View Single Post
Old
07-31-2010, 12:17 AM
  #30
Ginu
Registered User
 
Ginu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,696
vCash: 500
Chicago's gotten rid of half their team and now will probably lose their goalie too. Does anyone else think that they may have been better off losing one of their better players on a high salary? At least their depth and chemistry wouldn't be affected. Beyond Toews, Keith, Kane, Campbell (large contract) and Hossa (because of his contract), I'd have moved my next biggest contracts, Sharp, Versteeg (which they did) and I wouldn't have matched Hjalmarsson. Given what they've done I'd even have considered trading Seabrook. They've now become Tampa Bay of a few years ago. I suspect they'll have to deal one of their better players now for depth in the next few years. Heck, they should be targeting guys like our Subban who's a top pairing guy but would cost a hell of a lot talent wise but is soft on the cap. Not that we'd have been able to trade him, but when you're in that much trouble you have to get younger and cheaper, it's really the only way. Now they'll be forced into getting a guy like Turco who's over the hill and losing a young guy like Niemi after his arbitration result comes out on Saturday.

Ginu is offline