We will let you know in two weeks
- VANTEL

I bet both Luongo and Ballard will still be in Vancouver in two weeks.

A tweet I just saw 30 minutes ago

JJ has been on this for a while


Hockeyy Insiderr ‏@HockeyyInsiderr

Just before I go, there are legs to Hjalmarsson to #Sens rumors. Confirmed by source close to #Blackhawks . More to come tomorrow.
Retweeted by Jay Zawaski

A tweet I just saw 30 minutes ago


Hockeyy Insiderr ‏@HockeyyInsiderr

Just before I go, there are legs to Hjalmarsson to #Sens rumors. Confirmed by source close to #Blackhawks . More to come tomorrow.
Retweeted by Jay Zawaski
- jimmy33

This guy has like 9 tweets

All 3 mocks have the Hawks taking different players...

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=80918

6-7? Shut the front door. He's a solid 5 at worst, and top 4 on most teams. I don't think I'm in the minority either, not on this board anyway. I think lots of people (myself included) are willing to part with Hammer if it makes the team better overall, but I don't think there are a lot of people that flat out want him gone.
- Ogilthorpe2

This. Well said, Ogi.

This guy has like 9 tweets
- mrpaulish

Not positive but I think Jay has some inside sources. Would not dismiss what he says. JJ or AL would know for sure.

I don't know that he wants to sign with Chicago. My info is people in his family would like to see him sign with the Hawks, and for that and maybe some other reasons, the Hawks are a team he would like to talk to on 7/1.

The reason to deal for his rights is you get likely a 48 hour window to state your case, make your pitch and at least beat Detroit to the punch. Toews can then talk to him. Keith and Seabrook can. If you wait til 7/1, you might not even get the chance to talk to him. There is also something to be said for demonstrating to him how much you want him. If it's me and I basically want to shed hammer's salary regardless—which they would have to do anyway prior to 7/1 to make an offer for Suter (THINK)—then why not dump his salary to get exclusive negotiating rights. Makes alot of sense actually.
- John Jaeckel

Don't mind trading Hjalmarrson for rights to Suter - as you say, a gamble, but can't win a Cup without being aggressive.

My fear is the Bowman-CBA double: if they don't get Suter, Bowman doesn't spend the money on July 1 (as with Campbell), and the new CBA then screws the Hawks out of the cap space.

All 3 mocks have the Hawks taking different players...

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=80918
- mrpaulish

But they all seem to understand what we need--Center, Defense, Goaltending. Place your bets--will it be Jankowski, Finn, or Subban?

I wouldn't be surprised to see them resign Suter at big dollars...... Then trade Weber for MAJOR assets. it would be a smart move actually. Losing Weber now would fetch a kings ransom. Losing Suter now gets them nothing.
- moylander

So keep 1B and lose 1A...Doesn't sound smart because they need two dominant dmen like most top teams....But evidently the Preds couldn't do what would have been smart. They got caught in ownership issues etc and should have signed both Weber and Suter to long term deals before now.

People critcized the Hawks when they resigned Keith, Toews and Kane all at once and it did cost them in some ways....But it was the best thing they could have done if they wanted to keep all three.

Now the Preds have painted themselves into a corner....Lose Suter and probably lose Weber or wind up paying both the motherload to stay.

The Preds could come out ok but as it stands today they are in a lose-lose situation they could have avoided.

But they all seem to understand what we need--Center, Defense, Goaltending. Place your bets--will it be Jankowski, Finn, or Subban?
- fourfeathers

Yeah - but that's 3 of the 4 positions on the ice - doesn't take much prognosticating skill to pick a center, a defenseman, and a goalie.

But they all seem to understand what we need--Center, Defense, Goaltending. Place your bets--will it be Jankowski, Finn, or Subban?
- fourfeathers

I can't see the Hawks going with a forward in the 1st round. The last couple of years the Hawks have drafted heavy at forward. With Kruger, McNeill and Danault, they've got enough at the center position, why draft another one?

Bowman will draft defense unless the goalie he wants is there. If Bowman doesn't take a goalie in the 1st, he beter take one in the 2nd round.

This guy has like 9 tweets
- mrpaulish

he has 5887 tweets

Hockeyy Insiderr ‏@HockeyyInsiderr

he has 5887 tweets
- jimmy33

Not J , The Hockeyinsiderr guy

Yeah - but that's 3 of the 4 positions on the ice - doesn't take much prognosticating skill to pick a center, a defenseman, and a goalie.
- StLBravesFan

I dont know enough about most of the prospects to prefer one over another, but it sure seems the team has way more W and C prospects than they do D or G's. So unless there is a forward who's just too good to pass on at 18, I would say D or G should be the priority. I vote G.

he has 5887 tweets

Hockeyy Insiderr ‏@HockeyyInsiderr
- jimmy33

Hockey
@HockeyInsiderr
These tweets do not reflect the views and opinions of HockeyyInsiderr. Following Eklund and Bob Mckenzie.
·
Follow

4 TWEETS
9 FOLLOWING
4 FOLLOWERS

he has 5887 tweets

Hockeyy Insiderr ‏@HockeyyInsiderr
- jimmy33

Must be two different guys , oh well. I just hope the Hawks improve the current roster is light years away from a Stanley Cup contender , good night Hawk nation.

I dont know enough about most of the prospects to prefer one over another, but it sure seems the team has way more W and C prospects than they do D or G's. So unless there is a forward who's just too good to pass on at 18, I would say D or G should be the priority. I vote G.
- Ogilthorpe2

Agreed.

Either Vasilevski (only if he's willing to come to North America) or Dansk would be just fine by me.

I dont know enough about most of the prospects to prefer one over another, but it sure seems the team has way more W and C prospects than they do D or G's. So unless there is a forward who's just too good to pass on at 18, I would say D or G should be the priority. I vote G.
- Ogilthorpe2

Agreed. Only draft a F if it's a 'can't miss', game-breaker type player. Aside from draft surprises, there probably won't be a projected one there at 18. A goalie would make the most sense. Hawks have 3 from the recent draft that could be good, but no surefire winner among them.

Agreed.

Either Vasilevski (only if he's willing to come to North America) or Dansk would be just fine by me.
- EKolb13

I would throw Subban in there and say if any of those 3 are available at 18 it might be a smart move to grab one, if not go D.

I know this is a little out there but do you think we could package Hammer + Crawford to SJ for Niemi + a Dman?

I know this is a little out there but do you think we could package Hammer + Crawford to SJ for Niemi + a Dman?
- donkeyspine

Wilson won't deal with Stan.

Hammer has never been the same since his suspension.

And that my friends is the reason Suter won't sign with Chicago - unless the gutless Bettman speaks the truth.

So keep 1B and lose 1A...Doesn't sound smart because they need two dominant dmen like most top teams....But evidently the Preds couldn't do what would have been smart. They got caught in ownership issues etc and should have signed both Weber and Suter to long term deals before now.

People critcized the Hawks when they resigned Keith, Toews and Kane all at once and it did cost them in some ways....But it was the best thing they could have done if they wanted to keep all three.

Now the Preds have painted themselves into a corner....Lose Suter and probably lose Weber or wind up paying both the motherload to stay.

The Preds could come out ok but as it stands today they are in a lose-lose situation they could have avoided.
- Al

Not disagreeing with any of that - but this is the hand they are holding right now. (Edit - Also rereading my Initial post I wasn't very clear - I was assuming they'd have to pick one or the other to keep for whatever reasons, monetarily or the players ambitions )


To elaborate - Suters status will more than likely be determined before Weber because Suter is the ufa and July 1 is coming quickly. You are assuming in your response (the first paragraph) that Weber wants to stay in Nashville. What if he doesn't AND they lose Suter? At least if they lock up Suter they have certainty that they can keep one of them. Weber would fetch them the likes of Schenn or Couturier, JVR, Mezsaros, and a 1st from what I've read (and that's just the flyers, not sure what other teams would give). Suter will not get them anything. So if they had to choose one of the two players...... it comes down to keep Weber and lose Suter OR lose weber, keep Suter and gain the kings ransom weber would fetch.

Again, jmo, but for a team that can't score it might not be a bad move assuming they get the vibe Weber won't resign. I'm just throwing out a scenario that I think makes sense as far as Nashville and damage control go. If they can keep both they should. If Suter leaves (and I think he will) the preds are screwed.

You've captured Bowman-esque thinking in a nutshell.

But if you think people like myself and others would criticize him for taking a bold move that —at worst— is a salary dump, you're wrong. But anything for the sake of argument, I guess.

Your argument is rooted in safety and the status quo. You don't seem to get that mine is rooted in taking a calculated swing for the fences with an asset that you're allegedly willing to deal for Zack Smith or similar anyway. And that, my friend, is basically a salary dump anyway. Some risk, huge reward.

I get the feeling you're not going to see how it could be a brilliant move. No risk, no reward.

Safety and security and small thinking has taken the Hawks from a Stanley Cup champion to a team that could have easily missed the playoffs the last two years.

Why you think maintaining the status quo, or more small tweaks, improves that, well, whatever.
- John Jaeckel

Yep. No risk, No reward.

You've captured Bowman-esque thinking in a nutshell.

But if you think people like myself and others would criticize him for taking a bold move that —at worst— is a salary dump, you're wrong. But anything for the sake of argument, I guess.

Your argument is rooted in safety and the status quo. You don't seem to get that mine is rooted in taking a calculated swing for the fences with an asset that you're allegedly willing to deal for Zack Smith or similar anyway. And that, my friend, is basically a salary dump anyway. Some risk, huge reward.

I get the feeling you're not going to see how it could be a brilliant move. No risk, no reward.

Safety and security and small thinking has taken the Hawks from a Stanley Cup champion to a team that could have easily missed the playoffs the last two years.

Why you think maintaining the status quo, or more small tweaks, improves that, well, whatever.
- John Jaeckel

It's not Bowman-esque, it's basic Economics. Pick up any college level book on Macro or Micro Economics and the first 4 chapters is dedicated to precisely these principles. It even has considerations for externalities like knowing through "the grapevine" that Suter wants to come to Chicago.

If you know he wants to be here, then trading Hammer would be a definite possibility. But we don't know if management has been given that kind of "nudge". Hell, Gary Suter might be at 1901 Madison to do just that on Monday. You know, come in have a walk through the building, "encourage" Stan that Ryan is ready to be a CBH.

But we don't know any of this. Besides this rumor of Hammer going to Ottawa for Smith and Pick, looks like a deal that is done if you know that Suter is going to hit the market regardless of what Nashville offers him. Suter will be Hawk with 72 hours of UFA and Hammer will be heading to Ottawa, but only if you lock down Suter.