Blackhawks 2010-2011 season

[squally1313]

Two pretty convincing wins against two of the top teams in our conference without 3 of our top 6 centers.

 

But you know, season's still over and everything. Let's start rebuilding.

[jersey cubs fan]

Two pretty convincing wins against two of the top teams in our conference without 3 of our top 6 centers.

 

But you know, season's still over and everything. Let's start rebuilding.

 

Unless they make a major leap up in the standings they absolutely should keep building for the future by the time the trading deadline arrives. Two wins are much less meaningful than 40% of a disappointing season. They are only 2 points ahead of 2 teams with 4 games in hand each. The playoffs remain very much in doubt.

[Flames24Rulz]

I'd look to trade Seabrook, especially if you know you won't be able to re-sign him.

[UMFan83]

Two pretty convincing wins against two of the top teams in our conference without 3 of our top 6 centers.

 

But you know, season's still over and everything. Let's start rebuilding.

 

Unless they make a major leap up in the standings they absolutely should keep building for the future by the time the trading deadline arrives. Two wins are much less meaningful than 40% of a disappointing season. They are only 2 points ahead of 2 teams with 4 games in hand each. The playoffs remain very much in doubt.

 

Yes but based on the fact that we won the Stanley Cup last year with a majority of the "key" players returning, it's more likely we play much better the rest of the year than how we have.

 

Last year from January 9th to March 30th, the Hawks posted a 15-12-4 record, and a goal differential of -7. And yet somehow they put it together and started their playoff run to the Stanley Cup 2 weeks after that stretch ended. This year the Hawks are 18-14-3 and have a goal differential of +8, which is 5th best in the conference (albeit in 3-4 more games). No doubt we've played shitty, but its a long season.

 

Do I think the Hawks are going to go 37-10-4 the rest of the year, which is what the Hawks did around that mediocre stretch last year? Probably not, but I think they will play better at some point this year and will position themselves to be somewhere in the 4-7 range when the season is over. As we know the playoffs are a semi-crapshoot, so just getting in and being considered dangerous is fine by me. As it stands, the only team that I'd be less than certain we could beat is Detroit.

[jersey cubs fan]

Two pretty convincing wins against two of the top teams in our conference without 3 of our top 6 centers.

 

But you know, season's still over and everything. Let's start rebuilding.

 

Unless they make a major leap up in the standings they absolutely should keep building for the future by the time the trading deadline arrives. Two wins are much less meaningful than 40% of a disappointing season. They are only 2 points ahead of 2 teams with 4 games in hand each. The playoffs remain very much in doubt.

 

Yes but based on the fact that we won the Stanley Cup last year with a majority of the "key" players returning, it's more likely we play much better the rest of the year than how we have.

 

Last year from January 9th to March 30th, the Hawks posted a 15-12-4 record, and a goal differential of -7. And yet somehow they put it together and started their playoff run to the Stanley Cup 2 weeks after that stretch ended. This year the Hawks are 18-14-3 and have a goal differential of +8, which is 5th best in the conference (albeit in 3-4 more games). No doubt we've played [expletive], but its a long season.

 

Do I think the Hawks are going to go 37-10-4 the rest of the year, which is what the Hawks did around that mediocre stretch last year? Probably not, but I think they will play better at some point this year and will position themselves to be somewhere in the 4-7 range when the season is over. As we know the playoffs are a semi-crapshoot, so just getting in and being considered dangerous is fine by me. As it stands, the only team that I'd be less than certain we could beat is Detroit.

 

As I've made clear, if they straighten things out and play great between now and the deadline, keep it status quo. But there is no reason why trading some of the key pieces can't be on the table if they continue on this uninspiring path. You can't keep expanding the untradable core. With Toews, Kane, Hossa, Campbell, Keith, Hjarmalsson and Bolland locked up longterm and unlikely to be going anywhere, names like Seabrook and Sharp can and should be up for debate.

[squally1313]

Two pretty convincing wins against two of the top teams in our conference without 3 of our top 6 centers.

 

But you know, season's still over and everything. Let's start rebuilding.

 

Unless they make a major leap up in the standings they absolutely should keep building for the future by the time the trading deadline arrives. Two wins are much less meaningful than 40% of a disappointing season. They are only 2 points ahead of 2 teams with 4 games in hand each. The playoffs remain very much in doubt.

 

Yes but based on the fact that we won the Stanley Cup last year with a majority of the "key" players returning, it's more likely we play much better the rest of the year than how we have.

 

Last year from January 9th to March 30th, the Hawks posted a 15-12-4 record, and a goal differential of -7. And yet somehow they put it together and started their playoff run to the Stanley Cup 2 weeks after that stretch ended. This year the Hawks are 18-14-3 and have a goal differential of +8, which is 5th best in the conference (albeit in 3-4 more games). No doubt we've played [expletive], but its a long season.

 

Do I think the Hawks are going to go 37-10-4 the rest of the year, which is what the Hawks did around that mediocre stretch last year? Probably not, but I think they will play better at some point this year and will position themselves to be somewhere in the 4-7 range when the season is over. As we know the playoffs are a semi-crapshoot, so just getting in and being considered dangerous is fine by me. As it stands, the only team that I'd be less than certain we could beat is Detroit.

 

As I've made clear, if they straighten things out and play great between now and the deadline, keep it status quo. But there is no reason why trading some of the key pieces can't be on the table if they continue on this uninspiring path. You can't keep expanding the untradable core. With Toews, Kane, Hossa, Campbell, Keith, Hjarmalsson and Bolland locked up longterm and unlikely to be going anywhere, names like Seabrook and Sharp can and should be up for debate.

 

It is December now. You can wait until the deadline, but so far this team hasn't looked anything like a playoff team, let alone a contender. Hockey teams need a kick in the pants from time to time and I think while a trade of those two may hurt them in the short-term, it is the best decision long-term.

 

To address the two bolded parts...

 

1. Yeah, 2 games is a pretty small sample size to pick out of the 35 games played so far. How about the last 11 games? Or, over 30% of the games on the season, and I'd say even more significant than that because they are the most recent games played. 7-3-1 in that stretch, with one of those games being lost largely because of a BS penalty call (the double minor in the second Colorado game). With at least half of those being played without 2 of our top 3 forwards, as well as Bolland and Stalberg each missing a couple. So look at the first 24 games of this year, or look at all the games from last year and the last 11 of this year. I repeat, we are not playing badly.

 

2. This whole trading thing you really haven't made clear. Do we trade people now, or do we wait till the deadline? We trade away Sharp, we're left with Toews, an injury prone Hossa, an always one hit away from being injured Kane, and a bunch of pretty much unproved forwards, outside of maybe Bolland and Brouwer. Try and put lines together without Sharp and accounting for an injured Hossa without crying. Trading Seabrook away gets rid of our only physical defenseman. Yeah we'd get players back, that could probably help a lot down the line, but if we're trying to shed salary, we're not going to get a lot of immediate help.

 

We're up to 9th in points per game in our conference, and 5th in goal differential. Dallas is going to fall off eventually, and no matter how we've played this year I'd like to think we're better than Nashville. Unfortunately we don't have the luxury of playing in the easier conference, or even an easy division, but we're going to find a way into the top 8, even if Toews has to drag us there. When we get there, I want Sharp and Seabs there.

[Prizefight]

FFS, I hope Bolland isn't considered part of the untradable core

[Magnetic Curses]

Two pretty convincing wins against two of the top teams in our conference without 3 of our top 6 centers.

 

But you know, season's still over and everything. Let's start rebuilding.

 

Unless they make a major leap up in the standings they absolutely should keep building for the future by the time the trading deadline arrives. Two wins are much less meaningful than 40% of a disappointing season. They are only 2 points ahead of 2 teams with 4 games in hand each. The playoffs remain very much in doubt.

 

Yes but based on the fact that we won the Stanley Cup last year with a majority of the "key" players returning, it's more likely we play much better the rest of the year than how we have.

 

Last year from January 9th to March 30th, the Hawks posted a 15-12-4 record, and a goal differential of -7. And yet somehow they put it together and started their playoff run to the Stanley Cup 2 weeks after that stretch ended. This year the Hawks are 18-14-3 and have a goal differential of +8, which is 5th best in the conference (albeit in 3-4 more games). No doubt we've played [expletive], but its a long season.

 

Do I think the Hawks are going to go 37-10-4 the rest of the year, which is what the Hawks did around that mediocre stretch last year? Probably not, but I think they will play better at some point this year and will position themselves to be somewhere in the 4-7 range when the season is over. As we know the playoffs are a semi-crapshoot, so just getting in and being considered dangerous is fine by me. As it stands, the only team that I'd be less than certain we could beat is Detroit.

 

As I've made clear, if they straighten things out and play great between now and the deadline, keep it status quo. But there is no reason why trading some of the key pieces can't be on the table if they continue on this uninspiring path. You can't keep expanding the untradable core. With Toews, Kane, Hossa, Campbell, Keith, Hjarmalsson and Bolland locked up longterm and unlikely to be going anywhere, names like Seabrook and Sharp can and should be up for debate.

 

It is December now. You can wait until the deadline, but so far this team hasn't looked anything like a playoff team, let alone a contender. Hockey teams need a kick in the pants from time to time and I think while a trade of those two may hurt them in the short-term, it is the best decision long-term.

 

To address the two bolded parts...

 

1. Yeah, 2 games is a pretty small sample size to pick out of the 35 games played so far. How about the last 11 games? Or, over 30% of the games on the season, and I'd say even more significant than that because they are the most recent games played. 7-3-1 in that stretch, with one of those games being lost largely because of a BS penalty call (the double minor in the second Colorado game). With at least half of those being played without 2 of our top 3 forwards, as well as Bolland and Stalberg each missing a couple. So look at the first 24 games of this year, or look at all the games from last year and the last 11 of this year. I repeat, we are not playing badly.

 

2. This whole trading thing you really haven't made clear. Do we trade people now, or do we wait till the deadline? We trade away Sharp, we're left with Toews, an injury prone Hossa, an always one hit away from being injured Kane, and a bunch of pretty much unproved forwards, outside of maybe Bolland and Brouwer. Try and put lines together without Sharp and accounting for an injured Hossa without crying. Trading Seabrook away gets rid of our only physical defenseman. Yeah we'd get players back, that could probably help a lot down the line, but if we're trying to shed salary, we're not going to get a lot of immediate help.

 

We're up to 9th in points per game in our conference, and 5th in goal differential. Dallas is going to fall off eventually, and no matter how we've played this year I'd like to think we're better than Nashville. Unfortunately we don't have the luxury of playing in the easier conference, or even an easy division, but we're going to find a way into the top 8, even if Toews has to drag us there. When we get there, I want Sharp and Seabs there.

 

i agree. sharp is the type of player that teams like us will be trying to acquire near the deadline.

[brinoch]

I'd look to trade Seabrook, especially if you know you won't be able to re-sign him.

 

They'll be able to resign him with no problem. There is a ton of money available for next season with the cap hit from the $4M Toews/Kane rookie bonuses gone and the likely $2M cap increase. Seabrook with probably be $4.5-$5M, which takes up $1.5M-$2M of a likely $6M. He's worth it.

 

For what it's worth, I don't consider Bolland to be part of the untradeable core of the team. He's not turning into the second line center everyone thought he would. For my money, Dowell can do what he does as a third line center for much less money.

[Magnetic Curses]

I'd look to trade Seabrook, especially if you know you won't be able to re-sign him.

 

They'll be able to resign him with no problem. There is a ton of money available for next season with the cap hit from the $4M Toews/Kane rookie bonuses gone and the likely $2M cap increase. Seabrook with probably be $4.5-$5M, which takes up $1.5M-$2M of a likely $6M. He's worth it.

 

For what it's worth, I don't consider Bolland to be part of the untradeable core of the team. He's not turning into the second line center everyone thought he would. For my money, Dowell can do what he does as a third line center for much less money.

 

i would have considered bolland untradeable after the postseason last year. but not now.

[brinoch]

And he makes $3.375M per until 2013-2014.

[squally1313]

Yeah I think if there's one player we should consider trading it's Bolland. I'm not saying he couldn't be a valuable player, but I think we saw his peak last year, and with the players that we have, he's not a necessity to our team, though he's being paid like one. I know this Ryan Johnson was mostly signed for the PK, but he's more than capable of centering the fourth line. And Jake Dowell has been pretty damn amazing in the last month or so. Not that he has any potential, but if he can play a good third string center between Skille and Brouwer, and then you put Sharp between the Slovaks, that makes Bolland pretty expendable, especially for the contract he has. It would require our centers to stay healthy, but if Johnson can take Bolland's spot on one PK line, with Toews/Hossa manning the other one, I think you have to look at shopping Bolland. You may not get much for him, but at the very least it gives you some flexibility with the cap, and let's you address a need that may arise come the deadline.

[squally1313]

Just realized I had forgotten about Bickell and his laser shot when trying to think of the lines. Obviously, any sort of trade involving Bolland would leave us quite thin and susceptible to injury, but it would be amazing to maybe pick up someone to take Boynton's spot and pick up a couple million in cap space, for this year and for the future.

 

Stalberg-Toews-Kane

Brouwer-Sharp-Hossa

Bickell-Dowell-Skille

Kopecky-Johnson-Pisani

[Guest]

Are any of the guys we acquired last summer doing great at Rockford? Would any of them be ready to step up into a role with the Hawks if a trade were made?

[jersey cubs fan]

Bolland is untradable because he has a sizeable contract and nobody is going to give the Hawks something for him.

[squally1313]

Bolland is untradable because he has a sizeable contract and nobody is going to give the Hawks something for him.

 

You really think he's entirely untradeable? His contract isn't that outrageous, and up until this year he's played pretty much like a second line forward. It's a blessing for the Hawks that Sharp learned the center position so well and so quickly, but it kinda made Bolland expendable. I think there's got to be teams out there that wouldn't mind bringing him on.

 

Let's remember, he's only 24 years old. He was the 32nd overall pick when he was drafted, meaning he was considered borderline first round talent. His numbers in the minors were pretty outrageous (easily more than a point a game until his last year, where he had 49 points in 65 games). And in the pros coming into this year (since I'm looking at his wikipedia page), he's a .5 point per game player over his career, during his developmental years, while fighting injuries most of the time. And then there's his 28 points in 39 playoff games, and his ability to play the top center on a PK line. There isn't a team in hockey who wouldn't want to put that production on their second line for $3.5 a year?

[squally1313]

Are any of the guys we acquired last summer doing great at Rockford? Would any of them be ready to step up into a role with the Hawks if a trade were made?

 

Looking briefly through Rockford's stats, I'm not seeing a whole lot of immediate help. It seems like the best statistical players are all the equivalent of AAAA players (Jeff Taffe leads the team in points for forwards, and he's 28 years old). Most of the guys we got in the trades are still a couple years away (Morin, Vishnevskiy), and we've seen how much the Blackhawks value controlling their contracts. And obviously we'll have to wait a few years to see the impact of all the draft picks we received. The only guy down in Rockford that I can really see having potential is Brian Connelly, a 24 year old defender who leads the entire team in points and has one of the better plus/minuses of the team at -3 (ugh). But outside of trading Seabrook, I really don't see any of our defensemen going anywhere.

[Guest]

Are any of the guys we acquired last summer doing great at Rockford? Would any of them be ready to step up into a role with the Hawks if a trade were made?

 

Looking briefly through Rockford's stats, I'm not seeing a whole lot of immediate help. It seems like the best statistical players are all the equivalent of AAAA players (Jeff Taffe leads the team in points for forwards, and he's 28 years old). Most of the guys we got in the trades are still a couple years away (Morin, Vishnevskiy), and we've seen how much the Blackhawks value controlling their contracts. And obviously we'll have to wait a few years to see the impact of all the draft picks we received. The only guy down in Rockford that I can really see having potential is Brian Connelly, a 24 year old defender who leads the entire team in points and has one of the better plus/minuses of the team at -3 (ugh). But outside of trading Seabrook, I really don't see any of our defensemen going anywhere.

Thanks. A bit depressing, though

[brinoch]

Are any of the guys we acquired last summer doing great at Rockford? Would any of them be ready to step up into a role with the Hawks if a trade were made?

 

Looking briefly through Rockford's stats, I'm not seeing a whole lot of immediate help. It seems like the best statistical players are all the equivalent of AAAA players (Jeff Taffe leads the team in points for forwards, and he's 28 years old). Most of the guys we got in the trades are still a couple years away (Morin, Vishnevskiy), and we've seen how much the Blackhawks value controlling their contracts. And obviously we'll have to wait a few years to see the impact of all the draft picks we received. The only guy down in Rockford that I can really see having potential is Brian Connelly, a 24 year old defender who leads the entire team in points and has one of the better plus/minuses of the team at -3 (ugh). But outside of trading Seabrook, I really don't see any of our defensemen going anywhere.

 

Morin will definitely be with the Hawks next season. I think Potulny could be helpful, though with Johnson getting signed, I don't think we'll see him. I could see the Hawks making a deal for a defenseman to replace the Boynton/Cullimore/Hendry 3rd pairing. Heck, Cullimore has cleared waivers. They could also work to break in a d-man later in the season -- maybe Vishnievsky, Connelly or Lalonde -- like they did with Hjallmarson (I can easily see Lalonde getting some time). They won't want to burn entry deal years for Leddy and Morin. I'm also pretty high on Makarov and Olimb, but I don't know what the organization thinks of them. I know they like Makarov, but there are questions about his backchecking and defensive play. If he is starting to get that... well, I can see him getting the call this season.

 

The Icehogs are very young, and the growth is probably good for them. I wouldn't worry about the +/- so much. It's a useful stat, but not that critical in evaluating prospects.

 

Here's a good article from Hockey's Future on the Hawks and how they stand. HF ranks the Hawks' system 11th in their organizational rankings (which is basically about prospect depth).

[jersey cubs fan]

Bolland is untradable because he has a sizeable contract and nobody is going to give the Hawks something for him.

 

You really think he's entirely untradeable? His contract isn't that outrageous, and up until this year he's played pretty much like a second line forward. It's a blessing for the Hawks that Sharp learned the center position so well and so quickly, but it kinda made Bolland expendable. I think there's got to be teams out there that wouldn't mind bringing him on.

 

 

I think teams would be willing to take him on if they gave up nothing, but he's potentially too valuable to the Blackhawks to justify giving away just for cap relief. The contract isn't obscene, but it is large and somewhat burdensome at 3.3+ for the next 3.5 seasons.

[squally1313]

Bolland is untradable because he has a sizeable contract and nobody is going to give the Hawks something for him.

 

You really think he's entirely untradeable? His contract isn't that outrageous, and up until this year he's played pretty much like a second line forward. It's a blessing for the Hawks that Sharp learned the center position so well and so quickly, but it kinda made Bolland expendable. I think there's got to be teams out there that wouldn't mind bringing him on.

 

 

I think teams would be willing to take him on if they gave up nothing, but he's potentially too valuable to the Blackhawks to justify giving away just for cap relief. The contract isn't obscene, but it is large and somewhat burdensome at 3.3+ for the next 3.5 seasons.

 

I agree that he's extremely valuable to the Hawks in case of an injury, but I really think his injury problems last year changed his future with the organization. He came into last year as the clear cut number 2 center, but when he missed as much time as he did, Sharp started playing in that role, and I think really became a much better center than anyone anticipated. Sharp moved back up to the first line when Bolland came back, but Q seems intent on playing Kane/Toews together this year, which pushes Sharp back down the second line.

 

I just think it comes down to the fact that we now have a player in Sharp who can play the number 2 center position very well, and provide more offensive threat than Bolland (clearly). Paying Bolland 3.3+ a year to be the number 2 center is probably a good deal....paying him to be the number 3 center isn't. But I think on a lot of teams Bolland would be the second best center, and probably the best PK center as well (on teams that don't have an all around player like Toews), and that contract becomes very reasonable then, especially for a player that young. But as we've talked about, the Hawks simply have too much money locked up elsewhere to be paying that much for a number 3 center.

 

Ultimately, injuries do happen, and I think that's enough incentive to keep Bolland around, especially as he's played better lately. But for the sake of discussion, I think it's an interesting avenue to discuss.

[brinoch]

Another good win tonight by the Blackhawks. They are playing much, much better hockey.

[squally1313]

Another good win tonight by the Blackhawks. They are playing much, much better hockey.

 

Agreed. The difference in the defensive zone is really amazing. During that bad stretch it seemed like at least once a game we had an awful turnover in our own zone by a defensemen, and you could usually count on the puck being loose in front of Crawford/Turco for way too long before the other team would jam it home. Now it seems like every shot either gets swallowed up by Corey, or cleared to the corner/out of the zone almost immediately.

 

Doing this all without 3 forwards from the normal top 2 lines is even more impressive.

[kujay]

First, this Columbus PBP guy may be the worst I have ever heard. I don't remember their guy being this bad last year. Just terrible to listen to. Boring.

 

Second, Turco doesn't look too bad so far, though he's not collecting loose pucks in the crease very well.

[Butterscup1679666578]

This is the best I've seen this team in awhile. Hawks look great.