And then develop them....
- bhawks2241

Yes, that was more I was referring to about picking the right players AND developing them by putting them in the best position to succeed

I think Peter Laviolette would be a really good hire here.

Taken 3 different teams to Cups, will have credibility from day 1, is a bit intense when needed (in the same mold as Q - but a different voice)

Heres a fun fact....

The Amazing Steve Yzerman traded a much better Ben Bishop to LA for 33yr old G Budaj, a young Dman in Cernak and a 7th round pick

Where idiot Stan got a bad, but young G in Subban but a 2nd round pick and a young Dman as well for Lehner

So how exactly did they Hawks get fleeced as some think? Or assume they should have gotten more
- PatShart

Pointing out that someone else screwed up even more on another trade does not rectify anything.

Pointing out that someone else screwed up even more on another trade does not rectify anything.
- Hawkster

Or it points out that they recieved good value for a backup goalie that was set to be a UFA

I think Peter Laviolette would be a really good hire here.

Taken 3 different teams to Cups, will have credibility from day 1, is a bit intense when needed (in the same mold as Q - but a different voice)
- PatShart

I'm pretty sure the last thing Bowman wanted post Q was another established coach that would offer any type of push back to the FO, hence a malleable newb like JC was hired (and immediately extended). It's been a failed experiment.

I agree with you about Laviolette, BTW. I think he's the best of the bunch currently available.

I'm pretty sure the last thing Bowman wanted post Q was another established coach that would offer any type of push back to the FO, hence a malleable newb like JC was hired (and immediately extended). It's been a failed experiment.
- Davewn

I believe that is a big reason as well, unfortunately

And it's tough to bag on the players consistently when the HC is incompetent, in my own opinion

I think they are more talented than they show, but arent being put in the best position to succeed by this extremely inexperienced and over matched coaching staff

Even with the "down years" each team had they never hit the level the Hawks have over recent years. When they had their down years they took that time to make the necessary changes (GM, Coach, players) to get back on tract sooner rather than later.

They all will more than likely hit the wall the same way the Hawks and Kings have too. The point is that they've maximized the window of time they had with their star players to give them a chance to win every year.

I'm not expecting us to be the elite in the Final Four every year again like we were during our run. But they should be competing to get in every year and have a shot at things going right to go on a run again
- Savetheembers33

They also didn’t win it all 3 times in six years. That’s a lot of accomplishment, for a lot of individuals, in a very compressed timeframe...which results in a lot of players expecting, and deserving big paydays.

Win one, and some guys are gonna get paid. You keep winning, you keep paying. Nature of the beast.

In some ways Boston’s lack of ultimate success is probably helping them stay close longer...same with San Jose in the recent past.

I'm pretty sure the last thing Bowman wanted post Q was another established coach that would offer any type of push back to the FO, hence a malleable newb like JC was hired (and immediately extended). It's been a failed experiment.

I agree with you about Laviolette, BTW. I think he's the best of the bunch currently available.
- Davewn

I think JC is a good coach for the younger players. I'm really happy with the way Kubalik, Dach and Boqvist are playing (even though I don't think we should have burned a year off the ELC of the last 2). I don't expect the Hawks to really compete until the 21-22 season, so I'm ok with JC for 1 more year. Is there any chance JC could go back to Rockford? Obviously, we wouldn't get Lavi next year, but there is a veteran coach available every year. If Bowman lets JC finish his contract, maybe he would be willing to go back to Rockford. No other team would give him a head coach position after a mediocre showing in his first 3 years, so an AHL head coaching position may be ok with him, and I would much rather have him than King.

Thoughts?

They also didn’t win it all 3 times in six years. That’s a lot of accomplishment, for a lot of individuals, in a very compressed timeframe...which results in a lot of players expecting, and deserving big paydays.

Win one, and some guys are gonna get paid. You keep winning, you keep paying. Nature of the beast.

In some ways Boston’s lack of ultimate success is probably helping them stay close longer...same with San Jose in the recent past.
- Ogilthorpe2

That's a fair point to make. The more success the Hawks had the harder it was to keep the machine going. I think it was loyalty to a fault that's hurt them in the long term. Whether it was Stan's idea or Q not wanting to let him go, Seabrook's contract has been a major reason why this team has failed to supplement talent for the team. Perhaps his downturn is justified by the surgeries he just had...at the same time we're still on the hook for almost 28M the next four years still for an aging Defensemen coming off of three major surgeries and no way around that without either A.) Hoping that he retires to help the team out or B.) We give up a premium asset OR two AND he agrees to waive his NTC to go to another team for the rest of his career. The NHL salary structure is a b!t#c.

Sometimes you need to know when to cut pieces. I love Seabrook. It would have pained me to see him go at that time, but history shows that paying guys premium dollars into their late 30s is a BAD idea. Woulda, coulda, shoulda...

I just hope that there can be some salvaging of this team before Kane, Toes, and Keith are gone and people are pining of the years where, "At least we had Kane to tune in and watch!" and having those guys on the roster and not doing more to win with them again

I think JC is a good coach for the younger players. I'm really happy with the way Kubalik, Dach and Boqvist are playing (even though I don't think we should have burned a year off the ELC of the last 2). I don't expect the Hawks to really compete until the 21-22 season, so I'm ok with JC for 1 more year. Is there any chance JC could go back to Rockford? Obviously, we wouldn't get Lavi next year, but there is a veteran coach available every year. If Bowman lets JC finish his contract, maybe he would be willing to go back to Rockford. No other team would give him a head coach position after a mediocre showing in his first 3 years, so an AHL head coaching position may be ok with him, and I would much rather have him than King.

Thoughts?
- tvetter

If JC doesn't last past next year that means that both Stan and him will be gone and I doubt the new GM would want to let the HC go but bring him back as the AHL coach (I doubt even he would wanna do that if we're being honest).

That's why, while I get why Bowman got "his guy", I didn't think it was a good idea to bring in JC when they did. To me for a team that was "supposedly" trying to win now an experienced guy should have been brought in that the core players would have respected and the young guys could learn from as well would have best suited the team to try and win now. Then if it didn't work and the core was at the end of their contracts you bring in the kid to learn and grow with the kids to get ready for the NEXT phase of Hawks hockey.

Lehner looked like a completely different goalie his last 3-4 starts. Body language, posture, effort and movement were all off. It’s as if he knew his time Chicago were over, and he just threw in the towel. The guy is a powder keg, as much as I loved him early in a Hawks jersey I think in the long run he’s too risky to sign long term. Crawford was the better goalie for at least half the season anyway.

Seabrook makes 7mil per year. Not 80mil a year.

Nearly every team has one of those on the roster and it's not the end of the world

They also didn’t win it all 3 times in six years. That’s a lot of accomplishment, for a lot of individuals, in a very compressed timeframe...which results in a lot of players expecting, and deserving big paydays.

Win one, and some guys are gonna get paid. You keep winning, you keep paying. Nature of the beast.

In some ways Boston’s lack of ultimate success is probably helping them stay close longer...same with San Jose in the recent past.
- Ogilthorpe2

That and Seabs and really the rest of the top 4 did not age well except for Keith.

Went from having a stud top 4 to essentially just Keith with no replacements. If the Hawks were able to develop their own d-men (who was the best "developed D prospect" TVR?) and Stan did not hand Seabs that truck full of cash the Hawks would be in a much better position.

Pens had a downturn in the middle of their run. Caps are in theirs now, not near as long as Hawks. Bruins have done well, and have one Cup.

We'll see how they all do when their big guns' production slips.
- mohel

Yet, all have found ways to stay in the playoffs, Hawks, not so much.

Been 5 years since Hawks won a cup...not like this is a Cup Hangover.

Hawks and Kings, following the Wings...and if the future looks like the wings this year...oh my....

They also didn’t win it all 3 times in six years. That’s a lot of accomplishment, for a lot of individuals, in a very compressed timeframe...which results in a lot of players expecting, and deserving big paydays.

Win one, and some guys are gonna get paid. You keep winning, you keep paying. Nature of the beast.

In some ways Boston’s lack of ultimate success is probably helping them stay close longer...same with San Jose in the recent past.
- Ogilthorpe2

Most insightful post of the day.

That and Seabs and really the rest of the top 4 did not age well except for Keith.

Went from having a stud top 4 to essentially just Keith with no replacements. If the Hawks were able to develop their own d-men (who was the best "developed D prospect" TVR?) and Stan did not hand Seabs that truck full of cash the Hawks would be in a much better position.
- bhawks2241

A lot of us were worried about the Seabrook deal when it was signed, but I would hazard to guess that more people (myself included) thought that the term was the bigger issue than the $amount...and we are seeing now that the worry was justified.

That said, I don’t think many people thought his abilities would fall off this far, this fast. How does Chara keep doing it?

A lot of us were worried about the Seabrook deal when it was signed, but I would hazard to guess that more people (myself included) thought that the term was the bigger issue than the $amount...and we are seeing now that the worry was justified.

That said, I don’t think many people thought his abilities would fall off this far, this fast. How does Chara keep doing it?
- Ogilthorpe2

He had McIlvoy as a partner, not having to carry Gus around with him.

A lot of us were worried about the Seabrook deal when it was signed, but I would hazard to guess that more people (myself included) thought that the term was the bigger issue than the $amount...and we are seeing now that the worry was justified.

That said, I don’t think many people thought his abilities would fall off this far, this fast. How does Chara keep doing it?
- Ogilthorpe2

I believe I read that he is like Jagr/Hossa in the care for his body/conditioning.

How many AHL dmen was Seabrook saddled with after the last cup?

The 8ft tall glacier Svedberg? Dahlstrom? Forsling? 37yr old Campbell?

How many more miles were piled onto Seabrook carrying that crap around?

Now, these last 2 years, Keith at 35 gets Gus and Koekkoek. 2 more mental giants

It's always funny when Keith plays with anyone half way competent (Joki, Murphy, Boqvist)...he controls the play

With Koekkoek and Gus, hes always running around trying to cover for bonehead gaps/punches, etc - then he gets blamed for being out of the play.

Because Keith, like Seabrook, now all of a sudden cant play the game.

How many AHL dmen was Seabrook saddled with after the last cup?

The 8ft tall glacier Svedberg? Dahlstrom? Forsling? 37yr old Campbell?

How many more miles were piled onto Seabrook carrying that crap around?

Now, these last 2 years, Keith at 35 gets Gus and Koekkoek. 2 more mental giants

It's always funny when Keith plays with anyone half way competent (Joki, Murphy, Boqvist)...he controls the play

With Koekkoek and Gus, hes always running around trying to cover for bonehead gaps/punches, etc - then he gets blamed for being out of the play.

Because Keith, like Seabrook, now all of a sudden cant play the game.
- PatShart

Doughty's play has really fallen off now that he doesn't have Muzzin or Martinez as a partner.

Seabrook makes 7mil per year. Not 80mil a year.

Nearly every team has one of those on the roster and it's not the end of the world
- PatShart

Amen.

Hawks - 3 Cups
Pens. - 3 Cups
Bruins. - 1 Cup
Caps. - 1 Cup
- paulr

If it wasn't for Stan's incompetence it would have been:

Hawks - 8 Cups
Pens - 0 Cups
Bruins - 0 Cups
Caps - 0 Cups

Heres a fun fact....

The Amazing Steve Yzerman traded a much better Ben Bishop to LA for 33yr old G Budaj, a young Dman in Cernak and a 7th round pick

Where idiot Stan got a bad, but young G in Subban but a 2nd round pick and a young Dman as well for Lehner

So how exactly did they Hawks get fleeced as some think? Or assume they should have gotten more
- PatShart

Because Stan made the deal.

Seabrook makes 7mil per year. Not 80mil a year.

Nearly every team has one of those on the roster and it's not the end of the world
- PatShart

Most team have one bad contract, Stan has 14.

That and Seabs and really the rest of the top 4 did not age well except for Keith.

Went from having a stud top 4 to essentially just Keith with no replacements. If the Hawks were able to develop their own d-men (who was the best "developed D prospect" TVR?) and Stan did not hand Seabs that truck full of cash the Hawks would be in a much better position.
- bhawks2241

Keith has NOT aged well.