Re: 2009 Chicago Blackhawks

[RedFlash]

They however are a very dangerous team that if I was a Blackhawk fan I would be praying they dont make the playoffs as an 8th seed.

 

You make it sound the Hawks should be afraid. I'm sorry I can't get afraid of the Ducks, I simply can't. There is not a team in the West that the Hawks can't beat. And you could argue the Hawks could beat every team in the NHL. So you're statement, NUN, really should fall on deaf ears. I won't disrepsect the Ducks, I, and I am pretty sure the Hawks players themselves will agree with what I am saying, just don't fear them.

Edited January 12, 2010 by RedFlash

[UMFan83]

They however are a very dangerous team that if I was a Blackhawk fan I would be praying they dont make the playoffs as an 8th seed.

 

You make it sound the Hawks should be afraid. I'm sorry I can't get afraid of the Ducks, I simply can't. There is not a team in the West that the Hawks can't beat. And you could argue the Hawks could beat every team in the NHL. So you're statement, NUN, really should fall on deaf eyes. I don't disrepsect the Ducks, I, and I am pretty sure the Hawks players themselves will agree with what I am saying, just don't fear them.

 

To NUN's credit, the playoffs are another animal than the regular season. Things get more physical, different styles of play are more effective than in the regular season. You can be a great regular season team and fall flat on your face in the playoffs. Most teams can translate well, and the Hawks team certainly answered questions about their playoff abilities last season when they went to the WCF. But all it takes is one bad matchups and a few bad breaks and the best team in the NHL is eliminated. Plus being the best team in the NHL, if that's what the Hawks are, is not always a black and white kinda thing. You can have the ability to beat just about every team or style in hockey, but there might be a team out there that can keep up with them and play them well. To that team, the Hawks aren't the best team in hockey. I'm speaking in hypotheticals here, but my point stands. I'm at the crossroads of wanted to say "lets not get to cocky here", and "screw it lets enjoy it while it lasts because our teams are never this awesome, lets act cocky".

 

As for the Ducks, NUN has a reason to respect them, as the little 8 seed that could took out the number 1 seed Sharks, and took his Wings, the number 2 seed to 7 tough games. I believe that game 7 was tied until the last couple of minutes when the Wings finally put them away. And after that tough series, the Wings regrouped to take care of the Blackhawks with ease. So you never know. Let's just enjoy our team being really damn awesome and try not to look too hard at the playoffs, a lesson I learned from the 2008 Cubs season. I don't think I appreciated that year as much as I could have because all I focused on from May onwards was the playoffs, and look where that got me.

[NewUserName]

They however are a very dangerous team that if I was a Blackhawk fan I would be praying they dont make the playoffs as an 8th seed.

 

You make it sound the Hawks should be afraid. I'm sorry I can't get afraid of the Ducks, I simply can't. There is not a team in the West that the Hawks can't beat. And you could argue the Hawks could beat every team in the NHL. So you're statement, NUN, really should fall on deaf eyes. I don't disrepsect the Ducks, I, and I am pretty sure the Hawks players themselves will agree with what I am saying, just don't fear them.

 

Well I was just trying to point out that the Hawks shouldnt be that down about losing to Anaheim. And also wanted to point out that Anaheim has PROVEN to be a real good playoff team in the last few years. But hey, if you want to believe the Hawks have already proven something, be my guest.

[Soul]

They however are a very dangerous team that if I was a Blackhawk fan I would be praying they dont make the playoffs as an 8th seed.

 

You make it sound the Hawks should be afraid. I'm sorry I can't get afraid of the Ducks, I simply can't. There is not a team in the West that the Hawks can't beat. And you could argue the Hawks could beat every team in the NHL. So you're statement, NUN, really should fall on deaf eyes. I don't disrepsect the Ducks, I, and I am pretty sure the Hawks players themselves will agree with what I am saying, just don't fear them.

 

Well I was just trying to point out that the Hawks shouldnt be that down about losing to Anaheim. And also wanted to point out that Anaheim has PROVEN to be a real good playoff team in the last few years. But hey, if you want to believe the Hawks have already proven something, be my guest.

 

Nice logic. Hawks went farther in the playoffs than the Ducks last year, but it's the Ducks that proved something, not the Hawks.

[bukie]

They however are a very dangerous team that if I was a Blackhawk fan I would be praying they dont make the playoffs as an 8th seed.

 

You make it sound the Hawks should be afraid. I'm sorry I can't get afraid of the Ducks, I simply can't. There is not a team in the West that the Hawks can't beat. And you could argue the Hawks could beat every team in the NHL. So you're statement, NUN, really should fall on deaf eyes. I don't disrepsect the Ducks, I, and I am pretty sure the Hawks players themselves will agree with what I am saying, just don't fear them.

 

Well I was just trying to point out that the Hawks shouldnt be that down about losing to Anaheim. And also wanted to point out that Anaheim has PROVEN to be a real good playoff team in the last few years. But hey, if you want to believe the Hawks have already proven something, be my guest.

 

Nice logic. Hawks went farther in the playoffs than the Ducks last year, but it's the Ducks that proved something, not the Hawks.

He did say last few years, implying that he's including their Cup winning season from 3 years back, and possibly their trip to the conference finals from 4 years back. That totals 7 playoff series victories in 4 years, while the Hawks have but 2 in 15 years.

[Soul]

They however are a very dangerous team that if I was a Blackhawk fan I would be praying they dont make the playoffs as an 8th seed.

 

You make it sound the Hawks should be afraid. I'm sorry I can't get afraid of the Ducks, I simply can't. There is not a team in the West that the Hawks can't beat. And you could argue the Hawks could beat every team in the NHL. So you're statement, NUN, really should fall on deaf eyes. I don't disrepsect the Ducks, I, and I am pretty sure the Hawks players themselves will agree with what I am saying, just don't fear them.

 

Well I was just trying to point out that the Hawks shouldnt be that down about losing to Anaheim. And also wanted to point out that Anaheim has PROVEN to be a real good playoff team in the last few years. But hey, if you want to believe the Hawks have already proven something, be my guest.

 

Nice logic. Hawks went farther in the playoffs than the Ducks last year, but it's the Ducks that proved something, not the Hawks.

He did say last few years, implying that he's including their Cup winning season from 3 years back, and possibly their trip to the conference finals from 4 years back. That totals 7 playoff series victories in 4 years, while the Hawks have but 2 in 15 years.

 

Cup wins from 3 years ago don't "prove" anything for 2009/2010.

[brinoch]

I'd say that it depends on how much of the core personnel is the same. For example, the Hawks are largely the same team from last season, so using their track record from 08/09 to think about 09/10 is pretty reasonable. The Ducks have made a lot of changes over the past two years; I think they have one D-man from the 07 team left, for example. But, under Carlyle, they've been a very strong second half team each of the four years he's been there.

 

I think the Ducks are a pretty decent team and they have an outside shot at the playoffs. If they make it, it'll be because they've played great hockey over the entire second half of the season. Would you want to play one of the hottest second half teams in the first round? Me neither.

[Soul]

I didn't want to play the Canucks, either. That turned out alright.

 

The main point is, this Ducks team doesn't really resemble the Cup team from years ago. Last year's Blackhawk team is largely the same as this year's, with what I would argue is an upgrade of Hossa over Havlat.

 

No, I don't want to play a team that is streaking, but that's not really what I was arguing.

[Butterscup1679666578]

Bolland hopes to be back at some point in February and Burish is looking to return after the Olympics. No word on if Hossa will return on Thursday or not.

[UMFan83]

As the Hawks remain idle, other teams are making up ground.

 

The Devils won in OT and are now 1 point behind the Hawks for most points in the league, with 2 games in hand on Chicago.

Nashville is about to win again, and should they will be 7 points behind the Hawks in the Central.

The Sharks are about to win again, and assuming they do will be 1 point ahead of the Hawks for #1 seed in the West, with the Hawks having a game in hand on SJ.

 

Nothing to be concerned over. The Hawks are probably not going to pull away from SJ so it's gonna be a dog fight all the way. Nashville still isn't much to be scared over, up 7 points in a game in hand. NJ just keeps winning, and while it'd be nice to get a trophy, the President's Cup is not one of our season goals.

 

Still worth following though while the Hawks have 3 days off.

[Soul]

Given the past 2 losses, I'll take the 3 days off. We can use the cool-down period right now.

[rocket]

i'm going to the blackhawks game in columbus on february 14th. i know a little bit about the blackhawks from nhl '94, but don't know much about them now. any players i should be interested in, for the blackhawks and the blue jackets?

[bukie]

i'm going to the blackhawks game in columbus on february 14th. i know a little bit about the blackhawks from nhl '94, but don't know much about them now. any players i should be interested in, for the blackhawks and the blue jackets?

Patrick Kane is an easy target for beating up a cabbie in the offseason.

 

As far as the "stars" on the Blackhawks, their worthy Olympians are Kane (USA), Jonathan Toews, Duncan Keith and Brent Seabrook (Canada), and Marian Hossa (Slovakia). Tomas Kopecky made the Slovak team, but I assume that's mostly because they couldn't find any other Slovaks.

 

Columbus, on the other hand, has really struggled this year, especially of late. They do, however, have seven Olympians, the most prominent of which are probably Rick Nash (Canada), Fedor Tyutin (Russia) and Fredrik Modin and Samuel Paahlsson (Sweden).

[kujay]

Got my tickets today for the 2/6 and 3/30 Hawks games here in St. Louis. The games are sold out, but they were offering a ticket pack where you could choose any four remaining games for pretty cheap, and I guess they had tickets stashed away for that.

 

So I also get to see Toronto and Washington here. Not bad at all.

[The1Tab]

IMO - how to save the Blackhawks payroll next year

 

A) buyout Huet http://committedindians.com/should-the-blackhawks-buyout-cristobal-huet/

 

B) Trade Barke for a prospect or two, or a rental during this season

 

C) Trade Sopel for a bag of pucks this summer

 

Thoughts?

[bukie]

IMO - how to save the Blackhawks payroll next year

 

A) buyout Huet http://committedindians.com/should-the-blackhawks-buyout-cristobal-huet/

 

B) Trade Barke for a prospect or two, or a rental during this season

 

C) Trade Sopel for a bag of pucks this summer

 

Thoughts?

The biggest problem I see with that proposal is that the Hawks aren't especially deep with defensemen, so it would limit their already thin back line. Wouldn't they also stand to save more if they could move, say, Campbell, anyway? I could see them trying to move Campbell and then one of Sharp/Versteeg/Byfuglien.

[17 Seconds]

They however are a very dangerous team that if I was a Blackhawk fan I would be praying they dont make the playoffs as an 8th seed.

 

You make it sound the Hawks should be afraid. I'm sorry I can't get afraid of the Ducks, I simply can't. There is not a team in the West that the Hawks can't beat. And you could argue the Hawks could beat every team in the NHL. So you're statement, NUN, really should fall on deaf eyes. I don't disrepsect the Ducks, I, and I am pretty sure the Hawks players themselves will agree with what I am saying, just don't fear them.

 

Well I was just trying to point out that the Hawks shouldnt be that down about losing to Anaheim. And also wanted to point out that Anaheim has PROVEN to be a real good playoff team in the last few years. But hey, if you want to believe the Hawks have already proven something, be my guest.

 

the ducks are 8-11 in their last 2 postseasons, and the only series they won was against a san jose team that always chokes.

 

the hawks won more games in last year's playoffs than the ducks did in the last 2 years combined.

 

also, those ducks teams were actually GOOD in the regular seasons of those 2 years. they're not good this season.

[The1Tab]

The biggest problem I see with that proposal is that the Hawks aren't especially deep with defensemen, so it would limit their already thin back line. Wouldn't they also stand to save more if they could move, say, Campbell, anyway? I could see them trying to move Campbell and then one of Sharp/Versteeg/Byfuglien.

 

So you're saying the Hawks have a thin blue line, but they should deal Campbell? I'm not sure I see your logic... Campbell's having an All Star-caliber season. Moving him would not only hurt the depth more than moving two 3rd-line guys, but it would be nearly impossible to replace his value on the ice.

 

Also, if you look at the Hawks' prospects, they have to top-shelf defenseman at the top of their organization named Shawn LaLonde and Dylan Olsen. LaLonde could easily replace Barker next year (Hendry already has for a week+), and Hendry could slide into Sopel's spot with minimal impact to the on-ice quality of the play. Then we would only need to bring on a rental for Hendry's bench slot next year, which we could do ont he cheap.

 

Sopel + Barker are making $5.333M and could both be replaced internally. Campbell is indeed making north of $7M, but we cannot replace him for cheaper than $5M, and would have to do so via free agency. Also, we're not going to deal a contract the size/length of Campbell's without taking salary back, and we can't afford that. We could, however, deal Barker/Sopel for picks/prospects and not miss a beat.

 

:hello:

[brinoch]

IMO - how to save the Blackhawks payroll next year

 

A) buyout Huet http://committedindians.com/should-the-blackhawks-buyout-cristobal-huet/

 

B) Trade Barke for a prospect or two, or a rental during this season

 

C) Trade Sopel for a bag of pucks this summer

 

Thoughts?

The biggest problem I see with that proposal is that the Hawks aren't especially deep with defensemen, so it would limit their already thin back line. Wouldn't they also stand to save more if they could move, say, Campbell, anyway? I could see them trying to move Campbell and then one of Sharp/Versteeg/Byfuglien.

 

I think it's debatable whether they would be thin with Defensemen. Sopel does good things on the PK, but he's very slow and overpaid for a 5/6. Likewise, I think Barker is overpaid for a 5/6. On a lot of teams, though, those guys would easily be the 3/4 pairing. Take a team like the Rangers... they would *love* to have those two guys. Plus, while they might save more moving Campbell, the reality is that his contract probably makes him difficult to trade (you'd have to take contracts back) and the dynamic he's brought to the offense is worth a lot. Watch when Keith or Campbell are able to penetrate the zone -- or when they draw defenders to them near the blue line. With three forwards also moving forward, you can overload a side and create odd man rushes for shots or get deep into the zone without dumping. That really makes the offense hum.

 

I think Byfuglien needs to go. He has very good potential, but so do several other young minor league players who make a lot less. I definitely would move Barker and Byfuglien. Heck, you can move Byfuglien for a pick now with Burish and Bolland soon to be back.

 

The idea of buying out Huet is very interesting. I tend to think that goalies are kind of like relievers in baseball -- they fluctuate from year to year, so you shouldn't invest too much into them. Unless you have just an absolute awesome goalie, I'd go the Detroit model and just get two who are good enough.

[17 Seconds]

The biggest problem I see with that proposal is that the Hawks aren't especially deep with defensemen, so it would limit their already thin back line. Wouldn't they also stand to save more if they could move, say, Campbell, anyway? I could see them trying to move Campbell and then one of Sharp/Versteeg/Byfuglien.

 

So you're saying the Hawks have a thin blue line, but they should deal Campbell? I'm not sure I see your logic... Campbell's having an All Star-caliber season. Moving him would not only hurt the depth more than moving two 3rd-line guys, but it would be nearly impossible to replace his value on the ice.

 

Also, if you look at the Hawks' prospects, they have to top-shelf defenseman at the top of their organization named Shawn LaLonde and Dylan Olsen. LaLonde could easily replace Barker next year (Hendry already has for a week+), and Hendry could slide into Sopel's spot with minimal impact to the on-ice quality of the play. Then we would only need to bring on a rental for Hendry's bench slot next year, which we could do ont he cheap.

 

Sopel + Barker are making $5.333M and could both be replaced internally. Campbell is indeed making north of $7M, but we cannot replace him for cheaper than $5M, and would have to do so via free agency. Also, we're not going to deal a contract the size/length of Campbell's without taking salary back, and we can't afford that. We could, however, deal Barker/Sopel for picks/prospects and not miss a beat.

 

:hello:

 

i don't think campbell is as good as his numbers indicate this season. he is replaceable.

[brinoch]

Wow, dex. I really think you should watch the way Campbell brings the puck up the ice. DVR the game tomorrow and watch it twice, once for the game and a second time just focus on Campbell. He adds a tremendous dimension to the offense with his skating and puck control. The Keith/Seabrook and Campbell/Hjalmarrson pairings really allow Keith and Campbell to be creative and that jump starts the offense.

[17 Seconds]

Wow, dex. I really think you should watch the way Campbell brings the puck up the ice. DVR the game tomorrow and watch it twice, once for the game and a second time just focus on Campbell. He adds a tremendous dimension to the offense with his skating and puck control. The Keith/Seabrook and Campbell/Hjalmarrson pairings really allow Keith and Campbell to be creative and that jump starts the offense.

 

i won't argue that he's not a good offensive d-man. that's never been an issue. the issue is how much of that value he gives back with his loose defense and constant horrible turnovers.

 

he has been a lot better this season than last, though.

[Soul]

I can argue that his contract isn't good. But I think as piece on the roster -- disregarding the $$$ -- he's alright. I agree he's not a complete defenseman. He's kind of an oddball; pushing the puck, joining the offense, etc. We seem to be able to use that effectively, though.

 

I'd like to get his contract off the books.

[jersey cubs fan]

I can argue that his contract isn't good. But I think as piece on the roster -- disregarding the $$$ -- he's alright. I agree he's not a complete defenseman. He's kind of an oddball; pushing the puck, joining the offense, etc. We seem to be able to use that effectively, though.

 

I'd like to get his contract off the books.

 

The thing is, they really needed that when they went after him. This team was dull and without any offensive weapons. It just so happened that right after they acquired him all the talented young players started breaking out, thus immediately making his services less valuable to the team.

[The1Tab]

i don't think campbell is as good as his numbers indicate this season. he is replaceable.

 

I could not disagree more. He's playing heavier minutes and producing more, and hasn't made as many crucial mistakes. I watch every game, most of the home games in person, and Campbell's playing at a top-tier level this year. We cannot replace him internally, and couldn't replace his abilities/production for less than $5M

Edited January 14, 2010 by The1Tab