HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must use the RUMOR prefix in thread title. Proposals must contain the PROPOSAL prefix in the thread title.

Minny-Chicago

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-06-2013, 05:30 PM
  #1
jrc494
Registered User
 
jrc494's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 275
vCash: 500
Minny-Chicago

Minnesota:
Backstrom
Clutterbuck

Chicago:
Hjallmarson
Frolik (optional)
McNeill
2nd

Minnesota gets one of the best complimentary defenders in the league that can play along Suter if needed, a great C prospect (2011 first rounder), and a second round pick. Frolik can fill in for Clutterbuck (low risk/high reward)

Chicago finds its solution in the net for the year and gets one of the best checking forwards in the game.

Thoughts?

jrc494 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 05:32 PM
  #2
Blackhawkswincup
Tornado Warning
 
Blackhawkswincup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicagoland
Country: United States
Posts: 119,996
vCash: 302
Hawks overpay for a role player and goalie 1 yr away from UFA

Wild dont do it because that leaves there entire season up to Hackett (Kid)

Blackhawkswincup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 05:32 PM
  #3
Vankiller Whale
#GetJimBinned
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,913
vCash: 1815
I don't think Minnesota will be trading Backstrom anytime soon. Especially after signing Parise and Suter, they'll be looking to start contending now, I don't think they want futures.

Vankiller Whale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 05:33 PM
  #4
Beerfest*
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 490
vCash: 500
Replace McNeill with Clendening.

Beerfest* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 05:36 PM
  #5
BOLD MacT Trade
GoldMoldisMacTBold
 
BOLD MacT Trade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Bottom of Conference
Country: Antarctica
Posts: 642
vCash: 500
Minnesota says no. Harding was diagnosed with ms, they need Backstrom in case his health takes a turn for the worse.

BOLD MacT Trade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 05:38 PM
  #6
HIPNOTIQ
Registered User
 
HIPNOTIQ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: MN
Country: United States
Posts: 103
vCash: 500
Hammer
Crawford
For
Backrtrom
Clutterbuck

HIPNOTIQ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 05:38 PM
  #7
thestonedkoala
Everyone! PANIC!
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 19,414
vCash: 500
Nope.

thestonedkoala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 05:43 PM
  #8
Dr Jan Itor
Registered User
 
Dr Jan Itor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: MinneSNOWta
Posts: 12,947
vCash: 500
To Chicago fans, is Hjallmarson good? I ask because I brought his name up before and was "corrected" by a couple people on the Wild board. I figured he was still a good 2nd pairing defenseman and the idea was for him to be Brodin's D partner when Brodin was NHL ready.


Last edited by Dr Jan Itor: 01-06-2013 at 05:48 PM.
Dr Jan Itor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 05:46 PM
  #9
jrc494
Registered User
 
jrc494's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 275
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HIPNOTIQ View Post
Hammer
Crawford
For
Backrtrom
Clutterbuck
Add Hackett to Chicago and you can take Mcneill, Clendening, or hell any prospect other then TT or Saad and you have a deal.

jrc494 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 05:47 PM
  #10
jrc494
Registered User
 
jrc494's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 275
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Jan Itor View Post
To Chicago fans, is Hjallmarson good? I ask because I brought his name up before and was "corrected" by a couple people on the Wild board. I figured he was still a good 2nd pairing defenseman and the idea was for him to Brodin's D partner when Brodin was NHL ready.
Yes this is a good idea. He was at his best when he was paired with Brian Campell during the Cup year. Smart player, sound defensively, and can throw his body around when he needs to.

jrc494 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 05:51 PM
  #11
couture23
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED
 
couture23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: GTA/Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,660
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrc494 View Post
Yes this is a good idea. He was at his best when he was paired with Brian Campell during the Cup year. Smart player, sound defensively, and can throw his body around when he needs to.
Except that he stopped using his body as much as he used to after he got suspended for his hit on Pominville. He is still very strong in his own end, he just needs to regain the physicality just a bit.

couture23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 05:51 PM
  #12
Dr Jan Itor
Registered User
 
Dr Jan Itor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: MinneSNOWta
Posts: 12,947
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrc494 View Post
Yes this is a good idea. He was at his best when he was paired with Brian Campell during the Cup year. Smart player, sound defensively, and can throw his body around when he needs to.
Personally, I find Clutterbuck's physicality a bit overrated. At his current salary, he's fine, but if asks for $2m+ I wouldn't mind him being flipped for a 2nd pairing LHD, and it seems like Hjallmarson fits that description.

This summer, would we have to add a lot to Clutterbuck's RFA rights to get Hjalmarsson?

Dr Jan Itor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 05:59 PM
  #13
HockeySensible
Smug Teuvo
 
HockeySensible's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,385
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by couture23 View Post
Except that he stopped using his body as much as he used to after he got suspended for his hit on Pominville. He is still very strong in his own end, he just needs to regain the physicality just a bit.
Except he was never overly physical even before that hit. I agree that he lost a bit of his edge after that hit, but he's slowly gotten it back.



He had another big one on Klesla in the same series, which I can't find on youtube (surprisingly).

And yes, Hammer is still a good 2nd pairing Dman.

HockeySensible is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 06:09 PM
  #14
couture23
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED
 
couture23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: GTA/Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,660
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HossTheBoss View Post
Except he was never overly physical even before that hit. I agree that he lost a bit of his edge after that hit, but he's slowly gotten it back.

He had another big one on Klesla in the same series, which I can't find on youtube (surprisingly).

And yes, Hammer is still a good 2nd pairing Dman.
Agreed. I would still be scared to see his giant frame throw me into the boards regardless.

couture23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 06:10 PM
  #15
MessierII
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 7,123
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
I don't think Minnesota will be trading Backstrom anytime soon. Especially after signing Parise and Suter, they'll be looking to start contending now, I don't think they want futures.
Gotta stay under the cap somehow.

MessierII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 06:11 PM
  #16
D U M B A
Registered User
 
D U M B A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 1,189
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrc494 View Post
Minnesota:
Backstrom
Clutterbuck

Chicago:
Hjallmarson
Frolik (optional)
McNeill
2nd

Minnesota gets one of the best complimentary defenders in the league that can play along Suter if needed, a great C prospect (2011 first rounder), and a second round pick. Frolik can fill in for Clutterbuck (low risk/high reward)

Chicago finds its solution in the net for the year and gets one of the best checking forwards in the game.

Thoughts?
Nice start / proposal. How about take Frolik out (you wrote optional) and add either Emery or Crawford (because we'll need an NHL goalie coming back). Like Dr. Jan Itor stated, what would it take to swap McNeil for Clendening? I'm fine either way but prospect wise, the Wild have a more dire need to add defensively than offensively.

D U M B A is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 06:15 PM
  #17
HockeySensible
Smug Teuvo
 
HockeySensible's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,385
vCash: 500
Clendening doesn't have much defensive value at the moment, despite being a Dman. Is pretty gritty, but still needs work on his decision making. Elite puck-mover and PP guy, but needs more time/work. At this point, I don't think Chicago would have any interest in moving him because of how much he's produced to start his Pro career.

HockeySensible is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 06:16 PM
  #18
D U M B A
Registered User
 
D U M B A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 1,189
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HossTheBoss View Post
Clendening doesn't have much defensive value at the moment, despite being a Dman. Is pretty gritty, but still needs work on his decision making. Elite puck-mover and PP guy, but needs more time/work. At this point, I don't think Chicago would have any interest in moving him because of how much he's produced to start his Pro career.
Thanks for the info.

D U M B A is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 06:18 PM
  #19
zytz
lumberjack
 
zytz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,876
vCash: 500
I actually like this quite a bit- the only thing I have an issue with is that with Backstrom in the deal Chicago may not be able to make it work with the cap - though dumping Frolik would certainly help.

I don't know if fellow CHI fans or or MIN fans would feel this way but I would be much more inclined to trade for Hackett than Backstrom. Hackett and Crow could then compete for #1 whereas Backstrom is the clear #1 on either team.... if we have Backstrom we need Crow or Emery going the other way for sure.

zytz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 06:38 PM
  #20
jrc494
Registered User
 
jrc494's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 275
vCash: 500
Thanks for all the feedback. From what I've seen the best deal that could be made for both sides is something like this:

Chicago gets: Backstrom, Clutterbuck, Hackett
Minnestoa gets: Crawford, Clendening, Hjallmarson, +a pick/prospect (not TT/Saad)

Minnesota gets help for Harding in net by adding Crawford, a great D prospect + a good pick/prospect of their choice (think Morin, Mcneill, Beach), and the lefty 2nd pairing D they need.

Chicago gets goalie stability with Backstrom for the short term/Hackett for down the road and much needed grit for the third line.

Unless I'm severely undervaluing Hackett this deal seems to help both teams.

jrc494 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 06:45 PM
  #21
Dr Jan Itor
Registered User
 
Dr Jan Itor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: MinneSNOWta
Posts: 12,947
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrc494 View Post
Thanks for all the feedback. From what I've seen the best deal that could be made for both sides is something like this:

Chicago gets: Backstrom, Clutterbuck, Hackett
Minnestoa gets: Crawford, Clendening, Hjallmarson, +a pick/prospect (not TT/Saad)

Minnesota gets help for Harding in net by adding Crawford, a great D prospect + a good pick/prospect of their choice (think Morin, Mcneill, Beach), and the lefty 2nd pairing D they need.

Chicago gets goalie stability with Backstrom for the short term/Hackett for down the road and much needed grit for the third line.

Unless I'm severely undervaluing Hackett this deal seems to help both teams.
If we are giving up Backstrom (something I personally wouldn't do) then I don't see Hackett being included. Maybe Kuemper and then downgrade one the pieces coming back from Chicago.

Dr Jan Itor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 06:46 PM
  #22
D U M B A
Registered User
 
D U M B A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 1,189
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrc494 View Post
Thanks for all the feedback. From what I've seen the best deal that could be made for both sides is something like this:

Chicago gets: Backstrom, Clutterbuck, Hackett
Minnestoa gets: Crawford, Clendening, Hjallmarson, +a pick/prospect (not TT/Saad)

Minnesota gets help for Harding in net by adding Crawford, a great D prospect + a good pick/prospect of their choice (think Morin, Mcneill, Beach), and the lefty 2nd pairing D they need.

Chicago gets goalie stability with Backstrom for the short term/Hackett for down the road and much needed grit for the third line.

Unless I'm severely undervaluing Hackett this deal seems to help both teams
.
I would say yes for a few reasons. If we trade Backstrom, Crawford would be our starter. He won't be just a stopgap but he's not going to be our future goalie either (after his contract expires). Harding was diagnosed with M.S., so nobody knows what the future holds for him. It looks to be that the Wild struck gold on a few of our goalie prospects but that's all it is right now, just potential. Hackett has the most experience currently and unless he completely falls off the map, he's our future starter.

I mentioned Emery or Crawford because I didn't care which one was added. Crawford is obviously better but with Backstrom's cap hit, I didn't know if Crawford was the better option to include in the trade.

I personally wouldn't want to include Hackett for those reasons stated above. If you didn't want to swap McNeill for Clendening, I'm fine going with your initial proposal with the tweak of excluding Frolik and including one of Emery/Crawford.

D U M B A is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 06:52 PM
  #23
jrc494
Registered User
 
jrc494's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 275
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Jan Itor View Post
If we are giving up Backstrom (something I personally wouldn't do) then I don't see Hackett being included. Maybe Kuemper and then downgrade one the pieces coming back from Chicago.
Nah I'd only want Hackett or Backstrom. I still think something around the first deal could work if you guys are only willing to give up Backstrom. Love the name too, Dr. Itor.

jrc494 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 06:56 PM
  #24
jrc494
Registered User
 
jrc494's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 275
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Utterly Disgusting View Post
I would say yes for a few reasons. If we trade Backstrom, Crawford would be our starter. He won't be just a stopgap but he's not going to be our future goalie either (after his contract expires). Harding was diagnosed with M.S., so nobody knows what the future holds for him. It looks to be that the Wild struck gold on a few of our goalie prospects but that's all it is right now, just potential. Hackett has the most experience currently and unless he completely falls off the map, he's our future starter.

I mentioned Emery or Crawford because I didn't care which one was added. Crawford is obviously better but with Backstrom's cap hit, I didn't know if Crawford was the better option to include in the trade.

I personally wouldn't want to include Hackett for those reasons stated above. If you didn't want to swap McNeill for Clendening, I'm fine going with your initial proposal with the tweak of excluding Frolik and including one of Emery/Crawford.
Point taken. I think something along the lines of the first deal should work. Backstrom would only be a temporary solution to our problem. Hopefully we can find a long term solution in Whitney/Carruth/Simpson or via free-agency.

jrc494 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 07:16 PM
  #25
Billy Mays Here
Optimistic Pessimist
 
Billy Mays Here's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 14,572
vCash: 827
We've been over similar trades to this one a number of times before so I'll just leave the response most Wild fans have agreed upon.

We're not looking to trade Backstrom right now. He's our starter, and with Harding's recent MS diagnosis, we need him even more now. We're not sure if Hackett is completely ready yet either. Now if at the trade deadline the Wild are out of contention for a playoff spot, then we may be interested in dealing him to a team in contention. Chicago and Toronto seem to be the two teams most interested in acquiring him should they be in contention, or in Chicago's case, right now. The Wild would likely be looking for help on defense in return, and Hjalmarsson's name has been the most frequent to pop up so it would probably center around a Backstrom for Hjalmarsson deal, adding in whatever else is necessary from either team.

Billy Mays Here 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 07:07 AM.

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.