I'm a little late to the party here, but this is thinking that I just can't understand. Why are Hjalmarsson and Leddy expendable? Oduya, Rozsival, and Brookbank are veteran players who were signed to short term contracts to provide depth on the back end for Chicago. I don't understand why you would make signings like that just to try and trade away two much younger top 4 guys. I wouldn't call Hjalmarsson and Leddy core guys on the Hawks, but they are important pieces. Given his contract I could understand moving Hjalmarsson if the right offer came along and you had a good defensive prospect ready to make the step up (which I can't say for sure because I'm not very familiar with Chicago's prospect pool on D). Obviously almost anybody is available for the right price and in the right situation, but expendable is definitely not the word I would use to describe those guys.
- SteveTambellini

I don't think expendable is the right word, it's more of a thought of dealing from depth to improve problem areas.

Trading either one doesn't excite me terribly, but if it fills one or more of the glaring holes on this team, then it's the right move.

And here's a couple other reasons -

A.) Hammer, as you mentioned, is overpaid. Moving that money off the books helps either with adding another nice, expensive piece this season, or getting down to the reduced cap next season.

B.) Leddy seems to be highly thought of around the league, namely because of his age and NHL experience. But, he has some glaring deficiencies, notably toughness and puck/positional responsbility under duress. Three of the top four dmen are under 30 (Hammer is 25, Seabs 27, Keith 29) - the top of the defense is set for a while. It's uncertain as to Leddy's actual ceiling, and his value may never be higher than it is right now. He's also due a new contract next year, which one would guess, would be a significant bump.

I don't think expendable is the right word, it's more of a thought of dealing from depth to improve problem areas.

Trading either one doesn't excite me terribly, but if it fills one or more of the glaring holes on this team, then it's the right move.

And here's a couple other reasons -

A.) Hammer, as you mentioned, is overpaid. Moving that money off the books helps either with adding another nice, expensive piece this season, or getting down to the reduced cap next season.

B.) Leddy seems to be highly thought of around the league, namely because of his age and NHL experience. But, he has some glaring deficiencies, notably toughness and puck/positional responsbility under duress. Three of the top four dmen are under 30 (Hammer is 25, Seabs 27, Keith 29) - the top of the defense is set for a while. It's uncertain as to Leddy's actual ceiling, and his value may never be higher than it is right now. He's also due a new contract next year, which one would guess, would be a significant bump.
- FredoXV

If Leddy or Hammer is dealt....That puts Oduya and Monty under the gun and neither have modest contracts.

If Leddy or Hammer is dealt....That puts Oduya and Monty under the gun and neither have modest contracts.
- Al

Losing either defenseman doesn't put the team in an admiralble position, I'll admit.

But if the return is there, there are definitely selling points to moving either of them.

Personally I'd rather see Leddy move than Hammer - if I had to choose.

Even though I don't really understand what you just said, it's a moot point because there is no offer you could make to O'Reilly that the Avalanche wouldn't match with a 2nd round pick as compensation.
- SteveTambellini

Agreed.

To complete the trade with Boston for Kessel, Burkie needed to re-acquire HIS own Toronto 2nd rounder which they had traded to the hawks.
(Is that what you don't understand?)

Maybe I can bring even more understanding:

If a team decides to attempt an RFA signing and the parent NHL club the player is from walks away, the parent team receives various draft picks as compensation, determined by what the actual contract is

The new team signing the RFA must have their own draft picks.

Why?

Because if I am GM of say the Islanders if I am able to hone in on a RFA that I feel the parent team will walk away from, IF THE RULE didn't EXIST, I would try to trade a few of my early draft picks to say New York rangers for more picks (or players) and I would give the parent team of that RFA crappier draft picks...in the same rounds as mine, but they are not as low as mine.

that is why the rule exists...

A.) Hammer, as you mentioned, is overpaid.
- FredoXV

umm, compared to whom?
Montador?
Oduya?
The real issue is that Hjalmarsson doesn't have a NTC and both of those goofs do.

B.) Leddy seems to be highly thought of around the league, namely because of his age and NHL experience. But, he has some glaring deficiencies, notably toughness and puck/positional responsbility under duress.
- FredoXV

And others do not???
See the 2 goofs above and simply start there.
Leddy is a better skater than either of them.

Once again, I think it's more the 1st part of your comment -- he's only 21 and has a yr+ of NHL experience, was one of the top point production D-men with virtually no top PP time and not nearly enough PP time overall. Hampered by the fact that he does not have a coach on which to learn from (certainly can't consider Kitchen competent and Q is known far and wide as simply NOT the guy to develop young players).

Also, Leddy is on his ELC and of course, CAN be traded. Regardless of what his payday might be after this year, it's really the simple fact that Stanley gave those other goofs NTC's and severely tied the club's hands as to moving the right pieces. In an ideal situation, he would rid himself of Clown Shoes AND never would have signed Oduya, certainly not to a NTC.

If I'm an NHL GM, would I rather have a (nearly) washed up, poor-skating D man or a 21 year old with lots of room for improvement with the right coaching?

I'll be sorry to see Leddy (or Hjalmarsson) go -- and will enjoy watching them flourish elsewhere with the right system and right coaching.

Losing either defenseman doesn't put the team in an admiralble position, I'll admit.

But if the return is there, there are definitely selling points to moving either of them.

Personally I'd rather see Leddy move than Hammer - if I had to chooose.
- FredoXV

Need to get a a true 2nd line center somehow and it will take more....But Leddy could be traded in a NY second.

Personally I'd rather see Leddy move than Hammer - if I had to chooose.
- FredoXV

I agree

I don't think expendable is the right word, it's more of a thought of dealing from depth to improve problem areas.

Trading either one doesn't excite me terribly, but if it fills one or more of the glaring holes on this team, then it's the right move.

And here's a couple other reasons -

A.) Hammer, as you mentioned, is overpaid. Moving that money off the books helps either with adding another nice, expensive piece this season, or getting down to the reduced cap next season.

B.) Leddy seems to be highly thought of around the league, namely because of his age and NHL experience. But, he has some glaring deficiencies, notably toughness and puck/positional responsbility under duress. Three of the top four dmen are under 30 (Hammer is 25, Seabs 27, Keith 29) - the top of the defense is set for a while. It's uncertain as to Leddy's actual ceiling, and his value may never be higher than it is right now. He's also due a new contract next year, which one would guess, would be a significant bump.
- FredoXV

Well what exactly are the glaring holes? As far as I can tell, the biggest problems are inconsistent goaltending and the lack of a 2nd line C. I've always thought that something along the lines of a Patrick Kane for Ryan Miller swap makes sense for both teams. That solves the goaltending issue. Then either Leddy or Hjalmarsson could be moved as part of a package, possibly including a guy like Bolland and/or a prospect for a good 2nd line center. The big problem for Chicago there is that there aren't many legit top 6 C's just lying around the league, if any. They would probably have to overpay a little to get somebody they want but I don't see an alternative. Teravainen and McNeill are both still a few years away and not sure things, and if the Hawks don't make a move for somebody right now, they are just pissing away the prime years of their stars' careers by not being the top contender that they could be.

I don't know the Blackhawks' current situation as well as most of you do, but these are just my thoughts.

umm, compared to whom?
Montador?
Oduya?
The real issue is that Hjalmarsson doesn't have a NTC and both of those goofs do.



And others do not???
See the 2 goofs above and simply start there.
Leddy is a better skater than either of them.

Once again, I think it's more the 1st part of your comment -- he's only 21 and has a yr+ of NHL experience, was one of the top point production D-men with virtually no top PP time and not nearly enough PP time overall. Hampered by the fact that he does not have a coach on which to learn from (certainly can't consider Kitchen competent and Q is known far and wide as simply NOT the guy to develop young players).

Also, Leddy is on his ELC and of course, CAN be traded. Regardless of what his payday might be after this year, it's really the simple fact that Stanley gave those other goofs NTC's and severely tied the club's hands as to moving the right pieces. In an ideal situation, he would rid himself of Clown Shoes AND never would have signed Oduya, certainly not to a NTC.

If I'm an NHL GM, would I rather have a (nearly) washed up, poor-skating D man or a 21 year old with lots of room for improvement with the right coaching?

I'll be sorry to see Leddy (or Hjalmarsson) go -- and will enjoy watching them flourish elsewhere with the right system and right coaching.
- savvyone-1

Ah, Savvy. Knew this trade Leddy talk would put you in an uproar.

You're missing the point with the bolded section above. The team might need to trade to improve. Nobody will offer anything of value for Oduya or Monty. They very likely will offer something of value for Hammer or Leddy. NTC or no NTC -it's all about the return.

Of course I'd rather have Leddy than Montador or Oduya - gun to my head. But would I rather have Leddy than a consistent starting goalie or second line C? Not so sure, given the rest of the roster. It's a deal I'd have to look at, were I in charge.

Well what exactly are the glaring holes? As far as I can tell, the biggest problems are inconsistent goaltending and the lack of a 2nd line C. I've always thought that something along the lines of a Patrick Kane for Ryan Miller swap makes sense for both teams. That solves the goaltending issue. Then either Leddy or Hjalmarsson could be moved as part of a package, possibly including a guy like Bolland and/or a prospect for a good 2nd line center. The big problem for Chicago there is that there aren't many legit top 6 C's just lying around the league, if any. They would probably have to overpay a little to get somebody they want but I don't see an alternative. Teravainen and McNeill are both still a few years away and not sure things, and if the Hawks don't make a move for somebody right now, they are just pissing away the prime years of their stars' careers by not being the top contender that they could be.
- SteveTambellini

These are the glaring holes.

The Kane for Miller deal doesn't make sense unless they get another legit scoring top-six forward from someplace else, either.

Who has Center depth the way the Hawks have D depth ?? Who is the best AHL goalie and is he better than Crawford ?

Maybe, maybe not, but we need a true 2C....and every time I try to trade Sharp I get flamed.
- Ogilthorpe2

Dallas sign and trade Jamie Benn for Sharp and Leddy?

Ah, Savvy. Knew this trade Leddy talk would put you in an uproar.

You're missing the point with the bolded section above. The team might need to trade to improve. Nobody will offer anything of value for Oduya or Monty. They very likely will offer something of value for Hammer or Leddy. NTC or no NTC -it's all about the return.

Of course I'd rather have Leddy than Montador or Oduya - gun to my head. But would I rather have Leddy than a consistent starting goalie or second line C? Not so sure, given the rest of the roster. It's a deal I'd have to look at, were I in charge.
- FredoXV

Nah, I think I'm over the uproar part!

It's really more that we have a moron of a GM who handed out NTC's to undeserving players. Why in the world would any competent, sane GM agree to include a NTC for Montador OR Oduya.

Exactly. None -- except for our wonderkin little Stanley.

He's put the club in a real bind -- he might have been able to deal either of those guys AND some "potential" upcoming stars (of course, we know how he disdains that as well). I mean, he could package a guy like Olsen with an Oduya or Montador for a club that needs D -- but he can't because he can't trade 'em.

Leddy is probably THE most valuable young, tradeable chip we have -- and IF he were to get us a 2 C, I'd be OK with it. I'd miss seeing Leddy grow up before our eyes and would wish him the very best. And be sad to see him go. Always hard to tell, but I do think he's one that COULD be very very good for many years.

Simply put, I don't trust Stanley to do the right thing because he hasn't shown he has any brains at all (evidence: the NTCs to those goofs). And of course, I can't wait for Monty's 1st clown shoe act to make an appearance, along with another hit to the head so I can watch the birdies circling 'round his noggin!

Dallas sign and trade Jamie Benn for Sharp and Leddy?
- FourFeathers773

throw in pirri for good measure too

throw in pirri for good measure too
- FourFeathers773

And Lalonde!

These are the glaring holes.

The Kane for Miller deal doesn't make sense unless they get another legit scoring top-six forward from someplace else, either.
- FredoXV

They would need a replacement in the top 6, but maybe Bolland could fill that role temporarily until they figured it out. A replacement top 6 forward would be a lot easier to find via trade from a basement team for picks/prospects. What about a guy like R.J. Umberger out of Columbus? If the Hawks want to acquire a prime-aged legit number 1 goalie it is going to take something of that value. These improvements need to be made soon before it's too late, and I really don't think the alternative of trading for a young and unproven goalie is a good idea at all.

Just a bunch of random thoughts from me.

I'm excited for the season but still bitter. Definitely not spending any additional money on Hawks games, merchandise, etc., than i've already spent for this year. Except for maybe some WCF and SCF games if they get there.

Not much trade activity is going to happen this season with the Hawks. The hawks will only trade Leddy or Hammer for a 2C or a legit starting goalie. No team has EXTRA 2Cs or legit starting goalies to give up. So the hawks will listen, get no worthy offers, and not do anything. Offseason will be very different but I expect the team to remain unchanged for THIS season. Also, factor in Q being on the hot seat. Stan is not going to make a gamble this year. It's Q's show to prove he can coach with the team he has. If he can't then, its his fault, and Stan can make more aggressive changes then.

Crawford will be the goalie this year and since every team will feel like they are in it til the end of this 48 game season, no legitimate starting goalies will be traded at the deadline. Maybe goalie prospects like Bishop, Hackett, or others. I'd love for the Hawks to get a legit goalie prospect but I don't think they will. It's too uncertain and frankly I don't think they have the coaches to develop said goalie.

So either Crawford will step up his game and be resigned or he will fail, forcing the Hawks to go after a goalie in trade/free agency in the summer.

Pending UFA goalies:
Backstrom
Howard
Mike Smith
Nabokov

Lots of pending RFA goalies that are not as seasoned but interesting, like Bernier.

So basically I'm just tired of the female doging about Crawford. He's the goalie this season, for better or worse. Let's get over it.

Just a bunch of random thoughts from me.

I'm excited for the season but still bitter. Definitely not spending any additional money on Hawks games, merchandise, etc., than i've already spent for this year. Except for maybe some WCF and SCF games if they get there.

Not much trade activity is going to happen this season with the Hawks. The hawks will only trade Leddy or Hammer for a 2C or a legit starting goalie. No team has EXTRA 2Cs or legit starting goalies to give up. So the hawks will listen, get no worthy offers, and not do anything. Offseason will be very different but I expect the team to remain unchanged for THIS season. Also, factor in Q being on the hot seat. Stan is not going to make a gamble this year. It's Q's show to prove he can coach with the team he has. If he can't then, its his fault, and Stan can make more aggressive changes then.

Crawford will be the goalie this year and since every team will feel like they are in it til the end of this 48 game season, no legitimate starting goalies will be traded at the deadline. Maybe goalie prospects like Bishop, Hackett, or others. I'd love for the Hawks to get a legit goalie prospect but I don't think they will. It's too uncertain and frankly I don't think they have the coaches to develop said goalie.

So either Crawford will step up his game and be resigned or he will fail, forcing the Hawks to go after a goalie in trade/free agency in the summer.

Pending UFA goalies:
Backstrom
Howard
Mike Smith
Nabokov

Lots of pending RFA goalies that are not as seasoned but interesting, like Bernier.

So basically I'm just tired of the female doging about Crawford. He's the goalie this season, for better or worse. Let's get over it.
- coldsteelonice

I fully expect Crawford to be our #1 goalie to start the season and I believe he will bounce back to his 2010/2011 form. That being said, I would keep Crawford on a short leash and wouldn't hesitate to pull the trigger on a deal if the price was right. Personally, Niklas Backstrom is the goalie I'd be looking at. He's a UFA in the summer, and in a shortened season he could do well. I think you could platoon Crawford and Backstrom into the playoffs then go with whoever's playing better.

I fully expect Crawford to be our #1 goalie to start the season and I believe he will bounce back to his 2010/2011 form. That being said, I would keep Crawford on a short leash and wouldn't hesitate to pull the trigger on a deal if the price was right. Personally, Niklas Backstrom is the goalie I'd be looking at. He's a UFA in the summer, and in a shortened season he could do well. I think you could platoon Crawford and Backstrom into the playoffs then go with whoever's playing better.
- DarthKane

I totally love Backstrom and would be looking at him in the offseason. But Minnesota NEEDS to make the playoffs this year after getting the two big FA studs. So I don't see Minnesota trading Backstrom this season. May be interesting in the offseason though. Mike Smith could be interesting too, even though I still hate him for his flopping.

I just think there is a lot of sense in keeping the top five and the two newly acquired one year additions.
It is called depth.

In all the short seasoned due to strikes in all sports, the players tend to get hurt.

It is as if not keeping both Leddy & Hammer is something that has to happen.

It should be noted the cap drops and UFA Stalberg & RFA Leddy are gonna need new contracts along with RFA s Hayes and Shaw and Bollig for that matter...

Don't think Leddy's negotiating team don't have big interest in what RFAs delZotto and P.K. Subban agree to.

I am not trying to say any are equal in any way except by position.

When Leddy gets to the summer, he has those contracts as the bar.

I just think that no matter how worried the hawks are about the idea the goal position needs a strong competition, they better be clear that the replacements are thought out on the defense.

Because where Roszival and Brookbank looked like small contracts and short term guys, Leddy and even Hammer doesn't if you truly don't have adequate ready replacements, that's all...

I totally love Backstrom and would be looking at him in the offseason. But Minnesota NEEDS to make the playoffs this year after getting the two big FA studs. So I don't see Minnesota trading Backstrom this season. May be interesting in the offseason though. Mike Smith could be interesting too, even though I still hate him for his flopping.
- coldsteelonice

Smith and Shaw on the same team....what would be funny.

Well what exactly are the glaring holes? As far as I can tell, the biggest problems are inconsistent goaltending and the lack of a 2nd line C. I've always thought that something along the lines of a Patrick Kane for Ryan Miller swap makes sense for both teams. That solves the goaltending issue. Then either Leddy or Hjalmarsson could be moved as part of a package, possibly including a guy like Bolland and/or a prospect for a good 2nd line center. The big problem for Chicago there is that there aren't many legit top 6 C's just lying around the league, if any. They would probably have to overpay a little to get somebody they want but I don't see an alternative. Teravainen and McNeill are both still a few years away and not sure things, and if the Hawks don't make a move for somebody right now, they are just pissing away the prime years of their stars' careers by not being the top contender that they could be.

I don't know the Blackhawks' current situation as well as most of you do, but these are just my thoughts.
- SteveTambellini

Game plan vs the hawks is and will continue to be...

Push around and wear down top 2 lines who end up playing 60-70% of the game
Strong Puck posession, quick passes exiting the zone, hawks dont like to forecheck
Pressure their D at all times, heavy forecheck
Lots of traffic in front of the net

And Lalonde!

- savvyone-1

Done

Game plan vs the hawks is and will continue to be...

Push around and wear down top 2 lines who end up playing 60-70% of the game
Strong Puck posession, quick passes exiting the zone, hawks dont like to forecheck
Pressure their D at all times, heavy forecheck
Lots of traffic in front of the net
- Gerk

Someone forward this on to Q.

The jig is up! The opposing fans even know the system Q is running. It's time to change it up!

Hossa's contract - like Suters, like Parise's, like Kovalchuk's - were legal (if devious and not in the spirit of the CBA, they were legal) at the time they were signed.

How can they now penalize those contracts retroactively?

Certainly seems unfair (OK - as unfair as the original contracts were, but still...).
- StLBravesFan

Cuz they can when both sides agree to it....if I understand it correctly the owners are penalizing themselves for thier stupidity with these contracts. The players signed will get their money as most of it is all frontloaded.