HFBoards

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

Blackhawks As Trading Partner

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-24-2009, 02:36 AM
  #51
yakko
Registered User
 
yakko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Northern California
Country: United States
Posts: 3,867
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArizonaPride View Post
With the Arrest of Patrick Kane does this mean that any type of trade involving Chicago is out of the question until the legal mess is cleared up?
I doubt it.

Quote:
I like the Idea of bring in Sharp and or Campbell in case if what we need can only be down by trade and not signing free agents on the market. However who could we turn to next if Chicago is not an option?
I have mixed feelings about Sharp on the Coyotes. No doubt he is a quality player, I'm just not sure he fills a void. Mixed feelings or not, I'm not going to complain if he comes at the right price.

Campbell has negative value due to his contract. He's kind of like Jovanovski except less physical and dumber. I will never understand the Blackhawks giving him that contract.

yakko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2009, 10:43 AM
  #52
rt
Usually Incorrect
 
rt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rarely Sober
Country: United States
Posts: 41,732
vCash: 500
Agreed, on all points.

rt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2009, 12:36 PM
  #53
Colt45Blast
is in your head
 
Colt45Blast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: everytime
Country: Mexico
Posts: 25,387
vCash: 500
Oh well! We shall see what happens during the season.

As for Patrick Kane too we will see after the legal mess is done if he either belongs on the cover of NHL 10 or Grand Theft Auto V South Side Chicago.
Posted via Mobile Device

Colt45Blast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2009, 02:06 PM
  #54
rt
Usually Incorrect
 
rt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rarely Sober
Country: United States
Posts: 41,732
vCash: 500
He was actually in Buffalo. Granted, GTA Buffalo sounds like the most boring video game ever made.

rt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2009, 12:10 PM
  #55
WJF
Registered User
 
WJF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 3,510
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by rt View Post
He was actually in Buffalo. Granted, GTA Buffalo sounds like the most boring video game ever made.
I don't know, the snow and a feature where cabbies would lock you in their taxi and you have to melee your way out would be a nice touch.

WJF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2009, 06:26 PM
  #56
Colt45Blast
is in your head
 
Colt45Blast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: everytime
Country: Mexico
Posts: 25,387
vCash: 500
Kane and Towes sign 5 year extensions and Barber signs a 13 year one.

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/davi...new-deals.html
Posted via Mobile Device

Colt45Blast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2009, 07:23 PM
  #57
Gagnefan924
Need Moar AmericanZ
 
Gagnefan924's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 8,056
vCash: 500
Wow that leaves Sharp the odd man out it looks like...possibly a trade? But a 13 year deal? Thats insane.

Gagnefan924 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2009, 08:03 PM
  #58
Colt45Blast
is in your head
 
Colt45Blast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: everytime
Country: Mexico
Posts: 25,387
vCash: 500
Sharp is one of the names mentioned. I hate to see how front loaded those contracts are let alone the cap hell this team will be in.
Posted via Mobile Device

Colt45Blast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2009, 08:11 PM
  #59
rt
Usually Incorrect
 
rt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rarely Sober
Country: United States
Posts: 41,732
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gagnefan924 View Post
Wow that leaves Sharp the odd man out it looks like...possibly a trade? But a 13 year deal? Thats insane.
I'm not sure it leaves Sharp as the odd man out. Not before the summer, anyway. The Blackhawks feel they can win the Cup. They aren't going to trade vital pieces until they absolutely have to. They don't absolutely have to until after the post-season. Even then, it could just as easily be guys like Versteeg, Buff, or Barker that go.

I don't mind the thirteen year deal, myself. The cap hit is nice and low, it will be hugely front-loaded, and Duncan Keith will probably only play another ten years, so the last three will be a moot point. Also, he's only twenty six and one of the best defensemen in the entire world. It's a good deal.

rt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2009, 08:12 PM
  #60
rt
Usually Incorrect
 
rt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rarely Sober
Country: United States
Posts: 41,732
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArizonaPride View Post
Sharp is one of the names mentioned. I hate to see how front loaded those contracts are let alone the cap hell this team will be in.
Posted via Mobile Device
When his cap-hit become higher than his worth, much later in his career, there will be some desperate team(in a similar position as us last summer) that will be drooling at the idea of getting a multi-million dollar cap-hit player that they only have to pay a small amount of actual salary to. It's a very smart move.

rt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2009, 11:20 PM
  #61
XX
... Waiting
 
XX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: 48th State
Country: United States
Posts: 27,262
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rt View Post
When his cap-hit become higher than his worth, much later in his career, there will be some desperate team(in a similar position as us last summer) that will be drooling at the idea of getting a multi-million dollar cap-hit player that they only have to pay a small amount of actual salary to. It's a very smart move.
Sounds a lot like the NBA ******** that goes on with trades. 75% of the players in a deal are just for cap shenanigans and the rest is the actual meat of the trade. Can't stand it.

Sharp is just a better version of Vrbata, to me.

XX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2009, 09:47 AM
  #62
DesertDawg
Registered User
 
DesertDawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Superstition Mts
Posts: 4,624
vCash: 500
Sopel may be the player they want to move. Rumor has it the BJ's are looking for a d-man to replace Klesla and they do have some forwards that they may be willing to trade. The Coyotes could possibly be the third team involve...

DesertDawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2009, 11:37 AM
  #63
RR
Moderator
 
RR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cave Creek, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,050
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertDawg View Post
Sopel may be the player they want to move. Rumor has it the BJ's are looking for a d-man to replace Klesla and they do have some forwards that they may be willing to trade. The Coyotes could possibly be the third team involve...
Mackenzie addessed the Hawks situation yesterday, Sopel in particular:

http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/bob_mckenzie/?id=300841

Quote:
Blackhawks Update

With the Chicago Blackhawks set to announce long-term extensions for Jonathan Toews, Patrick Kane and Duncan Keith at 2 p.m. (CT) on Thursday, there is much speculation they will have to make a move to free up "tagging room" (salary cap room for next season) before they can make the extensions officials.

While that is a possibility some think Brent Sopel and his $2.33 million salary could be traded or waived at a moment's notice tomorrow it doesn't appear to be an absolute necessity.

As we reported more than a week ago, the Blackhawks likely have just enough "tagging room" right now to fit in the three extensions. But to do so would leave the Blackhawks in a ridiculously tight position in terms of making any future moves. So tight, in fact, that they may be totally hamstrung in terms of bringing in any player who is under contract for next season.

For example, what if one of the Hawks' netminders Cristobal Huet or Antti Niemi went down with an injury? The Hawks would normally call up No. 3 man Corey Crawford, but he's under contract for next season and it's not inconceivable that the Hawks would not be able to make that move. In the bigger picture, with the Hawks being a Stanley Cup contender if not a mid-season favourite at this point, Chicago wants to have some flexibility to add a player at the trade deadline.

So whether it's before tomorrow's contract announcements or sometime after the fact, the Blackhawks are expected to move a current roster player who is under contract next season. Sopel continues to be the most logical choice to move, but it's not an absolute necessity to get it done in the next number of hours.

It could happen, but it's not imperative. Not yet anyway.

RR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2009, 11:46 AM
  #64
RR
Moderator
 
RR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cave Creek, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,050
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertDawg View Post
Sopel may be the player they want to move. Rumor has it the BJ's are looking for a d-man to replace Klesla and they do have some forwards that they may be willing to trade. The Coyotes could possibly be the third team involve...
Does this make any sense?:
To Chicago -- Peter Mueller
To Columbus -- Brett Sopel
To Phoenix -- Kris Versteeg + 3rd/4th rd pick (from Columbus)

Columbus does Chicago a huge favor taking Sopel off the books, and fills a need. That gets Chicago minimal tagging room at best. Mueller for Versteeg gives the Hawks ~$1.5M more in breathing room in the event another roster move needs to be made down the road (see the MacKenzie article above).

Maybe we add a prospect or pick with Mueller going back to Chicago.

RR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2009, 02:48 PM
  #65
Gagnefan924
Need Moar AmericanZ
 
Gagnefan924's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 8,056
vCash: 500
Wow I'd do that in a heartbeat! Give em any prospect not named Turris Boeds OEL Goncharov Tik.

Gagnefan924 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2009, 02:53 PM
  #66
bobbop
Henrik's Pop
 
bobbop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Suburban Phoenix
Country: United States
Posts: 4,822
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RR View Post
Does this make any sense?:
To Chicago -- Peter Mueller
To Columbus -- Brett Sopel
To Phoenix -- Kris Versteeg + 3rd/4th rd pick (from Columbus)

Columbus does Chicago a huge favor taking Sopel off the books, and fills a need. That gets Chicago minimal tagging room at best. Mueller for Versteeg gives the Hawks ~$1.5M more in breathing room in the event another roster move needs to be made down the road (see the MacKenzie article above).

Maybe we add a prospect or pick with Mueller going back to Chicago.
Chicago really doesn't need to move two contracts. Now if you proposed Mueller for Versteeg straight up, that would be very interesting.

bobbop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2009, 03:42 PM
  #67
GalenYote
 
GalenYote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tucson
Country: United States
Posts: 108
vCash: 500
I don't see Chicago trading for Muller, they have enough forwards as is. They are more likely to trade for a Dman. The question becomes who on our D would we be able to part with? We do have a little bit of depth on the blue line, at least enough if our offence can pick up more then our D loses with that trade. I would love to get an owner that can afford to pick us up off the cap floor and get us that sniper that we need, but I don't see that happening this year.

GalenYote is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2009, 03:44 PM
  #68
RR
Moderator
 
RR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cave Creek, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,050
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbop View Post
Chicago really doesn't need to move two contracts. Now if you proposed Mueller for Versteeg straight up, that would be very interesting.
No, they don't, doesn't mean they won't. If they move just Sopel and get no roster player in return they are right up against the tagging amount with no room even to call up someone signed to a contract next year. They may want breathing room for that, or to be able to consider a move at the deadline.

RR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2009, 03:53 PM
  #69
MP
Registered User
 
MP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,947
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbop View Post
Chicago really doesn't need to move two contracts. Now if you proposed Mueller for Versteeg straight up, that would be very interesting.
If by "interesting" you mean "likely to make Stan Bowman laugh in Don Maloney's face." Chicago is practically planning the parade route. No way are they parting with Versteeg, or anyone else that we'd want, for Peter Mueller.

Chicago does need to move two contracts, namely Campbell's and Sopel's, and maybe more--for example, they aren't going to win jack squat with Huet in net--but trading Mueller for either of them would be a waste.

They aren't a very good trading partner. They've decided that this is the year they make a run for the Cup, so they'd want quality in return if they gave up any of their key guys; but they don't have the cap space to absorb contracts of any size. I'm sure Bowman is always open to ideas that would help his team, but here's just not much they can do right now.

MP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2009, 03:58 PM
  #70
knowsthegame
Registered User
 
knowsthegame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Tale of 2 NHL cities
Posts: 865
vCash: 500
I'm guessing every team in the league with cap room will be looking at the posssibility of making a deal with the Hawks for a couple of quality roster players.
Hopefully GMDM can come up with the right deal.

knowsthegame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2009, 05:11 PM
  #71
bobbop
Henrik's Pop
 
bobbop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Suburban Phoenix
Country: United States
Posts: 4,822
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RR View Post
No, they don't, doesn't mean they won't. If they move just Sopel and get no roster player in return they are right up against the tagging amount with no room even to call up someone signed to a contract next year. They may want breathing room for that, or to be able to consider a move at the deadline.
Not likely. They are all in right now to win The Cup this year. One contract yes.

bobbop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2009, 05:52 PM
  #72
MP
Registered User
 
MP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,947
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by knowsthegame View Post
I'm guessing every team in the league with cap room will be looking at the posssibility of making a deal with the Hawks for a couple of quality roster players.
Hopefully GMDM can come up with the right deal.
The Blackhawks are not required to make any further roster moves right now.
And I'm not convinced that they feel as much pressure to get a deal done as everyone seems to think. They are not bargaining from a position of strength, because everybody knows what kind of cap problems they're going to have this summer. It makes more sense for Bowman to wait until the trade deadline, when other GMs will be under quite a bit of pressure themselves to upgrade their rosters.

One thing Bowman won't do is immediately rush into a trade that does little for Chicago apart from dumping salary. There may come a time when he has no choice but to trade a valuable but expensive asset for next to nothing--but as of now, there's simply no reason for it. If he makes any kind of deal, he'll want cheap, quality roster players in return, and Phoenix simply doesn't have any to spare.

MP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2009, 07:20 PM
  #73
rt
Usually Incorrect
 
rt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rarely Sober
Country: United States
Posts: 41,732
vCash: 500
Even though Chicago probably wouldn't, I would probably move Mueller for either of Sharp or Versteeg. Having said that, I'd be nervous about it. Both were considered fringe players before arriving in Chicago. The Coyotes don't have any kind of talent like Kane, Havlat, Toews, ect. Can Sharp and Versteeg keep up their pace with an expanded role on a team with much, much, much less support? If I had to guess, I would say yes. However, it is a question that needs to be asked. I would also guess that Mueller would almost certainly break out offensively on that team. There is a big chance that a deal like that leaves us with egg all over our faces. To me, it's worth the risk. To Don Maloney, who knows? It probably doesn't matter either way, as I don't really see Chicago going for it.

Personally, I'd prefer to move Pete out east, if possible. That is, of course, assuming that we do move him.

rt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2009, 09:57 PM
  #74
XX
... Waiting
 
XX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: 48th State
Country: United States
Posts: 27,262
vCash: 500
Lets wait. Do we really need something of use out of Mueller or else we are doomed? of course not. We have other young players. I say sit on him until he is 100% ruined, unless he turns it around.

XX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 11:02 AM
  #75
knowsthegame
Registered User
 
knowsthegame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Tale of 2 NHL cities
Posts: 865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rt View Post
Even though Chicago probably wouldn't, I would probably move Mueller for either of Sharp or Versteeg.
Of course Chicago wouldn't.

knowsthegame 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 06:05 PM.

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.