Salary Cap: Cap Crunch Part 6: At Least We Have Rundblad

[BobbyJet]

This time I must agree with BWC. Svedberg will never look good doing what he does, but he is far better than Bladder defensively.

 

[DisgruntledHawkFan]

Svedberg has been better than I thought he'd be. He might turn out to be serviceable.

 

[JaegerDice]

This time I must agree with BWC. Svedberg will never look good doing what he does, but he is far better than Bladder defensively.

That's fine as a general statement.

I don't think either are great, but there are arguments to be made Svedberg is the better option.

Saying Rundblad was bad in his first game is just factually inaccurate.

He put in a good performance, and was scratched the next game. The only reason that happens is if the coach has a slot picked out for his boy, and he was going to get it regardless of what Rundblad did.

As far as Q boys go, I'd rather Svedberg get carte blanche than Rozsival.

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

Svedberg is not a huge upgrade over Runblad. He is an upgrade but he has a few major issues (see below).

1) He is weak on the puck.
2) He has a TERRIBLE habit of screening the goalie.
3) He coughs up the puck or panics a lot.

Your reality is rarely if ever right. Your reality is being sellers at the trade deadline and thinking that Dahlbeck was a legit prospect that by trading him ruined our team. You also think AA is not a 2C and that Stan is a brutal GM. You also think the Rundblad deal is going to leave the franchise in shambles.

Yes those are issues ,, But he is still a major upgrade over David Rundblad who does nothing well and has absolutely no ability to play any type of defense

As for last part

1) If Kane doesn't come back the Hawks had no chance and would have been easy out ,, No one could predict future that Kane would have miracle recovery
2) Dahlbeck was legit prospect and looks fine in Arizona. He is upgrade over all of the Hawks 6-7 options currently (Pokka not being NHL ready is only guy who would lay claim to being potentially better)
3) AA is a 3rd line C and 3rd wheel on line. He is not worth the extension our GM gifted him
4) Rundblad deal was horrific at time of trade and has been made worse by his extension and god awful play. Rundblad is essentially stealing a roster spot at this point and its is a blight on franchise just like Bickell

 

[BK]

Yes those are issues ,, But he is still a major upgrade over David Rundblad who does nothing well and has absolutely no ability to play any type of defense

As for last part

1) If Kane doesn't come back the Hawks had no chance and would have been easy out ,, No one could predict future that Kane would have miracle recovery
2) Dahlbeck was legit prospect and looks fine in Arizona. He is upgrade over all of the Hawks 6-7 options currently (Pokka not being NHL ready is only guy who would lay claim to being potentially better)
3) AA is a 3rd line C and 3rd wheel on line. He is not worth the extension our GM gifted him
4) Rundblad deal was horrific at time of trade and has been made worse by his extension and god awful play. Rundblad is essentially stealing a roster spot at this point and its is a blight on franchise just like Bickell

He is an upgrade not a major one. A major upgrade is AA over Handzus. See the difference? Because Kane does and that is why he constantly speaks about how important AA is.

1) Are you naive enough to think that the Hawks did not have a good idea about Kane? The Hawks without Kane and those trades can still win a round or two. Teams like the Hawks are not sellers...ever. Need an example then look at the Wings.

2) Dahlbeck was nothing more than a 6-7 dman at best and no different than Svedberg so he was not a loss.

3) How do you not understand how AA is a 2C for the money a perfect compliment to Kane and Panarin. This shows that you don't know how to construct a line and what is needed for a line to be successful. You have to have players who can do what AA does to make lines like Kanes work. If you want a detailed explaination to help you better understand I am more than happy to type one out.

4) Rundblad's deal means nothing and for the last time it can be hidden in the minors. How do you not understand this? What is the disconnect here?

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

He is an upgrade not a major one. A major upgrade is AA over Handzus. See the difference? Because Kane does and that is why he constantly speaks about how important AA is.

1) Are you naive enough to think that the Hawks did not have a good idea about Kane? The Hawks without Kane and those trades can still win a round or two. Teams like the Hawks are not sellers...ever. Need an example then look at the Wings.

2) Dahlbeck was nothing more than a 6-7 dman at best and no different than Svedberg so he was not a loss.

3) How do you not understand how AA is a 2C for the money a perfect compliment to Kane and Panarin. This shows that you don't know how to construct a line and what is needed for a line to be successful. You have to have players who can do what AA does to make lines like Kanes work. If you want a detailed explaination to help you better understand I am more than happy to type one out.

4) Rundblad's deal means nothing and for the last time it can be hidden in the minors. How do you not understand this? What is the disconnect here?

1) You mean the Wings who haven't been past 2nd round in years and watched several aging assets lose all value because they didn't want to move on from them? Kenny Holland isn't a GM the Hawks should want Stan to be like. Since Yzerman/Nill/Bowman departed Detroit the Wings franchise hasn't been anything special

2) Dahlbeck was a solid prospect and will no doubt establish himself in Arizona as a reliable #4/5

3) How do you not understand that AA has proven time and again to not be a #2C in this league. Just because he plays defense good doesn't mean he or his extension are good things. He would be a fine #3 like he has been in NY and Columbus. If a guy who can play D is all the Kane line needs to succeed I guess Dominic Moore would have been fine there ,, And would have saved Hawks a ton of $$$. I mean all he would be asked to do playing with Kane/Panarin is focus on his D

4) Rundblad is a joke and until our GM actually admits his mistake and dumps him he is blight on roster. Also thanks to our GM if we do bury him we have a small cap penalty for this year and next

 

[BK]

1) You mean the Wings who haven't been past 2nd round in years and watched several aging assets lose all value because they didn't want to move on from them? Kenny Holland isn't a GM the Hawks should want Stan to be like. Since Yzerman/Nill/Bowman departed Detroit the Wings franchise hasn't been anything special

2) Dahlbeck was a solid prospect and will no doubt establish himself in Arizona as a reliable #4/5

3) How do you not understand that AA has proven time and again to not be a #2C in this league. Just because he plays defense good doesn't mean he or his extension are good things. He would be a fine #3 like he has been in NY and Columbus. If a guy who can play D is all the Kane line needs to succeed I guess Dominic Moore would have been fine there ,, And would have saved Hawks a ton of $$$. I mean all he would be asked to do playing with Kane/Panarin is focus on his D

4) Rundblad is a joke and until our GM actually admits his mistake and dumps him he is blight on roster. Also thanks to our GM if we do bury him we have a small cap penalty for this year and next

1) No I am talking about the Wings team who drafts well and while they have not had the best playoff success they are in position to do better as their next set of young starts start to produce. We can only hope that when Kane and Toews are Zetterberg and Pavel D.'s age we have the young talent coming through so we don't have to miss the playoffs. You might want to check Steve Y's record in TB because it is not great (he only makes the playoffs 60% of the time).

2) Dahlbeck might be a 4-5 on a shitty team but not a playoff team. He is just not that good. Everyone except you make the trade we made 10 out of 10 times.

3) He failed on a shitty Rangers team and a bad Columbus team. You might not understand this but he is a 2C here because he perfectly fits our system. You clearly don't understand this. Rarely is a player the same in all systems. AA is a 2C all day everyday for us because he is a perfect fit and his cap hit is not even close to bad.

4) Rundblad is a #7 dman that can be sent down. You just obsess over him because you don't understand how little a #7 dman means to the Hawks. The cap penalty is nothing, it is literally 50K max. He means nothing and his deal is not this blight you speak about. You would think that he was paid 10.5 million a year.

 

[JaegerDice]

BK, you just don't understand.

Just as Johnny Oduya failed to achieve anything on Jersey or Winnipeg and eventually was run out of town, he proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he would never achieve anything of value with the Chicago Blackhawks.

Likewise, because Anisimov was not a bonafide superstar on two middling teams, it is clear he will never succeed here.

BWC's logic is flawless.

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

Anisimov failure to establish himself as #2C had nothing to do with Rangers/Jackets system or talent

In both cities he was given chance and faltered. Both times Brandon Dubinsky ended up taking job away from him

 

[BK]

Anisimov failure to establish himself as #2C had nothing to do with Rangers/Jackets system or talent

In both cities he was given chance and faltered. Both times Brandon Dubinsky ended up taking job away form him

And it is 100% proven you have no in-depth knowledge of hockey. Systems and the talent around you have a HUGE influence on how you play and fit with a team. How do you not get that concept? This is not golf. Similar to Basketball, systems have a gigantic influence to how well a player does (think about the triangle offense in basketball, great fit for Kobe but a terrible fit for Carmello. Hell is made Ron Harper a better player in the league).

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

And it is 100% proven you have no in-depth knowledge of hockey. Systems and the talent around you have a HUGE influence on how you play and fit with a team. How do you not get that concept? This is not golf. Similar to Basketball, systems have a gigantic influence to how well a player does (think about the triangle offense in basketball, great fit for Kobe but a terrible fit for Carmello. Hell is made Ron Harper a better player in the league).

So what your saying is Hawks system talent worked with 2 lower cost guys (Handzus and Richards) in #2C spot in recent years

So again committing longterm big $$$ to a 3rd line C because he can play D and is a so called fit to system would be even more flawed strategy ,, Would it not?

 

[BK]

So what your saying is Hawks system talent worked with 2 lower cost guys (Handzus and Richards) in #2C spot in recent years

So again committing longterm big $$$ to a 3rd line C because he can play D and is a so called fit to system would be even more flawed strategy ,, Would it not?

Did it work sure but at the end of the day we are FAR better off with a legit 2C that fits our system. By the end of the year that line will be a terror to play against.

It is really not huge money to commit. FYI not having a 2C was a major reason why we lost to the Kings. We not have a major issue solved for the next few years so we are not trading away prospects to fill big holes every deadline.

You just don't get it and it is sad because the answers are right in front of you. "For all you young hockey players out there" this is how it works are systems are a huge influence on a players success.

 

[JaegerDice]

So what your saying is Hawks system talent worked with 2 lower cost guys (Handzus and Richards) in #2C spot in recent years

So again committing longterm big $$$ to a 3rd line C because he can play D and is a so called fit to system would be even more flawed strategy ,, Would it not?

Center depth was a HUGE part of their recent cup win.

Yes, Richards was a below-average 2C as a whole. But Vermette was a far above-average 3C.

So the weakness we were able to patch over on the 2nd line by virtue of Patrick Kane's shooting percentage, we more than made up for on the 3rd line with a C that could just as well have played 2C for most of the teams in the league.

Right now, we have a relative weakness at 3C as TT finds his legs at that position, and we've balanced it with a strength at 2C that turned a one-time possession disaster of a line into a sustained possession threat, which only gives Kane (and Panarin) more time per shift in the offensive zone to deal damage.

Anisimov has been a great pick-up thus far.

 

[DPHawk]

So what your saying is Hawks system talent worked with 2 lower cost guys (Handzus and Richards) in #2C spot in recent years

So again committing longterm big $$$ to a 3rd line C because he can play D and is a so called fit to system would be even more flawed strategy ,, Would it not?

By that logic you should be happy with Rundblad at 7D.

 

[BK]

AA with another good game. Other than BWC is there anyone else that doesn't think he is a 2C?

 

[JaegerDice]

AA with another good game. Other than BWC is there anyone else that doesn't think he is a 2C?

That guy 'Blackhawks' who also thinks we should have traded Crawford.

Other than that, no, haven't seen anybody voice that opinion.

 

[BK]

That guy 'Blackhawks' who also thinks we should have traded Crawford.

Other than that, no, haven't seen anybody voice that opinion.

While Crow is really good trading him after this year might happen if Darling is solid. 6 million off the cap would be nice (minus what we pay the backup).

 

[JaegerDice]

While Crow is really good trading him after this year might happen if Darling is solid. 6 million off the cap would be nice (minus what we pay the backup).

If Darling proves himself capable this year, it's a conversation worth having.

Considering trading Crawford after <20 games sample size from Darling last season is pure nuttery.

 

[TorMenT]

If Darling proves himself capable this year, it's a conversation worth having.

Considering trading Crawford after <20 games sample size from Darling last season is pure nuttery.

If it does happen this year tho, those nuts and their gambles could have saved quite a bit on the cap this year. Time will tell.

 

[Blue Liner]

1) No I am talking about the Wings team who drafts well and while they have not had the best playoff success they are in position to do better as their next set of young starts start to produce. We can only hope that when Kane and Toews are Zetterberg and Pavel D.'s age we have the young talent coming through so we don't have to miss the playoffs. You might want to check Steve Y's record in TB because it is not great (he only makes the playoffs 60% of the time).

2) Dahlbeck might be a 4-5 on a shitty team but not a playoff team. He is just not that good. Everyone except you make the trade we made 10 out of 10 times.

3) He failed on a shitty Rangers team and a bad Columbus team. You might not understand this but he is a 2C here because he perfectly fits our system. You clearly don't understand this. Rarely is a player the same in all systems. AA is a 2C all day everyday for us because he is a perfect fit and his cap hit is not even close to bad.

4) Rundblad is a #7 dman that can be sent down. You just obsess over him because you don't understand how little a #7 dman means to the Hawks. The cap penalty is nothing, it is literally 50K max. He means nothing and his deal is not this blight you speak about. You would think that he was paid 10.5 million a year.

With all due respect, this is a pretty skewed stat. It's factual, but in reality he's done an excellent job in Tampa. Team's been to the playoffs three straight years, went to the Cup Final last year, and is built very well for long term success between the young talent currently on the roster and the talent in their system and have proven to draft pretty well. I'd say that's a pretty good record.

Don't disagree with anything else, but definitely don't agree with the suggestion that Yzerman isn't a good GM.

Conversely, using Detroit as an organizational example is still valid. They've had a couple of "down" years not getting past the second round but Holland's rebounded nicely putting a lot of really good, young talent in place and is proving that he is adaptable in allowing Larkin to make the NHL roster so young and so soon this year, which goes against most of what they believe in as an organization historically in his reign. I also think Blashil is going to be an excellent fit there as head coach.

As for Anisimov, there is literally no debating his worth thus far. He's been a great fit.

 

[BK]

With all due respect, this is a pretty skewed stat. It's factual, but in reality he's done an excellent job in Tampa. Team's been to the playoffs three straight years, went to the Cup Final last year, and is built very well for long term success between the young talent currently on the roster and the talent in their system and have proven to draft pretty well. I'd say that's a pretty good record.

Don't disagree with anything else, but definitely don't agree with the suggestion that Yzerman isn't a good GM.

I was not saying he is not a good gm. It was more of a mention that Steve Y. does not have a great of a track record as was implied. Stan is just as good of a GM at this point.

 

[Blue Liner]

I was not saying he was not a good gm. It was more of a mention that Steve Y. does not have a great of a track record as was implied. Stan is just as good of a GM at this point.

Gotcha. Fair enough, and agree with the bolded. I'm perfectly content with Bowman as GM. I don't always agree with every decision, but that's going to be the case with any executive in any sport. He's made mistakes, and will make more, but he's gotten a lot of things right and he's got a really good staff in place to help with those decisions.

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

That guy 'Blackhawks' who also thinks we should have traded Crawford.

Other than that, no, haven't seen anybody voice that opinion.

Actually my stance was "Trade Crawford" if there is interest

If Hawks could have found a trade partner they would have been able to roll Darling/Raanta this year and taken risk

I like Crawford but if any team steps forward with interest Hawks for cap health must consider making trade every offseason of that deal

Its the world we live in with Hawks cap issues that Crawford is most expendable part of core

 

[BK]

Actually my stance was "Trade Crawford" if there is interest

If Hawks could have found a trade partner they would have been able to roll Darling/Raanta this year and taken risk

I like Crawford but if any team steps forward with interest Hawks for cap health must consider making trade every offseason of that deal

Its the world we live in with Hawks cap issues that Crawford is most expendable part of core

I think he was talking about "blackhawks" and not you. I agree that is the trade was right you consider it.

 

[Bubba88]

Anisimov is everything we Need and want for a #2 Center