Thread: Player Discussion: Lets talk about Dave Bolland
View Single Post
Old
04-23-2013, 02:21 PM
  #470
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,918
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by xX Hot Fuss View Post
I understand the Bolland hate, really I do, but i dont understand how so many of you seem to think his elevated playoff play is irrelevant/useless/not worth retaining.
It's not hate from all of us. I think he's a good player, but not as good as many people. It's weighing his overall worth in terms of cap hit, market value, production (winning hockey games), and what the liklihood of a stronger or weaker roster with him on it or off it.
Before the start of this year, I thought Chicago was better off moving him. I've been saying keep him since the start of the year. When I take all those things into consideration (and likelihood of a failed trade) I think it's better to just keep him unless there is a significant and specific chronic injury concern we don't know about.
Quote:
This isn't Byfuglien who had one good year in the playoffs. Bolland was great in 08-09, PHENOMENAL in 09-10, and in 10-11 he missed the first 3 games of the Vancouver series and the Hawks went 0-3, the 4 games he came back the Sedins (at the height of their careers) had what, like 2 combined points and the Hawks took them to Game 7 OT. He had 3 points in 6 games against PHX, nothing phenomenal but its not like the dude disappeared.
They lost the first round of the playoffs. Moving Bolland maybe keeps them out of the playoffs, or, more likely, gets them a better 1st round matchup because of healthier and stronger depth that would have likely been more reliable. 4 good playoff games doesn't offset an entire season and doesn't justify a contract slot and the cap space (when it was in short supply) when looking at things in the big picture for 2011 and moving forward from there.
Quote:
CLEARLY Bolland has proven he elevates his game in the Playoffs. How can you NOT want that? How can you disagree with that or say he's riding on past post-season's success when he continually has played great 4 postseasons in a row???
They lost in the first round the last 2 years, at that point it doesn't matter if they had a good postseason. The experience matters more than the production if a team is bowing out in the first round. It doesn't help that his injuries and underachievement set the Hawks up with a lower seed than if they had moved him.

Here's an example of what I mean, Danny Briere is an absolute playoff beast but I would argue his contract has done more to hurt the Flyers' likelihood of winning and winning the cup for the entire length of his contract except for 2011 (2010, the almost missed the show entirely, in large part, because of Briere's contract). Overall the value isn't there even though he's about as good as they come for a playoff game.

hockeydoug is offline   Reply With Quote