Follow @jaeckel



No game tonight. No game last night. And no new trade rumors in 24 hours (coming my way anyway). I will summarize the trade situation later in this blog.

First, a few thoughts on the trade deadline in general, and a minor epiphany I had yesterday in a message board discussion with a longtime reader/commenter.

Trade deadlines are incredibly exciting and immensely frustrating at the same time. Yesterday and Sunday, and last night, Hawk fans sat on the sideline as other teams stepped up and made "big" deals. The aftermath is fairly predictable in terms of fan perceptions:

"Huge overpay."

"Look out for (team X). They're stacked."

"Get 'er done, Stan. Get ANYTHING done."

All of these are valid. All of these are stupid.

As we used to do around here with some regularity, let's explode a trade deadline myth.

"Trade deadline deals rarely work out."

This is too broad, incorrect, and not based on actual math.

First, actual math states that only one out of 16 teams in the playoffs every year will actually win the Cup. So to base an assessment of the success of a trade deadline deal on whether the team wins the Cup is almost unfairly inaccurate.

More importantly, let's define what "working out" means. Winning the Cup? Sure, maybe for a team like the Hawks have been the last couple of years—that close. And their batting average in the last couple of years is .500. And there are other instances of teams making those deals, like the Kings acquiring Jeff Carter in 2012, where they result in summer parades. But for teams just hoping to go a round or two deeper, make some more playoff money, achieve bonuses and gain valuable playoff experience, there's a different, broader definition of a deal "working out."

And by that metric, I would argue, the success rate of trade deadline deals is higher than some are willing to concede.

Perusing Twitter and my own message board thread yesterday, I sensed a lot of despair and desperation, a lot of fans just hoping Stan Bowman will do something. Let me be clear, I like when the Hawks make trades. I get more site traffic, and it's fun to chase the rumors and the twisting sagas that surround deals that actually happen. But my own personal opinion is, not every deal is a good one.

Still, my belief today is, as teams like Minnesota and Washington, who the Hawks well might have to get through to win a Cup, load up and at the very least add quality depth—so critical in the playoffs—the Hawks would do well to exceed the current TDL upgrade of Tomas Jurco.

Because the other point of view I read often is that any sacrifice of Hawk prospects or rookies would automatically be a bad thing. Setting aside the fact that an absolute statement like that ignores so many real-world possibilities and permutations, it also seems to rest in a blithe dismissal of how good some of the Hawks' playoff opponents already are, and may be after the deadline—and how the Hawks' recent uptick in play is by no means permanent or guaranteed.

Because if you want to win a Cup, now is the time. 5-10 years from now, then the quality core of the Hawks is on fumes or retired, that time is likely going to be passed, as hard as that reality of salary cap economics is to accept.

But this is an old argument, and one the recurs every year at this time.

As for the Hawks today, it's a tough call because it's been so quiet the last 24 hours But here's what I have heard.

The Hawks were, in fact, interested in Martin Hanzal—but they were never inclined to get into a bidding war. That much is true. And when that dynamic emerged, the Hawks quietly fell away.

Anyone who buys the post-Minnesota trade spin that the Hawks were never "serious" about Hanzal needs to understand two things. The player himself, when he was at the UC last week, clearly acknowledged the very real possibility that he might end up playing for Chicago in interviews with Chicago reporters. Secondly, you have to run any post-trade "legit" media statement that remotely affects the Hawks through the "Team PR Debunker 5000."

Put another way, when the Hawks push out to reporters "we were never really interested in Hanzal," it sounds a lot better than "yeah, we liked Hanzal, but there was a price that we were not willing to go to for him. Minnesota did. So we'll see how that goes." Not when you might well be facing that team in round 2 of the playoffs—and you could possibly lose to them.

Let's please get real.

Now a quick note, one of the commenters yesterday, actually a couple of them, kinda hit me with a brick bat. Some of these post-trade statements, like the equally silly, "Chicago was after Tomas Jurco for 6 weeks," (when in all likelihood—and according to what I heard, they were actually after Tomas Tatar before pulling back and grabbing Jurco off the clearance shelf), may well be intended for the player and his future teammates. Saying: "we believe in you" to the player, and to the team, "we're working hard to add pieces to help you."

I forget that sometimes. And from a Hawk fan perspective, that's more commendable on the part of the team.

But I digress again. I was told, until Sunday night, the Hawks are more in "listening" mode, will not overpay, but exploring a lot of angles."

What I heard on Sunday were two things. First, earlier in the day, that the team was ramping up it's interest in one Johnny Oduya—in response to concern over the health of Niklas Hjalmarsson. This was echoed yesterday morning by two separate sources who've been generally accurate in the past. I also heard from one that a broader search for a higher quality defenseman, as opposed to just third pairing depth, had been undertaken.

Secondly, Sunday night, I heard that what stung a lot more than Hanzal going elsewhere, which in fairness, the Hawks weren't going to overpay for anyway, was that he went to rival Minnesota.

Regardless of the price, in adding Hanzal and Ryan White for futures, the Wild got deeper and better.

And the Wild were already a very, very good team—and not one the Hawks are taking for granted.

What I heard then was, the tone of the Hawks deadline activity had changed, from "listening," to a "more proactive" and daring inclination.

Then, pretty much dead air for 24 hours. So was the Sunday night missive bad info? Or is it quiet because there's something cooking? And there's always the possibility that prices will remain too high for the Hawks.

There is a crazy rumor out there that the Hawks and Kings are "in" on Zdeno Chara. Hmmm. From a pure hockey perspective, in terms of a useful playoff asset, I'd be on board with that. the problem is the dollars, cap-wise, are very hard to make work. Although there is that thing called retained salary. I also have not heard that name—yet—from any sources. But, note, I did hear of a push for a higher (no pun intended) profile defenseman.

So that's what I have. I thought I would have more to share yesterday, but didn't. I would think today will be different. Please also recall that most of Bowman's trade deadline work is typically done in the last 24-48 hours before the deadline.

Buckle in.



JJ

Join the Discussion: » 900 Comments » Post New Comment

» Thanks and Farewell

» Where do we go from here?

» Preds at Hawks Breakdown

» "All Teams Have Flaws"

» The Games You Should Win