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
07-31-2012, 12:35 PM
  #101
DisgruntledHawkFan
Moderator
 
DisgruntledHawkFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 22,594
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to DisgruntledHawkFan
Andrew Shaw - 23 points in 37 games, for a .62 ppg clip.
Mark Cullen - 16 points in 29 games, for a .55 ppg clip.

Something to be said about sample size.

Boyle is a proven third line winger that brings a couple of elements this team sorely lacks. I'd love to bring him into the fold, but I'd rather get a different piece then Biron if Olsen is heading the other way.

Saying he'd be relegated to the fourth line is asinine. He'd even look better as our second line center then anyone we tried at the role last years sans Kane's cup of coffee there.

DisgruntledHawkFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-31-2012, 12:54 PM
  #102
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 8,432
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DisgruntledHawkFan View Post
Andrew Shaw - 23 points in 37 games, for a .62 ppg clip.
Mark Cullen - 16 points in 29 games, for a .55 ppg clip.

Something to be said about sample size.

Boyle is a proven third line winger that brings a couple of elements this team sorely lacks. I'd love to bring him into the fold, but I'd rather get a different piece then Biron if Olsen is heading the other way.

Saying he'd be relegated to the fourth line is asinine. He'd even look better as our second line center then anyone we tried at the role last years sans Kane's cup of coffee there.
Haven't had chance to check the head count.

Let's please keep to the original post BUT ALSO consider what was written in bold...

Boyle + X for Olsen + Y [which may/may not be the original 4th rounder]

bernmeister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-31-2012, 01:54 PM
  #103
AmericanDream
Puck You
 
AmericanDream's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: I Return to Serenity
Country: United States
Posts: 9,570
vCash: 500
I have laughed my rear end off reading the debates over this...well pretty much debate by one poster Sketch..

I dont understand who in their right mind wouldnt want to land Brian Boyle to be our 3rd line center...In no way shape or form would he be our 4th line center as his grit, skill, hands, and face-off production easily lands him on our 3rd line which would bump Bolland up to #2 center where he belongs.

I understand being hesitant in moving Olsen, but to be honest, I have never been a big fan and I really dont think he is going to be that amazing as an NHLer. If we can move our likely 7th/8th dman to get a guy like Boyle that will help this team out in so many areas of need and deficiency, and if there is anyone really against this, then they must not want this team to win at all..

I am against bringing in has been players that will take growth and spots away from our kids. I dont like pulling trades that involve our young guys just to make face or look like we are trying to win now... this deal is a 100% emphatic yes, and would help this team out now and for the future.

Boyle helps take the pressure off of Kruger, Danault, McNeill, Kayes, etc as a few of these kids are going to have to step in within the next 2 years down the middle, and a player like Boyle helps ease them in and can shield them as well..

Boyle is also one of the more physical players I have seen, I dont get how anyone can argue against that...every players needs to take a few games off from crushing people, but Boyle and his style would be a fan favorite here.

Get this deal done Bowman!

AmericanDream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-31-2012, 03:53 PM
  #104
Bubba88
Toews = Savior
 
Bubba88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bavaria
Country: Germany
Posts: 24,327
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hansen View Post
Heh, seems like it. It's no wonder a lot of these people are always saying we can't blame Bowman for not making a trade or a significant signing. If they are overvaluing current Hawks players this badly (hell, Olsen isn't even a roster player by the technical definition - he probably won't be starting on opening day and will be in Rockford), then why make a trade or signing? The Hawks already have the best players in the NHL at every position, seemingly.
At least, that is their mindset. Exaggerated for effect, yes, but generally speaking that is exactly what it is.
there would be ways to have a guy like Boyle (experienced big body bottom 6 Center) on the team without giving away anything for him.

Just look at Arnott. Could have signed McClement too

Bubba88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-31-2012, 05:14 PM
  #105
Chris Hansen
VERSTEEG REDEMPTION
 
Chris Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba88 View Post
there would be ways to have a guy like Boyle (experienced big body bottom 6 Center) on the team without giving away anything for him.

Just look at Arnott. Could have signed McClement too
Boyle is better than both of those players.

I think the Hawks would manage to be okay after suffering the massive loss of a defenseman who will not even be on the opening day roster. But right, I forgot I'm one of the few people who wants the team to, y'know, actually be improved. My bad!

Chris Hansen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-31-2012, 05:42 PM
  #106
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,591
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hansen View Post
Boyle is better than both of those players.

I think the Hawks would manage to be okay after suffering the massive loss of a defenseman who will not even be on the opening day roster. But right, I forgot I'm one of the few people who wants the team to, y'know, actually be improved. My bad!
Isn't Olsen more valuable filling a bigger need than bringing a bottom 6 forward with minimum use on half the ice?

Of all the Hawks' problems, it doesn't seem like the 3rd line is one of them. Even if Bolland does well on the 2nd line (I'm skeptical), 3rd line scoring will drop off offsetting most of the gain offensively with Boyle centering that line. Boyle isn't an offensive threat or playmaker and teams know they can cheat on him. Bolland seems to be able to hold his own defensively and there is going to be more size on the roster than the last 2 years.

Move Bolland, then Boyle is a very good trade for Olsen. Otherwise I think it's best to be loaded up on dmen unless an opportunity to fill one of the bigger holes presents itself. I think we've seen Boyle's peak anyway, and while he is a slight improvement to the bottom 6, it just doesn't seem to be the right way to use a player like Olsen since Dmen have been in such high demand at the deadlines and before.

Move Olsen to fix a real problem or move one of the other dmen to do so and keep Olsen in the top 7.

I wish Bowman would give us a statement about his confidence in the goalies this week so we wouldn't have to talk about speculative trades.

hockeydoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-31-2012, 06:16 PM
  #107
Chris Hansen
VERSTEEG REDEMPTION
 
Chris Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeydoug View Post
Isn't Olsen more valuable filling a bigger need than bringing a bottom 6 forward with minimum use on half the ice?

Of all the Hawks' problems, it doesn't seem like the 3rd line is one of them. Even if Bolland does well on the 2nd line (I'm skeptical), 3rd line scoring will drop off offsetting most of the gain offensively with Boyle centering that line. Boyle isn't an offensive threat or playmaker and teams know they can cheat on him. Bolland seems to be able to hold his own defensively and there is going to be more size on the roster than the last 2 years.

Move Bolland, then Boyle is a very good trade for Olsen. Otherwise I think it's best to be loaded up on dmen unless an opportunity to fill one of the bigger holes presents itself. I think we've seen Boyle's peak anyway, and while he is a slight improvement to the bottom 6, it just doesn't seem to be the right way to use a player like Olsen since Dmen have been in such high demand at the deadlines and before.

Move Olsen to fix a real problem or move one of the other dmen to do so and keep Olsen in the top 7.

I wish Bowman would give us a statement about his confidence in the goalies this week so we wouldn't have to talk about speculative trades.
Boyle is perfectly capable of playing wing, and has done it quite a bit. Given how good he already is defensively, his size and physicality, and his faceoff ability (he could take them for Bolland - the helpfulness of this cannot be understated), he'd be a great fit on Bolland's wing. Yes, technically speaking, third line wing is not a need, but why not take this obvious improvement if it's out there? Brian Boyle or Bryan Bickell? Easy, easy choice. And Boyle does fill a less specific need - that is, physicality. Very good PKer too, which is always nice.

And all the Hawks are giving up is a prospect they don't need at all, who will not even be on the roster on the first day of the season? Sign me up. It's a direct improvement to the team and roster, for pretty minimal cost.
Biron, who is better than Emery, is a nice acquisition as well. Not a significant one, but it's a solid second piece to the deal.

Now obviously this trade isn't happening - for one, because HF is not real life, and for another because the Rangers would be very stupid to consider it (bad value for them, and they also have plenty of roster defensemen and D prospects as it is). But from the Hawks point of view? This is a great deal.

Chris Hansen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-31-2012, 06:59 PM
  #108
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,591
vCash: 500
Quote:
Boyle is perfectly capable of playing wing, and has done it quite a bit. Given how good he already is defensively, his size and physicality, and his faceoff ability (he could take them for Bolland - the helpfulness of this cannot be understated), he'd be a great fit on Bolland's wing. Yes, technically speaking, third line wing is not a need, but why not take this obvious improvement if it's out there? Brian Boyle or Bryan Bickell? Easy, easy choice. And Boyle does fill a less specific need - that is, physicality. Very good PKer too, which is always nice.
I don't rate him as high defensively, I think he'll have more problems in Chicago than he's had in NYR. I think he's good defensively but I don't consider him a premier shut down force because I don't think he can make a great play on the puck or keep a dman from cheating on him.

You may be right about the PK, but until they have a system that shows some hope of success, I wouldn't want to trade an asset for somebody to help specifically in that area. I agree he's better than Bickell and he should be for 1.2 million-ish more than him. (there is an argument to be made because they're sitting on cap space).

Quote:
And all the Hawks are giving up is a prospect they don't need at all, who will not even be on the roster on the first day of the season? Sign me up. It's a direct improvement to the team and roster, for pretty minimal cost.
I hear ya, but since it's not a real problem area that's being addressed in the deal, this seems like it would be better suited in February.
Quote:
Biron, who is better than Emery, is a nice acquisition as well. Not a significant one, but it's a solid second piece to the deal.
Just me but I don't trust new backup goalies that are switching systems as a rule. Use picks and less developed prospects for backup goalies if one can't be bought, that would be my preference. I think Biron in NYR is better than Emery in Chicago, but I don't think Biron does any better here than Emery... if that makes any sense, I'll work on how I phrase that thought.

Quote:
the Rangers would be very stupid to consider it (bad value for them, and they also have plenty of roster defensemen and D prospects as it is). But from the Hawks point of view? This is a great deal.
I think it's a bad trade for either team right now. Olsen is extremely close to being an NHL ready dman that can be used to plug a real hole on the Chicago roster or somebody else's. I think it's ridiculous for NYR to give up Boyle since they just got a little leaner at center as well and he's better suited for that system. I think the 2center, 2nd dman pair and number1 goalie (in that order) position all need upgrading before we start moving depth (what I consider Olsen, more than a prospect at this point) or eating up more payroll until later in the year when more needs are identified.

Quote:
Now obviously this trade isn't happening - for one, because HF is not real life
I need to pretend it matters. I can't do NFL training camp or baseball (Cub fan). Let me live the lie until the CBA drama heats up.

hockeydoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-31-2012, 07:07 PM
  #109
MagicSlap*
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,471
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeydoug View Post
Isn't Olsen more valuable filling a bigger need than bringing a bottom 6 forward with minimum use on half the ice?

Of all the Hawks' problems, it doesn't seem like the 3rd line is one of them. Even if Bolland does well on the 2nd line (I'm skeptical), 3rd line scoring will drop off offsetting most of the gain offensively with Boyle centering that line. Boyle isn't an offensive threat or playmaker and teams know they can cheat on him. Bolland seems to be able to hold his own defensively and there is going to be more size on the roster than the last 2 years.

Move Bolland, then Boyle is a very good trade for Olsen. Otherwise I think it's best to be loaded up on dmen unless an opportunity to fill one of the bigger holes presents itself. I think we've seen Boyle's peak anyway, and while he is a slight improvement to the bottom 6, it just doesn't seem to be the right way to use a player like Olsen since Dmen have been in such high demand at the deadlines and before.

Move Olsen to fix a real problem or move one of the other dmen to do so and keep Olsen in the top 7.

I wish Bowman would give us a statement about his confidence in the goalies this week so we wouldn't have to talk about speculative trades.
It's not about improving the 3rd line, you're missing the point, it's about improving our abysmal center depth as a whole. With Boyle we can run three legit centers down the middle. If it wasn't obvious that 2C was a huge problem last year I don't know what to tell you.

As for Bolland not being able to handle 2C? He just just scored at 40 point pace, on the third line, taking 70% of his starts in the d zone, where his most common linemates throughout the season were Bryan Bickell and Michael Frolik. With guys like Sharp and Hossa on his wing, starting 50% in the offensive zone it's not unrealistic to think he could get 50+ points (easily), that's all you need out of a 2C. Some people seem to think our 2C needs to kill it and put up 8 points.

No, we need to roll 4 lines that all serve a purpose.

Stalberg-Toews-Kane
Sharp-Bolland-Hossa
Saad-Boyle-Shaw
Carcillo-Mayers-Hayes
Bickell

That's a deep forward lineup: 2 scoring lines, 1 two way line that will rough a team up and be responsible, and 1 line to really rough teams up.

It's not about improving the 3rd line, it's about improving the entire depth of the team. The absolute weakest part of our forwards last year was center depth and the second was physicality, this move can help with both that.

Plus, you can save stars energy from the PK (I would think Hossa in particular coming off his injury could use this).

Speaking to Disgruntled, I wouldn't mind expanding this trade some and have the Hawks give more back to get a guy like McIlrath...

Olsen, Morin and a 1st for Boyle and McIlrath

MagicSlap* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-31-2012, 11:48 PM
  #110
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,591
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagicSlap View Post
It's not about improving the 3rd line, you're missing the point, it's about improving our abysmal center depth as a whole.
As for Bolland not being able to handle 2C? He just just scored at 40 point pace, on the third line, taking 70% of his starts in the d zone, where his most common linemates throughout the season were Bryan Bickell and Michael Frolik. With guys like Sharp and Hossa on his wing, starting 50% in the offensive zone it's not unrealistic to think he could get 50+ points (easily), that's all you need out of a 2C. Some people seem to think our 2C needs to kill it and put up 8 points.
I'm not missing the point, I don't want Bolland to move to 2C. With so many moving parts on the roster as it is, I don't need to see Bolland messed up too. I don't project him to be much more effective offensively against better defensive units and I think Boyle at 3c makes that line less dynamic as he's not going to create much at all offensively. So many people like to make some sort of linear projection of offense from 3rd line to 2nd or 1st and I don't like those projections in most cases, especially for an focused defensive player like Bolland.


Quote:
It's not about improving the 3rd line, it's about improving the entire depth of the team. The absolute weakest part of our forwards last year was center depth and the second was physicality, this move can help with both that.
I think all he does is improve the 3rd line. If I had confidence in Bolland moving up and that being an effective solution to the 2c issue, I would be enthusiastic about this hypothetical trade proposal.
I also disagree about the forward depth being the weakest part of the team, I was far more concerned with blueline as a group (talent wise) than I was the forwards. I thought the forwards' main issue was taking shifts off and bad decisions with the puck, things Boyle doesn't help out much with.
Quote:
Plus, you can save stars energy from the PK (I would think Hossa in particular coming off his injury could use this).
I'm not sure, and this is another reason why I would wait on a trade of a good asset for a bottom six forward. We don't even know if they'll have a pk system that's worth anything, so I don't care who they plug in with the forwards yet.

If your assumptions about Bolland's and Boyle's effectiveness are true without the negative consequences, I would agree with you. I just don't project those two that way.


Last edited by hockeydoug: 07-31-2012 at 11:51 PM. Reason: I forgot to put "don't" in the 2nd sentence after the last quote, it reads opposite of what I meant.
hockeydoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 05:18 AM
  #111
Bubba88
Toews = Savior
 
Bubba88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bavaria
Country: Germany
Posts: 24,327
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hansen View Post
Boyle is better than both of those players.

I think the Hawks would manage to be okay after suffering the massive loss of a defenseman who will not even be on the opening day roster. But right, I forgot I'm one of the few people who wants the team to, y'know, actually be improved. My bad!
the difference between those guys and Boyle isn't that much to give Olsen away...


Everybody loves the prospects but nobody wants to give them a chance to prove their worth in the NHL. When we bring in those scrubs with little value, we just take roster spots away for them.
You want a big body forward who plays physical? Give Beach a chance or tell Morin to be like that if he wants to stick in the NHL. Tell Jayes he is a big boy and he has to use his body if he likes it or not.

Sure, signing Parise would be a no brainer thanks to being an elite player. Plan B is Doan who demands more than he is worth. Plan C is looking for a trade without rediculous overpayment. Plan D will be what will happen - go with what you have because the problem isn't the players... it's the system. The system that let the Bolts, Blues & Yotes look better than they actually are

Bubba88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 05:32 AM
  #112
MagicSlap*
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,471
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeydoug View Post
I'm not missing the point, I don't want Bolland to move to 2C. With so many moving parts on the roster as it is, I don't need to see Bolland messed up too. I don't project him to be much more effective offensively against better defensive units and I think Boyle at 3c makes that line less dynamic as he's not going to create much at all offensively. So many people like to make some sort of linear projection of offense from 3rd line to 2nd or 1st and I don't like those projections in most cases, especially for an focused defensive player like Bolland.




I think all he does is improve the 3rd line. If I had confidence in Bolland moving up and that being an effective solution to the 2c issue, I would be enthusiastic about this hypothetical trade proposal.
I also disagree about the forward depth being the weakest part of the team, I was far more concerned with blueline as a group (talent wise) than I was the forwards. I thought the forwards' main issue was taking shifts off and bad decisions with the puck, things Boyle doesn't help out much with.

I'm not sure, and this is another reason why I would wait on a trade of a good asset for a bottom six forward. We don't even know if they'll have a pk system that's worth anything, so I don't care who they plug in with the forwards yet.

If your assumptions about Bolland's and Boyle's effectiveness are true without the negative consequences, I would agree with you. I just don't project those two that way.
What a rambling non-nonsensical post. Anyway...

-You complain about moving parts in the offense. Well it's because we don't have a consistent 2C, this does that.

-You complain Boyle wouldn't generate as much offense as Bolland on the 3rd line. Who cares? This spreads scoring among the 2nd and 3rd line and people need to get away from the idea that all 4 lines should be filled with the players who will simply score the most all other factors not considered.

-Bolland not able to handle 2C? Seems like you ignored everything I said: 30% offensive zone starts, Bickell and Frolik to Sharp and Hossa, etc. and he'll easily put up 55 points. That's more than enough.

-I said the weakest part of our forwards is center depth, not the team in general.

-So since the PK system sucks which shouldn't go out and try to acquire good PKers, especially if it helps take pressure off two stars who had major head injuries last year?

MagicSlap* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 05:44 AM
  #113
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 8,432
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba88 View Post
there would be ways to have a guy like Boyle (experienced big body bottom 6 Center) on the team without giving away anything for him.

Just look at Arnott. Could have signed McClement too
Boyle can skate circles around Arnott.
McClement is gone, so moot, even if we say he offers most of what Boyle brings.

bernmeister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 06:00 AM
  #114
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 8,432
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagicSlap View Post
It's not about improving the 3rd line, you're missing the point, it's about improving our abysmal center depth as a whole. With Boyle we can run three legit centers down the middle. If it wasn't obvious that 2C was a huge problem last year I don't know what to tell you.

As for Bolland not being able to handle 2C? He just just scored at 40 point pace, on the third line, taking 70% of his starts in the d zone, where his most common linemates throughout the season were Bryan Bickell and Michael Frolik. With guys like Sharp and Hossa on his wing, starting 50% in the offensive zone it's not unrealistic to think he could get 50+ points (easily), that's all you need out of a 2C. Some people seem to think our 2C needs to kill it and put up 8 points.

No, we need to roll 4 lines that all serve a purpose.

Stalberg-Toews-Kane
Sharp-Bolland-Hossa
Saad-Boyle-Shaw
Carcillo-Mayers-Hayes
Bickell

That's a deep forward lineup: 2 scoring lines, 1 two way line that will rough a team up and be responsible, and 1 line to really rough teams up.

It's not about improving the 3rd line, it's about improving the entire depth of the team. The absolute weakest part of our forwards last year was center depth and the second was physicality, this move can help with both that.

Plus, you can save stars energy from the PK (I would think Hossa in particular coming off his injury could use this).

Speaking to Disgruntled, I wouldn't mind expanding this trade some and have the Hawks give more back to get a guy like McIlrath...

Olsen, Morin and a 1st for Boyle and McIlrath
Appreciate the positive comments.
While trying to keep an open mind, though value seems kinda ballpark, McIlrath is not going anywhere unless maybe if there is ridiculous overpayment, esp. since, shocker, Erixon was in the Nash package.

I'm open to additional variations to the OP, but I suggested that pair for Olsen for a reason. We all seem to agree Boyle is useful at minimum to great fit for Hawks, only issue is cost. Biron = improvement, some more excited than others.

But for Rangers, I am envisioning additional moves, possibly trading their top D, so replacement D is needed. I consider B+B for Olsen + x a win win. McIlrath would be worth even more than in trade.

But pls feel free to create new alternatives. I'm just sayin both in my scenarios, there may be more restrictions on the NY roster than usual.

bernmeister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 08:24 AM
  #115
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,591
vCash: 500
Quote:
-You complain about moving parts in the offense. Well it's because we don't have a consistent 2C, this does that.
The move doesn't improve the 2c in my opinion. I don't want Bolland moving and I don't have confidence that him moving is better for the team overall if Boyle is his replacement.

Quote:
-You complain Boyle wouldn't generate as much offense as Bolland on the 3rd line. Who cares? This spreads scoring among the 2nd and 3rd line and people need to get away from the idea that all 4 lines should be filled with the players who will simply score the most all other factors not considered.
It negates much of the benefit of moving up Bolland a line. I'm not convinced Boyle is a better 3c than Bolland either even though he can hit an win faceoffs.

Quote:
-Bolland not able to handle 2C? Seems like you ignored everything I said: 30% offensive zone starts, Bickell and Frolik to Sharp and Hossa, etc. and he'll easily put up 55 points. That's more than enough.
I haven't ignored, I disagree. He'll get 50+ pts but he's been terribly erratic offensively and I worry it will take away from his defensive game. All those clean faceoff losses will hurt more as he doesn't have a defensive unit out there with him. Bollands strengths are enhanced and some of his weaknesses minimized or hidden at 3c, I don't see the overall benefit to moving him. The marginal increase in offense is mostly offset by other detractors including a less dangerous 3rd line.

Quote:
-I said the weakest part of our forwards is center depth, not the team in general.
I was more concerned with the other areas more than center depth. If I had confidence Bolland and Boyle would make the team more likely to win at 2c and 3c I would like the move. I don't see it that way so this doesn't do more than marginally improve the center depth and doesn't address the 3 priorities I see right now.

Quote:
-So since the PK system sucks which shouldn't go out and try to acquire good PKers, especially if it helps take pressure off two stars who had major head injuries last year?
Not when there are other needs that are more pressing. While the Hawks don't even know their PK system's effectiveness after the changes or what they have in their other young forwards that are coming up this year, I don't see much point in trading one of the few tradeable assets for a pk helper. Boyle would have been much more valuable last year. This year's team will be more physical and a little larger than last year.

There will be plenty of bottom 6 forwards to go get later in the year that may help correct a bigger problem area. The market for blueline help will be strong for sellers as the year moves along too, keeping Olsen allows Stan to stay flexible to move a dman for a player that makes the Hawks more likely to win games than Boyle.

I wouldn't disagree with the trade if I thought Bolland would make the team better (more likely to get pts and win) moving to 2c. I love it on paper, but I don't think it works out so well in games.

hockeydoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 08:50 AM
  #116
DisgruntledHawkFan
Moderator
 
DisgruntledHawkFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 22,594
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to DisgruntledHawkFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeydoug View Post
The move doesn't improve the 2c in my opinion. I don't want Bolland moving and I don't have confidence that him moving is better for the team overall if Boyle is his replacement.


It negates much of the benefit of moving up Bolland a line. I'm not convinced Boyle is a better 3c than Bolland either even though he can hit an win faceoffs.



I haven't ignored, I disagree. He'll get 50+ pts but he's been terribly erratic offensively and I worry it will take away from his defensive game. All those clean faceoff losses will hurt more as he doesn't have a defensive unit out there with him. Bollands strengths are enhanced and some of his weaknesses minimized or hidden at 3c, I don't see the overall benefit to moving him. The marginal increase in offense is mostly offset by other detractors including a less dangerous 3rd line.



I was more concerned with the other areas more than center depth. If I had confidence Bolland and Boyle would make the team more likely to win at 2c and 3c I would like the move. I don't see it that way so this doesn't do more than marginally improve the center depth and doesn't address the 3 priorities I see right now.



Not when there are other needs that are more pressing. While the Hawks don't even know their PK system's effectiveness after the changes or what they have in their other young forwards that are coming up this year, I don't see much point in trading one of the few tradeable assets for a pk helper. Boyle would have been much more valuable last year. This year's team will be more physical and a little larger than last year.

There will be plenty of bottom 6 forwards to go get later in the year that may help correct a bigger problem area. The market for blueline help will be strong for sellers as the year moves along too, keeping Olsen allows Stan to stay flexible to move a dman for a player that makes the Hawks more likely to win games than Boyle.

I wouldn't disagree with the trade if I thought Bolland would make the team better (more likely to get pts and win) moving to 2c. I love it on paper, but I don't think it works out so well in games.
You seriously don't see Bolland being an improvement over Marcus Kruger on the second line?

DisgruntledHawkFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 09:20 AM
  #117
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,591
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DisgruntledHawkFan View Post
You seriously don't see Bolland being an improvement over Marcus Kruger on the second line?
Bolland is an improvement one the 2nd line as the team is right now.

I think anybody not named Bolland centering the 3rd line makes that line weaker.

I don't think the improvement of Bolland up a line offsets the decrease in overall effectiveness of the 3rd line. I don't think Bolland is going to be that good of a 2nd line center.

I think the team is most likely to win with Bolland at 3c and I don't want the painful adjustments associated with the move to the 2nd line to find out if they're better off there.

Anyway, I haven't had enough coffee yet, I'll try to clarify that point better in the future.

hockeydoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 10:15 AM
  #118
MurrayBannerman
Fishbulb
 
MurrayBannerman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: 219
Country: United States
Posts: 22,462
vCash: 500
I'd rather move Morin somewhere. He seems like he's going to be blocked up very quickly.

MurrayBannerman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 10:32 AM
  #119
coldsteelonice84
Registered User
 
coldsteelonice84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 26,150
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by MurrayBannerman View Post
I'd rather move Morin somewhere. He seems like he's going to be blocked up very quickly.
I imagine Bickell will walk after this year and Morin will take his roster spot/responsibilities.

coldsteelonice84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 11:19 AM
  #120
ndgt10
Registered User
 
ndgt10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Poland
Country: United States
Posts: 4,105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldsteelonice84 View Post
I imagine Bickell will walk after this year and Morin will take his roster spot/responsibilities.
I dont' think so. I think Morin can only be a top 6 player. I could see him being a player to light up the minors but never make it in the pros.

ndgt10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 01:51 PM
  #121
KanetoToews2883
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 300
vCash: 500
I haven't really read thru this much, but I don't see how Biron is that much of an upgrade at backup netminder. Yes the Hawks unit is probably the weakest in the league... btu that's more of an assessment of Crawford's play. If Crawford can return to his 10-11 play the Hawks won't need but 20ish mediocre Ray Emery starts. Losing Olsen who the Hawks are going to need given the huge drop in the cap and the upcoming RFAs (Leddy) and UFAs (Bolland). Isn't worth acquring a good 4th or fringy 3rd line C and Biron's 20 starts.

If the Rangers were serious in acquiring Olsen the Hawks needs (this is my opinion only) are cost controlled players with upsides.

Del Zotto would work if he weren't left handed... Girardi might be nice but he's going to lose that cost control soon... McIlrath is similar to Olsen (at least scouting wise in their draft year) but unsure how he's progressed. On the O side, Carl Hagelin makes sense for the Hawks. (He probably fits better on the 3rd than 2nd line but his game might fit into our system)

Now all of those are probably non-starters and I suspect that to be the case, but I wouldn't move Olsen right now for pennies on the dollar, when he's more likely to appreciate in value rather than depreciate.

KanetoToews2883 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 01:58 PM
  #122
KanetoToews2883
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 300
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DisgruntledHawkFan View Post
You seriously don't see Bolland being an improvement over Marcus Kruger on the second line?
I didn't read his post all the way thru but keep in mind the Hawks 3rd line plays a good chunk of minutes a night. Q likes to roll 3 lines deep and give the 4th line a little bit.

so acquiring a 4th line C (Boyle) doesn't make any sense.

I think his point was that Bolland really makes that 3rd line go... and Q plays matchups with it. So that the Hawks as a team are a better team with Bolland on the 3rd line as opposed to the 2nd line.

If it were me and I wanted to play Bolland at 2C, that line would probably feature Hossa and Stalberg. Two guys who are good on the forecheck and can produce some scoring as well.... That would leave a top line of Sharp-Toews-Kane and a 3rd line of Bickell-Kruger -Frolik. Which squeezes Saad out..

KanetoToews2883 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 02:11 PM
  #123
coldsteelonice84
Registered User
 
coldsteelonice84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 26,150
vCash: 50
I don't know, I cringe every time a shot is taken on Emery, especially when it's someone like Perry or Franzen. I'd feel better with Biron in net.

coldsteelonice84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 02:31 PM
  #124
Bubba88
Toews = Savior
 
Bubba88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bavaria
Country: Germany
Posts: 24,327
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldsteelonice84 View Post
I imagine Bickell will walk after this year and Morin will take his roster spot/responsibilities.
How is that possible when we sign Jagr next year and whoever will be a UFA and take spots away?

How can you want this next year but not this year?

Bubba88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 02:50 PM
  #125
coldsteelonice84
Registered User
 
coldsteelonice84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 26,150
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba88 View Post
How is that possible when we sign Jagr next year and whoever will be a UFA and take spots away?

How can you want this next year but not this year?
I'm not against the prospects whatsoever. I like Morin a lot and have a lot of confidence in him. I just wanted a couple veterans (like Jagr) to be brought in and help tie everything together, provide leadership and experience, provide a sure 20 goals/ 50 points. Just a couple little moves (IMO), obviously this isn't like Brunette, you need to pay Jagr, but really just something like Jagr and McClement would have done wonders for this team.

It's beyond comprehension that he couldn't have just signed those 2 guys. No risk, no mortgaging of the future. And the team gets better. What a ****ing idiot.

coldsteelonice84 is offline   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 02:35 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.