Hawks of yesteryear: The place to talk/argue Hawks playing elsewhere

[ClydeLee]

There is no defending anything with regard to Sharp trade

It has been disaster and the ramifications longterm could very well be terrible if Johns becomes what many believe he can be as an NHL defender

It has been a disaster? Is not the goal of all moves and all trades and all signings to win the stanley cup.. is that not the objective measure of everything? I don't get peoples evaluations sometimes. It doesn't seem measured to that.

Like the Leddy watching and prodding. It's nice and all to keep him up on the mind for this thread but those who I know who still say, oh but still losing a guy like that as if it had negative overall consequences is very interesting.

 

[TeddyGoalsevelt]

There is no defending anything with regard to Sharp trade

It has been disaster and the ramifications longterm could very well be terrible if Johns becomes what many believe he can be as an NHL defender

Ehhh. It's all kinda overblown. He was a throw in to get rid of Sharp. That's proof enough the Hawks weren't too high on him. We have a solid top three right now. Still have Pokka and Forsling. If one turns out you have your top 4. If both turn out, you can shop Seabrook and save $.

No need to hold onto prospects you find redundant if you can move them and help your team now.

 

[Hawkaholic]

It was a cap dump, plain and simple. No one on Sharps NTC wanted him, and it took a good prospect to find a taker, while taking crap back.

Saying a cap dump trade was a bad trade is like saying I took a dump and it smelt bad.

 

[SAADfather]

That one was a terrible trade, so it's a pretty bad example to preemptively mock someone's criticism.

There is no defending anything with regard to Sharp trade

It has been disaster and the ramifications longterm could very well be terrible if Johns becomes what many believe he can be as an NHL defender

No one is defending it. It was a cap dump of an older player that had a bad year. Move on.

 

[hawksrule]

No one is defending it. It was a cap dump of an older player that had a bad year. Move on.

If it was just a cap dump that would have been fine, but we took on two crappy players, didn't save much cap, and gave up our best d-prospect in the process.

While I have nothing to base this on, I believe the rumors that SB overplayed his hand and passed on what would have been better returns.

 

[SAADfather]

If it was just a cap dump that would have been fine, but we took on two crappy players, didn't save much cap, and gave up our best d-prospect in the process.

While I have nothing to base this on, I believe the rumors that SB overplayed his hand and passed on what would have been better returns.

... Best D prospect? John's was a pretty good prospect. There's really is no denying that. But "best" is definitely a big stretch considering we had Pokka at the time. From what I heard (again all rumors) but the best offer on the table was for two seconds with something else on the table from Chicago. I completely get why Stan stood pat for something different. With the stage our core is at, future's dont help us. Stan thought that Daley would help us and missed. I'd rather have a GM that is willing to take a chance when it's needed rather than someone who is gonna jump at the first deal available. At worst this deal was a risk that diddn't work out. Move on...

 

[hawksrule]

This wasn't 'needing to take a chance'. That's a silly and inaccurate characterization. It was a bad trade through and through. As far as moving on, thank you for the advice, but I'll leave it to the mods to let me know if there's a better place than the 'Hawks of yesteryear' thread to discuss Hawks of yesteryear.

 

[SnakePlissken]

It was a bad trade through and through.

I agree with this and I don't see how anyone can make a case otherwise. In hindsight, moving Sharp for nothing (i.e. waiving or getting just some low round pick) would have been better than what we ultimately wound up with here - minus one D prospect and some dead cap space. The only defense for this trade would be that nobody would have claimed him on waivers or we couldn't have traded him for draft picks only. Seems a little out there to me, but if people want to believe that it's cool.

Just because Stan made a bad trade doesn't mean he's a bad GM. It happens.

I'm interested to see what Johns can do. Wasn't happy at all to see him go in that trade.

 

[BobbyJet]

Interesting timing for John's promotion.

 

[Hawkaholic]

The Brian Campbell trade was a bad trade through and through, but it was necessary, so who gives a ****?

 

[hawksrule]

The Brian Campbell trade was a bad trade through and through, but it was necessary, so who gives a ****?

No one's asking you to chime in.

 

[SAADfather]

This wasn't 'needing to take a chance'. That's a silly and inaccurate characterization. It was a bad trade through and through. As far as moving on, thank you for the advice, but I'll leave it to the mods to let me know if there's a better place than the 'Hawks of yesteryear' thread to discuss Hawks of yesteryear.

Lol, second you say it was silly characterization but you dont say anything to prove otherwise? Got it. Of course you don't "need" to take a chance. But with where this team/core is at, I would rather have one roster player that contributes to this team rather than two second round picks. He thought Daley would fit here and help this team. He swung and missed. It's okay, no GM is perfect.

 

[hawksrule]

Lol, second you say it was silly characterization but you dont say anything to prove otherwise? Got it. Of course you don't "need" to take a chance. But with where this team/core is at, I would rather have one roster player that contributes to this team rather than two second round picks. He thought Daley would fit here and help this team. He swung and missed. It's okay, no GM is perfect.

Lol @ asking me to prove something obvious, and then admitting I'm right in the next sentence.

The rest of your post is platitudes.

 

[SAADfather]

I was talking more about the taking a chance part but if you wanna key in on one word that's fine. I get that no GM "needs" to do anything. If we're gonna go that route, I never actually said that this was a "needed" risk. I just said "I'd rather have a GM that's willing to take a risk when needed". You were the one who spun it into me saying this was "needing to take a chance"

And lol @ saying the rest of my post is platitudes. That's pretty much your whole argument. Regardless I'm pretty done with this, this is just getting silly. You seem to like to argue for the sake of arguing rather than providing substance.

 

[Hawkaholic]

No one's asking you to chime in.

No one needs to.

You seem to like to argue for the sake of arguing rather than providing substance.

Yup.

 

[hawksrule]

I was talking more about the taking a chance part but if you wanna key in on one word that's fine. I get that no GM "needs" to do anything. If we're gonna go that route, I never actually said that this was a "needed" risk. I just said "I'd rather have a GM that's willing to take a risk when needed". You were the one who spun it into me saying this was "needing to take a chance"

I see, so you're claiming to have said it in regards to nothing rather than in regards to what was being discussed.

And lol @ saying the rest of my post is platitudes. That's pretty much your whole argument.

No. My point was that chalking up this terrible trade as 'whatever, who cares, needed to be done' is provincial, mocking those with a different opinion is sophomoric, and telling people to move on when you're the one who brought is up is hypocritical.

Regardless I'm pretty done with this, this is just getting silly. You seem to like to argue for the sake of arguing rather than providing substance.

Pot, meet kettle.

No one needs to.

True, but when most people aren't interested in a topic they refrain from participating, rather than your approach of spamming the thread with how little you care.

Yup.

Birds of a feather, you two.

 

[Hawkaholic]

I True, but when most people aren't interested in a topic they refrain from participating, rather than your approach of spamming the thread with how little you care.

Who says I am not interested? I'm simply stating the obvious, that cap dump trades very rarely get you anything good in return, especially when no team wants your cap dump (ie/Sharp/Campbell)

 

[ndgt10]

Dano scored, looking great

 

[AmericanDream]

Johns has gotten some solid minutes with Dallas. Had some tough breaks so far but he belongs at the NHL level and has looked pretty solid. good for him, hope he gets a full chance next year.

 

[Hawkscap]

The Dallas GM said they were not going to do the Sharp trade if Johns wasn't part of it. He wasn't the throw in.

 

[Hawkaholic]

The Dallas GM said they were not going to do the Sharp trade if Johns wasn't part of it. He wasn't the throw in.

Shows you how bad the return on Sharp was going to be regardless.

Even if we didn't trade Johns, people would have said it was a bad deal, but no GM wanted Sharp without getting a really good piece on top of him and shipping out their garbage.

 

[ndgt10]

Dano 2 goals and an assist tonight. Beast

 

[SnakePlissken]

The Dallas GM said they were not going to do the Sharp trade if Johns wasn't part of it. He wasn't the throw in.

And Stan also said he thought it was important to get back NHL-ready players as part of the deal rather than just futures. On the surface, that made sense since we are in a position to win Cups now rather than waiting on draft picks. It's just that the players we received were not helpful at all - literally wastes of (cap) space. It was not like when we got Rusty Olesz back for Campbell - everyone knew that was a bad contract, but it wasn't a big deal because we just bought it out. Daley and Garbutt were actually expected to help us win now.

I would much rather have traded Sharp for nothing/futures. Then we could have kept Johns as depth/prospect and re-signed Oduya. JO obviously wanted to be back here.

I just don't believe we could not have dumped Sharp for nothing/futures. If that's correct then it's really hard to say this deal was anything other than a big mistake.

 

[AmericanDream]

I think a number of teams would have liked to have a Patrick Sharp on their second line this season. He has played well for much of the year except the past month or so besides his injury...we totally got destroyed in that trade and will go down as one of the worst deals Bowman has ever made. His hands were tied I guess but still a bad trade no question especially with Johns looking to be a fixture ont hat blueline for years to come.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

In off-ice, ex-Hawks news, Saad's been working to try to rescue Syrian family members from the civil war and bringing them to the United States.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...ilys-struggle-in-syria-has-been-an-eye-opener

Honestly never put two and two together about the Syrian Civil War and the impact it might have on Saad. Knew he was of Syrian-descent, but never thought about it until I saw a topic about this on the main board.