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.

A few Brian Campbell ideas

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-02-2011, 06:43 AM
  #26
BackGroundMusic
rebuildingeverywhere
 
BackGroundMusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Germany
Posts: 24,928
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba88 View Post
BUF could be possible but not for Boyes. Think about Hecht
Buffalo might consider trading Boyes/Hecht for Campbell +++, and by +++ I mean a couple of 1st round picks and a good prospect.

Just face it, you guys are stuck with Soupy.

BackGroundMusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2011, 07:32 AM
  #27
Mansfield
possession obsession
 
Mansfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,231
vCash: 500
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: It's a real pity that Campbell is considered so poisonous for teams to have.

He's an excellent defenceman; arguably Chicago's best (or most consistent at least) throughout their Van series. If he was making 4 million per next 3, I bet you half the teams in the league would be dying to have him.

Mansfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2011, 07:59 AM
  #28
Grabovski
Грабовский правил
 
Grabovski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Gomel, Belarus
Country: Belarus
Posts: 3,966
vCash: 500
How about:
Komisarek + Lebda
for
Campbell

??

Grabovski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2011, 08:14 AM
  #29
Bubba88
Toews = Savior
 
Bubba88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bavaria
Country: Germany
Posts: 25,265
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BikeGiftingMan View Post
Buffalo might consider trading Boyes/Hecht for Campbell +++, and by +++ I mean a couple of 1st round picks and a good prospect.

Just face it, you guys are stuck with Soupy.
no team will get +++ just for taking Campbell. Campbell was never asked to give the Hawks a 8 Team list. We like him and he is a big reason why the Hawks won the Cup and are contenders.

+ he improved alot since he signed that contract thanks to Coach Q


Oilers are stuck with Souray like Rags with Redden or Hawks with Huet. But Campbell is only here to discuss because he is overpaid by 1.5 - 2 million. That is all

Bubba88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2011, 08:17 AM
  #30
Bubba88
Toews = Savior
 
Bubba88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bavaria
Country: Germany
Posts: 25,265
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grabovski View Post
How about:
Komisarek + Lebda
for
Campbell

??
only 1...


Campbell is a good Player and only overpaid by 1.5-2 million.

Komi + Lebda are overpaid by ~5 million together. Why should the Hawks even consider this?

Bubba88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2011, 08:23 AM
  #31
TSA0402
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,490
vCash: 500
People are going to be shocked at the return Campbell gets if traded judging by popular opinion on this board. Scott Gomez wasn't considered tradable at the time, and he brought back a mid-high end prospect with Higgins. You aren't going to get Campbell, who is arguably pretty damn close to elite on the blueline for nothing or less. Yes his contract sucks, so does just about every free agent contract in the NHL.

TSA0402 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2011, 08:27 AM
  #32
TOGuy14
Registered User
 
TOGuy14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,395
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bacon View Post
To Chicago: Brad Boyes
To Buffalo: Brian Campbell

To Chicago: Milan Michalek
To Ottawa: Brian Campbell

To Chicago: Paul Stastny
To Colorado: Brian Campbell, 2011 1st

To Chicago: Michal Rozsival, Lee Stempniak, Paul Bissonette
To Phoenix: Brian Campbell, 2011 3rd


All trades can be tweaked with picks or proespects as needed.
'
All of these trades get a quick no and a hangup from the other GM.

The Colorado one probably gets a HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELL NO.


---

Now to save a double post to reply to a bunch of others posts here let me go over some extra points here.

If Chicago fans think that Campbell is such a good d-man, they can keep him. Nobody on these boards has actively posted threads trying to acquire him (that I have ever seen).

Some people would ask why they would need to take back bad contracts (or contracts they preceive as worse) for Campbell? Because the duration of Campbell's contract is the double kill for him. Not only does he make too much money but it runs much too long. So essentially you would need to take back more money for a shorter duration.

Scott Gomez can be traed why can't Campbell? Well because it is universally regarded that the Gomez trade was absolutely awful by Montreal. Montreal would take that trade back 10 times out of 10.

And to the person who said "If he made 4 million for the next three years people would be dying to have him" You are spot on with your assessment. If you can get him to void his current contract and sign a 3 x $4M contract teams will place many offers on him, but at that point I suspect the Blackhawks fans would also stop trying to desperately pawn him off on other teams.


Last edited by TOGuy14: 05-02-2011 at 09:06 AM.
TOGuy14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2011, 08:58 AM
  #33
Bacon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habitant#1 View Post
Is Campbell really that bad? Can he not even play a top 4 role anymore?


Also, what are some opinions on Gomez for Campbell?
Hawks wouldn't touch that. In an ideal world, Campbell would be making around 5 mil and the Hawks would have no reason to move him. The only reason the Hawks are willing to move him is to get some cap relief

Bacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2011, 09:05 AM
  #34
TSA0402
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,490
vCash: 500
Several teams were offering Campbell at least 6 million for 5+ seasons if I recall correctly. The only reason you could value him at 5 million, is because of the extra year or two on his contract. I was absolutely shocked how much Gomez received for a good playoff run. Hawks aren't rebuilding, the question that needs answering is this. Is Chicago better with Gomez or Campbell?

TSA0402 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2011, 09:27 AM
  #35
Bubba88
Toews = Savior
 
Bubba88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bavaria
Country: Germany
Posts: 25,265
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TSA0402 View Post
Several teams were offering Campbell at least 6 million for 5+ seasons if I recall correctly. The only reason you could value him at 5 million, is because of the extra year or two on his contract. I was absolutely shocked how much Gomez received for a good playoff run. Hawks aren't rebuilding, the question that needs answering is this. Is Chicago better with Gomez or Campbell?
depends on what Bowmans think about Leddy. If they already see him as 2nd Line PMD they would take Gomez. But Leddy isn't that good yet

Bubba88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2011, 09:39 AM
  #36
digdug41982
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 26,474
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by TSA0402 View Post
People are going to be shocked at the return Campbell gets if traded judging by popular opinion on this board. Scott Gomez wasn't considered tradable at the time, and he brought back a mid-high end prospect with Higgins. You aren't going to get Campbell, who is arguably pretty damn close to elite on the blueline for nothing or less. Yes his contract sucks, so does just about every free agent contract in the NHL.
Exactly. I'd like the Hawks to move that contract, but the facts are the facts. Hypothetically, a trade of Campbell to NYR for Boyle and a 2nd is probably in line with league value. These boards would/will explode if/when something like that happens.

digdug41982 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2011, 09:49 AM
  #37
seanlinden
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 20,187
vCash: 500
I think Chicago fans need to realize that they're problably stuck with Campbell for at least a few more years because they didn't front-load his contract.

He's a perfect example of why bad teams cannot and should not engage in those types of deals. Yes they won the cup with him, but that's because they had Toews/Kane making $900k each, and a Norris-winning defenceman making $1.8m. When you sign any long term deal to a player that can be reasonably expected to decline over the length of the deal (like Campbell), you basically commit to winning now and worry about the long term cap impacts later. For Chicago at least they won the cup while doing so.

A further problem arises when you don't have the cash to frontload the deal, because while years will tick off that contract, his performance will likely decline making him a worse and worse bargain. At least if you frontload the deal than he may be attractive to teams who have internal budgets.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TSA0402 View Post
Several teams were offering Campbell at least 6 million for 5+ seasons if I recall correctly. The only reason you could value him at 5 million, is because of the extra year or two on his contract. I was absolutely shocked how much Gomez received for a good playoff run. Hawks aren't rebuilding, the question that needs answering is this. Is Chicago better with Gomez or Campbell?
It doesn't exactly work like that... teams were offering $6m for the 29-year old Campbell that they'd have for a 2-3 seasons and worry about later. Chicago has burned off the best years (or at more accurately the least worst years) on that contract.

seanlinden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2011, 10:02 AM
  #38
BackGroundMusic
rebuildingeverywhere
 
BackGroundMusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Germany
Posts: 24,928
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba88 View Post
no team will get +++ just for taking Campbell. Campbell was never asked to give the Hawks a 8 Team list. We like him and he is a big reason why the Hawks won the Cup and are contenders.

+ he improved alot since he signed that contract thanks to Coach Q


Oilers are stuck with Souray like Rags with Redden or Hawks with Huet. But Campbell is only here to discuss because he is overpaid by 1.5 - 2 million. That is all
I agree, which is why I said the Hawks are stuck with him.

BackGroundMusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2011, 10:20 AM
  #39
Bubba88
Toews = Savior
 
Bubba88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bavaria
Country: Germany
Posts: 25,265
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanlinden View Post
I think Chicago fans need to realize that they're problably stuck with Campbell for at least a few more years because they didn't front-load his contract.

He's a perfect example of why bad teams cannot and should not engage in those types of deals. Yes they won the cup with him, but that's because they had Toews/Kane making $900k each, and a Norris-winning defenceman making $1.8m. When you sign any long term deal to a player that can be reasonably expected to decline over the length of the deal (like Campbell), you basically commit to winning now and worry about the long term cap impacts later. For Chicago at least they won the cup while doing so.

A further problem arises when you don't have the cash to frontload the deal, because while years will tick off that contract, his performance will likely decline making him a worse and worse bargain. At least if you frontload the deal than he may be attractive to teams who have internal budgets.



It doesn't exactly work like that... teams were offering $6m for the 29-year old Campbell that they'd have for a 2-3 seasons and worry about later. Chicago has burned off the best years (or at more accurately the least worst years) on that contract.
Campbell is not on the decline. Campbell is better today than he was 3 years back. His D is better than ever. He is still a great PMD.

Bubba88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2011, 10:26 AM
  #40
BackGroundMusic
rebuildingeverywhere
 
BackGroundMusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Germany
Posts: 24,928
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba88 View Post
Campbell is not on the decline. Campbell is better today than he was 3 years back. His D is better than ever. He is still a great PMD.
But what you're not taking into consideration is that a trade for a player with many highly-paid years left on his contract is that, while he might be playing good now, whoever owns his rights are on the hook for his money and cap hit when he loses a stride or two. A lot of teams try to build with youth and hope their ELC guys carry them to a Cup [see Chicago]. Now that those ELC guys are no longer ELC guys, money gets tighter and players need to get moved for scraps [see Chicago].

BackGroundMusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2011, 10:30 AM
  #41
seanlinden
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 20,187
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba88 View Post
Campbell is not on the decline. Campbell is better today than he was 3 years back. His D is better than ever. He is still a great PMD.
I think you're missing the point -- Campbell can be reasonably expected to decline over the length of his contract. As for his D, it's debatable as to whether or not he's improved or just a result of very good coaching. Won't know that until Quennville or Campbell leaves.

seanlinden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2011, 10:32 AM
  #42
Bubba88
Toews = Savior
 
Bubba88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bavaria
Country: Germany
Posts: 25,265
vCash: 500
who says that Campbell will take a step back? Campbell isn't on the decline and Teams would still offer him 6 million as UFA.

if you want to say he is on the decline due to his point totals... look at his +/- and the +/- of all other Chicago DMen

Bubba88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2011, 10:33 AM
  #43
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 BikeGiftingMan View Post
Just face it, you guys are stuck with Soupy.
Fine with me.

99 steps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2011, 10:39 AM
  #44
TSA0402
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,490
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanlinden View Post
I think you're missing the point -- Campbell can be reasonably expected to decline over the length of his contract. As for his D, it's debatable as to whether or not he's improved or just a result of very good coaching. Won't know that until Quennville or Campbell leaves.
Campbell's defense has improved and his point totals are down because he plays a ton of secondary minutes. Expecting a decline at 33 isn't exactly reasonable, its possible. Expecting Campbell to have a noteworthy decline at 35+ is reasonable. His cap hit is high I agree, name me one high profile dman in the past five years who has a good cap hit after UFA.

TSA0402 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2011, 10:41 AM
  #45
White Goodman
smell that fitness?
 
White Goodman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Edmonton, AB
Country: England
Posts: 6,830
vCash: 50
Michalek for Campbell? What a joke.

White Goodman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2011, 10:43 AM
  #46
sabres_phan
Registered User
 
sabres_phan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 540
vCash: 672
To CHI: Hecht, Boyes

To BUF: Soupy, Sharp

sabres_phan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2011, 10:55 AM
  #47
digdug41982
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 26,474
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by sabres_phan View Post
To CHI: Hecht, Boyes

To BUF: Soupy, Sharp
Replace Boyes with Roy and it's still not good enough, but it's a start.

digdug41982 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2011, 11:02 AM
  #48
Blad Meaning Gud
Yu - Behr - Doe
 
Blad Meaning Gud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,912
vCash: 500
Brian Campbell for Rostislav Olesz

Blad Meaning Gud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2011, 11:02 AM
  #49
seanlinden
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 20,187
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba88 View Post
who says that Campbell will take a step back? Campbell isn't on the decline and Teams would still offer him 6 million as UFA.

if you want to say he is on the decline due to his point totals... look at his +/- and the +/- of all other Chicago DMen
He's getting older, that's what players do. Teams may offer him $6m as a UFA, but not for another 5 years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TSA0402 View Post
Campbell's defense has improved and his point totals are down because he plays a ton of secondary minutes. Expecting a decline at 33 isn't exactly reasonable, its possible. Expecting Campbell to have a noteworthy decline at 35+ is reasonable. His cap hit is high I agree, name me one high profile dman in the past five years who has a good cap hit after UFA.
Campbell's defence has improved because of the team he plays on. Whether that carries over to another team is a complete unknown. Expecting a decline at 33 is perfectly reasonable, that's what happens after a player's prime which usually occurs in their mid-late 20s.

seanlinden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2011, 11:10 AM
  #50
sabres_phan
Registered User
 
sabres_phan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 540
vCash: 672
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldsteelonice84 View Post
Replace Boyes with Roy and it's still not good enough, but it's a start.
I get why you'd say that, but it seems to me like Chicago will need to overpay to get rid of that contract. Roy is actually signed to a cap-friendly deal and Buffalo is trying to add good centers, not get swap them out for other good centers. Sharp is UFA July 1, 2012 which is why I thought Chicago might be willing to bite.

At the end of the day, Soupy's contract is almost untradeable.

sabres_phan 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 06:19 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.