- Joined:
- Apr 17, 2010
- Posts:
- 19,670
- Liked Posts:
- 6,433
- Location:
- Chicago
Discuss.
southern_cross_116
New member
- Joined:
- May 24, 2010
- Posts:
- 1,748
- Liked Posts:
- 1,012
- Location:
- Australia
I think that this off-season is one of those situations where: it is what it is, and that it will be something that will take a few years to actually give a final grade for it.
The fact still is, that there was limited things that could be done given the salary cap situation, and that no amount of complaining would change that. You cannot get back current NHL roster calibre talent without taking that same sort of salary back.
I think that some of the guys who had been stuck down the depth chart are seeing it as finally getting an opportunity to get a chance to prove themselves (Makarov/Skille) that they weren't going to get before. Especially Makarov -as he finally was willing to take a 2 way contract...
I don't really think too much of the salary cap in terms of the way it penalizes teams with bonuses in the way that it did to Chicago... I mean -really 4 mil in bonuses is a decent 2nd line forward or 3/4 defenseman (potentially a number 2) these days -and that is a bit extreme -but then again the owners would have been the ones to have pushed for that; I can't see the player's union being against anything that realizes more pay for their players... so in a sense it is their own fault for pushing for that.
I can't see some of the guys leaving the team as being irreplacable -particularly Burish, Eager and probably Sopel. . . if you can't come up with a forward that can net 10 goals in a season even with 3rd/4th line ice time - you probably have some bigger issues within your organization in terms of depth to be worried about... Sopel, well he was older and a little expensive for his role. He played at the level required of him -but again the bottom line is needing cap room -and it is all a business.
Anyways I think a final grade will be put on hold... it could be a pretty good offseason... it could be a case of just getting through it. Stay tuned.
The fact still is, that there was limited things that could be done given the salary cap situation, and that no amount of complaining would change that. You cannot get back current NHL roster calibre talent without taking that same sort of salary back.
I think that some of the guys who had been stuck down the depth chart are seeing it as finally getting an opportunity to get a chance to prove themselves (Makarov/Skille) that they weren't going to get before. Especially Makarov -as he finally was willing to take a 2 way contract...
I don't really think too much of the salary cap in terms of the way it penalizes teams with bonuses in the way that it did to Chicago... I mean -really 4 mil in bonuses is a decent 2nd line forward or 3/4 defenseman (potentially a number 2) these days -and that is a bit extreme -but then again the owners would have been the ones to have pushed for that; I can't see the player's union being against anything that realizes more pay for their players... so in a sense it is their own fault for pushing for that.
I can't see some of the guys leaving the team as being irreplacable -particularly Burish, Eager and probably Sopel. . . if you can't come up with a forward that can net 10 goals in a season even with 3rd/4th line ice time - you probably have some bigger issues within your organization in terms of depth to be worried about... Sopel, well he was older and a little expensive for his role. He played at the level required of him -but again the bottom line is needing cap room -and it is all a business.
Anyways I think a final grade will be put on hold... it could be a pretty good offseason... it could be a case of just getting through it. Stay tuned.
Livewire
Member
- Joined:
- Jul 8, 2010
- Posts:
- 353
- Liked Posts:
- 105
I want to know how you can give Stan Bowman and staff a D thus far?
You knew we were going to lose players due to our cap situation. Stan traded the most replaceable players with the largest contracts and in the process gave us one of the deepest and most talented prospect systems in the process. So now we have a deep young talent pool to draw from as well as the most talented core of young players locked up for the next half decade.
Some of you people don't look at the business side of this at all and just see the players we traded away and decide to get mad. It is like you think the Blackhawks could actually come up with a situation in which we could have retained the entire team and just decided not to.
You knew we were going to lose players due to our cap situation. Stan traded the most replaceable players with the largest contracts and in the process gave us one of the deepest and most talented prospect systems in the process. So now we have a deep young talent pool to draw from as well as the most talented core of young players locked up for the next half decade.
Some of you people don't look at the business side of this at all and just see the players we traded away and decide to get mad. It is like you think the Blackhawks could actually come up with a situation in which we could have retained the entire team and just decided not to.
Livewire
Member
- Joined:
- Jul 8, 2010
- Posts:
- 353
- Liked Posts:
- 105
I agree with this. Every move thus far has been predictable, we all expected the players that were traded to be gone. The real decisions lie ahead, how Stan deals with the Niemi situation and how he finds more cap space to fill out the roster... these are the issues I will ultimately grade his performance on.
- Joined:
- May 10, 2010
- Posts:
- 11,225
- Liked Posts:
- 788
I'm giving it a B so far...but that could change.
southern_cross_116
New member
- Joined:
- May 24, 2010
- Posts:
- 1,748
- Liked Posts:
- 1,012
- Location:
- Australia
I should add -that I gave a C ... with the option to regrade down the line.
What sort of turned me around from my attitude to the boards in general was having a look at the post your picture thread, and I realized there is a pretty wide range in terms of age group here. Back in the day there wasn't any salary cap and nearly every team made the playoffs.
Its all good, it still is hockey -it all works for me.
__
The other thing to consider (and as has been talked about all over the place -so it was not ever an option here), is standing pat normally doesn't work out anyways. I remember that the Hawks had a pretty good season in 1982-83 my first real one following the team religiously (radio mostly)... but then got stuffed by the Oilers (which was a semi-regular occurrence back then -or rather it became that). You figure- "get 'em next year though" ... next year never came -- the other thing too is during that year's offseason the team basically stood pat -and they had a forgettable 1983-84 season (due in large part to some really awful injuries ... but they also were pathetic on the road- winning like 6 or 7 the entire season -granted this was back in the days of seldom death overtime - at one point the entire LW position was injured -- Secord, Daryl Sutter, and Curt Fraser... ). So I guess what I mean, is while it sucks to lose your favorite guys (I was a little broken up by Savard for Chelios at the time ... but ultimately dealt with it). . . it still is a business, it still is a team -it'll be all good ... in all liklihood not as all good as this past season - but you know you can say that for any season from 1962-2009 ... and only 1 team ever gets to win ... so this season was pretty special. No one can take that away.
What sort of turned me around from my attitude to the boards in general was having a look at the post your picture thread, and I realized there is a pretty wide range in terms of age group here. Back in the day there wasn't any salary cap and nearly every team made the playoffs.
Its all good, it still is hockey -it all works for me.
__
The other thing to consider (and as has been talked about all over the place -so it was not ever an option here), is standing pat normally doesn't work out anyways. I remember that the Hawks had a pretty good season in 1982-83 my first real one following the team religiously (radio mostly)... but then got stuffed by the Oilers (which was a semi-regular occurrence back then -or rather it became that). You figure- "get 'em next year though" ... next year never came -- the other thing too is during that year's offseason the team basically stood pat -and they had a forgettable 1983-84 season (due in large part to some really awful injuries ... but they also were pathetic on the road- winning like 6 or 7 the entire season -granted this was back in the days of seldom death overtime - at one point the entire LW position was injured -- Secord, Daryl Sutter, and Curt Fraser... ). So I guess what I mean, is while it sucks to lose your favorite guys (I was a little broken up by Savard for Chelios at the time ... but ultimately dealt with it). . . it still is a business, it still is a team -it'll be all good ... in all liklihood not as all good as this past season - but you know you can say that for any season from 1962-2009 ... and only 1 team ever gets to win ... so this season was pretty special. No one can take that away.
Got teeth? Keith doesn't.
JoeHawks is a fine gent
- Joined:
- May 24, 2010
- Posts:
- 1,666
- Liked Posts:
- 220
B, none of the deals were terrible. Some might say the Steeg deal was, but I see potential in it and think some people just overrated him.
- Joined:
- May 24, 2010
- Posts:
- 5,905
- Liked Posts:
- 1,974
I for incomplete. Moves had to be made to be compliant, and we won't know the complete picture how the scouting staff and Stan did for a wee bit.
- Joined:
- Apr 26, 2010
- Posts:
- 15,922
- Liked Posts:
- 2,701
- Location:
- Chicago, IL
My favorite teams
I wont grade completely until i see the opening day roster...we dont have a full roster
but SO FAR, I give it a B+
We knew the deals had to be done, and other teams knew we had to trade players. Despite being at the will of other teams, Bowman still got some very good returns
but SO FAR, I give it a B+
We knew the deals had to be done, and other teams knew we had to trade players. Despite being at the will of other teams, Bowman still got some very good returns
- Joined:
- Apr 17, 2010
- Posts:
- 19,670
- Liked Posts:
- 6,433
- Location:
- Chicago
Code Blue voted...lol
- Joined:
- Apr 18, 2010
- Posts:
- 19,727
- Liked Posts:
- 4,700
- Location:
- Texas
no i didnt
- Joined:
- Apr 26, 2010
- Posts:
- 15,922
- Liked Posts:
- 2,701
- Location:
- Chicago, IL
My favorite teams
Do you even know what hockey is? :lmao:
- Joined:
- Apr 18, 2010
- Posts:
- 19,727
- Liked Posts:
- 4,700
- Location:
- Texas
is that the game where you u go around in circles the whole time and its really just pointless and people crash into each other to make it seem like they are really athletes and there are a bunch of radical and insane fans
no wait nvm thats NASCAR
no wait nvm thats NASCAR
- Joined:
- Apr 26, 2010
- Posts:
- 15,922
- Liked Posts:
- 2,701
- Location:
- Chicago, IL
My favorite teams
hahahaha...what grade did you give it?
- Joined:
- Apr 17, 2010
- Posts:
- 19,670
- Liked Posts:
- 6,433
- Location:
- Chicago
He gave it an A...lol CB.
- Joined:
- Apr 17, 2010
- Posts:
- 19,670
- Liked Posts:
- 6,433
- Location:
- Chicago
So far
- Joined:
- Apr 26, 2010
- Posts:
- 15,922
- Liked Posts:
- 2,701
- Location:
- Chicago, IL
My favorite teams
Its definately not a "D" Joehawks :facepalm:
ClydeLee
New member
- Joined:
- Jun 29, 2010
- Posts:
- 14,829
- Liked Posts:
- 4,113
- Location:
- The OP
What do you expect. All signs pointed he'd vote D or F, he is who he is. The slightly pessimistic overreacter who wanted every trade to be for quality NHL experienced players who weren't past prime veterans and made salaries less than a million to fit in the cap.. Yes the inacheievablity it high.:date:
Got teeth? Keith doesn't.
JoeHawks is a fine gent
- Joined:
- May 24, 2010
- Posts:
- 1,666
- Liked Posts:
- 220
I'm surprised he didn't give a Z, and then realized Z is not an option.
- Joined:
- Apr 18, 2010
- Posts:
- 19,727
- Liked Posts:
- 4,700
- Location:
- Texas
you gots a problem bout it?
Staff online NOW
-
bamainatlantaYou wake him up, you keep him up
