The goaltender let Brouwer sit in the goal crease? It's becoming more clear. You have a gripe against Crawford which is the reasoning for the ridiculous offer you proposed for a player that is not a need for the team.
- MJL

Yes. Patrick Roy or Martin Brodeur would never allow somebody to camp out in their crease. Have you ever heard of Billy Smith or Ron Hextall? Learn the sport, bud...I bet you've never even laced 'em up, lol.

It's the defenseman's responsibility to clear the front of the net, but it's the goal job to handle inside the paint.

My offer had nothing to do with my lack of blind-love for Crawford, but rather it takes talent to acquire talent and I'm assuming other teams see the value everyone has mentioned here. Superfluous stats and Cup rings may blind other GMs in need of a shake-up to change the culture.

In fact, my previous offer including Crawford to acquire Erik Karlsson was picked by Eklund as one of his top-10 and that only brought back Anderson in return...so, perhaps my proposal isn't as absurd as your feeble hockey mind may believe. I'd jump from 9th or 10th ranked to one of the top-2 any day of the week...you're lying if you'd say otherwise.

More ignorance, as if I said that Chicago never made a trade. The backbone of the 3 Cup teams in Chicago was built through the draft, including Keith, Toews, Kane, Seabrooke, Hjalmarsson, Saad, and others. A big free agent signing of Hossa and some key trades supplemented that roster. Unfortunately when you have that good of a team and a lot of good players, the cap eats you alive and forces moves that degrade the roster. The deal you propose is the wrong approach.
- MJL

You literally just said they did not build Cup-winners with my approach, yet that's exactly what StaBo had to do for 2013 and 2015. I never once said they need to tear it down and rebuild via trade, as you're suggesting...it took DECADES of losing to acquire enough draft capital to build that 2010 roster, which were primarily top-3 or top-10 picks (with the exception of Keith and Byfuglien).

I'm suggesting to supplement that same core with opportune trades that IMPROVE the roster, which I don't believe should even be in question...and that is EXACTLY what they did in 2013 and 2015.

Yes. Patrick Roy or Martin Brodeur would never allow somebody to camp out in their crease. Have you ever heard of Billy Smith or Ron Hextall? Learn the sport, bud...I bet you've never even laced 'em up, lol.

It's the defenseman's responsibility to clear the front of the net, but it's the goal job to handle inside the paint.


- Hawks18

Every post you make exposes you more and more. This the year 2017. Players crowd the crease all the time and whacks to the back of the legs are not going to move them. It is not the goaltenders responsibility to clear the crease. That is on the defenseman and it is made more difficult due to the rules and the way the game is called these days. The fact that you blame Crawford for not moving a player in the crease points to the clear bias or lack of knowledge that you have.

My offer had nothing to do with my lack of blind-love for Crawford, but rather it takes talent to acquire talent and I'm assuming other teams see the value everyone has mentioned here. Superfluous stats and Cup rings may blind other GMs in need of a shake-up to change the culture.


- Hawks18

The clear bias you have against Crawford without any reasonable basis for it absolutely factors into your reasoning. It's a bad deal for the HawKs no matter how you try and spin it.

In fact, my previous offer including Crawford to acquire Erik Karlsson was picked by Eklund as one of his top-10 and that only brought back Anderson in return...so, perhaps my proposal isn't as absurd as your feeble hockey mind may believe. I'd jump from 9th or 10th ranked to one of the top-2 any day of the week...you're lying if you'd say otherwise.
- Hawks18

You can add this fallacy to the ad hominem attacks you make. One trade proposal you made was liked by someone else therefore another proposal you make must be a good one also. You're going to need more than that reach of an argument.

You literally just said they did not build Cup-winners with my approach, yet that's exactly what StaBo had to do for 2013 and 2015. I never once said they need to tear it down and rebuild via trade, as you're suggesting...it took DECADES of losing to acquire enough draft capital to build that 2010 roster, which were primarily top-3 or top-10 picks (with the exception of Keith and Byfuglien).

I'm suggesting to supplement that same core with opportune trades that IMPROVE the roster, which I don't believe should even be in question...and that is EXACTLY what they did in 2013 and 2015.
- Hawks18

This post is factually incorrect in so many ways I don't know where to start. First show me where I stated that they need to tear it down and rebuild via trade? I've clearly stated as a major part of my disapproval of your strategy that the Hawks need to keep their draft picks and start adding to the prospect base again. If you need a review I'll link it for you.

Your arguments are getting weaker and weaker. If you don't bring something more substantial to the table, there is no reason for me to continue this debate.

This post is factually incorrect in so many ways I don't know where to start. First show me where I stated that they need to tear it down and rebuild via trade? I've clearly stated as a major part of my disapproval of your strategy that the Hawks need to keep their draft picks and start adding to the prospect base again. If you need a review I'll link it for you.

Your arguments are getting weaker and weaker. If you don't bring something more substantial to the table, there is no reason for me to continue this debate.
- MJL

Feel free to move on then, pal...you're simply wasting both of our time with non-sensical subjective opinion, which nobody ever asked for to begin with. It's not my fault you don't understand basic reasoning, but rather keep responding with some form of "Crawford is awesome, Chicago would be dumb to acquire Price for him" (that's called paraphrasing - before you "quote me" on specifics), which makes zero sense in any logical realm.

So, I really don't care whether or not you "continue with this debate" cause you're worthless to me. It's subjective either way and your opinion doesn't matter at all, lol.

It was fun to call you out for awhile, but going in circles cause you think you actually know anything has gotten boring.

Feel free to move on then, pal...you're simply wasting both of our time with non-sensical subjective opinion, which nobody ever asked for to begin with. It's not my fault you don't understand basic reasoning, but rather keep responding with some form of "Crawford is awesome, Chicago would be dumb to acquire Price for him" (that's called paraphrasing - before you "quote me" on specifics), which makes zero sense in any logical realm.

So, I really don't care whether or not you "continue with this debate" cause you're worthless to me. It's subjective either way and your opinion doesn't matter at all, lol.

It was fun to call you out for awhile, but going in circles cause you think you actually know anything has gotten boring.
- Hawks18

I know the fact that goaltending is not an issue for the Hawks and that they do not have to trade for an upgrade in net nor is it sensible for them to take on Price's 8 year 10+M cap hit deal that hasn't even started yet. Pretty much tilts the credibility scale widely in my favor. End of story, slam dunk. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays.

I know the fact that goaltending is not an issue for the Hawks and that they do not have to trade for an upgrade in net nor is it sensible for them to take on Price's 8 year 10+M cap hit deal that hasn't even started yet. Pretty much tilts the credibility scale widely in my favor. End of story, slam dunk. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays.
- MJL

You're still here?

I'm not sure what your reading comprehension is, but I've already noted the salary is negligible with the pieces heading back to Montreal.

I've also cited tangible statistical data supporting the FACT that Carey Price is better than Corey Crawford.

So, the deal basically becomes Crawford (low-end top-10 goalie) + some minor league prospects for Price (top-2 goalie), which would be a no-brainier for any organization regardless of need.

You lose all credibility by simply regurgitating the same tired opinion rather than referencing facts and statistics.

For some reason, you keep clinging to those two irrelevant facts: Crawford is decent and Price is expensive, lol. GMs would NEVER make trades with that flawed logic...

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you, too...sorry about your poopty team.

You're still here?

I'm not sure what your reading comprehension is, but I've already noted the salary is negligible with the pieces heading back to Montreal.

I've also cited tangible statistical data supporting the FACT that Carey Price is better than Corey Crawford.

So, the deal basically becomes Crawford (low-end top-10 goalie) + some minor league prospects for Price (top-2 goalie), which would be a no-brainier for any organization regardless of need.

You lose all credibility by simply regurgitating the same tired opinion rather than referencing facts and statistics.

For some reason, you keep clinging to those two irrelevant facts: Crawford is decent and Price is expensive, lol. GMs would NEVER make trades with that flawed logic...

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you, too...sorry about your poopty team.
- Hawks18

First of all, I love my team.

You question my reading comprehension and then repeatedly state your case that price is better that Crawford. I've stated many times that we are in agreement on that so why do you keep stating it? It's irrelevant.

Were you fail is not realizing that Crawford is much better than decent. He is arguably a top 10 goaltender in the NHL and the team has won 2 Stanley Cups with him in net. Failing to realize that points to credibility. I've given the stats on Crawford previously so your claim that I fail to use stats and facts is inaccurate.

Your trade premise is a non starter. You fail to realize the true needs of the team and what spots on the team they should use whatever trade assets they have to improve. Goaltending is not one of those spots. It's hockey 101.

Then you try to minimize the value of prospects and draft picks to try and talk yourself into it. Goes to credibility.

The Blackhawks trading for Price would be a bad move for them. Not what they need. There are far more pressing needs for them to get back to where they need to be. They're set in net with Crawford.

First of all, I love my team.

You question my reading comprehension and then repeatedly state your case that price is better that Crawford. I've stated many times that we are in agreement on that so why do you keep stating it? It's irrelevant.

Were you fail is not realizing that Crawford is much better than decent. He is arguably a top 10 goaltender in the NHL and the team has won 2 Stanley Cups with him in net. Failing to realize that points to credibility. I've given the stats on Crawford previously so your claim that I fail to use stats and facts is inaccurate.

Your trade premise is a non starter. You fail to realize the true needs of the team and what spots on the team they should use whatever trade assets they have to improve. Goaltending is not one of those spots. It's hockey 101.

Then you try to minimize the value of prospects and draft picks to try and talk yourself into it. Goes to credibility.

The Blackhawks trading for Price would be a bad move for them. Not what they need. There are far more pressing needs for them to get back to where they need to be. They're set in net with Crawford.
- MJL

Price being better than Crawford is extremely relevant, which discredits you entirely from the start. I'll continue, though.

You know this wasn't an exercise in "what most improves your team", but rather "propose a hypothetical trade scenario for Carey Price"...it's a dream land, wishful thinking proposal and not one meant to fill the Blackhawks primary (or secondary) needs, but to say it's absurd because the 'Hawks already have a decent player (top-10 out of 31 is barely above-average) of that same position is asinine and childish.

Chicago's biggest needs are top-6 LW (to play with Kane) and top-4 defenseman w/ speed and sandpaper. I've never failed to acknowledge that cause it has never been relevant to this discussion. You insist on veering off-topic as your argument against why it's a "bad trade" for Chicago...stay inside the box, kid. StaBo has plenty more trade assets to use towards one or both of those weakness, if desired.

Prospects and draft capital are very valuable, which I have never discredited...instead, I've pointed out the improbability of landing high-end, difference-making, or even impactful talent picking in the latter half of each round. Unfortunately, Chicago has been and will be mired in that slot for many years...it reaches a certain where (as StaBo, Rutherford, Shero, and many other top-notch GMs prove each year) that draft capital is worth more being spent on NHL-level UPGRADES than lottery tickets or blue-chip prospects that take several years to develop. It's common sense...truly Hockey 101, as you called it.

Finally, upgrading one position despite needs elsewhere does not negate its value...they are completely unrelated and have zero bearing on one another. I've never once said, "deal Crawford for Price and ignore every other hole on the roster!" It has never even been a choice between one upgrade or another.

Making an offer for Carey Price was hypothetical and the only requisite is "what would it take to get him?" It devolved into team needs and cap considerations thanks to you, but you've been too narrow-minding to accept provides solutions to those menial problems cause "Chicago is set in net with Crawford" per your opinion. I disagree.

I'm not saying Price comes in and takes us to the Cup Finals by himself, but I'm willing to take the risk that Carey legitimately STEALS one or two games per round (rather than Crow simply "keeping his team in it" for stretches). If so, Chicago could be looking at 4-3 series victories rather than defeats...that's all I'm saying.

You can't underestimate the power or influence of goaltending in the Stanley Cup Playoffs...one hot goalie can win a series all by himself (see: Halak, Jaroslav) or take his team through to the Cup Finals (see: Thomas, Tim or Quick, Jonathan) despite their other weaknesses (i.e. Los Angeles' lack of offense in 2012).

Choosing to ignore its importance truly crushes your credibility, which is why your opinion really means nothing to me. I'm only here still cause I believe in offering a response to everyone who replies to me. What's your excuse? lol

I'm not looking to get into a Crawford discussion with yet another blind homer, but I will only say this...

Blackhawks homers seem to conveniently forget how he nearly single-handedly lost the Detroit series in 2013 when Chicago had one of the most stacked rosters in our history. Due to his mediocre play and soft goals, Crow out is into a nearly insurmountable 3-1 series deficit...luckily, we had the offensive horses to claw our way out of it and won Game 7 in OT.

Ditto in 2014, except his terrible play lead us to another 3-1 deficit against Los Angeles, which was simply too much to overcome despite Chicago's best efforts after pushing it to Game 7. Does nobody remember Justin Williams goal from the side of our net? lol

How about Game 7 against St. Louis when he let Troy Brouwer sit in the goal crease and score on a tap-in to ultimately seal our fate? Come on, man...

Look, I understand...Crawford plays solid sometimes and Blackhawks fans think he's God, but he gives up too many soft goals and his rebound control is atrocious. For some reason, he gives up on plays too soon...just doesn't have the battle or compete that guys like Quick do.

I could obviously think of worse goalies, but I could easily think of 5-7 off the top of my head that I'd select in a heartbeat over Crawford. Quit drinkin' the home-team sauce, bud...
- Hawks18

Speaking of blind and ill informed, you seem to forget the only reason the Hawks were even in a position to lose to LA in 2014 was due to at least 2 goalie wins in each of the first two series vs the Blues and the Wild.

In 2015 he was kind of a big reason the Hawks beat TB in the finals. Never said he was God. You would rather pick some great regular season goalies in your top 5, I'd take Crow. You have just as much right to be wrong as anyone else. Got anymore great trade proposals Chachi?

Speaking of blind and ill informed, you seem to forget the only reason the Hawks were even in a position to lose to LA in 2014 was due to at least 2 goalie wins in each of the first two series vs the Blues and the Wild.

In 2015 he was kind of a big reason the Hawks beat TB in the finals. Never said he was God. You would rather pick some great regular season goalies in your top 5, I'd take Crow. You have just as much right to be wrong as anyone else. Got anymore great trade proposals Chachi?
- HawkintheD

Really? Against Minnesota? Did you forget the soft goals he gave up from the top of the circle after Roszival was turned inside out? Chicago was never in danger of losing that series...stop it already.

Crow played well in the Finals, but only one game was he exceptional. I'd rather pick talent over team accomplishments when ranking goaltenders. Many of you Blackhawks homers were up in arms when Bowman let Niemi walk to San Jose...nobody even mentions him anymore cause he's another average goalie who was lifted by Chicago's (quickly eroding) talent.

If you'd truly take Crawford over any of those top-5 goalies I mentioned (simply cause he won 2 Cups) then you're a bigger homer than I originally thought, lol. You'd only take Crow cause he's our current goaltender. Period.

I appreciate the loyalty (I'm somebody who still defends Cutler), but that doesn't excuse you from being superficially biased and wrong about his true level of talent. If he were on any other team, you'd be singing a completely different tune (unless you're still a major fan of Anttii Niemi).

Price being better than Crawford is extremely relevant, which discredits you entirely from the start. I'll continue, though.

You know this wasn't an exercise in "what most improves your team", but rather "propose a hypothetical trade scenario for Carey Price"...it's a dream land, wishful thinking proposal and not one meant to fill the Blackhawks primary (or secondary) needs, but to say it's absurd because the 'Hawks already have a decent player (top-10 out of 31 is barely above-average) of that same position is asinine and childish.

Chicago's biggest needs are top-6 LW (to play with Kane) and top-4 defenseman w/ speed and sandpaper. I've never failed to acknowledge that cause it has never been relevant to this discussion. You insist on veering off-topic as your argument against why it's a "bad trade" for Chicago...stay inside the box, kid. StaBo has plenty more trade assets to use towards one or both of those weakness, if desired.

Prospects and draft capital are very valuable, which I have never discredited...instead, I've pointed out the improbability of landing high-end, difference-making, or even impactful talent picking in the latter half of each round. Unfortunately, Chicago has been and will be mired in that slot for many years...it reaches a certain where (as StaBo, Rutherford, Shero, and many other top-notch GMs prove each year) that draft capital is worth more being spent on NHL-level UPGRADES than lottery tickets or blue-chip prospects that take several years to develop. It's common sense...truly Hockey 101, as you called it.

Finally, upgrading one position despite needs elsewhere does not negate its value...they are completely unrelated and have zero bearing on one another. I've never once said, "deal Crawford for Price and ignore every other hole on the roster!" It has never even been a choice between one upgrade or another.

Making an offer for Carey Price was hypothetical and the only requisite is "what would it take to get him?" It devolved into team needs and cap considerations thanks to you, but you've been too narrow-minding to accept provides solutions to those menial problems cause "Chicago is set in net with Crawford" per your opinion. I disagree.

I'm not saying Price comes in and takes us to the Cup Finals by himself, but I'm willing to take the risk that Carey legitimately STEALS one or two games per round (rather than Crow simply "keeping his team in it" for stretches). If so, Chicago could be looking at 4-3 series victories rather than defeats...that's all I'm saying.

You can't underestimate the power or influence of goaltending in the Stanley Cup Playoffs...one hot goalie can win a series all by himself (see: Halak, Jaroslav) or take his team through to the Cup Finals (see: Thomas, Tim or Quick, Jonathan) despite their other weaknesses (i.e. Los Angeles' lack of offense in 2012).

Choosing to ignore its importance truly crushes your credibility, which is why your opinion really means nothing to me. I'm only here still cause I believe in offering a response to everyone who replies to me. What's your excuse? lol
- Hawks18

It isn't relevant since the Blackhawks have no need for a goaltender upgrade.

Now you've moved the goalposts and say it's all just fantasy. Why then consider all the variables such as the salary cap? Let's just pretend it doesn't exist!

Your statement that I'm choosing to ignore the importance of goaltending is an invention in your mind in which you have zero basis to support.

Really? Against Minnesota? Did you forget the soft goals he gave up from the top of the circle after Roszival was turned inside out? Chicago was never in danger of losing that series...stop it already.

Crow played well in the Finals, but only one game was he exceptional. I'd rather pick talent over team accomplishments when ranking goaltenders. Many of you Blackhawks homers were up in arms when Bowman let Niemi walk to San Jose...nobody even mentions him anymore cause he's another average goalie who was lifted by Chicago's (quickly eroding) talent.

If you'd truly take Crawford over any of those top-5 goalies I mentioned (simply cause he won 2 Cups) then you're a bigger homer than I originally thought, lol. You'd only take Crow cause he's our current goaltender. Period.

I appreciate the loyalty (I'm somebody who still defends Cutler), but that doesn't excuse you from being superficially biased and wrong about his true level of talent. If he were on any other team, you'd be singing a completely different tune (unless you're still a major fan of Anttii Niemi).
- Hawks18

Which one is it? Is Crow an average or top 10 goalie in the league. I'd easily put him in the mix with your top 6 and part of that reason is the devil you know.

Let me know when Holtby or Bobro do anything in the playoffs. Price is a great goalie but also can't match his regular season and playoff performance.

You seem to have recollection for a soft goal here or there. I have a little secret for you. All goalies give up soft goals. If you think Crawford gives them up with any more regularity than those you mention, then I can't help you. Based on your posts I'm not sure anyone can.

You're reaching with your 7-10. Dubnyk? Come on. Crow's outbattled him twice in the playoffs IIRC. In 2014 you say there was never any doubt. Wrong. Crow stole two of those games just like he did in the StL series.

Dubnyk melts when the heat gets turned up. So does Hank. So did Tukka "Erin Moran" Rask. Gibson...meh.

Nemo was and is average. Crow not so much and currently outplaying all of your picks ahead of mine.

To a degree, sure, I'm a homer. Go float your trade idea on the Hawk board. If I had to guess you'll get laughed off it even by the doom and gloomers who haven't liked the team through the last two Cup runs.

Unbelievable levels of lose here.

Off the charts.

Which one is it? Is Crow an average or top 10 goalie in the league. I'd easily put him in the mix with your top 6 and part of that reason is the devil you know.

Let me know when Holtby or Bobro do anything in the playoffs. Price is a great goalie but also can't match his regular season and playoff performance.

You seem to have recollection for a soft goal here or there. I have a little secret for you. All goalies give up soft goals. If you think Crawford gives them up with any more regularity than those you mention, then I can't help you. Based on your posts I'm not sure anyone can.

You're reaching with your 7-10. Dubnyk? Come on. Crow's outbattled him twice in the playoffs IIRC. In 2014 you say there was never any doubt. Wrong. Crow stole two of those games just like he did in the StL series.

Dubnyk melts when the heat gets turned up. So does Hank. So did Tukka "Erin Moran" Rask. Gibson...meh.

Nemo was and is average. Crow not so much and currently outplaying all of your picks ahead of mine.

To a degree, sure, I'm a homer. Go float your trade idea on the Hawk board. If I had to guess you'll get laughed off it even by the doom and gloomers who haven't liked the team through the last two Cup runs.
- HawkintheD

Andersen is better than both of them combined. The Leafs are a better team than both of those teams combined. Let's talk about the Leafs instead, since they are better.

It isn't relevant since the Blackhawks have no need for a goaltender upgrade.

Now you've moved the goalposts and say it's all just fantasy. Why then consider all the variables such as the salary cap? Let's just pretend it doesn't exist!

Your statement that I'm choosing to ignore the importance of goaltending is an invention in your mind in which you have zero basis to support.
- MJL

You can choose to believe or not believe whatever you like...it has always been a hypothetical situation. You're the one who brought up salary cap and other variables...I've only responded to debunk your outrageous reasons against why Chicago would NEVER choose to upgrade their goalie.

And, simply by stating "the Blackhawks have no need for a goaltender upgrade" proves how little you value the position cause unless your team is #1 in the league, there's always room for improvement.

I thought you were leaving?

Which one is it? Is Crow an average or top 10 goalie in the league. I'd easily put him in the mix with your top 6 and part of that reason is the devil you know.

Let me know when Holtby or Bobro do anything in the playoffs. Price is a great goalie but also can't match his regular season and playoff performance.

You seem to have recollection for a soft goal here or there. I have a little secret for you. All goalies give up soft goals. If you think Crawford gives them up with any more regularity than those you mention, then I can't help you. Based on your posts I'm not sure anyone can.

You're reaching with your 7-10. Dubnyk? Come on. Crow's outbattled him twice in the playoffs IIRC. In 2014 you say there was never any doubt. Wrong. Crow stole two of those games just like he did in the StL series.

Dubnyk melts when the heat gets turned up. So does Hank. So did Tukka "Erin Moran" Rask. Gibson...meh.

Nemo was and is average. Crow not so much and currently outplaying all of your picks ahead of mine.

To a degree, sure, I'm a homer. Go float your trade idea on the Hawk board. If I had to guess you'll get laughed off it even by the doom and gloomers who haven't liked the team through the last two Cup runs.
- HawkintheD

IMO, Crawford is average...as I've stated (with supporting statistical data) numerous times. However, I've also noted that I could objectively see an argument for him in that 7-10 range, which would make him slightly above-average. Please follow along...

Sure, I'd agree "the devil you know" is a compelling reason to stick with the status quo, but at some point something has to give (probably StaBo or Q) cause we're not getting it done with this core anymore.

If you're gonna sit there and knock guys like Holtby, Bobrovsky, or Price cause they've failed in the most team-centric playoff format for all of sports, it just proves how much of a biased homer you truly are...plenty of elite players never win a championship cause the team around them is terrible.

Dubnyk is literally the only reason Minnesota is competitive...ditto King Henrik and Rask in the playoffs (both of which have brought inferior teams to the Cup Finals). If you fail to realize their importance, there's not much more I can say...Niemi is absolutely average, but guess who's Blackhawks numbers are quite similar? Crawford.

You're right. Blackhawks "fans" would never be open to dealing Crawford, which are the same morons who "rejoice" when StaBo brings back guys like Versteeg, Ladd, Campbell, Oduya, and Sharp...even Saad to a degree. It's blind homerism, which is pathetic...half of those "fans" never watched a game before 2009-10 and majority of 'em don't follow hockey outside of Chicago. I don't care what they (or you) think when it's simply a home-team love fest.

Open your eyes and be objective...quit living in the past and realize this team needs drastic changes to survive, let alone win another one.

Unbelievable levels of lose here.

Off the charts.
- drew_doubty

Just wait until the, "You're the GM...submit offers for Drew Doughty!" thread, lol.

Just wait until the, "You're the GM...submit offers for Drew Doughty!" thread, lol.
- Hawks18

You can choose to believe or not believe whatever you like...it has always been a hypothetical situation. You're the one who brought up salary cap and other variables...I've only responded to debunk your outrageous reasons against why Chicago would NEVER choose to upgrade their goalie.

And, simply by stating "the Blackhawks have no need for a goaltender upgrade" proves how little you value the position cause unless your team is #1 in the league, there's always room for improvement.

I thought you were leaving?
- Hawks18

I never stated Chicago would NEVER upgrade their goaltending. I stated that they don't need to and it is not a team need that they should spend player and cap assets on.

Hypothetical trade proposals can and should take real world factors into consideration otherwise it's just playing NHL17.

So according to your last statement, every team but one in the NHL needs to upgrade their goaltending. Well thought out

I never stated Chicago would NEVER upgrade their goaltending. I stated that they don't need to and it is not a team need that they should spend player and cap assets on.

Hypothetical trade proposals can and should take real world factors into consideration otherwise it's just playing NHL17.

So according to your last statement, every team but one in the NHL needs to upgrade their goaltending. Well thought out

- MJL

You've most certainly said, "Chicago would NEVER make that trade cause they don't need goaltending" in some form or another.

It was "hypothetical" in a sense that Chicago would not ordinarily target somebody like Carey Price, but every GM "kicks the tires" when any superstar becomes available...whether or not we here about it or you choose to believe it.

We're going in circles here, though. Salary cap is dead even...and said draft picks / prospects may be 2-3 years away, if ever, from suiting up for the Blackhawks. Your counter-points are moot, yet all you do is keep re-stating them like it's suddenly gonna be true, lol.

Wrong. I never said should, but rather could upgrade their goaltending...and most would do so given the opportunity with minimal impact to their NHL roster, as I've presented.

You need to stop assuming and putting words into my mouth, child...

You've most certainly said, "Chicago would NEVER make that trade cause they don't need goaltending" in some form or another.

It was "hypothetical" in a sense that Chicago would not ordinarily target somebody like Carey Price, but every GM "kicks the tires" when any superstar becomes available...whether or not we here about it or you choose to believe it.

We're going in circles here, though. Salary cap is dead even...and said draft picks / prospects may be 2-3 years away, if ever, from suiting up for the Blackhawks. Your counter-points are moot, yet all you do is keep re-stating them like it's suddenly gonna be true, lol.

Wrong. I never said should, but rather could upgrade their goaltending...and most would do so given the opportunity with minimal impact to their NHL roster, as I've presented.

You need to stop assuming and putting words into my mouth, child...
- Hawks18

You're wrong. I never stated that. Feel free to back up your claim and link where I said that.

Salary cap is not dead even. Price's deal is an 8 year deal that hasn't even started yet.

You made this foolish statement

"And, simply by stating "the Blackhawks have no need for a goaltender upgrade" proves how little you value the position cause unless your team is #1 in the league, there's always room for improvement."

No words were put into your mouth. I'm just simply using your words to discredit you.

You're wrong. I never stated that. Feel free to back up your claim and link where I said that.

Salary cap is not dead even. Price's deal is an 8 year deal that hasn't even started yet.

You made this foolish statement

"And, simply by stating "the Blackhawks have no need for a goaltender upgrade" proves how little you value the position cause unless your team is #1 in the league, there's always room for improvement."

No words were put into your mouth. I'm just simply using your words to discredit you.
- MJL

In case you haven't noticed, Chicago has never been shy about long-term contracts...it's the AAV they need to consider, which as I said is even.

It's not a foolish statement...that is actual fact. If you don't have the absolute best of something, there is room for improvement. Pretty basic and simple stuff...not my fault you can't comprehend logic.

As per your inference of "so according to your last statement, every team but one in the NHL needs to upgrade their goaltending" that is absolutely not what I said, which is precisely putting words into my mouth.

So, you've yet to use my actual words to discredit anything...all you've done is used your own subjective opinion to assume Chicago values what you deem to be worthwhile.

Shall we keep going? I can talk in circles like this with you forever...

In case you haven't noticed, Chicago has never been shy about long-term contracts...it's the AAV they need to consider, which as I said is even.

It's not a foolish statement...that is actual fact. If you don't have the absolute best of something, there is room for improvement. Pretty basic and simple stuff...not my fault you can't comprehend logic.

As per your inference of "so according to your last statement, every team but one in the NHL needs to upgrade their goaltending" that is absolutely not what I said, which is precisely putting words into my mouth.

So, you've yet to use my actual words to discredit anything...all you've done is used your own subjective opinion to assume Chicago values what you deem to be worthwhile.

Shall we keep going? I can talk in circles like this with you forever...
- Hawks18

great argument between you two. both of you must be genius lawyers!