Washington REALLY helped by Kempny trade

[RayP]

Kempny on ice for multiple goals against and finishes a negative for night

Did you watch the game?

 

[BK]

I like how you called him a liar just to go on and prove his point.

What? I get that you want to troll but at least try and be a decent troll.

 

[LordKOTL]

I don't care what y'all say, Kempny was ****ing awful in Chicago. Glad Stan got a 3rd for him.

At the point in which Kempny left (Feb 19th), he was leading the 'hawks D-men with a +13, which was more than Murph (+4), Seabrook (+3) and Osterle (+3) combined. Couple that with the fact that Franson (-1), Dahlstrom (-2) Forsling (-2) Gus (-5), Rutta (-7), and Keith (-11), and it's apparent that he had to be doing *something* right since he was a +13 with 7 points and no powerplay points--so he was a net positive contribution...one of the few D-men this year that was.

He might not have been the end-all-beat-all, but he certainly wasn't a liability.

 

[BK]

At the point in which Kempny left (Feb 19th), he was leading the 'hawks D-men with a +13, which was more than Murph (+4), Seabrook (+3) and Osterle (+3) combined. Couple that with the fact that Franson (-1), Dahlstrom (-2) Forsling (-2) Gus (-5), Rutta (-7), and Keith (-11), and it's apparent that he had to be doing *something* right since he was a +13 with 7 points and no powerplay points--so he was a net positive contribution...one of the few D-men this year that was.

He might not have been the end-all-beat-all, but he certainly wasn't a liability.

This is what everyone is trying to say. Kempny was a solid D but not a star D like certain posters are claiming people are saying.

 

[LordKOTL]

This is what everyone is trying to say. Kempny was a solid D but not a star D like certain posters are claiming people are saying.

Agreed. I think what some are seeing though is Kempny's numbers vs. the rest of the D's numbers, and drawing conclusions of the rest of the D's numbers vs. Name Recognition. Just because Kempny had better numbers than our star defensemen, doesn't mean he's automatically a star especially when the star D-men had one of their worst years to date.

 

[ChiHawks10]

Agreed. I think what some are seeing though is Kempny's numbers vs. the rest of the D's numbers, and drawing conclusions of the rest of the D's numbers vs. Name Recognition. Just because Kempny had better numbers than our star defensemen, doesn't mean he's automatically a star especially when the star D-men had one of their worst years to date.

Right, but not a single person on here has called him a star, yet that's constantly BWC's assertion on the subject. Everyone is saying the Hawks lost a solid second-pairing D due to Q's stubborn nature, and the refusal to play a guy to his strengths. BWC somehow equates that to us thinking "he's a star".

 

[DisgruntledHawkFan]

I seriously don't get how some of you continue to argue with him.

 

[RememberTheRoar]

Right, but not a single person on here has called him a star, yet that's constantly BWC's assertion on the subject. Everyone is saying the Hawks lost a solid second-pairing D due to Q's stubborn nature, and the refusal to play a guy to his strengths. BWC somehow equates that to us thinking "he's a star".

He operates solely in extremes. A player is either Gretzky, or an AHLer. There’s no in between.

 

[ChiHawk21]

Carlson is not better than Keith right now, IMO. And never has been better than Keith. He might be better for a season or two when Keith is playing ages 35-39 these next few years... but that's about it. And he'll be lucky if he is. Keith just had his career worst season and Carlson had his career best in a contract year. Keith will be better next season. Not worried about him at all.

The obsession with Carlson is ridiculous, honestly. The guy was a 30-40 point D his entire career up until his contract season. And not nearly as good as Keith defensively, ever. Handing him a large AAV long-term contract would be a mistake, IMO.

carlson is way better then keith at this moment. im not saying it wont ever change back but this year he was way better and playing the best hes played in his career while keith was at his worst. I have been discussing this year when talking about who kempny is playing with.. Last night i thought carlson was the best player on the ice for both teams.

Also whining about trading away kempny and not wanting carlson on your team is crazy to think about it a cap world. Im not saying your wrong, its just crazy. thats two different players that are on WAY different tiers.

 

[ChiHawks10]

carlson is way better then keith at this moment. im not saying it wont ever change back but this year he was way better and playing the best hes played in his career while keith was at his worst. I have been discussing this year when talking about who kempny is playing with.. Last night i thought carlson was the best player on the ice for both teams.

Also whining about trading away kempny and not wanting carlson on your team is crazy to think about it a cap world. Im not saying your wrong, its just crazy. thats two different players that are on WAY different tiers.

There's no way to know, because Keith isn't playing right now. This past season, yes, Carlson was better. He had a career year, in a contract year. While Keith had a career worst year. I honestly think Keith will be better than Carlson next season.

I'm not whining. I'm pissed off that the Hawks lost a solid 2nd pair D when they're already so thin back there, simply due to Q being a moron. I don't want Carlson on this team because he's going to command a large AAV contract and long term, when he'll be pushing 29 years old at the start of the season. Hasn't Seabrook taught a single fan of the Hawks a lesson? Don't pay an aging, soon-to-be-declining D a large amount of money, or it will screw you later on. Are you of the belief that any player gets better once they turn 30? There are very few in the history of every major professional sport. Turning 30 guarantees the start of a decline for probably 99% of athletes.

Kempny was younger, and on manageable contracts, and solid depth on the back-end. Better than all but 2 or 3 guys already back there. And we lost him due to Q. And nobody else.

 

[ChiHawk21]

There's no way to know, because Keith isn't playing right now. This past season, yes, Carlson was better. He had a career year, in a contract year. While Keith had a career worst year. I honestly think Keith will be better than Carlson next season.

I'm not whining. I'm pissed off that the Hawks lost a solid 2nd pair D when they're already so thin back there, simply due to Q being a moron. I don't want Carlson on this team because he's going to command a large AAV contract and long term, when he'll be pushing 29 years old at the start of the season. Hasn't Seabrook taught a single fan of the Hawks a lesson? Don't pay an aging, soon-to-be-declining D a large amount of money, or it will screw you later on. Are you of the belief that any player gets better once they turn 30? There are very few in the history of every major professional sport. Turning 30 guarantees the start of a decline for probably 99% of athletes.

Kempny was younger, and on manageable contracts, and solid depth on the back-end. Better than all but 2 or 3 guys already back there. And we lost him due to Q. And nobody else.

Things iv said-
-Carlson is better then keith right now --this full past year--this could change back i do not doubt it.
-its crazy that in a cap world you could want kempny on a team over carlson. (you are not wrong for wanting this)
-carlson was the best player on the ice last night

i dont know what your disagreeing with me about

Also kempny is 27 and 28 in 3 months and carlson is 28. so younger and on a better contract im not sure works because they are both UFAs and the same age. One is a just way better then the other. I better make this very clear for you tho. I dont want the hawks to sign carlson to a big long contract.

 

[LordKOTL]

Right, but not a single person on here has called him a star, yet that's constantly BWC's assertion on the subject. Everyone is saying the Hawks lost a solid second-pairing D due to Q's stubborn nature, and the refusal to play a guy to his strengths. BWC somehow equates that to us thinking "he's a star".

It was more in response to posts like this:

I don't care what y'all say, Kempny was ****ing awful in Chicago. Glad Stan got a 3rd for him.

While it's true we got something for him in spite of him being misused, He wasn't awful in any sense of the word. He wasn't the savior of the D either, but "****ing awful" implies breast-augmentation-on-a-zombie level of uselessness. If he was that bad on D, his numbers would have reflected that especially give not only of the state of the defense all year long, but also given the fact that he still has about 2 months on the 'hawks without Crawford masking the issues plaguing the D. If he was really that bad, the minute he would have been exposed to Forberg, Glass, & Berube, his numbers should have been in freefall, but they weren't.

Keith, OTOH...

 

[deytookerjaabs]

LOL, you know Vegas is going take the Caps pretty good. Kempny will naturally get the blame even when he has good games. Point is, he's looked damn good for the majority of the post season for the Caps and they'll be the first to tell you that unless you cherry pick some negative nancies.

 

[BobbyJet]

I don't want to sound like Don Cherry here but last summer I predicted Vegas would be good and would likely vie for a playoff spot. Folks scoffed. Of course, no one knew back then that they could possibly be this good, so soon.

Vegas looks like a team that's been together for a few years. It's amazing, the accomplishments of an expansion team with good management decisions, a good coach, and the character players they kept. VGN could easily be thought of as the sports story of the decade, perhaps century if they go all the way!

 

[Blue Liner]

I don't want to sound like Don Cherry here but last summer I predicted Vegas would be good and would likely vie for a playoff spot. Folks scoffed. Of course, no one knew back then that they could possibly be this good, so soon.

Vegas looks like a team that's been together for a few years. It's amazing, the accomplishments of an expansion team with good management decisions, a good coach, and the character players they kept. VGN could easily be thought of as the sports story of the decade, perhaps century if they go all the way!

Remember you saying that, though I don't remember that many people scoffing at it. Maybe more did than I recollect. I know some did, but I do recall many people (not necessarily here but in general) thinking they actually maybe had an outside chance to be a playoff team. I thought there was a chance but if you had forced me to bet with no odds, just straight up, I'd have leaned toward betting against it. I've been proven wrong and then some.

I want to know how many people took the 500-1 odds they'd make the Final and how much money they've made from that wager!

 

[RememberTheRoar]

I don't want to sound like Don Cherry here but last summer I predicted Vegas would be good and would likely vie for a playoff spot. Folks scoffed. Of course, no one knew back then that they could possibly be this good, so soon.

Vegas looks like a team that's been together for a few years. It's amazing, the accomplishments of an expansion team with good management decisions, a good coach, and the character players they kept. VGN could easily be thought of as the sports story of the decade, perhaps century if they go all the way!

Did you make sure to warm up your lips before tooting your own horn? Haha

But seriously, it is simply amazing what this team is doing. I agree with you, this is likely the sports story of the decade. The next closest hockey story is probably the post-lockout Blackhawks.

 

[BobbyJet]

/\ It would be a hardcore wagerer who would make that bet.

 

[ChiHawks10]

I'll admit that I thought Vegas was a fluke a quarter of the way through the season. Then still at the All-Star break. Then I started believing when it just continued after that. And now I'm eating crow raw and uncooked.

They have proven me wrong time and time again. They never came back down to earth like I expected, and it's very possible they're the SC Champs when all is said and done.

 

[Blue Liner]

I'll admit that I thought Vegas was a fluke a quarter of the way through the season. Then still at the All-Star break. Then I started believing when it just continued after that. And now I'm eating crow raw and uncooked.

They have proven me wrong time and time again. They never came back down to earth like I expected, and it's very possible they're the SC Champs when all is said and done.

Pretty sure I said they wouldn't get out of the first round. I think I even did on here. #expert

 

[coolhand]

/\ It would be a hardcore wagerer who would make that bet.

I heard a guy placed a $1 million bet on Vegas to win the cup, at 500:1 odds

 

[ChiHawks10]

I heard a guy placed a $1 million bet on Vegas to win the cup, at 500:1 odds

...

 

[b1e9a8r5s]

I heard a guy placed a $1 million bet on Vegas to win the cup, at 500:1 odds

I guarantee that's not true.

They put limits on how much you can bet on futures, particularly with those odds.

 

[coolhand]

I guarantee that's not true.

They put limits on how much you can bet on futures, particularly with those odds.

I would think so. No bookie would like to take that and have to cover

 

[RememberTheRoar]

I heard a guy placed a $1 million bet on Vegas to win the cup, at 500:1 odds

Where did you hear that from?

 

[ChiHawks10]

I would think so. No bookie would like to take that and have to cover

Yeah, that's a half a billion dollar payday.

The crazy thing is... the 500:1 odds given pre-season for Vegas to win gave them a 99.8% chance to lose. They might be the .2%. That's insane to me.