We have a GM problem

[hockeydoug]

ignoring the rest of this post because you already wasted enough time and effort coming up with this hokey cliche crap just to ask this question: how can the hawks be the new sabres when the old sabres are still the new sabres?

Try substituting "sabres" for "lost and rudderless franchise for more than a decade" if that helps.

 

[Hawkaholic]

Try substituting "sabres" for "lost and rudderless franchise for more than a decade" if that helps.

Colorado sucked for longer than 10 years, look at them now. Edmonton had 3 1st overall picks in a row and sucked for MANY years, Cup contender now. A decade is what people should expect for a complete turnaround, this isn't Football.

 

[GIADF]

Colorado sucked for longer than 10 years, look at them now. Edmonton had 3 1st overall picks in a row and sucked for MANY years, Cup contender now. A decade is what people should expect for a complete turnaround, this isn't Football.

What 10 year span did Colorado suck for? In the last 30 years they have only twice had 3 consecutive seasons of missing the playoffs.

Their longest playoff drought was back in the 80s when they were getting developed as an expansion team.

 

[Hawkaholic]

What 10 year span did Colorado suck for? In the last 30 years they have only twice had 3 consecutive seasons of missing the playoffs.

Their longest playoff drought was back in the 80s when they were getting developed as an expansion team.

Making the playoffs and losing in Round 1 isn't not sucking, especially back then when talent wasn't near as spread out as it is today. They drafted Landeskog 2nd overall in 2011, Mackinnon 1st in 2013, Makar 4th in 2017, Bryam 4th in 2019. So sorry, 8+ years.

 

[statswatcher]

What 10 year span did Colorado suck for? In the last 30 years they have only twice had 3 consecutive seasons of missing the playoffs.

Their longest playoff drought was back in the 80s when they were getting developed as an expansion team.

from the 04 lockout to the 16-17 season they made the playoffs 4 times in 12 years. in the last 12 seasons the hawks have made the playoffs 6 times*.
*5 times not counting the bubble

 

[hockeydoug]

Colorado sucked for longer than 10 years, look at them now. Edmonton had 3 1st overall picks in a row and sucked for MANY years, Cup contender now. A decade is what people should expect for a complete turnaround, this isn't Football.

After 8 or 9 years of sucking they notched 3 playoff series wins for the first 8 years of McDavid... Who is going to look at that and think well of it?

Colorado was not a coherent plan to build up, neither was TB. LA was 3 pts from blowing everything up and selling. These weren't plans start to finish.

 

[Hawkaholic]

After 8 or 9 years of sucking they notched 3 playoff series wins for the first 8 years of McDavid... Who is going to look at that and think well of it?

Colorado was not a coherent plan to build up, neither was TB. LA was 3 pts from blowing everything up and selling. These weren't plans start to finish.

So who is your gold standard of how to build a team? lol

Colorados plan sucked, Tampa Bays plan sucked, Edmontons plan sucked, 3 of the top Cup contenders to this day, and for the last 3-5 years. lol

Should we have been Dallas, hang on to our old players and try to find gems half way through the 1st round? Only to have nothing to show for it? You've literally talked shit about almost every teams plan for building. Please, give us your gold standard team on how to build a team properly.

LA should have blew it up, now they are just stuck in mediocrity with no way out.

 

[GIADF]

So who is your gold standard of how to build a team? lol

I asked you this recently, and maybe you didn't see it, but you never answered. Would still be curious what rebuilds you would consider a success. Not necessary a blueprint to follow, every team will always be different, but am curious which rebuilds you think were well thought out and executed if nothing else.

 

[Hawkaholic]

I asked you this recently, and maybe you didn't see it, but you never answered. Would still be curious what rebuilds you would consider a success. Not necessary a blueprint to follow, every team will always be different, but am curious which rebuilds you think were well thought out and executed if nothing else.

I can't think of many teams that tore it right down and started from scratch like the Hawks. Most teams just sucked for years unintentionally, so tough to compare. But the teams that are contenders today, sucked for many years, accumulated top draft picks and built around those players in various ways. (Colorado, Tampa Bay, Florida, Toronto, Edmonton)

It's a different question than I am asking. The tear down part was done to get Bedard, he is here now, we now have to suck for a few more years to get top end players to play with him. I don't know what people are expecting. It takes multiple years to build that core and start to become a half way decent team. You don't just go out and sign some old UFAs to start to trend up, that never works.

 

[hockeydoug]

So who is your gold standard of how to build a team? lol

Colorados plan sucked, Tampa Bays plan sucked, Edmontons plan sucked, 3 of the top Cup contenders to this day, and for the last 3-5 years. lol

Should we have been Dallas, hang on to our old players and try to find gems half way through the 1st round? Only to have nothing to show for it? You've literally talked shit about almost every teams plan for building. Please, give us your gold standard team on how to build a team properly.

LA should have blew it up, now they are just stuck in mediocrity with no way out.

The standard is the approach for a long term agenda, every franchise has different circumstances.

Full or partial tear down, doesn't matter.

WPG built a good plan but probably should have hired one more senior hockey advisor with Cheveldayoff, very limited market. STL had an excellent plan for their market, so did Carolina under Francis. I never expected any of them to win but the plans to build took the important things into account.

I was a big fan of PHI's plan to rebuild/retool mid of last decade but their leadership was crazy and they built what I thought was a great plan that fit what they had and then lit it on fire. Seattle's plan and NAS' plans always look more like a business plan than hockey franchise plan. NYR's plan never matched the market. I suspect Boston will have an excellent rebuild when they decide to start over Boston does all the important things well at the top of the list and they play to their strengths.

Chicago did what Buffalo did, jumped in with both feet without knowing what they were good at. Many "rebuilds" are really a matter of setting up for a sale and aren't really comps.

 

[Hawkaholic]

The standard is the approach for a long term agenda, every franchise has different circumstances.

Full or partial tear down, doesn't matter.

WPG built a good plan but probably should have hired one more senior hockey advisor with Cheveldayoff, very limited market. STL had an excellent plan for their market, so did Carolina under Francis. I never expected any of them to win but the plans to build took the important things into account.

I was a big fan of PHI's plan to rebuild/retool mid of last decade but their leadership was crazy and they built what I thought was a great plan that fit what they had and then lit it on fire. Seattle's plan and NAS' plans always look more like a business plan than hockey franchise plan. NYR's plan never matched the market. I suspect Boston will have an excellent rebuild when they decide to start over Boston does all the important things well at the top of the list and they play to their strengths.

Chicago did what Buffalo did, jumped in with both feet without knowing what they were good at. Many "rebuilds" are really a matter of setting up for a sale and aren't really comps.

WPG never rebuilt, STL never rebuilt, CAR never rebuilt...like what? So your plan to rebuild, is to not rebuild? Seems like a solid plan. There's a difference between retool and rebuild, only team you mentioned was Philly who did a rebuild, and yay for them, they are now stuck in mediocrity.

How do you know Boston does all the important things well, when they have never had to enter a rebuild?

 

[Crow]

This is some of the weirdest shit I’ve ever read when it comes to evaluating our management. It’s coming from literally no where with no evidence.

 

[WarriorofTime]

1. Know what you're good at and what you're bad at the owner and senior management positions -They really skipped this part. If they didn't skip this part, and this is what they came up with, we're the new Sabres.
2. Since you don't have a timeline, focus on culture and methodology as you tank. -Either they swung and missed or just ignored this. I don't see anything that aligns with the rest from one major area to the next beyond Danny willing to light money and fire and KD being happy and cozy near the flames.
3. Keep it simple and focused without shortcuts if you're committing to full rebuild, get a couple picks right at the top each year, align Rockford with the big team, have a hiring plan in place for support staff and hockey ops, know the budget. -They had the budget, nothing else
4. Know how you want to play and align as much as you can in that direction. -Coaching and drafting and acquisitions don't match. It's a hot mess from 50,000 feet.
5. Know when you have a core piece and support them like every other franchise has done...except Chicago
6. - 50 that's improving staff and the roster and business one of several ways over time, dozens of ways to do it well.

Fans are skipping the top of the list and going straight to accumulating talent and roster construction, there are huge parts that were never addressed that should have taken priority. That's why I've been bashing this "the plan" With so many Bears fans here, I'm surprised there isn't a ton of criticism at the top. KD said he wanted to move forward and failed. Nobody cares about the standings, but he wasn't advancing more players past reasonable expectations than are regressing...again.

I'm actually encouraged despite KD's failure to meet his own goals this year because season outcomes doesn't matter as much as the approach in a long process. The approach made sense after more than a couple of years of having no path that works.

You're talking in a lot of weird empty cliches my dude.

Draft your way is basically the foundation of all rebuilds.

Hawks unintentionally sucked for a while, then decided to intentionally suck instead of continuing to ride it out with a failing roster. It's possible they could have snuck into a postseason at some point the last few years if they just rode it out with the 2021-22 squad that finished 27th out of 32 teams if things all come together in a neat way (it is after all a hard capped league), and then they have a shorter playoff drought, but to what end? They left themselves in a really bad spot when they moved their picks for Jones. Essentially same position the Chicago Bulls have been in.

Would anyone think the Hawks were better positioned to win a Cup by 2032 if they looked like this right now:

DeBrincat (7.875)-Strome (5)-P. Kane (6.5)
Hagel (6.5)-Toews (4.5)-Foligno (4.5)
Bertuzzi (5.5)-Dach (3.363)-Mikheyev (4.75)
Reichel (1.2)-Smith (1)-Maroon (1.3)
Kurashev (2.25)

Vlasic (4.6)-Jones (9.5)
McCabe (4)-Murphy (4.4)
Martinez (4)-Allan (0.825)
Kaiser (0.917)

Mrazek (4.25)
Soderblom (0.963)

Cap Hit: $82.48

Prospects:
Slaggert
C. Dach
Commesso
Del Mastro
Rinzel
Greene
Savoie
Thompson
Ryan Leonard
Gajan
Lardis
Felcman
Pharand
Anton Silayev
Vanacker
Mustard

 

[ploppsdman]

I suspect LUCKING into Bedard has caused many a blind eye.

If Chicago had Fantelli, the pitch forks would be out.

 

[Callidusblackhawk]

I suspect LUCKING into Bedard has caused many a blind eye.

If Chicago had Fantelli, the pitch forks would be out.

Why? The Hawks would be EVEN MORE desperate for a top 3 pick in that case.

 

[statswatcher]

Anton Silayev

well i hear from a good authority if he hits he's zdeno chara so maybe this scenario isn't that bad after all

 

[Pez68]

Just insane irrationality from a few posters here.

 

[ploppsdman]

I expect the GM of any team, but especially an abject bottom dweller, to aggressively seek out depressed assets.

Lock me up - I'm INSANE.

Bytheway, Reichel would be an example of a "depressed asset". He's got talent but he MAY need a change of scenery to figure things out.

 

[statswatcher]

I expect the GM of any team, but especially an abject bottom dweller, to aggressively seek out depressed assets.

Lock me up - I'm INSANE.

Bytheway, Reichel would be an example of a "depressed asset". He's got talent but he MAY need a change of scenery to figure things out.

give me eight more lukas reichels and we're making it out of the bottom three dog i swear.

 

[ploppsdman]

Why? The Hawks would be EVEN MORE desperate for a top 3 pick in that case.

The entirety of the plan was "draft Bedard". Thats why players young & old were tossed off this team. If Chicago didn't pull a rabbit out of a hat, there'd be more hell to pay than there already is.

 

[ploppsdman]

give me eight more lukas reichels and we're making it out of the bottom three dog i swear.

I'm unsure if some of you are ignorant or deliberately obtuse.

The chances for Reichel or Kakko or Kilayev becoming an important player isn't high, but when your trash, you root around the dumpster for high risk /high reward players and hope your dev staff can turn things around.

On a more professional scale, look at FLA with Bennett, Reinhart, Verhaege, Forsling. These are different degrees of undervalued players. For example, Tampa non-tendered Verhaege.

Wanna be successful? Find players any where you can. Remind me of the last high risk YOUNG player Chicago's brought in.

 

[belfour30]

Wanna be successful? Find players any where you can. Remind me of the last high risk YOUNG player Chicago's brought in.

Yeah Alex Nylander worked out really well. Genius move.

 

[statswatcher]

I'm unsure if some of you are ignorant or deliberately obtuse.

a little of column a little of column b. for what it's worth i got you pegged for neither of these. rather you evince a special blend of impotence, impatience, and arrogance peculiar to a certain kind of sports fan that roams the web in search of someone to yap inane business seminar self help crap like "know what you're good at" to and expect to be taken as a sage figure.

The chances for Reichel or Kakko or Kilayev becoming an important player isn't high, but when your trash, you root around the dumpster for high risk /high reward players and hope your dev staff can turn things around.

you are acting like you are having to defend the very concept of buying low lmao. no one on planet earth will ever argue that it's a bad thing under all circumstances to pursue young talent at a discount in hopes of striking on a bargain. no doubt kd will have to do that to build a winning club, and if he doesn't by the time he's shown the door it will be a large part of why. i don't have to make a catalog of every half-assed one time decent prospect to hit the waiver wire without a claim from the hawks to acknowledge that fact. i certainly don't have to do that and come here to cry about it five to six times a week and act offended and superior that everyone else isn't crying with me.