HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Chicago Blackhawks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

research request value of Biron + Boyle for Olsen + pick

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-01-2012, 02:53 PM
  #126
Bubba88
Toews = Savior
 
Bubba88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bavaria
Country: Germany
Posts: 24,138
vCash: 500
like Bruno... those guys would do nothing for our team. Those are not leaders and they aren't locks for those numbers anymore.

Our problem is not the players or the Front Office. It's Q & buddies

Bubba88 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 03:00 PM
  #127
coldsteelonice84
Registered User
 
coldsteelonice84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 25,379
vCash: 10592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba88 View Post
like Bruno... those guys would do nothing for our team. Those are not leaders and they aren't locks for those numbers anymore.

Our problem is not the players or the Front Office. It's Q & buddies
Why not remove any excuses, give them some help (even if they are only names as you suggest), watch him fail (as you seem to expect he will), then fire him for that? Sure, it costs about 6M extra but did you ever consider that it might make the difference between this team losing in the 1st round and gong all the way? Hey, if he even just did that, signed McClement and Jagr and the team lost in the 1st round, I'm right there with you and Bowman....Q would clearly be the problem, launch his ass.

coldsteelonice84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 04:46 PM
  #128
sketch22
Registered User
 
sketch22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,260
vCash: 2893
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldsteelonice84 View Post
Why not remove any excuses, give them some help (even if they are only names as you suggest), watch him fail (as you seem to expect he will), then fire him for that?
Because the team already has players filling those spots, Q is already on his way out if things don't improve, and Stan likes his prospects.

Quote:
Originally Posted by coldsteelonice84 View Post
Sure, it costs about 6M extra but did you ever consider that it might make the difference between this team losing in the 1st round and gong all the way?
Did you ever consider the possibility that one of the prospects like Pirri, Morin, or Saad could have an Adam Henrique type season next year? I doubt their impact is that big, but then again it won't need to be for the Hawks to be one of the top teams in the league.

sketch22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 04:57 PM
  #129
Chris Hansen
VERSTEEG REDEMPTION
 
Chris Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,182
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sketch22 View Post
Did you ever consider the possibility that one of the prospects like Pirri, Morin, or Saad could have an Adam Henrique type season next year? I doubt their impact is that big, but then again it won't need to be for the Hawks to be one of the top teams in the league.
Far more likely that they don't have that kind of season.

Better to improve the team with a surehanded, certain, calculated move rather than taking the attitude of "we're good, let's just hope some prospects turn out fantastically so we're on par with the best teams in the league."

Sitting around and doing literally nothing is not the way to win. Neither is making moves blindly left and right. Each extreme is the wrong way to do things, and I only feel the need to say that because I feel like someone would inevitably have responded to my post saying "ZOMG YOU JUST WANT A MOVE FOR THE SAKE OF A MOVE LOL WE'RE TAKING THE CUP NEXT YEAR."
Hawks aren't good enough, so I don't think there's anything wrong at all with expecting management to improve the roster. Introducing a few rookies like every team in the NHL does every single year won't magically bridge the gap between Chicago and the elite teams in the NHL. And no, the Blackhawks are not one of them already.

Chris Hansen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 05:50 PM
  #130
sketch22
Registered User
 
sketch22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,260
vCash: 2893
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hansen View Post
Hawks aren't good enough, so I don't think there's anything wrong at all with expecting management to improve the roster. Introducing a few rookies like every team in the NHL does every single year won't magically bridge the gap between Chicago and the elite teams in the NHL. And no, the Blackhawks are not one of them already.
This seems to be the source of the disconnect between the "Bowman Apologists" and the "Make a move just to make a move group". People like myself look at last season and see a cup contending team that suffered from a plethora of bad coaching decisions, but certainly had the talent to compete for the cup. Others seem to look at what happened last season and identify a lack of roster talent as the reason why the Hawks failed to win. So while I see a trade like this one as a largely superficial endeavor, because I don't believe it represents any tangible increase in talent. Others see it as a worthwhile investment, because they see it as acquiring a proven player who can help bridge the talent gap between the Hawks and the cup contenders.

sketch22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 05:56 PM
  #131
Chris Hansen
VERSTEEG REDEMPTION
 
Chris Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,182
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sketch22 View Post
This seems to be the source of the disconnect between the "Bowman Apologists" and the "Make a move just to make a move group". People like myself look at last season and see a cup contending team that suffered from a plethora of bad coaching decisions, but certainly had the talent to compete for the cup. Others seem to look at what happened last season and identify a lack of roster talent as the reason why the Hawks failed to win. So while I see a trade like this one as a largely superficial endeavor, because I don't believe it represents any tangible increase in talent. Others see it as a worthwhile investment, because they see it as acquiring a proven player who can help bridge the talent gap between the Hawks and the cup contenders.
There are blatant holes in the roster, and there are also clear issues with the coaching staff. I'm not in one camp or another - I'm in both.

This trade helps the Hawks in the immediate term, where they are giving up nothing more than a rather vanilla prospect who is pretty replaceable (they already signed Brookbank, who is currently a better player) and a later draft pick. Just because it's not a blockbuster doesn't mean it's not worthwile. Giving up a minimal amount to help the team is never a bad idea. And "help the team" is exactly what Boyle - and to a lesser extent, Biron - would do.

Chris Hansen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 06:41 PM
  #132
DisgruntledHawkFan
Moderator
 
DisgruntledHawkFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 21,635
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to DisgruntledHawkFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hansen View Post
There are blatant holes in the roster, and there are also clear issues with the coaching staff. I'm not in one camp or another - I'm in both.

This trade helps the Hawks in the immediate term, where they are giving up nothing more than a rather vanilla prospect who is pretty replaceable (they already signed Brookbank, who is currently a better player) and a later draft pick. Just because it's not a blockbuster doesn't mean it's not worthwile. Giving up a minimal amount to help the team is never a bad idea. And "help the team" is exactly what Boyle - and to a lesser extent, Biron - would do.
A thousand times this.

Hossa realistically only has a handful of seasons left as one the games elite RW's. Wasting those seasons as our prospects turn into solid but unspectacular second and third line pieces is taking a risk a team with our core and cap space doesn't need to take. We have the assets and cap space to be good now AND later. Move Bickell, Kruger, and Frolik and replace them with a proven third or second line center and a veteran winger with grit and this team looks a HELL of a lot better while still having the cupboards fully stocked.

Compound that with coaching miscues and it takes a team with one of the best cores in hockey and turns it into a team with question marks when there shouldn't be any. Getting the high end talent together is the tricky part. We've got that down pat. It's the auxiliary pieces on this team that need work, and those don't cost enough to not have them when we've got a system full of capable if unspectacular prospects.

DisgruntledHawkFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 07:25 PM
  #133
sketch22
Registered User
 
sketch22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,260
vCash: 2893
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hansen View Post
This trade helps the Hawks in the immediate term, where they are giving up nothing more than a rather vanilla prospect who is pretty replaceable (they already signed Brookbank, who is currently a better player) and a later draft pick. Just because it's not a blockbuster doesn't mean it's not worthwile. Giving up a minimal amount to help the team is never a bad idea. And "help the team" is exactly what Boyle - and to a lesser extent, Biron - would do.
This trade does very little to help the Hawks short term. Boyle has never been a shutdown center and isn't good enough to take a roster spot from the Hawks current top 9 wingers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DisgruntledHawkFan View Post
Move Bickell, Kruger, and Frolik and replace them with a proven third or second line center and a veteran winger with grit and this team looks a HELL of a lot better while still having the cupboards fully stocked.
You aren't getting anything worthwhile for a package around those 3 players.

sketch22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 07:31 PM
  #134
DisgruntledHawkFan
Moderator
 
DisgruntledHawkFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 21,635
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to DisgruntledHawkFan
Sure. But take those rosters spots, along with the 3+ million they make and our cap space and replace them with two solid NHL talents, and this team is that much better.

DisgruntledHawkFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 08:19 PM
  #135
Chris Hansen
VERSTEEG REDEMPTION
 
Chris Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,182
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DisgruntledHawkFan View Post
Sure. But take those rosters spots, along with the 3+ million they make and our cap space and replace them with two solid NHL talents, and this team is that much better.
Exactly.

I mean, people are fine with Bryan Bickell on the third line, but want nothing to do with Boyle there? Who is a far better player, especially defensively? More consistently physical, can take faceoffs for Bolland... need I go on? It's a great fit.

Maybe people just think Olsen is a much better player than he actually is, and projects to be.

Chris Hansen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 08:25 PM
  #136
sketch22
Registered User
 
sketch22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,260
vCash: 2893
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hansen View Post
I mean, people are fine with Bryan Bickell on the third line
Except Bickell won't be on the third line for long if he doesn't continue to play the way he did in the postseason. Between Shaw, Stalberg, and Saad, Bickell may very well not even start the year on the third line. The Hawks have already have 5 wingers as good or better than Boyle (Sharp, Kane, Shaw, Stalberg, Hossa) and Saad is all but guaranteed a top 9 roster spot. Boyle isn't competing against just Bickell, he would be competing against everyone else as well.

sketch22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 08:34 PM
  #137
Chris Hansen
VERSTEEG REDEMPTION
 
Chris Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,182
vCash: 500
Shaw hasn't even played half a season in the NHL yet. And even in what he has shown us, he is not better than or equal to Boyle. Are you sure you've watched enough Rangers game to judge this guy?

Stalberg is in the top-9 about as often as he's in Q's doghouse on the fourth line, so let's not act as if he's a fixture above Boyle either.

Kane could very well not be a winger next year, since the gaping hole at #2C is still there.

Just because the Hawks aren't acquiring a star player here doesn't mean it's a bad deal. Is it wrong to improve the team in an area where the team isn't weak? Why? As the Bowman defenders so often tell me, "there are no #2 centers left! No #3 defensemen to acquire!" Okay then, so let's look to improve whatever we can... right? Is this not basic logic?
The Hawks have a lot of wingers. That hardly means adding Boyle - who would help with the team's center depth as it is and can mask Bolland's faceoff difficulties - is something the team should avoid at all costs. I mean... why?

Never before have I seen such a baffling unwillingness to take an obvious improvement to the roster when it's right there in front of you.

Chris Hansen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 08:51 PM
  #138
sketch22
Registered User
 
sketch22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,260
vCash: 2893
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hansen View Post
Shaw hasn't even played half a season in the NHL yet. And even in what he has shown us, he is not better than or equal to Boyle. Are you sure you've watched enough Rangers game to judge this guy?
How in the world so you believe that? Shaw is aggressive on the fore check, good on the back check, plays hard along the walls, is a much better skater, and is willing to get physical. Oh and he had 3 less points in less than half the games. Could Shaw regress from those numbers? Sure. But in no way can you project Boyle above Shaw based on last years performance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hansen View Post
Stalberg is in the top-9 about as often as he's in Q's doghouse on the fourth line, so let's not act as if he's a fixture above Boyle either.
Stalberg was in the top 9 almost the entire year last year. He may not have gotten the pp time he should have, but he isn't a 4th line player. And Q's misuse of Stalberg doesn't somehow make Boyle the better player.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hansen View Post
Kane could very well not be a winger next year, since the gaping hole at #2C is still there.
If Kane is at center I'll bet it is between Carcillo and Hossa. That line did very well last year and it still doesn't leave an open spot for Boyle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hansen View Post
Kane Just because the Hawks aren't acquiring a star player here doesn't mean it's a bad deal. Is it wrong to improve the team in an area where the team isn't weak? Why? As the Bowman defenders so often tell me, "there are no #2 centers left! No #3 defensemen to acquire!" Okay then, so let's look to improve whatever we can... right? Is this not basic logic?
The Hawks have a lot of wingers. That hardly means adding Boyle - who would help with the team's center depth as it is and can mask Bolland's faceoff difficulties - is something the team should avoid at all costs. I mean... why?
It's got nothing to do with wanting only star players. It is about asset management. The difference between Boyle and the top 9 forwards who are already on the Hawks is not worth Olsen. The difference between Boyle and the fourth liners (Mayers, Kruger, Bollig, Carcillo, Bickell, Frolik) is bigger, but there is no point in trading Olsen for a 4th liner. The only place Boyle remotely fills a hole is at 3C, but he has never been a shutdown center.

I am not against making moves. I'm against making moves that accomplish nothing in the big picture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hansen View Post
Never before have I seen such a baffling unwillingness to take an obvious improvement to the roster when it's right there in front of you.
Signing Matt Carle for 7 years 49 mil would have made the Hawks a better team, but it doesn't mean it is a good move.

sketch22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 08:55 PM
  #139
Chris Hansen
VERSTEEG REDEMPTION
 
Chris Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,182
vCash: 500
Sketch, we clearly fundamentally disagree on various levels and are never going to end this argument

All I will say is that your Carle example is pretty unfair, because that hypothetical contract is absurd. Not a very comparable example at all to acquiring Boyle for a prospect, with Boyle's cap hit at a pretty small $1.7M. Low risk, high reward.

Boyle is a lot more proven than Shaw is, and has a much more refined defensive game (and is far more intimidating physically, which makes him more valuable as a physical force than Shaw). But we're done here, I think... we've both said our fill.

Chris Hansen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 09:17 PM
  #140
sketch22
Registered User
 
sketch22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,260
vCash: 2893
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hansen View Post
All I will say is that your Carle example is pretty unfair, because that hypothetical contract is absurd. Not a very comparable example at all to acquiring Boyle for a prospect, with Boyle's cap hit at a pretty small $1.7M. Low risk, high reward.
Just meant it as a totally absurd example of how a possible on ice improvement isn't always a good thing when you consider other factors.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hansen View Post
Boyle is a lot more proven than Shaw is, and has a much more refined defensive game (and is far more intimidating physically, which makes him more valuable as a physical force than Shaw). But we're done here, I think... we've both said our fill.
I agree. It just comes down to outlook. You want Boyle because he is more proven right now than the guy he would replace and costs little. I don't want him because I feel that the player he is replacing can contribute just as much and that Olsen can also contribute this year.

sketch22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2012, 03:10 AM
  #141
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,628
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sketch22 View Post
Just meant it as a totally absurd example of how a possible on ice improvement isn't always a good thing when you consider other factors.



I agree. It just comes down to outlook. You want Boyle because he is more proven right now than the guy he would replace and costs little. I don't want him because I feel that the player he is replacing can contribute just as much and that Olsen can also contribute this year.
I am not sure how you see Olsen contributing the Hawks have Keith, Seabs, Hammer, Leddy, Oduya, Montador and Brookbank putting him 7th on the depth chart.

Sir Psycho T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2012, 04:39 AM
  #142
clydesdale line
Registered User
 
clydesdale line's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,412
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Psycho T View Post
I am not sure how you see Olsen contributing the Hawks have Keith, Seabs, Hammer, Leddy, Oduya, Montador and Brookbank putting him 7th on the depth chart.
Considering Montador's status is still up in the air (not to mention one head hit away from probably retiring) and other than Seabrook and Brookbank (when he's actually healthy) plays with even an ounce of physicality on the back end (kid had 43 hits in only 28 games last season.. and they aren't cheapies) I would think we will see him contribute and progress with us.

clydesdale line is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2012, 05:36 AM
  #143
Bubba88
Toews = Savior
 
Bubba88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bavaria
Country: Germany
Posts: 24,138
vCash: 500
those same players had a good PP, had a good PK.

Those same player suck since Kitchen is here...

Bubba88 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2012, 08:21 AM
  #144
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,585
vCash: 500
I love blaming Kitchen (because I think he's guilty), but didn't Haviland take over the pk at times each of the last 2 years?

Haviland had some major personal changes the last couple years, I can't help but wonder if all his distractions really took away from his effectiveness too.

I still prefer to blame Kitchen though.

I really hope they figure the PK out.

hockeydoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2012, 09:13 AM
  #145
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,238
vCash: 500
Haviland was on the PP when it sucked
Kitchen was on the PP when it sucked
B. Smith was on the PP when it sucked

Haviland was on the PK when it sucked
Kitchen was on the PK when it sucked.

Everyone is to blame, not 1 single person should be singled out.

Blame Q, Kitchen, Haviland, Smith, Bowman, and the entire team. The players are the most guilty.

Hawkaholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2012, 10:29 AM
  #146
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,585
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
Haviland was on the PP when it sucked
Kitchen was on the PP when it sucked
B. Smith was on the PP when it sucked

Haviland was on the PK when it sucked
Kitchen was on the PK when it sucked.

Everyone is to blame, not 1 single person should be singled out.

Blame Q, Kitchen, Haviland, Smith, Bowman, and the entire team. The players are the most guilty.
Rationally speaking, I think they're all to blame too, top to bottom.

I still assert it's more fun to blame Kitchen, and that element is important in August.

hockeydoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2012, 11:08 AM
  #147
DisgruntledHawkFan
Moderator
 
DisgruntledHawkFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 21,635
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to DisgruntledHawkFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hansen View Post
Sketch, we clearly fundamentally disagree on various levels and are never going to end this argument

All I will say is that your Carle example is pretty unfair, because that hypothetical contract is absurd. Not a very comparable example at all to acquiring Boyle for a prospect, with Boyle's cap hit at a pretty small $1.7M. Low risk, high reward.

Boyle is a lot more proven than Shaw is, and has a much more refined defensive game (and is far more intimidating physically, which makes him more valuable as a physical force than Shaw). But we're done here, I think... we've both said our fill.
I'd say Olsen is a relatively high end prospect. If Sketch is against bringing him at the cost of Olsen, that's one thing. Saying he'd be against moving a mid tier prospect or two - like Shalunov and LeBlanc - that'd be something else entirely.

DisgruntledHawkFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2012, 12:23 PM
  #148
Chris Hansen
VERSTEEG REDEMPTION
 
Chris Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,182
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DisgruntledHawkFan View Post
I'd say Olsen is a relatively high end prospect. If Sketch is against bringing him at the cost of Olsen, that's one thing. Saying he'd be against moving a mid tier prospect or two - like Shalunov and LeBlanc - that'd be something else entirely.
I guess. I've never been a big Olsen fan, and find that prospects are just grossly overrated on HF. People always look at them and see an eventual NHL player that is better than the prospect actually turns out to be.

He's a very expendable roster piece, and very easily replaced. The Hawks have other capable defensemen in the pipeline too... it's just unnecessary to keep every single prospect you ever draft. That was just the way I was looking at it. It would be worth it. I'm not sure everyone realizes how big of an upgrade Boyle would actually be... he's good at just about everything the Blackhawks (as a team) are weak at.

Chris Hansen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2012, 12:37 PM
  #149
DisgruntledHawkFan
Moderator
 
DisgruntledHawkFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 21,635
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to DisgruntledHawkFan
I've said before that Boyle certainly brings a host of abilities this team sorely lacks. I just don't see a pipeline bursting with NHL ready defenseman.

We've got Olsen as the only guy close with upside. Stanton while close to ready is a finished product. He's a #7 at best. Clendening and Johns are each in college and won't be viable NHL options til next year at the earliest. Lalonde is a less defensively responsible Brian Connelly.

Would love to send a forward prospect out for Boyle, but in regards to NHL ready defensive depth? Past a question mark in Montador we've got a whole bunch of nothing and Olsen.

DisgruntledHawkFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2012, 01:25 PM
  #150
Chris Hansen
VERSTEEG REDEMPTION
 
Chris Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,182
vCash: 500
True enough. It just doesn't seem right to me to hold up a trade that will make the team better because the Hawks would be giving up their seventh defenseman to do it.

Chris Hansen is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:02 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.