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hsbob said on 49 minutes ago:

I understand your point and he'd have more value in trade if he signed a cheap multi-year deal too but I believe he and his agent took a shot hoping for a breakout year.....we don't know if he was offered a multi-year either. Kempny's a decent player with offensive upside but he's 27 years old,how much cheaper than 900K would he sign for and why?

I can't believe he draws in every night if he's makin' 800K.

He's looked improved from what I've seen of him but he's caught up in a numbers game right now. Murphy's ability to play his off-side and actually look good doin' it means Kempny has to beat out Forsling for a spot.

I think Q likes the pairings right now and we both know that can change and I also think Ulf wants his two biggest,most physical D-men in there on a nightly basis.....as do I,Crawford still absorbs too much contact and we're lucky Malkin didn't knock him outta the line-up.

 

GO HAWKS!!!!      

I was kinda wishing Dr. Craw would have channeled his inner Belfour/Emery/Cloutier/Hextall and gave Malkin a once-over on that play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kempny can easily play in slots 3-6, as his skill is comparable with anyone on this team that are in the lineup every day.

I don't blame Quenneville for keeping the pairings the same, as they seem to be working well, but let's not pretend for one second that Quenneville is all of a sudden good at evaluating defensive talent.

Because he isn't. 

 

Edited by Puckjim
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kempny is a worse dumpster fire in his own end than anyone currently in the lineup. I wouldn't slot him anything above 5/6 and I certainly wouldn't say he's a 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hsbob said on 2 hours ago:

I understand your point and he'd have more value in trade if he signed a cheap multi-year deal too but I believe he and his agent took a shot hoping for a breakout year.....we don't know if he was offered a multi-year either. Kempny's a decent player with offensive upside but he's 27 years old,how much cheaper than 900K would he sign for and why?

I can't believe he draws in every night if he's makin' 800K.

He's looked improved from what I've seen of him but he's caught up in a numbers game right now. Murphy's ability to play his off-side and actually look good doin' it means Kempny has to beat out Forsling for a spot.

I think Q likes the pairings right now and we both know that can change and I also think Ulf wants his two biggest,most physical D-men in there on a nightly basis.....as do I,Crawford still absorbs too much contact and we're lucky Malkin didn't knock him outta the line-up.

 

GO HAWKS!!!!      

The problem with Kempny is not about the money so much as it is the contract term.

Quenneville has four defenceman who are signed for next year and beyond  -  Keith, Seabrook, Murphy and Forsling.  

The team is no longer in a strictly win now position.

The coach and general manager are now starting to look to the future.     Murphy and Forsling need to play most every night to get the experience moving forward.   Keith and Seabrook obviously will play every night.

Kempny's real competition this year coming into camp was the other two impending UFAs -  Rutta and Franson - both perceived as short term fixes.

Rutta is a right-handed shot and he has some size.  These physical attributes helped get him noticed at camp, and he was given more of an  opportunity to establish his game. Obviously, he has earned the right to play every night based on his play. Bowman undoubtedly will attempt to re-sign this player.     He has become a building block moving forward.  

Kempny is competing right now against Franson for ice time.  Neither is likely to be here much beyond this year.    It looks to me like the two players are fairly comparable defensively.   Franson is a better offensive player, and he helps on the powerplay.  

As it stands, there is zero incentive for the coach to play Kempny over any of the other players.   

I believe Kempny's agent was thinking short term at the expense of his client's best interest.    

It is possible, however, that Bowman did not offer the multi-year deal.   If this is the case, we should be asking why.  

Signing Kempny on a fairly expensive one year contract before he had established his credentials made no sense to me back in July.

I predicted this exact scenario regarding Kempny in the summer (see a couple of pages earlier in this thread).   The team is spending a lot of money for a part time player. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mvr said on 2 hours ago:

The problem with Kempny is not about the money so much as it is the contract term.

Quenneville has four defenceman who are signed for next year and beyond  -  Keith, Seabrook, Murphy and Forsling.  

The team is no longer in a strictly win now position.

The coach and general manager are now starting to look to the future.     Murphy and Forsling need to play most every night to get the experience moving forward.   Keith and Seabrook obviously will play every night.

Kempny's real competition this year coming into camp was the other two impending UFAs -  Rutta and Franson - both perceived as short term fixes.

Rutta is a right-handed shot and he has some size.  These physical attributes helped get him noticed at camp, and he was given more of an  opportunity to establish his game. Obviously, he has earned the right to play every night based on his play. Bowman undoubtedly will attempt to re-sign this player.     He has become a building block moving forward.  

Kempny is competing right now against Franson for ice time.  Neither is likely to be here much beyond this year.    It looks to me like the two players are fairly comparable defensively.   Franson is a better offensive player, and he helps on the powerplay.  

As it stands, there is zero incentive for the coach to play Kempny over any of the other players.   

I believe Kempny's agent was thinking short term at the expense of his client's best interest.    

It is possible, however, that Bowman did not offer the multi-year deal.   If this is the case, we should be asking why.  

Signing Kempny on a fairly expensive one year contract before he had established his credentials made no sense to me back in July.

I predicted this exact scenario regarding Kempny in the summer (see a couple of pages earlier in this thread).   The team is spending a lot of money for a part time player. 

Why can't they do both? It reminds me of the "walk and chew bubble gum at the same time" argument. One can still be within the "Cup window" while adding young pieces for the future.

Also, I believe it's too early to say either way. Depending on Bowman's approach at the trade deadline, we won't know until then, really. That said, I don't believe this team is all that far off to be more focused on the future than the present. A top-six forward, a 3LC (assuming AA continues to play lights-out) and a top-4 D -- I don't find it impossible for Bowman to nab at least one of these needs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Granada said on 24 minutes ago:

Why can't they do both? It reminds me of the "walk and chew bubble gum at the same time" argument. One can still be within the "Cup window" while adding young pieces for the future.

Also, I believe it's too early to say either way. Depending on Bowman's approach at the trade deadline, we won't know until then, really. That said, I don't believe this team is all that far off to be more focused on the future than the present. A top-six forward, a 3LC (assuming AA continues to play lights-out) and a top-4 D -- I don't find it impossible for Bowman to nab at least one of these needs.

Which one of those needs?  A top 6 forward was top priority for me until I’ve watched the third line play more.

3C seems like a must.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Granada said on 36 minutes ago:

Why can't they do both? It reminds me of the "walk and chew bubble gum at the same time" argument. One can still be within the "Cup window" while adding young pieces for the future.

Also, I believe it's too early to say either way. Depending on Bowman's approach at the trade deadline, we won't know until then, really. That said, I don't believe this team is all that far off to be more focused on the future than the present. A top-six forward, a 3LC (assuming AA continues to play lights-out) and a top-4 D -- I don't find it impossible for Bowman to nab at least one of these needs.

 

I believe the general manager is no longer of the mindset where he will exchange future prospects and picks for present players.   He is looking to make the team younger (which typically means less experienced).   

This transition was symbolized by the Hjalmarsson - Murphy trade.   Teams don't often improve in the short term when replacing veteran players with youth.   Cup contenders don't move out first-pairing defencemen for projects like Murphy.   

Kempny is too old at this stage to be a prospect.    He won't improve much moving forward.   There is zero point in investing much time in his development.   He is gone at the end of the year if not earlier.   If Bowman does move him (and I hope he will before Christmas), the return is likely to be either a younger prospect or a draft pick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
iknowpuck said on 19 minutes ago:

Which one of those needs?  A top 6 forward was top priority for me until I’ve watched the third line play more.

3C seems like a must.

That's a good question. The easy answer would be, whichever option that presents itself to Bowman with a fair or better yet, minimal return the other way. Meaning, if you can get a guy like E.Kane (or whoever) at the deadline for a 2nd round draft pick and maybe a middling prospect (not saying it's possible, just as an example), you go for it. Although again, it may still be too early to tell exactly which need should be a priority. Right now, I'd probably agree and say 3LC, but the big question is, can Panik, Schmaltz, Franson, and Murphy stay slotted where they are currently? Only time will tell.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mvr said on 3 minutes ago:

 

I believe the general manager is no longer of the mindset where he will exchange future prospects and picks for present players.   He is looking to make the team younger (which typically means less experienced).   

This transition was symbolized by the Hjalmarsson - Murphy trade.   Teams don't often improve in the short term when replacing veteran players with youth.   Cup contenders don't move out first-pairing defencemen for projects like Murphy.   

Kempny is too old at this stage to be a prospect.    He won't improve much moving forward.   There is zero point in investing much time in his development.   He is gone at the end of the year if not earlier.   If Bowman does move him (and I hope he will before Christmas), the return is likely to be either a younger prospect or a draft pick.

I'm fine with Kempny being gone and agree with you there. I agree with the return on Kempny as well, but that will be due specifically to Kempny's trade value.

If Murphy was an early-twenties prospect without multiple NHL years of experience, then I might agree with you there, but I don't. Murphy is an NHL-ready D-man who (is perceived to be, anyway), at least a top-4 tandem before being acquired by Bowman -- so on it's own, it proves nothing as far as whether the general direction of the team is more focused on re-building than simply re-tooling for another run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Granada said on 1 hour ago:

Why can't they do both? It reminds me of the "walk and chew bubble gum at the same time" argument. One can still be within the "Cup window" while adding young pieces for the future.

Also, I believe it's too early to say either way. Depending on Bowman's approach at the trade deadline, we won't know until then, really. That said, I don't believe this team is all that far off to be more focused on the future than the present. A top-six forward, a 3LC (assuming AA continues to play lights-out) and a top-4 D -- I don't find it impossible for Bowman to nab at least one of these needs.

If we're looking for one or maybe 2 of those assets, I think it's possible if not difficult--especially acquiring 2.

All three?  I don't think that will happen.  Not at least without getting into a "Rob Peter to Pay Paul" scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mvr said on 5 hours ago:

The problem with Kempny is not about the money so much as it is the contract term.

Quenneville has four defenceman who are signed for next year and beyond  -  Keith, Seabrook, Murphy and Forsling.  

The team is no longer in a strictly win now position.

The coach and general manager are now starting to look to the future.     Murphy and Forsling need to play most every night to get the experience moving forward.   Keith and Seabrook obviously will play every night.

Kempny's real competition this year coming into camp was the other two impending UFAs -  Rutta and Franson - both perceived as short term fixes.

Rutta is a right-handed shot and he has some size.  These physical attributes helped get him noticed at camp, and he was given more of an  opportunity to establish his game. Obviously, he has earned the right to play every night based on his play. Bowman undoubtedly will attempt to re-sign this player.     He has become a building block moving forward.  

Kempny is competing right now against Franson for ice time.  Neither is likely to be here much beyond this year.    It looks to me like the two players are fairly comparable defensively.   Franson is a better offensive player, and he helps on the powerplay.  

As it stands, there is zero incentive for the coach to play Kempny over any of the other players.   

I believe Kempny's agent was thinking short term at the expense of his client's best interest.    

It is possible, however, that Bowman did not offer the multi-year deal.   If this is the case, we should be asking why.  

Signing Kempny on a fairly expensive one year contract before he had established his credentials made no sense to me back in July.

I predicted this exact scenario regarding Kempny in the summer (see a couple of pages earlier in this thread).   The team is spending a lot of money for a part time player. 

One year at $900,000 is a problem? Must be the reason they carry 8 D-men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Granada said on 20 hours ago:

I'm fine with Kempny being gone and agree with you there. I agree with the return on Kempny as well, but that will be due specifically to Kempny's trade value.

If Murphy was an early-twenties prospect without multiple NHL years of experience, then I might agree with you there, but I don't. Murphy is an NHL-ready D-man who (is perceived to be, anyway), at least a top-4 tandem before being acquired by Bowman -- so on it's own, it proves nothing as far as whether the general direction of the team is more focused on re-building than simply re-tooling for another run.

I don't see how trading a serviceable defenseman for low percentage lottery (draft) helps. This team isn't loaded like in years past, but is still a likely playoff team. These teams don't sell depth at the deadline they buy. 

If he walks next year he walks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ccolin said on 17 minutes ago:

I don't see how trading a serviceable defenseman for low percentage lottery (draft) helps. This team isn't loaded like in years past, but is still a likely playoff team. These teams don't sell depth at the deadline they buy. 

If he walks next year he walks.

If you're not going to use and/or he can't crack your lineup, you might as well get something for him if you can.

There's a difference between "depth" and "useless."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Granada said on 9 minutes ago:

If you're not going to use and/or he can't crack your lineup, you might as well get something for him if you can.

There's a difference between "depth" and "useless."

Yeah. I think of playoffs past when there have been injuries (2015) and suddenly they are trying to hide players who hadn't been on the team all year.

I mean it worked that year, but an injury or suspension or two and you have the choice of Kempny who has been around the team all year, played a handful of games in the NHL - or an insert like Svedberg or whoever.

If he is truly useless, you don't get anything for him anyways. If he is passable as a 7th guy, then he is better on this team.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ccolin said on 35 minutes ago:

Yeah. I think of playoffs past when there have been injuries (2015) and suddenly they are trying to hide players who hadn't been on the team all year.

I mean it worked that year, but an injury or suspension or two and you have the choice of Kempny who has been around the team all year, played a handful of games in the NHL - or an insert like Svedberg or whoever.

If he is truly useless, you don't get anything for him anyways. If he is passable as a 7th guy, then he is better on this team.

I get that logic, but in reality, he isn't really that deep. Kempny's played 1 total NHL playoff game in his career, and he has only 1 regular season under his belt. I mean, you might as well just go with Erik Gustaffson who has more playoff experience by 4 games and who also has 1 regular season under his belt; particularly if you could fetch something for Kempny. Anything is better than nothing and the difference between "7th D-men" in general would be negligible.

If Bowman doesn't make a move for a D-man at the deadline, I won't call for his head or anything, but I just don't see the point in keeping this guy if you can move him. He was already supplanted by Forsling and I wouldn't be surprised if Oesterle supplants him, if it ever came to it in the playoffs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Granada said on 1 hour ago:

I get that logic, but in reality, he isn't really that deep. Kempny's played 1 total NHL playoff game in his career, and he has only 1 regular season under his belt. I mean, you might as well just go with Erik Gustaffson who has more playoff experience by 4 games and who also has 1 regular season under his belt; particularly if you could fetch something for Kempny. Anything is better than nothing and the difference between "7th D-men" in general would be negligible.

If Bowman doesn't make a move for a D-man at the deadline, I won't call for his head or anything, but I just don't see the point in keeping this guy if you can move him. He was already supplanted by Forsling and I wouldn't be surprised if Oesterle supplants him, if it ever came to it in the playoffs.

I guess it comes down to where he ranks on this team. If Forsling, Franson, are ahead of him fine. But if they have just as much confidence in Osterle or Gufstafson then I agree move him. If he is even a minor upgrade on those two in the coaches eye - then keep him around just in case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Osterle seems to have a little more trust from Q.  There is a reason they haven’t sent him down beside not wanting to lose him.  Maybe something is in the works that involves one of them.  Hold on to both until something gives.

I saw E-Gus not that long ago and I thought he played well.  In fact, he even looked like Wayne Gretzky in the overtime!  Guy had handles!

Mini-me of Forsling.

Edited by iknowpuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes little sense to continue to carry eight defencemen.   One of the spares should be shopped before the player loses all trade value. 

The team has at least three NHL ready defencemen in Rockford who could fill in for an injury.  

Oesterle carries a two year deal at $650 K.    This is good value for a capable number seven.  I do not believe he should be waived because the team will likely lose him for nothing.

Bowman is not going to get much for Kempny if Quenneville continues to not play him.   The cap space could be better used.   He should be moved now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Puckjim said on On ‎2017‎-‎11‎-‎27 at 9:25 AM:

Kempny can easily play in slots 3-6, as his skill is comparable with anyone on this team that are in the lineup every day.

I don't blame Quenneville for keeping the pairings the same, as they seem to be working well, but let's not pretend for one second that Quenneville is all of a sudden good at evaluating defensive talent.

Because he isn't. 

 

Just ask David Runblad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't aware of Kempny's age , but he would be the first guy I would go to outside of the current roster , and would even spell out Murphy or Franson for him.

 

Has anyone seen any other prospect D in action within the minors lately ?

 

I remember the team was high on Svedberg , maybe because of his height and reach, but I found him slow and timid - nor physical at all. 

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

×