Morning folks.

Can someone please explain to me what the hell is going on with Patrick Sharp, and why I'm considering dropping him as a free agent for Mika Zibanejad!?


Thanks
- Colin Dambrauskas

- southernhawk

Morning folks.

Can someone please explain to me what the hell is going on with Patrick Sharp, and why I'm considering dropping him as a free agent for Mika Zibanejad!?


Thanks
- Colin Dambrauskas

Three things that have been going with Sharp since the Olympics:

Personal problems

Father Time has been calling

He is pressing big time( he needs to relax more when shooting)

Three things that have been going with Sharp since the Olympics:

Personal problems

Father Time has been calling

He is pressing big time( he needs to relax more when shooting)
- spanky

I would normally try to trade him if I wasnt happy with his production. But I couldnt trade him for anything than maybe a 3rd pairing defender right now. Sigh.

I would normally try to trade him if I wasnt happy with his production. But I couldnt trade him for anything than maybe a 3rd pairing defender right now. Sigh.
- Colin Dambrauskas

Unfortunately, just like Stan Bowman, you waited too long.
The time to rid yourself of Patrick Sharp was this past summer -- but then again, you were probably also taken off-course by Sharp's agent going public saying he "talked to Colin and Colin assured me my client would not be traded in his fantasy league."

So you're (frank)ed.
Just like us . . .

Unfortunately, just like Stan Bowman, you waited too long.
The time to rid yourself of Patrick Sharp was this past summer -- but then again, you were probably also taken off-course by Sharp's agent going public saying he "talked to Colin and Colin assured me my client would not be traded in his fantasy league."

So you're (frank)ed.
Just like us . . .


- savvyone-1

Morning folks.

Can someone please explain to me what the hell is going on with Patrick Sharp, and why I'm considering dropping him as a free agent for Mika Zibanejad!?


Thanks
- Colin Dambrauskas

This might help!

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sl4qgs

Fletcher in Minnie looks like a genius. Picks up Dubynk who goes 21-4-1 last 26 games with a 1.67 GOA ....WHO SAW THAT COMING.

Hawks need to
1.Avoid further injury
2.Get TVR and Oduya back
3.Figure out the 3rd and 4th lines
4.Come up with 23 points in their last 16 games

Not many teams in the Cap World who go into the Playoffs without their #1 scorer make it deep in a Cup Run.

Agree to disagree?
The rangers were the better team/The more engaged team.
Shots- Rags- 36 Hawks 29
Giveaways- Rags- 1 Hawks-8
Blocked shots- Rags 18 Hawks- 8
Remember when stats like these were always in the Hawks favor? Remember when the Hawks were willing to sacrifice themselves to make plays, score goals, and block shots.
And the Hawks shots(for the most part) were perimeter "oh crap, lets at least get a shot on net" with no one even near the net type shots, As they have been for awhile. And "again" Crawford was the biggest reason we made it to OT. Otherwise it ends in regulation. As the Rangers were the much better team.
- camfor

Hawks typically own possession. While its good to block shots, its not good to have to block as many to the point where its tilting possession......Now, many of those shots could be perimeter oriented, or not of any dangerous variety.....but some of them certainly were, and the fact that the other team had way more blocked shots, in this case, shows that the Hawks held the puck longer than the Rags, which is what the CF% at EV dictates. Hawks also had i believe 14 missed shots to the Rags 4. Shot blocking in general = good.....but that large of a gap in shots taken overall suggests puck possession, rather than simply not being good enough at blocking shots. Ask the Rangers fans on their blog about the game, they'll agree that the Hawks did just as good of a job as they did when it comes to clogging the neutral zone and limiting great chances...

Hawks typically own possession. While its good to block shots, its not good to have to block as many to the point where its tilting possession......Now, many of those shots could be perimeter oriented, or not of any dangerous variety.....but some of them certainly were, and the fact that the other team had way more blocked shots, in this case, shows that the Hawks held the puck longer than the Rags, which is what the CF% at EV dictates. Hawks also had i believe 14 missed shots to the Rags 4. Shot blocking in general = good.....but that large of a gap in shots taken overall suggests puck possession, rather than simply not being good enough at blocking shots. Ask the Rangers fans on their blog about the game, they'll agree that the Hawks did just as good of a job as they did when it comes to clogging the neutral zone and limiting great chances...
- SimpleJack

SJ, if you are not on the ledge or a complete pessimist you are fighting a losing battle on this site. To be fair, I am generally regarded as a pessimist by my family while I argue more of a realist. I don't think the last game was tilted heavily in anyone's favor. I do think the Rangers had the better scoring opportunities but a good goalie helps a team overcome this and Crow did. But to say it was one sided is crazy. As you noted 1st per Rags, 2nd per Hawks, and the 3rd a toss up. Rangers may have been a bit faster but lets not talk like they ran the Hawks off the rink.

Hard to argue with the mountain the Hawks have to climb especially without Kane. But after seeing years of playoff hockey I fell like the Hawks have a solid chance if a few pieces fall into place and am not ready to write off the season just yet. Of course they have to stay in a playoff spot.

SJ, if you are not on the ledge or a complete pessimist you are fighting a losing battle on this site. To be fair, I am generally regarded as a pessimist by my family while I argue more of a realist. I don't think the last game was tilted heavily in anyone's favor. I do think the Rangers had the better scoring opportunities but a good goalie helps a team overcome this and Crow did. But to say it was one sided is crazy. As you noted 1st per Rags, 2nd per Hawks, and the 3rd a toss up. Rangers may have been a bit faster but lets not talk like they ran the Hawks off the rink.

Hard to argue with the mountain the Hawks have to climb especially without Kane. But after seeing years of playoff hockey I fell like the Hawks have a solid chance if a few pieces fall into place and am not ready to write off the season just yet. Of course they have to stay in a playoff spot.
- Vark37

I would agree. While I only caught about half the game, seemed pretty even, what I was able to see. That being said, I would like to see more of the Hawks crashing the net, and getting more in a playoff mode of hockey. Didn't see much offense, outside of some spurts and sputters. That being said, IMO, the Rangers are the best team in the East right now, not that the best team x amount of games out will make the Cup. Wasn't like they lost to Edmonton or anything.

L.A. and Minny both seem to be rounding into form, and the Winnipeg/St Louis game was fun too. Bortuzzo, heard his name a lot. I know he's a lower line guy, but pretty damn active. Going to be seeing some interesting match-ups in the first round in the West.

SJ, if you are not on the ledge or a complete pessimist you are fighting a losing battle on this site. To be fair, I am generally regarded as a pessimist by my family while I argue more of a realist. I don't think the last game was tilted heavily in anyone's favor. I do think the Rangers had the better scoring opportunities but a good goalie helps a team overcome this and Crow did. But to say it was one sided is crazy. As you noted 1st per Rags, 2nd per Hawks, and the 3rd a toss up. Rangers may have been a bit faster but lets not talk like they ran the Hawks off the rink.

Hard to argue with the mountain the Hawks have to climb especially without Kane. But after seeing years of playoff hockey I fell like the Hawks have a solid chance if a few pieces fall into place and am not ready to write off the season just yet. Of course they have to stay in a playoff spot.
- Vark37

Realistically the Hawks only need to win 7 of there remaining games to stay in the playoffs. That would give them 98 points. LA, Calgary would require 11 wins and WPG 10 to meet or exceed that total. Calgary has match ups with each of the others. The Hawks remaining schedule is soft. My guess is they end up around 104 points with Minny sniffing around

Realistically the Hawks only need to win 7 of there remaining games to stay in the playoffs. That would give them 98 points. LA, Calgary would require 11 wins and WPG 10 to meet or exceed that total. Calgary has match ups with each of the others. The Hawks remaining schedule is soft. My guess is they end up around 104 points with Minny sniffing around
- Cup-Bearer

I know that they should easily make it but its not a guarantee is all I meant. And want to appease those that have one foot over the ledge.

I know that they should easily make it but its not a guarantee is all I meant. And want to appease those that have one foot over the ledge.
- Vark37

Got it 37! If they get what they have out of the bottom 6 you can start making the Red Kool aid

Unfortunately, just like Stan Bowman, you waited too long.
The time to rid yourself of Patrick Sharp was this past summer -- but then again, you were probably also taken off-course by Sharp's agent going public saying he "talked to Colin and Colin assured me my client would not be traded in his fantasy league."

So you're (frank)ed.
Just like us . . .


- savvyone-1

Who is Sharp's clown agent? I am surprised Stan held onto Sharp's contract last year knowing the rumors will make things worse for the team and Sharp. The Hawks wanted to win this year at all cost....regardless of the internal issues. Unfortunately, IMO management should take a big hit if the Hawks are bounced in the first round. Stan underestimated the diminishing return from our handfull of over 30 players and will wind up giving away Sharp and Bickell for a third and a fourth pick unless lightning in a bottle strikes both players. Hoping, I will be wrong with my critical predictions.

Who is Sharp's clown agent? I am surprised Stan held onto Sharp's contract last year knowing the rumors will make things worse for the team and Sharp. The Hawks wanted to win this year at all cost....regardless of the internal issues. Unfortunately, IMO management should take a big hit if the Hawks are bounced in the first round. Stan underestimated the diminishing return from our handfull of over 30 players and will wind up giving away Sharp and Bickell for a third and a fourth pick unless lightning in a bottle strikes both players. Hoping, I will be wrong with my critical predictions.
- spanky

Agent: Rick Curran

Am in 100% agreement with you. Very diminished returns indeed since just like the initial purge after our 1st CUP, every team in the league knows we'll have to shed salary. The difference, though, this time is that so will a bunch of other teams. The only "buyers" will be those far enough under the cap and since Sharp won't be the only asset being "sold" you can bet we'll be lucky to get a single 3rd round pick or less out of this purge.

Hung on to Sharp too long. Hung on to Leddy too long. Hung on to Handzus too long. And a list of others as well.

Guess Stan is pretty good at playin' Hangman.

BBQ place had to be Dream land...
- southernhawk

I just looked it up, definately was that place looking at the picture. Also, breakfast place was the waysider, looked that up also, little house place.

I'd weigh 400 lbs if I lived there

Did I say it was a priority? Yes, it does concern me. Rosi, Timmo, this year's version of Oduya, Rundblad, BICKELL (not just speed with him - conditioning, positioning, utter confusion and no excuse for any of it). They improved it somewhat with Zus gone but lost a load of it on the back end with Leddy. It isn't a top concern. Rangers can fly and they didn't look seriously out matched like they have at times against the Wings and Nashville this year). All depends on who Q dresses. 13 had ideal speed - even with Stalberg sitting in the playoffs they could overwhelm people.

Injuries happen. The problems here since late December are more than that. That sloppy defense has something to do with effort. TOI for key players. Line and pairing balance. Coaching. Maybe they can flip a switch? We will see.
- tredbrta

Meh, played pretty close to evens with one of the hotter teams in the NHL sans Patrick Kane. Microanalyzing one game isn't a great idea.

On the whole I'd agree that they have a system problem, personnel related, that is causing them some headaches. Either they don't have the bodies to play the way the staff (Q) wants to play or the staff is inept and cant make adjustments based on what they do have. Or they know they are in the playoffs and are looking at different options to see what they have in case they need to go into some kind of panic mode in the post season. Something to be said for not showing your hand too early.

I think you see 4-2 together in the playoffs taking the tough assignments playing 26-30 \ night with Seabrook and a Timonen (hopefully at 75-80% of what he was last year) pushing the play against scrubs. And you play match up games with the bottom pairing and double shift the horses where you need too.

I also think that their pressure in the neutral zone will change, as it has the last 2 years in the playoffs, and they will cease yielding the blue line so easily. That will create more turnovers and space for guys to attack in transition and with speed.

I don't think it is automatic but as soon as Sharp starts getting bounces (hopefully it happens!) and the blue line starts to "normalize" I think things will look more optimistic. There is still an awful lot of quality there to be too pessimistic.

Plus Crawford is having a career year and if that carries into the playoffs then maybe he steals a round and a half before Kane comes back.

Meh, played pretty close to evens with one of the hotter teams in the NHL sans Patrick Kane. Microanalyzing one game isn't a great idea.

On the whole I'd agree that they have a system problem, personnel related, that is causing them some headaches. Either they don't have the bodies to play the way the staff (Q) wants to play or the staff is inept and cant make adjustments based on what they do have. Or they know they are in the playoffs and are looking at different options to see what they have in case they need to go into some kind of panic mode in the post season. Something to be said for not showing your hand too early.

I think you see 4-2 together in the playoffs taking the tough assignments playing 26-30 \ night with Seabrook and a Timonen (hopefully at 75-80% of what he was last year) pushing the play against scrubs. And you play match up games with the bottom pairing and double shift the horses where you need too.

I also think that their pressure in the neutral zone will change, as it has the last 2 years in the playoffs, and they will cease yielding the blue line so easily. That will create more turnovers and space for guys to attack in transition and with speed.

I don't think it is automatic but as soon as Sharp starts getting bounces (hopefully it happens!) and the blue line starts to "normalize" I think things will look more optimistic. There is still an awful lot of quality there to be too pessimistic.

Plus Crawford is having a career year and if that carries into the playoffs then maybe he steals a round and a half before Kane comes back.
- fattybeef

All good points - but I think this Hawk team is trying to take a page out of LA's book - try to save some energy for the playoffs and be stronger in the later rounds than last year - but the increased competition level in the conference is messing with this plan.

Plus, with all the experts picking the Hawks to win the cup - I think other teams come here and see the Hawks as a measuring stick - and bring their "A" games most nights - it's almost as bad as being the defending champs. And the Hawks just seem to have the "disinterested" look over the past two months.

If the NHL has become a league where the elite teams really can turn it on and off - it only diminishes the importance of the regular season that much more - and I think that is the case.

Agent: Rick Curran

Am in 100% agreement with you. Very diminished returns indeed since just like the initial purge after our 1st CUP, every team in the league knows we'll have to shed salary. The difference, though, this time is that so will a bunch of other teams. The only "buyers" will be those far enough under the cap and since Sharp won't be the only asset being "sold" you can bet we'll be lucky to get a single 3rd round pick or less out of this purge.

Hung on to Sharp too long. Hung on to Leddy too long. Hung on to Handzus too long. And a list of others as well.

Guess Stan is pretty good at playin' Hangman.
- savvyone-1

I am not sure we can put this all on Stan.

We all know how much Q values his "guys". He sticks with proven commodities over change more times than not. I think the Hawk front office is sensitive to this - and gives Q some leeway in keeping guys like Handzus - even though every fan KNEW he was finished two years ago.

The other problem is Q was a former player - he relates to the 15+ year veteran a little too well - and makes it more of a personal decision than a hockey one. That is a bad blind spot to have.

Agent: Rick Curran

Am in 100% agreement with you. Very diminished returns indeed since just like the initial purge after our 1st CUP, every team in the league knows we'll have to shed salary. The difference, though, this time is that so will a bunch of other teams. The only "buyers" will be those far enough under the cap and since Sharp won't be the only asset being "sold" you can bet we'll be lucky to get a single 3rd round pick or less out of this purge.

Hung on to Sharp too long. Hung on to Leddy too long. Hung on to Handzus too long. And a list of others as well.

Guess Stan is pretty good at playin' Hangman.
- savvyone-1

Agreed. Stan and the FO obviously bet that Sharp would bounce back from that playoff. So far, not a good bet. Moving Bickell or Sharp would have allowed him to keep Leddy and possibly give Hayes the bonus he wanted (assuming money was the only issue).... This roster would look significantly better with both of them here.

Let's hope Sharp's shooting percentage corrects and Bickell finds his playoff self. Then the return may look solid this OS. Otherwise, you may be right about the pick back. If Curran is right that Stan has assured him no moves have or are being considered on Sharp that is bad news.

I am not sure we can put this all on Stan.

We all know how much Q values his "guys". He sticks with proven commodities over change more times than not. I think the Hawk front office is sensitive to this - and gives Q some leeway in keeping guys like Handzus - even though every fan KNEW he was finished two years ago.

The other problem is Q was a former player - he relates to the 15+ year veteran a little too well - and makes it more of a personal decision than a hockey one. That is a bad blind spot to have.
- dahawks8819

Call it the FO committee. Maybe the TDL moves show Stan is getting more leeway or asserting himself? I'm hoping he shows us more this OS. I wouldn't bet against the Bowmans.

Agent: Rick Curran

Am in 100% agreement with you. Very diminished returns indeed since just like the initial purge after our 1st CUP, every team in the league knows we'll have to shed salary. The difference, though, this time is that so will a bunch of other teams. The only "buyers" will be those far enough under the cap and since Sharp won't be the only asset being "sold" you can bet we'll be lucky to get a single 3rd round pick or less out of this purge.

Hung on to Sharp too long. Hung on to Leddy too long. Hung on to Handzus too long. And a list of others as well.

Guess Stan is pretty good at playin' Hangman.
- savvyone-1

A tight noose will be on Stan's neck if the Hawks do a Swan Dive in the 1st round. The biggest problem I see with Stan is his arrogance, stubbornness and his unwillingness to trade players at fair value. Stan always wants to get the upper hand in trades ..never willing to give reasonable value back. The new GM's are not listening to his offers anymore. He Hyper overvalued his draft choices and than winds up giving them away for peanuts or getting back a veteran that is washed up. Stan likes a lot of pawns but never goes for a queen or king.

I know that they should easily make it but its not a guarantee is all I meant. And want to appease those that have one foot over the ledge.
- Vark37

You are correct, there are no guarantees in life.

A tight noose will be on Stan's neck if the Hawks do a Swan Dive in the 1st round. The biggest problem I see with Stan is his arrogance, stubbornness and his unwillingness to trade players at fair value. Stan always wants to get the upper hand in trades ..never willing to give reasonable value back. The new GM's are not listening to his offers anymore. He Hyper overvalued his draft choices and than winds up giving them away for peanuts or getting back a veteran that is washed up. Stan likes a lot of pawns but never goes for a queen or king.
- spanky

Doesn't every GM want to come out ahead. Would you not think the same thing is being peddled by opposing GMs. I am not sure this is the case or at the very least I would expect there are more GMs like this then not.

There are times when trades can benefit both teams but for this does not always happen. Each GM places values on certain things above others at times. If a GM didn't listen to counter offers and give up more if needed then deals would not get done.