32 Thoughts: The Podcast - Stan Bowman: A Change In Approach, Not A Change In Direction

Episode Date: October 23, 2020

The Chicago Blackhawks GM joins Jeff and Elliotte for a wide-ranging discussion. They talk about being transparent with the fanbase, building from within rather than through free agency, playing youth over veterans, how management approached the Jonathan Toews comments, the challenges he faces as a GM during the pandemic and much more. Letter to their […]

oh just let the gravity of silence sink in this is not simon and garfunkel with the sound of silence thud silence all right so podcasts this week for each have included jamie bozzo who was outstanding adam oats in his attempted takedown of Instagram hockey trainers. And now today, Chicago Blackhawks general manager, Stan Bowman. This is all while we're on vacation. And by the way, folks, we are taking a break. I know we said this last week. We lied. Today, we're telling you the truth.

I promise. I think. Anyway, Stan Bowman, Elliot. He's everywhere. he's everywhere he's everywhere we've seen the rangers do this sending their letter to their to their fans saying we're commencing the rebuild and now chicago is for lack of a better term perhaps coming clean and publicly saying we're rebuilding this thing stan bowman elliot the biggest challenge i thought for us in this one is stan bowman and uh the blackhawks felt it was important for him to go out and get his message out there

and i would bet it had a lot to do with jonathan taves coming out publicly to the athletic and saying i don't understand what's going on here that they felt not only did they have to speak to their franchise cornerstones and future hall of famers, but they also had to speak to their fan base because if Jonathan Taves is saying that, then clearly their fans will say that. So we taped this on Wednesday on Tuesday. He did a whole bunch of interviews. He spoke to Emily Kaplan from ESPN.

I saw, he also did some two hour long podcasts, one with the athletic and one with NBCbc the local rights holder and i read emily's article i listened to both those podcasts the one with charlie and pat and the one with mark and scott and i just said we have to try to come up with some different stuff we can't just do the same hour-long thing so when you listen listen to this, all of you out there, you'll tell us if we were successful or not. Some of the answers are things

you're going to have heard before. Some of them are going to be different. But I really thought, Jeff, that was our challenge was how can we not make it the same as the other things that he did? And one thing I do respect is the Blackhawks went local first.

I think that's important. You have to do respect is the blackhawks went local first i think that's important you have to do that first and to your previous point i think that's why i went back to 1967 oh my god even bowman was groaning on that one he'll i'm sure he's heard that story a million different times but i had to of course had to get there okay so uh so that was our challenge as elliot lays out and now you be the judge. Did we do a good job? Stan Bowman tries to do a good job of the rebuild of the Chicago Blackhawks. Here's Hawks General Manager Stan Bowman on 31 general manager of the Chicago Blackhawks,

one of, if not the top franchise in the NHL salary cap era. Three Stanley Cups, Individual and Team Awards, Stars Bound for the Hall of Fame, packed houses at the United Center, numerous appearances at the Winter Classic. This is a national brand. But with the recent letter to the fan base, the Blackhawks are now in the green banana business.

And the R word has appeared, rebuild. Stan Bowman joins us now. Stan, thanks so much for joining us. First question, why the letter? Why did you feel that was important? Well, the first thing we wanted to do is have better communication with our fans about the direction that we're heading. And I think that's something that we need to improve upon looking back in time. I think we're trying to look forward, but I think in order to be successful moving forward, you have to look back and see things that you can do better. And I think the biggest thing that we're trying to do is

communicate better with the direction that we're heading. And in a lot of ways, we're continuing on a path that we have been on for the past year to year and a half. So it's not a complete sea change for our organization. I think the change comes with being more transparent about it. And I think it's time to do that. I think where we're at today in the world, I think that's something that's probably appreciated more maybe, or necessary more than it was in the past. And we recognize that. And that's the main reason for the letter is to open up the communication

channels better and talk with our fans. Was there some information or feedback you got or some, I don't know, consulting you guys did that said to you, you aren't transparent enough with your fans? Nothing I did in particular. I think it's more of a gut feel that I had. I mean, I've obviously been in this market for a while and I think, you know, with Danny Wertz coming on board, he has some new ideas and I think he wants to, I guess you could call it, be more progressive with

some of the projects we've undertaken since Danny's come on board here. We've done this whole separate project on the business side. And I think this kind of goes hand in hand with that. So in my discussions with Danny over the past couple of months, we had the opportunity to spend a lot of time together. He came with our team into the bubble in Edmonton. So Danny Wertz, I've known for a while, obviously he's been around the team, but he didn't play a big role with the Blackhawks until recently. So I got a chance to spend more time with him. And while we were in the bubble in Edmonton, spend more time with him. And while we were in the bubble in Edmonton, obviously we had a lot of downtime and we spent every day together and multiple hours per day. We would eat breakfast, lunch, and dinner together. And in those conversations, he would ask a lot of questions,

trying to understand our thought process, understand where we're're at what we're doing why we're doing it and in those conversations which took place over several hours his takeaway was this is great information like i totally get it he's like why don't we tell this more like why don't we why don't we speak to this more because i think people would appreciate and understand this. Like this all does make sense, but I don't know if we've done a good enough job communicating it. And I agreed with him. So I guess you could say that in those conversations while we were in the playoff in Edmonton,

that got us thinking. And then we returned to Chicago and we had discussions with our full group. And I think we all decided this was a better approach. So as my way then to Elliot's point of trying to differentiate this interview with you, Stan, from the other podcasts, and you have to excuse me, because I'm sure you've heard this story a million times from your dad, but our listeners may not have.

As a way to differentiate, I'm going to have a really hockey geek set up to this question. And I assure you, Stan, no matter how far down this weird road I go, it is relevant to your situation. So I'll preface it that way. So Stan, we're going to go back to Oh boy. Hang on, Elliot. Sit down.

That's right. Put your feet up. This may take a while. Loosen your collar. We're going to go back to 1967. It's the expansion St. Louis Blues. I want to say it's game 15 or 16 in the season. And St. Louis is doing all right. And they're beating Philadelphia 2-1. Lynn Patrick is the head coach.

He's handling the forwards. Scotty, your father, is handling the D. And it's apparent that somewhere down the road, Scotty's going to be the head coach of the St. Louis Blues. And there's a moment in the game where your dad goes to Lynn and says, I think we should take Norm Baudin out. He's weak defensively and it's going to hurt us in this game.

And Lynn Patrick does, but he puts in a guy the name of Roger Picard, who only ended up playing like 15 games with the Blues, Noel Picard's brother. And it was the wrong move. He's on the ice

when the Flyers tie it up. He's on the ice when, you know, the Flyers He's on the ice when the Flyers scored the game-winning goal. And afterwards, at like 2 o'clock in the morning, Lynn Patrick calls your father up and says, I'm relinquishing the head coaching job. It's yours. I'm not the right person for this. And I remember talking to your dad years and years ago about that moment,

and he said, the mistake was mine. What I should have said is not take norm out but i should have said i think we should put jerry melnick in and that was on me and i feel bad because of it was there one moment whether it goes back to that nashville sweep in 2017 and i remember how angry you were like that was angry stan bowman and we all understood like that's at eight beating a one and you talked about changes but they were chic Chicago still very much in the hunt like somewhere along the way was there one moment where you said okay this isn't working anymore we need a new direction was there one thing that everything sort of hinged on no I don't I mean I guess it would

line up better for this story if there was one uh but unfortunately no i don't think uh there was like one moment in time like that i think it's a and that's why as you're experiencing it and you're living it it doesn't always turn on a dime like the story you just mentioned i think it it's more of a gradual thing and when you know yeah it was a disappointing end to that season we had a great season and we played nashville and we didn't win a game, barely scored any goals in the series. But I think you're still looking at it in those times like, well, this was an anomaly. This was a fluke.

We had a bad week after a great season, and that could have been the case. I guess you could argue, well, it wasn't just a bad week. and that could have been the case. I guess you could argue, well, it wasn't just a bad week. It was the start of something else because we never really got back up to that point from that point on. But I don't know if that Nashville series in particular was that of a change of course. I think you're always trying to extend your period

when you've been a team that's had success. And I think you just got to look at the teams recently who have success. They're making moves to try to extend things as much as they can. There's going to be a point when they look back in time and realize, well, that probably wasn't smart. We should have just changed. But that's so hard to do in the moment because there is so much, call it parity, competitive balance, whatever word you want to use, that you're never that far from being good, especially when you're a team that's near the top. Or if you've won, you figure, if you won two years ago, you figure, well, we're not that far

from being that team we look back at that team we look at our team now and you can explain to yourself how you may even be better than that team that won so you just got to stick with it but things are changing around you all the time and it's hard to uh hang on to something that was and i And I think what we've tried to do in the last year to year and a half is start to incorporate more young players and look less and less on the quick fix veteran player that can come in and make an impact on a short-term basis. We're trying to change it. We're not a wholesale change. I think that's why it's confusing for some people because they think the word rebuild means

you just take every piece, you get rid of it, you strip it to nothing, and then you start over. And of course, that's possible to do that. I'm not sure there's been a lot of those things that have happened. If you look back at the way our sport doesn't necessarily lend itself to that, I think you have to have a combination of that where you still need a base of some players to surround with and grow with. It's hard to just have a full team of young players. grow with, it's hard to just have a full team of young players. You know, so we're trying to do both, which is a challenge. But our commitment is to build this back up by investing in our young players and understanding that there's going to be some growing pains along the way. And, you know, like Kirby Doc had a pretty impressive progression last year from a guy who started in October, November, playing eight to 10 minutes. So by the time we get to March, he's up in the mid teens and then we reconvene in the summertime and he's playing 19, 20 minutes a game and he's used in every situation.

So the investment in Kirby paid off pretty quickly. I don't anticipate that to be the path for all of our young players. I think some of them are going to need, they're going to take a little different path, maybe a longer path to prominent roles. But we do want to invest in those players. I wanted to ask you, Stan, you talked yesterday about how you had a Zoom call or Zoom conference with Cain, Taves, Seabrook, and Keith just to make sure that they were filled in with everything. Do you have any concern that any of these four, either as a group or individually, will say, you know what, this isn't the path for me? say, you know what, this isn't the path for me? Well, Elliot, I don't have the feeling for my conversation with them that that's how it's going to go. And so I think I'm not expecting that. I've also learned in life that you don't know what's going to happen down the road. And if

something changes, then we'll deal with it head on at that point. But for where we're at today, I just tried to explain to them that the biggest difference right now is we're being more open and transparent as opposed to a totally new direction. Like we've been doing this and I pointed that out to them. You know, I think when you explain it, they realize that's true. We have actually given young players a lot of opportunity the last year, a year and a half. So it's not like we were a veteran laden group the last two years. And now we've changed and brought in just all young players. We've been skewing younger for the last year and a half, two years.

And even Alex Debrinket, he's 21 years old. I mean, he's been in our team for three years. But I mean mean there's a lot of guys his age that haven't even played their first game like prominent prospects who are highly rated that are about to enter the league next year and alex has already got 100 goals under his belt so you know he's a young player he's not really viewed as young even though he's 21 years old but you know so we have a lot of young players. We don't have all young players. And I don't anticipate we're ever going to just have

a team top to bottom of 22-year-old guys. I think we need those players. And if anything, we need to surround the veterans that have been here with more depth. And I think that's what we were lacking. You know, we had a good series against Edmonton and then we came up against Vegas. We played them pretty close. I mean, the series was four to one, but if you watch the series, each game, it was, I would say,

for about 45 to 50 minutes, we were either tied or even had control of the play. But there was a 10 to 12-minute stretch in each game. Not necessarily 10 consecutive minutes, but three minutes to end the first period and the first five minutes of the second where they just ran us over and they scored a few goals. So we don't have enough depth to compete with those teams right now.

And we saw Vegas had a good run. They're a strong team. They have a lot of depth top to bottom we need to have that and we need to build it up as opposed to just go you know pick it up off the free agent market or bring in you know more veteran players that's one approach to doing it but we've chosen not to go down that road because we think the payoff is better if you invest and you develop that growth and that support from within stan i wanted to follow

it up a bit just in the sense that it's becoming more of a player's league than ever it always used to be hey the bosses are in charge this is the way it goes and if you don't like it too bad but it's not only the blackhawks i think it's everywhere around the league where the players are realizing no no like we've got power and so i just wanted to ask you about the dynamic you've got four guys there three of them are going to the hall of fame all of them are cornerstones in blackhawks history all of them are cornerstones in Blackhawks history. All of them are probably getting their numbers retired. They're huge parts of your three Stanley Cups in the last decade. How has the dynamic changed in the last 15 to 20 years to now

in terms of how teams have to involve players and how players wield their powers in times like this? Good question, Elliot, I guess. Some things have changed over the last five to six years. I think the cap's been around for a long time now, but I think as we've seen it play out, we've seen some changes to what's happened. So if you go back to our first cup in 2010, you know, those guys were

all on their entry-level contracts. So, you know, you had some of your top players were on their entry-level contracts and we had such a deep team with Posa and Sharp and Buffland and Ladd and up and down the lineup. So we had, we had so much depth and i think that's what really pushed us forward then things changed because those players got uh rewarded they got new contracts but their new contracts were they made like six million dollars taves and cane so it was a good jump but it wasn't like the their second contract was not the contract which set them up for the rest of time so what's changed though is in the last probably four to five years that dynamic has shifted and now those players that are high-end players coming out of their entry

level they're getting big big changes so i I think we've seen the pay distribution exacerbate over time here. So we have a lot of players. Well, you have a small number of players making a lot of money. So then it put more and more stress on the rest of your team. But those teams we had from 2011 to 2015, we had still a powerhouse lineup up and down the roster. So now I think that's harder and harder to do that. So you need to have more depth.

I think you need now more and more young players because the young players, they don't earn a lot of money. That's the way our system works. So top players are still getting rewarded and rightfully so. They make such an impact. So I don't even have an issue with the way the system works. But I think we also have to realize what it does to your team dynamic. So it just stresses more the importance of having a lot of lower-priced players. And you can achieve that two ways. You can have low-priced veterans that are not able to get the contracts they want. They're kind of on the downswing of their career,

like there's some of them available today who haven't gotten signed yet. You can sign them for probably the same amount you can sign a young player for. And they may be as good or better in the short term for your team, but it's not a long-term success. I think that's why we've stopped trying to support our team with those players. And we're looking at trying to invest in as many young players as possible to

surround our veterans. So back to your original question, the league, I think, has changed. And the way that the money is allocated is different now than it was in 2011 or 12. And I think it's changed how you build your team. So these players are in the midst of that change. And they are very unusual in the sense that there are four guys that have been together with one team their whole career. I'm not sure there's four other guys in the entire league that can say that. And I don't know that we'll see that going forward. It's pretty unusual. And as a result, it's something, I guess it doesn't get talked about as much because it doesn't happen around the league.

I mean, maybe you guys can think of four guys. I can't. I was trying just yesterday. Someone asked me that, and I'm not sure there's an equivalent circumstance around the league. The only one I can think of off the top of my head, Stan, is three. Actually, now, if you include the goalie, four in L.A.

Kopitar, Dowdy, Dustin Brown, and Quick. But Keith is 36, and Seabrook is 34. Your guys are a little bit older. Like they've got a bit more term to them than the, than the LA guys do. But that's the only one I can think of off the top of my head. Yeah. That's a good parallel. And I think LA and Chicago have kind of had a similar trajectory, you know, and I think

that I don't think that's really a shock if you kind of break it down. We're unique relative to these other teams. Now, these other teams that are on the top now, they're going to face their own challenges in the coming years. And I don't know if there's one way to handle it. I guess we'll see how that plays out. I think anyone listening to this right now, Stan, can understand what you're saying about getting deeper, getting younger hockey players more experienced, regenerate this team.

Let me give you a hypothetical here. So I'm putting myself in Jeremy Culleton's position here and thinking, okay, here's what the organization wants versus what I'm paid to deliver, which is wins. It's late in a hockey game. Chicago is protecting a one goal lead. what the organization wants versus what I'm paid to deliver, which is wins. It's late in a hockey game. Chicago is protecting a one goal lead. If I'm Jeremy Culleton, is it more important for me sitting on a lead late in a third period to have Taves and Kane and Keith out there? Or is that a moment where you say for the good of the future of this

organization, you know, we need Nylander out there. We need Boquist on the ice. That's the next wave of Blackhawk. We know what we already have in these other guys, and they can help us nurse this lead, but we need to have younger players in uncomfortable positions. What does the GM want in that scenario?

It's not always a good question, but in a sense, it's, I don't know if it's a binary option where some situations will require, you have to, at some point, give younger players an opportunity. You don't have to do it every single game, but likewise, the veterans, they're not perfect either. They may give you a better chance over, over the, a given time,, but everybody makes mistakes in time. And I think if it was a guaranteed outcome that you could win this game if you just went with these three players and they were never going to fail you, that's one situation. I don't know if that's the way that it works in reality. So I think what we're looking for is you have to give these players opportunities to

grow and succeed and fail. And there will be some failure, but there's also some failure from everybody. So I think it's really the blending of the two together, which is, it's probably more of an art than a science. I don't know if you can necessarily pull out a sheet and say, okay, in this game, these are the three guys we're going to use. And then the next two games, that means these other guys get, it's more of a, an art to it. And I think that's something that, you know, we've started this already. I think Jeremy's embraced this and I think he enjoys working with young players. And I think that's a strength of his is the reason we brought him over from when he was coaching in Sweden was you know I saw what he did with you

know a team he was in the the Allsvenskan League and his team got promoted to the SHL by winning the relegation round and they were overmatched talent wise but he was able to take this group and have them overachieve. And then he came over to North America. He was in our American League team for a year, sort of did the same thing there. We had a moderately talented team, not really many NHL prospects on that group. And he took them to the semifinal of the AHL. And then the next year in the middle of the year is when he came and joined Chicago. So I think that's something that Jeremy, he embraces that. He embraces the challenge of mixing in young players with veterans. And I think it doesn't have to be one or the other.

It can be a common, it could be, you know, Taves out there late with Keith, but with a young guy. And then the next game, it can be Boquist out there rather than Keith, but with a young guy. And then the next game, it can be Boquist out there rather than Keith, but Taves is still there. So I think it's, you know, it's not like we've got seven guys who he has to use in certain situations. I think there's value in that those veterans bring. They've won it. They've won it multiple times over. We should lean on them them but we should also try to incorporate other players as we're moving forward you said to uh emily caplan of espn that colton is likely getting extended he's got one year left in his deal i i understand you know colton's 35 keith is older than him seabrooks within four months. Has that been difficult to navigate

for all of those guys at all? Just the fact that your coach is in the same age as, you know, two of your most important and veteran players. Yeah. I don't know if that is really an obstacle. I haven't sensed that even my conversations with them, I guess they could speak to it better than me. That's not my sense that Jeremy's age is a challenge. I think the biggest change was that, like I mentioned a few moments ago, we have this unusual circumstance of these four veteran players that have been with Chicago. Not only were they with Chicago their whole career and played together, they played for one coach their whole career, which is real. I guess they played for Dennis DeVard for a couple of weeks, but for one season. But for the most part, after Joel took over, they had this unprecedented run of the same coach for the same number of years. So you get

accustomed to that coach, not only how he coaches, but his practices, his routines, everything. And I think that was something that we thought about, but we kind of underestimated how hard it is to form new habits. And I don't know that there's anyone, even LA we talk about, they've had multiple coaches come through there in their run over the last 10 years. It's not like they had one coach. So I think the players have had to adapt, but our players haven't had to do that until just a year and a half ago. So I think that was an adjustment for them.

I don't know if his age really was the issue though. I think it was just more anyone different. We did things differently and it takes time to form new habits. And it's not that they weren't willing to learn new things or try new things. I think it's just not as automatic when you're trying to learn or do something, play a different way, or you have different habits that the coach stresses. It just takes time. Whereas new players or young players, they come to the Blackhawks, they've played for

three coaches in the last five years, whether it was a junior, college, American League, NHL coach got changed. So they've done a lot of changing. So for them, it's not really a big deal to morph into a different system. But I think for those guys, it was more challenging than any of us thought. Also for yourself, for the first time, I think since you've been the GM, it was more challenging than any of us thought. Also for yourself, for the first time, I think since you've been the GM, there was a change above you. And as you mentioned, Danny Wertz is the guy now, and he was with you in the bubble. Two questions. Number one, are you expecting further changes above you? Do you think that there could be, he has hinted that

he's not there long-term. And the second question I just wanted to ask you, Stan, was there any moment during all this where you were worried that someone was going to knock on your door and say, it's time, we're going to go in another direction? First question, I don't really have a feel for that as far as if there's going to be additional changes or whatnot. I mean, I would just be speculating on that. So I can't give much context there. As far as my I learned from my dad a long time ago. Remember when I was younger and his point was you keep doing your job and you do the best you can until they tell you they don't want you anymore.

the best you can until they tell you they don't want you anymore. And it doesn't serve any purpose to put a lot of energy into thinking, how long am I going to be here? You put your head down, you work hard, you do the best job you can, and you got to have confidence that people believe in you. And until they tell you they don't believe in you, just keep working. So, you know, I learned that from him years ago when I was probably a teenager. And, you know, as a coach, my dad's been multiple places. And I think when you start worrying about yourself, that's when you can get off track. Your job is to keep working until they tell you

they don't want you any longer. So I've taken that same approach here. It's probably a smart approach. Yeah, I'll say. Let me, the Jonathan Taves comments. Sam Pollock used to say, I'll take aggravation. He also used this great baseball analogy. He used to say, I'll take aggravation from a 300 hitter,

but I won't take aggravation from a 200 hitter. Give us a sense, Stan, within the organization. And one of the themes on this podcast is how does this work? What happens in the Blackhawks organization when Jonathan Tabes makes the comments that he made a couple of weeks ago? What happens? Nothing in particular happened. We talked about it. I think the thing that we then, I followed up with a conversation with him to clarify some things so that he didn't misunderstand what we were doing with the moves that we were making and the direction we were heading. So communication is really, I guess, what we did was try to explain, like, listen, we're continuing down this path that we've been clear with you on in the past.

And we haven't done a great job of communicating with our fans, which was on us. In hindsight, we can do a better job of communicating it more clearly with our players. But, you know, as recently as in the bubble and afterwards, we have our exit meetings that we talked about how our team's going to look next year and how the message was, it's going to look very similar. We need more players to take a step forward and we're going to give those guys a chance. Like, so the, the question that was posed to Jonathan, I think was assuming maybe that there was a change in direction, which I assured him there was not a change in direction. There's a change in approach on how we're going to be more open with everybody about what we're doing. But we're continuing on things that we had been doing

even last season and the season before. So I think if anything, the discussion we had internally, and then when I had my conversation with the veterans, it was to try to give them the perspective and make sure that they knew from me what we were doing and they weren't listening or guessing based on what they had read or what the person posing the question had led them to believe. The sod trade, Zdorov, extension coming for him? Well, he signed his qualifying offer. Yes.

I think what we'll probably look to do is work on that. I mean, he's still a restricted free agent at the end of this year. So his status, I think, isn't really a big concern for us. That trade was an important part, I think, in not only the here and now with making our team a better team and making our team difficult to play against. He's a unique player in the league. There's not too many guys who have that combination of size, physicality, and also no fear. So, you know, I know from playing against him he he never hesitated to come after Patrick Kane and I think sometimes you have physical players that they got to be

careful who they go after because they're gonna they're gonna have to deal with some people coming after them so they may not go after the better players but he's fearless that way so I think he's go after the better players, but he's fearless that way. So I think he's going to give us an element that we haven't had. But the biggest thing is really, I think, the impact that Zdorov can have on, we've got two young defensemen, Adam Boquist, who has got the NHL experience. We have another young defenseman named Ian Mitchell, who's a 21-year-old defenseman out of Denver University. who's a 21-year-old defenseman out of Denver University. And I thought he was ready for the NHL a year ago, but he wanted to go back as the captain for his junior year at Denver. So now he's turning pro,

and we expect him to be a big part of where we're going. But he's similar style to Boquist. They're smaller, right-handed, skilled, offensive defensemen. And I think Zdorov could be a great partner for either of those two for many years to come. And I think it's going to help accelerate their progression and development. So it was a very important step for us to take, not only to help our team, and Nikita brings a lot to the table with his own skill set but I think it's going to help accelerate their progress so that was an important part of that trade and that was why we think he could really make a difference on our team in more than just one way I totally understand the what

you're thinking there I was just wondering in the sense that when you make a trade for a player like that you automatically assume at least I do from the, that he's going to be a core player for years to come. So that's why I asked. I got to think that you're eyeing Zdorov as a long-term Blackhawk. Yes. I mean, that's how we hope it plays out. I mean, certainly we can't game plan everything, but our idea in acquiring Zdorov was he's going to come.

He's 25 years old, so he's, you know, kind of that prime age for defensemen. He's already played 300 plus games. So he's got a lot of experience under his belt. And I think he's, he's ready for, you know, his best years ahead of him. Stan, every GM has their good moves. Every GM has their ones that they regret i'm wondering if you look at two of your moves what's the one that you look at and say it worked out exactly as i hoped and is there one that you look at and you said boy i wish i could have that one back oh boy um i don't know i don't i'm happy to talk about any trade in particular if you have some i don't know. I don't, I'm happy to talk about any trade in particular. If you have some, I don't, I guess I don't look at them that way, Elliot, because what I try to do is in the moment,

you're looking at a trade for, sometimes you're chasing the cup. So you're, you're doing things for the here and now, sometimes you're looking more for the future. So the context of the deals are somewhat different you know because if you make a trade that leads to you winning a playoff round or a cup then it was good in the moment but most of those deals don't look as good later because you know you're you're sacrificing the future for the present but if you have i'll give you a couple like there's a couple i look at well i mean obviously hosts as signing hosts as a free agent i mean no brainer and he's going to the hall of

fame and he deserves it but one of your underrated moves i thought really worked out for you at the time when you made it i was like i can't imagine this is going to work is michael hanzus because when you traded for him he was buried in san jose and people were telling me he was done and he played a really good role for you so the one i would look back at and say with 2020 hindsight would you have done it differently is panarin so those two moves i guess sure uh we'll start with uh the hand zeus he played a big role for us he essentially became our second line center and that cup run and you're right he was barely playing on the fourth line i remember talking to our scouts who went and watched him and they just said like i

i can't even give you too much of a read like he's not doing a lot right now but if we look back at what he could do and i think there was also the familiarity with joel from his days in st louis so when you know when a coach has confidence in a player he doesn't necessarily have to see that that player is thriving in the moment because he certainly was not for san jose he was a kind of an extra piece for them wasn't used much San Jose. He was kind of an extra piece for them, wasn't used much. But we were looking at his role to fit in with, you know, he ended up playing a lot with Patrick Kane that year. And it really did, I think, propel our team to, was one of the big reasons we were able to win the cup. So I think that was the combination of looking at a projection on how would this guy look in a different role, mixing that with your

head coach, that really came together nicely for us. So the Panarin situation is one that probably gets the most discussion and understandably and rightfully so. I think at the time that we made that trade, we were looking more at the contract and the reality. I mean, it played out pretty much essentially exactly how we thought, which was he was going to get nine to 10 million. He ended up getting 11 million in the free agent market. So we were looking at that and saying, that's going to be too difficult for us. We already have two players at 10 and a half million. So we made the decision we were going to be unable to keep him. So we could have kept him a year longer, but we were going to have to trade him. And at that point in time, we weren't looking

to just get future assets. We were looking to try to get, remain competitive. So a different style player than he was. And what I mean by he was a very offensive, he still is gifted playmaker goal scorer. I don't know if you'd call him really a two-way player as much. I think Sassad, who we had in the years leading up to that, the only reason we had to get rid of Brandon was the salary cap. And we did miss his game. You know, if you look at Jonathan had a pretty good chemistry with Stodd for those years when Brandon was with us originally. And then when Brandon left to Columbus, Kane and Panarin had tremendous chemistry. Jonathan really, we couldn't find a really good winger for him. We thought that in that deal, we were getting a goalie we were hopeful for, which was Forsberg. That didn't come out.

I think, yeah, in hindsight, if Forsberg ended up being the goalie of the future, then I think the deal would look much better. It would have made more sense to everybody. But sometimes that happens where, you know, the player you expect to take that, you know, Anton had a really good year in the American League. He was kind of on his way and, you know, it just never happened for him in the NHL, in Chicago anyway. So the idea was not to trade Panarin for draft choices and young players. It was to try to bring in a player to help build up our forward depth. And, I mean, Brandon did that. I think what ended up happening is our team in general just wasn't as strong as it had been and needed to be.

So then, you know, missing Panarin,arin you know but I think at that time we were such a one-line team it was Panarin and Isimov and Kane and they were really effective as a unit but the rest of our team really we couldn't get going we were we were so easy to play against because all we had to do is shut down that one line. So we were trying to spread things out more. I guess in hindsight, it didn't work. So that's the thought process, the logic on why we did that deal. And this will be the last question for me, Stan. One other factor that every general manager is faced with is luck. And most general managers, if not all, that go through a rebuild will point out

a couple of moments where they feel they were lucky. As you look back on, because as you mentioned, like this rebuild didn't start with the letter. This rebuild started before. What are some of the moments that in your mind you look at and you say, you know what? You can't plan for that. We just got lucky.

Well, I mean, the two most obvious ones, well, one goes way back. We were fortunate to win the lottery to get Patrick Kane. People forget we were fifth that year. We won the lottery. There was no televised lottery. I remember I got a phone call from Coley Campbell sitting at my desk. He said, just call and give you some good news. You guys won the lottery. You're picking first overall. So it's much, much different nowadays. But in more recent times, the year that 2018, 2019, sorry, Kirby was the choice third overall. But we finished 12th that year.

And we moved all the way up to third. A lot of good fortune there I mean we never would have gotten a player like Kirby uh if we were picking where we finished so you know Kirby's a big part of where we're headed here and I think there's certainly good fortune in that I mean it wasn't it wasn't an obvious choice I think maybe now looking back on it but I think to certainly we we took a lot of, a lot of people questioned why would we draft Kirby? There were other people who, people were, I guess, calling for us to draft, but, you know, as we dove into that draft,

we spent so much time, so much analysis when you're picking third overall, I think you have to get that right. And, you know, I really had a comfort level. Like he was the guy that I wanted as well as our staff. Like we were all in on Kirby Doc. And one year later now, you know, we're just excited for what's to come for him. Last one for me, Stan, is what's it like to be a GM of a team now? We're still not sure what next season is going to look like we're still wondering you know what's the season going to be uh you mentioned it where's the cap going to be what are the unique challenges of being a gm during covid well like everything else, Elliot, just like with you guys and with the rest of the

world, I think you have to just be flexible and not let it get to you. I mean, we all want a plan. I think lack of information can be frustrating or challenging for us, but I think you have to just roll with it. And as we're sitting here today, we don't know when training camp will start. We don't know how many games we're going to play. We don't know the format. We don't know anything. But I think we've got to focus on the things we can, which is preparing for next year.

So in the meantime, there's a few leagues that are going to start playing next month, so I'm going to start to do some scouting, whether it's just video scouting. That's all we can do and just be open-minded and not get too ahead of ourselves. The information will be flowing in over the next few weeks, I would imagine. I think we're going to have a call

with the general managers. I expect to get some information. And once we can plot out better how our season's going to look, then we can dive in with our coaching staff and make sure that our objectives are aligned. But I think understanding that it's okay not to have it all mapped out. And everyone likes to plan things out. I think you feel more comfortable when you can look forward and know exactly what to plan things out.

I think you feel more comfortable when you can look forward and know exactly what everything looks like. We don't have that situation. So let's just be, let's just roll with it. Let's be as flexible as we can be and not let it get us frustrated. We're all hoping for some luck. And Stan, we wish you a lot as well.

Thanks so much for taking time today. We've monopolized almost a full hour of your day and we know you're busy. So we really appreciate it. Yeah, it was great. I appreciate the conversation and we'll talk to you soon. So I guess now, Elliot, one of the questions becomes, Jonathan Taves, Patrick Kane, Duncan Keith, Brent Seabrook,

are they cool with all of this now? So now all the cards are on the table, both privately between the manager and the players and now management and the fans what's your spidey sense on this one i don't think those guys want to be traded like one of the things i was trying to do some research on while we were preparing to do the interview was is there any chance that any of them want to go and the response i was getting is similar to what stan bowman himself said and that is that he does not have that impression and he left it open.

If anything changes, they'll have to deal with it then. But right now, as he understands it, and he has better access to information than I do, but as I understand it, the answer is no. None of those guys are really interested in leaving. I can't see them ever wanting to trade Kane. I can't see them ever wanting to trade Taves. To be honest, I don't know if I ever see them really wanting to trade Keith or Seabrook from just a pure what it means to the organization point of view. Keith is interesting. Teams have asked Chicago about him before before and to this point it's never gone anywhere and i think chicago would prefer not to go anywhere because he's still playing a lot in critical situations the one thing is seabrook seabrook didn't play in the return to play

he was injured and boy i'll tell you this i root for brent seabrook as a person i've got a lot of time for him i think he's a good human it As a person, I've got a lot of time for him. I think he's a good human. It's not his fault he's got a big contract. Anybody would have been handed that contract. They were signing it. I know he's hopeful that with a chance to heal and let his body recover, he'll be better. The only thing I wonder is what happens if they don't see a role for him?

He continues to sit out of the lineup. Does that mean that him and them try to work to find another situation? It's going to be hard with the way money's going right now, but I just wonder if that's a possibility. I thought it was really important and really a good sign for him that they felt it was important he be included in the process all four of them that's a sign that his his presence is still meaningful for them they still respect him i just think the only reason that you know it might become an issue on the ice is if he

isn't playing but it sounds to me like the preference of these four players are to continue to be blackhawks and be part of them when they are winning again here's what i wonder about because i don't necessarily think elliot that rebuild equals losses we've seen this with various rebuilds before in recent memory even as most recently as the the New York Rangers. I wonder what happens because the full court presses on for rebuild and the kids. And you heard Stan talk about Boquist and Mitchell, like, and Alex, the brink, it is so quite yucky. We're hearing that these kids are going to be given prime spots. When you're rebuilding, there is an assumption from the marketplace and the entire NHL that

rebuild equals you're going to lose for a while until you get good. But there are enough players with this Blackhawks organization in the lineup right now that I don't think that rebuild equals losses. My question becomes, if this is a competitive team right out of the gate and this is a playoff team going into the next trade deadline whenever that is and you're jonathan taves and you're patrick kane and you're in a playoff race you're in a playoff spot what's the expectation for the general manager stick to their guns trade away for future or say you you know what? We've got a shot at it. We feel we owe these guys one more chance at this. There's no answer because it's a

hypothetical, but that's what I wonder about. And to be honest, it's the thing we didn't ask. And part of the reason it wasn't high on my list of questions was because all of the local podcasts and interviewers had talked about it. And that is what's happening questions was because all of the local podcasts and interviewers had talked about it and that is what's happening in goal i would look at it and say they're not a bottom feeding team they beat edmonton in the play-in and there were people who were saying that edmonton was a sleeper to win the stanley cup and they earned that series like that wasn't a fluke they outplayed the oilers but what they they don't have someone who was very important earned that series like that wasn't a fluke they outplayed the oilers but what they they don't have someone who was very important in that series and they lost to vegas they don't have

someone who was very good in that series and that's the guy in goal and i think that that's the question i have about them is okay they're going to going to give Malcolm Subban and Colin Delia a look this year, but I just think you'd look at it right now and say, are you really able to contend with that tandem? That's where I look at them and say, that's the hole.

That's the hole. It's in that. What's the Elaine Vigneault line about goaltenders? If your goaler is better than my goaler, you win. If my goaler is better than my goaler, you win. If my goaler is better than your goaler, you win. We thank Stan Bowman for making himself available

and the Hawks as well for including us in the full media tour that Stan Bowman is doing. And that's it. Now, this time we promise, we think. We're taking a break. Thanks for joining us this week on 31 Thoughts, the podcast. We'll talk to you in two days. No, we think. We're taking a break. Thanks for joining us this week on 31 Thoughts, the podcast. We'll talk to you in two days. No, two weeks.

We're not really sure. Who knows? We don't know when we're going to be talking to you. We'll talk to you next time. How about that? Hey, it's Sam Roberts. Thanks, Jeff and Elliot, for another great season. Taking us out is a track off my latest album called

I Like the Way You Talk About the Future. So take care. We'll see you next season. Taking us out is a track off my latest album called I Like The Way You Talk About The Future. So take care, and we'll see you next season. Follow the river, the river ran dry Into the ghost town, I'm getting close now Looking for something maybe shouldn't be found now Out in the sand, I met a girl She pulled my hand into the whirlwind She said, God is a traffic cop Sometimes you roll, sometimes we stop Just walk on, I want it all Don't go back now, where did I Just walk on, I want it all Don't go back more, but now I can't fall

I don't know your name But I like the way you talk about the future I like the way you talk About the future I don't know your name But I like the way you talk about the future