Thoughts Before Game 5

First and foremost, to all of you Blackhawks front office guys out there reading this, an important suggestion - revisit your radio contract this offseason.

I love the broadcasts on WGN 720, but the Hawks are going to be staples in the postseason for a lot of years, so you cannot have your most important games buried on a garbage AM signal every time they get bumped from WGN when the Cubs have a night game.

Instead, the Hawks need to work out a deal with WGN where the Hawks get moved over to WLS 890 or WBBM 780 on those nights, to megastations with significant signals that can be heard loud and clear anywhere in greater Chicagoland.

For a team who's had so many issues in the past with their game broadcasts being unavailable, the current set-up cannot be repeated next year. Especially because so many Hawks fans are used to listening to the games on radio thanks to all of the TV black-out years. So take advantage of your incredible bargaining position this offseason and work out something with WGN and one of the other two power stations to ensure the Blackhawks get the radio coverage they deserve when playing in these huge Stanley Cup playoff games. And don't give me all the excuses as to why "things just don't work that way" - that's thinking like a front office guy, not a fan. You can make this happen if you want to - it'll just take some work.

(if only the front office guys really did read this...)


Now to the actual hockey. Unfortunately, thanks to the above-discussed terrible decision to bury the Hawks on AM 560, my plans to listen to Game 3 on WGN as I drove to Cleveland were ruined. I caught a bit of the game on a Detroit station, but not enough to really get what happened. The limited takeaways I got were that the Hawks played well early, got the Wings way off their game and buried in the penalty box, and took full advantage for a commanding lead.

What's upsetting is that they gave it all back with one bad five minute stretch. So what happened? Did the Hawks take their foot off the Wings' throats and allow them to turn the pressure around the other way? It's a classic coaching mistake, one made repeatedly by coaches of all sports. Play aggressively to get a lead, then conservatively to defend it.

Umm, what? If you have outplayed a team in one approach, why would you change that approach? It's working - KEEP DOING IT! No idea if that's what happened here, but if it is, I'm gonna punch JQ in the ovaries the next time I see him. The prevent defense mainly prevents you from winning - it's as true in hockey as it is in football, hoops, soccer, lacrosse, jai alai... you name it.

Still, it was nice to see that the Hawks didn't let the momentum get away (I was at a playoff game back in the mid 90s where the Hawks had a 3-goal lead entering the third against either Detroit or Colorado in a key playoff game... and ended up losing by two). They stopped the bleeding and the capitalized when they needed to, thanks in some small part to Huet's solid play. It was only six shots, but coming off the bench after about three months worth of inactivity when even a single goal ends your season is pretty tough to do.


Unfortunately, Huet couldn't keep that flow going, as from what I saw in Game 4, he looked miserable. I've always compared him to Belfour in that he makes a lot of great, unorthodox saves, but then kills you with a softy. He's totally hot and cold - either capable of looking unbeatable or extremely average.

Can you win with a goalie like that? Well, a lot of teams went pretty far with Belfour in net, and the Stars even won the Cup with him there. Is Huet that good? Can the Hawks build enough around him to win despite his occasional mistakes? Or is it about luck - do we have to hope Huet gets on a hot streak at the right time to carry us?

Hard to say. Obviously his Game 4 performance left a lot to be desired. It was a very, very winnable game with a number of Wings out and all the momentum in the Hawks favor. For Huet to give up so many easy goals is a real slap in the face to everything the team has been doing this year, especially in the playoffs.

It sounds like Khabi will be out again in Game 5, which means Huet has one more chance to salvage his reputation in Chicago. On some level that's unfair - as I said, the guy hasn't played regularly in over two months. Khabi returned from his injury on March 15th and proceeded to play nearly every game after that. So is it fair to expect Huet to come in, as cold as they come, against the best team in the world, and get it done?

Especially when the team in front of him isn't playing its best hockey? Some of it has been unlucky bounces, some of it has been poor play, but the results from a goalie's perspective has been the same - the Wings have had a boatload of great chances to score. Khabi was playing absolutely amazingly and still gave up 9 goals in 2.5 games against the Wings. Can you blame a rusty, out of sync Huet for struggling against the Wings?


Whether Huet's failure was of circumstances or because of the limits of his ability is a really big question, both in the short term and the longterm. Longterm, if you don't have faith that Huet can be a Cup winning goalie, you have to work really hard this offseason to repair the damage done in signing him last summer. It's possible - his contract isn't terrible and is only for three more seasons. Huet's still got a solid reputation and there are always teams in need of a veteran goalie.

But given that the salary cap is actually going down next year - and at a fairly significant $2.5M (on a $56M payroll), the Hawks might have to eat a bad contract in return. But if it comes in the form of a solid 4th line centerman or veteran stay-at-home defender, that might be worth it.

If Huet is gonna be shown the door, you also have to get to work bringing Khabi back into the fold at a reasonable price for a reasonable number of years. He's 36 year old and has a lot of miles on his odometer. Khabi's also shown both this year and last that he can't be counted on to play more than 40-50 games, and could very easily get hurt at key times. Is that someone you can afford to go forward with?


Short term, Huet's got to prove he can get the Hawks a big win when they need it tonight. Even if the Hawks play great, the Wings are going to have a lot of chances. They're just too good not to. Especially when they're back home, smelling blood. They blew a pair of clinching home Game 5s last year, so the Wings are not going to take the game lightly.

That means it's up to Huet to get it done. He's got to make the big saves and the pedestrian saves, and he's got to do it when the Hawks need it most. Stonewall a big breakaway, make a couple of routine saves shortly after the Hawks score. Do the things that keep the momentum going in the right direction or even secure it back for the Hawks.

I said going into the Hawks' two games at home that they had to win Game 3, but they could afford to lose Game 4 and still have a chance. Not a good one by any stretch, but a chance. At the very least I had full confidence they could get the game back to Chicago. I still believe that. I'd feel better if Khabi was in net and playing well, but hockey is a funny game - just when you think a goalie is there to be destroyed, he pulls an amazing game out of his ass.

I can see that happening tonight. Or I can see Huet playing solid enough and the Hawks offense not being ready to call it a season. They have to know that this game is the toughest one they will face. If Hawks can win Game 5, they're back home with a bit of momentum for Game 6, back to where you'd expect them to be - down 1 game with 1 to play at the UC. And if they take that Game 6 in front of an unreal home crowd, then they've got all the momentum in the world - they're a young team who's confident and hungry facing a team who's not used to adversity, who has to deal with the pressure that a Game 7 loss would be an uberfailure for them all.


So whether it's Huet, the offense, some lucky breaks, or just shitty play by the hated Red Wings, somehow the Hawks have got to win tonight. Do that, and we're back in this thing as much as we ever have been.