Going off of what you shared, I feel Gustafsson and Snuggerud (in that order) are the closest to making the jump from Rockford within the next year to play RD on the 3rd pair with either Murphy or Seabrook (if #7's playing time is sheltered more and more over time).

Of the prospects on D, I see Carlsson, Jokiharju, Krys, and Mitchell as leading the pack of possible players to eventually fight for a roster spot -- along with Gustafsson and Snuggerud -- if the current 4-5 to build around are Keith, Forsling, Rutta, Murphy, and Seabrook (eventual CBA buyout?). From the reports I've read, Jokiharju, Krys, and Mitchell can carry the mail while Carlsson is a prototypical Swedish defensive specialist.

Not all of these prospects will make it -- but as you stated -- it would be nice if ideally 2 of them do within the next few years. With Ulf and Colliton on staff, the grooming of prospects should be much better than in the past.
- AEL_Fox

I like your read on the prospects. I suspect that Krys and Jokiharju will need at least one year AHL and to get stronger. Both could be elite offensively. Snuggerud is smart and could be very good offensively, but I have not heard how well is his learning to play defensive going. I dismiss Mitchell because he appears far away, only a freshman. Isn't his size something he will always have to answer?

Actually Gus is very good but he is not ever going to get past the weak rag doll strength issue. I love his passing and could imagine he sends someone off to a break away goal. So he joins the entries for third pair imho. The swede and finnish guys oversea might be quick risers. And then let's keep an eye on Dahlstrom sort of a sleeper who probably winds up with another organization. Raydish gets some nice review on this board but what exactly is his upside. Could become good AHL like others (Pokka, Svedberg) but does he progress to NHL. He is only a first year pro, so see how much better he may become next year. I think Norell may turn out like Hjalmarsson as he has been compared to him. But how much better this year has he been?

Which, to be fair, he pretty much was while he was here - and, if rumors are to be believed, he didn’t have much drive to overcome.
- StLBravesFan

Sometimes rumors are just that, and I can't help but wonder if the FO put out there to justify something else.

Remember all the rumors about ADB not making team USA because of lazy, bad guy, etc, etc..........................

If they had diagnosed Bickells MS sooner would TT still be a Hawk?
- eagle50

Who is this they you speak of.

I would assume Hawks players, (and almost all pro athletes) have access to the best doctors on the planet.

Murphy has had a rocky start and has really entered unfamiliar territory since he started in the NHL.

He's now playing his off-side and looking over his shoulder more than he should, just hoping to get regular playing time. You get the sense from his interviews that he's just "hanging in there" and "workin' hard every day to get better".

I think once he gains a some confidence back, learns the system and puts in his time with Ulfie, he will become a valuable 4-5th defenceman.

Confidence is the key for me; he looks very unsure out there for most of the year (although last few games has looked much better).
- Justin Lowe

So I'll ask the question as I seem to every year with Q;

If a guy is coming in, trying to learn they system which everyone admits is completely different than he is used to, Why as one of the first things you do with him, is move him to his off side???????????

Who is this they you speak of.

I would assume Hawks players, (and almost all pro athletes) have access to the best doctors on the planet.
- vabeachbear

I was referring to the doctors but I also remember hearing rumours that Bickell was less than cooperative with the Hawks or medical staff or something to that affect.

Who is this they you speak of.

I would assume Hawks players, (and almost all pro athletes) have access to the best doctors on the planet.
- vabeachbear

Y'know . . . them.

I would bet that too...that McDonough would prefer to pay players more than they were asking all to grab a headline and win the newsday.
- HawkintheD

Totally makes sense

So I'll ask the question as I seem to every year with Q;

If a guy is coming in, trying to learn they system which everyone admits is completely different than he is used to, Why as one of the first things you do with him, is move him to his off side???????????
- vabeachbear

Q gets a pass from me on this Bear.

Why you say?
Well, other than Q being stubborn (if a guy PROVES he cannot play his off-side, don't make him play that side -- like he did with TVR all too often. TVR was crap on the left side but OK on the right).

In Murphy's case, I think he's actually played better on that off-side. That's not a huge surprise to me, Murphy is what, 6'4"? Gotta have 35/36/37" sleeve length which equates to long arms.

I've posted this before --my preference playing D is playing the off-side. Mainly because, if you can skate good enough and are able to transition skating forward to backward solidly, playing your off-side allows you to keep your body closer to the center of the ice surface and force more plays to the boards.

RH shot - top hand on stick is left hand. Murphy is able to cover a heck of a lot more ice with playing the off side while keeping his big body in the center of the ice. If you are trying to cover as much ice as possible, you have much great control (top hand controls stick) with top hand closer to boards instead of top hand near center of ice surface. Hopefully that makes some sense.

While Murphy isn't a "great" skater nor fast -- he does have good mobility and I think this is why we're seeing better play from him on that side.

Also -- just because you play the off-side doesn't mean you have to "Hjalmarsson" everything out of the zone. I never understood why Nik did that -- turned his back to center ice and almost everything moved out on his backhand. There is no reason he couldn't have turned his body and used the forehand -- you don't see Murphy doing the same thing as Nik.

So I'll ask the question as I seem to every year with Q;

If a guy is coming in, trying to learn they system which everyone admits is completely different than he is used to, Why as one of the first things you do with him, is move him to his off side???????????
- vabeachbear

With respect to Murphy, sometimes he seems like the house league kid who has size being brought up to AA team hoping he can figure it out. As I posted last week, I see effort from him and as long as that's the case I say play him. Playing a guy on his off side allows him to more easily see more of the ice surface. At least it did with me. Being right handed, if I played the left side D my eyes were looking the same way my stick blade was facing and made it easier to handle the puck. It was also easier to move in the direction of the boards skating backward, but a little bit more awkward moving to the middle. So I could cheat to the middle to be safe and still be able to make a play along the boards, all the while seeing more of the ice in the process. Maybe that's what they have in mind with Murphy.

Q gets a pass from me on this Bear.

Why you say?
Well, other than Q being stubborn (if a guy PROVES he cannot play his off-side, don't make him play that side -- like he did with TVR all too often. TVR was crap on the left side but OK on the right).

In Murphy's case, I think he's actually played better on that off-side. That's not a huge surprise to me, Murphy is what, 6'4"? Gotta have 35/36/37" sleeve length which equates to long arms.

I've posted this before --my preference playing D is playing the off-side. Mainly because, if you can skate good enough and are able to transition skating forward to backward solidly, playing your off-side allows you to keep your body closer to the center of the ice surface and force more plays to the boards.

RH shot - top hand on stick is left hand. Murphy is able to cover a heck of a lot more ice with playing the off side while keeping his big body in the center of the ice. If you are trying to cover as much ice as possible, you have much great control (top hand controls stick) with top hand closer to boards instead of top hand near center of ice surface. Hopefully that makes some sense.

While Murphy isn't a "great" skater nor fast -- he does have good mobility and I think this is why we're seeing better play from him on that side.

Also -- just because you play the off-side doesn't mean you have to "Hjalmarsson" everything out of the zone. I never understood why Nik did that -- turned his back to center ice and almost everything moved out on his backhand. There is no reason he couldn't have turned his body and used the forehand -- you don't see Murphy doing the same thing as Nik.
- savvyone-1

Nice post Savvy. What I wish was more clear in my post is that a players eyes naturally want to look in the general direction of their stick blade. It's easier as no rotation is necessary. So if the blade is to the center of the ice and the body is closer to the boards than the blade the player more easily sees more of the ice. Better vision, better and quicker decisions.................

Nice post Savvy. What I wish was more clear in my post is that a players eyes naturally want to look in the general direction of their stick blade. It's easier as no rotation is necessary. So if the blade is to the center of the ice and the body is closer to the boards than the blade the player more easily sees more of the ice. Better vision, better and quicker decisions.................
- 6628

Thanks 66, totally agree with you here too. Like you, always found my best side being opposite of how I shoot. Few guys ever got around me and fewer still ever made it down the middle.

I'd rather a guy shoot from the side boards all day long instead of much higher % shot from the middle of the ice too.

My only gripe with Stan Bowman would be that he was too loyal to the guys that won before. He did whatever he could to keep guys around instead of recognizing that these contracts were going to handcuff him sooner rather than later.

I don't know that you can fault a GM for trying to win a cup when you've got a core like this in place, but you CAN fault him for clinging to that core when it's clear the expense of it will hinder you going forward.

Y'know . . . them.
- John Jaeckel

Q gets a pass from me on this Bear.

Why you say?
Well, other than Q being stubborn (if a guy PROVES he cannot play his off-side, don't make him play that side -- like he did with TVR all too often. TVR was crap on the left side but OK on the right).

In Murphy's case, I think he's actually played better on that off-side. That's not a huge surprise to me, Murphy is what, 6'4"? Gotta have 35/36/37" sleeve length which equates to long arms.

I've posted this before --my preference playing D is playing the off-side. Mainly because, if you can skate good enough and are able to transition skating forward to backward solidly, playing your off-side allows you to keep your body closer to the center of the ice surface and force more plays to the boards.

RH shot - top hand on stick is left hand. Murphy is able to cover a heck of a lot more ice with playing the off side while keeping his big body in the center of the ice. If you are trying to cover as much ice as possible, you have much great control (top hand controls stick) with top hand closer to boards instead of top hand near center of ice surface. Hopefully that makes some sense.

While Murphy isn't a "great" skater nor fast -- he does have good mobility and I think this is why we're seeing better play from him on that side.

Also -- just because you play the off-side doesn't mean you have to "Hjalmarsson" everything out of the zone. I never understood why Nik did that -- turned his back to center ice and almost everything moved out on his backhand. There is no reason he couldn't have turned his body and used the forehand -- you don't see Murphy doing the same thing as Nik.
- savvyone-1

Nice post Savvy! Played a lot of hockey (forward and defence) and your theory checks out.

At the end of the day, playing your offside isn't for everyone, but if you're smart enough and, like you said, can skate well, it can be an easy transition.

Ultimately, the player has to be confident and I think Murphy is gaining some of that back.

Q also wants to play his best 6 defenceman and right now, it looks like these are them. One can argue Kempny should be in there, but they're winning and Q can be stubborn as we know.

https://goo.gl/images/MDSmbW
- tvetter

Can someone who knows about computers please tell me how to post the actual gif instead of just showing the link

My only gripe with Stan Bowman would be that he was too loyal to the guys that won before. He did whatever he could to keep guys around instead of recognizing that these contracts were going to handcuff him sooner rather than later.

I don't know that you can fault a GM for trying to win a cup when you've got a core like this in place, but you CAN fault him for clinging to that core when it's clear the expense of it will hinder you going forward.
- BINGO!

I can give you a long list of names he's moved over the course of the last 4 years for a variety of reasons - future contract $ expectations, weren't good enough or declining level of play, salary didn't fit the cap, etc.

Saad, Shaw, Bickell, TT, Kruger, Leddy, Raanta, Darling, Panarin, Versteeg, Nordstrom, Hayes and more.

You can argue about what he got back in return for them but not about blind, big picture loyalty to guys that have won. Core players are those guys a team identifies as necessary pieces to win Stanley Cups - you keep them around as long as possible, because they know how to win.

And before you say he should have known better and moved Seabrook out and not paid him, remember the premature ejaculations on here for the last 2 seasons about moving overpaid Corey Crawford because Scott Darling was the next Glenn Hall - now all of a sudden CC is their MVP and totally revered (until he lets in his next sh$tty goal). There always has to be a scapegoat - #7 is the guy in 2017/18.

Nice post Savvy! Played a lot of hockey (forward and defence) and your theory checks out.

At the end of the day, playing your offside isn't for everyone, but if you're smart enough and, like you said, can skate well, it can be an easy transition.

Ultimately, the player has to be confident and I think Murphy is gaining some of that back.

Q also wants to play his best 6 defenceman and right now, it looks like these are them. One can argue Kempny should be in there, but they're winning and Q can be stubborn as we know.
- Justin Lowe

I wouldn't blame Kempny's plight on Q's stubbornness - he has shown little improvement over the last 1-1/4 years and makes many bone head decisions on the ice. So it just might be Ulfie who prefers seeing Kempny dressed in a blue suit in the press box at game time.

Can someone who knows about computers please tell me how to post the actual gif instead of just showing the link
- tvetter

On that page, click "view image". The copy the URL form the title bar and put it in
your comment after the "IMG" tage at the bottom. Also put and IMG tag after, so like this.

[ img ]https://denniscooperblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/source-1.gif[ /img ]
I put spaces in there to disrupt the image tags, take them out.

@TramyersNBCS
Hey all. Since it’s out there… I will be leaving NBC Sports Chicago late next week to become a regional writer for the NHL. And to clarify, I will be based in Chicago for the new gig, too.

I can give you a long list of names he's moved over the course of the last 4 years for a variety of reasons - future contract $ expectations, weren't good enough or declining level of play, salary didn't fit the cap, etc.

Saad, Shaw, Bickell, TT, Kruger, Leddy, Raanta, Darling, Panarin, Versteeg, Nordstrom, Hayes and more.

You can argue about what he got back in return for them but not about blind, big picture loyalty to guys that have won. Core players are those guys a team identifies as necessary pieces to win Stanley Cups - you keep them around as long as possible, because they know how to win.

And before you say he should have known better and moved Seabrook out and not paid him, remember the premature ejaculations on here for the last 2 seasons about moving overpaid Corey Crawford because Scott Darling was the next Glenn Hall - now all of a sudden CC is their MVP and totally revered (until he lets in his next sh$tty goal). There always has to be a scapegoat - #7 is the guy in 2017/18.
- RickJ

I would have traded Toews before I signed him to that contract. Seabrook should never have gotten an NMC in the first place.

I don't fault Bowman for trying but you can't pour that much money into that few players and keep buying pieces year after year and expect results.

Finding Panarin saved you guys for a season or two, but it's going to be tough to put together anything more than a bubble team next season even if the cap goes up to $81-82 million.

I would have traded Toews before I signed him to that contract. Seabrook should never have gotten an NMC in the first place.

I don't fault Bowman for trying but you can't pour that much money into that few players and keep buying pieces year after year and expect results.

Finding Panarin saved you guys for a season or two, but it's going to be tough to put together anything more than a bubble team next season even if the cap goes up to $81-82 million.
- BINGO!

Agreed on Seabs, but the Hype around big contracts coming out and the cap rising significantly was running rampant when Toews and Kane signed. Then the Canadian dollar died. I'll give Stan a 50% pass on those. Though I really thought they'd sign for 9-9.5 each.

I would have traded Toews before I signed him to that contract. Seabrook should never have gotten an NMC in the first place.

I don't fault Bowman for trying but you can't pour that much money into that few players and keep buying pieces year after year and expect results.

Finding Panarin saved you guys for a season or two, but it's going to be tough to put together anything more than a bubble team next season even if the cap goes up to $81-82 million.
- BINGO!

No GM in the league would have traded Toews before signing that new deal.

Panarin is gone for not only contract reasons - he doesn't perform when the big boys come out to play in late April.

On that page, click "view image". The copy the URL form the title bar and put it in
your comment after the "IMG" tage at the bottom. Also put and IMG tag after, so like this.


- JRoenick97[ img ]https://denniscooperblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/source-1.gif[ /img ]
I put spaces in there to disrupt the image tags, take them out.

Thank you!

No GM in the league would have traded Toews before signing that new deal.

Panarin is gone for not only contract reasons - he doesn't perform when the big boys come out to play in late April.
- RickJ

Doesn't matter if you don't make it to April.

Panarin has as many points in the playoffs the last two years as Toews does, and only one fewer than Kane. I dunno, maybe the "Doesn't show up" argument is the same bullpoop that made TT expendable? You know, the one that routinely bites idiot GM's like Peter Chiarelli in the ass?

Doesn't matter if you don't make it to April.
- BINGO!

If the Hawks were bad enough to miss the playoffs, Breadman wasn't gonna a difference. Q didn't trust Panarin on the defensive side of the puck (I don't think you can blame him) and that is a big reason why he is gone. That trade also helped the Hawks add depth at G, which was a big hole with the departure of Darling and potential area of disaster if Crawford is hurt.