Trade Deadline/Future Line discussion

Bust

Well-known member
1,937
1,198
70
LOL at the rants! I mean every team has their share of bad trades and contracts. You need look no further then the other Chicago teams.

The bottomline is this. Does Leddy and all your other teams that have the perfect roster with no cap issues, hit on trades and the draft all the time have 3 cups to show for it? IF NOT>>>>>>NEXT!!!!!!!!!!
 

Raskolnikov

CCS Donator
Donator
18,852
6,105
85
LOL at the rants! I mean every team has their share of bad trades and contracts. You need look no further then the other Chicago teams.

The bottomline is this. Does Leddy and all your other teams that have the perfect roster with no cap issues, hit on trades and the draft all the time have 3 cups to show for it? IF NOT>>>>>>NEXT!!!!!!!!!!
Have those teams fielded a functional defense since 2014...and if not continued to worship the GM?

2015 fielding a 4 man D was not functional.

We been covered up by 30 minutes of Keith for a very long time or none of those scouts and SB would have jobs.
 

HSBOB

Well-known member
1,837
1,939
70
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
Have those teams fielded a functional defense since 2014...and if not continued to worship the GM?

2015 fielding a 4 man D was not functional.

We been covered up by 30 minutes of Keith for a very long time or none of those scouts and SB would have jobs.
Crawford masked a LOT of bad defensive play too,just ask @LordKOTL he'll break it down for ya!
 

LordKOTL

Scratched for Vorobiev
7,898
2,298
70
My favorite teams
  1. Portland Timbers
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
I know the Seabrook deal is the convenient boogie man but how about.....

Not enough cap space because of Brent Seabrook you say then how did SB have over TWENTY MILLION to squander two summers ago.......TWENTY MILLION and it was squandered....

de HAAN........4.6M for three years and we threw in Forsling because he'll never amount to anything.
Maata.....4.0M for three years and then retained money to move him only a year later.
Shaw,who the Habs loved but knew his next concussion could be his last for 3.9M for three years. Did the Habs retain money or sweeten? LOFL......SB took the whole contract and gave them a 2nd and a 3rd......JUST AWFUL!
Zach Smith for 3.5M for two years.....nuff said.
Lehner for 5M wouldn't be a bad signing for a team that just needed a tender but his only value here was the 2nd he returned but we ate 2.5M of his money for that pick. Crawford was the better tender anyway and led his team to a PO series win.....the last series win this team will see for ages.

SB negotiated the worst deal possible with with Seabs,he gave a high mileage 30yro max term,max $$$,max clauses and max bonuses.......I don't think Seabs agent could have drawn it up better if he was alone in the room.
For shits n giggles,let's assume Seabs took 2M less.....does that make a bit of a difference to a GM who spends like a drunken sailor? Will the team return to prominence once this pariah of a deal is off it's books?
Point 1: Maybe I wasn't clear: The a team that is built well can absorb a couple of high-priced players on their roster (case in point: Pittsburgh). I think both you and I are on the same page on this: Chicago is not a well-built team. your post is proof-positive of that. Stan fucked up the wet dream.

Point 2: The biggest issue of the Seabrook deal in my opinion is the side effect of the cap hit and duration: he couldn't be moved--even without an NMC. His play was so far below his cap hit and coupled with the duration that it would require giving up real assets to move that deal. Not really Seabs fault too much though--getting old sucks and based on a fuzzy memory observation, guys who tend to play big physical games like Seabs did through most of his career tend to really slow down and peter off after 35--unlike players like Keith who are more finesse and puck possession. Seabs deal effectively locked a roster slot and prevented development of some of the next gen. That's not really the case of Toews and Kane--neither have played down to the point where they are effectively blocking someone better (far from it).
 

HSBOB

Well-known member
1,837
1,939
70
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
Point 1: Maybe I wasn't clear: The a team that is built well can absorb a couple of high-priced players on their roster (case in point: Pittsburgh). I think both you and I are on the same page on this: Chicago is not a well-built team. your post is proof-positive of that. Stan fucked up the wet dream.

Point 2: The biggest issue of the Seabrook deal in my opinion is the side effect of the cap hit and duration: he couldn't be moved--even without an NMC. His play was so far below his cap hit and coupled with the duration that it would require giving up real assets to move that deal. Not really Seabs fault too much though--getting old sucks and based on a fuzzy memory observation, guys who tend to play big physical games like Seabs did through most of his career tend to really slow down and peter off after 35--unlike players like Keith who are more finesse and puck possession. Seabs deal effectively locked a roster slot and prevented development of some of the next gen. That's not really the case of Toews and Kane--neither have played down to the point where they are effectively blocking someone better (far from it).
No one in their right mind can say Seabs played up to that deal and no one in their right mind should have expected him to with those MASSIVE miles already on the odometer @30.......well one guy did!LOFL!

I backed the 1M raise at the time but I wondered what Seabs woulda done if SB said I can only go five years. Does Seabs turn it down and look greedy as hell? Does anyone hold it against SB if Seabs does turn it down? Does anyone offer more? Two to three less years on that deal changes it completely!

The term and clauses were bad enough BUT it was the bonus structure that didn't allow a buy-out..........I woulda LOVED to sell SB a car before I retired!!!!!!
 

LordKOTL

Scratched for Vorobiev
7,898
2,298
70
My favorite teams
  1. Portland Timbers
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
Have those teams fielded a functional defense since 2014...and if not continued to worship the GM?

2015 fielding a 4 man D was not functional.

We been covered up by 30 minutes of Keith for a very long time or none of those scouts and SB would have jobs.
VVV
Crawford masked a LOT of bad defensive play too,just ask @LordKOTL he'll break it down for ya!
Crawford did indeed--and one of the things about Crawford that I liked is, like Hjammer and now Debrincat, he got a new deal and instead of playing down for awhile, he played up. A lot of people were worried that he wasn't worth 6M and as soon as the deal kicked in he got a Jennings for it--and did so behind the 1st team D in a long time that leaked in more shots than the average.

It's not secret Keith was a monster in his career even though 2015 was his real last hurrah as an elite-level D-man. After that yes, we saw the age effecting him. But yes, in 2015 they had Keith, Seabrook, Oduya, and Hjammer eating a lot of minutes and Crawford putting up an excellent .924 behind it. But from there age and wear took their toll and things got worse.

While Crawford did mask a ton of issues, going back to my previous posts about the 'hawks not being a well-run team. There is/was a ton of mileage on the core and there has been very little, if any effort thus far to replace them--much less back in 2016/2017 when it could have really been a rebuilt-in-situ.
No one in their right mind can say Seabs played up to that deal and no one in their right mind should have expected him to with those MASSIVE miles already on the odometer @30.......well one guy did!LOFL!

I backed the 1M raise at the time but I wondered what Seabs woulda done if SB said I can only go five years. Does Seabs turn it down and look greedy as hell? Does anyone hold it against SB if Seabs does turn it down? Does anyone offer more? Two to three less years on that deal changes it completely!

The term and clauses were bad enough BUT it was the bonus structure that didn't allow a buy-out..........I woulda LOVED to sell SB a car before I retired!!!!!!
I would have been comfortable with the opposite: Give him term, but maybe try to go less in actual salary (especially with the bonus structure and the NMC's--if he wanted it that bad try to talk him down). I mean really rounding the math for simplicity's sake--7M at 5 years is less than 4.5M at 8 years. I think the latter deal we all could have stomached a lot better.
 

Raskolnikov

CCS Donator
Donator
18,852
6,105
85
Reich/Hag-Taser-Kubalik
Cat-CyBorg-Kane
Reich/Hag-Dach-Suter
Barrett/Nylander-Kampf-Connolly

Shalnov/Barrett/Nylander/Gaudette/Pirri/Carp

Weber-Boqvist
Keith-Mitchell
Beudin-Stillman
Vlasic-Kalynov

Lehtenan
Rask
 
Last edited:

LordKOTL

Scratched for Vorobiev
7,898
2,298
70
My favorite teams
  1. Portland Timbers
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
That and Hammer?

I honestly think losing Sharp is what killed this team. Think his influence had alot to do with chemistry.

That and the Hawks as a team losing that "see that Beautiful man? He's my friend" edge.....
I don't think it was losing a specific player that utterly killed the team, but rather losing a given player and not even having an ersatz-replacement ready for them that could take over the role they played at a level to win one of the cups. Sharp is definitely an example, but if you had the 2021 Debrincat in at 2016 Sharp could have been mitigated well. But in that case Debrincat was 5 years out--at the time the 'hawks had no one, really.

I think it was the brass over-estimating how much each star piece could do, and thinking that losing one, or one suffering age-related effects could be mitigated by someone else stepping up--and that wasn't the case. Sharp, Hjammer, Hossa, etc. all bright something that hasn't been mitigated, or it's taken *years* to do so...and we can say the same about recent players: There's no one who could hold Toews' jock (assuming he doesn't return), No one who could hold Seabrook's jock (cup-winning Seabrook), Lanks has a ways to go to become Crawford, there's no set-up guy remotely as good as Kane (even though Kane should have plenty of hockey left in him), and all of our D-men coming up are closer to Matthew Keith--nowhere near what could be Duncan Keith.

As for the "edge", that's been brought up for years. We know that. That being said I think it was a confluence of factors and the brass hedging their bets wrong.
 

Raskolnikov

CCS Donator
Donator
18,852
6,105
85
If it was a specific player it was Hossa.
After already losing power forward Bickell.

They never found good size that fit their stars so well again, together with peripheral players that ran a great penalty kill. (Hammer/Hossa/Smith/Kruger)

We didn't have a core you could just plug euro munchkins into those holes and go about your business.
 

LordKOTL

Scratched for Vorobiev
7,898
2,298
70
My favorite teams
  1. Portland Timbers
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
Might as well put it here.

Hawks have the3 11th pick in the draft. Their previous picks at 11 were:

Beach, who was arguably the worst draft pick by the 'hawks ever.

Vorobiev, who was nothing but a unibrow.

Manson, who was good but then again when he was picked people were doing the Super Bowl Shuffle--so that long ago.

Not getting a good vibe off the pick...but who knows.
 

Granada

Well-known member
10,194
1,440
75
Might as well put it here.

Hawks have the3 11th pick in the draft. Their previous picks at 11 were:

Beach, who was arguably the worst draft pick by the 'hawks ever.

Vorobiev, who was nothing but a unibrow.

Manson, who was good but then again when he was picked people were doing the Super Bowl Shuffle--so that long ago.

Not getting a good vibe off the pick...but who knows.
Damn Kotl, you just had to bring these up, didn't you?
 

Raskolnikov

CCS Donator
Donator
18,852
6,105
85
Schneider would have been a nice high floor defensive who makes the league quickly, and follow up Dach.

Instead we drafted a child.
Doesn't matter where we pick if we lock onto a reach almost every year.
 

greg23

Well-known member
4,214
2,432
70
Watch the vegas-avs series

The skill, speed, size, depth and goaltending at every position is light years better than the hawks (both teams along with Tampa prob have the most talent in the nhl)

The Hawks are a long way away from either of those rosters.
 

LordKOTL

Scratched for Vorobiev
7,898
2,298
70
My favorite teams
  1. Portland Timbers
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
Damn Kotl, you just had to bring these up, didn't you?
Sorry, but there's some news pertinent to the 'hawks...might as well have started a discussion about it...and the in a Super Bowl Shuffle reference to boot :).

Who they pick...I don't know. I still say the biggest need is D, but at this point almost every position could do with a shot in the arm...if the prospects are developed and not rushed.
Schneider would have been a nice high floor defensive who makes the league quickly, and follow up Dach.

Instead we drafted a child.
Doesn't matter where we pick if we lock onto a reach almost every year.
I think that's a big issue with the how the 'hawks are run. Even though it doesn't look like they're rushing Reichel, I think they rushed Dach. Further, I don't think Dach nor Reichel were head-and-shoulders better than everyone else at their positions. It seriously looks like Bowman was drafting guys 3-4-5 years out who could be filler in the Cup-winning Core-driven lineup, and developing them properly was secondary to trying to wring everything out of the existing core. And, now that he's been caught with his pants down with no real answer, he's scrambling to get guys who could help *now*, and not looking forward and (a) not taking into account that prospects fail and (b) gambling that project prospects turn out.
Watch the vegas-avs series

The skill, speed, size, depth and goaltending at every position is light years better than the hawks (both teams along with Tampa prob have the most talent in the nhl)

The Hawks are a long way away from either of those rosters.
The saving grace is, if you go back 5-10 years, the Avs were about where we are, and vice-versa. I'm hoping the swing happens soon for the 'hawks but I have no faith in the management to do so.
 

hawkinmontreal

Well-known member
10,131
1,173
75
My favorite teams
  1. Oakland Athletics
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
  1. Duke Blue Devils
Watch the vegas-avs series

The skill, speed, size, depth and goaltending at every position is light years better than the hawks (both teams along with Tampa prob have the most talent in the nhl)

The Hawks are a long way away from either of those rosters.
Vegas had there team gift wrapped for them, yes they are light years ahead, but given the talent that was handed to them is unjustified, hence everytime they lose I cheer. Can’t stand that team and I am very happy the Avs will be sending them packing very soon.
 

ruprecht

Bills Board Hall of Famer
Donator
9,851
8,933
70
Watch the vegas-avs series

The skill, speed, size, depth and goaltending at every position is light years better than the hawks (both teams along with Tampa prob have the most talent in the nhl)

The Hawks are a long way away from either of those rosters.
Should probably just quit watching them
 

Granada

Well-known member
10,194
1,440
75
Sorry, but there's some news pertinent to the 'hawks...might as well have started a discussion about it...and the in a Super Bowl Shuffle reference to boot :).

Who they pick...I don't know. I still say the biggest need is D, but at this point almost every position could do with a shot in the arm...if the prospects are developed and not rushed.

I think that's a big issue with the how the 'hawks are run. Even though it doesn't look like they're rushing Reichel, I think they rushed Dach. Further, I don't think Dach nor Reichel were head-and-shoulders better than everyone else at their positions. It seriously looks like Bowman was drafting guys 3-4-5 years out who could be filler in the Cup-winning Core-driven lineup, and developing them properly was secondary to trying to wring everything out of the existing core. And, now that he's been caught with his pants down with no real answer, he's scrambling to get guys who could help *now*, and not looking forward and (a) not taking into account that prospects fail and (b) gambling that project prospects turn out.

The saving grace is, if you go back 5-10 years, the Avs were about where we are, and vice-versa. I'm hoping the swing happens soon for the 'hawks but I have no faith in the management to do so.
Yeah I think you go with the best player left, regardless of position. This team needs everything.
 

Bigbarn27

Active member
201
202
27
They will need to decided if they want Lambos he will be there and also what to do if for some crazy reason Wallstedt
is still there.
 

MassHavoc

Moderator
Staff member
16,525
1,788
85
Kinda horseshit to not give Seattle the number 1 automatically but i get it I guess. Everyone has to play by the same rules.
 

LordKOTL

Scratched for Vorobiev
7,898
2,298
70
My favorite teams
  1. Portland Timbers
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
Vegas had there team gift wrapped for them, yes they are light years ahead, but given the talent that was handed to them is unjustified, hence everytime they lose I cheer. Can’t stand that team and I am very happy the Avs will be sending them packing very soon.
Vegas had no true super-stars...at least that was the perception at the time. Even Fleury was a question mark before he came in and had one of the best seasons of his career. Vegas got a lot of middling players who came in, bought into the system and executed the system (which paid dividends). Contrast that to the 'hawks since which have/had no real game-plan, no real buy-in, aging superstars (with the exception of Debrincat) with few mid-tier players and a lot of trash-heap players (by their own GM's design). Futher, unlike Vegas the 'hawks have been 19 players playing individually as opposed to being a team like they were in the cup-winning years.

As has been mentioned elsewhere: what has happened to Arizona, Florida, and a lot of other teams in nontraditional markets--it was in the league's best interest to see Vegas (and by proxy, Seattle) do well--that way the team builds a local fanbase and is not struggling in the basement early on, and thus hemorrhaging cash that the rest of the league has to try to account for.

Based on the rules of expansion, Vegas should have been a mid-tier team in terms of talent on paper. Good enough to win and attract a fan-base but on-paper, not dominant. The result was skewed by their execution and buy-in that made them that good. IMHO when it comes to Seattle, they're playing by the same expansion rules and it will be a tall order for them to replicate Vegas' success. The team should come in mid-tier on paper, but how they do will be up to the coaching, game plan, and buy-in from the players. I don't think Seattle will replicate the success, but I could be wrong.

However, it would have done the league no good if both Seattle and Vegas got nothing but trash-heap players and stayed in the cellar like all the other expansion clubs in history. If the league buys into having a Seattle-based teram and a Vegas-based team (like a Phoenix-based team), the sooner they can be solvent on their own without the league's help, the better.

At least that's my $0.02.

Kinda horseshit to not give Seattle the number 1 automatically but i get it I guess. Everyone has to play by the same rules.
Seattle has virtually the same lottery rules as Vegas. If Seattle is set up like Vegas to be a mid-tier player, why give them the #1 pick automatically when real scrap-heap teams like Detroit, Buffalo, etc. could use it more.
 

Top