Fire Bowman

[BK]

The right move would have been never trying to trade for and sign Matt Murray

Matt Murray saved us all from another Bowman blunder

I am sorry but this post is just stupid. You explore all opportunities. Murray has a track record of being a good goalie prior to last season.

 

[Kaners Bald Spot]

COL traded a guy that wanted out. They were never going to move MacKinnon. No one is giving the front office a pass, that wasn't the point. It's really easy to say something was mismanaged and it's even easier to say that in hindsight.

Was Bickell's contract bad? He fell apart as a player thanks to his MS diagnosis. Of course, CHI didn't know he had MS when they had to trade him. If he had been healthy, that's a contract you don't need to attach Teuvo to, to move. Was the Seabrook contract bad? Signed Sept 26th, 2015; coming off another Cup; coming off seasons of 53 and 55% Corsi. I think anyone could have predicted a decline but I doubt many thought he'd call off a cliff 3 years later. And then you have the Toews and Kane contracts, where Kane has been meeting expectations and Toews really hasn't. Did you think Toews would follow-up 2015 with three consecutive <60 point seasons and 21 or less goals in 2 of those years?

My two biggest gripes with Stan, given the context *at the time* are the Panarin and Hjalmarsson trades. Those two trades set this team up for failure relative to expectations from finishing 1st the prior year. The organization was stubborn and hadn't been able to come to terms with the fact they aren't a good team -- until maybe now?

How can you be pissed at the Hjalmarsson deal? Murphy has been an upgrade over what Hjalmarsson would have been for the Hawks.

 

[HockeySauce]

How can you be pissed at the Hjalmarsson deal? Murphy has been an upgrade over what Hjalmarsson would have been for the Hawks.

I'm never going to not be pissed about that trade. Hammer was such an important cog on our defense. I will forever miss him. I also don't know that you can call Murphy an upgrade, given Hammer was on our top-pairing when he was traded and Murphy hasn't been close to a top-pairing D on this team. Every time I see Murphy chuck a puck at one of our forwards, or just dump it into the neutral zone, I cringe.

 

[HockeySauce]

For a player that wanted out Sakic got Byram, Girard, Bowers, and a few other pieces...Absolute home run trade...My point is that the Hawks have mostly failed to replace their organizational depth through bad drafts and pro scouting since basically 2015 on...Outside of Cat their drafts have been dysmal and you could even go back to 2010-2012 timeframe when their last good period of drafts were...

Yes and Bowman would have gotten a great package if any of Toews, Keith or Kane had wanted out previously. You get good packages for good players.

And their drafts haven't been dismal. CHI got Schmaltz, a productive top-6 forward in 2014. They got DeBrincat, a 40-goal scorer in 2016; Carlsson and Kayumov project as useful NHLers. 2017 they got a likely top-4 Dman in Jokiharju, another likely top-4 D in Mitchell; and Barratt, Altybarmakyan and Galvas all have NHL projectability. 2018 they got Boqvist, a likely top-4 Dman; Beaudin and Kurashev have NHL projectability and Wise/Nordgren certainly did before injuries derailed their progess.

 

[Kaners Bald Spot]

I'm never going to not be pissed about that trade. Hammer was such an important cog on our defense. I will forever miss him. I also don't know that you can call Murphy an upgrade, given Hammer was on our top-pairing when he was traded and Murphy hasn't been close to a top-pairing D on this team. Every time I see Murphy chuck a puck at one of our forwards, or just dump it into the neutral zone, I cringe.

When Hjalmarsson was traded he clearly had lost a step. He's been injured and not the same player since then.

 

[hawksrule]

COL traded a guy that wanted out. They were never going to move MacKinnon. No one is giving the front office a pass, that wasn't the point. It's really easy to say something was mismanaged and it's even easier to say that in hindsight.

Was Bickell's contract bad? He fell apart as a player thanks to his MS diagnosis. Of course, CHI didn't know he had MS when they had to trade him. If he had been healthy, that's a contract you don't need to attach Teuvo to, to move. Was the Seabrook contract bad? Signed Sept 26th, 2015; coming off another Cup; coming off seasons of 53 and 55% Corsi. I think anyone could have predicted a decline but I doubt many thought he'd call off a cliff 3 years later. And then you have the Toews and Kane contracts, where Kane has been meeting expectations and Toews really hasn't. Did you think Toews would follow-up 2015 with three consecutive <60 point seasons and 21 or less goals in 2 of those years?

My two biggest gripes with Stan, given the context *at the time* are the Panarin and Hjalmarsson trades. Those two trades set this team up for failure relative to expectations from finishing 1st the prior year. The organization was stubborn and hadn't been able to come to terms with the fact they aren't a good team -- until maybe now?

It didn't take hindsight to know the Seabrook contract would be awful. Most everyone knew that before the ink was dry.

 

[Hawkaholic]

When Hjalmarsson was traded he clearly had lost a step. He's been injured and not the same player since then.

Yet was still better than Murphy.

 

[Kaners Bald Spot]

Yet was still better than Murphy.

On what planet? Uranus?

 

[Hawkaholic]

On what planet? Uranus?

The game is called hockey.

 

[Toews2Bickell]

It didn't take hindsight to know the Seabrook contract would be awful. Most everyone knew that before the ink was dry.

The term on that contract feels like a 'thank you' deal from McD and Rocky...He had no business getting 8 years, 5 would've been completely fine given where he was as a player and how many miles he had coming off that cup run

 

[BobbyJet]

Yet was still better than Murphy.

I've always considered the 2 players very close in effectiveness. Hammer had quite a bit of mileage on him and was slowing down while Murph was significantly younger, hence a win, albeit a small win.

 

[Toews2Bickell]

Yes and Bowman would have gotten a great package if any of Toews, Keith or Kane had wanted out previously. You get good packages for good players.

And their drafts haven't been dismal. CHI got Schmaltz, a productive top-6 forward in 2014. They got DeBrincat, a 40-goal scorer in 2016; Carlsson and Kayumov project as useful NHLers. 2017 they got a likely top-4 Dman in Jokiharju, another likely top-4 D in Mitchell; and Barratt, Altybarmakyan and Galvas all have NHL projectability. 2018 they got Boqvist, a likely top-4 Dman; Beaudin and Kurashev have NHL projectability and Wise/Nordgren certainly did before injuries derailed their progess.

Bowman traded a superior player in Panarin with a similar aav/term on contract and got a worse deal than Sakic did for Duchene

 

[u2wojo]

Hammer verse Murphy is pretty clearly a win for the Hawks. Hawks have Murphy for 2 more years at a reasonable 3.85 while the Yotes have Hjammer for one more year @5. First 3 years of following the trade, Murphy (despite his own injury issues) has average 10 games a season more the Hjammer and averaged 550K less in cap.

Who's cap hit would you trade for if you were a gm (and I don't mean real dollars for a cheap franchise like Ottawa trying to get to the cap floor as Hjammer is only owed 2 more million in real dollars)?

 

[Kaners Bald Spot]

Bowman traded a superior player in Panarin with a similar aav/term on contract and got a worse deal than Sakic did for Duchene

In Bowman's defense, nobody knew how Panarin would perform away from Kane and they were never going to get fair value in a Panarin trade.

 

[Hawkaholic]

Hammer verse Murphy is pretty clearly a win for the Hawks. Hawks have Murphy for 2 more years at a reasonable 3.85 while the Yotes have Hjammer for one more year @5. First 3 years of following the trade, Murphy (despite his own injury issues) has average 10 games a season more the Hjammer and averaged 550K less in cap.

Who's cap hit would you trade for if you were a gm (and I don't mean real dollars for a cheap franchise like Ottawa trying to get to the cap floor as Hjammer is only owed 2 more million in real dollars)?

Hjalmarsson likely would have resigned here for a lot cheaper than he did in Arizona. But give me the guy who was a warrior for our team, and who his teammates loved and bonded with over a middling 4D at best who didn't move the needle up for this team in any way.

 

[Hawkaholic]

In Bowman's defense, nobody knew how Panarin would perform away from Kane and they were never going to get fair value in a Panarin trade.

Then don't trade him.

 

[Kaners Bald Spot]

Then don't trade him.

They had no choice. You could argue they should have held him for another year but they were never going to be able to afford his 3rd contract.

 

[u2wojo]

Hjalmarsson likely would have resigned here for a lot cheaper than he did in Arizona. But give me the guy who was a warrior for our team, and who his teammates loved and bonded with over a middling 4D at best who didn't move the needle up for this team in any way.

So you like the Seabs deal....cause he was a warrior loved by his teammates too. I love Hjammer when he was here, but way to many miles on the odometer and we got a similar much younger player on a cheaper hit. As far as signing here cheaper then Arizona...have you met Stunley? he would have been 6 per for 4 or 5 years.

 

[Toews2Bickell]

They had no choice. You could argue they should have held him for another year but they were never going to be able to afford his 3rd contract.

They had a choice...They had just inked a two year extension and they actually did end up having the money to pay Panarin last summer, he just didn't want to entertain Bowman and McD after they traded him...can't blame him

 

[Hawkaholic]

They had no choice. You could argue they should have held him for another year but they were never going to be able to afford his 3rd contract.

They should have held on to him for another year, or wait for a trade to materialize that makes sense for the long term. Stanley trying to be the smartest guy in the room again.

 

[Hawkaholic]

So you like the Seabs deal....cause he was a warrior loved by his teammates too. I love Hjammer when he was here, but way to many miles on the odometer and we got a similar much younger player on a cheaper hit. As far as signing here cheaper then Arizona...have you met Stunley? he would have been 6 per for 4 or 5 years.

Similar except far worse defensively, and only slightly better offensively. And no, I don't like the Seabrook deal, not even sure how you came up with that comparison, Hjalmarsson is still a legit top 4 D.

 

[Kaners Bald Spot]

They had a choice...They had just inked a two year extension and they actually did end up having the money to pay Panarin last summer, he just didn't want to entertain Bowman and McD after they traded him...can't blame him

All else being equal, keeping Panarin would have cost the Hawks their young, promising core. They would have never been bad enough to draft Boqvist and Dach and they'd have had to trade DeBrincat and Schmaltz/Strome.

 

[Kaners Bald Spot]

They should have held on to him for another year, or wait for a trade to materialize that makes sense for the long term. Stanley trying to be the smartest guy in the room again.

The only way that Panarin was ever going to have the value he has around the league now was if he was not a Blackhawk. Even if they held him another year his value still would have been that of a 2nd line forward because Kane.

 

[Hawkaholic]

The only way that Panarin was ever going to have the value he has around the league now was if he was not a Blackhawk. Even if they held him another year his value still would have been that of a 2nd line forward because Kane.

I'm not sure how you can say that. He would have had 3 straight years of being a point per game player, 3 years of being that productive, regardless of who you play with, means teams will want him bad.

Just more excuses for Stanley.

 

[Hawkaholic]

All else being equal, keeping Panarin would have cost the Hawks their young, promising core. They would have never been bad enough to draft Boqvist and Dach and they'd have had to trade DeBrincat and Schmaltz/Strome.

Trading him for a better return instead of Saad would have meant still being able to get those players but have another potential 1st round pick or at least a highly sought after prospect.