HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Chicago Blackhawks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie
Notices

Goalie Conundrum thread (2013 edition)

View Poll Results: Our Goalie Situation - What's the Fix?
Stick with Crawford - he'll bounce back 28 36.84%
Assume Emery Will Become Our # 1 4 5.26%
Wait for a Prospect to Be Ready (plz specify who) 3 3.95%
Trade for a Goalie (plz specify who) 21 27.63%
Sign a free agent Goalie (plz specify who) 0 0%
Reconcile ourselves to the fact we're weak in goal and our strength will come from elsewhere 17 22.37%
Other (plz specify) 3 3.95%
Voters: 76. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-15-2013, 05:49 PM
  #76
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,201
vCash: 500
Bernier is an RFA this coming offseason. He will be easier to acquire at that time.

Hawkaholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2013, 04:28 AM
  #77
DisgruntledHawkFan
Moderator
Blackhawk Down
 
DisgruntledHawkFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 34,852
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to DisgruntledHawkFan
I'd do the Hammer trade, but that's mostly because I really like Smith.

DisgruntledHawkFan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2013, 05:12 AM
  #78
Bubba88
Toews = Savior
 
Bubba88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bavaria
Country: Germany
Posts: 28,348
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyJet View Post
Sure... and what tree shall we pick him from?

The condensed schedule is going to be gruelling for goalies, and no team will want to trade away what the have. I won't be surprised if even Canucks ride out the year with Luongo. There's not a surplus, that's for sure.
weaken the D to NOT upgrade the Goalie is not a move you make. We have to be patient.


after reading that we talked about Bernier, I think we have a good chance to get him within the next 5 months

Bubba88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2013, 05:23 AM
  #79
DisgruntledHawkFan
Moderator
Blackhawk Down
 
DisgruntledHawkFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 34,852
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to DisgruntledHawkFan
Bernier is a potential upgrade. Just like Bishop. Giving us a solid third line center or an elite fourth line guy like Smith is well worth the lateral move on defense. Hammer can be replaced via UFA at 3.5 million.

DisgruntledHawkFan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2013, 09:19 AM
  #80
BobbyJet
Casual fan - Free Q
 
BobbyJet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Dundas, Ontario. Can
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,637
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba88 View Post
weaken the D to NOT upgrade the Goalie is not a move you make. We have to be patient.


after reading that we talked about Bernier, I think we have a good chance to get him within the next 5 months


I didnít mention a dman for a goalie. It was McNeil and a first round pick that I agreed would be a good gamble to shore up our goaltending now. I like Hammer and want him here, despite the abuse he gets on this board - and dmen are getting scooped up for depth purposes around the league. Itís tough to lose a prospect like McNeil but we canít keep them all. And this ďbe patientĒ comment I keep hearing is getting old. We need to be a contender now, and I think most agree the team is close but goaltending is the big stumbling block. Going into the season with only CC and Emery, and no other NHL ready goaltender in the system is not an option in my book.

BobbyJet is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2013, 09:26 AM
  #81
Illinihockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 19,764
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DisgruntledHawkFan View Post
I'd do the Hammer trade, but that's mostly because I really like Smith.
Smith lets you play Bolland at 2nd line center.

Illinihockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2013, 04:57 PM
  #82
Bubba88
Toews = Savior
 
Bubba88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bavaria
Country: Germany
Posts: 28,348
vCash: 500
OK, Bobby.

for McNeill and a 1st we have to expect way more than a project like Bernier or Bishop.

Bubba88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2013, 05:08 PM
  #83
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,697
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba88 View Post
OK, Bobby.

for McNeill and a 1st we have to expect way more than a project like Bernier or Bishop.
Why? It's a half decent prospect and a late round pick.

McNeil has yet to really prove anything even now. He is 31st in scoring in the WHL in his year 19 year. He will be 20 in 2 months. He is our 5th-6th best prospect at a position that is much easier to fill.

Goalie prospects are always worth more because they are much rarer and Bernier, Bishop and Lenher where all higher rated prospects then McNeil.

Better players, at a more desired position = a decent return. McNeil and a pick isn't exactly selling the farm either.

This goes back to again people highly overrating our prospects and underrating other teams prospects.

Sir Psycho T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2013, 05:29 PM
  #84
Bubba88
Toews = Savior
 
Bubba88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bavaria
Country: Germany
Posts: 28,348
vCash: 500
goalie prospects aren't worth much... That's why it would be stupid to trade McNeill AND a 1st for an unproven young(er) goalie.

Take that 1st and draft a goalie if you want it that way.

Bubba88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2013, 06:06 PM
  #85
BobbyJet
Casual fan - Free Q
 
BobbyJet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Dundas, Ontario. Can
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,637
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba88 View Post
goalie prospects aren't worth much... That's why it would be stupid to trade McNeill AND a 1st for an unproven young(er) goalie.

Take that 1st and draft a goalie if you want it that way.
You just don't get it. If we are building for the future, then we should seriously look at trading Hossa, probably Sharp and by the time the team is ready to contend who knows where Keith's game will be. I don't know how many times this needs to be said.

And goalie prospects aren't worth much but goalie draft picks are? That makes no sense. At least we have seen (small samples granted) what Bishop and Bernier can do at the NHL level, and I think it is safe to say that both are better than Crawford.

BobbyJet is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2013, 07:34 PM
  #86
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,201
vCash: 500
I love the people that say this team will be lucky to make the playoffs, and then those same people say our 1st will be a late round pick...

Hawkaholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2013, 07:37 PM
  #87
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyJet View Post
You just don't get it. If we are building for the future, then we should seriously look at trading Hossa, probably Sharp and by the time the team is ready to contend who knows where Keith's game will be. I don't know how many times this needs to be said.

And goalie prospects aren't worth much but goalie draft picks are? That makes no sense. At least we have seen (small samples granted) what Bishop and Bernier can do at the NHL level, and I think it is safe to say that both are better than Crawford.
Because you can't win when Hossa is 37, and Sharp is 34.
Not only that, but it s smart to build for the future, and go for it at the same time. Look what happened when Dale didn't plan for the future, 2 first round exits.

Hawkaholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2013, 08:00 PM
  #88
BobbyJet
Casual fan - Free Q
 
BobbyJet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Dundas, Ontario. Can
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,637
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
Because you can't win when Hossa is 37, and Sharp is 34.
Not only that, but it s smart to build for the future, and go for it at the same time. Look what happened when Dale didn't plan for the future, 2 first round exits.
And Chicago is in a great position to do just that, if Stan would get off his arse.

BobbyJet is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2013, 10:21 PM
  #89
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,697
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
I love the people that say this team will be lucky to make the playoffs, and then those same people say our 1st will be a late round pick...
As usual you are putting things in peoples mouth, that's to be expected.

I never said the Hawks would be lucky to make the play-offs. I have said that the Hawks missing in the play-offs is a possibility. Not a likely one but there is that chance, if Hossa isn't ready having not played in so long, if Crawford doesn't bounce back at all, if the rookies and new guys don't jell. I think this team will make the play-offs, I just think this team missing the play-offs isn't the no chance possibility many people think.

Sir Psycho T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2013, 10:30 PM
  #90
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,697
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
Because you can't win when Hossa is 37, and Sharp is 34.
Not only that, but it s smart to build for the future, and go for it at the same time. Look what happened when Dale didn't plan for the future, 2 first round exits.
That's nice, but in real life that just doesn't happen anymore. Dynastys in todays NHL are a thing of the past, your either a cup contending team, or your building for the future, you aren't both.

Fact is the Hawks window is about 3 years, as I have said many times before, as nice as our prospects are none of them are Hossa, Sharp or Keith, and when those guys time is up that is likely it for this Hawks team. I know everyone wants to believe that this team has the amazing prospect pool that will win lots of cups but that just isn't the case. Most of our prospects are forwards, most of them will be good 2nd or 3rd line players if they pan out, only 1-2 will ever be 1st line players on a Cup winning team, TT, maybe Saad. There are little to no defensive prospects and we have 0 goaltending. So while it's all nice to think this team is primed for a Cup run for the next 10 years, the realism is it's not.

Sir Psycho T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2013, 10:48 PM
  #91
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,201
vCash: 500
No team in the NHL is built to be a contender for 10yrs, be realistic.Lots of teams are always bringing in young guys and holding onto their picks too. So yeah, a few teams build for the future and contend at the same time. Look at PIT, and Philly.

Hawkaholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2013, 10:56 PM
  #92
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,697
vCash: 500
The goalie situation stands as the biggest issue with the Hawks because the team was the 3rd worst in goaltending and nothing was done to fix it.

We kept the same two goalies, both of whom played horribly last year. If you want to give Crawford another chance I am ok with that but then you need to bring in someone who can be a possible #1 if Crawford doesn't bounce back.

Instead Bowman decides to resign Emery for whatever reason and to run with the same goalies who were 3rd worst last year, so now if Crawford doesn't bounce back, or gets injured, we are relying on Emery to take us to the Cup and his backup would be ?, Hutton? All in all a bad situation and one that is the fault of Bowman refusing to upgrade our goaltending.

Sir Psycho T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2013, 10:59 PM
  #93
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,697
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
No team in the NHL is built to be a contender for 10yrs, be realistic.Lots of teams are always bringing in young guys and holding onto their picks too. So yeah, a few teams build for the future and contend at the same time. Look at PIT, and Philly.
Most teams hang on to a few of their best prospects and move lesser ones, the Hawks refuse to move even those who look like they won't ever pan out.

Sir Psycho T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2013, 05:14 AM
  #94
Bubba88
Toews = Savior
 
Bubba88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bavaria
Country: Germany
Posts: 28,348
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyJet View Post
You just don't get it. If we are building for the future, then we should seriously look at trading Hossa, probably Sharp and by the time the team is ready to contend who knows where Keith's game will be. I don't know how many times this needs to be said.

And goalie prospects aren't worth much but goalie draft picks are? That makes no sense. At least we have seen (small samples granted) what Bishop and Bernier can do at the NHL level, and I think it is safe to say that both are better than Crawford.
I don't get it? More the other way around. I realize that Bernier or Bishop are not an upgrade over Crawford. Why throw away assets like McNeill and a 1st for a question mark? If we get Anderson back to Chiacgo, I'd consider it. You know, that Goalie that is an upgrade over what we have. That Goalie that has proven it.

You act like Hossa and Sharp will suck in 2-3 years. WHY? same question, other player. Why should Keith only have about 3 years left? Stupid to think so.


I never said goalie draft picks are worth anything. I know that a 1st round pick is worth something. I know that if we want a great goalie prospect, we have to take one with the 1st. Maybe Bowman wanted Subban or Vasilevski with our 1st and he did take TT because TT fell that far. Bowman made no mistake there and has taken the BPA over the "need".

Bishop and Bernier aren't better than Craw. I'm down on him too, but he gets way too much hate around here. Craw would be better with better coaching. Hell Smith was a Vezina nominee because of the system over his skills.
Hawks need to do what the Bears did. Clean the house. It starts with Q & Friends and ends with Waite as Goalie coach.

If you want a guy like Bernier or Bishop, you can easily find a goalie in europe. Difference is, that those guys PLAYED hockey in the last 2-3 years instead of sitting on the bench and WATCHING hockey on a daily basis. Goaltending is not different in any country.


If we trade McNeill AND a 1st for a goalie, it's better a proven goalie that would be worth it and is an upgrade over Crawford.

Bubba88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2013, 06:39 AM
  #95
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,697
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba88 View Post
I don't get it? More the other way around. I realize that Bernier or Bishop are not an upgrade over Crawford. Why throw away assets like McNeill and a 1st for a question mark? If we get Anderson back to Chiacgo, I'd consider it. You know, that Goalie that is an upgrade over what we have. That Goalie that has proven it.

You act like Hossa and Sharp will suck in 2-3 years. WHY? same question, other player. Why should Keith only have about 3 years left? Stupid to think so.


I never said goalie draft picks are worth anything. I know that a 1st round pick is worth something. I know that if we want a great goalie prospect, we have to take one with the 1st. Maybe Bowman wanted Subban or Vasilevski with our 1st and he did take TT because TT fell that far. Bowman made no mistake there and has taken the BPA over the "need".

Bishop and Bernier aren't better than Craw. I'm down on him too, but he gets way too much hate around here. Craw would be better with better coaching. Hell Smith was a Vezina nominee because of the system over his skills.
Hawks need to do what the Bears did. Clean the house. It starts with Q & Friends and ends with Waite as Goalie coach.

If you want a guy like Bernier or Bishop, you can easily find a goalie in europe. Difference is, that those guys PLAYED hockey in the last 2-3 years instead of sitting on the bench and WATCHING hockey on a daily basis. Goaltending is not different in any country.


If we trade McNeill AND a 1st for a goalie, it's better a proven goalie that would be worth it and is an upgrade over Crawford.
Some of you guys are clueless, in what Manti T'eo made up world does a mid level prospect and a late first round pick net your a proven #1 goalie?

Plus if the Sens where so willing to give up on Anderson I would be worried, why are you giving him up? Is it because you know the guys you have are better.

Again I ask this to people who state about not trading prospects for unproven assets, WHATS THE FING DIFFERENCE? I'm sorry did I miss the part where Mark McNeill is a proven NHL player, where he scored tons of NHL points in his career? Where he scored that big goal in the play-offs that onetime? did I miss where in 2013 the Hawks had a special clause that with their first round pick instead of drafting an undrafted player they could take a NHL player from a team? Or is it that you like most of the people on here, hero worship any stiff in a Hawks jersey and trash any player not because you have 0 clue what the heck it is your talking about.

I am amazed at how many people on here won't trade our prospects because they have this amazing future but don't want any teams other prospects because they haven't proven anything.Wheres the logic?

You know why you trade for prospects, because you can get them for cheaper. Imagine how much Braden Holtby would have cost a team interested last off-season, imagine how much he would cost today? If believe enough in your GM to draft players then you'd better believe in him enough to trade for them too.

Sir Psycho T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2013, 07:52 AM
  #96
HockeySensible
Smug Teuvo
 
HockeySensible's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,590
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Psycho T View Post
Some of you guys are clueless, in what Manti T'eo made up world does a mid level prospect and a late first round pick net your a proven #1 goalie?

Plus if the Sens where so willing to give up on Anderson I would be worried, why are you giving him up? Is it because you know the guys you have are better.

Again I ask this to people who state about not trading prospects for unproven assets, WHATS THE FING DIFFERENCE? I'm sorry did I miss the part where Mark McNeill is a proven NHL player, where he scored tons of NHL points in his career? Where he scored that big goal in the play-offs that onetime? did I miss where in 2013 the Hawks had a special clause that with their first round pick instead of drafting an undrafted player they could take a NHL player from a team? Or is it that you like most of the people on here, hero worship any stiff in a Hawks jersey and trash any player not because you have 0 clue what the heck it is your talking about.

I am amazed at how many people on here won't trade our prospects because they have this amazing future but don't want any teams other prospects because they haven't proven anything.Wheres the logic?

You know why you trade for prospects, because you can get them for cheaper. Imagine how much Braden Holtby would have cost a team interested last off-season, imagine how much he would cost today? If believe enough in your GM to draft players then you'd better believe in him enough to trade for them too.
Joakim Nordstrom is a mid-level prospect, Chris Calnan, Mike Paliotta.. etc. Mark McNeill is a very good prospect with 2nd line centre potential in the NHL and a solid likelyhood of, at least, being a above-average 3rd liner in the NHL.

The difference is, Mark McNeill is a quality asset, as is a 1st round pick. Why would you give up those assets for unproven players in a position on your team that's already considered quite weak? It's not about people not wanting to give to get, it's about people wanting more of a sure thing when giving up quality assets.

Like I said to you before, if Chicago had quality goaltending, if there were no questions about Crawford other than his long-term future with the club, then it wouldn't be a big deal to trade a Mark McNeill for a Robin Lehner because you're giving up a high-quality, unproven asset in an area of strength (forward prospect depth) for a high-quality, unproven asset area of weakness (goaltending and goaltending prospect quality).. but the fact remains, Chicago's goaltending isn't strong and Robin Lehner is unproven, so why give up that asset for someone who you're not sure can be a quality goaltender in the NHL, even if it's looking good at this point, when you could give up the same asset for a proven starter? The Hawks are trying to win now. Robin Lehner will probably as good or better than Craig Anderson in 3-5 years, he may even be as good or better than him next year, but the fact remains that Robin Lehner hasn't proven anything in the NHL and the Hawks are trying to win now.

HockeySensible is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2013, 08:02 AM
  #97
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,697
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HossTheBoss View Post
Joakim Nordstrom is a mid-level prospect, Chris Calnan, Mike Paliotta.. etc. Mark McNeill is a very good prospect with 2nd line centre potential in the NHL and a solid likelyhood of, at least, being a above-average 3rd liner in the NHL.

The difference is, Mark McNeill is a quality asset, as is a 1st round pick. Why would you give up those assets for unproven players in a position on your team that's already considered quite weak? It's not about people not wanting to give to get, it's about people wanting more of a sure thing when giving up quality assets.

Like I said to you before, if Chicago had quality goaltending, if there were no questions about Crawford other than his long-term future with the club, then it wouldn't be a big deal to trade a Mark McNeill for a Robin Lehner because you're giving up a high-quality, unproven asset in an area of strength (forward prospect depth) for a high-quality, unproven asset area of weakness (goaltending and goaltending prospect quality).. but the fact remains, Robin Lehner is unproven, so why give up that asset for someone who you're not sure can be a quality goaltender in the NHL, even if it's looking good at this point, when you could give up the same asset for a proven starter? The Hawks are trying to win now. Robin Lehner will probably as good or better than Craig Anderson in 3-5 years, he may even be as good or better than him next year, but the fact remains that Robin Lehner hasn't proven anything in the NHL and the Hawks are trying to win now.
Because we're not sure McNeill can do anything either. That is everyones basis, why give up someone who hasn't proven anything for someone who hasn't proven anything. Because again neither have proven anything but accorinding to people who know a hell of a lot more them anyone on here, Bernier, Markstrom and Lehner will all be better players in the NHL then McNeill, and will do so at a much harder position to fill.

Because the Hawks are dripping with current NHL caliber forwards and future NHL caliber forwards and there have 0 NHL caliber goalies.

Because Anderson is who he is, a decent but nothing special goalie. Someone like Lehner, Markstrom, Bernier all have higher ceilings then Anderson ever will.

Because for everyone who saying give Crawford a chance, getting Anderson moves Crawford out of that chance for good and your basically moving him to an overpaid backup role. Getting someone younger, still gives Crawford his chance to prove himself and if he doesn't then you have someone who can take over for not just know but for the foreseeable future.

Sir Psycho T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2013, 08:08 AM
  #98
HockeySensible
Smug Teuvo
 
HockeySensible's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,590
vCash: 500
Psycho, you're badly missing the point. It's not about not wanting to move McNeill for Lehner because Lehner is unproven, it's about people rather moving McNeill for a goaltender who they know can be a #1 goaltender in the NHL this season.

I'd move McNeill for Lehner no problem. I like McNeill alot, but I love Lehner. But if I had to choose between Lehner or a proven #1 goaltender in the NHL, given Chicago's goaltending situation, and looking at this season and next, I'd take the proven #1 without thinking twice and would be more comfortable giving up McNeill or a simular prospect knowing that Chicago has, without doubt, gotten a goaltender that's better than Crawford.

HockeySensible is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2013, 08:13 AM
  #99
HockeySensible
Smug Teuvo
 
HockeySensible's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,590
vCash: 500
As for saying Bernier, Markstrom and Lehner are all projected to be better players than McNeill at their positions, that's true.. but it's also true that goaltenders are extremely difficult to project and are by far the hardest to get a real read on how they'll perform in the NHL. By a result, Lehner and Markstrom may have higher potentials, but they're also far more likely to flop in the NHL than McNeill or another forward prospect.

HockeySensible is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2013, 08:14 AM
  #100
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,697
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HossTheBoss View Post
Phsyco, you're badly missing the point. It's not about not wanting to move McNeill for Lehner because Lehner is unproven, it's about people rather moving McNeill for a goaltender who they know can be a #1 goaltender in the NHL.

I'd move McNeill for Lehner no problem. I like McNeill alot, but I love Lehner. But if I had to choose between Lehner or a proven #1 goaltender in the NHL, given Chicago's goaltending situation, and looking at this season and next, I'd take the proven #1 without thinking twice and would be more comfortable giving up McNeill or a simular prospect knowing that Chicago has, without doubt, gotten a goaltender that's better than Crawford.
Again though, McNeill isn't enough to get a team to give you a #1 goalie. I would love it too if the Hawks could package, McNeill, Beach, Danault and a pick for Lundqvist but it's not happening. If you want to get NHL players, especially NHL goalies, you have to give NHL players or top prospects and McNeil isn't a top prospect. Just look in the history of the NHL, few goalies traded and those that where, lots given up because of their importance.

Hell if Hawks fans are so desperate for a proven #1 goalie with playoff success, Roloson is a FA and hasn't retired yet. Proven goalie, nothing given up to get him, took a team to the Cup Finals, it's a win win right?

Sir Psycho T is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:50 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. @2017 All Rights Reserved.