Off topic question but did the Hawks let Ludvig Rensfeldt go?
- mvp0207

They didnt sign him so i believe hes back in the draft or a free agent.

Ottawa loses a hell of a lot of grit there.

Fair in terms of value though. Interesting trade. Ottawa would certainly love to add Hammer, and Stalberg isn't exactly a throw in.

I only think they say no because they spent so much time and effort developing those two players. They are probably worth more to Ottawa as players then trade bait. If they were going to move them, especially both at once, I think they try and get someone to overpay for them.

In a nutshell, I think they'd rather remove Stalberg from that trade and get a better dman then Hammer, even if it ment throwing in a pick with those too. I just think if they were gonna move both, they'd be going with the "go big or go home" attitude, and be getting someone to play with Karlsson (since Kuba's not likely back at this point).

Good trade though.
- mochoson

Ottawa is one of the few teams with grit to spare ....and I agree value of the trade is close to even

There's no guarantee Luongo will be dealt by July 1 ad I don't expect Garrison to last any longer on the free agent market. Anything is possible but I don't expect Garrison to sign in Vancouver.
- DarthKane

I wouldn't bet on it but better odds he does there than here.

Interesting E. Kane rumors floating around...

As I said about six months ago that's the type of player the Hawks need.
- Al

God dammit. Cue the "Kane for Bickell, a 9th rd pick and Emery's jock" posts. Maybe I'll start: Kane + Buff for Tazer.

To be honest, I wouldn't hate to see the kid go but it better be solid pile of assets coming back. He comes off as a bit of a wanker. I'd say his antics make it seem as he'd be better suited for a big city but then again, look at Patty.

John, everytime I read an EK blog, he never has any information/rumors on the Hawks. When asked in a post a while back if the Hawks were interested in Suter, he replied no. Now a question with a couple parts... Are the Hawks actually in on Suter, are we just dreaming, or does EK not have any credible Hawks sources? I've followed you for quite a while, only recently created a username, and I definitely take more from your blog than EK's.

Also, I think the Hawks need to be movers this offseason, otherwise we'll all be waiting to watch football and basketball.

How about a swap of the Kane's. Convince Evander to wear #88 so fans don't have to spend a ton on changing over their Kane jerseys

How about a swap of the Kane's. Convince Evander to wear #88 so fans don't have to spend a ton on changing over their Kane jerseys
- ikeane

Hilarious. But throw in Bogosian or Ladd too.

Just posted this on the HotStove thread:

If Bowman has the stones, deal Hammer for Suter's rights. Nashville would do it if they feel they can't re-sign him. Few teams could offer as good or better defenseman (that Nashville will need). Detroit can't. Minnesota can't.

Then you have to go big to sign Suter. If you don't you have at least dumped Hammer's deal and can then go after Allen or someone.
- John Jaeckel

Who posted ? You posted ? Whats the Hot STove thread ?

Just posted this on the HotStove thread:

If Bowman has the stones, deal Hammer for Suter's rights. Nashville would do it if they feel they can't re-sign him. Few teams could offer as good or better defenseman (that Nashville will need). Detroit can't. Minnesota can't.

Then you have to go big to sign Suter. If you don't you have at least dumped Hammer's deal and can then go after Allen or someone.
- John Jaeckel

So you're saying we trade Hammer for the rights of Suter but then YOU HAVE TO SIGN Suter. Otherwise the trade is a bust. You also mention possible plan B's but we lose our market position and end up possibly overpaying for another Dman?

Currently our D is set. The market value for a player like Hammer is up because the demand is high while supply is low. Which creates a sellers market. Sellers would be both players as ufa (Suter) and teams willing to deal a player like Hammer.

I doubt Chicago or any team for that matter is willing to take that kind of economic risk. A draft pick maybe because you have an unknown value versus a known value.

The smarter play is to sign a trade option like Hammer to Ottawa for Smith and a pick on the condition that you sign Suter as a UFA or another UFA. This way you don't lose market position. So should you not sign Suter then you keep Hammer and the status quo does not change. Also should a more valuable trade option present itself you can be the in the driver seat and get optimal value.

Maybe we can trade Lalonde and sharps Lakeview mansion for E. Kane

John, everytime I read an EK blog, he never has any information/rumors on the Hawks. When asked in a post a while back if the Hawks were interested in Suter, he replied no. Now a question with a couple parts... Are the Hawks actually in on Suter, are we just dreaming, or does EK not have any credible Hawks sources? I've followed you for quite a while, only recently created a username, and I definitely take more from your blog than EK's.

Also, I think the Hawks need to be movers this offseason, otherwise we'll all be waiting to watch football and basketball.
- HawksHype

No one is "in" on Suter right now as only Nashville can negotiate with him until 7/1 or they trade his rights. A number of teams have interest and my sources tell me the Hawks are one of them.

1) So you're saying we trade Hammer for the rights of Suter but then YOU HAVE TO SIGN Suter. Otherwise the trade is a bust. You also mention possible plan B's but we lose our market position and end up possibly overpaying for another Dman?

Currently our D is set. The market value for a player like Hammer is up because the demand is high while supply is low. Which creates a sellers market. Sellers would be both players as ufa (Suter) and teams willing to deal a player like Hammer.

I doubt Chicago or any team for that matter is willing to take that kind of economic risk. A draft pick maybe because you have an unknown value versus a known value.

The smarter play is to sign a trade option like Hammer to Ottawa for Smith and a pick on the condition that you sign Suter as a UFA or another UFA. This way you don't lose market position. So should you not sign Suter then you keep Hammer 2) and the status quo does not change. Also should a more valuable trade option present itself you can be the in the driver seat and get optimal value.
- scorerstouch

1) Ya think?!

But if as rumored, the Hawks want out of Hjalmarsson's deal and think they can do as well or better for the same or less money in free agency, then that deal is at worst not a bust—but a necessary salary dump. Sure, you want to sign Suter. But there are numerous plan B's. Hjalmarsson is a good defenseman. But he is not Bobby Orr.

2) Yeah, the status quo . . . two consecutive first round exits.

maybe stan can trade kane to florida for campbell
campbell is the qb we need on the power play
trading hammer for a fourth or third line center makes no sense to me and adding a draft pick for compensation makes even less sense
this team should be being built to make a run at the cup now
aquiring suter makes less sense with the contract required

the only big contract i think they should add is a zack parise. he is a 2c and plays with an edge

How will Ballard be gone? Kudos to Gillis if he can find a sucker to take Ballard but that would be one difficult trade to make. I think Gillis is a great GM but that's a tall order to fill. I expect to see Garrison in Detroit but if he cat come to Chicago I'd rather see him go to Vancouver.
- DarthKane

Europe ,AHL, trade for a 7 th rounder to a team that needs a Dman,concussion, LTIR.
He will not be paying 4.2 for a guy in the pressbox this year. Garrison told the press a few weeks back "If I can't come to terms in FLA ,I would like to play in Van".

1) Ya think?!

But if as rumored, the Hawks want out of Hjalmarsson's deal and think they can do as well or better for the same or less money in free agency, then that deal is at worst not a bust—but a necessary salary dump. Sure, you want to sign Suter. But there are numerous plan B's. Hjalmarsson is a good defenseman. But he is not Bobby Orr.

2) Yeah, the status quo . . . two consecutive first round exits.
- John Jaeckel

1) The point was you lose leverage the moment you trade Hammer for the rights of Suter. UNLESS management knows something i.e Suter wants to sign here knowledge. The likely scenario is Suter will want to test the UFA market again supply of top d-men is low thus he is going to want huge pay.

Now if you trade Hammer you signal to Suter that you obviously want his services but now you have also subtracted from your defense which equals less leverage and when you include whatever the time limit is (date of transaction minus from day 1 of FA) now the leverage falls to Suter and agent this making it more difficult to sign. The overall problem is the team has several defecenies and spending all of your cap on one player will obviously mean less defecenies are fixed.

It just doesn't make economic sense not to mention the field day critics will have should ANY failure arise. Worst case scenario in dealing Hammer for Rights for Suter is you lose Hammer and get nothing in return, absolutely nothing. That would be a disaster. This results when you have protracted negotiation with Suter and othe available UFA's find new homes.

2) status quo = you keep the defense you have not the team exactly. Oduya will obviously have more time with the team giving him better feel. Also the maturation of Nick Leddy is obviously going to be a huge factor but thus far he hasn't disappointed in regards to his development.

3) this is probably the biggest problem and that is cap accounting. If you dole out another mega contract then the problem comes down to who do you resign next season and future seasons because the team as it stands is really in critical condition because of the lofty cap hits.

God dammit. Cue the "Kane for Bickell, a 9th rd pick and Emery's jock" posts. Maybe I'll start: Kane + Buff for Tazer.

To be honest, I wouldn't hate to see the kid go but it better be solid pile of assets coming back. He comes off as a bit of a wanker. I'd say his antics make it seem as he'd be better suited for a big city but then again, look at Patty.
- beardface

Kane for Bickell rumours I can live with it is Kane for Komi Kadri and a second for the next two months that are going to send me to my grave.

1) Ya think?!

But if as rumored, the Hawks want out of Hjalmarsson's deal and think they can do as well or better for the same or less money in free agency, then that deal is at worst not a bust—but a necessary salary dump. Sure, you want to sign Suter. But there are numerous plan B's. Hjalmarsson is a good defenseman. But he is not Bobby Orr.

2) Yeah, the status quo . . . two consecutive first round exits.
- John Jaeckel

Or Lidstrom as per Scotty B.

Poile out saying he doesn't intend to trade Suter's rights, and Suter will test the market July 1.

Ballard will be gone .They can find someone cheaper to sit in the pressbox.
- VANTEL

This goes along with the "Luongo being gone" idea, doesn't it? How's that one working out?

Off topic question but did the Hawks let Ludvig Rensfeldt go?
- mvp0207

They couldn't get him signed to a contract. I believe he has to re-enter the draft.

Or Lidstrom as per Scotty B.

Poile out saying he doesn't intend to trade Suter's rights, and Suter will test the market July 1.
- Invest

If the Preds know Suter will not resign and the Hawks offer Hammer just for the rights the preds would be insane not to take the deal. Just talk in my opinion. The Preds would make out like bandits even if Suter signs with the Hawks. Cause if it's not the Hawks it will be another central division team or WC team that he signs with. Why not get a top 4 D-man for nothing. Of course he would take the deal!

This kinda thing drives me nuts. How can it be good when you trade away the best player in the trade?

We don't need a depth center. We need a second line center.

And how screwed are we if we lose hammer and don't get Suter?

This kinda thing drives me nuts. How can it be good when you trade away the best player in the trade?

We don't need a depth center. We need a second line center.

And how screwed are we if we lose hammer and don't get Suter?
- busmaster

Doesn't have to be Suter.. Could be a trade with Columbus to get a guy like Methot.. Who is cheaper by $500,000 as well.

There is no way Bowman will trade Hammer without a solid plan in place to replace him.

This goes along with the "Luongo being gone" idea, doesn't it? How's that one working out?
- EKolb13

We will let you know in two weeks

I'd be interested to know if Q would allow Bolland to play 2nd line center if Smith was acquired..

Q has been on record numerous times that he prefers Bolland at 3rd line center. If they could make it work at 2nd line center, it would allow Bowman to work on the D big time because Bolland's cap hit for a 2nd line center is very fair.

1) The point was you lose leverage the moment you trade Hammer for the rights of Suter. UNLESS management knows something i.e Suter wants to sign here knowledge. The likely scenario is Suter will want to test the UFA market again supply of top d-men is low thus he is going to want huge pay.

Now if you trade Hammer you signal to Suter that you obviously want his services but now you have also subtracted from your defense which equals less leverage and when you include whatever the time limit is (date of transaction minus from day 1 of FA) now the leverage falls to Suter and agent this making it more difficult to sign. The overall problem is the team has several defecenies and spending all of your cap on one player will obviously mean less defecenies are fixed.

It just doesn't make economic sense not to mention the field day critics will have should ANY failure arise. Worst case scenario in dealing Hammer for Rights for Suter is you lose Hammer and get nothing in return, absolutely nothing. That would be a disaster. This results when you have protracted negotiation with Suter and othe available UFA's find new homes.

2) status quo = you keep the defense you have not the team exactly. Oduya will obviously have more time with the team giving him better feel. Also the maturation of Nick Leddy is obviously going to be a huge factor but thus far he hasn't disappointed in regards to his development.

3) this is probably the biggest problem and that is cap accounting. If you dole out another mega contract then the problem comes down to who do you resign next season and future seasons because the team as it stands is really in critical condition because of the lofty cap hits.
- scorerstouch

1) From what JJ has been saying, it sounds like Suter would like very much to sign with Chicago. Sure, you tip your cap that you want him, but you have to tip your cap at some point... Wouldn't you rather Suter be negotiating with the Blackhawks than Nashville? Or worse, Detroit?...

2) You don't think there is a D-man out there for 3.5 mil that can, at the very least, negate what you lose with the departure of Hjalmarsson? I think quite a few fans out there would agree with me that there is more to be had at that price tag...

3) As long as the player you sign doesn't absolutely bomb, there will always be a team willing to deal for a star player (If the Blackhawks put Toews, Kane, Hossa, Sharp, Keith or Seabrook on the market, do you really think the phone lines would be dead?) If you have a chance to upgrade you do it, even if it means you get top heavy.