Rumor: Stan Bowman to receive an extension?

[AmericanDream]

I can see some of your points, but Bickell had NO business getting that contract. Has nothing to do with MS. 500% raise for 2 weeks of good play. Where do I sign?

he was a budding power forward that was dominant in the playoffs...I can see what was liked there though I agree I wasn't overly happy handing out that contract to Bickell, but him getting MS is what killed his career - without that how on Earth does any of us know what he could have kept doing for us??

 

[hockeydoug]

I can see some of your points, but Bickell had NO business getting that contract. Has nothing to do with MS. 500% raise for 2 weeks of good play. Where do I sign?

Like Kruger, he was another player that probably took alot less to stick around for several years, knowing the cap situation. Bickell shouldn't and wouldn't have been there for just about any other franchise for 3 years at league minimum following 2010. If Bowman gets bashed for extending him, I would hope he gets tremendous credit for giving him a 3 year 1 way extension on the previous contract.

They had to keep Frolik, Bolland, Stalberg, or Bickell. Bickell was the most productive of the 3 for the entire year. It wasn't close. I wasn't excited about keeping him for that much, but that was the market...and it was his 4th contract. Many of us wanted Frolik but Frolik's value was going to be easier to replace....and he had trade value. Bolland had been injury prone and significantly overrated (my opinion) for the previous 3 seasons by that point, and Stalberg was going to have a tough time finding the ice under Q.

Frolik would have been the smarter keep in hindsight, because no one knew the medical concern. They were able to cash something in on Frolik and Bolland. Bickell would have been lost for nothing like Stalberg.

It's okay to look at fuller context of the decision making before critiquing the gm. It's not like he was going full-Holmgren on risk after risk.

 

[GaryU]

Like Kruger, he was another player that probably took alot less to stick around for several years, knowing the cap situation. Bickell shouldn't and wouldn't have been there for just about any other franchise for 3 years at league minimum following 2010. If Bowman gets bashed for extending him, I would hope he gets tremendous credit for giving him a 3 year 1 way extension on the previous contract.

They had to keep Frolik, Bolland, Stalberg, or Bickell. Bickell was the most productive of the 3 for the entire year. It wasn't close. I wasn't excited about keeping him for that much, but that was the market...and it was his 4th contract. Many of us wanted Frolik but Frolik's value was going to be easier to replace....and he had trade value. Bolland had been injury prone and significantly overrated (my opinion) for the previous 3 seasons by that point, and Stalberg was going to have a tough time finding the ice under Q.

Frolik would have been the smarter keep in hindsight, because no one knew the medical concern. They were able to cash something in on Frolik and Bolland. Bickell would have been lost for nothing like Stalberg.

It's okay to look at fuller context of the decision making before critiquing the gm. It's not like he was going full-Holmgren on risk after risk.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Hawkaholic]

Bickell shouldn't have got that contract from the Hawks, but he absolutely deserved it, because he was a player that could put up points, had a physical game, and raised his game when needed (playoffs). Someone was giving him that contract regardless (if not more)

 

[bwana63]

he was a budding power forward that was dominant in the playoffs...I can see what was liked there though I agree I wasn't overly happy handing out that contract to Bickell, but him getting MS is what killed his career - without that how on Earth does any of us know what he could have kept doing for us??

2 additional points:

- Bicks actually gave the Hawks a discount, albeit relatively small
- other than Saad (maybe), we had no one else with true PF attributes

 

[BK]

2 additional points:

- Bicks actually gave the Hawks a discount, albeit relatively small
- other than Saad (maybe), we had no one else with true PF attributes

Hossa.

 

[bwana63]

Hossa.

Doh! How soon I forget, wow!

 

[GaryU]

Bickell shouldn't have got that contract from the Hawks, but he absolutely deserved it, because he was a player that could put up points, had a physical game, and raised his game when needed (playoffs). Someone was giving him that contract regardless (if not more)

A guy that never scored more than 17 goals in a season didn't deserve it or more

 

[Hawkaholic]

A guy that never scored more than 17 goals in a season didn't deserve it or more

The 3 years before signing the contract, Bickell had 84pts in 197GP (35pt pace), with his most previous season at a 40pt pace. His playoffs he was almost a point per game and was a major factor in us winning the Cup. He added a physical presence Chicago really lacked, and was going to get that contract from someone, regardless. He deserved it.

 

[GaryU]

The 3 years before signing the contract, Bickell had 84pts in 197GP (35pt pace), with his most previous season at a 40pt pace. His playoffs he was almost a point per game and was a major factor in us winning the Cup. He added a physical presence Chicago really lacked, and was going to get that contract from someone, regardless. He deserved it.

The weakest argument.

 

[BK]

The weakest argument.

But valid.

 

[Hawkaholic]

The weakest argument.

Actually I'd say it's the strongest. Only two reasons Chicago signed him to that deal.

1) He was being offered that or more elsewhere.
2) They needed players like him, because they had no heavy PF in the pipeline.

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

It is a terrible argument

Just because for instance Oilers would have overpaid to have declining Seabrook or Benning in Vancouver doesn't justify the fact Hawks were team to give Seabrook that awful deal

And if the Hawks couldn't afford to let Bickell walk because they had no PF in pipeline that is a failure of management/scouting , is it not?

 

[Hawkaholic]

It is a terrible argument

Just because for instance Oilers would have overpaid to have declining Seabrook or Benning in Vancouver doesn't justify the fact Hawks were team to give Seabrook that awful deal

And if the Hawks couldn't afford to let Bickell walk because they had no PF in pipeline that is a failure of management/scouting , is it not?

What are you talking about. If someone was going to offer Bickell that money, he clearly earned it, and was going to get it. It's not like the Hawks were the only team to offer him that type of contract. That's what I am arguing. I'm not arguing that the Hawks were right to give him that contract. It's pretty clear they shouldn't have.

 

[hockeydoug]

It is a terrible argument

Just because for instance Oilers would have overpaid to have declining Seabrook or Benning in Vancouver doesn't justify the fact Hawks were team to give Seabrook that awful deal

And if the Hawks couldn't afford to let Bickell walk because they had no PF in pipeline that is a failure of management/scouting , is it not?

Hartnell signed a 6 year, 28.5 contract the summer before. Clowe signed a 5 year 24+ contract the same week, Clarkson signed 7 years and about 37 million that week, Horton signed 7 years and 37+ million that week. Lucic signed 3 years 18 million the summer before, Brouwer had 3 years and 11 million the summer before,...

Nobody liked the contract price, and I obviously spent way too much time several years ago getting aggravated about why they paid so much. The market was set higher than for what he signed for...and he was coming off of a massive discounted contract.

To the point about the front office, it was 2013. This lack of system players is what happens when you have a trainwreck of a front office drafting year over year 05-08 (Scotty started righting the ship in summer 08). Bickell took 6 years to show up as a meaningful contributor. Shaw and Saad had just emerged (which shouldn't be expected), and they just drafted Hartman. They had to peg the needle for 2 rings on the cap over 4 years...not sure how much better their decision making process should have been.

Just be mad Bickell was sick or point out an actual problem with their decision making process.

 

[DisgruntledHawkFan]

Just because somebody else is willing to spend $50k on a 2012 Ford Focus doesn’t mean you should. Yes, Seabrook/Bickell whoever was going to get that or more from somebody else if the Hawks didn’t pay up. Doesn’t mean the Hawks should have signed that piece of paper.

And BWC had no problems with the Bickell deal when it was signed. Can’t remember on Seabrook.

 

[b1e9a8r5s]

Just because somebody else is willing to spend $50k on a 2012 Ford Focus doesn’t mean you should. Yes, Seabrook/Bickell whoever was going to get that or more from somebody else if the Hawks didn’t pay up. Doesn’t mean the Hawks should have signed that piece of paper.

And BWC had no problems with the Bickell deal when it was signed. Can’t remember on Seabrook.

On everything that his holy, please let there be a post showing BWC being the lone person who thought the Seabrook deal would be fine

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

Just because somebody else is willing to spend $50k on a 2012 Ford Focus doesn’t mean you should. Yes, Seabrook/Bickell whoever was going to get that or more from somebody else if the Hawks didn’t pay up. Doesn’t mean the Hawks should have signed that piece of paper.

And BWC had no problems with the Bickell deal when it was signed. Can’t remember on Seabrook.

I was fine with Bickell contract at time and said as much

Problem I have with Bickell situation is what became after Stan botched our cap to point we had to give away asset (TT) to dump him

All the overpayments (Big and small) ended up becoming issue

Not to mention the dead cap space we had because of Bowman mistakes

 

[Panzerspitze]

Before Bickell, some whined the exact same shit about Big Buff...

 

[Panzerspitze]

I was fine with Bickell contract at time and said as much

Problem I have with Bickell situation is what became after Stan botched our cap to point we had to give away asset (TT) to dump him

All the overpayments (Big and small) ended up becoming issue

So your real issue is with the Seabrook contract which almost everyone has a problem with?

 

[cassac]

If Bickell doesn’t have MS, I am about 85% positive that everyone would think it was a great deal.

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

On everything that his holy, please let there be a post showing BWC being the lone person who thought the Seabrook deal will be fine

Here is thread

I was actually hopeful in my post while acknowledging how bad it would be in years 5-8

Also I still stand by we should have traded Seabrook and extended Saad as was my stance that summer

Seabrook extension (8 years, $6.875m aav)

 

[b1e9a8r5s]

Here is thread

I was actually hopeful in my post while acknowledging how bad it would be in years 5-8

Also I still stand by we should have traded Seabrook and extended Saad as was my stance that summer

Seabrook extension (8 years, $6.875m aav)

Oh god, now I have to worry about what I said, lol.

Should be interesting.

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

Several including Sarava pointed out the issues it would have on Hawks cap wise with regard to future talent like TT and Panarin

Sadly cap issues came quicker because of contract costing us TT and then Panarin

And people had hope for Dano back then ,, Now the guy is a complete bust

And for some reason a few people wanted Garbutt in our top 6

Yea, but the **** hits the fan in 2 years, not 5

^
Teemu hit it on head 100%

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

Post #227 I comment on how terrible the AA extension is

Proven right