Shane Walsh
aka "Captain Oblivious"
- Cynthiana, Kentucky
Yeah. Really strange returns for all three trades.
I hope he's the .888 save percentage guy instead of the .923 guy...At least the Hawks got Mrazek from the Leafs.
It's crystal clear that the intent has been to goad Kane and Toews into requesting trades themselves. Not offering Dylan Strome is also of a piece with that.The Debrincat return was underwhelming and seems like Davidson forced it. He could have waited until the trade deadline to see who needed a scoring wing.
Young players being shed for nothing while those responsible for developing them are welcome to stay really demonstrates how little method there is to this madness.
If anyone cared about hockey I think this would wind up being a very instructive lesson in the finer points of how not to go about so-called "rebuilding". At the moment it's too savvy and high-status to always show unexamined deference to strategic losing. One part our societal values, one part the personality type of the Online American Man.
May the unprofessional joke this franchise will be for the foreseeable future, to no benefit but at full price, start to fix some of that.
For a new regime to retain the interim coach and AHL coach they inherited is genuinely quite strange. But of course it's not really a new regime, it's just an internal palace coup against Stan Bowman.Do you want more front office and coaching staff turnover?
This is overstating it, the DeBrincat and Mrazek trades are a joke regardless, but it's true TB made an offer no one could refuse for Hagel.I think the absurdly high return for Hagel set the bar a bit too high for what followed.
Agreed on all counts. Then why is King still here? This organization has now literally across three generations of leadership had a pathological inability to just move on from likable good soldiers in coaching and management who aren't fit for purpose.My biggest beef with the Hawks is absolutely wasting last year with no real NHL coaching staff. Stan should have been fired for incompetence before the Beach scandal broke. I just don't see how he made the 'win now' trade for Jones without firing Colliton and getting a real coach. Then Davidson compounded the problem by putting King in place and saying it was too difficult to change systems mid-season, as if that's never been done successfully before.
It's always just assumed without analysis that's the strategically correct move. I don't think it was for this Blackhawks situation, especially when the lack of market for DeBrincat revealed itself, double especially if Kane and Toews really don't want to leave.Davidson clearly wants to be very, very bad this year and most likely really bad the next year.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. No it isn't.Time will tell if this was the right plan, but it is at least a plan.
You claim that without analysis it’s assumed that being bad for a few years is lauded as the right way to go. I have analyzed this team as currently structured, their prospect pool and their salary cap situation. Having Conor Bedard (or a top 3 pick in next years draft) and an insane amount of salary cap space in two years puts this team in a much better position than you could possibly hope for by signing Debrincat to a long term extension. There is no path to reasonably expect to be better next year, especially after Keith retired and the Hawks take a big cap hit. How did the hawks kick start their cup runs? Building up their prospect pool and then hitting home runs in 06 and 07?For a new regime to retain the interim coach and AHL coach they inherited is genuinely quite strange. But of course it's not really a new regime, it's just an internal palace coup against Stan Bowman.
No credit to Bowman who left an absolute mess by any measure, but if the prospect pipeline is so bare, responsibility goes further than just the man at the top, nevermind needing change to institute the change in style of play they are purporting to seek.
This is overstating it, the DeBrincat and Mrazek trades are a joke regardless, but it's true TB made an offer no one could refuse for Hagel.
Agreed on all counts. Then why is King still here? This organization has now literally across three generations of leadership had a pathological inability to just move on from likable good soldiers in coaching and management who aren't fit for purpose.
It's always just assumed without analysis that's the strategically correct move. I don't think it was for this Blackhawks situation, especially when the lack of market for DeBrincat revealed itself, double especially if Kane and Toews really don't want to leave.
But none of that was ever analyzed. It was absolutely damn-the-torpedoes to tank in the most aggressive fashion ever seen in hockey from the day Davidson took the job. And sports discourse is such that neither he nor the people that hired him ever face real questions about the WISDOM of doing that, never mind the obviously odious morality of it. That's why they do it! Tanking is a get-out-of-criticism-free card.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. No it isn't.
It's only a plan if there's a strategy to maximize resources, and we have already seen that there's not.
Sam Hinkie was a total failure with the Sixers for that reason. I suspect Davidson is going to be more insulated from consequences than Hinkie was because of the way the Blackhawks operate, goodness knows how bad it will get. Good luck to Conor Bedard if he has to walk into this mess.
I guess I just don't necessarily agree. You've got a 19% chance at Bedard if you're in dead last, and he or any other top 18 year old prospect and a barren NHL team is going to take an awful lot of building.Having Conor Bedard (or a top 3 pick in next years draft) and an insane amount of salary cap space in two years puts this team in a much better position than you could possibly hope for by signing Debrincat to a long term extension.
To the extent that's true, doesn't that give you the opportunity to have your cake and eat it too? Start building in a more intelligent way with better coaching and better player development AND take your lottery shot?There is no path to reasonably expect to be better next year
Toews is not the player he once was obviously. He is part of the problem through no fault of his own. He has no trade value at his current salary.I guess I just don't necessarily agree. You've got a 19% chance at Bedard if you're in dead last, and he or any other top 18 year old prospect and a barren NHL team is going to take an awful lot of building.
The situation Davidson inherited was bad, but not utterly hopeless in terms of making a competitive team out of the main pieces. And in a slow rising cap league with a lot of teams crowding the tanking path, that direction is no cinch as we're seeing.
To the extent that's true, doesn't that give you the opportunity to have your cake and eat it too? Start building in a more intelligent way with better coaching and better player development AND take your lottery shot?
So much of it comes down to being able to get significant returns for Kane, Toews and DeBrincat that put you ahead of the league in terms of longer-term assets. That's what makes the tear down a tempting prospect. 0-for-1 so far.
Toews is not the player he once was obviously. He is part of the problem through no fault of his own. He has no trade value at his current salary.
I think if you honestly sit down and try and build a team around Kane at $10 million per year, Debrincat at around 9 million per year and Jones at 9 million per year as your core you will run into some issues.
If Dach, Debrincat, Kubalik, Strome and some of the other casualties go on to outperforming expectations then I will eat my words. I watched this miserable mess over the last few years and I just don’t get the “how could you move on from these guys” mentality. Team is slow and can’t forecheck anyone. Kane and Debrincat are great together on the power play but meh at even strength. If you blame the defensemen for their struggles at even strength well so do I. You still have to fix it. It isn’t going to get better by chance.
Being bad for a few years can be a byproduct of clearing up cap space and building your prospect pool. It doesn’t mean it is the intent. I don’t know if this will work but I am more optimistic about it than building around a 34 year old Kane, Debrincat and Jones at around 40% of your salary cap space.
Oh let's be real, it's absolutely the intent. How else to get higher draft picks for 18 year olds who are three years away from contributing?Being bad for a few years can be a byproduct of clearing up cap space and building your prospect pool. It doesn’t mean it is the intent.
Again, just taken on faith.it's the quickest way out of this morass we've been in.
Certainly possible. Based on how he finished last season I think he could still contribute in a more limited role. I think it all depends on his health and not sure anyone knows where that is at. He would be a great guy to keep around to mentor young players if he wants to do it. My guess is he plays this year in Chicago and then signs a short term deal for a few million a year with a playoff contender. Even if requests a trade I’m just not sure it’s realistic. Hawks would have to eat a ton of salary and still wouldn’t get much back I don’t think.Isn't it a reasonable assumption that Toews plays this last year with the Hawks and then retires? I hear talk about moving him to a contender but I think the tank is about empty for him.
Yeah Toews is a tough situation. Which makes the Kane situation tougher. Somehow Kane, Toews and Seth Jones all have the same agent btw. That's a really tough job at the moment, those three players have wildly divergent interests in this mess.Certainly possible. Based on how he finished last season I think he could still contribute in a more limited role. I think it all depends on his health and not sure anyone knows where that is at. He would be a great guy to keep around to mentor young players if he wants to do it. My guess is he plays this year in Chicago and then signs a short term deal for a few million a year with a playoff contender. Even if requests a trade I’m just not sure it’s realistic. Hawks would have to eat a ton of salary and still wouldn’t get much back I don’t think.
Maybe you can help me understand your logic on Kane and Toews walking for nothing being an indictment of this demolition.Yeah Toews is a tough situation. Which makes the Kane situation tougher. Somehow Kane, Toews and Seth Jones all have the same agent btw. That's a really tough job at the moment, those three players have wildly divergent interests in this mess.
Sports agenting stuff borders on conflict of interest at times, which is a whole other conversation.
But the upshot is pretty simple: if Kane and Toews walk for nothing, the franchise took the wrong direction in authorizing the Davidson demolition.
And for two franchise legend inner circle Hall of Famers abandoning the only team they've ever known not to get covered in the press as organizational suicide (which it won't be, but absolutely would have been 20 years ago) shows how wrongheaded and backwards sports discourse has gotten around the subject of "rebuilding".
So long as he's healthy it's not none, but it's less than Kane and you'd have to retain salary.It sounded like you agree that Toews has no value at this point in a trade.
Oh there is zero doubt Davidson has been doing his best to induce trade requests from Kane and Toews from the moment he took the job. Whether ownership has demanded he handle it that way rather than forthrightly, or whether that's his own initiative I don't know. Who knows how Kane and Toews would have handled straightforward asks to waive their clauses.How that is Davidsons fault I don’t see. Do you think they should sign him to an extension now? Kane has a no trade clause so you can’t get anything for him unless he wants to go. Again, Davidsons hands are tied there. I’m pretty sure if you hooked Davidson up to lie detector he would fail miserably if he said he hopes Kane sticks around and plays out the year. I’m sure he would love to move him for picks or prospects but that is up to Kane and no one else.
Good options were not available to Davidson. Stan Bowman left a total mess (that got way, WAY worse in his final offseason. He should have been fired rather than being allowed to make the Seth Jones trade. Take the keys right at that moment and this is a brighter situation. Alas)Salary caps have changed how you have to look at these things. There was a time when you could pay guys for their past performance and contributions to the team and not be penalized. Signing guys like Kane and Toews to extensions just because they are future hall of famers can be done but I would argue it’s a recipe for disaster.
Good options were not available to Davidson. Stan Bowman left a total mess (that got way, WAY worse in his final offseason. He should have been fired rather than being allowed to make the Seth Jones trade. Take the keys right at that moment and this is a brighter situation. Alas)
Keeping the faith with Kane and Toews and trying to patch up a playoff team the best you can with little cap wiggle room is a tough, low probability path to success.
My point above all is that tanking from the situation Davidson inherited is ALSO a tough, low probability path to success. That is the clear lesson of the evidence, as opposed to the Smart Internet Guy ideology.
Oh there is zero doubt Davidson has been doing his best to induce trade requests from Kane and Toews from the moment he took the job. Whether ownership has demanded he handle it that way rather than forthrightly, or whether that's his own initiative I don't know. Who knows how Kane and Toews would have handled straightforward asks to waive their clauses.
And on some level I shouldn't be so harsh on Davidson, who was obviously crystal clear about his plans when seeking the job. He never lied to anyone about what he was going to do. It was Blackhawks management that bought into the bill of goods and made the choice.
I'd say my view on the subject is that tanking is unsportsmanlike and poisonous to these teams and leagues as institutions, but that ultimately the responsibility lies with the leagues to tamp it out rather than the teams themselves.You've mentioned morality and cast heavy dispersions on tanking, so I'm thinking you believe teams should make every effort to be competitive every year.
Kane (and Marc Andre Fleury, btw) was the #1 pick, Toews and Dylan Strome were #3, and Seth Jones was #4. And Kane is unequivocally a superstar by any metric. This dog doesn't hunt for these Blackhawks, or really for hockey generally. I can't recall a team that was deep and good but just lacked the elite Hart Trophy-type sniper to get them over the hump. In fact a lot of teams like that do win Cups (the 2019 Blues spring immediately to mind, or the aforementioned Bruins). Whereas the NHL graveyard overflows with teams that had elite top line scorers but didn't have the quality in depth to grind out a playoff series, the Oilers being just the latest example.Some may think it's just a coincidence, but the reality is Cups in the last 10+ years have been won almost exclusively by teams with top 2 picks as stars. Toews was 3 OA and Makar 4 OA (and yes, I expect that kid to dominate for the next ~7 years), so maybe expand it to top 5. So if you want to be more than just competitive and actually win it all, the recent history says you need to draft superstars.
For the record, I acknowledge the reality that 2022-23 is a uniquely good year to be bad. But, draft capital in that draft has not been maximized.As you know, all of the people who are paid to evaluate hockey talent believe there are multiple superstars in next year's draft.
Correct. Important to remember. The idea that if you're "courageous" enough to destroy your team you are rewarded with being the 2016 Cubs is a poisonous notion that's very widely held.literally all paths have a low probability of winning a Cup.
But that doesn't answer the question does it? Is it better than other options? There's such a deep ideology that open-ended total abandonment of any attempt at success is a "plan" in a way just trying to get better isn't. That's a non-falsifiable hypothesis.It's only a question of whether "blow it up" is better than other options. Yes, I miss playoff hockey and I'd like to be competitive, but honestly I'm still pretty satisfied from the 3 Cups, so if it's 5+ years before that happens again I'm not going to be mad about it.
Yup. The expectation of that big return is central to this strategy, let's see.He's an absolute weapon for a playoff team at 50% retained and should bring a very nice return.
On this we precisely agree. And to call that a "plan" is I think, frankly, absurd. I don't really know what else to say. In five years this franchise will almost certainly be nowhere, even with Conor Bedard.The plan clearly is to have 2 or 3 top 5 picks in the next 3 years, hope 2 of them turn out to be elite players
I don't think tanking is a good look for anyone. The NHL obviously has the lottery to reduce the certainty of this strategy. Not sure what else can be done.I'd say my view on the subject is that tanking is unsportsmanlike and poisonous to these teams and leagues as institutions, but that ultimately the responsibility lies with the leagues to tamp it out rather than the teams themselves.
I certainly never said having high picks on a team guarantees success. We've already agreed last year was wasted needlessly by this organization.Kane (and Marc Andre Fleury, btw) was the #1 pick, Toews and Dylan Strome were #3, and Seth Jones was #4. And Kane is unequivocally a superstar by any metric. This dog doesn't hunt for these Blackhawks, or really for hockey generally.
This is just wrong. The Blues are literally the only team in the last 10 years to win a Cup without a top-2 stud leading the way.I can't recall a team that was deep and good but just lacked the elite Hart Trophy-type sniper to get them over the hump. In fact a lot of teams like that do win Cups (the 2019 Blues spring immediately to mind, or the aforementioned Bruins).
There's nothing "courageous" about predicting failure for this plan, as that is the most likely result. If you don't mind, please detail your alternative "plan" and list the results you expect with a high degree of probability. What would be achieved and where are we in 5 years with reasonable certainty?On this we precisely agree. And to call that a "plan" is I think, frankly, absurd. I don't really know what else to say. In five years this franchise will almost certainly be nowhere, even with Conor Bedard.
Paying young players more and giving them earlier and more meaningful access to free agency. Leagues don't want to do this for obvious reasons, but that dramatically reduces the incentive to tank.Not sure what else can be done.
Top 2 is fun with selected endpoints given that the Lightning won their first Cup without Steven Stamkos.This is just wrong. The Blues are literally the only team in the last 10 years to win a Cup without a top-2 stud leading the way.
Not that any of this is wrong, but you're well afield of tanking as a plan here.You need a management team that can convince star players to leave money on the table in order to pursue Cups. A friendly state tax code doesn't hurt either.
There is no high degree of probability as we've discussed and agreed upon.If you don't mind, please detail your alternative "plan" and list the results you expect with a high degree of probability.
I'm sure you realize this is a non-answer. In fairness, it was a difficult question, but I only asked it that way because you refused to even elevate what Davidson is doing to the status of "plan". It was a hard puzzle to solve, no doubt, and that's why I can understand why Davidson punted.But, just try to be good. Try and scout the best players you can with the cap space and draft picks you've got, and coach them well.
you refused to even elevate what Davidson is doing to the status of "plan".
We're not even really disagreeing here.Davidson punted.