Can the Blackhawks turn around what is starting to look like another tough season (at least in terms of the expectations that come with 3 Cups and 5 conference finals in 7 years)?
Sure, many much stranger things have happened.
But to my eye, having followed this team since 1969, and very closely for the last 20 years+, it appears this is shaping up as a transitional season. Sure the Hawks only just dropped into second place at 46 games played. But anyone following this team closely thus far this season has had their doubts—something has seemed off. The underlying analytics haven't matched the record.
And as such, and as always, some perspective is badly needed.
On the ice, the Hawks have lost their last two games to two very good teams that will likely be in the hunt for the Cup come May and June. They got blown out on the road in the first game—a hideously embarrassing loss for a team that isn't supposed to lose that way, and they lost a close-ish game at home last night to their top division rival—a game they badly needed to play well in. They did for about 30 minutes.
There's been a lot of debate about the Hawks roster top to bottom, their youth movement, Marcus Kruger's contract, trades Stan Bowman has made and needs to make.
But the harsh reality is this: three things are hurting the Hawks this year.
1) a lack of quality forward depth, including a hole at left wing in the top 6
2) Jonathan Toews is having a bad year—and by all indications is playing through some kind of back/disk issue (not easy, trust me)
3) Duncan Keith is clearly not himself—and we all need to remember there was some question whether he would be ready to start the season due to offseason knee surgery.
Keith is and has been the engine that drives this team out of their zone and up the ice. Don't kid yourself. When he is not at 100%, neither are the Chicago Blackhawks.
Toews is needed to kill penalties, win pucks along the wall—and especially drive offense on one of the Hawks top 2 lines (AK72 being the other one). Without Toews' line producing with some regularity, the Hawks are a one-line team—an easy solve defensively for any good team, and an easy out in the playoffs.
Another skilled left wing would clearly help this team. But in light of the other two issues, it might not matter. At least not this year.
Bowman may step up as he has the last few Springs and make a deadline deal or two, including something along the lines of the bigger deals he made for Antoine Vermette (which worked) and Andrew Ladd, Dale Weise and Tomas Fleischmann (which didn't).
This is just my opinion, but you have to accept the ones that don't with the ones that do in that context. Hawk fans are blessed to have had a team that has been within striking distance for at least the last four seasons. And when that is the case, your GM has to step up and "overpay" for a shot at a Cup.
Not to go too far down that rabbit hole, but the Hindsight Brigade is now all over Bowman for trading the Great Philip Danault (admittedly a nice prospect when dealt, and a nice player now in Montreal) last Spring in one of those deals.
But here's the reality: there's no easy answer.
Fact is, no one would swap out Danault for Artem Anisimov or a healthy Jonathan Toews. And although many feel Danault's point totals this year playing with Montreal's better scoring wingers prove he is "better" than Kruger, it doesn't prove that. Because driving a scoring line is not Kruger's job. Kruger's job is to win defensive zone draws, kill penalties, and take on the defensive assignment of the opponent's top centers—all things he is actually better at than Danault. So where was Danault going to play in Chicago? 7 minutes a night, centering Jordin Tootoo and Andrew Desjardins?
That's why he was dealt in an attempt on the part of management to shore up a depleted forward corps last year. Didn't mean Danault was judged a bad player either. The Hawks just made the judgement they had the centers 1-3 they wanted.
But it didn't work out—although the strategy is hard to second guess.
The salary cap and apparently some injuries are driving the funk the Hawks are in right now—even if you are being really optimistic and just ascribing it to a temporary two game slump.
Like I said, who knows, the Hawks could turn it around this year and emerge as a great team in April, May and June—but again, to my eye, they aren't doing that without Keith and Toews stirring the drink. Because that's who's done it for the last decade. And there are not likely replacements.
So yeah, call me a skeptic about the 2016-17 Blackhawks—barring some unforeseen acquisitions and internal "repair." But that doesn't make me bearish on the team's longer term prospects.
Like others, I like some (or most) of what I've seen of Ryan Hartman, Vince Hinostroza, Gustav Forsling and Michal Kempny—especially vis a vis future seasons.
Marian Hossa is playing more like a 28 year old than a 38 year old. Niklas Hjalmarsson, to my eye, is still a great shutdown defenseman. Patrick Kane, Artemi Panarin, and Anisimov are all signed long term.
I think the big question facing the front office is whether to follow the formula of recent seasons—and go all in to try to get the team over the top this season, or take the somewhat unusual step of pulling back from the table, holding on to young assets this Spring, and assessing a few things.
Like . . .
Is Toews, at 28 years of age, on the decline? Or is he just sputtering due to an injury and a revolving door, two year audition on his left wing?
Same with Keith at 33. Injury or decline from hard miles?
I don't have a medical report on either. So I will just go with my gut. Neither of these guys are remotely what you would call lazy in the offseason. Both are somewhat freakish physically—a lot like Hossa. Remember, the popular meme last year was "hard miles on Hossa—he's now a 'third liner'."
So I fall into the camp of believing that what is going on with them are injuries—that hopefully can be addressed or healed from at some point, more likely in the offseason.
And it's no secret that both have officially been injured—and recently.
If either or both come back next year at or near 100%, hey, the party's still on, Chicago. Now, if we are talking about degenerative injuries, like a necrosis, different story.
The other issue to address would be perhaps a bit of retooling, losing a larger contract—assuming there is reasonable depth at that position where the opportunity cost of said adjustment is not too high—in order to add a bit of needed depth elsewhere.
Hence the title of this blog. Some may disagree—as some often do— with my assessment that this is starting to look like a transitional year, but not "the end" of the Hawks as we know them.
Time and more games will tell. All for now,
JJ
Chicago Blackhawks Blogger • 
Join the Discussion:
»