SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

LivingAnew

Member Since
May 11, 2023
Favourite Team
Chicago Blackhawks
Forum Posts
448
Posts per Day
1.2
Forum: Armchair-GM19 hours ago
Thread: Leafs
Agree with my Hawks colleagues about retention on Jones... Even if for low dollars, retention spots are valuable for rebuilding teams. Also, re this deal, I'm just not that excited about Lilypad and Robertson; think the Hawks will have their own, more exciting, prospects begin to move up to the NHL.

I generally think Jones serves some important purposes,that give me pause when considering trading him: stability; minute-muncher vs the opponents' top lines; mentorship, etc.

HOWEVER, if a proposal came in to the Hawks for the #8 OA straight up for him (or even #6 OA, also straight up) AND the Hawks have someone they love at that spot, I think they think long and hard about that.

'Course, that'd then leave a gaping hole on the right side. Maybe sign DeMelo for 4 years at $6mm AAV to take his spot?

Eh... I think lots of things would have to align to trade Jones as this point (IMO).
Forum: Armchair-GMYesterday at 5:44 p.m.
Thread: Jones
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>exo2769</b></div><div><div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Affectionate_Side_64</b></div></div> Deleted not because it wasn't a good and thoughtful read...it was! Just keeping it shorter.

I appreciate the conversation and I can't tell you that you're wrong in any of it. I may not share the same opinion or have the same view on a few of the analogies you've used, but that's just an opinion not a fact. I don't think the Hawks are in the same selling period right now as they were with Debrincat/Dach/Hagel/etc... We already have Bedard. We have the #2, We're likely to be a very good pick next year as well. The Hawks are in the Prospect Development period. I've posted a few teams on Capfriendly and I feel (it's an opinion...not a fact) that it's very much in line with what Kyle Davidson has been saying. We need to get better and play more meaningful hockey in March/April. As a quick sidenote...KD's been extremely transparent. I'd argue too transparent because at some point extreme transparency can be used against you in terms of trades, but I guess my point in bringing this up is because he's not lying to us. He's does a very good job at setting fan's expectations. He's had answers as to why he didn't trade Strome/DeHaan/Kubalik/etc... away which MANY Hawks fans jumped on him for not maximizing their trade value. His response was that I guess they mean more to the Hawks than to other teams...so we kept them. It wasn't about getting a 3rd or 4th round pick. A lot of Hawks fans not only saw that as not collecting futures...whatever they may be, but also that isn't tanking either! He just traded Hagel away, but you kept pending UFA Dylan Strome? If were "selling" Seth Jones...then were letting the other team set his value and that's not how Kyle Davidson has been a GM. I can promise you that Kyle Davidson believes Seth Jones value to be FAR higher than what you've outlined above, BUT to another team maybe it isn't? IDK? But for us, he's extremely valuable. But that's because we're past the selling stage. And Kyle Davidson has said that too! We're in the prospect development stage and we need 1 more physical RD...if we're trading away Jones we're really hurting the development of our LD youngsters. It would take a MAMMOTH trade (more than Hagel. MUCH more) to get Kyle Davidson to think about potentially derailing the development of our prospects. Is Jones overpaid. Yeah, he's not a $9.5M player, but it's not THAT far off and I'm very happy he's still a Hawk. He's a no BS kind of guy and I respect his exit interview this year.


As far as the comps to Tampa...I guess I'd just say that we can't really do things exactly the same. If we're trying to force our situation to be like anyone else's...are we truly looking at ourselves correctly? Are you thinking Levshunov is Victor Hedman or Gajan/Commesso is Valievsky? Where's our Kucherov? It's impossible to know how any of these prospects will turn out. I don't care as much about maximizing each player's "value" in a trade (<em><strong>And neither does Kyle Davidson I might add...he's said that almost literally</strong></em>) as much as I personally care about developing the players. There are ways around situations like NMCs OR maybe Kyle Davidson learned from Stan Bowman's mistakes and won't resign Brent Seabrook. As much as I'm a big fan of his and met him a few times...very nice guy. It probably wasn't the right move to sign your 31 year old Dman to an 8 year nearly $7M per year contract. We'll be ok to have 1 contract that's higher than it should be. We're probably not ok if our prospects don't develop well. I want Vlasic and Seth Jones to be paired together for the next 6 years. I seriously do. Vlasic will be 27 at that point. If they continue to develop their chemistry, they'll be fine. Maybe they aren't the top line anymore? OK, I'm good with that too.</div></div>

What a great thread! Thanks, All, for your contributions. This exchange is one of the main reasons I read CapFriendly.

And, exo, shorter IS better. It's not easy, though... To get your ideas across succinctly makes them more powerful. Good writing is re-writing. It takes time and energy, but worth it as it makes more of an impact on the reader.

Reminds me of what E.B. White said once at the end of a letter to a friend... "Please forgive me for the length of this letter. I would have written a shorter one, but I didn't have the time." :)
Forum: Armchair-GMYesterday at 12:34 p.m.
Thread: Jones
Sometimes it's not the amount of a retention that the issue, it's the number of spots available. What happens if TOR decides to buy out Jones? Look at ARI/UTA... They retained a small piece of OEL when trading him to VAN, and then when VAN bought him out, ARI/UTA lost a retention spot for a LONG TIME. Retention spots are important to a rebuilding team.

Second, Lilypad and Robertson don't move the needle much for me. Both are too small for their positions, IMO, and not enough there to make a long-term difference on the Hawks. I suspect the Hawks will soon have better options (their own prospects) trickling up into the NHL.

So, as far as your proposed trade... Take out the retention and drop Lilypad and Robertson - and, most importantly, if Eiserman is there at #8 - then I'd have some interest as a way to get Eiserman. Otherwise, we'll keep Jones. He's important to the Hawks right now, and to the Hawks going forward for a number of years, as they continue the rebuild.
Forum: Armchair-GMSat. at 5:46 p.m.
Thread: Going All In
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>ginandtacos</b></div><div>Kulich and a 1st are both appealing, and the fact that this probably wouldn't work says a lot about how bad Skinner's contract is.

Sad fact is to make this work you'd either need to remove Murphy (in which case, what's the point for BUF?) or remove Skinner, in which case it's an overpay for Murphy.</div></div>

Yah, this is confusing as constructed, IMO... BUF should just keep it simple. They're (way) further along in a rebuild than the Hawks, and need to dump Skinner's 3-yr AAV of $9mm so it can be deployed elsewhere. Where "elsewhere"? Up to them.

As I shared on another Skinner ACGM, these two teams should just focus on Skinner's deal and how to make it attractive to CHI to take on such a load - like so (IMO): Skinner, the #11 OA, and Anton Wahlberg (a decent RW prospect with size, both of which are currently lacking in the Hawks' system.)

Then, I'd hope to draft Yakemchuck with that #11 OA 2024 pick.
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 13 at 10:24 p.m.
Thread: Big Trade
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>ChiHawk</b></div><div>Hawks retain half in a season and move him for assets. Skinner at $3.25M is something playoff teams would be interested in; probably a 2nd rounder. So think of it as moving up 9 spots in the draft, plus a 2nd ultimately and meanwhile, getting Bedard (or our top 6), some help for development.</div></div>

I like your idea of moving Skinner by retaining half of the $6.5mm proposed here, to some playoff team. That might be a way to convince Skinner to come here. (They way it stands now, even if BUF retains half to a playoff contender, it'd still be $4.5mm - a significant chunk of $ for a cap-challenged contender.)

I'd counter here, then, with... Skinner to CHI with $2.5mm retained, along with Anton Wahlberg and BUF's 2024 1st rounder, for LAK's 2024 2nd round pick. Wahlberg is a much more interesting prospect to include, IMO - a solid RW/C with size, both of which are lacking currently in the Hawks' prospect pool.

EDIT: Sorry, forgot to add... Then, after a season or so, trade Skinner with 50% retention to a contender, getting that 2nd rounder back along with perhaps yet another prospect, as well.
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 13 at 10:40 a.m.
Thread: Dixon Ward
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Garak</b></div><div>I don't know that it really does, and it's more like 55ppy, but close enough. Otherwise, why would BUF fans even want to move him, then? If he were 2-4 years younger I might be more willing to call this down season a fluke. He will be 32 in a few days and has shown some serious signs of decline, and you are asking CHI to take on, not only a $9m cap hit for 3 years with a full NMC, but $22 MILLION dollars in actual salary owed. The final year of his contract is a point at which cap space is going to become VERY important VERY quickly for a rebuilding CHI team. The possible reward does not outweigh the risk or the cost, and all of the benefit goes to BUF in creating $9M in cap space.

Most importantly, I don't think Skinner is going to waive for any team but a contender. He has been more patient than BUF's front office probably deserves. At 32 years old and never having seen a single NHL playoff game, why would he leave a team coming out of a rebuild for a team in the middle of one?</div></div>

Outstanding post, Garak; thank you.
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 13 at 10:38 a.m.
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 12 at 12:13 p.m.
Thread: Seth to Utah
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>boilermaker</b></div><div>I agree Seth is a capable player, though overpaid by a couple of million. And playing 25 minutes is important as the younger defenders learn their way. I'm just looking forward 2 or 3 years and would want Levshunov and a good forward prospect on the cusp of making the team at that time instead of a possibly declining Jones. I have a feeling Seth's contract isn't going to age very well. He probably has 3-4 years left of good play, then the wear and tear of playing all those minutes will come into play. He'll be a boat anchor for the last 2 years, so trade him now while he has value (ripe opportunity if you ask me with Utah) and obtain a future asset that will be coming into his own when the team becomes competitive.</div></div>

I really like this idea. Yes, Seth is a solid #1 for the Hawks these days; playing an important role for ~25 minutes a game that no one else on the Hawks can. I'd look to overpay DeMelo for four years, as an interim fix while Levshunov, Rinzel, and others ripen. He's not Seth Jones, but he'd do, IMO.

Grabbing the #6 OA would be a huge win, in addition to our #2 OA... Those two picks could greatly impact the Hawks' future, while enabling Utah to announce to the hockey world - and their fans - that their franchise is new and aggressive. That, plus Utah is further along in their rebuild, so Seth may waive to go there.

Excellent job, Boiler. I hope the Hawks find a way to make it happen. Cheers
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 12 at 9:52 a.m.
Thread: Draft day deals
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Wreckless</b></div><div>Very different position in that Habs are looking to compete right now. And need the extra roster positions for players like 5th overall draft pick Reinbacher. Or established D like Savard to pair with Lane Hutson and properly protect help develop. I hear you that it might not ne Chicago, but someone will do well to bring in Barron and Harris. The upside for both remains solid. They just need bigger roles on a team at a different stage of their rebuild right now. Harris plays both D positions also, not just left D.</div></div>

Thanks for the extra color on Harris and Barron. Maybe they'd be helpful to the Hawks right now, as we are definitely not in a "win now" mode.

And, while I respect the opinions of other Hawk fans on this site more than my own, I am unprepared to say with certainty that Demidov will/should be the Hawks' pick at #2 OA. Reasonable minds can disagree... I trust the current Hawks' brain trust - and scouting team - at this point. So far, they seem to have a propensity to select players that are raw, but with high ceilings. Yes, they could flame out on these types of prospects. But so far - again, SO FAR - they strike me as having done very well at not only drafting high potential prospects but developing them well - a <em>very</em> good combo.

Cheers
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 12 at 2:11 a.m.
Thread: Upgraded
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>sabres89</b></div><div>For me? One of Rosen, ryan johnson, and Wahlberg would be the most I would give up. And here's the funny thing, you'll say Wahlberg. Ryan johnson is an nhl defenseman right now, but soft left shot puck movers don't float everybody's boat. Rosen is pacing to be a swell middle 6 winger, with a great shot, and our ahl coach has been preaching two way hockey to him, teaching him that middle 6 wingers should be able to pk, and stuff like that. But Rosen isn't big, isnt at a point per game in the ahl, and he isn't bringing a physical game with him. Wahlberg is the biggest of the 3, just came over to play in the ahl near the end of the season. He was drafted as a center, and may be a power forward. He's the least polished and least talented of the 3, and I'd be shocked if you didn't say he's your guy.</div></div>

Indeed. You're correct - Wahlberg would absolutely be my choice from among those three. In fact, I hoped the Hawks might get him with the 44th pick in last year's draft, but BUF got him at #39. The Hawks have a dearth of power wingers in their system; in fact, they have almost no prospects at RW of any size. Kyle from Chicago (KFC) has shown a propensity to draft players with raw abilities but large potential upside, and develop them properly. That's what'd the Hawks would aim to do with Wahlberg, IMO.

So, I say you have a deal: All of Skinner's remaining three years at $9mm per year AAV (*gulp*), plus Wahlberg and the #11 OA, for F/C.

On a different note, I suspect KFC might really wheel and deal at this year's draft. This off-season, KFC has TONS of cap room to use in trades and retentions; he's shown he's unafraid to wheel and deal. Prospects have started to trickle into the big club and those who stick will need to be paid (as BUF fans are all too aware), reducing flexibility in the future. But for now, the Hawks still have TONS of holes to fill and I expect Kyle to dynamically get after filling them - wouldn't be surprised if he creates as many as five picks in the first round this year.

Cheers, LA
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 12 at 12:05 a.m.
Thread: Upgraded
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>sabres89</b></div><div>Strbak is a bridge too far for me. We have no right shot d, and our d as a whole are left shot puck movers without much jam. Strbak is a physical defense first right shot d. In fact, I'm hoping that if the Sabres keep their pick, that yakemchuk is on the board, and they take him.</div></div>

Totally get that. I think Strbak is developing nicely and like him for the same reasons you do. Interesting that the Hawks have the opportunity to take his MSU teammate with the #2 OA this year (Levshunov.)

And I had the same thing in mind to target with #11 pick... If the Hawks elected to go offense with the #2 OA pick (Demidov or whomever), I want Yakemchuk with #11. Those two selections alone would make the Hawks' 2024 draft a big success, IMO.

But I digress... If you were to also add a "minor piece" to the Hawks for fully taking on the remainder of Skinner's full contract, and if Strbak is a bridge too far, whom might that be?

Thanks for the sane discussion. Cheers