Jump to content
The Official Site of the Chicago Blackhawks
OldTimeHawky

Hawks Moves 2019-2020

Recommended Posts

rinkrat21 said on 2 hours ago:

Nobody is trying to disprove a fact. The obvious fact is, SB was the GM when the Hawks won their 3 SC's, yada yada yada.

The dispute happens when those 3 SC wins are used to define how good of a GM he is. And you seem to hang your hat onto how good of a GM he is based on his contributions to those SC wins, that is why "invalid evidence" is used to disprove your argument. The same way you use "invalid evidence" to disprove my argument that is he is not a very good GM. 

If SB was the only GM on the planet who could have provided that supporting cast, then hell yeah, he is a genius. But in "theory", if there are others who could have done the same thing, then maybe SB is just average at his job. 

And how good of a GM he is is certainly is NOT a fact, its very debatable. "Invalid evidence" is only being used to discuss this difference of opinion, not to debate whether or not he actually held the job during the Cup wins. The debate is the value of his contribution and quality of his work. 

After reading this thread and another thread, I have come to the conclusion that the 2019-2020 season is a lost season.  Now, I honestly think this team will be fortunate to win 20 games.  I will check back next year at this time.  Hopefully after the 2020  draft things are better. See everyone in June of 2020!  Hopefully the Blackhawks will be worth watching then.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

No, that WAS our debate (how much he contributed).  Now, you don’t care how much he contributed.

We can agree to disagree.

And, we agree the playoffs are a must this season.

We are making progress, rat😜

Yes it WAS the debate Puck, but I gave a reason why it WAS the debate - because defenders want to point to his contributions to those teams when he is called out for all the numerous bad moves he has made and the current state of the team. Not because I really dwell on who contributed what. SB was indeed the GM during those Cup wins. But he indeed did inherit a loaded team and his contributions will always be debated and never agreed upon. 

Agree to disagree on that is correct. 

But we dont agree on the playoffs this season being a must. You feel simply getting in is enough. IMO I feel without winning at least one series, that would equate to barely mediocre over the last 4 seasons and not good enough for SB to keep his job.

For as good of a coach as we all thought Q was, he was shown the door after only 2 seasons without winning a playoff series and a slow start to a 3rd season. If this team cant win a playoff series over the course of the last 4 seasons, with the team not even qualifying in 2 of them, simply getting in only to get bounced again in the 1st round doesnt even come close to job security for SB IMO.

Hoping for a successful season (at least one playoff series win), but even if the season is a failure (missing the playoffs again), I have an unfortunate feeling he will keep his job anyway. Would be shocked if he didnt. 

 

Edited by rinkrat21
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does anyone argue the obvious only two moves this off season make any sense. Getting Dehaan even though he is injured and bringing Shaw back. The money these two players make in exchange for what they would offer any team is worth the obvious risk. 

Now let's start with many's favorite Lehner. A good goalie if he stays sober and stays on his meds heck he's as much a risk as Crow. Smith well that's iridiculous trading one issue for another. The team needed the cap relief in my opinion. Carpenter leaves me lukewarm you could spend an extra million in worse places like Smith or Lehner. Matta well "if" he returns to what he was lets hope he does or this could end up being the second worse deal of the summer. 

Oh the best for last. The Hawks having Wedin, Kubalik. Dach Entwistle and Perlini all young stud forwards in the  making go out and trade their best young NHL ready defenseman for an above average minor league player. Pundits and analysts around the league are disrespecting the Hawks not one is talking Hawks in the playoffs or winning the Cup. Outside of maybe Chicago. Think on that maybe even a little 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big-T said on 7 hours ago:

I don’t like putting words in people’s mouths, but are you seriously saying that without Stan, they would not have won? Because that’s what I’m hearing in a round about way. 

The roster was already set, and that’s not a knock on Stan, why would anyone think that? I’m just stating the facts. If the Hawks were a Handzus away, then the team wasn’t probably gonna win. Stan didn’t do much or anything, how am I so sure? Because he just didn’t have to, why would he? When he’s done something, we’ve seen the results, and the team is at the bottom. So to think his few minor moves are fantastic, is really at this point just being stubborn. He didn’t have to make any moves, that’s the way she goes, the history is there for all to see!!!

The team won two cups with Handzus(1) and Vermette(1) that is 100% factual.  You are adding conjecture not fact when you say they were not needed. I will take fact over conjecture every time.  Your proof supposedly is because Stan is incapable of making good moves just look at them.  Well even a broken clock is right twice a day.  History is fact based not conjecture.  History does not play the what if game.  As  Det. Sgt. Joe Friday of Dragnet fame was credited with  saying Just the facts, ma'am.  Just the facts Big T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rinkrat21 said on 14 hours ago:

IMO - a #1 center, 4 top 6 wingers, a #1, #2, and #3 dman, and a starting goalie capable of winning a SC is a FAR MORE difficult cast of characters to accumulate at the same time, and a FAR MORE important group of players needed for winning a SC than the group of players you listed. And because I feel that way, the credit I give SB for those wins is never gonna be to the same extent as your's. Agree to disagree and we can leave it there. 

If the Hawks somehow pull a miracle and win the SC this year, I will eat a crap ton of crow and give SB props for putting together his own SC team and doing so with such a quick turnaround from the last 3 seasons. That would probably be one of the most impressive things I will have seen from any GM ever and Stan will get the deserved props from me 100% FOR SURE.

Quick question for you - how would you view Stan if the team fails to win a playoff series for the 4th season in a row? Or even worse, doesnt qualify for the playoffs for a 3rd season in a row? Because that is my focus WAY more than who contributed how much to something that happened 4-6 years ago. 

And i've made reference to the current in some of my recent posts but you have conveniently ignored those thoughts and are solely hung up on debating how much SB contributed to the SC's. At this point, who cares. We are never gonna agree so im dropping it. 

But currently, some of us have been predicting this was gonna happen for a long time. Complaining about SB's moves for a long time, even during the SC era. And now here we are, a bottom third of the league team. In such a short amount of time from being a mini-dynasty. Horrible. 

Frankly, even if SB was 100% responsible for the SC wins, what has happened the last 3 years immediately following those Cup wins is grounds for termination IMO. Same way things went down in LA. The Cups were great, but what have you done for me lately? 

paragraph 1, yes, assembling a super core is far harder and you say SB should get no credit for that, not arguing this. but assembling a supporting cast that won 2 cups also deserves a lot of credit. the supercore did not win 2011, 2012, and 2014. So the supercore alone does not win a cup. they still need a supporting cast that fit and you make it sound so easy by claiming any decent GM would have been able to duplicate, even surpass Stan's success. i was just pointing out how wrong this argument is because its based on nothing, cant be proven at all.

my question was a baited one, same question was asked before the 2013 cup run, especially when campbell was traded out and the only 2C we have is Handzus. same question was also asked before 2015, Rozsival really? how happy were we when he got Vermette?, the Bowman non-supporters are so sure we wont see another cup, but whenever they win the cup, the non-supporters run to the same excuse, they minimize credit for his moves because of the supercore.

i would agree also that post 2015, this team and GM are in a downward spiral, i wasnt arguing this. and to answer your question, just IMO, if they make the playoffs, even if they are swept in the first round, SB wont get fired. whats funny though, if he gets fired and a new GM comes in and wins a cup, would SB get credited for Dcat, Strome or Saad and any other player he brought in? what if Lehner, Dehaan/Maatta, Boqvist and Dach won the cup with a diff GM, how much credit SB gets for that?

 

Edited by squishy24
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
squishy24 said on 15 hours ago:

just want to do a disclaimer here; 1- I don't credit him for 2010, 2- after 2015, he sucks, 3- the argument is his contribution to the 2013 and 2015 win.

your argument that "in theory" others could have done the same thing, doesn't hold up, right? that's what we just talked about, there is no way to prove this one or the other.

how good he was is not in question, I agree with you, its debatable. The fact that I mentioned is that his moves directly resulted to winning the cup (and for the other years, not winning the cup). would you agree that's a fact (or is this the part you don't disagree with)? and the argument "in theory" is your strongest argument against this fact? would you agree that a "theory" doesn't hold any value to change a fact?

if were going to debate which of his moves did not result to winning a cup, that's a lot to debate lol. finding a 2C, top 4 D, bottom 6 players and back-up goalies that would fit aren't that easy. And claiming any other decent GM could have done the same (and more) is a reach

 

wasnt just Handzus, and see my bolded statement above for more response

as for the question, would they have won a cup with or without Stan, we have no way of knowing that, thats my entire point but to claim that without him, we could have won 2 or more? is just as invalid

 

quick question for both of you - what if for some reason the Hawks win the cup this season, how would you view Stan after?

I doubt anyone can confuse me for a SB fanboy after the way I've roasted him the last year or two but that doesn't change the way I saw the 13&15 cups...….

If the point is any decent GM makes the moves necessary to win those cups,I agree to an extent but doesn't this mean SB was a decent GM at that point? 

2013......I still remember posting "you can stick a fork in this guy" when Handzus was acquired but the big Slovakian center and SB made me eat those words and I ate em gladly...….the guy was a physical beast against Boston and helped take Marchant out of the series. Handzus,Roszival,Oduya and Frolik all played their roles well too and all were 'decent' moves to say the least. Nick Leddy also contributed and was a 'decent' trade himself.

2015......I thought signing Richards after his buy-out was a more than 'decent' move and gave the team a true 2LC,the Kane injury did give SB a fortunate cap situation and he did what he was supposed to do.....he took advantage of it with the Vermette trade. Oduya helped us win another one and Desjardins also played a bigger part than many realize in helping shut-down a scalding hot triplets line......all 'decent' moves? To be objective,Timonen was an unforced error but we had a parade despite it.

I also consider drafting Saad,Shaw,Kruger and TT 'decent' picks to say the least who contributed above average support.

I don't let the present change my opinion of the past BUT I won't let the past change my opinion of the present either. SB better dam well get back to being 'decent' if he's gonna stay IMO and I'm not sure 'decent' even cuts it at this point but as a wise man once said...….."we'll see".

   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hawkswinall said on 14 hours ago:

After reading this thread and another thread, I have come to the conclusion that the 2019-2020 season is a lost season.  Now, I honestly think this team will be fortunate to win 20 games.  I will check back next year at this time.  Hopefully after the 2020  draft things are better. See everyone in June of 2020!  Hopefully the Blackhawks will be worth watching then.

Guess we'll have to 'muddle' through without ya. NO team with Jonathan Toews,Patrick Kane and Alex DeBrincat will ever be a 20 win team!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
t-man2010 said on 15 hours ago:

OldtimeHawky, please kill this thread.

It's the only thread with any activity.  It might have turned into another SB thread but where else can we argue hockey in August?

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doogiew said on 13 hours ago:

How does anyone argue the obvious only two moves this off season make any sense. Getting Dehaan even though he is injured and bringing Shaw back. The money these two players make in exchange for what they would offer any team is worth the obvious risk. 

Now let's start with many's favorite Lehner. A good goalie if he stays sober and stays on his meds heck he's as much a risk as Crow. Smith well that's iridiculous trading one issue for another. The team needed the cap relief in my opinion. Carpenter leaves me lukewarm you could spend an extra million in worse places like Smith or Lehner. Matta well "if" he returns to what he was lets hope he does or this could end up being the second worse deal of the summer. 

Oh the best for last. The Hawks having Wedin, Kubalik. Dach Entwistle and Perlini all young stud forwards in the  making go out and trade their best young NHL ready defenseman for an above average minor league player. Pundits and analysts around the league are disrespecting the Hawks not one is talking Hawks in the playoffs or winning the Cup. Outside of maybe Chicago. Think on that maybe even a little 

Zach Smith's last two seasons don't scream 3.5M to me either but the Sens sucked the last two years too. He has shown goal scoring ability when the team was competitive and his 35 NHL fights might be more than the rest of the roster combined...….pack mentality HAS to start somewhere and 45 PO games under his belt doesn't hurt either. The jury is out on the Nylander/Joker trade for me to say the least and it's a move than can easily define SB's tenure here. Didn't give up much for the two D-men either but these are moves that have to work out too or SB's tenure could and should be short lived if they don't. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
t-man2010 said on 15 hours ago:

OldtimeHawky, please kill this thread.

😆 it's tempting considering it's the Stan thread again. Yes he makes the moves but people keep bringing up moves not made in 2019.

Share this post


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

😆 it's tempting considering it's the Stan thread again. Yes he makes the moves but people keep bringing up moves not made in 2019.

It's just comical at this point. Everyone thinks that it's just a one-man show being the GM.

He has an entire team of assistants, scouts, development guys that make the suggestions.

Then he goes out to see the kids that were brought up to him. And it doesn't end there.

Every move he makes from that point has to be OK'd by McDounagh and Rocky himself.

Yes, Stan will take the fall if things go south, but he is not the sole responsible party.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
t-man2010 said on 22 minutes ago:

It's just comical at this point. Everyone thinks that it's just a one-man show being the GM.

He has an entire team of assistants, scouts, development guys that make the suggestions.

Then he goes out to see the kids that were brought up to him. And it doesn't end there.

Every move he makes from that point has to be OK'd by McDounagh and Rocky himself.

Yes, Stan will take the fall if things go south, but he is not the sole responsible party.

Agreed!!! And that is why I have also called out the entire FO as well, not just SB!!!! 

CLEAN HOUSE!!!!! 😁

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
squishy24 said on 17 hours ago:

just want to do a disclaimer here; 1- I don't credit him for 2010, 2- after 2015, he sucks, 3- the argument is his contribution to the 2013 and 2015 win.

your argument that "in theory" others could have done the same thing, doesn't hold up, right? that's what we just talked about, there is no way to prove this one or the other.

how good he was is not in question, I agree with you, its debatable. The fact that I mentioned is that his moves directly resulted to winning the cup (and for the other years, not winning the cup). would you agree that's a fact (or is this the part you don't disagree with)? and the argument "in theory" is your strongest argument against this fact? would you agree that a "theory" doesn't hold any value to change a fact?

if were going to debate which of his moves did not result to winning a cup, that's a lot to debate lol. finding a 2C, top 4 D, bottom 6 players and back-up goalies that would fit aren't that easy. And claiming any other decent GM could have done the same (and more) is a reach

 

wasnt just Handzus, and see my bolded statement above for more response

as for the question, would they have won a cup with or without Stan, we have no way of knowing that, thats my entire point but to claim that without him, we could have won 2 or more? is just as invalid

 

quick question for both of you - what if for some reason the Hawks win the cup this season, how would you view Stan after?

I only see the roster he brought in, I’ll give him full credit for the guys he brought in. 

Now, let’s say Toews and Kane each get 18 goals 20 assists or so in the playoffs, I mean it’s tough to credit anyone when the guys you inherited did ALL the heavy lifting. 

Now, if Dcat and Strome do what I proposed above and Kane, Toews and co are merely support pieces, does Tallon get credit for the support pieces? You guys are clear as day giving credit to Stan for a few support pieces, so if they win this year, I’d have to think that you should give credit to the former for their support pieces. Or would it be Stan because the main guys Dcat and Strome, Saad etc were the main cogs? It will be interesting to hear the other side here!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
squishy24 said on 1 hour ago:

paragraph 1, yes, assembling a super core is far harder and you say SB should get no credit for that, not arguing this. but assembling a supporting cast that won 2 cups also deserves a lot of credit. the supercore did not win 2011, 2012, and 2014. So the supercore alone does not win a cup. they still need a supporting cast that fit and you make it sound so easy by claiming any decent GM would have been able to duplicate, even surpass Stan's success. i was just pointing out how wrong this argument is because its based on nothing, cant be proven at all.

my question was a baited one, same question was asked before the 2013 cup run, especially when campbell was traded out and the only 2C we have is Handzus. same question was also asked before 2015, Rozsival really? how happy were we when he got Vermette?, the Bowman non-supporters are so sure we wont see another cup, but whenever they win the cup, the non-supporters run to the same excuse, they minimize credit for his moves because of the supercore.

i would agree also that post 2015, this team and GM are in a downward spiral, i wasnt arguing this. and to answer your question, just IMO, if they make the playoffs, even if they are swept in the first round, SB wont get fired. whats funny though, if he gets fired and a new GM comes in and wins a cup, would SB get credited for Dcat, Strome or Saad and any other player he brought in? what if Lehner, Dehaan/Maatta, Boqvist and Dach won the cup with a diff GM, how much credit SB gets for that?

 

You seem obsessed with making sure SB gets credit for whatever. Are you sure you arent related to him? 😂

As I said to Puck, I dont care who gets credit for what in the past. The only reason his level of credit gets talked about is because when the current state of the team is brought up, which you agree is dismal, and people say SB should get fired, the supporters like yourself want to live in the past and defend SB with the work he did supplementing the "supercore" as you called it. And then the deabte starts about how much credit he should get. As I already said, its a point that will always be debated and never agreed upon so let's drop it already. 

The team isnt in a good place right now, hasnt been for a few years, and it took years of bad work to get it here. That is the point. And in trying to keep this discussion relevant to the thread, lets talk about some of SB's handy work this past offseason which has some of you so excited. 

In a nutshell, which group of players would you rather have:

A) On defense - Joker and Chariot, and at forward, Kahun and Ferland or B ) on defense - deHaan and Mattaa and at forward Nylander ?

The salary cap difference to these groups is $650k, so pretty close. IMO, I would take group A, which not only do I feel is the better overall group of players, but is $650k cheaper than group B.

Now instead of trying to turn Caggulia into a 1st liner which he is clearly not, you can have someone like Ferland on the top line. He is Caggulia on steroids - bigger, meaner, and more talented. Toews-Kane-Ferland / Strome-Dcat-Shaw. That is a nice blend of skill and grit on the top 2 lines, no? Kahun, Saad, on the 3rd line with Kampf, and a traditional 4th line of Caggulia-Smith-Carpenter. If you dont need or want as much grit on the 4th line, maybe its Kubalik-Smith-Perlini (if he signs). 

On D, Chariot takes deHaan's spot. And Joker takes Mattaa's.

Was SB so smart for trying to jump the free agency gun and trade for deHaan and Mattaa before July 1st?? Or could he have sat back, signed Chariot for 3.5mil, who is probably in the exact same category as deHaan, taken a chance on Joker for 3mil a year less than taking a chance on Mattaa, and had extra money to sign someone like Ferland? Sure the Hawks dont have Saarela then, but they would have been able to keep Kahun. 

This is just my take on things. Im sure there were a lot of ways he could have gone if he waited until July 1st. But IMO and in hindsight, his decision to try and fix the D before free agency even started with those trades has all the makings of not doing something the right way yet again. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rinkrat21 said on 2 hours ago:

You seem obsessed with making sure SB gets credit for whatever. Are you sure you arent related to him? 😂

As I said to Puck, I dont care who gets credit for what in the past. The only reason his level of credit gets talked about is because when the current state of the team is brought up, which you agree is dismal, and people say SB should get fired, the supporters like yourself want to live in the past and defend SB with the work he did supplementing the "supercore" as you called it. And then the deabte starts about how much credit he should get. As I already said, its a point that will always be debated and never agreed upon so let's drop it already. 

The team isnt in a good place right now, hasnt been for a few years, and it took years of bad work to get it here. That is the point. And in trying to keep this discussion relevant to the thread, lets talk about some of SB's handy work this past offseason which has some of you so excited. 

^ one side cant argue the other? did he run over your dog? were you not happy that the Hawks won 2013 and 2015? or do you rather cling to the fantastical idea that any other decent GM would have been able to win the same or more? 

the previous state (pre-2015 win) keeps getting brought up because the non-supporters keep using the current state of the team to discredit those accomplishments. I dont see myself as SB supporter (i thought he could have done better than Handzus, i was skeptical about Oduya and Richards), but when they won the cup, my reaction was "holy crap, they actually worked, good job" the non-supporters reaction? "meh, they won because of the supercore. SB did so little for that cup outcome" and lots of non-sensical arguments and unproven theories being used as valid evidence in attempts to prove points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MERPER said on On 8/13/2019 at 5:49 PM:

Mrazek wound up re-signing with Carolina for less.

and Crawford not wanting to be moved still reflects bad on SB and his love of giving players NMC's/NTC's

It is those damn clauses Stan gave to pretty much everyone he signed for more than 1 year that are part of the reason for the hell this team has fallen into the last few seasons

The Blackhawks are hopeless for the 2019-2020 season. Most people even say it on this board.  The best thing Stan Bowman can do is trade Kane, Toews, Debrincat, Bovquist, Mitchel, Beoudine, Dach, Vlasic, Stome, Perlini, Caggulia, Entwhistle,and  Kucharev to contenders so that they have a chance to win a Stanley Cup and get as much return on them (Hopefully First round picks)  as possible to do the re-build.  I would also try to trade Eric Gustaffson, Brent Seabrooke, Duncan Keith, Corey Crawford, and Lenher to contender so  that they have a shot at winning the Stanley Cup.

Wait till next year fellow fans.  Hopefully we can start a rebuild as successful as the New York Rangers and the Montreal Canadians (and Colorado).

Lookout for the Detroit Redwings in about 3 years too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
squishy24 said on 32 minutes ago:

^ one side cant argue the other? did he run over your dog? were you not happy that the Hawks won 2013 and 2015? or do you rather cling to the fantastical idea that any other decent GM would have been able to win the same or more? 

the previous state (pre-2015 win) keeps getting brought up because the non-supporters keep using the current state of the team to discredit those accomplishments. I dont see myself as SB supporter (i thought he could have done better than Handzus, i was skeptical about Oduya and Richards), but when they won the cup, my reaction was "holy crap, they actually worked, good job" the non-supporters reaction? "meh, they won because of the supercore. SB did so little for that cup outcome" and lots of non-sensical arguments and unproven theories being used as valid evidence in attempts to prove points.

For me personally, not true. Again - I DONT CARE WHAT HE CONTRIBUTED OR DIDNT CONTRIBUTE TO THOSE TEAMS. 

Why I am a non-supporter is because even during the Cup run when he was doing a good job of supplementing the top end of the roster with the proper support guys, (see how easy it is for me to acknowledge that), he was still in the process of doing dumb things that led to the current demise of the team. Early on it was choosing the wrong players to keep versus let go to get under the cap, making bad trades to get rid of the players he chose to get rid of, and drafting poorly. And those things started the first off season after the first Cup win. 

The ONLY time his contributions to the Cup teams matter to me in regards to my issues with him is when someone wants to use them as a defense of him and say he deserves a pass for the current demise because of those former contributions. That is where I will disagree.

Yes, I acknowledge his contributions all day long to the Cup teams. But IMO they dont excuse the numerous other bad moves he has been making for a decade that have slowly led the team to where they are today. 

The only reason us non-supporters will discredit those moves is because at the same time he was making them, he was doing absolutely stupid stuff as well. So yeah, when ya look at it as a WHOLE, not just the 5 guys he brought in to the Cup teams, but his work as a WHOLE, it isnt very difficult to say "yeah he contributed, but based on his overall body or work, I would bet a lot of others could have contributed as well". 

That of course may not be true, and of course there is no way to prove it, but just trying to explain why that thought process even gets thrown out there - because his body of work as a WHOLE has been mediocre at best, even during the Cup run. 

The idea the guy should get fired isnt unique to the non-supporters on this board. And I've said this before, you can do a search on Google and find "Fire Stan" articles as far back as 2011, continuing all the way up to when Q got fired. 

Taking into consideration his contributions to the SC's, if so many other hockey fans, columnists, and pundits feel the same, why do you think that is? My guess would be exactly the reason I say it - because in spite of his contributions to the SC teams, his overall body of work which includes some blatantly obvious bad moves, overshadows those SC contributions. 

So yeah, I am acknowledging his contributions to the Cup teams, but still say he hasnt been very good at his job overall, including this past off season. Was he very active? Yes Was all that activity done the best possible way. IMO no. And so it continues.....

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The Blackhawks are hopeless for the 2019-2020 season. Most people even say it on this board.  The best thing Stan Bowman can do is trade Kane, Toews, Debrincat, Bovquist, Mitchel, Beoudine, Dach, Vlasic, Stome, Perlini, Caggulia, Entwhistle,and  Kucharev to contenders so that they have a chance to win a Stanley Cup and get as much return on them (Hopefully First round picks)  as possible to do the re-build.  I would also try to trade Eric Gustaffson, Brent Seabrooke, Duncan Keith, Corey Crawford, and Lenher to contender so  that they have a shot at winning the Stanley Cup.

Wait till next year fellow fans.  Hopefully we can start a rebuild as successful as the New York Rangers and the Montreal Canadians (and Colorado).

Lookout for the Detroit Redwings in about 3 years too!

Huh? Colorado looks pretty darn good sure to make the playoffs. So what did I miss? Why does your camp do that every time you think you're losing,oh just trade everyone. The reality is there were more dum moves than good.

Stats don't lie I agree Gus ad Perlini can be traded one is little more than a forth forward and the other isn't signed.

There is so much going on that we just need to look at more objectively. Is the team better yes I believe it is.. If Smith drops the gloves even once in defense of a teammate especially a goalie then he has earned every penny. Just don't expect him to be a 20 goal 50 point guy not gonna happen. 

I guess I'm not ready to grab the pom poms. I'm intrigued but certainly not ready to praise the GM. OK Shaw raw raw. That's it I said my piece many times this team still has gaping holes  and a whole lot of question marks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nighbor said on 17 hours ago:

The team won two cups with Handzus(1) and Vermette(1) that is 100% factual.  You are adding conjecture not fact when you say they were not needed. I will take fact over conjecture every time.  Your proof supposedly is because Stan is incapable of making good moves just look at them.  Well even a broken clock is right twice a day.  History is fact based not conjecture.  History does not play the what if game.  As  Det. Sgt. Joe Friday of Dragnet fame was credited with  saying Just the facts, ma'am.  Just the facts Big T.

No no no. Fact is, the team was already assembled, pure fact, if you think the Hawks won Cups because of his moves, that’s conjecture. I know they won due to the guys Stan had nothing to do with. That’s fact. Who cares if a 3rd string kicker gets a ring? Or in this case a black ace or anyone not contributing nightly? 

I just don’t understand your argument? I ask this question, if Stan is responsible due to his few fickle moves, who else gets any credit? I’d love to hear that side of the argument from you!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rinkrat21 said on 3 hours ago:

For me personally, not true. Again - I DONT CARE WHAT HE CONTRIBUTED OR DIDNT CONTRIBUTE TO THOSE TEAMS. 

Why I am a non-supporter is because even during the Cup run when he was doing a good job of supplementing the top end of the roster with the proper support guys, (see how easy it is for me to acknowledge that), he was still in the process of doing dumb things that led to the current demise of the team. Early on it was choosing the wrong players to keep versus let go to get under the cap, making bad trades to get rid of the players he chose to get rid of, and drafting poorly. And those things started the first off season after the first Cup win. 

The ONLY time his contributions to the Cup teams matter to me in regards to my issues with him is when someone wants to use them as a defense of him and say he deserves a pass for the current demise because of those former contributions. That is where I will disagree.

Yes, I acknowledge his contributions all day long to the Cup teams. But IMO they dont excuse the numerous other bad moves he has been making for a decade that have slowly led the team to where they are today. 

The only reason us non-supporters will discredit those moves is because at the same time he was making them, he was doing absolutely stupid stuff as well. So yeah, when ya look at it as a WHOLE, not just the 5 guys he brought in to the Cup teams, but his work as a WHOLE, it isnt very difficult to say "yeah he contributed, but based on his overall body or work, I would bet a lot of others could have contributed as well". 

That of course may not be true, and of course there is no way to prove it, but just trying to explain why that thought process even gets thrown out there - because his body of work as a WHOLE has been mediocre at best, even during the Cup run. 

The idea the guy should get fired isnt unique to the non-supporters on this board. And I've said this before, you can do a search on Google and find "Fire Stan" articles as far back as 2011, continuing all the way up to when Q got fired. 

Taking into consideration his contributions to the SC's, if so many other hockey fans, columnists, and pundits feel the same, why do you think that is? My guess would be exactly the reason I say it - because in spite of his contributions to the SC teams, his overall body of work which includes some blatantly obvious bad moves, overshadows those SC contributions. 

So yeah, I am acknowledging his contributions to the Cup teams, but still say he hasnt been very good at his job overall, including this past off season. Was he very active? Yes Was all that activity done the best possible way. IMO no. And so it continues.....

 

 

The team demise is because of father time.  Things naturally do not last forever especially in the cap era and the transition period creates bumpy stretches.  Stan has been able to restock the shelves through the draft and it will take a few years to correctly judge the results.  The early drafts were hampered by the fact that after the first dozen picks or so the picking gets slimmer and slimmer.  Choosing the wrong players to keep,  I must have missed something.  When did he trade Toews, Kane, Keith, Seabs and Crawford.  If you think Buff, Bolland, Versteeg, Burish and Brouwer were the right ones to keep 2013 and 2015 cups would have been won by another team.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nighbor said on 54 minutes ago:

The team demise is because of father time.  Things naturally do not last forever especially in the cap era and the transition period creates bumpy stretches.  Stan has been able to restock the shelves through the draft and it will take a few years to correctly judge the results.  The early drafts were hampered by the fact that after the first dozen picks or so the picking gets slimmer and slimmer.  Choosing the wrong players to keep,  I must have missed something.  When did he trade Toews, Kane, Keith, Seabs and Crawford.  If you think Buff, Bolland, Versteeg, Burish and Brouwer were the right ones to keep 2013 and 2015 cups would have been won by another team.

 

 

Keeping Buff would have been a mistake and the Hawks wouldnt have wont their next 2 SC's if he was on the team???? 😂 

And he did keep Bolland, at least thru the 2013 SC, so a different team didnt win it then as you claim would have happened if Bolland was on the team. And he brought back Versteeg for the 2015 SC so a different team didnt win it then either as you claim if he was on the team. Oy vey 🙄

And yes, father time catches up, especially in the cap era. But for the 20th time, the drop off didnt have to be this bad or for this long- see the Pens and Bruins 🙄

And please do the research yourself and dont make me go back to the early draft classes to point out all the examples of good players that were taken in the 2nd and 3rd rounds of those drafts. The information is out there so your assumption that SB only drafted poorly because there were no good players left after the first 12 picks is incorrect 🙄

And before you even say it, I'll do it for you - yes, SB was not the only GM to miss out on a lot of those players. The difference is, most of those GM's have since been fired while our guy keeps on trucking along..... 

And after 3 years with no playoff wins already under the team's belt, it makes sense to you that starting NOW its going to take a few MORE years to judge the results of the talent in the pipeline??? Where was the talent the last couple of years when the team needed it?? Practically non-existent. 

Oh boy.......🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

 

Edited by rinkrat21

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

×