- Joined:
- May 12, 2010
- Posts:
- 46,450
- Liked Posts:
- 22,189
Wonder what type of return Srabrook would get. Any speculations?
- Joined:
- Oct 19, 2013
- Posts:
- 7,956
- Liked Posts:
- 829
- Location:
- Wish You Were Here
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="puckjim" data-cid="225941" data-time="1397666972">
<div>
Leddy has talents that few dmen have, and he's improved tremendously this season.</p>
</p>
Are we really using Quenneville's lineup decisions as the benchmark? </p>
</p>
Liked that Brookbank on wing, did ya?</p>
</p>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
You mean Leddy's 3rd defensive pairing partner for most of the season. No not a fan of Brookbank at wing. </p>
<div>
Leddy has talents that few dmen have, and he's improved tremendously this season.</p>
</p>
Are we really using Quenneville's lineup decisions as the benchmark? </p>
</p>
Liked that Brookbank on wing, did ya?</p>
</p>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
You mean Leddy's 3rd defensive pairing partner for most of the season. No not a fan of Brookbank at wing. </p>
- Joined:
- May 14, 2010
- Posts:
- 17,634
- Liked Posts:
- 2,417
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Grimsäväinen" data-cid="225967" data-time="1397672639">
<div>
Wonder what type of return Srabrook would get. Any speculations?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
I can only hope Turris..... or another Kane. haha.</p>
<div>
Wonder what type of return Srabrook would get. Any speculations?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
I can only hope Turris..... or another Kane. haha.</p>
Variable
New member
- Joined:
- Jul 24, 2010
- Posts:
- 3,023
- Liked Posts:
- 122
If its not another player like Seabrook theyre going to have problems.
- Joined:
- May 14, 2010
- Posts:
- 1,460
- Liked Posts:
- 38
- Location:
- Section 325 - Row 12
My favorite teams
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Variable" data-cid="225972" data-time="1397675976">
<div>
If its not another player like Seabrook theyre going to have problems.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
Only if they can't find someone like them among the cadre of prospects that they already have.</p>
</p>
It will hurt, no question. It's hard to replace one of the best defeseman in franchise history.</p>
</p>
But being a GM is hard.</p>
<div>
If its not another player like Seabrook theyre going to have problems.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
Only if they can't find someone like them among the cadre of prospects that they already have.</p>
</p>
It will hurt, no question. It's hard to replace one of the best defeseman in franchise history.</p>
</p>
But being a GM is hard.</p>
LordKOTL
Scratched for Vorobiev
- Joined:
- Dec 8, 2014
- Posts:
- 8,628
- Liked Posts:
- 2,972
- Location:
- PacNW
My favorite teams
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="PSR" data-cid="225953" data-time="1397668805">
<div>
I can't stand how you are all on board with the Seabrook departure. I just see that as the end of an era if it happens. I would move many others before him in order to keep him. Keith and Seabrook are the true foundations of the past 5 years of success, Kane and Toews are just as responsible, but to have those two already in place when Kane and Toews showed up made the transition to success almost immediate. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
</p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="puckjim" data-cid="225956" data-time="1397668930">
<div>
No one wants to trade Seabrook or Sharp, but there's only so much math to go around.</p>
</p>
That's why teams develop players in the minors.</p>
</p>
That's also why I primarily root for laundry....It makes saying goodbye easier.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
I think Sharp goes before Seabrook. in terms of depth beneath him, I think Sharp is easier to replace from within. Saad taking Sharp's role is not too far-fecthed, and then you just need a Saad-replacement. Seabs on the other hand...you have....Runblad....Maybe Clendening.</p>
</p>
Either way I don't think anyone top-tier is moved this summer--we have a lot of riffraff in FA's coming off of the roster which can allow for a few prospects to show what they can do while still reasonbly below the cap. Next year TDL/offseason is where the 2nd great purge of the millenium will happen.</p>
</p>
From there, we'll see who are the expendible core pieces--be it Seabs, Crawford, Sharp, Hoss, etc.</p>
<div>
I can't stand how you are all on board with the Seabrook departure. I just see that as the end of an era if it happens. I would move many others before him in order to keep him. Keith and Seabrook are the true foundations of the past 5 years of success, Kane and Toews are just as responsible, but to have those two already in place when Kane and Toews showed up made the transition to success almost immediate. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
</p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="puckjim" data-cid="225956" data-time="1397668930">
<div>
No one wants to trade Seabrook or Sharp, but there's only so much math to go around.</p>
</p>
That's why teams develop players in the minors.</p>
</p>
That's also why I primarily root for laundry....It makes saying goodbye easier.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
I think Sharp goes before Seabrook. in terms of depth beneath him, I think Sharp is easier to replace from within. Saad taking Sharp's role is not too far-fecthed, and then you just need a Saad-replacement. Seabs on the other hand...you have....Runblad....Maybe Clendening.</p>
</p>
Either way I don't think anyone top-tier is moved this summer--we have a lot of riffraff in FA's coming off of the roster which can allow for a few prospects to show what they can do while still reasonbly below the cap. Next year TDL/offseason is where the 2nd great purge of the millenium will happen.</p>
</p>
From there, we'll see who are the expendible core pieces--be it Seabs, Crawford, Sharp, Hoss, etc.</p>
Variable
New member
- Joined:
- Jul 24, 2010
- Posts:
- 3,023
- Liked Posts:
- 122
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="puckjim" data-cid="225985" data-time="1397683100">
Only if they can't find someone like them among the cadre of prospects that they already have.
It will hurt, no question. It's hard to replace one of the best defeseman in franchise history.
But being a GM is hard.</p></blockquote>
Or they could always go the much easier route of replacing a goalie and not have to worry about any of this. Nothing is forcing them to have to lose guys like Seabrook other than themselves.
Only if they can't find someone like them among the cadre of prospects that they already have.
It will hurt, no question. It's hard to replace one of the best defeseman in franchise history.
But being a GM is hard.</p></blockquote>
Or they could always go the much easier route of replacing a goalie and not have to worry about any of this. Nothing is forcing them to have to lose guys like Seabrook other than themselves.
- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 13,392
- Liked Posts:
- 5,191
Man, I'd hate to see the leadership he provides gone.</p>
- Joined:
- Jun 6, 2010
- Posts:
- 15,741
- Liked Posts:
- 7,153
- Location:
- NW Burbs
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Tater" data-cid="225988" data-time="1397684393">
<div>
Man, I'd hate to see the leadership he provides gone.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
Agreed, not much is ever said about the leadership Seabs brings, think Toews in the box vs the Wings in PO last year and Seabrook goes over to him.</p>
On top of that the clutch goals he has had. To me Seabrook should be untouchable !</p>
</p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Variable" data-cid="225987" data-time="1397684260">
<div>
Nothing is forcing them to have to lose guys like Seabrook or Crawford. The cap is going up. If anything they'll move Sharp and not miss a beat with Morin poised to make the roster or maybe the great Fin TT . To experiment with goalies would be a waste of a whole season (and a year of our star talents careers)when that goalie shows he can't stop a beach ball in game 7 of the conference finals.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
:happy-partydance: :greetings-clappingyellow:</p>
<div>
Man, I'd hate to see the leadership he provides gone.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
Agreed, not much is ever said about the leadership Seabs brings, think Toews in the box vs the Wings in PO last year and Seabrook goes over to him.</p>
On top of that the clutch goals he has had. To me Seabrook should be untouchable !</p>
</p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Variable" data-cid="225987" data-time="1397684260">
<div>
Nothing is forcing them to have to lose guys like Seabrook or Crawford. The cap is going up. If anything they'll move Sharp and not miss a beat with Morin poised to make the roster or maybe the great Fin TT . To experiment with goalies would be a waste of a whole season (and a year of our star talents careers)when that goalie shows he can't stop a beach ball in game 7 of the conference finals.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
:happy-partydance: :greetings-clappingyellow:</p>
- Joined:
- Jun 6, 2010
- Posts:
- 15,741
- Liked Posts:
- 7,153
- Location:
- NW Burbs
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Variable" data-cid="225972" data-time="1397675976">
<div>
If its not another player like Seabrook theyre going to have problems.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
So trade Seabrook and hope you can get something equal ? Why not just keep him? </p>
<div>
If its not another player like Seabrook theyre going to have problems.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
So trade Seabrook and hope you can get something equal ? Why not just keep him? </p>
- Joined:
- Jun 6, 2010
- Posts:
- 15,741
- Liked Posts:
- 7,153
- Location:
- NW Burbs
If your farm system is stronger with offensive talent than D and net minders, why is everyone talking about losing the likes of Seabs or Crow? In all pro sports teams strive to build from within / the talent they draft. Teams get in trouble when they start making trades that don't work out and sign free agents.</p>
</p>
Maybe I'm wrong but isn't there more offensive talent in Rockford than D? We know they have little Goalie depth. I love Sharp but he is the logical choice to move and make cap room. </p>
</p>
Maybe I'm wrong but isn't there more offensive talent in Rockford than D? We know they have little Goalie depth. I love Sharp but he is the logical choice to move and make cap room. </p>
Pez68
Fire Quenneville
- Joined:
- Oct 31, 2014
- Posts:
- 4,693
- Liked Posts:
- 259
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Spunky Porkstacker" data-cid="226004" data-time="1397691372">
<div>
If your farm system is stronger with offensive talent than D and net minders, why is everyone talking about losing the likes of Seabs or Crow? In all pro sports teams strive to build from within / the talent they draft. Teams get in trouble when they start making trades that don't work out and sign free agents.</p>
</p>
Maybe I'm wrong but isn't there more offensive talent in Rockford than D? We know they have little Goalie depth. I love Sharp but he is the logical choice to move and make cap room. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
You see a lot of NHL ready talent up front in Rockford? I don't.</p>
<div>
If your farm system is stronger with offensive talent than D and net minders, why is everyone talking about losing the likes of Seabs or Crow? In all pro sports teams strive to build from within / the talent they draft. Teams get in trouble when they start making trades that don't work out and sign free agents.</p>
</p>
Maybe I'm wrong but isn't there more offensive talent in Rockford than D? We know they have little Goalie depth. I love Sharp but he is the logical choice to move and make cap room. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
You see a lot of NHL ready talent up front in Rockford? I don't.</p>
Variable
New member
- Joined:
- Jul 24, 2010
- Posts:
- 3,023
- Liked Posts:
- 122
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Spunky Porkstacker" data-cid="225998" data-time="1397690325">
<div>
So trade Seabrook and hope you can get something equal ? Why not just keep him? </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
No.....what? Why are you even asking me this? You just literally put words in my mouth in my last post and you're asking me this?</p>
</p>
They can keep Seabrook, they can keep Sharp. All these concerns over "experimenting" with goalies or having a revolving door of sorts at that position and that somehow means it'll hurt the team are completely unfounded. What is that even based off of? Because that's pretty much what it's been like for the Hawks anyway. Since 08'-09' the Hawks have had 6 different goalies all of whom played significant time. Some of whom were seen as the "number 1" goalie only to have that change during the course of the year. That's happened a couple different times. Or to have an ongoing question mark for a long duration of the season over who is number one. 6 seasons, 6 different goalies and what's the result been? The (ongoing) golden era of Blackhawks hockey. The best period of hockey in the franchise's history. Ever. Why? Because of the team they built in front of those goalies.</p>
<div>
So trade Seabrook and hope you can get something equal ? Why not just keep him? </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
No.....what? Why are you even asking me this? You just literally put words in my mouth in my last post and you're asking me this?</p>
</p>
They can keep Seabrook, they can keep Sharp. All these concerns over "experimenting" with goalies or having a revolving door of sorts at that position and that somehow means it'll hurt the team are completely unfounded. What is that even based off of? Because that's pretty much what it's been like for the Hawks anyway. Since 08'-09' the Hawks have had 6 different goalies all of whom played significant time. Some of whom were seen as the "number 1" goalie only to have that change during the course of the year. That's happened a couple different times. Or to have an ongoing question mark for a long duration of the season over who is number one. 6 seasons, 6 different goalies and what's the result been? The (ongoing) golden era of Blackhawks hockey. The best period of hockey in the franchise's history. Ever. Why? Because of the team they built in front of those goalies.</p>
supraman
New member
- Joined:
- May 16, 2010
- Posts:
- 8,024
- Liked Posts:
- 196
- Location:
- St.Pete, FL
I honestly see Leddy being shipped off before Keith or Seabrook. Also Leddy could potentially land us a fortune if we traded him. Not advocating it but if my choice is between getting rid of Seabrook or Keith over Leddy I ship Leddy. Yeah it sucks trading young talent but I wouldnt be eager to break up the best D pair in the league</p>
Variable
New member
- Joined:
- Jul 24, 2010
- Posts:
- 3,023
- Liked Posts:
- 122
Besides, there's another Leddy in Rockford right? Along with another Saad.</p>
- Joined:
- May 14, 2010
- Posts:
- 1,460
- Liked Posts:
- 38
- Location:
- Section 325 - Row 12
My favorite teams
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Supra" data-cid="226019" data-time="1397697597">
I honestly see Leddy being shipped off before Keith or Seabrook. Also Leddy could potentially land us a fortune if we traded him. Not advocating it but if my choice is between getting rid of Seabrook or Keith over Leddy I ship Leddy. Yeah it sucks trading young talent but I wouldnt be eager to break up the best D pair in the league</p></blockquote>
Seabrook is due a huge raise sooner than Leddy. Keith has the best contract in the NHL. No way he'll ever be dealt.
It's about selling high. Trading Leddy doesn't help the Blackhawks cap-wise the way a Seabrook or Sharp would.
The math is pretty fucking elementary.
I honestly see Leddy being shipped off before Keith or Seabrook. Also Leddy could potentially land us a fortune if we traded him. Not advocating it but if my choice is between getting rid of Seabrook or Keith over Leddy I ship Leddy. Yeah it sucks trading young talent but I wouldnt be eager to break up the best D pair in the league</p></blockquote>
Seabrook is due a huge raise sooner than Leddy. Keith has the best contract in the NHL. No way he'll ever be dealt.
It's about selling high. Trading Leddy doesn't help the Blackhawks cap-wise the way a Seabrook or Sharp would.
The math is pretty fucking elementary.
Variable
New member
- Joined:
- Jul 24, 2010
- Posts:
- 3,023
- Liked Posts:
- 122
And yet does so much more damage to the way the team plays and it's strengths in losing players like those rather than dealing away a 6 million dollar goalie. Again, seems pretty simple to me. Want the Hawks to keep playing the way they do? Don't spend that kind of money on that position.</p>
- Joined:
- Oct 19, 2013
- Posts:
- 7,956
- Liked Posts:
- 829
- Location:
- Wish You Were Here
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Supra" data-cid="226019" data-time="1397697597">
<div>
I honestly see Leddy being shipped off before Keith or Seabrook. Also Leddy could potentially land us a fortune if we traded him. Not advocating it but if my choice is between getting rid of Seabrook or Keith over Leddy I ship Leddy. Yeah it sucks trading young talent but I wouldnt be eager to break up the best D pair in the league</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
</p>
^^^^ This. As an arm chair GM with no insider knowledge of what goes on I'd trade a 3rd pairing D-man with "potential" before I'll even float the idea of trading part of the foundation of the team. </p>
<div>
I honestly see Leddy being shipped off before Keith or Seabrook. Also Leddy could potentially land us a fortune if we traded him. Not advocating it but if my choice is between getting rid of Seabrook or Keith over Leddy I ship Leddy. Yeah it sucks trading young talent but I wouldnt be eager to break up the best D pair in the league</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
</p>
^^^^ This. As an arm chair GM with no insider knowledge of what goes on I'd trade a 3rd pairing D-man with "potential" before I'll even float the idea of trading part of the foundation of the team. </p>
- Joined:
- Sep 28, 2010
- Posts:
- 5,997
- Liked Posts:
- 2,338
- Location:
- Somewhere in Indiana
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Variable" data-cid="226027" data-time="1397704117">
<div>
And yet does so much more damage to the way the team plays and it's strengths in losing players like those rather than dealing away a 6 million dollar goalie. Again, seems pretty simple to me. Want the Hawks to keep playing the way they do? Don't spend that kind of money on that position.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
It an interesting thought process.</p>
Craw is an UFA in 2020, so the educated guess is that the Hawks stick with him. Who knows what an above average goaltender will go for in a couple of seasons because of possible cap increases.</p>
Khabi is UFA (1.7m cap hit) - Possibly retiring
Labarbera is UFA (1m cap hit) Probably can sign for the same $$, but not a very proven netminder-- even for a backup. Had one decent season.</p>
Raanta is RFA (925k) cap hit) Still green at the NHL level. What does he sign for, plus is he fine being a permanent backup until Craw's deal is up or is moved? </p>
<div>
And yet does so much more damage to the way the team plays and it's strengths in losing players like those rather than dealing away a 6 million dollar goalie. Again, seems pretty simple to me. Want the Hawks to keep playing the way they do? Don't spend that kind of money on that position.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
It an interesting thought process.</p>
Craw is an UFA in 2020, so the educated guess is that the Hawks stick with him. Who knows what an above average goaltender will go for in a couple of seasons because of possible cap increases.</p>
Khabi is UFA (1.7m cap hit) - Possibly retiring
Labarbera is UFA (1m cap hit) Probably can sign for the same $$, but not a very proven netminder-- even for a backup. Had one decent season.</p>
Raanta is RFA (925k) cap hit) Still green at the NHL level. What does he sign for, plus is he fine being a permanent backup until Craw's deal is up or is moved? </p>
- Joined:
- May 14, 2010
- Posts:
- 1,460
- Liked Posts:
- 38
- Location:
- Section 325 - Row 12
My favorite teams
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="winos5" data-cid="226038" data-time="1397742128">
<div>
^^^^ This. As an arm chair GM with no insider knowledge of what goes on I'd trade a 3rd pairing D-man with "potential" before I'll even float the idea of trading part of the foundation of the team. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
Are you ignoring the money?</p>
</p>
You don't need insider knowledge to count to $69 million.</p>
<div>
^^^^ This. As an arm chair GM with no insider knowledge of what goes on I'd trade a 3rd pairing D-man with "potential" before I'll even float the idea of trading part of the foundation of the team. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
Are you ignoring the money?</p>
</p>
You don't need insider knowledge to count to $69 million.</p>
Members online NOW
- Member
- Admin
- Mod
- Donor
- HOF
Staff online NOW
-
bamainatlantaYou wake him up, you keep him up