Missed it in all the catching up reading.

Anyone know the significance of signing Boqvist now?

I thought he was 3 years away???
- vabeachbear

Bowman said they want control of him right now so they can accelerate his progression and get him in the NHL ASAP.

Edit to add: Their strategy surrounding prospects has changed due to the fact Colliton has shown that he is very capable of developing players very quickly.

Missed it in all the catching up reading.

Anyone know the significance of signing Boqvist now?

I thought he was 3 years away???
- vabeachbear

I was surprised to see that myself, he probably is looking at the Hawks roster and thinking I'll be in the pros no time at all

He deserves most of the criticism he gets for the last three years, for some of the anchor contracts, etc. (NO one deserves ALL of the criticism Bowman gets).

But it’s really revisionist history to not give him important (not complete) credit for his retooling a team that was in shambles after losing to Arizona in 2011 into the team that had an excellent three year run (including two Cups) in 2013-14-15.

He picked up important contributors (not Stars, to be sure, but quality players) like Saad, Shaw, Oduya, Handzus, Richard’s, Vermette, Darling, the same Teravainen whose loss is being so lamented....

Did he give up too much for sone of them at the TDL? Perhaps - maybe - yeah, I guess - but - two Cups that I’m not sure Tallon would have won.

He’s also drafted pretty well at low draft positions - and, this year, at his first top-10 position.

It may be time for him (and Q) to move on if this is going to be more of a rebuild than we’d like to see, but there isn’t a completely terrible histor there (with either of them).
- StLBravesFan

Screw Handzus...so he picked up a goddamn boat anchor Kane dragged to a Cup in 2013.

Saad, Shaw were good picks
Oduya was a good trade
Vermette was a good trade
Richard's was a good trade
TT doesn't count because he tossed him into the rubble.

Conjecture to say Tallon (or ANYONE else) wouldn't win if they:
-Pick the player scouts tell them too
-Go trade for 2 unwanted centers to fading teams at the TDL

You mean Bowman is the ONLY ONE who could have scripted a deal of Vermette? Get real. YES, I applaud Bowman for bringing in a Top 4 Dman and a couple centers. Great job, but it's not like that was pioneering. Funny, the Hawks need what now? A top 4 D man and another center...so Bowman gets another geezer, a bottom D man and oh yea a backup goalie who he then gives a NTC to. LMAO...what backup goalie in the NHL has one of those? That's right the Blackhawks goalie.

The key is COULD he sustain those nice moves? The answer is no. Since then he has bloated the cap structure, traded guys too late, gone for guys washed up, GIVEN away talented players for trash and seemingly running himself into circles by trading guys, then trading them out, trading for guys then trading someone to take their place, wash / rinse / repeat

Oduay, AV, Richards...excellent moves. A couple good draft picks there, but the guy won Cups because he was gifted one of the best cores this league has seen in 20 years. Now that core is gone/breakingdown/aging and Bowman is going to be exposed, he is being exposed.

Look at Scheifle’s deal - 8 years $6.125 million per, as a frame of reference.

I’d give Schmaltz 6-8 years at $5-$6 million per.
- DarthKane

Probably not a good reference as Scheifle today is a much better player than Schmaltzy and is a true big bodied center that can play the tough grind game or open it up with speed and skill

Not an attack here, LBR. Where do you come down on the following from the writer and as an aside I find it interesting he refers to the fancy numbers as what's "available publicly" meaning most, if not all, clubs have internal fancies.

The public xG models are absolutely more descriptive of what occurred on a player’s watch in a specific game than an “every shot is equal” stat like Corsi. But over the long haul, Corsi has been found to be a superior measure in terms of evaluating players (in comparison to the public models at least), due to a combination of two factors: shot quality itself is subject to randomness, and the current xG models are currently incomplete as detailed tracking data (such as pre-shot movement and passes) do not exist yet for all 31 NHL teams. At the moment, Corsi is the better stat to trust.
- Mr Ricochet

CF is superior still, but the fact that for 3 seasons in a row, the high danger chances are higher with Manning on the ice than without is worrisome. If Manning's possession was like 53%+, then it'd be okay with a bit more high danger chances because they'd have been smaller number overall. But it hasn't been. And he was doing that against low comp - what would it be like against top lines? Or do you have Q continue to run him against low comp which puts like Gus against higher comp? Both seem to not be the best choice.

Mostly I looked at the high danger thing because that's already an issue with the Hawks the last few seasons. They were one of the best overall possession teams in the league in terms of pure shot attempts, but they allowed some of the worst high danger chances, specifically due to not protecting the blue line. Manning is just more of that - he does not help there at all.

Still, like I added, I'll try to wait to see how Manning is used by the Hawks and if his usage alleviates some concerns. Maybe he just instantly click idk. Currently, I just don't see how someone who has been a 6/7 quality d-man in terms of his stats, high level or micro, is going to improve the team and thus worth $2.5m.

No, I meant this
When he allowed a shot against, it was almost always the highest danger and his team was just better when he wasn't on the ice in this regard. That's worrisome.

"Manning helped his team to win the territorial battle, but struggled to push them to a shot quality edge" is a perfect summary from the article.
- Elbows15

I understand the in the pointy head universe of deep deep deep deep deep fancy stats they debate and disagree and from that we get more and more fancy stats. Not at all a knock just pointing this out.

LBR used deeper stats than this fella and he addressed that saying the Expected Goals (Gx) by some in the pointy head universe was a stat that, well I'll use his words:

One of the consistent critiques of Corsi as a viable evaluation tool is that it assumes all shot attempts are of equal value. The mindless blast from the point into a forward’s shinpads receives the same emphasis in the equation as a slam-dunk rebound chance into a wide-open net. This tends to be the primary issue that most coaches within the game have with Corsi, and why many direct their staff to track scoring chances and studiously evaluate plays that result in goals. The counterargument is that territorial play matters, and Corsi provides an accurate look into which forwards and defensemen are truly “pushing play” in the right direction, in addition to the fact that shot-attempt differential has proven to be a better predictor of future goal differential than even past goal differential. And the debate rages on.


I'm reluctant to speak for LBR but I believe she used Gx and the writer used Corsi. At this stage he sees Gx as flawed cuz there is not enough tracking data to support it as accurate enough and uses corsi instead. Like most I read many of these deeper fancy stats and say %#*& it, what do my eyes tell me?...........

That's exactly what I'll do when he puts on a Hawks jersey. But very much like his Corsi numbers, his age, entry break ups and I do remember this guy and without evaluating him liked his size and skating. Do not remember his physicality tho but by his stats he'll use his body as his hits and PIM are up there.

I think Kunitz was a Q motivated move. As we heard from the conference call, they like that he's a 'gamer'. While I usually dismiss abstract adjectives describing someone's play, there is some validity to Kunitz play 'the right way'.

He knows where to be, and his mistakes are few. One thing the Blackhawks lost a lot of in the last 3 years was guys who always make the right decision (when to pass, when to hold it, when to float the puck up ice and change, when to shield the puck along the boards, etc.).

Hopefully Kunitz is a guy who makes the Hawks harder to play against. I have hesitations about his physical abilities at this age, the wheels will be slow and the shot is likely diminished. But I do hope that he's a fundamentally sound guy who can work in our puck possession system.

Been away for a bit. So...what'd I miss?
- HawkintheD

Absolutely nothing but page after page of nonsense.....

Probably not a good reference as Scheifle today is a much better player than Schmaltzy and is a true big bodied center that can play the tough grind game or open it up with speed and skill
- D2D

I wasn’t comparing the two players, rather saying to use Scheifle’s contract as a reference point. Scheifle is the better player for alll the reasons you mentioned. So my point is that Schmaltz’s deal needs to be less than that.

I understand the in the pointy head universe of deep deep deep deep deep fancy stats they debate and disagree and from that we get more and more fancy stats. Not at all a knock just pointing this out.

LBR used deeper stats than this fella and he addressed that saying the Expected Goals (Gx) by some in the pointy head universe was a stat that, well I'll use his words:

One of the consistent critiques of Corsi as a viable evaluation tool is that it assumes all shot attempts are of equal value. The mindless blast from the point into a forward’s shinpads receives the same emphasis in the equation as a slam-dunk rebound chance into a wide-open net. This tends to be the primary issue that most coaches within the game have with Corsi, and why many direct their staff to track scoring chances and studiously evaluate plays that result in goals. The counterargument is that territorial play matters, and Corsi provides an accurate look into which forwards and defensemen are truly “pushing play” in the right direction, in addition to the fact that shot-attempt differential has proven to be a better predictor of future goal differential than even past goal differential. And the debate rages on.


I'm reluctant to speak for LBR but I believe she used Gx and the writer used Corsi. At this stage he sees Gx as flawed cuz there is not enough tracking data to support it as accurate enough and uses corsi instead. Like most I read many of these deeper fancy stats and say %#*& it, what do my eyes tell me?...........

That's exactly what I'll do when he puts on a Hawks jersey. But very much like his Corsi numbers, his age and I do remember this guy and without evaluating him liked his size and skating. Do not remember his physicality tho but by his stats he'll use his body as his hits and PIM are up there.
- Mr Ricochet

xGF is still in it's infancy of being a stat and it's not a good tool for every player. It shouldn't be dismissed, just put into the context of every other stat.

One thing some do is look at the discrepancy between CF and xG of a player, which is exactly what that author did, and what he found was that Manning had the highest discrepancy for d-men in the last 3 seasons. Quote from the article:

"Over the past three seasons — in other words, since Manning has become a full-time defenseman at the NHL level — his Corsi For Percentage at 5-on-5 is a perfectly solid 51.39%. On the other hand, his results by xG drop all the way to 47.75 percent, a 3.64% discrepancy. Not a single regular NHL blueliner holds a larger gap between his Corsi and xG over that span than Manning.

In addition, Manning’s actual on-ice goal differential over this three-season span is 47.64 percent, which is nearly identical to his xG (47.75%) and is a far cry from his Corsi (51.39%). Three seasons isn’t a small sample anymore, and the goal results seem to be matching xG, goal results that place him in lower-end third-pair territory.

He ranks 140th out of 169 NHL defensemen with at least 2,000 minutes played in terms of average quality of on-ice shot created, and is 20th-worst when looking at shot quality allowed.

This is worrisome because the Hawks already have this issue - they have the puck a lot but they don't prevent the other team from having more quality chances. Keith and Seabrook are in the same discussion currently. Some of it is on the fact that the forwards for the Hawks have been sub-average defensive, what with the loss of Hossa and Saad (for a while) and Kruger and Bolland, but the defense need to be better as well. Adding a guy who has the same issue as the team already doesn't do a lot to make me believe he'll be helpful, especially since he did all of this against lower quality of comp. The fact that most Flyers fans agree Manning's stats line up with his eye test makes it a weird signing to me.

But again, this is all on paper. I don't like it right now, but I don't know what Q/Ulf will do with him.

I wasn’t comparing the two players, rather saying to use Scheifle’s contract as a reference point. Scheifle is the better player for alll the reasons you mentioned. So my point is that Schmaltz’s deal needs to be less than that.
- DarthKane

Maybe. It's pretty standard for guys who get about 50 points to get in the $5.5-6.5m range on their second deal. If Schmaltz got $6m, it'd be pretty much market value for his production and age.

Missed it in all the catching up reading.

Anyone know the significance of signing Boqvist now?

I thought he was 3 years away???
- vabeachbear

It's just a way to be able to be more involved in his development. He'll likely stay in Sweden another year, but be able to dictate a bit more while he's over there, and then he can come over in a year to play in Rockford.

Boqvist is the one that said he was 2-3 years away btw. I've seen others say he could be closer depending on how much he grows. Karlsson and Letang were supposedly 2-3 years away but ended up playing the year after their drafts as well.

Screw Handzus...so he picked up a goddamn boat anchor Kane dragged to a Cup in 2013.

Saad, Shaw were good picks
Oduya was a good trade
Vermette was a good trade
Richard's was a good trade
TT doesn't count because he tossed him into the rubble.

Conjecture to say Tallon (or ANYONE else) wouldn't win if they:
-Pick the player scouts tell them too
-Go trade for 2 unwanted centers to fading teams at the TDL

You mean Bowman is the ONLY ONE who could have scripted a deal of Vermette? Get real. YES, I applaud Bowman for bringing in a Top 4 Dman and a couple centers. Great job, but it's not like that was pioneering. Funny, the Hawks need what now? A top 4 D man and another center...so Bowman gets another geezer, a bottom D man and oh yea a backup goalie who he then gives a NTC to. LMAO...what backup goalie in the NHL has one of those? That's right the Blackhawks goalie.

The key is COULD he sustain those nice moves? The answer is no. Since then he has bloated the cap structure, traded guys too late, gone for guys washed up, GIVEN away talented players for trash and seemingly running himself into circles by trading guys, then trading them out, trading for guys then trading someone to take their place, wash / rinse / repeat

Oduay, AV, Richards...excellent moves. A couple good draft picks there, but the guy won Cups because he was gifted one of the best cores this league has seen in 20 years. Now that core is gone/breakingdown/aging and Bowman is going to be exposed, he is being exposed.
- kwolf68

Handzus had 11 points in 23 tournament games in 2013, a plus-7. Contributed, I think. No credit to Bowman for getting him? Ok, I guess.

TT - 10 points in 20 games in the 2015 Cup run. Doesn’t count because you say he screwed up by including him in the Bickell deal? Ok, I guess.

I never said Tallon wouldn’t have been as successful - only that I didn’t know if he would have been. I KNOW Bowman did.

I didn’t say Bowman was the ONLY ONE - only that he was the one who did.

And I have agreed that he hadn’t sustained those good moves - that he’s probably not the guy for the rebuild.

But I’m not so biased against him that I don’t recognize his actual accomplishments here in Chicago.

CF is superior still, but the fact that for 3 seasons in a row, the high danger chances are higher with Manning on the ice than without is worrisome. If Manning's possession was like 53%+, then it'd be okay with a bit more high danger chances because they'd have been smaller number overall. But it hasn't been.

And he was doing that against low comp - what would it be like against top lines? Or do you have Q continue to run him against low comp which puts like Gus against higher comp? Both seem to not be the best choice.

Mostly I looked at the high danger thing because that's already an issue with the Hawks the last few seasons. They were one of the best overall possession teams in the league in terms of pure shot attempts, but they allowed some of the worst high danger chances, specifically due to not protecting the blue line. Manning is just more of that - he does not help there at all.

Still, like I added, I'll try to wait to see how Manning is used by the Hawks and if his usage alleviates some concerns. Maybe he just instantly click idk. Currently, I just don't see how someone who has been a 6/7 quality d-man in terms of his stats, high level or micro, is going to improve the team and thus worth $2.5m.
- L_B_R

Very helpful LBR, thank you. But would then ask it was mentioned that altough he plays vs lower comp he was also on with bottom 6 teammates. There has to be a factor for that, no?

You mention protecting the blueline. As little as I look at fancies besides corsi and zone start type stuff I gravitate to exit and enter %. It's a flow thing in my minds eye, enter with flow and kill flow at your end. His Control Entry Allowed was at 65.33%, 3rd on the club. How does that 65% stack up vs the league?

I can’t believe you signed manning to that term. You have to have somebody in the minors as good or better then manning. Ugh

That was quick, and yea seems like a good comparable. Saad's contract is old so would 6 mil be enough for Schmaltz?
- Mr Ricochet

Just to understand: Stan gets criticized for his past bloated long term contracts - but you’re ok giving a 22 year old with really less than two full seasons in the Show - and one with good numbers - who we don’t know what his best position is - a 6x6 contract?

I understand the in the pointy head universe of deep deep deep deep deep fancy stats they debate and disagree and from that we get more and more fancy stats. Not at all a knock just pointing this out.

LBR used deeper stats than this fella and he addressed that saying the Expected Goals (Gx) by some in the pointy head universe was a stat that, well I'll use his words:

One of the consistent critiques of Corsi as a viable evaluation tool is that it assumes all shot attempts are of equal value. The mindless blast from the point into a forward’s shinpads receives the same emphasis in the equation as a slam-dunk rebound chance into a wide-open net. This tends to be the primary issue that most coaches within the game have with Corsi, and why many direct their staff to track scoring chances and studiously evaluate plays that result in goals. The counterargument is that territorial play matters, and Corsi provides an accurate look into which forwards and defensemen are truly “pushing play” in the right direction, in addition to the fact that shot-attempt differential has proven to be a better predictor of future goal differential than even past goal differential. And the debate rages on.


I'm reluctant to speak for LBR but I believe she used Gx and the writer used Corsi. At this stage he sees Gx as flawed cuz there is not enough tracking data to support it as accurate enough and uses corsi instead. Like most I read many of these deeper fancy stats and say %#*& it, what do my eyes tell me?...........

That's exactly what I'll do when he puts on a Hawks jersey. But very much like his Corsi numbers, his age, entry break ups and I do remember this guy and without evaluating him liked his size and skating. Do not remember his physicality tho but by his stats he'll use his body as his hits and PIM are up there.
- Mr Ricochet

It comes down to this for me. While he helps his team have a .5 SAT advantage when he is on the ice. The HDSC is tilted heavily against him. Either means he gets beat to the net a lot(poor positioning) or he can't keep up. Neither of which makes him attractive to me. He averages slightly more than 1 hit a game. PIM could be because he is out of position, too.
I have watched him enough to know I never watched him and thought, wish he was on the Hawks.

Whateves though. He is here and can join the multitude of players fighting for bottom pair minutes if Q doesn't insert his head in his ass and think the bum is 2nd pair material

I seem to recall something like that too. I am very happy he got another solid, though short, deal with the Yotes. He's got 10 million for 2 and I suspect he'll probably get another 1, albeit smaller, after that.

Hammer, as you said, is the one guy who sacrificed salary and without HIM there are no Cups (or maybe 2 less), even though people like to point to the multi billion dollar core as the "only" reason for Cups.

I think the Coyotes have a legit shot at the playoffs next year, they have a ton of good, young talent.
- kwolf68

Elina will get some of that, I would think....

I can’t believe you signed manning to that term. You have to have somebody in the minors as good or better then manning. Ugh
- jmdodgeser4

Neither can we.

Bowman said they want control of him right now so they can accelerate his progression and get him in the NHL ASAP.

Edit to add: Their strategy surrounding prospects has changed due to the fact Colliton has shown that he is very capable of developing players very quickly.
- Hawks_49

Great point that had gotten past me. It would seem the organIzation would want to get a kid to Colliton as fast as possible. ..........

Lucky they drafted him out of anywhere other than Major Junior cuz the kid would be stuck there until he's out of jr eligibility for the most part.

Absolutely nothing but page after page of nonsense.....
- dahawks8819

♥️Tom Wilson♥️

I look at the Manning signing this way. You've got Keith, Oesterle, Gustafsson and now Manning and left handed dmen. Keith can defend well still, but after that Manning is next most reliable and you've bumped Gustafsson and Oesterle down the depth chart in terms of preventing goals.

Screw Handzus...so he picked up a goddamn boat anchor Kane dragged to a Cup in 2013.

Saad, Shaw were good picks
Oduya was a good trade
Vermette was a good trade
Richard's was a good trade
TT doesn't count because he tossed him into the rubble.

Conjecture to say Tallon (or ANYONE else) wouldn't win if they:
-Pick the player scouts tell them too
-Go trade for 2 unwanted centers to fading teams at the TDL

You mean Bowman is the ONLY ONE who could have scripted a deal of Vermette? Get real. YES, I applaud Bowman for bringing in a Top 4 Dman and a couple centers. Great job, but it's not like that was pioneering. Funny, the Hawks need what now? A top 4 D man and another center...so Bowman gets another geezer, a bottom D man and oh yea a backup goalie who he then gives a NTC to. LMAO...what backup goalie in the NHL has one of those? That's right the Blackhawks goalie.

The key is COULD he sustain those nice moves? The answer is no. Since then he has bloated the cap structure, traded guys too late, gone for guys washed up, GIVEN away talented players for trash and seemingly running himself into circles by trading guys, then trading them out, trading for guys then trading someone to take their place, wash / rinse / repeat

Oduay, AV, Richards...excellent moves. A couple good draft picks there, but the guy won Cups because he was gifted one of the best cores this league has seen in 20 years. Now that core is gone/breakingdown/aging and Bowman is going to be exposed, he is being exposed.
- kwolf68

Okay so Bowman is a f up, i get it worst gm in the land. Pitt/Det/Boston/LA were the heavy hitters in the past 10 years including the Blackhawks. Detroit hung but to no avail, Pitt was able to draft enough talent to be a factor again but were quiet for a few years until Sullivan and Kessel came along to put the team over the top. LA old and heavy team and Boston just not all that anymore. Let me know where there is a gm who can manage the cap, keep all his young players, pay all his core players, draft studs and keep all their draft picks? Please enlighten me?

Great point that had gotten past me. It would seem the organIzation would want to get a kid to Colliton as fast as possible. ..........

Lucky they drafted him out of anywhere other than Major Junior cuz the kid would be stuck there until he's out of jr eligibility for the most part.
- Mr Ricochet

Exactly. Now they can control his development. I'd wager a bet that Boqvist joins the Hawks by the middle of the 19-20 season.

Very helpful LBR, thank you. But would then ask it was mentioned that altough he plays vs lower comp he was also on with bottom 6 teammates. There has to be a factor for that, no?

You mention protecting the blueline. As little as I look at fancies besides corsi and zone start type stuff I gravitate to exit and enter %. It's a flow thing in my minds eye, enter with flow and kill flow at your end. His Control Entry Allowed was at 65.33%, 3rd on the club. How does that 65% stack up vs the league?
- Mr Ricochet

Yes, Manning played with lower quality of teammate, but that's cause he was playing with the checking line on the team. It's like how Hjammer-Oduya had lower QOT than Keith-Seabrook cause they played with Bolland/Kruger vs Kane, except that Hjammer-Oduya-Bolland/Kruger got top comp while the Flyers pair did not. Thee Flyers tried to use Manning-Gudas in a shutdown/checking pair role and it was not successful.

Mannings controlled zone entry allowed % was good but his breakup % numbers are terrible and his overall zone entry with possession are meh. It likely means that the former had a smaller sample, which makes sense - low comp guys don't have great controlled zone entry numbers in general, so it likely wasn't because of Manning that they weren't getting in controlled. They did still get in the zone with Manning on the ice and retrieved the puck or else the overall entry numbers were be stronger. And when asked to break-up an entry, Manning didn't do it well. I'd have to did in deeper to see quantity to confirm this, but it's still not a good look imo.

The guy who tracks the actual games had this to say about him: "Manning is your standard 6/7 defenseman who doesn't offer much."