HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   Proposal: Clendening to Minnesota (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1318473)

forthewild 01-08-2013 05:16 AM

Clendening to Minnesota
 
What would Chicago want for him.

obvious trade pieces are Seto, Clutter may be available, and we have Kuempur as a goalie prospect we might be willing to move.


obviously this can be a bigger deal then 1 for 1

Hawkaholic 01-08-2013 09:14 AM

Would want a goalie who is ready, like Hackett.
Clutterbuck could probably work too.

Bubba88 01-08-2013 04:47 PM

Clenny for Hackett or Clutterbuck and the Hawks would say yes without thinking twice about it.

HockeySensible 01-08-2013 05:18 PM

I don't think the Hawks would say yes without thinking twice for Clutterbuck alone.. but a trade for Hackett could work.

OpRedDawn* 01-08-2013 06:15 PM

dont like his name, don't want him on my team

this providence 01-08-2013 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bubba88 (Post 57304175)
Clenny for Hackett and the Hawks would say yes without thinking twice about it.

Done. Paperwork is on it's way.

Minnesota 01-08-2013 08:29 PM

Wild management's pretty high on Hackett. I don't think they would trade him hastily and risk having a thin goalie pipeline.

Kris Chreider 01-08-2013 08:41 PM

I think if we're going to trade for a D let's do Coyle for Despres.

Dr Jan Itor 01-08-2013 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kris Chreider (Post 57314765)
I think if we're going to trade for a D let's do Coyle for Despres.

Pass.

And pass on trading Hackett. Backstrom will be 35, Harding has MS and Gustafsson is still in Sweden. Plenty of other options to acquire a defenseman.

Mac DeMarco 01-08-2013 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OpRedDawn (Post 57308059)
dont like his name, don't want him on my team

A logical reason to not want a player :rolleyes:

forthewild 01-08-2013 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OpRedDawn (Post 57308059)
dont like his name, don't want him on my team

but he's buds with Coyle, we know how management recruits buddies so it totally works out.

I don't think Wild will want to swap hackett for him straight up, but any interest in Kuempur?

sketch22 01-08-2013 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by forthewild (Post 57318907)
I don't think Wild will want to swap hackett for him straight up, but any interest in Kuempur?

Didn't Kuempur have some injury issues? I don't think Bowman would trade Clendening for an unproven goaltender with health problems.

Bubba88 01-09-2013 05:25 AM

can add Emery if you want some depth in net ;)
you should just add a useless pick like 5th or 6th that Bowman can hope to hit the jackpot with this - which won't happen.

ThatGuy22 01-09-2013 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HossTheBoss (Post 57305671)
I don't think the Hawks would say yes without thinking twice for Clutterbuck alone.. but a trade for Hackett could work.

So the Hawks wont trade a D prospect for a proven 3rd/2nd line Tweener but will for an unproven goalie?

Interesting to say the least...

Minnesota 01-09-2013 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sketch22 (Post 57319331)
Didn't Kuempur have some injury issues? I don't think Bowman would trade Clendening for an unproven goaltender with health problems.

Nope.

krazyhawk 01-09-2013 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThatGuy22 (Post 57330415)
So the Hawks wont trade a D prospect for a proven 3rd/2nd line Tweener but will for an unproven goalie?

Interesting to say the least...

Hawks need goaltenders a lot more than wingers.There are no goalie prospects in their system that look to be #1 material.They have tons of possible tweener forwards.So its not as "interesting"as you think.In fact it's downright sensible when you think about it.

Blackhawkswincup 01-09-2013 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by forthewild (Post 57278167)
What would Chicago want for him.

obvious trade pieces are Seto, Clutter may be available, and we have Kuempur as a goalie prospect we might be willing to move.


obviously this can be a bigger deal then 1 for 1

Hackett is guy Hawks would want and need

Beukeboom Fan 01-09-2013 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThatGuy22 (Post 57330415)
So the Hawks wont trade a D prospect for a proven 3rd/2nd line Tweener but will for an unproven goalie?

Interesting to say the least...

I think that Clutterbuck is a UFA after this (shortened) year. Add in the Hawks prospect pool is deepest on the wing, and weakest in net, and moving Clendening for a potential long term solution in goal like Hackett makes a little more sense IMO.

Dr Jan Itor 01-09-2013 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beukeboom fan (Post 57347799)
i think that clutterbuck is a ufa after this (shortened) year. Add in the hawks prospect pool is deepest on the wing, and weakest in net, and moving clendening for a potential long term solution in goal like hackett makes a little more sense imo.

rfa.

this providence 01-09-2013 02:12 PM

Maybe it's just me, but if the Wild had a defensive prospect like Clendening with higher end offensive upside; there's no way I'd move him for an unproven goaltender if they had a hole at the NHL level. I think it's much easier to find a solution in net than it is to find a 20 year old mobile defender that can get on the score sheet.

Beukeboom Fan 01-09-2013 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by this providence (Post 57349483)
Maybe it's just me, but if the Wild had a defensive prospect like Clendening with higher end offensive upside; there's no way I'd move him for an unproven goaltender if they had a hole at the NHL level. I think it's much easier to find a solution in net than it is to find a 20 year old mobile defender that can get on the score sheet.

I understand your point, but if that sort of trade would work, the Hawks would be trading an unproven PMD they drafted in the 2nd round for an unproven goalie that has really high potential. I like both players involved, but Hackett is much closer to contributing to the Hawks, and looking at the depth chart, much more of an area of need to the Hawks than a PMD. I think the fans here (myself included) would see Hackett as a potential long term solution to the goaltending problem which the Hawks have had for 10+ years.

The Wild fans might be a little spoiled with the really strong goaltending you guys have had over the last 10 years. During that time, the Hawks have struggled with starters like Thibault, Khabibulin, Huet, Niemi, and Crawford. While they're were short runs of solid play - overall goaltending has been a consistent issue with the Hawks since Belfour in the early 90's and Jeff Hackett for a while in the mid-late 90's.

Maybe the organization would disagree - but I'd bet that 90% of the posters on this board would do that trade in a second. Maybe we're posting on a hockey board for a reason though, and not smart!

HockeySensible 01-09-2013 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThatGuy22 (Post 57330415)
So the Hawks wont trade a D prospect for a proven 3rd/2nd line Tweener but will for an unproven goalie?

Interesting to say the least...

Uh, Clendening isn't just a "D prospect". He's a very good offensive Dman, who's made a very nice transition from college to the AHL. Not a finished product yet, but still a very good transition and his potential is quite high.

Hawkaholic 01-09-2013 04:31 PM

IMO, one of Clendening or Leddy has to go in the next couple years, if you can improve your team now by moving 1 of them, you do it.

Dr Jan Itor 01-09-2013 04:33 PM

I'd probably do Clutterbuck for Clendening+

Bubba88 01-09-2013 04:33 PM

yep, a team with Keith and Leddy can trade Clenny if it brings us a goalie prospect like Hackett back. I'd be all over this trade


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:52 AM.

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.