2016 First Round of Playoffs Thread

[qwksndmonster]

That TB PP is sick.

[Norcal]

Drouin is a patient player for a young guy

[Thorner]

Drouin is a patient player for a young guy

His play on the PP reminds me of Jack, with that patience.

[Norcal]

His play on the PP reminds me of Jack, with that patience.

Ahhh, Jack ????

[Randall Flagg]

Tarasenko is a beast.

 

Drouin's incessant stick tapping drives me crazy, I can't imagine how his teammates feel about it. Victor freaking Hedman can see you, kid. He's not some goon with no vision.

[Thorner]

How the heck is that not a Blues PP??? Crawford jumps Fabbri for doing nothing and the refs even up the calls

HAWKS GOT A PP??? Unbelievable

Hawks score on it. Announcers were understandably flabbergasted calling it a joke. Chicago is an extremely tough team to beat in this league.

[TrueBlueGED]

Is there anyone that still doesn't want Drouin should he (now, unlikely) become available? This kid is insanely talented. He's playing great for the Lightning right now. He would slide in nicely as Eichel's left wing on the top line.

 

A good question would be, given a choice between Stamkos and Drouin straight up, not considering the assets it may take to get Drouin, whom do you choose? Drouin is younger, much more cost controlled, and plays a position more in need, wing. Stamkos is of course the more proven player. I think a strong case could be made for Drouin.

 

If I had to guess though I think for Tampa it's Stamkos out, Drouin in, and they don't miss a beat.

 

I have a hard time believing Tampa trades Drouin at all, and I'd be utterly shocked if they trade him and Stamkos leaves. Right now I may even put my money on both staying. 

 

As to who I'd rather have, if we're going to ignore the assets needed to get Drouin, then it's probably not fair to take into account Stamkos costing more. Straight up I take Stamkos, but I think you're right, an argument could surely be made for Drouin.

 

Separately, if we end up seeing two Russians lead the playoffs in goal scoring (Ovechkin and Tarasenko) while bringing their teams on deep runs, we may see Don Cherry spontaneously combust. I'm all for it.

Edited April 20, 2016 by TrueBlueGED

[Thorner]

I have a hard time believing Tampa trades Drouin at all, and I'd be utterly shocked if they trade him and Stamkos leaves. Right now I may even put my money on both staying.

 

As to who I'd rather have, if we're going to ignore the assets needed to get Drouin, then it's probably not fair to take into account Stamkos costing more. Straight up I take Stamkos, but I think you're right, an argument could surely be made for Drouin.

That's fair, I think you'd have to include the assets. I think I'd go Drouin in that situation though, as his lower cost would be a big key. Straight up nothing else considered, I'd say Stamkos as well, as he's the better player. But that "straight up" world doesn't exist.

 

I agree also on the idea that I don't think T Bay trades Drouin.

Edited April 20, 2016 by Thorny

[TrueBlueGED]

That's fair, I think you'd have to include the assets. I think I'd go Drouin in that situation though, as his lower cost would be a big key. Straight up nothing else considered, I'd say Stamkos as well, as he's the better player. But that "straight up" works doesn't exist.

 

I agree also on the idea that I don't think T Bay trades Drouin.

 

I actually think I'd go for Stamkos, all things put together. Around the deadline the rumors were Tampa was looking for a package of assets similar to what we gave for O'Reilly: player, high end prospect, 1st. While I'm very concerned about long term cap ramifications of a giant Stamkos contract, I'm not sure how we put together the assets to trade for Drouin and still have enough bullets left to acquire the defensive help we need. If we go after Drouin, I have to imagine our only hope for defensive help is the UFA route. Not sure I'm comfortable backing into that corner.

[dudacek]

I wonder what Samson has told GMTM about Drouin.

I remember 17-year-old Sam all business at the WJC when 18-year-old Drouin was taking selfish penalties and pouting as the team he was supposed to be leading had a disappointing result.

Love Drouin's talent, would be extraordinarily hesitant to invest in the person.

 

No question of Stamkos' focus or motivation.

Take him over Drouin in a heartbeat.

[Thorner]

I actually think I'd go for Stamkos, all things put together. Around the deadline the rumors were Tampa was looking for a package of assets similar to what we gave for O'Reilly: player, high end prospect, 1st. While I'm very concerned about long term cap ramifications of a giant Stamkos contract, I'm not sure how we put together the assets to trade for Drouin and still have enough bullets left to acquire the defensive help we need. If we go after Drouin, I have to imagine our only hope for defensive help is the UFA route. Not sure I'm comfortable backing into that corner.

I didn't realize the ask was that high, for Drouin. At that price the option of adding him gets rather muddled.

 

I sure hope we have the expendable assets needed to acquire the D help we need above all else.

[Randall Flagg]

Eat , Chicago.

[thewookie1]

Eat ######, Chicago.

No you! Go Hawks! Come back!

[TrueBlueGED]

I wonder what Samson has told GMTM about Drouin.

I remember 17-year-old Sam all business at the WJC when 18-year-old Drouin was taking selfish penalties and pouting as the team he was supposed to be leading had a disappointing result.

Love Drouin's talent, would be extraordinarily hesitant to invest in the person.

 

No question of Stamkos' focus or motivation.

Take him over Drouin in a heartbeat.

 

I understand not wanting to be on it, but Drouin certainly wouldn't be the first 20 year old to be unprepared for real life from a maturity perspective, only to get things figured out.

 

 

Eat ######, Chicago.

 

Couldn't agree more. It was cool to see a modern dynasty, but I'm ready for some new blood in the winning ranks. Of course, I still wouldn't be entirely sad to see Hitchcock exit the playoffs in round one again.

[Randall Flagg]

I understand not wanting to be on it, but Drouin certainly wouldn't be the first 20 year old to be unprepared for real life from a maturity perspective, only to get things figured out.

 

 

 

Couldn't agree more. It was cool to see a modern dynasty, but I'm ready for some new blood in the winning ranks. Of course, I still wouldn't be entirely sad to see Hitchcock exit the playoffs in round one again.

The dynasty isn't as cool when it feels like the league trying to force it. Can't root for the hawks with the gifts they've been given this series.

 

I'm only half-joking, too.

[TrueBlueGED]

Shaw with one of the worst-timed penalties in history.

"Hossa not allowing Shattenkirk clean ice." Sure, as long as by "not allowing clean ice" you mean "committing a hooking penalty that goes uncalled."

[Randall Flagg]

Shaw is such a goof.

[Thorner]

The dynasty isn't as cool when it feels like the league trying to force it. Can't root for the hawks with the gifts they've been given this series.

 

I'm only half-joking, too.

I'm right there with you on this

[TrueBlueGED]

Is it too soon for "the 2015-16 Blackhawks are what happens when you only have 3 Dmen who can play" snark vis-a-vis what the Sabres should do this offseason? Yes/no/maybe? :D

[Randall Flagg]

Is it too soon for "the 2015-16 Blackhawks are what happens when you only have 3 Dmen who can play" snark vis-a-vis what the Sabres should do this offseason? Yes/no/maybe? :D

I'm not sure if there are enough "forget defense, we need Stamkos and Okposo/whoever" people on this board for that snark to mean much to anyone :P

[TrueBlueGED]

I'm not sure if there are enough "forget defense, we need Stamkos and Okposo/whoever" people on this board for that snark to mean much to anyone :P

 

Probably true. But I do think the prevailing view here is that we only need to add one defenseman to fix the blue line, whereas I'm very much of the opinion we need 2-3.

[Thorner]

Probably true. But I do think the prevailing view here is that we only need to add one defenseman to fix the blue line, whereas I'm very much of the opinion we need 2-3.

I concur, we need 2, and I find this worrying, somewhat, because where are they going to come from? Short of winning the lottery and trading the pick for OEL/Subban, it'll be tough to get our hands on D that fit our needs, considering that's realistically a top 2 LHD and a top 4 LHD. We'll probably take a guy with that potential (hopefully) at 8, but no guarantees there. I'm not sure we have the tradeable assets to acquire that top2/4 LHD(s) through a trade, at this point. And teams aren't exactly keen to trade them, anyways.

 

I feel like we are looking at, best case scenario, if they both choose to come here, something like an offseason that results in Goligoski and Yandle. Does that give us a playoff quality D core? I think we'd be counting heavily on the development of whichever of Juolevi/Chychrun/Sergachev we end up with, if one falls to 8, for future years.

 

Needless to say it's a situation that is both very important and also very up in the air.

Edited April 20, 2016 by Thorny

[spndnchz]

That ref'ing in the Hawks game was a joke.

[TrueBlueGED]

I concur, we need 2, and I find this worrying, somewhat, because where are they going to come from? Short of winning the lottery and trading the pick for OEL/Subban, it'll be tough to get our hands on D that fit our needs, considering that's realistically a top 2 LHD and a top 4 LHD. We'll probably take a guy with that potential (hopefully) at 8, but no guarantees there. I'm not sure we have the tradeable assets to acquire that top2/4 LHD(s) through a trade, at this point. And teams aren't exactly keen to trade them, anyways.

 

I feel like we are looking at, best case scenario, if they both choose to come here, something like an offseason that results in Goligoski and Yandle. Does that give us a playoff quality D core? I think we'd be counting heavily on the development of whichever of Juolevi/Chychrun/Sergachev we end up with, if one falls to 8, for future years.

 

Needless to say it's a situation that is both very important and also very up in the air.

Pretty much. I'm honestly not sure it's realistic to get two top-4 Dmen this offseason, and I'm also not sure we should add both Yandle and Goligoski even if we could. Not enough defensive consistency there, especially if Bogo rounds out our top-4. We might be better off going after only one of them, then trying to target a Brodin-type for balance.

 

Ultimately I think you're likely right that adding one is most realistic (I'm also not convinced Murray thinks multiple additions are necessary), while hoping for #8 or someone already on the team to be a major contributor quickly. I think the plan could very easily be to just add one in order to give McCabe another year to develop, with the hope he shows he has what it takes to be 2nd pair on a good team. Every team outside of Washington has holes, and making the playoffs doesn't require perfection, so it's probably a case where we'll have to deal with it for another year. On the bright side, only adding one makes expansion draft protection easier :lol:

[Thorner]

Makes sense. And the more I think about it, short of trading the pick for a top 4 D, I see little to no chance Murray doesn't use #8 on a D if he thinks those 3 guys have top pair potential. We need a guy who at least has a decent chance of becoming that top pair LHD in our system and it would be disheartening to enter into next season without that. It would leave McCabe as our highest ceiling LHD, who probably caps out at second pair potential.

Edited April 20, 2016 by Thorny