Siludin
Registered User
- Dec 9, 2010
- 7,323
- 5,240
If you recall the short but important debate between the Blackhawks re-signing Martin Havlat or signing UFA Marian Hossa, it wasn't too far from going the other way.
Havlat was still considered a 1st-line player who had played very well when healthy in Chicago, whilst his previous two playoffs were strong as well. Havlat fell off over the next 4-5 years after leaving Chicago for Minnesota and other teams, but mostly on account of more injuries as he entered his early 30s. Havlat was, however, younger than Hossa at the time, so I don't know if perceived potential longevity was all that much in Havlat's favour in the decision-making process, despite the injuries.
Hossa was considered a 1st-liner and borderline superstar, but Chicago would be his 4th team in 2 years. He was also coming off back to back Stanley Cup Finals visits with Pittsburgh and Detroit where he was on the losing side both times, so he had played a lot of hockey in that time, and there was maybe a "bad luck" vibe contributing tangibly to the argument, despite whether you believe in such a thing.
If Chicago signed Havlat to a similar-ish deal, could they have won the cup(s?) they did; was the combination of a Toews & Kane along with a prime Keith/Seabrook and other supporting players enough to inevitably propel them? If Havlat was signed to a shorter 4-5 year deal (Havlat only ended up signing a 6 x 4.25m deal in Minnesota), could the Blackhawks have retained or acquired other talent with the extra cap space to buoy their contention window past 2015?
Havlat was still considered a 1st-line player who had played very well when healthy in Chicago, whilst his previous two playoffs were strong as well. Havlat fell off over the next 4-5 years after leaving Chicago for Minnesota and other teams, but mostly on account of more injuries as he entered his early 30s. Havlat was, however, younger than Hossa at the time, so I don't know if perceived potential longevity was all that much in Havlat's favour in the decision-making process, despite the injuries.
Hossa was considered a 1st-liner and borderline superstar, but Chicago would be his 4th team in 2 years. He was also coming off back to back Stanley Cup Finals visits with Pittsburgh and Detroit where he was on the losing side both times, so he had played a lot of hockey in that time, and there was maybe a "bad luck" vibe contributing tangibly to the argument, despite whether you believe in such a thing.
If Chicago signed Havlat to a similar-ish deal, could they have won the cup(s?) they did; was the combination of a Toews & Kane along with a prime Keith/Seabrook and other supporting players enough to inevitably propel them? If Havlat was signed to a shorter 4-5 year deal (Havlat only ended up signing a 6 x 4.25m deal in Minnesota), could the Blackhawks have retained or acquired other talent with the extra cap space to buoy their contention window past 2015?
