HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Chicago Blackhawks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

2013-14 Lines Discussion Thread

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-23-2013, 04:50 PM
  #51
SLarmer28
Registered User
 
SLarmer28's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,929
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HossTheBoss View Post
CAPGEEK.COM USER GENERATED ROSTER

FORWARDS

Bryan Bickell ($2.900m)
I would retain Bickell but for $2.000 million (home town discount) but no more than $2.25 million. Michael Frolik would need to be a salary cap casualty via trade or buyout in either case with Ben Smith as the replacement right winger on the fourth line.

You also need to trade Oduya to tender restricted free agents Leddy and Kruger. The Washington Capitals are suckers for a bad trade (refer to Martin Erat).

SLarmer28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-23-2013, 05:14 PM
  #52
HockeySensible
Smug Teuvo
 
HockeySensible's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,093
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLarmer28 View Post
I would retain Bickell but for $2.000 million (home town discount) but no more than $2.25 million. Michael Frolik would need to be a salary cap casualty via trade or buyout in either case with Ben Smith as the replacement right winger on the fourth line.

You also need to trade Oduya to tender restricted free agents Leddy and Kruger. The Washington Capitals are suckers for a bad trade (refer to Martin Erat).
Uh.. what? Did you not see the roster? The Hawks can fit both Kruger and Leddy in comfortably, while keeping Oduya.

HockeySensible is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-23-2013, 05:21 PM
  #53
SLarmer28
Registered User
 
SLarmer28's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,929
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HossTheBoss View Post
Uh.. what? Did you not see the roster? The Hawks can fit both Kruger and Leddy in comfortably, while keeping Oduya.
First, an NHL Franchise needs to ice a 23 man roster not a 22 man roster

Second, Carter Hutton is not a NHL goalie whatsover, he nothing more than an AHL nomad.

Third, you don't have enough of a salary cap buffer for injuries let alone potential roster upgrades at the trade deadline.

Fourth, Oduya is nothing more than a puck turnover machine and a playoff choke artist.

SLarmer28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-23-2013, 05:27 PM
  #54
HockeySensible
Smug Teuvo
 
HockeySensible's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,093
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLarmer28 View Post
First, an NHL Franchise needs to ice a 23 man roster not a 22 man roster

Second, Carter Hutton is not a NHL goalie whatsover, he nothing more than an AHL nomad.

Third, you don't have enough of a salary cap buffer for injuries let alone potential roster upgrades at the trade deadline.

Fourth, Oduya is nothing more than a puck turnover machine and a playoff choke artist.
First, an NHL franchise can only ice a 20-man roster.

Second, that was already addressed.

Third, there's more than enough of a "buffer". You clearly don't understand how the cap works.

Fourth, lawl.

HockeySensible is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-23-2013, 05:27 PM
  #55
Blackhawkswincup
Tornado Warning
 
Blackhawkswincup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicagoland
Country: United States
Posts: 118,096
vCash: 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLarmer28 View Post
I would retain Bickell but for $2.000 million (home town discount) but no more than $2.25 million. Michael Frolik would need to be a salary cap casualty via trade or buyout in either case with Ben Smith as the replacement right winger on the fourth line.

You also need to trade Oduya to tender restricted free agents Leddy and Kruger. The Washington Capitals are suckers for a bad trade (refer to Martin Erat).
Hawks buyouts of Montador/Olesz will make signing Leddy/Kruger easy

Blackhawkswincup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-23-2013, 05:31 PM
  #56
Blackhawkswincup
Tornado Warning
 
Blackhawkswincup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicagoland
Country: United States
Posts: 118,096
vCash: 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by HossTheBoss View Post
How is it a disaster? Even if Bickell only goes on to be a 15G/20A guy, that's a very moveable contract. I'd sign him for 3 years, and that should give McNeill enough time before he's ready to take over as the 3rd line RW.

The Bolland thing is pointless. It's clear you don't remember anything from the previous 5 years.

Hutton was just there. Meant to take his name out and put UFA. A UFA back-up at 1M.

You'd rather keep Frolik, at 2.33M, to play on the 4th line, than keep Bolland at 3.37M, to centre the third line, where he's one of the best checking centres in the league? Okay.
Point #1 - If Bickell plays like 2011/12 self then he will be worthless on the ice and have no value

Point #2 - What Bolland did in past has nothing to do with how terrible a player he is now

Point #3 - Ok that makes more sense

Point #4 - I can trust Frolik to work hard and help team in what role he is slotted. Cant say the same for Bolland who is lazy , always injured and just horrific player right now. I am sick of Bolland

Blackhawkswincup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-23-2013, 05:31 PM
  #57
SLarmer28
Registered User
 
SLarmer28's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,929
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HossTheBoss View Post
First, an NHL franchise can only ice a 20-man roster.
Not with regards to the salary cap.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HossTheBoss View Post
Third, there's more than enough of a "buffer". You clearly don't understand how the cap works.
Not unless a player is placed on LTIR.

SLarmer28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-23-2013, 05:34 PM
  #58
HockeySensible
Smug Teuvo
 
HockeySensible's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,093
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawkswincup View Post
Point #1 - If Bickell plays like 2011/12 self then he will be worthless on the ice and have no value

Point #2 - What Bolland did in past has nothing to do with how terrible a player he is now

Point #3 - Ok that makes more sense

Point #4 - I can trust Frolik to work hard and help team in what role he is slotted. Cant say the same for Bolland who is lazy , always injured and just horrific player right now. I am sick of Bolland
So, we can't trust Bickell's good season this year because the player he was last year might be his true "self".. but the past 5 years with Bolland must be ignored, because he's had an off year.

Okay.

HockeySensible is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-23-2013, 05:38 PM
  #59
HockeySensible
Smug Teuvo
 
HockeySensible's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,093
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLarmer28 View Post
Not with regards to the salary cap.

Not unless a player is placed on LTIR.
What are you talking about? Seriously.

An NHL franchise only needs to ice a 20-man roster. They can hold other players on their roster if they choose, but it's not a necessity.

How the salary cap works is, if a player is brought up do to an injury, the amount of money they'd earn against the cap would only reflect the amount of time they were on the roster. I'm not positive if it's games played or days, but if for instance Morin came up and played 2 games, his full .866M caphit wouldn't count towards the amount of cap used by the Blackhawks, only a small portion of that would, relative to the amount of time he was on the roster.

HockeySensible is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-23-2013, 05:48 PM
  #60
SLarmer28
Registered User
 
SLarmer28's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,929
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HossTheBoss View Post
What are you talking about? Seriously.

An NHL franchise only needs to ice a 20-man roster. They can hold other players on their roster if they choose, but it's not a necessity.

How the salary cap works is, if a player is brought up do to an injury, the amount of money they'd earn against the cap would only reflect the amount of time they were on the roster. I'm not positive if it's games played or days, but if for instance Morin came up and played 2 games, his full .866M caphit wouldn't count towards the amount of cap used by the Blackhawks, only a small portion of that would, relative to the amount of time he was on the roster.
Salary cap space is based upon a 23 man roster. Your salary cap generation was based upon a 22 man roster. You are one player short of the CBA requirement.

SLarmer28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-23-2013, 05:49 PM
  #61
HockeySensible
Smug Teuvo
 
HockeySensible's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,093
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLarmer28 View Post
Salary cap space is based upon a 23 man roster. Your salary cap generation was based upon a 22 man roster. You are one player short of the CBA requirement.
.

I'm done.

HockeySensible is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-23-2013, 08:08 PM
  #62
EbonyRaptor
Registered User
 
EbonyRaptor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Boonies
Country: United States
Posts: 3,244
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HossTheBoss View Post
How does trading Bolland for picks help Chicago in any way?
Unless Bolland turns back into the rat of yesteryear in the playoffs, his value for cost is not very good. Frolik is the same problem, although I think Frolik is a better value at $2.3M than Bolland is at $3.3M.

In fact, I think Stalberg would be worth what Bolland is getting and Bickell would be worth what Frolik is getting ... almost. Adding Bolland's and Frolik's salary together ($5.7M) would be just a tad high for the two of them - closer to $5M would be more like it.

So to answer your question - salary cap space to resign better players.

EbonyRaptor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-23-2013, 08:27 PM
  #63
EbonyRaptor
Registered User
 
EbonyRaptor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Boonies
Country: United States
Posts: 3,244
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLarmer28 View Post
Salary cap space is based upon a 23 man roster. Your salary cap generation was based upon a 22 man roster. You are one player short of the CBA requirement.
You're right - salary cap space is based on a 23 man roster - but it's a projection, not a locked in number. It's meant to provide the amount of salary cap space the club has to take on more salary IF all 23 players spend every day of the season on the active roster.

The amount of salary that is charged against the club's salary cap is based on each player's daily salary for every calendar day that player is on the active roster. A players daily salary is factored by dividing his salary cap hit by the number of days in the regular season. The number of days in a regular season is around 180 -185. In this shortened season I think the number of days is 99 or 100.

As an example, to make the division easier, let's say this lockout shortened season has 100 days in the regular season. Therefore, Bolland, who has a $3,375,000 salary cap hit, has a daily salary cap hit of $33,750 ($3,375,000 / 100 days). In a normal season, Bolland's daily salary cap hit would be $18,243 ($3,375,000 / 185 days).

At the end of the year, all players that spent time on the active roster have their daily salary cap hits added to the team's total for each day they spent on the active roster.

Oops, almost forgot. A team must carry a minimum of 20 players, and can't exceed a maximum of 23 players, until after the trade deadline when the maximum is removed and a team can carry as many players as they want as long as it doesn't go below 20.

EbonyRaptor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-23-2013, 08:32 PM
  #64
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,690
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HossTheBoss View Post
So, we can't trust Bickell's good season this year because the player he was last year might be his true "self".. but the past 5 years with Bolland must be ignored, because he's had an off year.

Okay.
THIS!!!!

People want to keep Frolik or Bickell because this year they are actually playing well despite being bad for the previous few years. But Bolland having been a good player for 5 years means nothing because he is bad this year.

This board sometimes and there what have you done for me today ideals. It's the same people who wanted Kane gone because he had an off year last year. Nothing else matters except for what you did fore me now.

Since we are basing everything on 1 year, Crawford needs to be at 5+ million now and we need to cut Seabrook right away, like before the playoffs.

Sir Psycho T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-23-2013, 08:38 PM
  #65
HockeySensible
Smug Teuvo
 
HockeySensible's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,093
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Psycho T View Post
THIS!!!!

People want to keep Frolik or Bickell because this year they are actually playing well despite being bad for the previous few years. But Bolland having been a good player for 5 years means nothing because he is bad this year.

This board sometimes and there what have you done for me today ideals. It's the same people who wanted Kane gone because he had an off year last year. Nothing else matters except for what you did fore me now.
Yep, it's sad.

You could have made a rational, reasonable argument for Bolland as the Conn Smythe winner in 2010. The following year, coming off a concussion, he shutdown the Sedin's and lit up the Canucks, and spurred what would have been an amazing comeback, of course falling just short. He was also great in the 2009 playoffs.

Last year, everyone struggled in the playoffs, so that's a wash.

Bolland has proven, time and time again, to be an extremely valuable member of this team. It's a damn shame, what poor memories, some on this board seem to have. Bolland didn't suddenly forget how to be a good hockey player. Has he played his best hockey to date? No. But when the games really matter, that's when Bolland's at his best.

HockeySensible is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-23-2013, 08:40 PM
  #66
madgoat33
Registered User
 
madgoat33's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,154
vCash: 500
bolland has been injured a bunch and hasn't been very good for the past 3 seasons. he deserved the benefit of the doubt the 2previous seasons because his linemates, but there's no excuse for his performance this year.

madgoat33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-23-2013, 08:44 PM
  #67
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,690
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by madgoat33 View Post
bolland has been injured a bunch and hadn't been very good for the past 3 seasons. he deserved the benefit of the doubt the 2previous sessions because his linemates, but there's no excuse for his performance this year.
Who cares what he did during the regular season the past 3 years, those years in the playoffs he was one of the Hawks best players.

He doesn't hurt the Hawks in the regular season and often produces well for his role, and then in the playoffs he steps his game up and shines.

But because of this 1 bad regular season in a shortened lockout year where he is playing a role he hasn't played before lets judge his career on this.

Sir Psycho T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-23-2013, 08:47 PM
  #68
HockeySensible
Smug Teuvo
 
HockeySensible's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,093
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by madgoat33 View Post
bolland has been injured a bunch and hadn't been very good for the past 3 seasons. he deserved the benefit of the doubt the 2previous sessions because his linemates, but there's no excuse for his performance this year.
Bolland was on pace for his best statistical season in 2010-11, prior to getting knocked out by a Kubina elbow. For a big part of that season, he was playing with Bickell and Pisani, before they put Hossa on his RW. Then he dominated in the playoffs.

Last year, he had 19 goals and 37 points, playing with Bickell and Frolik, who were both beyond useless for most of the season.

He hasn't been bad over the past 3 seasons. Where that comes from, is beyond me.

HockeySensible is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-23-2013, 08:50 PM
  #69
madgoat33
Registered User
 
madgoat33's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,154
vCash: 500
okay, ill play. maybe if bolland could have stayed healthy we wouldn't have needed to squeak into the playoffs and then go down 0-3 vs van in 10-11.

in any case, I'm not saying he needs to go, but i don't think he has any business being on our second line again.

madgoat33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2013, 12:32 AM
  #70
Bubba88
Toews = Savior
 
Bubba88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bavaria
Country: Germany
Posts: 25,265
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiHawk21 View Post
basically the same team that has lost 6 games this year. seems like a great plan when the cap is going down and the two people you let go are UFAs

whats your bright idea
Start with what is expandable...

Trade Frolik
go on and understand that Bowman will keep 1 of his buyouts another year in case he needs it for Hossa... only Olesz gets bought out.

then you go on and try to keep Stalberg. If not possible you keep Bickell, if not possible you add a UFA with size.


Just adding 2 Rookies into the Top9 won't fix our needs.

Bubba88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2013, 12:57 AM
  #71
Sarava
Moderator
 
Sarava's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Naperville, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 10,403
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by madgoat33 View Post
okay, ill play. maybe if bolland could have stayed healthy we wouldn't have needed to squeak into the playoffs and then go down 0-3 vs van in 10-11.

in any case, I'm not saying he needs to go, but i don't think he has any business being on our second line again.
So now he's a fault for getting elbowed in the head by Kubina? This just gets better and better from you guys

Sarava is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2013, 08:29 AM
  #72
BronYrAur
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,259
vCash: 500
I would prefer that the Hawks keep Bolland but if there is a good hockey trade to be made in the offseason or at the deadline, you consider it. But absolutely not if the Hawks are planning on playing some combo of Pirri/Kruger/Shaw/?? down the middle.

Bolland has had a rough season, no doubt about it, but he has been a productive player playing on the 3rd line, facing some of the toughest competition/matchups of any player in the league. And the same was true this year. Even though Bolland moved up to 2C, that line became a pseudo-checking line much of the time.

Try Pirri at 2C next year, let Sharp fill in if he has struggles, maybe Drew LeBlanc can give you something there as well, let Bolland go back to the role where the expectations are not ridiculous. IMO, Bolland/Morin/Shaw could be a dangerous 3rd line. A lot of nasty there, and some skill also.

At this point, though, I would be onboard with a Bolland trade. I mean, it's hard to see him taking a pay cut to re-sign with the Hawks and his salary is just too much for a 3C who has only played ~75% of the games over the last three years.

BronYrAur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2013, 08:35 AM
  #73
digdug41982
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 26,474
vCash: 50
How do people rank the following? You can keep two.

For me:
Bickell
Stalberg (could flip these two either way, it's close)
Oduya
Frolik

Seems pretty obvious what we should do. Nothing against the other two guys, useful players and good guys to have but it's a numbers game. I'd rather keep BB and Vik and deal one of them if the young guys come up and take their job.

digdug41982 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2013, 08:42 AM
  #74
TorMenT
Go Blackhawks!
 
TorMenT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Rockford, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 4,668
vCash: 500
I'd keep Stalberg and Oduya. We've got far better depth in our forward prospects than D.

TorMenT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2013, 08:49 AM
  #75
digdug41982
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 26,474
vCash: 50
We could make a trade for a good but cheaper D-man. We could even trade a forward prospect or two for a D-man prospect.

digdug41982 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 09:40 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.