First things First...... it's time for Mr.Wirtz to hire some hockey brains up top, not just marketing tools !!
- Hawkytalk

What's wrong with Marketing? The Blackhawks are afterall a business.

Yes I saw good old Jake in action. Simply put he went brain dead on the PP and was taken off the puck by a big, heavy forward (of which the Hawks have none) who spotted an opportunity and seized on it.

One of the problems in the NHL right now is the obsession by GMs with 'puck moving' Dmen without regard to whether they can play without the puck or behind their own blue line.

The old style defenceman are almost obsolete. But a guy like Ron Hainsey can still do so much for a team on the PK, eating minutes etc. IMO he is the kind of player the Hawks should be trying to develop Dahlstrom into - solid in his own end first. We are seeing improvement in Murphy in that area.

Josh Morrissey is my favourite NHL defenceman right now.
- RickJ

I think Colliton is trying to have Murphy and/or Dahlstrom become our Ron Hainsey. Dahlstrom got beat on the first goal, but that was a tough one...didn't have the speed to catch up.

So, not including any d-men in the juniors, who would everyone keep? This is not a place for trade scenarios, but if you could just dump players, who would you keep in the back end? Me:

Joki, Keith, Murphy, Dahlstrom...Gus, Forsling and Seabrook would be dumped.

What's wrong with Marketing? The Blackhawks are afterall a business.
- paulr

Its been mentioned that MCD and Q have gotten involved in personal decisions. Seabs contract comes to mind. Daley Trade for SCUDs. No GM who ever did contracts or scouting would have done either of those. I think that is why Stan still has a Job is some of hos worst deals were ones that MCD and Q were invlolved in. this is mostly just speculation. But both Q and MCD come across as Ego Maniacs so that would be consistent with wanting there opinions heard.

After watching last nights train wreck I have a few comments:
1. Playing Kane 28 minutes makes a horribly bad team look only real bad. Furthermore, haven't the powers that be figured out there are a finite number of shifts in a players career. Seabs and to a lesser extend Keith are glowing examples. The beating they took while rotating 4 D cut careers short - plain and simple. Sure Keith will give it all he has, he is not close the the same in just a few years. A few years down the road IF the hawks assemble a better roster, Kane will be a forth line guy with no legs left, just my opinion.

2. Everyone else's trash is just that, trash! StanBo is trying to ice the worst all first round team, and doing very well at it.

3. While it was nice to see a bit of response at the end of the game, someone should have flat out knocked Boyle's block for being 3rd man in.

4. While Cam had ZERO support, he looked bad on his own, real bad. Bite the bullet, sit him in the presser and play guys that need PT.

5. Coliton seems to have gone to the Jay Cutler school of awkward facial expressions. While Q had his shortcomings, the refs knew when they blew one. It's not about that call, its about the next three.

After watching last nights train wreck I have a few comments:
2. Everyone else's trash is just that, trash! StanBo is trying to ice the worst all first round team, and doing very well at it.


- riozzo

Of all your points, this is the one I most disagree with. Strome has been pretty damn good. Yes, I know he's on a line with Kane, but he looks better than Arty did as C.
Perlini is a bottom 6 forward, but he has some speed and if he can reign it in, he'll be good as well, plus he's still young. Koekkoek has played one game with the 'hawks. If he grows with the other young d-men, he can be good as well. I didn't see anything that made that trade a bust because it's too early. Plus, it can't be considered a bust since Stan got out of Rutta's contract and moved up two rounds in the draft.

So, at least on that point...slow your roll.

Of all your points, this is the one I most disagree with. Strome has been pretty damn good. Yes, I know he's on a line with Kane, but he looks better than Arty did as C.
Perlini is a bottom 6 forward, but he has some speed and if he can reign it in, he'll be good as well, plus he's still young. Koekkoek has played one game with the 'hawks. If he grows with the other young d-men, he can be good as well. I didn't see anything that made that trade a bust because it's too early. Plus, it can't be considered a bust since Stan got out of Rutta's contract and moved up two rounds in the draft.

So, at least on that point...slow your roll.
- CanOCorn

Its always doom and gloom around here you should know better.

I think Colliton is trying to have Murphy and/or Dahlstrom become our Ron Hainsey. Dahlstrom got beat on the first goal, but that was a tough one...didn't have the speed to catch up.

So, not including any d-men in the juniors, who would everyone keep? This is not a place for trade scenarios, but if you could just dump players, who would you keep in the back end? Me:

Joki, Keith, Murphy, Dahlstrom...Gus, Forsling and Seabrook would be dumped.
- CanOCorn

I am OK with your Top 4 although maybe somebody like Hillman down in Rockford might be better than Dahlstrom but I don't know that. As well don't know if Koekoek ultimately might be further developed. He definitely had no spot in Tampa with Hedman, Sergachev and the other good vets down there.

Seabrook is an expensive 7th with no real options I can think of, short of buyout.

Forsling is a minor leaguer currently needing more time in Rockford or Sweden, not Chicago.

Sure hope playing 7 D was a one time event.

I am OK with your Top 4 although maybe somebody like Hillman down in Rockford might be better than Dahlstrom but I don't know that. As well don't know if Koekoek ultimately might be further developed. He definitely had no spot in Tampa with Hedman, Sergachev and the other good vets down there.

Seabrook is an expensive 7th with no real options I can think of, short of buyout.

Forsling is a minor leaguer currently needing more time in Rockford or Sweden, not Chicago.

Sure hope playing 7 D was a one time event.
- RickJ

anyone remember where Hawks rolled 7 D and after the game, the coach was applauded?

What's wrong with Marketing? The Blackhawks are afterall a business.
- paulr

True I suppose. BUT...……………….it shouldn't drive hockey ops...…….nothing sells more than winning......period! Applies to all sports

Kane with over 28 minutes of ice time last night. If they keep playing him like that he'll be burnt out for the playoffs.

Kane with over 28 minutes of ice time last night. If they keep playing him like that he'll be burnt out for the playoffs.
- boilermaker100

For this year or 3 years from now?

The best statement JC could make to Gustafsson is to healthy scratch him until he can convince Bowman to send him to Rockford, trade him or just release him. Dumbest hockey player in the NHL. No other coach in the league would put up with watching his act for more than a couple of games.
- RickJ

👍👍👍👍👍!!!!!!!!!

That was a rough one to watch last night. That was as bad as it was when JC first took over and they can play better than they did

Not gonna be as doom and gloom as the rest of the board seems to be today, but I really hope they look at last night as affirmation that this team is not a Playoff team this year and they need to look to move out some guys. Gotta think the next few weeks are gonna be fairly active for Stan with only three games on the schedule from now until the end of the month so he'll have plenty of time to scout and discuss some deals.

True I suppose. BUT...……………….it shouldn't drive hockey ops...…….nothing sells more than winning......period! Applies to all sports
- BobP.

But - winning doesn't sell everything - and, by itself, it doesn't sell enough.

Marketing is needed to provide revenue streams that the on-ice product can't find by itself - corporate support, sponsored games, giveaways (paid for by sponsors), promoting the merchandise, TV shows beyond the games....

Revenues that can keep flowing when the winning stops for a period of time - as it does for all teams, especially in a hard-cap league.

All that said - marketing should have very little input (some small amount) into on-ice operations - but don't negate the value of the marketing department to the business success of a sports franchise.

Guess the question is what does this team do? Do we move who we can? Keith, Saad whoever?

For this year or 3 years from now?
- I Am The Breadman

Hopefully we get to watch Kaner perform at this level for 3 more years.

Hopefully we get to watch Kaner perform at this level for 3 more years.
- boilermaker100

That's the hope but if we really wanna see that happen they gotta put some talent around him ASAP

Hopefully we get to watch Kaner perform at this level for 3 more years.
- boilermaker100

He has a lot of miles left in the tank, JC is just going for an extended joy ride, every game, foot fully on the peddle, with the top down. In his brand new Kane-vertible. Drive what Toews and JC drive.

This shtick is getting old.

Poor Stan had to work with a "hand tied behind his back" in Q. So lemme ask you, does Q get credit for the "good moves" Bowman made? Oduya? Frolik? Vermette?

I am just trying to figure out the narrative where ALL the blame is placed on one man and hilariously, the GM is absolved of ALL moves made, well except the good ones (I guess).

The team would have probably had a good streak or two with Q. It's the NHL in 2018-2019, no team is going to go 8-65-9. At some point the Hawks would win some games because of superior tending, play a team having an off night or even have a few good games themselves, possibly all in a row.

Another thing you fail to mention in your never-ending agenda is you fail to admit that the team may be playing better because the now-healthy Murphy and the newly arrived Dahlstrom have entered the lineup since Q left.

I see nothing from this new coach that impresses me, silly line combos, 7 D-men, burning Patrick Kane into a crisp with obscene ice times, even in games where that ice allotment isn't really conducive to winning hockey. Duncan Keith is CLEARLY irritated with things as his interview after the first period will attests to, then he rolls a -5. Nice "coaching" to inspire one of your main leaders.

Again, it IS more than coaching, but it was ALSO more than coaching when Q was here. You fail to understand that. the fact of the matter is this is a bad hockey team. YES, they have a couple great players, some other solid support guys, but by and large this is a bottom feeder team, this despite having "two Patrick Kanes" on the ice with the constant double shifting. Makes no difference, it's still a bad team with limited talented, especially on the blue line. And I am sorry Bowman deserves a share in the blame of that. Bowman OWNS this poop period. The buck stops with the GM or else one could never be fired because "the coach had my hand tied behind my back". What a nice get out of jail free card there. That said, I have liked a couple of his recent trades, but he has a long ways to go to right this ship. I am sure if he fails on that endeavor we can blame Q.
- kwolf68

Only thing old around here is defending a coach who is gone and it was long overdue
Vermette was in the press box till game 3, ya Q was really on board . I think Scotty did more coaching in the cup runs .Once Q got his huge raise(undeserved ) his ego exploded and he stop listening to people around him .Stop playing players Stan brought in .Drove good players out because they did not fit his stone age system . Murphy , Q would not play him, he would have had to be traded just to stay in the NHL . Q Had a hissy fit at the Draft and stormed out because a player was traded, real professional .That should have been the end of the road for him .
This team would be in a lot better place if Q was fired in the offseason and some bigger moves could have been made, and the NEW coach given a training camp
to prepare .
I really don't give a dam what you arm chair QB say ,99% is nothing but hindsight any moron can do that .
Stan is not without Fault never did I say he was , no GM is perfect . But he has done a lot more right then wrong .Not firing Q way earlier is one of his biggest mistakes .
Now with a GM and Coach on the same page this team will finally be allowed to turn a corner to a better future

Congratulations to Brent Seabrook on his 100th career goal.

This has been plenty of Seabrook bashing on this board, but let's take a minute to reflect on his career with the Hawks and what he has meant to the team since he joined the club. Here's link to his career stats.

https://www.hockey-refere.../players/s/seabrbr01.html

Yes, father time catches up with all of us, and it's painful to watch him at times this year. His contract is an albatross that is next to impossible to move and will hurt the team for several years. But would any of us have turned that money down if offered to us?

I am sure #7 will be hanging from the UC ceiling in the future along with 2, 19, 88 and 81.

Again, congratulations Brent.

Only thing old around here is defending a coach who is gone and it was long overdue
Vermette was in the press box till game 3, ya Q was really on board . I think Scotty did more coaching in the cup runs .Once Q got his huge raise(undeserved ) his ego exploded and he stop listening to people around him .Stop playing players Stan brought in .Drove good players out because they did not fit his stone age system . Murphy , Q would not play him, he would have had to be traded just to stay in the NHL . Q Had a hissy fit at the Draft and stormed out because a player was traded, real professional .That should have been the end of the road for him .
This team would be in a lot better place if Q was fired in the offseason and some bigger moves could have been made, and the NEW coach given a training camp
to prepare .
I really don't give a dam what you arm chair QB say ,99% is nothing but hindsight any moron can do that .
Stan is not without Fault never did I say he was , no GM is perfect . But he has done a lot more right then wrong .Not firing Q way earlier is one of his biggest mistakes .
Now with a GM and Coach on the same page this team will finally be allowed to turn a corner to a better future
- oldduffman

Just wondering, are you one of those Hawk front office employees spinning the narrative to make Stan and the rest of the management team look good?

Just wondering, are you one of those Hawk front office employees spinning the narrative to make Stan and the rest of the management team look good?
- boilermaker100

Ya that's me .Good points on SEEBS ,the piling on makes me shake my head .

Congratulations to Brent Seabrook on his 100th career goal.

This has been plenty of Seabrook bashing on this board, but let's take a minute to reflect on his career with the Hawks and what he has meant to the team since he joined the club. Here's link to his career stats.

https://www.hockey-refere.../players/s/seabrbr01.html

Yes, father time catches up with all of us, and it's painful to watch him at times this year. His contract is an albatross that is next to impossible to move and will hurt the team for several years. But would any of us have turned that money down if offered to us?

I am sure #7 will be hanging from the UC ceiling in the future along with 2, 19, 88 and 81.

Again, congratulations Brent.
- boilermaker100

Well said. Congrats Brooksie

Guess the question is what does this team do? Do we move who we can? Keith, Saad whoever?
- z1990z

The first person I would sell is Saad (Mr Irrelevant) . The Victor Stalberg clone. The second move would be to move Duncan Keith...I am quite sure he would be more than happy to get "out of Dodge" if it is in the East. The third move would part ways with Gustafson( Mr No Defense)...even for a sixth pick. Sure , Seabrooks should be first to be traded but we all know that would be pipe dream with his contract and his play on the ice.

But - winning doesn't sell everything - and, by itself, it doesn't sell enough.

Marketing is needed to provide revenue streams that the on-ice product can't find by itself - corporate support, sponsored games, giveaways (paid for by sponsors), promoting the merchandise, TV shows beyond the games....

Revenues that can keep flowing when the winning stops for a period of time - as it does for all teams, especially in a hard-cap league.

All that said - marketing should have very little input (some small amount) into on-ice operations - but don't negate the value of the marketing department to the business success of a sports franchise.
- StLBravesFan

Marketing should have ZERO input on the on ice product. None.