I’m on the fence with Gilbert. He has nastiness but he blows coverage, badly.
- gifman

While I love his physicality and size, I agree that Gilbert's coverage is horrible. In Rockford games, he was not noticeably better than blueliners like Carlsson or Tuulola who also play a physical brand of defense with a nasty disposition on the side.

I'd even argue that Carlsson and Tuulola were the better D-men than Gilbert so not sure why neither of them haven't gotten a cup of coffee given this is Gilbert's 3rd tour of duty with the big club.

Even though he's not head-over-heels better than his D peers in Rockford, Gilbert still has potential and has a growth curve to get through in order to cement a regular NHL job.

While I love his physicality and size, I agree that Gilbert's coverage is horrible. In Rockford games, he was not noticeably better than blueliners like Carlsson or Tuulola who also play a physical brand of defense with a nasty disposition on the side.

I'd even argue that Carlsson and Tuulola were the better D-men than Gilbert so not sure why neither of them haven't gotten a cup of coffee given this is Gilbert's 3rd tour of duty with the big club.

Even though he's not head-over-heels better than his D peers in Rockford, Gilbert still has potential and has a growth curve to get through in order to cement a regular NHL job.
- AEL_Fox

I'm sure Keith and Seabrook 12-14 years ago made their share of mistakes as youngsters learning the trade. What's the old rule of thumb about the number of NHL games a young defenseman needs to play before becoming seasoned? 200? That's 2-1/2 seasons. Gilbert and the other prospect D- men have to start learning so they might as well get the experience this year.

I'm sure Keith and Seabrook 12-14 years ago made their share of mistakes as youngsters learning the trade. What's the old rule of thumb about the number of NHL games a young defenseman needs to play before becoming seasoned? 200? That's 2-1/2 seasons. Gilbert and the other prospect D- men have to start learning so they might as well get the experience this year.
- boilermaker100

2-1/2 seasons? Prospects are lucky to get 2-1/2 shifts before they’re written off these days.

Talk about ridiculous. This talk about if you were to trade Kane. Not really want to, just if you did.......please stop right there.

Don't even discuss it. Why...because you never should trade Kane. So now we are hurting a bit more since the team is bad again. You know darn well when you try to stay competitive, then a rebuild on the fly is going to be an arduous task

You will not get fair value in short, medium, or long term years by trading Kane. Almost all prospects have some flaws. You are not receiving two top of draft prospects so therefore not the very creme of the crop for Kane.

And Kane will continue to be the force that he is probably for a few more years. A self driven type to improve and produce is Kane's personal mantra ....so I see him as the current offensive threat into his mid to late 30 's

Don't fall for those published to sell headlines where The Athletic or someone else point to various scenario s which could happen. They design stories with prearranged layout....oh let's come up with 15 reasons for doing this fire Bowman or trade Kane and we will try to write something which supports our view. That is crap journalism. Trying to get a story some legít legs to stand on. I call.bs.

He coaches boring hockey. He also seems to have an extremely short shelf life.
- Elbows15

Nylander is garbage

Because they had too many Young defensemen? At least that’s what they said.

I guess it’s easy to find young, puck moving, top 4 defensemen. Even if his ceiling was a Johnny Oduya clone, that’s a guy you hold on to.
- scottak

For Nylander no less - hard to stomach watching our end look like a fire drill night after night
😳🤦‍♂️

I am not sure if Stan is the right guy to lead a rebuild but to continue to dismiss what he did accomplish is kinda wacky.
- Elbows15

I don't get it. Seems like most who dismiss the two Cups you can attribute to Stanblow resent him for not being a former player or because he wasn't the GM when the Core guys were picked...even though most seem to recognize if you surround the Core with just a bunch of guys you aren't winning anything.

But whateves...like Sage said, it's a losing battle.

Talk about ridiculous. This talk about if you were to trade Kane. Not really want to, just if you did.......please stop right there.

Don't even discuss it. Why...because you never should trade Kane. So now we are hurting a bit more since the team is bad again. You know darn well when you try to stay competitive, then a rebuild on the fly is going to be an arduous task

You will not get fair value in short, medium, or long term years by trading Kane. Almost all prospects have some flaws. You are not receiving two top of draft prospects so therefore not the very creme of the crop for Kane.

And Kane will continue to be the force that he is probably for a few more years. A self driven type to improve and produce is Kane's personal mantra ....so I see him as the current offensive threat into his mid to late 30 's

Don't fall for those published to sell headlines where The Athletic or someone else point to various scenario s which could happen. They design stories with prearranged layout....oh let's come up with 15 reasons for doing this fire Bowman or trade Kane and we will try to write something which supports our view. That is crap journalism. Trying to get a story some legít legs to stand on. I call.bs.
- jhawk59

I disagree, you can't horde players if you are changing directions as a club. If the team changes it's philosophy there is a good chance Kane has no future here. If we go with 200ft style, Kane doesn't fit.

It's best to get him on a team that will most importantly shell out the compensation to acquire a player like Kane. That means high end prospects and picks. That would get us on the road to rebuild quickly and back in the picture of the playoffs.

Why does this have anything to do with it? Would the players be more likely to waive their NMC if someone else asked them? Stan is PART of the reason that they are currently in this situation. Wouldn't the high dollar guys partially blame him for putting them in this position and thus be more likely to waive out of town (especially if they don't agree with the direction of the team?

If said new GM came in and provided a "better" plan for getting back to contention, what is the impetus for the vets to waive? The team has treated all of them very well, and they all have said they love the city.

What honest conversation are you talking about? "Hey guys, we suck and really need to get out from underneath your contracts. Could you please waive the NMC we gave you so that we can trade you anywhere regardless of how competitive the other team is to maximize the return? Thanks."
- Chunk

Hey chunk , my point in regards to a new GM is this. Stan , Rocky and MC D are all to emotionally invested into these guys and the perception is if the team just does a few tweaks the core players can lead Chicago back to another Stanley cup.

Bringing in a fresh set of eyes to rebuild this team correctly will also include that new GM having those hard but needed conversations with everyone.

The team not including this year is 3 years into this anemic rebuild on the fly , the problem hasn't gotten better this team is worse.
The farm system isn't stocked with any promising forwards,

Nylander is garbage
- EnzoD

Maybe.

But I’d like to see someone with his potential - which does seem to be top-6 potential - with more than 50 games in The Show - and more than 21 years on this Earth - before making that determination.

I disagree, you can't horde players if you are changing directions as a club. If the team changes it's philosophy there is a good chance Kane has no future here. If we go with 200ft style, Kane doesn't fit.

It's best to get him on a team that will most importantly shell out the compensation to acquire a player like Kane. That means high end prospects and picks. That would get us on the road to rebuild quickly and back in the picture of the playoffs.
- gifman

Bowman didn't have the crystal ball in his possession that some of the posters here do and unfortunately waited too long to deal Seabs, Toews and Keith; but if someone offers you a deal for Kane that could potentially hasten a rebuild I think you listen at the least.

And I'm not talking about deals of yesteryear like where the team cast off Belfour for Chris Terrerri, Ulf Dahlen and Michal Sykora or Chelios for Anders Erickson.

Maybe.

But I’d like to see someone with his potential - which does seem to be top-6 potential - with more than 50 games in The Show - and more than 21 years on this Earth - before making that determination.
- StLBravesFan

But waiting more than half a shift doesn't adhere to #hottakes.

Bowman didn't have the crystal ball in his possession that some of the posters here do and unfortunately waited too long to deal Seabs, Toews and Keith; but if someone offers you a deal for Kane that could potentially hasten a rebuild I think you listen at the least.

And I'm not talking about deals of yesteryear like where the team cast off Belfour for Chris Terrerri, Ulf Dahlen and Michal Sykora or Chelios for Anders Erickson.
- HawkintheD

You make some valid points. But it's also fair to point out Stan while he did some positive moves to help Chicago win 2 more cups,
He was IMO having tunnel vision on trying to win that he lost sight of the age of the core .

Hunter,Zito, or Eddie O for GM
Hitch ,Marc Crawford or Keenan for coach.
Players need to check their feelings and thin skin at the door.
- wonthecup10

Hunter and Zito possibly but Olczyk? Come on. He has zero experience in the front office and was a crap coach in Pittsburgh. Just because he does color for the games does not qualify him to build a team. McD would love it because he could then market the "local boy makes good" campaign.

As far as your coaching candidates, none of them will ever coach an NHL team again.

At least you didn't mention Pierre McGuire for any position.

You make some valid points. But it's also fair to point out Stan while he did some positive moves to help Chicago win 2 more cups,
He was IMO having tunnel vision on trying to win that he lost sight of the age of the core .
- Taylorst1

Tunnel vision on winning two more Cups?

Are you suggesting he should have worried more about the future than on winning the two Cups?

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re talking about his tunnel vision in trying to win another Cup after 2015 - altho he did get the Blues to game 7, and then “won” the Central before the embarrassment against Nashville.

If you think your team ever has a chance for the Cup, you need that “tunnel vision”.

Talk about ridiculous. This talk about if you were to trade Kane. Not really want to, just if you did.......please stop right there.

Don't even discuss it. Why...because you never should trade Kane. So now we are hurting a bit more since the team is bad again. You know darn well when you try to stay competitive, then a rebuild on the fly is going to be an arduous task

You will not get fair value in short, medium, or long term years by trading Kane. Almost all prospects have some flaws. You are not receiving two top of draft prospects so therefore not the very creme of the crop for Kane.

And Kane will continue to be the force that he is probably for a few more years. A self driven type to improve and produce is Kane's personal mantra ....so I see him as the current offensive threat into his mid to late 30 's

Don't fall for those published to sell headlines where The Athletic or someone else point to various scenario s which could happen. They design stories with prearranged layout....oh let's come up with 15 reasons for doing this fire Bowman or trade Kane and we will try to write something which supports our view. That is crap journalism. Trying to get a story some legít legs to stand on. I call.bs.
- jhawk59[/quot


Agree that they probably would not get fair value. How could they? Kane is that good. But he's been there done that with being on a losing team and I don't see him wanting to go back there. While I don't see the games in person much anymore, when I do I notice things that have changed. And most of that is away from the play, things I used to see when my view was unobstructed and not limited by the camera lens. And I saw a frustrated Kane the other night much like I saw a frustrated Chelios decades ago. They hate losing more than they love winning, which in my opinion is one of the reasons they have excelled. I can't see Kane being all in on a rebuild because he's just not wired like that. And one to one value can't happen, but there are a lot of holes that can be plugged and a foundation layed with a kane trade. Think Lindros years ago. Wouldn't play in Quebec, got traded to Philly, and the haul laid the foundation for the Avalanche (who had moved there from Quebec) to win the cup. I know Kane is a lot older, but he could put the right team over the hill in the right situation. Sb and whichever other GM would be fools not to try to figure something out.

But this would require the hawks management to consider hockey first and not marketing. Guys are probably sick of reading me saying take care of the hockey and the rest falls into place and not the other way around. So if that doesn't change then nothing will. Time will tell, and that time is sooner rather than later.

You make some valid points. But it's also fair to point out Stan while he did some positive moves to help Chicago win 2 more cups,
He was IMO having tunnel vision on trying to win that he lost sight of the age of the core .
- Taylorst1

Yeah, what was that idiot doing, focusing on winning two more Cups? We'll put that in the termination letter for sure.

Maybe.

But I’d like to see someone with his potential - which does seem to be top-6 potential - with more than 50 games in The Show - and more than 21 years on this Earth - before making that determination.
- StLBravesFan

Sage, in today's #hottakes culture, decisions are made in seconds.

Let's say Stan gave up on Nylander now and traded him for a bag of pucks, only to see him become a solid top six player with the next team. Who would be the first poster here to lambaste Stan for giving up on the kid too early? I'd go with the guy that just called Nylander garbage. He's a hockey savant; he's even got hockey tattoos.

Tunnel vision on winning two more Cups?

Are you suggesting he should have worried more about the future than on winning the two Cups?

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re talking about his tunnel vision in trying to win another Cup after 2015 - altho he did get the Blues to game 7, and then “won” the Central before the embarrassment against Nashville.


If you think your team ever
has a chance for the Cup, you need that “tunnel vision”.
- StLBravesFan

Regarding the tunnel vision comment I was referencing after 2015 .

Imo Stan became complacent , with contracts , personnel.
The 2015-16 season you mentioned taking st Louis to 7 games, Chicago hurt themselves as a team and I include coach Q as well as the core players who created a culture or mindset that these players could not give 100 percent in periods 1 and 2 then period 3 turn it on.

That was seen throughout the past 2 or 3 years prior. I'm not saying for 100 % certain that they would have won but it was glaring the culture that was created played a part in the teams approach to plenty of their games

True statement.

In a hockey IQ test of Gustaffson, Nylander, Gilbert and KKKK their collective total would not hit +1 above lettuce. Adding Saad to the group wouldn't help it much either.
- RickJ

Saad has been their best forward all year...

You make some valid points. But it's also fair to point out Stan while he did some positive moves to help Chicago win 2 more cups,
He was IMO having tunnel vision on trying to win that he lost sight of the age of the core .
- Taylorst1

OK so in 2011 Taylor is named GM of the Blackhawks. Do you trade a core player or two or do you double down, trade some draft picks and prospects to get in some added depth even if they happen to be rentals?

Or more to the point, what is more important to GM Taylor, doing anything you can to win another Stanley Cup including mortgaging the future, or focusing on the future and not going all in for a cup?

[quote=jhawk59]Talk about ridiculous. This talk about if you were to trade Kane. Not really want to, just if you did.......please stop right there.

Don't even discuss it. Why...because you never should trade Kane. So now we are hurting a bit more since the team is bad again. You know darn well when you try to stay competitive, then a rebuild on the fly is going to be an arduous task

You will not get fair value in short, medium, or long term years by trading Kane. Almost all prospects have some flaws. You are not receiving two top of draft prospects so therefore not the very creme of the crop for Kane.

And Kane will continue to be the force that he is probably for a few more years. A self driven type to improve and produce is Kane's personal mantra ....so I see him as the current offensive threat into his mid to late 30 's

Don't fall for those published to sell headlines where The Athletic or someone else point to various scenario s which could happen. They design stories with prearranged layout....oh let's come up with 15 reasons for doing this fire Bowman or trade Kane and we will try to write something which supports our view. That is crap journalism. Trying to get a story some legít legs to stand on. I call.bs.
- 6628[/quot


Agree that they probably would not get fair value. How could they? Kane is that good. But he's been there done that with being on a losing team and I don't see him wanting to go back there. While I don't see the games in person much anymore, when I do I notice things that have changed. And most of that is away from the play, things I used to see when my view was unobstructed and not limited by the camera lens. And I saw a frustrated Kane the other night much like I saw a frustrated Chelios decades ago. They hate losing more than they love winning, which in my opinion is one of the reasons they have excelled. I can't see Kane being all in on a rebuild because he's just not wired like that. And one to one value can't happen, but there are a lot of holes that can be plugged and a foundation layed with a kane trade. Think Lindros years ago. Wouldn't play in Quebec, got traded to Philly, and the haul laid the foundation for the Avalanche (who had moved there from Quebec) to win the cup. I know Kane is a lot older, but he could put the right team over the hill in the right situation. Sb and whichever other GM would be fools not to try to figure something out.

But this would require the hawks management to consider hockey first and not marketing. Guys are probably sick of reading me saying take care of the hockey and the rest falls into place and not the other way around. So if that doesn't change then nothing will. Time will tell, and that time is sooner rather than later.

This is certainly true for the Hawks right now. The best way for McD to make Rocky money is to have a good team. McD comes across as an arrogant arse, but I think he is smart enough to know this is true. You'd know better than me if this is the case.

With Gravel in his 4th year in juniors, his next stop should be an ELC so one of Lankinen, Delia, or Tomkins will need to be moved or relegated to the ECHL to make room. While a goalie prospect can get reps as an ECHL starter, not sure how much they can really develop at that level which is why Tomkins seems to be on a better growth trajectory this year.

With the way the Rockford goalie trio have been playing, I'd trade Delia for a draft pick or two (late rounders are fine) and consider Lankinen as the backup to Crawford or Lehner starting next season. Rockford would then have Tomkins and Gravel as the backstops.
- AEL_Fox

Agree

Not angry they are on the same page, but they seem to be reading alternate scripts of each player they acquire. These guys look so different from what their stats and experience might say.

Sure, they took chances in Perlini, Strome, and Nylander, but the others they thought they knew what they were getting. The disconnect is how these guys mesh with the core. I do not think the three musketeers have a sense of how to create a team or what that team should look like.

They keep plugging in pieces that don't mesh. Just like Toews said a couple of games ago, they are all out there engaged in parallel play, but they are not working together to complement each other.
- Googlyeyes

Strome has been really good. Debrincat got 40 goals with him and he hit 50 points. He's on a 60 point pace this year and looks significantly more mobile which means the work he put in this summer paid off.

Perlini was a former top 15 pick and just didn't seem to put it together. For what they gave for those two guys it was a pretty great deal for the Hawks.

The Nylander one was stupid since they gave up a good defender with upside who was agile and could make an outlet pass and QB a power play apparently when they have largely garbage there now.

And the bold is because their coach has them chasing the puck and playing tag like a bunch or U8 kids.

OK so in 2011 Taylor is named GM of the Blackhawks. Do you trade a core player or two or do you double down, trade some draft picks and prospects to get in some added depth even if they happen to be rentals?

Or more to the point, what is more important to GM Taylor, doing anything you can to win another Stanley Cup including mortgaging the future, or focusing on the future and not going all in for a cup?
- paulr

I like that title GM Taylor lol. In 2011 Chicago was by far younger than 2015 , also Stan was very focused on retooling a young team that just won a Stanley cup and had all the ingredients to win another.

After 2105 Chicago was so taxed from 3 years of playoff hockey, a depleted farm team , a aging core , and new contracts that guaranteed 8 years .

Stan years prior re evaluated who his core was and moved out Sharpie, oduya .

Seabrook should have been let go to test free agency .