Thanks for the thoughts.
After that I would look at this as a 1st half of season move...an attempt to finagle the D into operating properly while they wait and see with the young guys what they have exactly.
While we don't like it...they do have a bit of time to kill and killing more plays into their cost control plans, so its pretty clear they are just giving themselves a shot at that even if it doesn't pan out...because the rewards of it working could be high near the trade deadline.
Keith can't get younger.
I am not a fan of Murphs game.
Seabrook should be a 7.
Maatta is gonna have to block ALOT of shots with a bunch of vagina's around him not reciprocating...probably will get old.
...so he's gotta be Hjammer?
I'm not necessarily against the idea of a stopgap while the youth mature, but a guy signed through 2022 with the D locked down like it is? Kinda makes me wonder. If it was Sikura on the move I would have cared less but Kahun had some drive.
Like it or not though Seabrook is not going to be a #7. I sincerely think that if Stan and JC do that they'd both be fired for wasting Rocky's money.
Its the common tone with the restricted guys, take a bridge or you get shipped out of town.
They traded Hammer with a 4 million cap hit because they figured he would need 6 or 7 to stay. He stayed in Phoenix for 5.
Saad refused, gone
Darling offered, refused, gone
Panarin offered, refused, gone.
Shaw
Hartman
Vinnie
Danault
Those are just a few.
Thats what I see at least, its not that hard to put it together, especially after the Saad bridge was reported on so much.
It does not take much to see which players should have accepted a bridge deal that just end up getting dealt. If Stans not offering thru the season, he is not doing his job.
Speculation that he was asked to take a bridge and refused? Not far fetched. Your numbers were quite specific though and it looked like you'd have a source for that--even if it was someone like JJ or Ecklund who couldn't tell the difference between a hockey stick and a pixie stick.
Plus Darling being a UFA couldn't be bridged--and in fact that went down exactly like it should have. Crawford *had* to be protected in the expansion draft because he has an NMC and given that Darling couldn't be protected at all--the 'hawks could only protect 1 goalie. Either the 'hawks could have offered him a contract like he got from Carolina as a "**** off" to Vegas taking him putting them in more cap hell, or whatever the signed him to, he'd be selected. The did the best job they could for a player on an upcoming UFA deal who they were going to lose.
And history proved the 'hawks right--Darling is not in the league anymore meanwhile Crawford'd been mostly good...you know: when the 18 pantywaists in front of him weren't letting him be concussed.
Hjammer also wasn't an RFA. Plus, the miles and wear and tear were starting to catch up to him. I don't agree with that trade in retrospect but it wasn't to accept a bridger. Panarin was, but the 'hawks signed him to 6M...then traded him for Saad. That's not on Panarin. Further, since the 2013 lockout the practice seems to be more and more paying the higher tier guys earlier on. i.e. guys like McJesus, Eichel, Matthews, etc. getting their payday on RFA instead of one-down like Kane/Toews--and it's not like the 'hawks could have afforded Saad at near fair-market value with all of Toews, Kane, Keith, Seabook, Hossa, Hjalmarsson, & Bickell on the books.
