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

Shane Doan (Re-signs with Yotes)

View Poll Results: Do you want Doan?
Yes , At any cost/term 3 7.50%
Yes but only at reasonable cost/term 34 85.00%
Nope 3 7.50%
Voters: 40. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-06-2012, 01:46 PM
  #326
BobbyJet
Registered User
 
BobbyJet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Dundas, Ontario. Can
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,216
vCash: 500
Goalie one gets 200 shots from 55 feet and has a save percentage of .995 vs goalie two who faces the same 200 shots but 150 of them are from 25 or less. He has a save percentage of .925. Based on stats alone, goalie one is the superior goalie by miles.

Bottom line: stats mean little and only when you have watched the entire game intently before even going there and are curious about how the numbers on the stats sheet compare to what you have just watched.


Last edited by BobbyJet: 08-06-2012 at 01:55 PM.
BobbyJet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2012, 01:50 PM
  #327
coldsteelonice84
Registered User
 
coldsteelonice84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 25,605
vCash: 10592
Well, for me, it always matches up. But to say, Player X sucked all year, I watched him all year, is debatable. The stat at least is something tangible for these discussions. People say Crawford was horrid and Emery was good. I watched every game. That's a god damned ignorant lie. You wanna say both were horrid, fine. You want to say one was good and one was horrid, **** you.

Crawford looked better. He had the better SV%. He had the better win %.

Watching him alone, IMO, he was a litte bit better, but I won't fight for that because they both sucked and I'm fine with saying they were equally bad because it was so close and not worth arguing about.

coldsteelonice84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2012, 03:18 PM
  #328
unbridledid
Registered User
 
unbridledid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 435
vCash: 500
Actually, the Canucks problem is that they have two starting goaltenders and can't afford to keep both. Our problem is that we have zero starting goaltenders and desperately need to acquire one. Getting Luongo here would easily fix both problems, but it'd especially help us, since our problem is way more pressing than theirs.[/QUOTE]

Actually the Nucks problem is Lou now isn't the lou of 07-08 and he is signed for 9 more years and owed 48 million...

[QUOTE=Sevanston;53321987]And when they aren't proven but they will be soon, what would you say? That they aren't proven yet. That was a fun English lesson.

He has not proven himself yet.. That is a fact... your lesson aside wise-ass..

He has the tools...but we won't know unless he is given the ball and runs with it... You think it is a good idea that we take that chance and I do not..


Last edited by unbridledid: 08-06-2012 at 03:24 PM.
unbridledid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2012, 03:36 PM
  #329
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,628
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by unbridledid View Post
Do you know that would be the asking price ? 2013 looks to be a strong draft and Bowman doesn't like to trade 1st rounders (and I think that is not a bad strategy)..

Be nice if Bernier would have a larger body of work to go by.... but with Quick in net all he gets is scraps... He isn't a "big" goalie, but is athletic and relies on his reflexes if I remember correctly...

I say give Crawford the ball and see what happens...
That's why you add Bernier and not Luongo, Bernier wouldn't need to be the starter the moment he was traded for and could be the back-up while Craw is given a chance at the start of the season.

Luongo is the starter the moment he gets here, plus if the Hawks get Luongo I don't keep Crawford on the roster. I am not having 8 million in cap dedicated to goalkeeping when there are other needs on this team.

The reason I don't mind moving the pick is, it's likely to be a late round pick and no goalie in the draft is going to be a Bernier. People forget because he wasn't played that Bernier was considered the best goalie prospect in the NHL for a few years and until Quick picked up his play 2 years ago people thought Bernier would be the Kings goalie of the future.

Sir Psycho T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2012, 03:52 PM
  #330
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,628
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba88 View Post

Owners are not against it and NHLPA isn't against it too. BTW, it's not circumvention when it's allowed



Sending a player down to the minors will still be allowed in the new CBA why wouldn't it

From Pierre LeBrun.

Quote:
• Cash over cap: In addition to some teams' ire over front-loaded deals and "cheat deals," some of those middle- to small-markets clubs are on the war path when it comes to "cash over cap." Wade Redden is earning $6.5 million in the AHL and Cristobal Huet is making $5.625 million in Europe, and does not count against the salary caps of the Rangers and Blackhawks, respectively.

Many NHL teams want the hammer to come down on the "cash over cap'' problem. In other words, the salary cap is too soft, some teams believe. And though big-market teams enjoy having that competitive advantage, we suppose the league will try to convince them that "hardening" the cap remains in their interest, since it will improve their bottom line by shelling out less money to players. Either way, this is where some of the internal debate among owners will be fascinating to follow. Bettman's challenge here is to find a solution that appeases the majority. Some big clubs might not want to lose that competitive advantage over middle- and small-market clubs.

The "cash over cap'' loophole is three-fold: (1) being able to assign contracts off the cap by sending players to minors or Europe; (2) using the long-term injury reserve system to its fullest; (3) front-loading contracts or cheat deals to manipulate the yearly cap hit. It's estimated, for example, that the Philadelphia Flyers have used all three loopholes to put themselves $40 million to $50 million "cash over cap'' over the past six years. There's a big group of teams that want to minimize that advantage, and tighten the cap and the system. Again, just why would the players want to tighten the cap? The softer the better for them.
Really though keep talking about it like you know and insulting people for posting fact and not wild personal speculation.

Sir Psycho T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2012, 04:03 PM
  #331
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,628
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
Morin and Smith? Garbage
2014 1st + 3rd? Maybe for a rebuilding team.

Shaw and Smith is something, but no way in hell I would do that for an unproven goalie who wouldn't be a guaranteed improvement.
What have any of the prospects you mentioned prove, you don't want to trade for a player who is unproven but we better not trade our unproven prospects for anything other then a proven NHL player?

As for Bernier I certainly don't mind giving up prospects at positions we are deep at for a prospect at a position we are weak at.

Sir Psycho T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2012, 05:26 PM
  #332
coldsteelonice84
Registered User
 
coldsteelonice84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 25,605
vCash: 10592
I like those guys I mentioned but we have a lot of ****ing wingers and no goalies, give to get, the want Shaw, fine, done.

coldsteelonice84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2012, 05:51 PM
  #333
unbridledid
Registered User
 
unbridledid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 435
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldsteelonice84 View Post
I like those guys I mentioned but we have a lot of ****ing wingers and no goalies, give to get, the want Shaw, fine, done.
Yea, we have no goalies and that is your story. I think we will be fine with what we have, and if they flop during the year then make a move.

unbridledid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2012, 06:11 PM
  #334
coldsteelonice84
Registered User
 
coldsteelonice84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 25,605
vCash: 10592
Emery played his ass off, hell of an effort, not enough, not close.

coldsteelonice84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2012, 06:46 PM
  #335
BobbyJet
Registered User
 
BobbyJet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Dundas, Ontario. Can
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,216
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldsteelonice84 View Post
Emery played his ass off, hell of an effort, not enough, not close.
I really don't get this obsession you have with Emery. Crawford our supposed #1 goaltender was our problem, for the 1,000 time!

It certainly wasn't Emery who choked gainst Coyotes! If you blame anyone for our early exit last season, it would be Crawford, or Q for playing him and sticking with him even though he didn't earn it.

BobbyJet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2012, 07:05 PM
  #336
BobbyJet
Registered User
 
BobbyJet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Dundas, Ontario. Can
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,216
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by unbridledid View Post
Yea, we have no goalies and that is your story. I think we will be fine with what we have, and if they flop during the year then make a move.
That certainly seems like Stan's thinking going into this season but I'd prefer he do something before the season begins. Waiting until the season is underway, and then looking around, gets other GM's rubbing their hands together waiting for your call.

BobbyJet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2012, 07:43 PM
  #337
coldsteelonice84
Registered User
 
coldsteelonice84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 25,605
vCash: 10592
Because he serves no purpose and I don't see goalies as starter / backup these days, two goalies on a team, get two ones that have a good chance to do good.

coldsteelonice84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2012, 09:28 PM
  #338
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,378
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Psycho T View Post
What have any of the prospects you mentioned prove, you don't want to trade for a player who is unproven but we better not trade our unproven prospects for anything other then a proven NHL player?

As for Bernier I certainly don't mind giving up prospects at positions we are deep at for a prospect at a position we are weak at.
Why would anyone want to trade Saad, TT, etc, + for a goalie who may not be any better than Crawford? Thats just common sense. Now ask if I would trade Saad, TT etc + for a goalie like Schneider, or Rask, etc and i'll gladly do it.

There is zero reason to trade a top prospect for an unknown goalie like Bernier..who has looked very average in the NHL.

Hawkaholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2012, 10:59 PM
  #339
coldsteelonice84
Registered User
 
coldsteelonice84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 25,605
vCash: 10592
Average, oh how I dream we can have that.

coldsteelonice84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-07-2012, 12:54 AM
  #340
Bubba88
Toews = Savior
 
Bubba88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bavaria
Country: Germany
Posts: 24,236
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Psycho T View Post
From Pierre LeBrun.



Really though keep talking about it like you know and insulting people for posting fact and not wild personal speculation.
want to talk about facts??

It's a fact that sending down a player is in the CBA and allowed
It's a fact that NHLPA has nothing against it and only a few owners - not the big market teams - don't like it.

It's a fact that the CBA allows to send down a player and his salary will come off the Cap - rightfully so.
They can't and won't change this.


Tell me the difference

Player A sucks in the NHL get's send down and makes it through the waivers with a salary of 6.5
Player B sucks in the NHL get's send down and makes it through waivers with a 5.6 salary
Player C sucks in the NHL get's send down and makes it through the waivers with a 1.8 salary
Player D is a career AHLer who sucks in the NHL and get's send down to free up an additional 0.55 to the Cap and a roster spot, then makes it through the waivers and gets send down.


The only difference is, that people will care about the Reddens and the Huet because they cry and they are getting paid. Why should I be allowed to send down guys like Ebbett or Dowell but not Huet or Redden??

Bubba88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-07-2012, 01:29 AM
  #341
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,628
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba88 View Post
want to talk about facts??

It's a fact that sending down a player is in the CBA and allowed
It's a fact that NHLPA has nothing against it and only a few owners - not the big market teams - don't like it.

It's a fact that the CBA allows to send down a player and his salary will come off the Cap - rightfully so.
They can't and won't change this.


Tell me the difference

Player A sucks in the NHL get's send down and makes it through the waivers with a salary of 6.5
Player B sucks in the NHL get's send down and makes it through waivers with a 5.6 salary
Player C sucks in the NHL get's send down and makes it through the waivers with a 1.8 salary
Player D is a career AHLer who sucks in the NHL and get's send down to free up an additional 0.55 to the Cap and a roster spot, then makes it through the waivers and gets send down.


The only difference is, that people will care about the Reddens and the Huet because they cry and they are getting paid. Why should I be allowed to send down guys like Ebbett or Dowell but not Huet or Redden??
Because the teams then used that free cap space to sign other players and go over the cap limit basically.

Your quote about only a few owners not the big market teams shows you don't really know what your talking about. Who are the "big" market teams, NYR, MON, TOR, CHI, VAN, BOS, PHI? PIT? that's about it. More then half the league is made of the those, few from smaller markets you talk about. Teams who can't afford to pay someone 5+ million to not play and basically circumvent the reason for a salary cap.

They can change it and they are likely going to, most likely by having some kind of financial limit on who can get send down. I do love thought that you say that the owners of the teams can't change a rule, maybe because you say so they can't though we'll see.

Sir Psycho T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-07-2012, 01:40 AM
  #342
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,628
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
Why would anyone want to trade Saad, TT, etc, + for a goalie who may not be any better than Crawford? Thats just common sense. Now ask if I would trade Saad, TT etc + for a goalie like Schneider, or Rask, etc and i'll gladly do it.

There is zero reason to trade a top prospect for an unknown goalie like Bernier..who has looked very average in the NHL.
It's a two way street, maybe Saad and TT aren't any good at all and have been overhyped like almost every other Hawk prospect. What have they proven in the NHL, the Kings can look at it the same way, why trade a sure thing like Bernier for a guy who feel hard in the draft a 2nd round pick?

Why should the Hawks? Because the Hawks need a goalie and the only way your getting Rask or Schneider or any other young proven goalie is by giving up a core player, Toews, Kane, Keith or Seabs is going the other way.

Saad and TT are just as unproven and just as not a sure thing as Bernier and Bernier fills a much bigger need then Saad and TT do in scoring. The Hawks biggest issue is goaltending and I would sacrifice some scoring to get a player who could help out in a big way.

But like most you drastically overrate our prospects and underrate every other. Why trade unproven player A in a huge need position for unproven player B in a position we are more then set in.

Sir Psycho T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-07-2012, 05:07 AM
  #343
Bubba88
Toews = Savior
 
Bubba88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bavaria
Country: Germany
Posts: 24,236
vCash: 500
You worry about Hossas future as soon as next season but Saad/TT does not fill a need on our Roster? The roster that had Bruno and/or Stalberg + Krüger in their Top6?


nice way to not answer my question too. Tell me where is the difference between sending down Huet who sucks to free up his Cap or sending Jeff Taffe down who sucks to free up his Cap. Don't forget, both needed to be send down. Otherwise we would have been over the Cap.

Right, people will only care about Huet because of his name and high Cap Hit.

NHLPA + big market teams have nothing against it. That's over 50% that like it this way. It's allowed and if I can't send down Huet, you also can't send down those scrubs like Taffe or Salak

Bubba88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-07-2012, 05:16 AM
  #344
madgoat33
Registered User
 
madgoat33's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,596
vCash: 500
And the cap only counts players on the roster, as it should. What's next? Players on ltir counting on cap too sinner teams can then trade for expensive players and cheat the cap?

madgoat33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-07-2012, 05:32 AM
  #345
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,628
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba88 View Post
You worry about Hossas future as soon as next season but Saad/TT does not fill a need on our Roster? The roster that had Bruno and/or Stalberg + Krüger in their Top6?


nice way to not answer my question too. Tell me where is the difference between sending down Huet who sucks to free up his Cap or sending Jeff Taffe down who sucks to free up his Cap. Don't forget, both needed to be send down. Otherwise we would have been over the Cap.

Right, people will only care about Huet because of his name and high Cap Hit.

NHLPA + big market teams have nothing against it. That's over 50% that like it this way. It's allowed and if I can't send down Huet, you also can't send down those scrubs like Taffe or Salak
I answered your question.

The difference is most teams can't afford to have 6 million dollars in the minors not making a difference.

Yes it is big money contracts because that is what teams are using to basically circumvent the cap. The Rangers hid Reddens contract in the minors and then used that cap space to go and get Gaborik or Richards. The cap was put in place to have an equal playing field, hiding big contracts in the minors is something only big teams can do and only about 10 of the 30 NHL teams are big team, if that.

Moving AHL players back and forth and guys with a 1 mil cap hit isn't avoiding the rule, however putting a guy in the AHL who makes 5 mil + is especially when that money is used to sign another high priced FA basically allowing teams to sign 2x the amount of players.

This wouldn't be being talked about and reported on if it wasn't an issue. Not saying it will happen but your naive and foolish if you think it can't or won't, it's being discussed for a reason.

Sir Psycho T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-07-2012, 05:35 AM
  #346
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,628
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by madgoat33 View Post
And the cap only counts players on the roster, as it should. What's next? Players on ltir counting on cap too sinner teams can then trade for expensive players and cheat the cap?
There is a big difference between someone being injured and someone simply not as good as they had hoped. The salary cap was put in to even the playing field, this loophole allows big clubs an advantage smaller clubs don't have basically avoiding the cap.

Sir Psycho T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-07-2012, 08:01 AM
  #347
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,587
vCash: 500
Why would less than a majority of owners (or even a majority, which I doubt) push for a change in the rules to keep a Huet-type transaction on the cap right now? There is no reason to use that against the players and no reason for the players to support it.

The small market owners are far more concerned with revenue sharing and things like contract limits and/or front loaded contracts with bonus money to be worried about getting eliminating the chance to bury Huet's contract. The players want every dollar in the pool they can get.


Last edited by hockeydoug: 08-07-2012 at 08:08 AM. Reason: added "right now" to end of first sentence, because the issue could be a leveraged position down the road..
hockeydoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-07-2012, 09:05 AM
  #348
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,378
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldsteelonice84 View Post
Average, oh how I dream we can have that.
Sorry, I should of said...average behind the best defense in the league.

Imagine what it would be like behind one of bottom defenses in the league.

Hawkaholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-07-2012, 09:08 AM
  #349
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,378
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Psycho T View Post
It's a two way street, maybe Saad and TT aren't any good at all and have been overhyped like almost every other Hawk prospect. What have they proven in the NHL, the Kings can look at it the same way, why trade a sure thing like Bernier for a guy who feel hard in the draft a 2nd round pick?

Why should the Hawks? Because the Hawks need a goalie and the only way your getting Rask or Schneider or any other young proven goalie is by giving up a core player, Toews, Kane, Keith or Seabs is going the other way.

Saad and TT are just as unproven and just as not a sure thing as Bernier and Bernier fills a much bigger need then Saad and TT do in scoring. The Hawks biggest issue is goaltending and I would sacrifice some scoring to get a player who could help out in a big way.

But like most you drastically overrate our prospects and underrate every other. Why trade unproven player A in a huge need position for unproven player B in a position we are more then set in.
A back-up goalie is not a position of need. We have 2 already.

I'm not over rating any of our prospects, I just don't see the hype with Bernier, not at all. He has never shown he can be a top goalie in the NHL, he has barely proven anything outside of 1 year in the AHL.

Hawkaholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-07-2012, 09:12 AM
  #350
coldsteelonice84
Registered User
 
coldsteelonice84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 25,605
vCash: 10592
Some guys don't do well in the "backup" role. They need starts.

coldsteelonice84 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 01:31 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.