Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

[Discussion] Blackhawks bad asset management


Z Hockey

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Gstank29 said:

Did I say you did that, no I said "the generally CDC consensus." I said nothing direct at you, there would have been a "you" involved if I did. Generalizing a group (in this case vocal posters) doesn't make you anti the whole site, also i have never labled CDC as one entity, general concensus means a majority, in this case it's the dominant theme when ever you open a Mangement or Benning related thread. Infact, try and find a post where I say either "all of" CDC. I don't know where you are getting this opinion from, maybe its from some post a month ago or maybe its the fact that you are misunderstanding what I'm saying I don't see how you see that as "I hate CDC" I choose to post here opposed to the HF board because that place is even worse filled with poster who are anti-everything Benning does. Generally the opinions here are much boarder and more reasonable then over on the HF site.

 

Glad you  took the time to reply to the first paragraph through, it would have been much more productive.

Really, that's what you say?  No it isn't.  You say CDC is "this" and "that".

 

There you playing a victim again.  You're the one using passive aggressive phrases like "Glad you  took the time to reply to the first paragraph through, it would have been much more productive." If you want to converse, don't talk in circles and change the goal posts.  I maintain my original position that winning cups and asset management are directly linked regardless of the perceived value of each individual transaction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you breakdown the Laich trade it's basically Connor Carrick for Laich. So if we work from that

4.5 million, same term is less than 5.9 million

Sharp is on pace for about 55-60 points where Laich is probably about 20-25 points

Carrick is about the same as Johns.

 

So someone of Sharps statue  and productions should have required a lesser prospect (probably a pick) because they only real thing your eating is his cap he is still a productive player, opposed to in the Leafs/Captial trade you are eating cap and getting a useless player

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Z Hockey said:

 

"Chalky".. turning Sharp, Daley, Sekac, Garbutt, Scuderi into Ehrhoff is bad asset management no matter how you cut it, Bowman has not made them more deep right now than Dallas, Washington, Anaheim, LA, even San Jose or Florida. And at the same time he lost so much future talent.

Every GM makes bad moves.  Bowman makes tough decisions and ices winning teams.  There is no cookie cutter to NHL teams and if those are the teams the Hawks are grouped in with then they are a good team.  I don't define GMs only by their failed moves.  In Bowman's case, he keeps a strong core and replaces parts around them as needed.  He often uses role players.  I don't think he has bad asset management.

 

By the way, I hate the Hawks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Gstank29 said:

I'll try, but the fact they had to give up a pretty valuable prospect and productive player with basically getting nothing in return isn't bolding well

They waited a fairly long time for offers to materialise on Sharp. Can't blame them if there was hardly anything there. Do you blame Benning for not taking a 3rd for Hamhuis?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Gstank29 said:

If you breakdown the Laich trade it's basically Connor Carrick for Laich. So if we work from that

4.5 million, same term is less than 5.9 million

Sharp is on pace for about 55-60 points where Laich is probably about 20-25 points

Carrick is about the same as Johns.

 

So someone of Sharps statue  and productions should have required a lesser prospect (probably a pick) because they only real thing your eating is his cap he is still a productive player, opposed to in the Leafs/Captial trade you are eating cap and getting a useless player

Sharp has a NTC. Completely different situations. Also the Hawks believed that they were getting a useful player in Daley. He ended up being a slug, it is what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Gstank29 said:

I'll try, but the fact they had to give up a pretty valuable prospect and productive player with basically getting nothing in return isn't bolding well

 

 

 

 

Don't get me wrong, the Sharp deal wasn't a good deal.  But Stan wasn't in the position where he could make a good deal, he just had to free up as much cap space as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, etsen3 said:

Even the best make mistakes.  I don't really see the OP trying to argue that the Blackhawks suck or that Bowman is a bad GM, he's just pointing out a situation where the screwed up badly. Perhaps he could be seen as nitpicking but saying "BUT 3 CUPS" shuts down any sort of nuanced discussion.

I'm talking about what they've done recently, the way they've handled veteran assets and prospects recently, I think they will start having a tougher time. The depth and prospects they recently lost will start affecting them, so saying "BUT 3 CUPS" does NOT shut down a  "nuanced" discussion which is actually just a detailed and good point about their asset management.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Gstank29 said:

If you breakdown the Laich trade it's basically Connor Carrick for Laich. So if we work from that

4.5 million, same term is less than 5.9 million

Sharp is on pace for about 55-60 points where Laich is probably about 20-25 points

Carrick is about the same as Johns.

 

So someone of Sharps statue  and productions should have required a lesser prospect (probably a pick) because they only real thing your eating is his cap he is still a productive player, opposed to in the Leafs/Captial trade you are eating cap and getting a useless player

 

 

 

Didn't Toronto get both Carrick and Laich (plus a 2nd) for Winnik and a 5th?  Plus I'd argue that this wasn't as much of a salary dump as Washington has around $6,000,000 in cap space at the trade deadline. Washington wasn't under as much cap pressure as Chicago and that changes the tone of the deal right from the start.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Gstank29 said:

I also thought he overpaid for Toews and Kane, but it is what it is. 

I understand that point of view, but ask yourself, what would have Kane and Toews received if they hit the open market?  Or even what would they have received if Stan didn't sign them with one year left on their deals?  It's a lot of money but a three time Cup champion and playoff MVP would easily get $10.5 million on the open market. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Z Hockey said:

I'm talking about what they've done recently, the way they've handled veteran assets and prospects recently, I think they will start having a tougher time. The depth and prospects they recently lost will start affecting them, so saying "BUT 3 CUPS" does NOT shut down a  "nuanced" discussion which is actually just a detailed and good point about their asset management.

You could be right, there will be a lot of pressure on Stan to replace the draft picks, Dano, Johns etc with players like Panarin and TvR.  There are a couple good college free agent signings and/or prospects in the pipeline like Baun, Kero, and Hinostroza that will get a good shot at the roster next season.  Plus, our top propsect Nick Schmlatz (who plays with your prospect Brock Boeser) will be a top 6 forward within a couple of years.  Except to see Stan be aggressive this spring with college and European free agents. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Darth Kane said:

Didn't Toronto get both Carrick and Laich (plus a 2nd) for Winnik and a 5th?  Plus I'd argue that this wasn't as much of a salary dump as Washington has around $6,000,000 in cap space at the trade deadline. Washington wasn't under as much cap pressure as Chicago and that changes the tone of the deal right from the start.

 

 

They had 1.5 at the deadline I think. Basically how I broke it down was Washingtons 2nd (which is basically a 3rd) for Winnik and a 5th which is about market value. That pick would have probably been a 3rd without Laich

Just now, Darth Kane said:

I understand that point of view, but ask yourself, what would have Kane and Toews received if they hit the open market?  Or even what would they have received if Stan didn't sign them with one year left on their deals?  It's a lot of money but a three time Cup champion and playoff MVP would easily get $10.5 million on the open market. 

Yea but Chicago had the hammer, they could offer luxerys that other teams can't. Like a younger core to stay competitive for the next 4ish year. IMO Bowman could have probably got them done to 9.0-9.5 if he really wanted to but instead or pissing off his star players he basically asked then what they wanted and signed the check. If he had made the term less (like 6 years) or took the Cap hit down too 9.5ish then it would have been a more reasonable contract IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Z Hockey said:

I'm talking about what they've done recently, the way they've handled veteran assets and prospects recently, I think they will start having a tougher time. The depth and prospects they recently lost will start affecting them, so saying "BUT 3 CUPS" does NOT shut down a  "nuanced" discussion which is actually just a detailed and good point about their asset management.

After reading your posts I really can't decide if you're just messing or just really, really...(don't wana insult you)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Darth Kane said:

Hayes is a decent depth forward, but he had issues while he was with Chicago.  It was only after being traded did he realize he needed to change (and did).  Olsen won't have much of an NHL career unfortunately.  Versteeg's value to Chicago (the second time around) far exceed what Hayes and Olsen could bring. 

 

Regarding the Sharp trade, considering Stan was dealing from a position of weakness what would you expect that he should have got in return?  For some reason people think that Stan jumped all over the first and only offer he got for Sharp.  Stan is too methodical in his approach to do that.  Considering Stan's goal in the Sharp trade was to free up cap space I'd say he accomplished that, although he went about it in a round about way.  Next season the only impact on the cap is $1,125,000 from the salary retained in the Schuderi/Ehrhoff deal.  That's a net savings of $4,775,000.

 

Pirri for a 6th is a fair deal, Pirri isn't that good.  Defensively he is extremely weak and he's at best a depth forward.  He won't be back with the Ducks next season.  

 

A 2nd round pick for Rundblad was beyond terrible.  Most, if not all, Blackhawks fans were left scratching their heads after that deal.

 

Clendening for for Forsling was a win for Stan.  Clendening was never making the Hawks and he wasn't going to be resigned.  Stan got a decent prospect for a player then would have otherwise lost for nothing.  

 

Morin for Panik is not a wash, Stan won that trade.  But I will concede that the impact of this trade to the overall team's performance will be minor.  Morin is an AHLer and nothing more, Panik is a decent forward who will be a decent bottom 6 forward for the Hawks.  He's not playing regularly now only because of Bowman's deadline deals. 

 

Yes, I realize it's KIM and not JIM, that was just a typo.  

It doesn't matter what they got for Sharp now, they got good pieces in return and then lost all of them basically, cap move or not you still always need to get something. 

Pirri is still fairly young and is a smart goal scorer with upside, he's proven he can pot 20 goals so I don't get what you mean as labelling his potential as a depth forward, Anaheim would definitely re-sign him as he'd be cheaper than Perron or McGinn and that would allow them to focus on re-signing Lindholm and Vatanen.  Clendening was playing well in his first few games with the Hawks, he'd be a lot better right now than Roszival or just as good as Ehrhoff. Morin still has upside as does Panik,  like Morin, Panik was shuffling between the AHL/NHL with Tampa and Toronto and showing brief glimpses. Panik looked decent in his first few games with the Hawks because he was playing Anisimov, Toews, Shaw, etc. , Morin looked like that too when he was playing on the Hawks

second line a year ago and then he tailed off, Panik is tailing off too. So Bowman did not win the J. Morin-Panik trade.  It's too early to label J. Hayes as a depth forward too, like seriously?  The Bruins gave up Reilly Smith for him, he's young and he's a monster 6'6 winger with scoring touch and power forward qualities. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Gstank29"...(having issues with Quotes)

 

Chicago didn't hold the hammer, those two would have been free agents and could have commanded $10.5 or easily more elsewhere. 

 

You say that Bowman " basically asked then what they wanted and signed the check", we have no idea how the negotiations went so that it totally unfounded.  It may be possible but it's highly unlikely.  Also, I would have liked those two to sign for $9 - $9.5 million each but there's now way to know that would have sealed the deal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Z Hockey said:

It doesn't matter what they got for Sharp now, they got good pieces in return and then lost all of them basically, cap move or not you still always need to get something. 

Pirri is still fairly young and is a smart goal scorer with upside, he's proven he can pot 20 goals so I don't get what you mean as labelling his potential as a depth forward, Anaheim would definitely re-sign him as he'd be cheaper than Perron or McGinn and that would allow them to focus on re-signing Lindholm and Vatanen.  Clendening was playing well in his first few games with the Hawks, he'd be a lot better right now than Roszival or just as good as Ehrhoff. Morin still has upside as does Panik,  like Morin, Panik was shuffling between the AHL/NHL with Tampa and Toronto and showing brief glimpses. Panik looked decent in his first few games with the Hawks because he was playing Anisimov, Toews, Shaw, etc. , Morin looked like that too when he was playing on the Hawks

second line a year ago and then he tailed off, Panik is tailing off too. So Bowman did not win the J. Morin-Panik trade.

They didn't get good pieces in return for Sharp, Daley and Garbutt played poorly for us.  Removing Daley and allowing Gustafsson to play was a win there.  Again, the end goal was cap space and Stan got it (eventually).

 

Morin has no upside, trust me on this.  He's been in the Hawks system since the summer of 2010, I've followed his career for a while now.  Panik has look decent but he's not played much with the top six forwards, he's been on the 4th line most of the time with guys like Rasmussen and Mashinter.  Morin never looked good playing with the Hawks, he looked good in Rockford but never in Chicago. Panik has score 3 goals and 5 points with Chicago, that's 3 goals and 5 points more than Morin would have even produced.  That trade is a win, albeit a small win. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Gstank29 said:

I pointed this out a while ago, the response you're going to get is "well they have 3 cups". Its still horrible asset management 

Hardly hurts the team. They got Panarin for nothing. Cancels it all out. Plus like you said, 3 cups. He's allowed to do whatever the f he wants lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Darth Kane said:

"Gstank29"...(having issues with Quotes)

 

Chicago didn't hold the hammer, those two would have been free agents and could have commanded $10.5 or easily more elsewhere. 

 

You say that Bowman " basically asked then what they wanted and signed the check", we have no idea how the negotiations went so that it totally unfounded.  It may be possible but it's highly unlikely.  Also, I would have liked those two to sign for $9 - $9.5 million each but there's now way to know that would have sealed the deal. 

Gstank29 has a point, no matter how Elite a captain or major clutch performer Toews is, he's never even tallied 80 'points and they're shuffling him over nearly 11 Mil. The Sedins individually have hit 90-100 plus points multiple times and still outscore Toews every year with around 70 plus points, and they only make 7 Mil. Toews is overpaid, but Patty Kane is paid what he should be for that

production.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Z Hockey said:

Gstank29 has a point, no matter how Elite a captain or major clutch performer Toews is, he's never even tallied 80 'points and they're shuffling him over nearly 11 Mil. The Sedins individually have hit 90-100 plus points multiple times and still outscore Toews every year with around 70 plus points, and they only make 7 Mil. Toews is overpaid, but Patty Kane is paid what he should be for that

production.

Sometimes a players value goes beyond points, that is certainly the case with Toews.  Kane's value is in offense, which he provides.  Toews' value is in a combination of decent offense and amazing defensive abilities.  Plus, the two are a package deal.  Whatever you give one you have to give the other. 

 

Edit: The Sedins are past their prime whereas Toews is just entering his.  That's a big reason for the difference in salary.

 

Can you honestly say that you're rather have Henrik at $7 than Toews at $10.5? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...