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

Brian Campbell

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-11-2010, 07:58 PM
  #1
phillipmike
Registered User
 
phillipmike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 887
vCash: 500
Brian Campbell

I am not making a proposal for him and i hope no one makes any offers.

I am a Leaf fan, but i am asking this question from a NHL fan point of view.

So my questions is for Chicago fans...

If a team was willing to take on Campbell, what would you expect back?

1. Would you expect to get a good return?
2. Would you unload him for essentially nothing just based on his contract?
3. Do you think his contract is bad enough where you think Chicago would have to give up something good to get rid of him?
4. Campbell is a top defencemen and i would consider moving other players on the team to keep the core together before considering a deal involving Campbell?

Whats your opinion?

phillipmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2010, 08:13 PM
  #2
CommittedIndians
Registered User
 
CommittedIndians's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago burbs
Posts: 418
vCash: 500
1. Would you expect to get a good return? Yes - he's a top-3 defenseman on any team in the NHL. Those don't come cheap.

2. Would you unload him for essentially nothing just based on his contract? hell no

3. Do you think his contract is bad enough where you think Chicago would have to give up something good to get rid of him? hell no

4. Campbell is a top defencemen and i would consider moving other players on the team to keep the core together before considering a deal involving Campbell?

Four is where I'm mixed. Campbell's absolutely a top defenseman, but he's also expensive. There are defenseman in the game (Chara for example) that are making the same/more money than Campbell, so saying the Hawks would dump him because he has a bad contract isn't totally accurate. It's only a bad deal because the Hawks have so many young players that need new deals.

I don't think the Hawks will move Campbell for nothing because he's playing really good hockey this year. Cam Barker, on the other hand, we'll take a bag of Hossa's white sticks for. But Campbell is worth his salary... it's just a lot of money for the Hawks to have on the books.

CommittedIndians is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2010, 08:37 PM
  #3
phillipmike
Registered User
 
phillipmike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 887
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CommittedIndians View Post
1. Would you expect to get a good return? Yes - he's a top-3 defenseman on any team in the NHL. Those don't come cheap.

2. Would you unload him for essentially nothing just based on his contract? hell no

3. Do you think his contract is bad enough where you think Chicago would have to give up something good to get rid of him? hell no

4. Campbell is a top defencemen and i would consider moving other players on the team to keep the core together before considering a deal involving Campbell?

Four is where I'm mixed. Campbell's absolutely a top defenseman, but he's also expensive. There are defenseman in the game (Chara for example) that are making the same/more money than Campbell, so saying the Hawks would dump him because he has a bad contract isn't totally accurate. It's only a bad deal because the Hawks have so many young players that need new deals.

I don't think the Hawks will move Campbell for nothing because he's playing really good hockey this year. Cam Barker, on the other hand, we'll take a bag of Hossa's white sticks for. But Campbell is worth his salary... it's just a lot of money for the Hawks to have on the books.
The only reason i bring it up is sure Chara is geting paid the same. But Campbell's contract is for another 7 years and Chicago is right up against the cap. I am saying do you value Campbell as a player or would you prefer 7 plus million dollars in cap space for 7 years? Because not a lot of teams can take on a contract like that and that is why i even considered the idea of Chicago not gettig full value back for him or even adding something to get 7 million of cap space for 7 years.

phillipmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2010, 09:03 PM
  #4
DisgruntledHawkFan
Moderator
 
DisgruntledHawkFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 22,008
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to DisgruntledHawkFan
I wouldn't expect a good return, but I'd expect A return. If McCabe brought back value, why wouldn't Campbell?

DisgruntledHawkFan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2010, 09:38 PM
  #5
phillipmike
Registered User
 
phillipmike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 887
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DisgruntledHawkFan View Post
I wouldn't expect a good return, but I'd expect A return. If McCabe brought back value, why wouldn't Campbell?
I dont want to make it seem like i am a Campbell hater because i am not.

The difference between McCabe and Campbell is McCabe was being paid 5.75M for 3 more years as opposed to Campbell's 7.14M for 6 more years. To me there is no comparison there. Toronto didnt get a "return" for McCabe, they had to give up a 4th round pick and get a less talented, injury prone defencemen with a bloated contract as well (who only played 27 games for them).

Anyways i just think eventhough as good as Campbell is; i think Chicago is better off without his salary and keep more affordable guys like Keith, Campbell, Seabrook and Hjalmarsson together. This way they can keep their forward group together as well.

But that is my opinion and that is why i am asking for the Chicago's fans point of view.

phillipmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2010, 09:51 PM
  #6
DisgruntledHawkFan
Moderator
 
DisgruntledHawkFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 22,008
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to DisgruntledHawkFan
The other difference is that Campbell is a better player then McCabe at everything other then shooting the puck.

DisgruntledHawkFan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2010, 10:10 PM
  #7
phillipmike
Registered User
 
phillipmike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 887
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DisgruntledHawkFan View Post
The other difference is that Campbell is a better player then McCabe at everything other then shooting the puck.
But does that offset 3 more years and 25.29M extra?

McCabe at 5.75M for 3 more years

OR

Campbell at 7.14M for 6 more years

I do agree Campbell is a better player but that is why he is getting more money. But i dont think he deserves 7M or a 8 year contract.

But many can say thats not my problem. And that is a valid point, but i am curious to what you guys think and i feel that Chicago wont just give him away for nothing, where i would just for the flexibilty.

phillipmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2010, 10:13 PM
  #8
HawksFan74
Tread Lightly
 
HawksFan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 15,338
vCash: 500
I'd give him away for draft picks or next to nothing after this year if it allows us to sign Sharp, Steeg, and Hammer.

HawksFan74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2010, 10:13 PM
  #9
massivegoonery
Registered User
 
massivegoonery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 11,329
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillipmike View Post
But does that offset 3 more years and 25.29M extra?

McCabe at 5.75M for 3 more years

OR

Campbell at 7.14M for 6 more years

I do agree Campbell is a better player but that is why he is getting more money. But i dont think he deserves 7M or a 8 year contract.

But many can say thats not my problem. And that is a valid point, but i am curious to what you guys think and i feel that Chicago wont just give him away for nothing, where i would just for the flexibilty.
Flexibility to do what? Sign somebody else? They'll be just as overpaid as Campbell.

massivegoonery is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2010, 10:28 PM
  #10
TweetyLeaf
Registered User
 
TweetyLeaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Finland
Country: Finland
Posts: 739
vCash: 500

1. Would you expect to get a good return?


Yes. He is a good player who is maybe 1-2 mil overpaid. you dont get much with 1-2 mil´s these days in NHL when speaking of defenceman.

2. Would you unload him for essentially nothing just based on his contract?


Why should we when we can get something back ?

3. Do you think his contract is bad enough where you think Chicago would have to give up something good to get rid of him?


No but i think that to get other team to pay fair value for Campbell someone/something must move with him.
In other words: If Campbell is traded "alone" he wont bring back the quality that Chicago needs becouse no amount of good players replaces 1 great player and i firmly believe he is not gonna be traded in a 1to1 trade (there is nothing to gain from such deal at the moment).

To get the most out of speculative Campbell trade it would be something along these lines:
Campbell + Mr.X
<<- to ->>
Mr. Z + Mr. Y + 1st-3rd round pick
and salary going away from Chicago ofc.

4. Campbell is a top defencemen and i would consider moving other players on the team to keep the core together before considering a deal involving Campbell?

Campbell is one of the core guys in Chicago even if some fans dont like it much. Moving a core player salary cap reasons is allways possibility becouse core players are so damn expensive.
I wouldnt say i would move "other players" before him tho, I would rather say that i would move him if i need 7 mil to keep the rest of the team intact.

---------

Also, Lets say we move Campbell, thats ~7 mil relief to cap.
Oh wait, no its not.
We need to get someone to replace him and you dont replace Campbell with a rookie guy and good D cost money.
So we get someone suitable and pay 5 mil per/y for him and we just saved a damn 2 mil.

2 mil.

You dont even get Brent Sopel with that money

TweetyLeaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2010, 10:31 PM
  #11
phillipmike
Registered User
 
phillipmike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 887
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by massivegoonery View Post
Flexibility to do what? Sign somebody else? They'll be just as overpaid as Campbell.
To re-sign Hjalmarsson, Niemi, Ladd and maybe look at a free agent or two in 2010. In 2011 Seabrook and Byfuglien need to be re-signed and the only significant salary coming off the books will be Sopel.

In my opinion Keith, Seabrook, Barker and potentially a cheaper top 4 defencemen will still give Chicago a top defensive corps.

Its like you guys adding Hossa, he isnt needed because you have awesome offensive players in Toews, Kane, Sharp and other guys in Versteeg, Byfulien, and Bolland. If Chicago traded Hossa and Campbell they would still have a top forward and defensive group in my opinion and they wont need replacing. But Hossa wouldnt need to go, although he was given a ridculous contract based on term, i believe his cap hit per year is a steal. Campbell on the other hand is overpaid and has a contract that is too long in my opinion.


Last edited by phillipmike: 01-11-2010 at 10:39 PM.
phillipmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2010, 11:47 PM
  #12
Blackhawkswincup
Global Moderator
 
Blackhawkswincup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicagoland
Country: United States
Posts: 104,891
vCash: 340
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillipmike View Post
I am not making a proposal for him and i hope no one makes any offers.

I am a Leaf fan, but i am asking this question from a NHL fan point of view.

So my questions is for Chicago fans...

If a team was willing to take on Campbell, what would you expect back?

1. Would you expect to get a good return?
2. Would you unload him for essentially nothing just based on his contract?
3. Do you think his contract is bad enough where you think Chicago would have to give up something good to get rid of him?
4. Campbell is a top defencemen and i would consider moving other players on the team to keep the core together before considering a deal involving Campbell?

Whats your opinion?
1- A solid return is what I expect. Nothing big
2- If it is June 30th,,,, Probably
3- Maybe
4- I also would hold onto Campbell as his value to our transistion game is irreplaceable at this time

Blackhawkswincup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2010, 02:28 AM
  #13
Glen Quagmire
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 13
vCash: 500
The Brian Campbell of the last 3 months or the one that played last year ? They are 2 entirely different players.

Glen Quagmire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2010, 02:43 AM
  #14
phillipmike
Registered User
 
phillipmike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 887
vCash: 500
Thats the decision management (or the Chicago posters on this site in this case) has to make?

My questions about Campbell are based on Chicago moving him in the off-season...

In my humble opinion i think either way getting 7M off your cap for 6 more years is huge for your franchise, considering Chicago's position.

phillipmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2010, 03:33 AM
  #15
Bubba88
Toews = Savior
 
Bubba88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bavaria
Country: Germany
Posts: 24,259
vCash: 500
in the Offseason... i would like someone like Hainsey with 4 Mio. Saves 3 Mio for Hjalmarsson and Niemi.

Bubba88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2010, 10:06 AM
  #16
phillipmike
Registered User
 
phillipmike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 887
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba88 View Post
in the Offseason... i would like someone like Hainsey with 4 Mio. Saves 3 Mio for Hjalmarsson and Niemi.
That's the kind of deal that i think would help Chicago. There arent many teams that can take on his salary without sending a similar contract back (whether it is term or money). I am just looking at the ramifications of the cap. If there was a deal were i can unload Campbell's contract i would do it. Just because i view locking up Niemi, Hjarlmarsson, Seabrook and Byfulien to long term contracts more important than having Campbell.

I am sure a lot of teams would love to have Campbell, with his contract i doubt many owners would allow their GMs to trade him without giving some salary back. And if Chicago had to take on a lesser player with an expensive and long-term contract then it makes no sense. But if a team was willing to take on Campbell without Chicago having to take on a bad (expensive or long-term) contract then it would be worth. However, i dont think many NHL teams can afford to do that. And if a deal is made Campbell would have to agree and i am pretty sure Chicago wont deal with any Western conference teams.

New Jersey: Campbell and a First round pick for Oduya
Ottawa: Campbell and a First round pick for Kuba

As of right now i think those are the only teams he waives his no trade clause for. It may not be the best deal for Chicago but to get that contract off the books and get a top 4 defencemen back then i think its worth the 1st round pick. If not then Chicago would have to explore losing affordable young talent in Versteeg, Bolland or Byfulien. If the dont then players like Seabrook, Niemi and other would be hard to re-sign.


Last edited by phillipmike: 01-12-2010 at 10:13 AM.
phillipmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2010, 10:10 AM
  #17
CommittedIndians
Registered User
 
CommittedIndians's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago burbs
Posts: 418
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillipmike View Post
To re-sign Hjalmarsson, Niemi, Ladd and maybe look at a free agent or two in 2010. In 2011 Seabrook and Byfuglien need to be re-signed and the only significant salary coming off the books will be Sopel.

In my opinion Keith, Seabrook, Barker and potentially a cheaper top 4 defencemen will still give Chicago a top defensive corps.

Its like you guys adding Hossa, he isnt needed because you have awesome offensive players in Toews, Kane, Sharp and other guys in Versteeg, Byfulien, and Bolland. If Chicago traded Hossa and Campbell they would still have a top forward and defensive group in my opinion and they wont need replacing. But Hossa wouldnt need to go, although he was given a ridculous contract based on term, i believe his cap hit per year is a steal. Campbell on the other hand is overpaid and has a contract that is too long in my opinion.
You obviously don't watch the Hawks

CommittedIndians is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2010, 10:31 AM
  #18
CommittedIndians
Registered User
 
CommittedIndians's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago burbs
Posts: 418
vCash: 500
A few slices of reality:

A) Cam Barker is MORE overpaid than Brian Campbell. If he's with the organization when we break camp to begin the 2010-11 season, I'll be shocked.

B) Unlike Barker, who's a 5th/6th defenseman, Campbell cannot be replaced with a rookie. The Blackhawks could slide LaLonde, at $600k, into Barker's spot and not miss a beat next year while saving $2.4M; they cannot slide Barker into Campbell's, or LaLonde or anyone else for less than $4M, into the production expected from Campbell as a 3rd defenseman/power play point man. For what we're getting from Barker and Campbell, it would be easier to replace Barker AND save $2M than accomplish the same with Campbell.

C) Hjalmarsson's a RFA; I would imagine the Hawks tender him a one-year offer, and then lock him up w/ Seabrook during the season next year just as they extended Keith, Toews & Kane during this season.

D) I might be alone in this, but I'm not completely against moving Byfuglien at some point; considering he's on the 3rd line now, if we can replace him w/ Bickell/Dowell/evntually Beach, his $3M doesn't HAVE to be renewed after 2010-11.

E) Cristobal Huet's contract is worse than Campbell's.

F) Detroit. That's it here... F Detroit.

G) There are other guys coming up through the ranks that will make the 5-6 yrs of Campbell's contract easier to stomach than years 2-4. Eventually, we'll see kids like Marcus Kruger, Kyle Beach, Dylan Olsen and LaLonde replacing players like Barker, Sopel, and even Sharp and/or Versteeg.

People are crapping their pants because they think the Blackhawks HAVE to break this team up. They don't. They need to make a number of sound moves to clear some cap space. In all, they need to clear out roughly $9M in cap space; this can be accomplished without moving Brian Campbell. With where the market's going, we'll be more thankful for Keith being UNDERPAID in two years than Campbell being OVERPAID, because the market is quickly taking elite players into the $7-9M+ range.

How I would accomplish cost-cutting:

1) Trade Barker for a prospect/pick - save $3M
2) Trade Sopel for anything - save $2.33M
3) Replace that 3rd pair w/ LaLonde ($600k) + Hendry/Olsen ($600k)
4) NET SAVINGS: $5.333-$1.2 = $4.133M
5) Trade Huet. Give him away.
6) WORST CASE buy out Huet. That would make him $1.688M x 4 yrs, replaced w/ Crawford/another prospect @ $650-800k.
7) Net savings from buying out Huet: $5.675-$2.4M= roughly $3.25M

In this doomsday scenario where we buy out Huet and unload Barker and Sopel for nothing, we're saving almost $7.4M next year - more than Campbell's contract without unloading a good blue liner for nothing. Indeed, these deals might actually make the Hawks BETTER in the long run. Would I want to pay Huet $3.4M for 2 extra years? No. But is that worth keeping Seabs, Hammer and Campbell all on the same blue line? Absolutely.

CommittedIndians is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2010, 01:43 PM
  #19
andyandersson
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Lund
Country: Sweden
Posts: 36
vCash: 500
many good thoughts... But i would never have two rookies as our 3 d-pair (lalonde and olsen).... and i would rather trade Huet than buying him out. Yes i think it can be done if we sweetened the deal with a pick... sign Hjalmarsson to a one-year contract and then we can see what happens after the next CBA.. think its up after next season?

andyandersson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2010, 01:47 PM
  #20
Jeffrey Lebowski
Luuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
 
Jeffrey Lebowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: North Side
Country: United States
Posts: 5,183
vCash: 500
I really like Campbell and even though he is overpaid, he's pretty important to the team now. I might be judging wrong but I'd rather lose Byfuglien, Barker and Versteeg than Campbell. Byfuglien has essentially been replaced by Brouwer picking up his game, let alone that we still have Beach in the wings who could play the same sort of role for cheaper. Hendry seems to mesh better with Sopel than Barker and is cheaper... The only thing that would hurt would be losing Versteeg. But Versteeg seems more like a luxury and Campbell (although a luxury as well), seems to be more essential to this team than Steeger. If we hold on to Campbell for the next few years and let his contract length run down a bit so that his trade value increases more (and possibly the salary cap as well), we also allow Lalonde time to develop properly to replace Campbell (and by many accounts, Lalonde is the same type of player). I'd love to hang onto everyone... but in consideration of the future, I think that Campbell plays a bigger role in our success.

Jeffrey Lebowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2010, 01:54 PM
  #21
Blue Liner
Registered User
 
Blue Liner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 4,417
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CommittedIndians View Post
A few slices of reality:

A) Cam Barker is MORE overpaid than Brian Campbell. If he's with the organization when we break camp to begin the 2010-11 season, I'll be shocked.

B) Unlike Barker, who's a 5th/6th defenseman, Campbell cannot be replaced with a rookie. The Blackhawks could slide LaLonde, at $600k, into Barker's spot and not miss a beat next year while saving $2.4M; they cannot slide Barker into Campbell's, or LaLonde or anyone else for less than $4M, into the production expected from Campbell as a 3rd defenseman/power play point man. For what we're getting from Barker and Campbell, it would be easier to replace Barker AND save $2M than accomplish the same with Campbell.

C) Hjalmarsson's a RFA; I would imagine the Hawks tender him a one-year offer, and then lock him up w/ Seabrook during the season next year just as they extended Keith, Toews & Kane during this season.

D) I might be alone in this, but I'm not completely against moving Byfuglien at some point; considering he's on the 3rd line now, if we can replace him w/ Bickell/Dowell/evntually Beach, his $3M doesn't HAVE to be renewed after 2010-11.

E) Cristobal Huet's contract is worse than Campbell's.

F) Detroit. That's it here... F Detroit.

G) There are other guys coming up through the ranks that will make the 5-6 yrs of Campbell's contract easier to stomach than years 2-4. Eventually, we'll see kids like Marcus Kruger, Kyle Beach, Dylan Olsen and LaLonde replacing players like Barker, Sopel, and even Sharp and/or Versteeg.

People are crapping their pants because they think the Blackhawks HAVE to break this team up. They don't. They need to make a number of sound moves to clear some cap space. In all, they need to clear out roughly $9M in cap space; this can be accomplished without moving Brian Campbell. With where the market's going, we'll be more thankful for Keith being UNDERPAID in two years than Campbell being OVERPAID, because the market is quickly taking elite players into the $7-9M+ range.

How I would accomplish cost-cutting:

1) Trade Barker for a prospect/pick - save $3M
2) Trade Sopel for anything - save $2.33M
3) Replace that 3rd pair w/ LaLonde ($600k) + Hendry/Olsen ($600k)
4) NET SAVINGS: $5.333-$1.2 = $4.133M
5) Trade Huet. Give him away.
6) WORST CASE buy out Huet. That would make him $1.688M x 4 yrs, replaced w/ Crawford/another prospect @ $650-800k.
7) Net savings from buying out Huet: $5.675-$2.4M= roughly $3.25M

In this doomsday scenario where we buy out Huet and unload Barker and Sopel for nothing, we're saving almost $7.4M next year - more than Campbell's contract without unloading a good blue liner for nothing. Indeed, these deals might actually make the Hawks BETTER in the long run. Would I want to pay Huet $3.4M for 2 extra years? No. But is that worth keeping Seabs, Hammer and Campbell all on the same blue line? Absolutely.
They haven't missed a beat with Hendry playing every night in his place, let alone a top prospect filling in. Getting injured was probably the worst thing that could happen to Barker as far as his future with this team goes, because everyone knew he was likely expendable but now everyone knows for a fact that he is because it's been proven with his absence.

Blue Liner is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2010, 02:00 PM
  #22
Jeffrey Lebowski
Luuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
 
Jeffrey Lebowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: North Side
Country: United States
Posts: 5,183
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Liner View Post
They haven't missed a beat with Hendry playing every night in his place, let alone a top prospect filling in. Getting injured was probably the worst thing that could happen to Barker as far as his future with this team goes, because everyone knew he was likely expendable but now everyone knows for a fact that he is because it's been proven with his absence.
Good points, I agree. The thing that worries me though, is that this also lowers his trade value as it might make teams believe he's injury-prone and easily replaceable. He's a serviceable defenseman, but in my opinion, hasn't taken that next step to achieving his potential.

Jeffrey Lebowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2010, 02:48 PM
  #23
stingo
Registered User
 
stingo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,887
vCash: 500
Campbell has been flat out amazing the past few months. Why would we give him up? He's turning into a real well rounded defensemen. He's offense first, but he doesn't suck as much in his own zone as he did last year.

We need his transition game.

I think Campbell is an important part of this team, and we're not going to give him away for scraps, or nothing at all.

We'd miss him more than a lot of people think.

stingo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2010, 02:51 PM
  #24
Blue Liner
Registered User
 
Blue Liner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 4,417
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shartmcgart View Post
Good points, I agree. The thing that worries me though, is that this also lowers his trade value as it might make teams believe he's injury-prone and easily replaceable. He's a serviceable defenseman, but in my opinion, hasn't taken that next step to achieving his potential.
I agree, only I hope teams don't see it as him being replaceable but more like their d-core is just that deep that they can play without anyone.

Blue Liner is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2010, 02:55 PM
  #25
Bubba88
Toews = Savior
 
Bubba88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bavaria
Country: Germany
Posts: 24,259
vCash: 500
i like the idea

barker sopel out
lalonde hendry in

savings 4.1 Mio

Buffy out
Beach in

savings 1.8 Mio

5.9 and not getting that worse

Bubba88 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 12:16 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.