SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

chiguy27

chiguy27
Member Since
Jun. 29, 2017
Favourite Team
Chicago Blackhawks
Forum Posts
19
Posts per Day
0.0
Forum: Armchair-GMSep. 15, 2018 at 11:07 a.m.
Thread: Duchene 3
I don't think this trade is appropriate for several reasons:

First, despite Ottawa's return for EK, you shouldn't assume they will take on everyone else's spare assets for an elite scorer. Both Anisimov and Murphy are depth pieces that suit the Hawks' system under Q; not sure Ottawa would envision integrating them the same way. I think the Hawks could trade for Duchene (along the lines of packaging Krys and a first rounder), but that leads to my second critique of this trade.

Duchene seems to be a vacuum for team chemistry. He's undoubtedly a proven elite scorer in the league and has even demonstrated this at the international level with Team Canada, but how many teams has he helped succeed? The Avs made the playoffs once with him and last year, without him, they gave the Preds a run for their money in the first round. We remember how the Hawks fared against the Preds in 2017, right?

Third, so many folks that post about the Hawks on this forum bemoan the contract terms for guys like Keith and Seabrook, even though they HAVE been good with the Hawks. Now You're suggesting a 7-yr/$8 mil deal for guy that has been individually good and never made a team great. And on top of that, most of this contract would pay out after Duchene turns 30. This doesn't make fiscal sense in a cap-strained league that boasts a high level of talent parity amongst clubs.

A move like this seems desperate and unnecessary. The Hawks know what they have in Anisimov and Murphy (even if the latter is injured) and really can't afford to gamble with draft picks. The team resides in the tenuous position between "win-now" and "sustain for the future." I don't see Duchene pushing this team back above the Jets and Preds, offensively or defensively, and that, my friend, is goal numero uno when you are last in the division.

You share some creative suggestions on this forum, but this one is a stinker.
Forum: Armchair-GMJun. 9, 2018 at 10:18 a.m.
Thread: Strictly based on rumors
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Stan_Bowman</b></div><div>I think that’s a heavy overpayment for Faulk and Darls. Don’t get me wrong, I love Scott as much as any Blackhawks fans do, but his contract being moved from Carolina would be more benificial to Carolina than to Chicago even with salary retained. I’m not sure Scott wants to go back to backup either, so if we do take his contract back I think Carolina would have to lessen the price of Faulk. Anisimov and a third or second rounder is a good deal in my eyes.

If Darling is a key part of this trade, I’m sure we are dealing from a position of strength.</div></div>

I agree with the above comment, mostly. Darling might be better suited to a backup role in Chicago, but I'm not sure the player wants that (although that may not really matter). I also agree that it's too much to essentially acquire ONE player. I'd actually limit this trade to the 1st rounder (#27) and possibly one prospect for Faulk alone. Anisimov is not a top-6 center, but he is still a good center, and the Hawks don't really have to rationalize the high salary until next year when they'd look to extend Schmaltz to a longer term deal for more money. Anyway, if the Hawks can pull off a deal for Faulk, I also like the idea of moving Murphy for a pick. If a team is desperate enough for a D-man, maybe a 1st or high 2nd, as you've shown with NYI.

I'll give it a four for realism.
Forum: Armchair-GMApr. 8, 2018 at 7:03 a.m.
Thread: back
I'll rate this a 3 because I think there's merit in the Hawks going after a guy like Galchenuyk. He's young, versatile as a forward, signed to a reasonable contract, and would likely contribute around 50 pts as a third center or top-six winger. I think the deal terms make sense too, although I think the returning 4th rounder should be Montreal's 3rd for '18, and I'm not sure the Habs would care much about Iacopelli. This deal could be possible...

The Bernier and Wingels signings are also plausible - both meet some need (depth forward and capable backup netminder). I'm less confident in the deals proposed for Cole and Nash. I think both of those contracts are too much for both; I'd offer Cole around $3M and Nash about the same.

The RFA signings look good, although I think the Hawks would want to move Murphy if they really want to bring back TVR. Murphy is overpaid for his level of performance (bottom pair DMan) - $3.85M for 4 more years, yikes. I'd rather see at least half of Murphy's contract go to TVR, while another team pays Murphy to take minutes on their third D pairing.

Absolutely need to sign Jokiharju, that's not a given - credit here for making that happen. I really think he'll get to play around 4-6 games in October.

Highmore and the pick should be enough for AZ to absorb Hossa's contract. Although, this only comes to fruition if the Hawks REALLY need the extra breathing room to sign a key player. Otherwise, Hossa's LTIR hit doesn't really impact the Hawks too much.

Also, I'd think the Hawks could retain the 3rd rounder to Carolina, or at least one of the players. I think the Canes want to re-sign TVR, but I don't think they would have a death-grip on him.
Forum: Armchair-GMApr. 8, 2018 at 6:36 a.m.
Thread: Because you Can't undo a trade
The Neal signing is interesting, but I expect he'll get a four year offer from somewhere else. Also, Neal's production is likely to decline or not exceed 50 points. Not sure a guy north of 30 yrs-old topping out at 40-45 points is an ideal option for the Hawks as they look to become relevant again.

The Shattenkirk deal is also a novel prospect, but I don't think the package of Murphy and Gustafsson makes much sense for either team. Shatty is a good scoring defenseman, but is noted for his occasional lapse in transition coverage. In a lot of ways, Gustafsson is a poor man's Shattenkirk right now, who might emerge with more defensive stability over the next couple seasons. Mind you, Shatty is owed $6.6+ against the cap for 3 more years. That's like another Seabrook contract for a B+ defenseman who will be 30 yrs-old next season. I think the Hawks are better served developing Gustafsson and Forsling, signing Jokiharju/letting him compete for a roster spot, and seeing how this year's draft plays out. At 7-9 in the draft this year, the Hawks have a shot at 2 very solid D-Man prospects. In all, the 18-19 season might be another scrappy defensive campaign, but after that the Hawks look to be younger and more capable at the blue-line without a regrettably overpaid Shattenkirk.

All your other signings make pretty good sense. I might swap the $$ offers on Hino and Duclair and offer Martinsen a little more.
Forum: Armchair-GMMar. 21, 2018 at 9:57 a.m.
Thread: Blackhawks 18-19
It's true the Hawks don't have first rights to negotiate with either of those guys, but the "restriction" on RFA's has limits, specifically with regard to arbitration eligible players, which both Stone and Miller are. The hunch is that Ottawa lowballs Stone and that TB won't quite be able to afford what Miller can get on the open market. So, this is an OPTIMISTIC outlook, where several conditions come to fruition. A) both/either Stone and Miller go to arbitration and the teams each reject the terms they are rendered by the arbitrator, rendering them UFA's (this is what happened with Antti Niemi after the '10 Cup and he ended up with SJS). And B) the NHL raises the Cap to $80M giving the Hawks some breathing room. So, RFA's can work like this, but it takes some good fortune and an optimistic cap increase. BL: Hawks NEED another goal scorer/puck possessor and either or both Stone and Miller give them this feature. Alternatively, Ottawa or TB could entertain trades prior to arbitration if they don't think they can sign these players. That would be similar to what Bowman did with Saad after the 2015 Cup. I guess I should have put all of this in the description...