HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   Proposal: Chicago-San Jose (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1315255)

ColdSteel2 01-03-2013 08:58 AM

Chicago-San Jose
 
:hawks
Harri Sateri

:sharks
Michael Frolik

Just a simple hockey deal. Sharks get someone for their third line, Hawks clear a little cap and get someone to compete for the backup job. With Greiss and Stalock, Sateri seems expendable to me.

Falco5 01-03-2013 09:41 AM

With Sateri the youngest, it would probably be Greiss or Stalock that gets traded if anyone at all.

StringerBell 01-03-2013 09:44 AM

I don't see San Jose as eager to take on overpaid depth guys for prospects, depending on how far the cap comes down that is.

Sevanston 01-03-2013 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falco5 (Post 57059395)
With Sateri the youngest, it would probably be Greiss or Stalock that gets traded if anyone at all.

What would we need to give in order to get Greiss?

CBJenga 01-03-2013 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sevanston (Post 57062223)
What would we need to give in order to get Greiss?

Honestly, it's probably less than to get Sateri/Stalock. Nothing that the org has done has shown any faith in Greiss, whereas they've heaped praise on both those prospects heavily and seem to think that one or the other is the heir-apparent.

EDIT: Specifically I think the org views it Stalock >~ Sateri >>> Greiss, but they want the first two to develop, and thus they're better off in the minors.

ColdSteel2 01-03-2013 12:07 PM

Well, Greiss works out better for us anyway so sounds like a good deal. We just want a backup that can push Crawford and Greiss can be that guy.

Hawkaholic 01-03-2013 12:15 PM

Greiss isn;t going to push Crawford anymore than Emery has, we need someone better than Greiss and Emery if we are keeping Crawford.

ColdSteel2 01-03-2013 12:26 PM

Well, we disagree there. Greiss is a definite improvement to the backup spot, not the one we need necessarily, I agree with you there, but it is nonetheless an improvement and a guy who comes pretty cheap too. Then maybe we move Crawford and use the space we have after buyouts to sign Backstrom.

Backstrom
Greiss

That's a hell of an improvement to the goaltending situation.

Sevanston 01-03-2013 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hawkaholic (Post 57065609)
Greiss isn;t going to push Crawford anymore than Emery has, we need someone better than Greiss and Emery if we are keeping Crawford.

Greiss has been better than Emery over the last two years.

I don't really mind Emery, he's not a horrible backup. But Greiss is better. He's a decent upgrade for a low cost.

That said, I don't see any of the three being complete solutions to the starting goalie situation.

Blackhawkswincup 01-03-2013 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coldsteelonice84 (Post 57066001)
Well, we disagree there. Greiss is a definite improvement to the backup spot, not the one we need necessarily, I agree with you there, but it is nonetheless an improvement and a guy who comes pretty cheap too. Then maybe we move Crawford and use the space we have after buyouts to sign Backstrom.

Backstrom
Greiss

That's a hell of an improvement to the goaltending situation.

Hawks cant afford a big $$$ goalie going forward with cap declining

Also simple fact is that we are stuck with Emery for this year (He is signed to 1 yr deal)

And if Hawks traded for a goalie I would imagine the Hawks would be looking for a more longterm solution (Bernier for example)

Juxtaposer 01-03-2013 12:47 PM

I'd probably move Greiss for Frolik. I like Frolik, and I also think Stalock is ready for an NHL backup job.

DuckEatinShark 01-03-2013 01:20 PM

Greiss for Frolik, done.

Sateri for Frolik, I can live with that too.

It's time we trade our position of strength (goalie prospect pool) into something we can actually use. We can put Frolik on our 3rd line with Wingels and Galiardi.

Hawkaholic 01-03-2013 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sevanston (Post 57066159)
Greiss has been better than Emery over the last two years.

I don't really mind Emery, he's not a horrible backup. But Greiss is better. He's a decent upgrade for a low cost.

That said, I don't see any of the three being complete solutions to the starting goalie situation.

I'm not arguing that he's better, but not that much better that he will push Crawford anymore than Emery did. We need a big improvement, not a minor one.

ColdSteel2 01-03-2013 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hawkaholic (Post 57070533)
I'm not arguing that he's better, but not that much better that he will push Crawford anymore than Emery did. We need a big improvement, not a minor one.

Agreed, but let's take the minor one while we look for a major one. Then if we have the problem of having too many quality goalies, we can start waiving / dealing them off. We are far from that right now though, hence why we should take what we can. We want to clear Frolik's cap, have a ton of forwards, weak on goaltending, San Jose is the exact opposite. Seems like a logical trade.

Hawkaholic 01-03-2013 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coldsteelonice84 (Post 57071181)
Agreed, but let's take the minor one while we look for a major one. Then if we have the problem of having too many quality goalies, we can start waiving / dealing them off. We are far from that right now though, hence why we should take what we can. We want to clear Frolik's cap, have a ton of forwards, weak on goaltending, San Jose is the exact opposite. Seems like a logical trade.

I just dont see the point. Greiss will get us maybe 2 or 3 more wins a year, and if he's the starter in the playoffs, we are in as much trouble as we are with the other 2 goalies.

Burn it down at the end of this season and bring in a quality starter.

WTFetus 01-03-2013 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer (Post 57066847)
I'd probably move Greiss for Frolik. I like Frolik, and I also think Stalock is ready for an NHL backup job.

I would too. But as you've noted in the other topics, the Sharks aren't really in a position to add 2+ million in salary. Though I guess we can gauge the problem better when the new CBA comes out.

Pinkfloyd 01-03-2013 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hawkaholic (Post 57076069)
I just dont see the point. Greiss will get us maybe 2 or 3 more wins a year, and if he's the starter in the playoffs, we are in as much trouble as we are with the other 2 goalies.

Burn it down at the end of this season and bring in a quality starter.

I think if you put Greiss in with Crawford and give him opportunities to take the job, he eventually will and will flourish. He's got solid starter potential in him. He just needs to be given a real chance, imo.

WTFetus 01-03-2013 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd (Post 57087717)
I think if you put Greiss in with Crawford and give him opportunities to take the job, he eventually will and will flourish.

What are you basing this on? Crawford already has two seasons under his belt of being a starter vs. Greiss' 0. He has just as good of a chance, if not better, of having a bounce back season.

Pinkfloyd 01-03-2013 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WTFetus (Post 57087829)
What are you basing this on? Crawford already has two seasons under his belt of being a starter vs. Greiss' 0. He has just as good of a chance, if not better, of having a bounce back season.

Based on what I believe the ceilings are for both individuals and who would be better if given the same opportunities. I see more potential in Greiss than I do in Crawford but Greiss has to be in the right situation for him to realize that potential. I doubt it happens in San Jose with McLellan at the helm. He needs a coach more willing to give him chances now and again rather than falling back to riding the #1 guy every time regardless of the situation.

WTFetus 01-03-2013 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd (Post 57088205)
Based on what I believe the ceilings are for both individuals and who would be better if given the same opportunities. I see more potential in Greiss than I do in Crawford but Greiss has to be in the right situation for him to realize that potential. I doubt it happens in San Jose with McLellan at the helm. He needs a coach more willing to give him chances now and again rather than falling back to riding the #1 guy every time regardless of the situation.

But that's your personal bias. :p:
I know you like Greiss, and you probably haven't seen Crawford enough to compare their ceilings.

Pinkfloyd 01-04-2013 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WTFetus (Post 57088259)
But that's your personal bias. :p:
I know you like Greiss, and you probably haven't seen Crawford enough to compare their ceilings.

Uh...all of a sudden you know what I probably have or haven't seen? Look, I know it's not the most logical argument based on statistics but goalies at their age isn't really about that. If anything, there hasn't been enough of Greiss to see his ceilings considering his sporadic usage by his coaches that are doing him a disservice since he's earned more than he's gotten with them.

Any Colour You Like 01-04-2013 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coldsteelonice84 (Post 57066001)
Well, we disagree there. Greiss is a definite improvement to the backup spot, not the one we need necessarily, I agree with you there, but it is nonetheless an improvement and a guy who comes pretty cheap too. Then maybe we move Crawford and use the space we have after buyouts to sign Backstrom.

Backstrom
Greiss

That's a hell of an improvement to the goaltending situation.

Greiss is OK but your burning hate for Emery undoubtedly plays the biggest factor into your statement here. COULD Greiss be an improvement? Absolutely. IS he a definite improvement over Emery? That's a bit of a stretch.

WTFetus 01-04-2013 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd (Post 57088577)
Uh...all of a sudden you know what I probably have or haven't seen? Look, I know it's not the most logical argument based on statistics but goalies at their age isn't really about that. If anything, there hasn't been enough of Greiss to see his ceilings considering his sporadic usage by his coaches that are doing him a disservice since he's earned more than he's gotten with them.

Yeah, you probably haven't seen enough of Crawford. That's a pretty safe bet in my opinion.
All I'm saying is that you seem awfully sure of yourself with the "he eventually will and will flourish". Even you just said that there hasn't been enough of Greiss to see his ceiling, so how do you know he has a higher ceiling than Crawford? I'm just getting the facts straight before Blackhawks fans start calling you out for saying a goalie who played 38 games in the NHL will take the starting role from a goalie who was their starter for 2 seasons (and stood on his head in the 10-11 playoffs).

Pinkfloyd 01-04-2013 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WTFetus (Post 57089319)
Yeah, you probably haven't seen enough of Crawford. That's a pretty safe bet in my opinion.
All I'm saying is that you seem awfully sure of yourself with the "he eventually will and will flourish". Even you just said that there hasn't been enough of Greiss to see his ceiling, so how do you know he has a higher ceiling than Crawford? I'm just getting the facts straight before Blackhawks fans start calling you out for saying a goalie who played 38 games in the NHL will take the starting role from a goalie who was their starter for 2 seasons (and stood on his head in the 10-11 playoffs).

Are you kidding me with this? I'm not the one using words like probably and safe bet when it comes to someone you don't even know. You conveniently left out that that line was preceded by "I think" rather than this assumptive garbage you've been putting out here over what I've seen.

Keep your baseless opinions about what anyone else that isn't you has seen to yourself because it is useless conjecture, and in this instance, is simply wrong.

WTFetus 01-04-2013 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd (Post 57092951)
Are you kidding me with this? I'm not the one using words like probably and safe bet when it comes to someone you don't even know. You conveniently left out that that line was preceded by "I think" rather than this assumptive garbage you've been putting out here over what I've seen.

Keep your baseless opinions about what anyone else that isn't you has seen to yourself because it is useless conjecture, and in this instance, is simply wrong.

"I think" doesn't make it any less of a personal guarantee in this case. In your previous post, you said yourself that you haven't seen enough of Greiss to judge his ceiling. Again, if that's the case, how do you know Greiss has a higher ceiling than Crawford? Your personal bias is getting in the way, which honestly isn't a surprise. You're putting him on a pedestal and you're giving Crawford the short end of the straw.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:11 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.