Hawks Trade for Versteeg

[PatrickSharpRules]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="puckjim" data-cid="214122" data-time="1384541402">
<div>


There's a lot of stupid in the NHL and not a lot of smarts.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


True, granted hes will Shea Weber, Jones is playing 24 minutes a night. No doubt that you have to hold your own to stick with that amount of time out of the gate. Kid was playing pubescent mommas boys earlier this year. </p>


 </p>


Most of all, Colorado could never have been more wrong. Off to great start yes.....but last time I check Jan Hejda is one of their go to D-men, that will not cut it for a full 82 and definitely not the playoffs. Seth Jones has growing pains and would have had more in COL, but we are talking about a rare talent addressing there most glaring hole that they completely disregarded.</p>

 

[MassHavoc]

I don't hate this trade at all... but of course it could happen with time. Glad to have him back and don't really miss anything we gave up because it wasn't on the roster. I'm all for a good far system but it's just as important to use it for pieces on the team than it is for pieces in the future.</p>

 

[puckjim]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MassHavoc" data-cid="214124" data-time="1384542366">
<div>


I don't hate this trade at all... but of course it could happen with time. Glad to have him back and don't really miss anything we gave up because it wasn't on the roster. I'm all for a good far system but it's just as important to use it for pieces on the team than it is for pieces in the future.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


And on a team like the Blackhawks, more so.</p>


 </p>


There is no such thing as an untouchable prospect.</p>

 

[R K]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="puckjim" data-cid="214122" data-time="1384541402">
<div>


There's a lot of stupid in the NHL and not a lot of smarts.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


 </p>


You should apply for a job and smarten them up.  I'm sure your hockey resume would be at the top of the list....</p>

 

[R K]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="puckjim" data-cid="214125" data-time="1384542766">
<div>


And on a team like the Blackhawks, more so.</p>


 </p>


There is no such thing as an untouchable prospect.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


 </p>


I can name two off hand.  Which have both been sought after by multiple teams.  One is playing with the Hawks, the other is on the Hogs.</p>

 

[MassHavoc]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="R K" data-cid="214127" data-time="1384542996">
<div>


I can name two off hand.  Which have both been sought after by multiple teams.  One is playing with the Hawks, the other is on the Hogs.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


While yes, sure there are technically players that seem untouchable, there are always NHL teams much dumber who would overpay for them at any price. You can say a player is untouchable, but if a team came by and said we'll give you our next 7 first rounds picks and a guy from our first line, you'd have to think about it.</p>

 

[puckjim]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MassHavoc" data-cid="214129" data-time="1384543222">
<div>


While yes, sure there are technically players that seem untouchable, there are always NHL teams much dumber who would overpay for them at any price. You can say a player is untouchable, but if a team came by and said we'll give you our next 7 first rounds picks and a guy from our first line, you'd have to think about it.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


People a couple of years ago were saying that McNeil was untouchable.</p>


 </p>


Balls!</p>


 </p>


Prospects have a price and if you can help your team win a championship, they go.</p>

 

[Shantz My Pants]

Teuvo and Clendening I see as untouchable at this point.

 

[Shantz My Pants]

I disagree to a certain extent Jim. With the cap in place, you need those prospects coming up the ranks if you want to be competitive for years.


What about for a rental player?


So do you go for one shot at a championship, or for a shot every year for the Cup?

 

[puckjim]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Trev" data-cid="214133" data-time="1384544231">
<div>


I disagree to a certain extent Jim. With the cap in place, you need those prospects coming up the ranks if you want to be competitive for years.


What about for a rental player?


So do you go for one shot at a championship, or for a shot every year for the Cup?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


If you can win a 'Cup, you mortgage everything.</p>


 </p>


They are very rare.</p>

 

[Shantz My Pants]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="puckjim" data-cid="214134" data-time="1384544312">


If you can win a 'Cup, you mortgage everything.


They are very rare.</p></blockquote>


I guess the player you get in return needs to be the kind that puts you in the elite category, not just in the top 16.

 

[puckjim]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Trev" data-cid="214135" data-time="1384544449">
<div>


I guess the player you get in return needs to be the kind that puts you in the elite category, not just in the top 16.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


Every player has a price, but some prices are very high.</p>


 </p>


Olsen wasn't Stan's guy....I'm sure that had a bit to do with his position in the pecking order.</p>

 

[R K]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MassHavoc" data-cid="214129" data-time="1384543222">
<div>


While yes, sure there are technically players that seem untouchable, there are always NHL teams much dumber who would overpay for them at any price. You can say a player is untouchable, but if a team came by and said we'll give you our next 7 first rounds picks and a guy from our first line, you'd have to think about it.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


 </p>


Saad was sought after by at least 15 teams.  He was untouchable.  Teams usually don't deal guys like Stamkos/Crosby.</p>


 </p>


There are most definitely untouchable prospects because there is no return for those prospects that would attain them.</p>


 </p>


Olsen has been passed in the depth chart by two, almost three prospects.  He was expendable.  Has nothing to do with not being a Stan guy or a Tallon guy or any bs like that.</p>

 

[Shantz My Pants]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="puckjim" data-cid="214136" data-time="1384544540">


Every player has a price, but some prices are very high.


Olsen wasn't Stan's guy....I'm sure that had a bit to do with his position in the pecking order.</p></blockquote>


No doubt, though he's a very good prospect regardless if Stan drafted him or not.


It will be interesting to see how he does in Florida and if he takes off.

 

[R K]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Trev" data-cid="214138" data-time="1384545056">
<div>


No doubt, though he's a very good prospect regardless if Stan drafted him or not.


It will be interesting to see how he does in Florida and if he takes off.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


Now they said last night Hayes would be in the line up ASAP, I didn't read anything about Olsen.   </p>

 

[R K]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="puckjim" data-cid="214130" data-time="1384543528">
<div>


People a couple of years ago were saying that McNeil was untouchable.</p>


 </p>


Balls!</p>


 </p>


Prospects have a price and if you can help your team win a championship, they go.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


Mcneil has been untouchable thus far.  Toronto tried everything they could.  We didn't have depth prospects at Center.  I suppose some prospects are just more touchable that others.... </p>


 </p>


As for your balls, Renee has them in her purse.</p>

 

[Shantz My Pants]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="R K" data-cid="214137" data-time="1384545055">


Saad was sought after by at least 15 teams. He was untouchable. Teams usually don't deal guys like Stamkos/Crosby.


There are most definitely untouchable prospects because there is no return for those prospects that would attain them.


Olsen has been passed in the depth chart by two, almost three prospects. He was expendable. Has nothing to do with not being a Stan guy or a Tallon guy or any bs like that.</p></blockquote>


Who surpassed him outside of Clendening? Dahlbeck? I didn't see that in Rockford. Olsen looked NHL ready, we just have a log jam for him not to be in.

 

[MassHavoc]

I don't consider Saad a prospect anymore. Guy is on the team and not going anywhere...</p>

 

[R K]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Trev" data-cid="214141" data-time="1384545243">
<div>


Who surpassed him outside of Clendening? Dahlbeck? I didn't see that in Rockford. Olsen looked NHL ready, we just have a log jam for him not to be in.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


 </p>


Svedberg... You didn't see him because he was injured.</p>


 </p>


I also disagree in the one games I've seen live, the two Ive watched on AHL and the 7 I've listened too Olsen was ready, other than 6th 7th not getting the minutes he would need to continue to develop either way.</p>


 </p>


He may be but in the last two years, he's definitely regressed.  Which is exactly what the Hawks brass have thought as well.</p>

 

[R K]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MassHavoc" data-cid="214142" data-time="1384545298">
<div>


I don't consider Saad a prospect anymore. Guy is on the team and not going anywhere...</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


No but when he was and the Hawks were looking to "upgrade" he was the player 90% was asking for.  Thus he was an untradable asset.  Now Jim has a point but other teams are not offerring guys like Stamkos/Crosby/Weber ect ect... So in turn prospects like that are untradeable. </p>


 </p>


Mcneil is also one.  Teams have been trying to part us with him since the draft.</p>