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 contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.

[TB/CHI] Brett Clark for a rostered Chicago Forward

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-25-2011, 02:54 AM
  #1
ploppsdman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 538
vCash: 500
[TB/CHI] Brett Clark for a rostered Chicago Forward

According to Tim Sassone's source


Quote:
As I wrote for Fridayís print edition, according to a source, Tampa Bayís Brett Clark apparently is in play, but it might cost the Hawks a forward off their present roster.
http://blogs.dailyherald.com/node/5248

Sassone also talks about the 'hawks probable interest in the Oilers defenseman Smid and (don't vomit) Vandermeer.

Quote:
Late on Thursday night by friend Jim Matheson, the Edmonton Journalís Hall of Fame hockey writer, tweeted Hawks pro scout Martin Lapointe has been following the Oilers. Matheson wrote he believes the Hawks are scouting defensemen Ladislav Smid and Jim Vandermeer.


Last edited by ploppsdman: 02-25-2011 at 03:05 AM.
ploppsdman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2011, 02:55 AM
  #2
Bills09
Registered User
 
Bills09's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Pickering, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,649
vCash: 500
Stalberg?

Bills09 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2011, 03:00 AM
  #3
ploppsdman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 538
vCash: 500
As far as I'm concerned, that sort of trade makes little sense to me. The 'hawks can move Bryan Bickell, Victor Stalberg and Michael Frolik. But, if they do that, they need to turn around and replace them. Question 1: with whom? Question 2: is there enough salary cap room to make those extra moves, as there's no one in the minors who is ready? Question 3: Why would Tampa want to trade Clark, let alone for Bickell or Frolik? They cant possibly have any interest in Stalberg.

ploppsdman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2011, 03:03 AM
  #4
ploppsdman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 538
vCash: 500
The only other name I could think of, with a similar salary, is Kopecky. However, he's pretty much the only guy willing to get his butt kicked in front of the goalie. Trading him, regardless that he'll be a ufa, seems unwise.

ploppsdman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2011, 03:06 AM
  #5
Blackhawkswincup
Tornado Warning
 
Blackhawkswincup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicagoland
Country: United States
Posts: 118,090
vCash: 157
This makes no sense to me

Why would Lightning move Clark? Sure they got Brewer but they still need someone like Clark to solidify there D

As for Hawks ,, Outside of dumping Stalberg or Scott giving up any other forward wouldn't make sense

Blackhawkswincup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2011, 03:09 AM
  #6
Rschmitz
Registered User
 
Rschmitz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tampa Bay
Country: United States
Posts: 5,074
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ploppsdman View Post
Why would Tampa want to trade Clark, let alone for Bickell or Frolik? They cant possibly have any interest in Stalberg.
When Lundin returns from injury we will have 8 NHL caliber defensemen. But I can't say that we need another forward either, Clark actually has played very good for us so it would need to be a serious upgrade and I just don't see it.

Rschmitz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2011, 03:58 AM
  #7
SDig14
Registered User
 
SDig14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Edmonton, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,794
vCash: 500
Makes no sense. Why alter your roster for Clark when you can smid or someone else for a prospect or pick?

Not to mention, makes no sense for Tampa to trade Clark because that puts them right where they were before they traded for brewer.

SDig14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2011, 04:07 AM
  #8
NuxFan09
Registered User
 
NuxFan09's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,152
vCash: 500
It would be interesting to see the Lightning add another forward to their group, although they already have two good lines going in Downie - Stamkos - St. Louis and Gagne - Lecavalier - Purcell.

Am I the only one that sees Clark as a bit redundant on the Bolts blueline, hence why he may be expendable? They've got some really solid defensive guys, such as Kubina, Brewer, Ohlund, and Lundin. It seems to me that if they need to solidify their defence more it would be with a puck mover. I don't think Tampa Bay's blueline would be hurting that bad without Clark.

NuxFan09 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2011, 04:22 AM
  #9
Bubba88
Toews = Savior
 
Bubba88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bavaria
Country: Germany
Posts: 25,265
vCash: 500
interesting..

Smid should still be our #1 target. But if MGMT wants what the fans want... we should search another option like Clark



Think Stalberg might be the guy who has to go. I doubt they trady Kopy or Brouwer. Frolik was just acquired and I doubt they trade him away. If they wanted to do this, could have gotten another return + Salak for Skille.

Maybe Dowell, but he hasn't enough value for a swap. With Johnson playing well as 4th Liner who may win a faceoff and knowing Q likes him...


My guess is Stalberg or Dowell - or Scott if you want him

Bubba88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2011, 07:42 AM
  #10
Doctor Drej
Unregistered User
 
Doctor Drej's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: The Quiet Room
Country: United States
Posts: 10,931
vCash: 500
No reason to trade Clark. If were trading a D-man between now and Monday its Smaby or Jones.

Doctor Drej is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2011, 08:05 AM
  #11
Kusic
Be The Thunder
 
Kusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Karlovy Vary
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 1,565
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Kusic
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Downie View Post
No reason to trade Clark. If were trading a D-man between now and Monday its Smaby or Jones.
Exactly... We have a lack of good defenders and Brett Clark is one of the our best defenders. We have no reason to trade him.

Kusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2011, 08:25 AM
  #12
OG Kuch
Registered User
 
OG Kuch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,113
vCash: 500
The only way I see Clark getting dealt is if we get an upgrade on D.

That said, I like Brouwer, but Chi wouldn't give him up in that package. I'm sure they want to keep him too.

OG Kuch is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2011, 08:31 AM
  #13
99 steps
to the top
 
99 steps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: RV, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 3,506
vCash: 500
Kopecky? Please?

99 steps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2011, 08:40 AM
  #14
DisgruntledHawkFan
Moderator
 
DisgruntledHawkFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 26,418
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to DisgruntledHawkFan
I would be ecstatic. Clark is a very capable defenseman, and is exactly the type of partner Nick Leddy needs.

DisgruntledHawkFan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2011, 08:41 AM
  #15
DisgruntledHawkFan
Moderator
 
DisgruntledHawkFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 26,418
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to DisgruntledHawkFan
I would be ecstatic. Clark is a very capable defenseman, and is exactly the type of partner Nick Leddy needs.

Stalberg plus a middling defensive prospect would be great. Connelly/Stanton

DisgruntledHawkFan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2011, 08:55 AM
  #16
nhljohnson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Downie View Post
No reason to trade Clark. If were trading a D-man between now and Monday its Smaby or Jones.
Jones and Smaby could feasibly be shipped off but they are role players with minimal trade value (and Smaby would probably have to be a throw-in) whereas Clark is a low-cost (somewhere near $300k owed for the remainder of the season, plus he's signed through next season with a cap-friendly $1.5 million AAV), moderately-productive (8g, 15a, 23pts, -1) option who can log top-4 minutes (~19:00 ATOI) and is versatile enough to play both the PP and the PK.

Moving Clark makes sense if you're clearing the logjam at D now (especially if he's going to be relegated to the 3rd-pairing when Lundin returns) with intention of freeing up room in the off-season to re-sign Brewer, accommodate Lundin's pay raise and possibly make a play for another bona-fide top-four blueliner either by trade or UFA.

nhljohnson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2011, 08:58 AM
  #17
nhljohnson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad2891 View Post
The only way I see Clark getting dealt is if we get an upgrade on D.
I agree, but I'm not sure that upgrade would come before the off-season. Trading Clark could be a "big picture" move to, like the Dan Ellis trade, give the team max flexibility heading into the off-season.

nhljohnson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2011, 11:10 AM
  #18
Still All In
Plz stop pucks
 
Still All In's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Scrip Club
Country: United States
Posts: 20,249
vCash: 500
Doesn't make sense unless a second deal is worked out...

Still All In is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2011, 11:10 AM
  #19
WJG
Running and Rioting
 
WJG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Country: Ireland
Posts: 13,479
vCash: 500
Smid for Frolik

WJG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2011, 11:14 AM
  #20
CB Joe
Registered User
 
CB Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,714
vCash: 544
Quenville had Clake in Colorado and maybe he is of interest to him.

CB Joe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2011, 11:23 AM
  #21
Happyhary9
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,120
vCash: 500
With Chi just waiving Boynton maybe a trade is coming or it could just be cause he sucks.

Happyhary9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2011, 11:24 AM
  #22
Nullus Reverentia
Registered User
 
Nullus Reverentia's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: The Periphery
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 17,320
vCash: 500
Clark for Bolland?

That's what I thought right away, then thought it was off value, then though how well Clark has played and thought maybe that's what it is. Clark for anything less and they should just keep him.

Nullus Reverentia is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2011, 11:28 AM
  #23
digdug41982
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 26,474
vCash: 50
Clark would be an outstanding pickup, especially being signed next year as well. The return would probably be Dowell or Stalberg plus the Toronto 3rd, something along those lines. I could see Yzerman having interest in Dowell.

digdug41982 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2011, 11:29 AM
  #24
Granlund2Pulkkinen*
New Kid on the Block
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Country: South Africa
Posts: 39,941
vCash: 500
The Avalanche never should have left Clark... He was our scapegoat but the man did know how to put his body in front of shots.

Granlund2Pulkkinen* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2011, 11:31 AM
  #25
99 steps
to the top
 
99 steps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: RV, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 3,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Errettung View Post
Clark for Bolland?

That's what I thought right away, then thought it was off value, then though how well Clark has played and thought maybe that's what it is. Clark for anything less and they should just keep him.
If you are expecting Bolland, you should plan to keep Clark.

99 steps 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 04:15 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.