For a Dman like Seabs/Hammer/Svedberg the small ice helps. For a dman like Keith/Leddy, open ice allows them to play their game more effectively. Same goes for forwards who are skilled versus power forwards.
- EnzoD

Makes sense, thanks.

MAJOR Roster Holes:

1LW
4D
6D

How do YOU address those and truly contend for the Cup in 16/17 JJ?
- EnzoD

I would set the bar lower. Get a guy you can slot from 4-5 on D, who is really a solid two-way defenseman with some mobility (sort of Oduya 2.0), and maybe another LW you can slot in the top 9. You've improved the team.

Kempny COULD be that first guy. Right now, no one really knows outside those who've scouted him personally.

Well, apparently some assume the Boedker/Hawks story was just someone's conjecture/wishful thinking. Thing is, it wasn't. People who make a good living judging hockey players for the Hawks (including Stan Bowman) felt he would be a difference maker playing alongside Toews and Hossa. Boedker's game overall is more refined that Panik's, but Panik is a lot more physical.

But whatever . . .
- John Jaeckel

I'm not doubting the Hawks being in on Boedker. I'm just sincerely hoping that Panik's speed next year helps the Toews line, even if Panik's hands are not as good as Boedker's or Saad's.

A question, though, for you, JJ:
How long do you think the Cup Window is still open? And is a mini-retool enough?

I would set the bar lower. Get a guy you can slot from 4-5 on D, who is really a solid two-way defenseman with some mobility (sort of Oduya 2.0), and maybe another LW you can slot in the top 9. You've improved the team.

Kempny COULD be that first guy. Right now, no one really knows outside those who've scouted him personally.
- John Jaeckel

I think you are right.

Personally, I don't see how the Hawks add any proven players for the holes they have, because you have to pay the proven talent what they are worth. That just ain't happening without creating more holes in the roster by moving players you need. Stan is pretty much going to have to keep taking chances on guys who have yet to prove themselves or guys looking to get their career back on track.

These are the years where the big money guys need to earn their $, because those contracts are what got them where they are now.

I think you are right.

Personally, I don't see how the Hawks add any proven players for the holes they have, because you have to pay the proven talent what they are worth. That just ain't happening without creating more holes in the roster by moving players you need. Stan is pretty much going to have to keep taking chances on guys who have yet to prove themselves or guys looking to get their career back on track.

These are the years where the big money guys need to earn their $, because those contracts are what got them where they are now.
- breadbag

BB, I bolded the above for 1 reason and 1 only: Q.

Stan can take all the chances he wants (Daley, Garbutt, Sekac, Weise, Flash) but if the guy in back of the bench calling the lineup shots isn't on the same page, it doesn't matter.

After being a bubble team next year and either not making the dance OR another 1st round exit, there may be many calling for change. There have been plenty of serviceable players that have filtered through the Chicago hockey station, passing by on their way to destinations unknown because they didn't fit the head coach's specific requirements list and he had little interest in changing schemes or figuring out just how they might be an asset.

This was from the HF board in regard to the Raanta trade. Even though we did win 1 cup since the bladder trade Bowman has been brutal and Q has really been as well. If you are going to play Bladder and Gus in the playoffs shouldn't they be playing every day in the regular season the last month? I'm not sure who to blame. Really is we do not luck out in the Panarin signing (he could have signed with any team) if you remove him from this team. are we even a playoff team and we have only a few NHL prospects and now we have 5-6 players that all got about $500K-$1 mil more then they should of.


That was a dumb trade. At that point we already had Hino, Baun, Kero. how many more borderline 4th line players do we trade for? Should have taken a low round pick for both Raanta and Nillson. The other teams both got the better players in the trade and the player with more upside. How do you make a trade where you give up both? Makes no sense. Starting with Runblad for a 2nd at the trade deadline. Of Bowmans 15 trades the only ones you would do a 2nd time where Clending for Forsling, Morin for Panik, and I don't have a big problem with vermette/Dahlstrom + 1st and ladd/Dano +1st.

OTher deals:
Bladder for a 2nd. He was out of options and AZ scratched him every game. Bascially tInoridi for Montreal and they got a 6th for him. Why do you do this at the trade deadline, should have told AZ play him and we will take a look over the summer.
LEddy for Pokka (he was signed at 2.7 for 1 more year should have trade Roz or Bick(when we could have) and Kept Leddy who would have been a RFA after the season)
sharp/Johns for Daley/Garbutt (been beaten to death)
Timo for 2 2nds (way to much to give up for a 40 year old that had not played in 1 year and had a full NMC that would only wave to a few teams)
2nd danult for Weiss and flesch (would have been better playing danult every game)
Daley for Scuds, should have moved daley for a player making under $950K or on a ECL or with a EXP contract. We have 1.1 Hit next year.
GArbutt for Sekec
nillson for Couglin. 5th round pick that had a bad year and we trade a big goalie for him.
Raanta for haggerty
Steeg and Nordy (-4), a solid bottom line player on RF contract and a solid NHL winger on 2.2 and we have to give up a 4th?
SAAD for AA (only saves 1.45 mil this year) a top 10 LW at 22 wants 6 mil per year? AA has been fine but he is top 60/70 center that is paid fairly compared to SAAD who at 6 mil is under paid and getting better.

We trade away SAAD and LEddy RFA's but we give Kruger 1.6 raise and Seabs 1.1 raise.
- kmw4631

And once again, hindsight is 20/20. And sorry, I don't consider Saad trade a loss. I call it a draw. We lost a young top line player, but we gained the 2C we've badly needed for years. By the way, Nilsson isn't good and we have a big young goalie. I liked Garbutt for Sekac, I just odn't think Sekac got a fair shot (on Q) so I can't fault that to Stan. The Daley for Scuds was for cap space. Saved a million. Got us room for Ladd. Can't say one is bad over one being good.

Which leads me to my next point: You either judge the trades in a vacuum or you don't. It's either what has THIS player given me while we've had them or it's, well, because of this we were able to sign/trade/demote other player.

I prefer the first way. What was the FO TRYING to do? Clear cap space? Get the best player available? For instance, IMHO, I think Stan signed Runny for that deal because while he was trying to get other D-men, he had a relatively inexpensive one in house. One that he could bury if needed for a minimal cap hit to the big club (which manypeople were saying when Runny signed). And then, Stan got Daley, which then pushed Runny down to #6/AHL. No one was to know what would happen with Daley at the time, yet people pound on Stan for signing Runny BECAUSE of what ultimately happened with Daley. It's unfair to everyone involved.

I'm not apologizing for Stan, he's made some missteps as listed above...but he needs to be judged fairly.

I would set the bar lower. Get a guy you can slot from 4-5 on D, who is really a solid two-way defenseman with some mobility (sort of Oduya 2.0), and maybe another LW you can slot in the top 9. You've improved the team.

Kempny COULD be that first guy. Right now, no one really knows outside those who've scouted him personally.
- John Jaeckel

Ladd was that physical, 200', Top 9 LW and he didn't provide enough offense and wont be retained due to his cost. Kempny can (hopefully) be that stabilizing factor on the blue line but this team is going to be looking for secondary scoring yet again this fall unless a legit Top 6 Winger is added to the mix.

Interesting point of view on goalies and coaches. You could throw Rinne into that situation as well with goalie coach Mitch Korn leaving Nashville and now coaching Holtby in Washington.
- wrister

people i know who were associated with the Hershey Bears (Caps affiliate), rave about Mitch Korn and his work with the goalchies there.... you can see what he's done with Neuverth, Varlamov, Holtby, etc...

BB, I bolded the above for 1 reason and 1 only: Q.

Stan can take all the chances he wants (Daley, Garbutt, Sekac, Weise, Flash) but if the guy in back of the bench calling the lineup shots isn't on the same page, it doesn't matter.

After being a bubble team next year and either not making the dance OR another 1st round exit, there may be many calling for change. There have been plenty of serviceable players that have filtered through the Chicago hockey station, passing by on their way to destinations unknown because they didn't fit the head coach's specific requirements list and he had little interest in changing schemes or figuring out just how they might be an asset.
- savvyone-1

Yes, yes, one thousand times yes.

Q's wins be damned: if he wants to prove he's a great coach, not merely a good one, he's got to maximize what he'll be given this next season. Not everybody's going to fit his mold, and this team does not have the financial flexibility to get him a roster where everybody does. If that means showing patience with a guy who makes mistakes, then so be it.

The series-losing goal in round one was scored off of a bad turnover by a player who was given limited playing time during the regular season. Does he still make that mistake if he's gaining experience playing in high-leverage situations every night during the regular season? Maybe, but it's less likely.

people i know who were associated with the Hershey Bears (Caps affiliate), rave about Mitch Korn and his work with the goalchies there.... you can see what he's done with Neuverth, Varlamov, Holtby, etc...
- kaptaan

I thought Steph Waite was a good coach, but I think Jimmy Waite is actually better, he has taken Crawford to another level IMO and done a great job with both backups.

Ian Clark did a nice job with Lu (but then i think they had some kind of falling out, and they brought Rollie the Goalie in) and has resurrected Bobrovsky's career.

Yes but a lot of fans would take 10 years of cap hell and mistakes for 1 Stanley Cup (just ask Caps, Nucks, Sharks etc. fans)..and Hawks had three in six..as we know.. which is as much they won between 1926-2009. To put it in perspective.
- MjulQvist

I agree but Seabs and Krug's were not extended to help win championships they were extended because we did.


I just saying we should have been able to get more for a RFA speedy young and solid PMD D man then a AVG prospect. He waited till a week before the season and got bent over, because people had spend there money and set there rosters. In June you would have had 25 teams interested in a 2.7 mil RFA, he was a 23 year old that had 31 pts in 16 mins per game and played in 50 playoff games. How does trading leddy for Pokka help us win championships? No one trades good young D that is RFA?

In regard daley for Scuds was cap savings? We have 1.1 mil of dead cap space next year that we cannot trade. are you telling me if we waved daley he would not have been picked up? Also WInnpeg could have retained more of lads contract to cover the cap space.

should we have kept daley, I think we can all agree yes (hindsight) If we are moving daley for cap space then don't trade for SCUDS trade for Picks, ELC, expiring contracts ETC. that 1.1 is 1/2 of what shaw might sign for in a 1 year deal. I don't know how you can say that was a good trade.

yeah so Drouin is not worth the cost of TT.....my god. One is quickly asserting himself as a legit top 6 prospect, who can take a hit, and make plays to make his team productive, and the other.....is.......stuck in whatever the hell TeuvoTime is.

Ugh...just sickening that people can't comprehend that this kid is quite possibly a bust and baring a MAJOR upwards trajectory this upcoming year his value will be tainted.

If I were the Hawks front office I'd pull Q into a meeting before the draft and lay out what will happen for the 1st, 20 games next year. Q can get assurances from McDonough that if the plan implodes it's not on him, much like the whole moneyball fiasco went down in Oakland. Thus, Bowman gets his players were he wants them slotted, and Q gets his job security. Everyone wins.

Shaw-Toews-Tuevo----if this kid can't produce for 20 games on this line, happy trails
Panarin-AA-Kane
Panik-Kruger-Hossa--if Kruger cant' put 10-15 playing with Hossa, he gets exposed to expansion draft to relieve cap constraints.
Desjardin-Rasmussen-a Rockford kid---

Keith-Seabrook
hammer-TVr
cheap vet-Gus, extra whoever doesn't suck more

Darling
cheap veteran

I deal CC at the draft for a pick and prospect. Immediately sign Shaw to a 1 year bridge deal, extend Panarin, and try to find Bickell a home...again. If I can't, let agent work something, if not put BIckell in Rockford in hopes he's good soldier and provides example for next wave. Maybe with quick start some team would take a flier on him OR he creates value for himself as a UFA the following year.

With losing Bickell's money the following year, and already having Panarin extended, hope is cap goes up enough to make decisions on Shaw, TVR, and Teuvo.

I also sit down Teuvo and tell him he better add muscle, condition better or he'll be a permament resident in the Euro league. TVR plays RS entire year and you hope 1 at least grows over last year. IMO, TVR's growth is more important then 86's. Need to lock up that top 4.

I hate trading CC, but he's the most coveted asset you can realistically trade at this time to free up cap space and get something back that isn't crap.

Is this a championship team? Not a chance in hell. They'll be a 3rd place Central or wild card team, but baring a miracle that's all you can expect.

The 1LW or 1RW is going to become what the 2C was for years...Question is, is Toews good enough to carry guys over the skis without Kane skating next to him?

And once again, hindsight is 20/20. And sorry, I don't consider Saad trade a loss. I call it a draw. We lost a young top line player, but we gained the 2C we've badly needed for years. By the way, Nilsson isn't good and we have a big young goalie. I liked Garbutt for Sekac, I just odn't think Sekac got a fair shot (on Q) so I can't fault that to Stan. The Daley for Scuds was for cap space. Saved a million. Got us room for Ladd. Can't say one is bad over one being good.

Which leads me to my next point: You either judge the trades in a vacuum or you don't. It's either what has THIS player given me while we've had them or it's, well, because of this we were able to sign/trade/demote other player.

I prefer the first way. What was the FO TRYING to do? Clear cap space? Get the best player available? For instance, IMHO, I think Stan signed Runny for that deal because while he was trying to get other D-men, he had a relatively inexpensive one in house. One that he could bury if needed for a minimal cap hit to the big club (which manypeople were saying when Runny signed). And then, Stan got Daley, which then pushed Runny down to #6/AHL. No one was to know what would happen with Daley at the time, yet people pound on Stan for signing Runny BECAUSE of what ultimately happened with Daley. It's unfair to everyone involved.

I'm not apologizing for Stan, he's made some missteps as listed above...but he needs to be judged fairly.
- CanOCorn

Oof. Forget it. People either get it or they don't. They don't understand what burying cap hits means. They don't understand that you can't just flip aging high-salary players for draft picks. They don't understand that value in a hard-cap league isn't determined only by a player's on-ice production, but by that production relative to his cap hit. They don't understand opportunity cost. I could go on.

I think the biggest knock on Bowman is that he's not in sync with his coach, though I'm not sure whose fault that is. Giving up Marko Dano and a first-round pick (a high price to pay -- not sure who else was offering what for Ladd) at least brought you back a guy the coach was willing to play nightly. Giving up Danault, a true center, for two players who were supposed to play on the third line every night, only to see them ride the pine while the guy who was supposed to center them plays on the right wing... well, that's a major waste of assets. And a major problem.

I just saying we should have been able to get more for a RFA speedy young and solid PMD D man then a AVG prospect. He waited till a week before the season and got bent over, because people had spend there money and set there rosters. In June you would have had 25 teams interested in a 2.7 mil RFA, he was a 23 year old that had 31 pts in 16 mins per game and played in 50 playoff games. How does trading leddy for Pokka help us win championships? No one trades good young D that is RFA?
- kmw4631

This is a really good point. If your goal is to open up cap space, it's a much better idea to trade your guy before July 1 because there will be more teams with cap flexibility and, hence, more buyers.

And once again, hindsight is 20/20. And sorry, I don't consider Saad trade a loss. I call it a draw. We lost a young top line player, but we gained the 2C we've badly needed for years. By the way, Nilsson isn't good and we have a big young goalie. I liked Garbutt for Sekac, I just odn't think Sekac got a fair shot (on Q) so I can't fault that to Stan. The Daley for Scuds was for cap space. Saved a million. Got us room for Ladd. Can't say one is bad over one being good.

Which leads me to my next point: You either judge the trades in a vacuum or you don't. It's either what has THIS player given me while we've had them or it's, well, because of this we were able to sign/trade/demote other player.

I prefer the first way. What was the FO TRYING to do? Clear cap space? Get the best player available? For instance, IMHO, I think Stan signed Runny for that deal because while he was trying to get other D-men, he had a relatively inexpensive one in house. One that he could bury if needed for a minimal cap hit to the big club (which manypeople were saying when Runny signed). And then, Stan got Daley, which then pushed Runny down to #6/AHL. No one was to know what would happen with Daley at the time, yet people pound on Stan for signing Runny BECAUSE of what ultimately happened with Daley. It's unfair to everyone involved.

I'm not apologizing for Stan, he's made some missteps as listed above...but he needs to be judged fairly.
- CanOCorn

Would've liked to see Sekac get a fair shot instead of in the lineup and then out for 3-4 games, then traded. On Q...

If they can get Kempny to play solid #5 minutes - a win.
If they can rotate in some prospects and players to get experience to take some pressure of the top guns - not necessarily a win but a step in the right direction.
Maybe sign a solid bottom guy like Schlemko for cheap than that provides defensive depth - another step in the right direction.
Assuming Panarin and or Panik are your 1/2LWs - need one more guy.

Bowman has to sort out the cap first...

Yes, yes, one thousand times yes.

Q's wins be damned: if he wants to prove he's a great coach, not merely a good one, he's got to maximize what he'll be given this next season. Not everybody's going to fit his mold, and this team does not have the financial flexibility to get him a roster where everybody does. If that means showing patience with a guy who makes mistakes, then so be it.

The series-losing goal in round one was scored off of a bad turnover by a player who was given limited playing time during the regular season. Does he still make that mistake if he's gaining experience playing in high-leverage situations every night during the regular season? Maybe, but it's less likely.
- darklighter

I get where you are coming from but......Gus was skating in a game 7, and on the road. Something Leddy rarely did. Now, the Hawks D depth wasn't nearly as strong, but I do give him credit for skating the kid. The turnover was moronic and why the Islanders released him. He has some offensive upside but he needs to figure out his back end play quickly or he wont' be long in the NHL.

There have been a lot of kids who have come in and skated and not been led to Qs dog house.....Shaw, Saad, Kruger, Teuvo, TVR, Bolig just to name a few. I think it's fair for a coach for expect a kid to make some mistakes but learn from them...the problem I have is the double standard when one kid can do no right but the same mistakes made by others are just tolerated.......

Q does have to flexible because his mold while successful, isn't reality moving forward with a team being forced to field a LOT of rookies or lower tiered NHL players to offset cap issues. Can he adjust? Can the core carry the role guys? Can key Bowman future pieces take the next step? Those are the story lines for this upocmign year.

I get where you are coming from but......Gus was skating in a game 7, and on the road. Something Leddy rarely did. Now, the Hawks D depth wasn't nearly as strong, but I do give him credit for skating the kid. The turnover was moronic and why the Islanders released him. He has some offensive upside but he needs to figure out his back end play quickly or he wont' be long in the NHL.
- SteveRain

Which is exactly why he needs ice time. He's not going to figure it out during the Hawks' weekly practice. What is it, 200 games for an NHL-level defenseman to come into his own? Gus is at, like, 40.

Now, it's totally different if he's never going to be the player they need. If that's the case, cut him loose. Find somebody else. Make a trade -- it's not like he's David Rundblad, where nobody even cares enough to pick him up on waivers.

Oof. Forget it. People either get it or they don't. They don't understand what burying cap hits means. They don't understand that you can't just flip aging high-salary players for draft picks. They don't understand that value in a hard-cap league isn't determined only by a player's on-ice production, but by that production relative to his cap hit. They don't understand opportunity cost. I could go on.

I think the biggest knock on Bowman is that he's not in sync with his coach, though I'm not sure whose fault that is. Giving up Marko Dano and a first-round pick (a high price to pay -- not sure who else was offering what for Ladd) at least brought you back a guy the coach was willing to play nightly. Giving up Danault, a true center, for two players who were supposed to play on the third line every night, only to see them ride the pine while the guy who was supposed to center them plays on the right wing... well, that's a major waste of assets. And a major problem.
- darklighter

Ready to have your mind blown.........


Considering the front office is run like a team, when these trades are made and prospects are given up I'm guessing one senior Bowman is also signing off on it seeing that he spends a LOT of time in Tampa watching games and taking in players. So I'm guess not only did Q not feel Dano wasn't going to be better then good ole Teuvo, I'm guessing Scotty and also Smith also signed off on it. Just odd they would send off a very cornerstone piece of trading away a budding power forward star in saad so early.

So if we are going to accept the fact that the FO is run like a committee I think it's fair the blame start to spread not just on Stanley but on others as well........

Remember one of McEgo's first moves was to hire Scotty, who then took in Savard's practices and camp and recommended booting him while Q recovered from his DUI in CO. Made Dale do the dirty work, Q slides in....and the young kids start to grow.....Scotty has/is/always will be in McEgo's ear as that goof still has no idea at times what he's watching or how to evaluate anything. he handles the brading nad money, and the bowmans and their clan handle the player personnel.

Which is exactly why he needs ice time. He's not going to figure it out during the Hawks' weekly practice. What is it, 200 games for an NHL-level defenseman to come into his own? Gus is at, like, 40.

Now, it's totally different if he's never going to be the player they need. If that's the case, cut him loose. Find somebody else. Make a trade -- it's not like he's David Rundblad, where nobody even cares enough to pick him up on waivers.
- darklighter

I agree. Out of the rookies I saw on D this year, I liked him the best. A little raw, but with patience and a veteran partner he can become what they need.

Which is exactly why he needs ice time. He's not going to figure it out during the Hawks' weekly practice. What is it, 200 games for an NHL-level defenseman to come into his own? Gus is at, like, 40.

Now, it's totally different if he's never going to be the player they need. If that's the case, cut him loose. Find somebody else. Make a trade -- it's not like he's David Rundblad, where nobody even cares enough to pick him up on waivers.
- darklighter

Also, 100% certain it was Scotty who had his ear to the ground in Buffalo when the Kane drama was breaking loose. Without him, McDonough goes off the deep end in regards to Kane. Bowman knows a LOT of people and the networking of Buffalo very well.

I agree. Out of the rookies I saw on D this year, I liked him the best. A little raw, but with patience and a veteran partner he can become what they need.
- SteveRain

Kempny did make the Czech WC team (one of about 10 D men) may 6th-22nd if memory serves. Wish we would have signed him before everybody see's him.

In regard to Vesey and Cagguila, to get them to sign I think you are going to have tell them they will get 1st shot and at one of the left wing spots other then Panarin, tell them they will open the season on the roster and give them a verbal Limited NTC clause if you cannot afford there 2nd contract or if they get sent down for the year in the AHL. And Q and scotty need to show they are on board with all of this because they both are mature 2 way players with a little grit to there game. where would they rank in our prospect pool if we get them to sign? probably Vesey would be 1, Schmaltz 2 and CAgguila 3, motte 4.

When is the last time Stan made an honest good 'ole fashion hockey trade - talent for talent. Not a trade that is a salary dump, or my crap for your crap trade. One of those trade where you give up value to get value like the Johansen for Jones trade was for Nashville and Columbus.

What do the Hawks need the most right now??? For me, it a good young solid defenseman.

If it was me I would do TT for someone like the Devils Damon Severson or what about the Hurricanes Brett Pesce or Jaccob Slavin. Possibly the Oilers with Klefbom, Reinhart, etc. I just throwing some names out there, and have no clue if they would be available, but there has to be a team out there looking for offense that would be more inclined to how TT wants to play, and would be willing to give up a good young d-man in return.

I get where you are coming from but......Gus was skating in a game 7, and on the road. Something Leddy rarely did. Now, the Hawks D depth wasn't nearly as strong, but I do give him credit for skating the kid. The turnover was moronic and why the Islanders released him. He has some offensive upside but he needs to figure out his back end play quickly or he wont' be long in the NHL.

There have been a lot of kids who have come in and skated and not been led to Qs dog house.....Shaw, Saad, Kruger, Teuvo, TVR, Bolig just to name a few. I think it's fair for a coach for expect a kid to make some mistakes but learn from them...the problem I have is the double standard when one kid can do no right but the same mistakes made by others are just tolerated.......

Q does have to flexible because his mold while successful, isn't reality moving forward with a team being forced to field a LOT of rookies or lower tiered NHL players to offset cap issues. Can he adjust? Can the core carry the role guys? Can key Bowman future pieces take the next step? Those are the story lines for this upocmign year.
- SteveRain

Gustafsson didn't actually have that bad of a series for a rookie in and out of the lineup. Game 7 he had a couple bad turnovers with one God-awful one, but the other games he was pretty solid - took hits to make a play and made the safe play for the most part. Some edges to smooth for sure - hopefully Q can live with it, but most likely not.

And once again, hindsight is 20/20. And sorry, I don't consider Saad trade a loss. I call it a draw. We lost a young top line player, but we gained the 2C we've badly needed for years. By the way, Nilsson isn't good and we have a big young goalie. I liked Garbutt for Sekac, I just odn't think Sekac got a fair shot (on Q) so I can't fault that to Stan. The Daley for Scuds was for cap space. Saved a million. Got us room for Ladd. Can't say one is bad over one being good.

Which leads me to my next point: You either judge the trades in a vacuum or you don't. It's either what has THIS player given me while we've had them or it's, well, because of this we were able to sign/trade/demote other player.

I prefer the first way. What was the FO TRYING to do? Clear cap space? Get the best player available? For instance, IMHO, I think Stan signed Runny for that deal because while he was trying to get other D-men, he had a relatively inexpensive one in house. One that he could bury if needed for a minimal cap hit to the big club (which manypeople were saying when Runny signed). And then, Stan got Daley, which then pushed Runny down to #6/AHL. No one was to know what would happen with Daley at the time, yet people pound on Stan for signing Runny BECAUSE of what ultimately happened with Daley. It's unfair to everyone involved.

I'm not apologizing for Stan, he's made some missteps as listed above...but he needs to be judged fairly.
- CanOCorn

You get a gold star for one of most sensible posts on here in weeks. the hyperbolic 20-20 hindsite stanbow/Q narratives is way over the top...

the gm wannabees are all knowing about what went into every move...one of the reasons i will mostly stay way during the summer...i luv hanging out here during the season....great guys/gals posting here but the trade/cap/personnel banter/bashing i will do with out

I don't think Gust is a bad Defenseman.

I think he'll pan out and be reliable, he just wasn't playoff-ready yet.

I'm still baffled that Rundblad was in over Ehrhoff.