Regarding Saad, if you will read my post I have NOT taken Stan to task on that, but early returns are not good. I think that one turns around. So all my "incessant negativity" I am still willing to let that one (and even the Murphy deal) play out a bit.

The rest of your post was absolute spin. Pokka was never going to be good, he couldn't skate. Leddy should have been traded way before the day before the season began. Same as the Sharp trade...waited too long, lost the market, got screwed. Don't forget they got 2 other players for him. Never to be heard from in Chicago lore again.

Loading up for the playoffs? By bringing in healthy scratch scrubs? I guess our opinion of loading up is different.

The MS thing with Bickell is completely irrelevant. Sad as that is, moving his deal (for whatever reason) cost the Hawks a terrific young player. You can NOT celebrate every good player Stan acquires and then explain or justify every good player he has to dump.

I will give Stan credit where I believe credit is due...

His absolutely good moves?
-Getting Leddy was great (this move subsequently washed away)
-Getting Oduya for a pair of 2s was very good
-Adding richards and vermette were nice pickups
-Frolik for Skille (I think) was super
-Drafting of Saad
-Early returns on his drafts of Hayden and Cat look good.

Stan's good trades are years out. He hasn't made a good trade in like 3 or 4 years....Panik for Morin had potential, but that one has turned into nothing (sorry don't like Duclair at all).

I can admit where he has done well, sadly, of late it's been mostly hard misses.
- kwolf68

I'd like to hear your spin on how today's PGH trade was vastly different than the Vermette trade and worthy of big praise where Stan's pickup of Vermette was merely a meh, part of the job description or as stated above...a nice pickup.

To your good I'd add drafting Shaw, Schmaltz and Hartman. Picking up Panarin and TVR outside the draft. Getting Zus in a small but turned out to be good move in '13 and for as much crap as Rozy got after, he was a great add in '13.

@PierreVLeBrun

Volume of calls started to pick up on Plekanec today as soon as news leaked out of Brassard trade. Habs should have enough there by Monday to make a decision.

Surely people are calling on AA if Plekanec is getting that big of interest.

People should be free to express whatever opinions they have. As long as it's not personal. The lecturing of what people post is absurd.

I can't stand PowerEnforcers constant conspiracy theories. Sometimes I post a funny response to him (usually a picture of a tin foil hat) but mainly I let it go. I also get tired of Vandermeers constant drive to stock the Hawks with goons. Sometimes I'll debate him, but never will I tell him he shouldn't post it. That's his view. I think it's wrong, but it's his view, I'm cool with it....though I do think we do need to be tougher...Hawks have been a soft team for a long time now.

I also have been defending Q on this board, though of late that's getting harder and harder. I'm not telling people they shouldn't be so negative about him because he coached the Hawks to 3 Cups. I think he should stay, but others don't believe that. Maybe they are right....i don't think they are, but who knows?
- kwolf68

thank you

You use that word objectively a lot for someone who really isn't. Any trade that helps you win a cup, are the best trades made that year, to say its not, well I can't really put it into words other than keep up the good"objective" work.
- BetweenTheDots

What “objective” means is being able to look at issues without being influenced by one arguably irrelevant factor. For you Dots you give it away when you say “Any trade that helps you win a cup, are the best trades made that year...”. So if the Hawks won the Cup after the abominable Ladd trade, the Ladd trade instantly becomes great? If the Hawks win after the abominable Weise/Fleishman trade that trade instantly becomes great? Of course not as this is complete pretzel logic. In the same manner giving up way too much for Vermette in a trade doesn’t change because the team wins the Cup, where Verrmette’s contribution was not major. Remember, as well that your beloved Q basically despised Vermette.

Bowman’s history in many of his major trades is to pay way too much, way beyond what the market dictated. Of course the other teams jump in. The only true analysis of a trade is whether you stole, you reflected market value or you got fleeced. Bowman has been fleeced many times.

@PierreVLeBrun

Volume of calls started to pick up on Plekanec today as soon as news leaked out of Brassard trade. Habs should have enough there by Monday to make a decision.

Surely people are calling on AA if Plekanec is getting that big of interest.
- JRoenick97

I would think, but do you think a playoff team is going to give you anything off their current roster to acquire him? Just saying I'd be surprised if there was an actual hockey trade for him which is what I'd prefer.

People should be free to express whatever opinions they have. As long as it's not personal. The lecturing of what people post is absurd.

I can't stand PowerEnforcers constant conspiracy theories. Sometimes I post a funny response to him (usually a picture of a tin foil hat) but mainly I let it go. I also get tired of Vandermeers constant drive to stock the Hawks with goons. Sometimes I'll debate him, but never will I tell him he shouldn't post it. That's his view. I think it's wrong, but it's his view, I'm cool with it....though I do think we do need to be tougher...Hawks have been a soft team for a long time now.

I also have been defending Q on this board, though of late that's getting harder and harder. I'm not telling people they shouldn't be so negative about him because he coached the Hawks to 3 Cups. I think he should stay, but others don't believe that. Maybe they are right....i don't think they are, but who knows?
- kwolf68

Unless you disagree.
There is a difference between debate and condescension

What “objective” means is being able to look at issues without being influenced by one arguably irrelevant factor. For you Dots you give it away when you say “Any trade that helps you win a cup, are the best trades made that year...”. So if the Hawks won the Cup after the abominable Ladd trade, the Ladd trade instantly becomes great? If the Hawks win after the abominable Weise/Fleishman trade that trade instantly becomes great? Of course not as this is complete pretzel logic. In the same manner giving up way too much for Vermette in a trade doesn’t change because the team wins the Cup, where Verrmette’s contribution was not major. Remember, as well that your beloved Q basically despised Vermette.

Bowman’s history in many of his major trades is to pay way too much, way beyond what the market dictated. Of course the other teams jump in. The only true analysis of a trade is whether you stole, you reflected market value or you got fleeced. Bowman has been fleeced many times.
- Z3Hawk

RE: Vermette...the guy was dialed in at the dot in that Tampa series. It seemed like he won every damn FO (especially D-Zone).

What “objective” means is being able to look at issues without being influenced by one arguably irrelevant factor. For you Dots you give it away when you say “Any trade that helps you win a cup, are the best trades made that year...”. So if the Hawks won the Cup after the abominable Ladd trade, the Ladd trade instantly becomes great? If the Hawks win after the abominable Weise/Fleishman trade that trade instantly becomes great? Of course not as this is complete pretzel logic. In the same manner giving up way too much for Vermette in a trade doesn’t change because the team wins the Cup, where Verrmette’s contribution was not major. Remember, as well that your beloved Q basically despised Vermette.

Bowman’s history in many of his major trades is to pay way too much, way beyond what the market dictated. Of course the other teams jump in. The only true analysis of a trade is whether you stole, you reflected market value or you got fleeced. Bowman has been fleeced many times.
- Z3Hawk

In the end who cares about the backstory in this case. Yes, Q sat Vermy during the regular season and possibly even a playoff game IIRC.

How did Bowman get fleeced in this deal or why was it bad? Getting Vermette allowed the Hawks to roll consistently with 4 lines in the playoffs and gave you another defensive center who was great on draws throughout that Cup run...and he scored 3 GWG's which I think was 2nd most on the team that year in the playoffs.

I heard it last night at my game. That was before the trade. VGK-Tampa please
- JRoenick97

Actually I'd love that matchup. No Pittsburgh. And two super fast teams that are exciting to watch.

@RealKyper

Hearing @NHL has rejected the Brassard trade unless @penguins @Senators @GoldenKnights can restructure the trade to leagues satisfaction.

Teams trying to move players love if a competition develops over those players driving up the price. It is not a good sign for the Hawks that teams trade early with Bowman - what it tells you is out of the box Bowman offers more than they believe they will get by waiting. Over-paying is not deal-making.

In the end who cares about the backstory in this case. Yes, Q sat Vermy during the regular season and possibly even a playoff game IIRC.

How did Bowman get fleeced in this deal or why was it bad? Getting Vermette allowed the Hawks to roll consistently with 4 lines in the playoffs and gave you another defensive center who was great on draws throughout that Cup run...and he scored 3 GWG's which I think was 2nd most on the team that year in the playoffs.
- HawkintheD

Q actually played Vermette at wing at one point. Maddening. Hawks need a center desperately. Stan goes out and gets that center. Q plays him at wing.

Do people ever think, that knowing how dominant the Hawks were, how they were against a cap, in order to get the depth needed to win those 2 silly cups, teams demanded more from Chicago than just an equal trade?

If Stan did nothing...people cry

Overpays as he did/had to in attempt to shore up the team - and he's wrong.

People on here were insane when they got Daley - citing how horrible his numbers were in DAL - and now whine about them dumping him when he said he wouldn't play his off side, didn't like the system, etc.

I know, I know...stan is at fault for the cap, too. I mean all those other teams have no problem winning multiple cups all under the cap.

Cue the "PITT" is now doing it - yet it took years of them to rebuild and the cap to go up, before Crosby and Malkin contracts leveled out against the cap. And, Crosby and Malkin keepnplaying at a high level while Kane does, but the other large cap hit doesn't. But I'm sure that's on Q's coaching that Toews now sucks

@CRoumeliotis


#Blackhawks officially activate Jan Rutta from injured reserve.

Do people ever think, that knowing how dominant the Hawks were, how they were against a cap, in order to get the depth needed to win those 2 silly cups, teams demanded more from Chicago than just an equal trade?

If Stan did nothing...people cry

Overpays as he did/had to in attempt to shore up the team - and he's wrong.

People on here were insane when they got Daley - citing how horrible his numbers were in DAL - and now whine about them dumping him when he said he wouldn't play his off side, didn't like the system, etc.

I know, I know...stan is at fault for the cap, too. I mean all those other teams have no problem winning multiple cups all under the cap.

Cue the "PITT" is now doing it - yet it took years of them to rebuild and the cap to go up, before Crosby and Malkin contracts leveled out against the cap. And, Crosby and Malkin keepnplaying at a high level while Kane does, but the other large cap hit doesn't. But I'm sure that's on Q's coaching that Toews now sucks.
- PatShart

I think you forgot Seabrook sucks and we don't have enough big guys to win. Outside of that, mostly nailed all the repeated opinions on here.

What “objective” means is being able to look at issues without being influenced by one arguably irrelevant factor. For you Dots you give it away when you say “Any trade that helps you win a cup, are the best trades made that year...”. So if the Hawks won the Cup after the abominable Ladd trade, the Ladd trade instantly becomes great? If the Hawks win after the abominable Weise/Fleishman trade that trade instantly becomes great? Of course not as this is complete pretzel logic. In the same manner giving up way too much for Vermette in a trade doesn’t change because the team wins the Cup, where Verrmette’s contribution was not major. Remember, as well that your beloved Q basically despised Vermette.

Bowman’s history in many of his major trades is to pay way too much, way beyond what the market dictated. Of course the other teams jump in. The only true analysis of a trade is whether you stole, you reflected market value or you got fleeced. Bowman has been fleeced many times.
- Z3Hawk

Tell me, what was the market for vermette when they got him. Since you obviously know

I would think, but do you think a playoff team is going to give you anything off their current roster to acquire him? Just saying I'd be surprised if there was an actual hockey trade for him which is what I'd prefer.
- HawkintheD

I don't think anyone would give up anything off current roster, but that still may work for AA.

For example, Columbus sends us a 1 and say Gabriel Carlsson for AA... CBJ loses nothing off big team. Hawks get another 1 and a D-man, who while not sexy as far as offense goes, is a rock in his own zone and getting close to being ready.

In the end who cares about the backstory in this case. Yes, Q sat Vermy during the regular season and possibly even a playoff game IIRC.

How did Bowman get fleeced in this deal or why was it bad? Getting Vermette allowed the Hawks to roll consistently with 4 lines in the playoffs and gave you another defensive center who was great on draws throughout that Cup run...and he scored 3 GWG's which I think was 2nd most on the team that year in the playoffs.
- HawkintheD

Vermette brought very little to the Hawks - just ask Q. Also he was a Rental. Bowman gave up a lot to get him. What am I saying that is not clear? Could have got someone else or used someone internally. Q would've preferred that and the Hawks would have had both the Cup and their First Round draft choice.

I don't think anyone would give up anything off current roster, but that still may work for AA.

For example, Columbus sends us a 1 and say Gabriel Carlsson for AA... CBJ loses nothing off big team. Hawks get another 1 and a D-man, who while not sexy as far as offense goes, is a rock in his own zone and getting close to being ready.
- kwolf68

we need D desperately!!!!

I don't think anyone would give up anything off current roster, but that still may work for AA.

For example, Columbus sends us a 1 and say Gabriel Carlsson for AA... CBJ loses nothing off big team. Hawks get another 1 and a D-man, who while not sexy as far as offense goes, is a rock in his own zone and getting close to being ready.
- kwolf68

CBJ has been losing A LOT lately (I know bc I have Bobrovsky in fantasy). They are trying to win this year, and Big Art is the perfect addition to their youthful Centers who have underperformed in Dubois and Wennberg. Hopefully Stan was just posturing with the reported "unavailable" status for Anisimov. Would be great to reverse fortunes at the Trade Deadline and snag an elite prospect and 1st round pick from someone......

Vermette brought very little to the Hawks - just ask Q. Also he was a Rental. Bowman gave up a lot to get him. What am I saying that is not clear? Could have got someone else or used someone internally. Q would've preferred that and the Hawks would have had both the Cup and their First Round draft choice.
- Z3Hawk

This is quite literally the first time I've heard that opinion. Stan didn't give up a lot. He gave up a late first and a fringe NHL prospect.

CBJ has been losing A LOT lately (I know bc I have Bobrovsky in fantasy). They are trying to win this year, and Big Art is the perfect addition to their youthful Centers who have underperformed in Dubois and Wennberg. Hopefully Stan was just posturing with the reported "unavailable" status for Anisimov. Would be great to reverse fortunes at the Trade Deadline and snag an elite prospect and 1st round pick from someone......
- EnzoD

Or he didn't want to waive.

we need D desperately!!!!
- glennjpawlak22

You can say that again. And we need people who can handle their own zone, which is why I have my eye on Carlsson. I think that kid could eventually be a solid 2nd pairing guy and provide a bit of what was lost when Hammer was moved. The book on him is blueline back he's a keeper. Probably not gonna be a PP QB, but he handles things well in front of his own net.

Getting the extra #1 could allow more shots at the dark, OR that could be a piece to package with the Hawks other pick to move up and get one of the top 5 blue chippers.

Most of the really awesome young guys CBJ has, like Werenski and Bgorkstad (sp) are not available. So try for their next tier guys. This also entails opening up the 4.6 of cap space. Mind you if AA is moved the Hawks have to go find a L3-C at the least.

In the end who cares about the backstory in this case. Yes, Q sat Vermy during the regular season and possibly even a playoff game IIRC.

How did Bowman get fleeced in this deal or why was it bad? Getting Vermette allowed the Hawks to roll consistently with 4 lines in the playoffs and gave you another defensive center who was great on draws throughout that Cup run...and he scored 3 GWG's which I think was 2nd most on the team that year in the playoffs.
- HawkintheD

Poppycock!!!
3 GWG in 16 games mean nothing....Stan got fleeced, anyone could have overpaid for that slug.

Poppycock!!!
3 GWG in 16 games mean nothing....Stan got fleeced, anyone could have overpaid for that slug.
- dpard

and 59% FO percentage