Speculation: Hawks Wishlist

[Blackhawk93]

Carlson would fix a HUGE problem for the Hawks. He is not like Seabrook because he skates so well.

It’s funny you say that because all I’ve heard is that Carlson is just an average skater and kind of a mediocre defensively.

But about the powerplay. Was it Carlson making it run so well? Or was it having Ovechkin, Kuznetzov, Backstrom and Oshie surrounding him on it? No team in the league can match that including us.

His career high before this year was 55 points. To me, this is a classic case of paying someone off of one career year that most likely won’t replicate it without the kind of personnel mentioned above. I see red flags popping up everywhere but you clearly feel differently which is fine.

 

[RememberTheRoar]

It’s funny you say that because all I’ve heard is that Carlson is just an average skater and kind of a mediocre defensively.

But about the powerplay. Was it Carlson making it run so well? Or was it having Ovechkin, Kuznetzov, Backstrom and Oshie surrounding him on it? No team in the league can match that including us.

His career high before this year was 55 points. To me, this is a classic case of paying someone off of one career year that most likely won’t replicate it without the kind of personnel mentioned above. I see red flags popping up everywhere but you clearly feel differently which is fine.

That’s elite for a defenseman.

 

[BK]

It’s funny you say that because all I’ve heard is that Carlson is just an average skater and kind of a mediocre defensively.

But about the powerplay. Was it Carlson making it run so well? Or was it having Ovechkin, Kuznetzov, Backstrom and Oshie surrounding him on it? No team in the league can match that including us.

His career high before this year was 55 points. To me, this is a classic case of paying someone off of one career year that most likely won’t replicate it without the kind of personnel mentioned above. I see red flags popping up everywhere but you clearly feel differently which is fine.

Did you watch the playoffs this year? Carlson is obviously a good skater. Defensively he is fine, not a shutdown guy by any means but not a bad defensive player. He would be great to pair Keith with.

Production wise he had a career year but even with some regression he would be worth it.

The team is desperate for a PP QB, Carlson is just that.

You are seeing red flags that aren’t there considering skating is one of them. I 100% understand being fun shy after the Seabrook debacle.

 

[BK]

No one has OVI for their PP but the Hawks have the parts to have an elite pp if they ran the same system as Washington.

 

[RememberTheRoar]

So I stumbled across this article today Strong and Weak Links: Talent Distribution within Teams

In it, the author makes multiple interesting arguments that hockey comes down to having the best player on the ice at any given time, and that depth is less important.

He says best players should be spread across multiple lines, “it is best to have as strong a player as possible on the ice at all times.”

He also says, “In free agency, it is better to spend cap space on a single star than on multiple pieces of the bench.”

So translating that to the Hawks situation, you could take that to mean that signing Carlson is much more important than signing De Haan + Riley Nash + another depth piece.

He has lots of data which he says backs up his claims. I found it interesting, what do you think?

 

[u2wojo]

I would look elsewhere from Carlson. I agree you will overpay for a career year and him being a beneficiary of a great supporting cast. It's not that his norm of 40-50 points is not really good. Rather to get him away from Washington after a Cup and 70 points means you are outbidding someone and ending up in the 8-9 million a year range for way to long (I would be shocked at under 7 years). Whoever ends up with Carlson in that range ends up not being overly fond of his deal immediately and hating it by year 3 or 4.

I would call the Rangers and see what it takes to get Shattenkirk. At 6.65 per and only 3 years, he'll be a bargain compared to what Carlson gets. Rangers should be in full rebuild mode and at the least listening on him.

 

[RememberTheRoar]

I would look elsewhere from Carlson. I agree you will overpay for a career year and him being a beneficiary of a great supporting cast. It's not that his norm of 40-50 points is not really good. Rather to get him away from Washington after a Cup and 70 points means you are outbidding someone and ending up in the 8-9 million a year range for way to long (I would be shocked at under 7 years). Whoever ends up with Carlson in that range ends up not being overly fond of his deal immediately and hating it by year 3 or 4.

I would call the Rangers and see what it takes to get Shattenkirk. At 6.65 per and only 3 years, he'll be a bargain compared to what Carlson gets. Rangers should be in full rebuild mode and at the least listening on him.

Not a bad idea based on talent and contract, but didn’t he take a discount so he could play for the Rangers?

He has a modified no trade clause, so he’d have to approve a move to Chicago.

 

[BK]

I would look elsewhere from Carlson. I agree you will overpay for a career year and him being a beneficiary of a great supporting cast. It's not that his norm of 40-50 points is not really good. Rather to get him away from Washington after a Cup and 70 points means you are outbidding someone and ending up in the 8-9 million a year range for way to long (I would be shocked at under 7 years). Whoever ends up with Carlson in that range ends up not being overly fond of his deal immediately and hating it by year 3 or 4.

I would call the Rangers and see what it takes to get Shattenkirk. At 6.65 per and only 3 years, he'll be a bargain compared to what Carlson gets. Rangers should be in full rebuild mode and at the least listening on him.

Shattekirk can be a disaster in his own zone. I like the thought though.

 

[u2wojo]

I honestly would try to target a LHD that can be a PP QB more then a righty. You have Rutta who showed some offensive aptitude and Seabrook (who hopefully bounces back to decent from bad). Jokiharju should be ready to help by next season going forward (if not helping some this year).

I would call Edmonton who have Klembom and Nurse (who needs his next deal), but also has Sekera on the left side still owed 5.5 for 3 more years. Kris Russell is also a LHD (but I think he plays primarily RD....but certainly could play LD). Convince Chia Sekera is bouncing back and to move one of Klefbom (who's deal I love) or Nurse (who puts up good offensive numbers while getting no PP time).

 

[BobbyJet]

I live in Ontario so I end up watching a few Leafs games every year at least. There’s a reason they are letting JVR go and it’s because he is not worth the money he’ll get. Evader Kane got 7 million and JVR will get that at the very least.

JVR is good around the oppositions net and that’s it. He’s not a great skater, he will not once attempt to play defense, and he’s rather soft for such a big body. I guarantee whoever gives him that fat contract is going to regret it.

It should also be noted that the Leafs had amazing forward depth which allowed JVR room to breathe as Matthews line had to face the top pairing very night and Kadris line was forced to shut down the oppositions top line. JVR played on a line with Bozak which meant considerably easier playtime.

I had no idea JVR would be demanding that much. It would explain why Leafs are not about to re-sign him. I say pass if true...

 

[Bubba88]

So I stumbled across this article today Strong and Weak Links: Talent Distribution within Teams

In it, the author makes multiple interesting arguments that hockey comes down to having the best player on the ice at any given time, and that depth is less important.

He says best players should be spread across multiple lines, “it is best to have as strong a player as possible on the ice at all times.”

He also says, “In free agency, it is better to spend cap space on a single star than on multiple pieces of the bench.”

So translating that to the Hawks situation, you could take that to mean that signing Carlson is much more important than signing De Haan + Riley Nash + another depth piece.

He has lots of data which he says backs up his claims. I found it interesting, what do you think?

That we are talking NHL, not NBA.

 

[RememberTheRoar]

That we are talking NHL, not NBA.

The article was about hockey.

 

[Kaners PPGs]

So I stumbled across this article today Strong and Weak Links: Talent Distribution within Teams

In it, the author makes multiple interesting arguments that hockey comes down to having the best player on the ice at any given time, and that depth is less important.

He says best players should be spread across multiple lines, “it is best to have as strong a player as possible on the ice at all times.”

He also says, “In free agency, it is better to spend cap space on a single star than on multiple pieces of the bench.”

So translating that to the Hawks situation, you could take that to mean that signing Carlson is much more important than signing De Haan + Riley Nash + another depth piece.

He has lots of data which he says backs up his claims. I found it interesting, what do you think?

Thanks for the link. I enjoyed the article.

I will admit that I started to get lost with some of the stats. In terms of spreading out the talent versus loading up, I still think there are too many variables and differences with skillsets that needs to be considered. Talented players need to play with other talented players to get the most out of their skills. A playmaker needs to have someone with him that can finish and on the other hand a sniper needs someone to get him in the puck in a scoring position.

And with hockey being such a low-scoring game, you only need to score 3-4 times per game. I would rather have two dominant lines that play 60% of the game rather than going to 3 lines that each are less effective for 80% of the game. This is why I never like any of the line suggestions that have Schmaltz or Toews on the 3rd line. Load up 2 lines, try to find something with a easy matchup 3rd line, and use the 4th line as a neutralizer on their shift.

 

[RememberTheRoar]

Thanks for the link. I enjoyed the article.

I will admit that I started to get lost with some of the stats. In terms of spreading out the talent versus loading up, I still think there are too many variables and differences with skillsets that needs to be considered. Talented players need to play with other talented players to get the most out of their skills. A playmaker needs to have someone with him that can finish and on the other hand a sniper needs someone to get him in the puck in a scoring position.

And with hockey being such a low-scoring game, you only need to score 3-4 times per game. I would rather have two dominant lines that play 60% of the game rather than going to 3 lines that each are less effective for 80% of the game. This is why I never like any of the line suggestions that have Schmaltz or Toews on the 3rd line. Load up 2 lines, try to find something with a easy matchup 3rd line, and use the 4th line as a neutralizer on their shift.

Ya, I didn’t understand some of the stats he was citing either.

I think it may have made sense to split guys up on three lines when Panarin was still here. While Kane and Panarin were awesome together, Panarin and Kane can both carry lines of lesser talented players.

 

[Kaners PPGs]

Ya, I didn’t understand some of the stats he was citing either.

I think it may have made sense to split guys up on three lines when Panarin was still here. While Kane and Panarin were awesome together, Panarin and Kane can both carry lines of lesser talented players.

Splitting up players definitely depends on their skillset. Part of the reason Kane is so brilliant is that he's an elite playmaker AND sniper. IMO this is the reason why he has been able to make so many combinations work. And you're right about Panarin. We saw this year that Panarin can be a playmaker as well. Maybe in hindsight those guys should have been split but it was tough to argue with the results.

Schmaltz on the other hand is primarily a playmaker therefore he needs talented players with him. This is why I want him centering Kane or possibly playing wing with Toews. When you look at usage, it's hard not to realize how remarkable Debrincat's season was last year. He played more than half the season on lines without Kane, Toews, or Schmaltz and he still scored 52 points. Throw in that he was 21 and played less than 15 minutes a game. Why the hell did Q use him like that?

 

[RememberTheRoar]

Splitting up players definitely depends on their skillset. Part of the reason Kane is so brilliant is that he's an elite playmaker AND sniper. IMO this is the reason why he has been able to make so many combinations work. And you're right about Panarin. We saw this year that Panarin can be a playmaker as well. Maybe in hindsight those guys should have been split but it was tough to argue with the results.

Schmaltz on the other hand is primarily a playmaker therefore he needs talented players with him. This is why I want him centering Kane or possibly playing wing with Toews. When you look at usage, it's hard not to realize how remarkable Debrincat's season was last year. He played more than half the season on lines without Kane, Toews, or Schmaltz and he still scored 52 points. Throw in that he was 21 and played less than 15 minutes a game. Why the hell did Q use him like that?

I think you can make a pretty good case for building two lines around Kane and DeBrincat, for exactly the reasons you mentioned.

Maybe Schmaltz goes with DeBrincat to set up his scoring chances, while Kane returns to creating for himself and elevating other players.

Maybe you load the Toews line, and have Kane and DeBrincat carry their own lines. I don’t know, it’s an interesting thought. I’m not sure how realistic it is though.

 

[BK]

I think you can make a pretty good case for building two lines around Kane and DeBrincat, for exactly the reasons you mentioned.

Maybe Schmaltz goes with DeBrincat to set up his scoring chances, while Kane returns to creating for himself and elevating other players.

Maybe you load the Toews line, and have Kane and DeBrincat carry their own lines. I don’t know, it’s an interesting thought. I’m not sure how realistic it is though.

20-19-12
OW/BT-8-88

 

[Toews2Bickell]

20-19-12
OW/BT-8-88

That top 6 just makes too much sense. Add a top 4 defenseman, a backup goalie and a bottom 6 forward, should be an improved team.

 

[BK]

I would like the Hawks to see what the BJs would want for Ryan Murray. Maybe something based around AA.

 

[u2wojo]

I would like the Hawks to see what the BJs would want for Ryan Murray. Maybe something based around AA.

I wouldn't hate Ryan Murray on the Hawks, but it seems to me you can find a LD in free agency without spending trade capital. The RFA I want from Columbus is Boone Jenner think he could help in the middle 6 at center or LW.

 

[u2wojo]

Would you be able to get Dougie Hamilton out of Calgary for something built around Saad and not have to include either of the firsts? Maybe Bill Peters loves Saad from his days with the Hawks? Add Forsling? 2019 2nd? They do have Andersson as an NHL ready RD and Fox probably as soon as next year and need some scoring/wing help.

 

[Toews2Bickell]

Would you be able to get Dougie Hamilton out of Calgary for something built around Saad and not have to include either of the firsts? Maybe Bill Peters loves Saad from his days with the Hawks? Add Forsling? 2019 2nd? They do have Andersson as an NHL ready RD and Fox probably as soon as next year and need some scoring/wing help.

Not trading Saad+Forsling for Hamilton, and it should raise some red flags that they’re looking to move on from him only a few years after trading for him and handing him a big contract.

 

[BobbyJet]

Loading up the top 6 may work in the RS but is likely to fizzle out in the PO's. We had a solid dose of exactly that when Panarin was here. If all Hawks want to do is entertain in the RS, then by all means load 'em up.... but SC contenders have balanced line-ups.

 

[RememberTheRoar]

Loading up the top 6 may work in the RS but is likely to fizzle out in the PO's. We had a solid dose of exactly that when Panarin was here. If all Hawks want to do is entertain in the RS, then by all means load 'em up.... but SC contenders have balanced line-ups.

What would that balanced lineup look like for you?

 

[BobbyJet]

What would that balanced lineup look like for you?

Unfortunately, Hawks currently don't have the personnel, especially on the blue line, to ice such and be a contender.