Rumor: Hawks Intersted in James van Riemsdyk & Gabriel Landeskog

[LDF]

i can see vegas being a team that will be very active in the trade front, esp if a team ask them to pick up a specific player for a rtn of draft picks.

 

[ThatSaid]

I want Duchene. Bad.

Heh, I think a Panarin-Duchene-Kane line would be ridiculous. But its a pipe dream.

 

[Backyard Hockey]

Trading Seabrook would make the Hawks take 1 step forward and 2 steps backwards.

Which would make sense because that's how Seabrook skates

 

[LDF]

Which would make sense because that's how Seabrook skates

that is extremely funny.

 

[Hawkaholic]

However high you are on Seabrook, he's an expensive declining asset at a position the Blackhawks actually have relative depth, at least in the short-med term.

Landeskog is ridiculously young, cheaper, a position of need, and when he's on he's a selke caliber forward. He needs a better coach than Patrick ****inv Roy to get the most out of, and for Q's faults, he certainly meets that bar.

I think you mean..a better coach than Jared Bednar. Landeskog had his 3 best seasons playing under Roy including a 65pt +21 season.

 

[featherhawk]

With our cap issues and the expansion draft coming I can't see a major move at the deadline. Probably looking at a Weise/Fleishman/Handzus level player, hoping to catch lightning in a bottle for cheap.

I hope not, we have seen enough of that recently IMO, got to let the kids grow....

would love to add landeskog but at what cost?

I would certainly be ok with moving Seabrooks contract but that won't happen.

a package like two of Kempney, Pokka, TVR and a guy like motte/schmaltz might get it done with pick adds here and there.

I would also be interested in a package including Crawford + for Landeskog/Pickard but I doubt the abs would be...

 

[The Toews Era*]

One more excellent two way forward would be huge. 2015 taught us you can survive with four good dmen if you have enough solid defensive fwds which that team had. Toews hossa sharp saad vermette kruger dejs shaw. The problem with our current roster is that we do not have enough defensive/possession play from the rookies. Some spurts but not sustained checking and possession driving.

 

[Kaners PPGs]

The guys on the Committed Indian podcast were talking about possibly trading Darling for a forward. He is gone anyways after this season. Depending on the return, that is very interesting.

 

[DPHawk]

The guys on the Committed Indian podcast were talking about possibly trading Darling for a forward. He is gone anyways after this season. Depending on the return, that is very interesting.

Who is giving up anything for Darling? Raanta was a good backup and the Hawks got nothing for him, the return is likely not worth going into the playoffs without a backup.

 

[BK]

The more I think about this rumor the more I think that GL would be a perfect long-term replacement for Hossa. What would it cost? 1st round pick+another pick (3rd or 4th)+ a top 3-4 prospect (Debrincat, I would be willing to add a Hayden type as well(NHL ready prospect) + Seabs?

GL is the type of player where it is ok to give up a top prospect and a first because you are getting a long-term solution back. His contract is 1 million less than Seabrook so retention is not an issue.

 

[crazyhawk]

The more I think about this rumor the more I think that GL would be a perfect long-term replacement for Hossa. What would it cost? 1st round pick+another pick (3rd or 4th)+ a top 3-4 prospect (Debrincat, I would be willing to add a Hayden type as well(NHL ready prospect) + Seabs?

GL is the type of player where it is ok to give up a top prospect and a first because you are getting a long-term solution back. His contract is 1 million less than Seabrook so retention is not an issue.

I agree with your feelings about GL.
I just wonder how Colorado would want to be compensated and somehow I can't see Seabrook being part of that or of Seabs agreeing!
I would love to see it though! Hoss still has another two more semi productive years I would think as well ( line 3! )

 

[Gooner]

The more I think about this rumor the more I think that GL would be a perfect long-term replacement for Hossa. What would it cost? 1st round pick+another pick (3rd or 4th)+ a top 3-4 prospect (Debrincat, I would be willing to add a Hayden type as well(NHL ready prospect) + Seabs?

GL is the type of player where it is ok to give up a top prospect and a first because you are getting a long-term solution back. His contract is 1 million less than Seabrook so retention is not an issue.

That's how I see it as well. If he plays well enough he could easily be part of the core going forward, and chances are guys like DeBrincat or Schmaltz won't turn out better than him anyway. I still don't see the Hawks getting him though.

 

[clydesdale line]

Not a chance Seabrook waives nor should he. I will gladly send Kruger out though. That's 3 million right there.

 

[BK]

Not a chance Seabrook waives nor should he. I will gladly send Kruger out though. That's 3 million right there.

Which is fine. I wonder how often players actually refuse a trade. I personally think it is less than everyone thinks.

 

[DPHawk]

Which is fine. I wonder how often players actually refuse a trade. I personally think it is less than everyone thinks.

Players agree to waive all the time, they don't agree to waive for a rebuilding last place team when they're on a Cup contender. If the Hawks wanted to trade Seabrook he'd probably give them a handful of teams he'd waive for and those teams won't be on pace for 54 points.

 

[LDF]

Players agree to waive all the time, they don't agree to waive for a rebuilding last place team when they're on a Cup contender. If the Hawks wanted to trade Seabrook he'd probably give them a handful of teams he'd waive for and those teams won't be on pace for 54 points.

but if seabs wants to play hard ball, he can decline all he wants... leaving no choice to buy him out.

but i am throwing crap on the wall to see what sticks.

 

[DPHawk]

but if seabs wants to play hard ball, he can decline all he wants... leaving no choice to buy him out.

but i am throwing crap on the wall to see what sticks.

Declining a trade to the last place team isn't playing hardball. A buyout of Seabrook is not an option because of the 7 years remaining on his contract and the large amount of guaranteed money in his contract.

 

[LDF]

Declining a trade to the last place team isn't playing hardball. A buyout of Seabrook is not an option because of the 7 years remaining on his contract and the large amount of guaranteed money in his contract.

and i am willing to accept that i was wrong.... thanks for correcting me.

 

[LDF]

Declining a trade to the last place team isn't playing hardball. A buyout of Seabrook is not an option because of the 7 years remaining on his contract and the large amount of guaranteed money in his contract.

here is a question, what are a viable option for the hawks to pursue??

 

[Kaners PPGs]

Who is giving up anything for Darling? Raanta was a good backup and the Hawks got nothing for him, the return is likely not worth going into the playoffs without a backup.

The thinking was if a playoff team lost their starting goaltender and the Hawks would add a young forward for a young, more established player that was under control for a couple seasons. Odds are likely it wouldn't happen but I did find it interesting. We know Seabrook or any other substantial player is not getting traded until the offseason if it is going to happen.

 

[LDF]

The thinking was if a playoff team lost their starting goaltender and the Hawks would add a young forward for a young, more established player that was under control for a couple seasons. Odds are likely it wouldn't happen but I did find it interesting. We know Seabrook or any other substantial player is not getting traded until the offseason if it is going to happen.

ahh i totally agree with you. but the window of opportunity is now, not in the off season. the needs to make the playoff now for some teams is more important for them then it is for the hawks. the org knows it will make the playoff.

but here is another point i just thought of, the "cost of diminishing return" will need to be thought of, as fans. i am more than sure the fo know this, but to what level will they be willing to explore??? see, this cost is soooo subjective and the fo has ulterior motives for their level of patience in dealing.

 

[DPHawk]

The thinking was if a playoff team lost their starting goaltender and the Hawks would add a young forward for a young, more established player that was under control for a couple seasons. Odds are likely it wouldn't happen but I did find it interesting. We know Seabrook or any other substantial player is not getting traded until the offseason if it is going to happen.

It'd have to be a case of a GM really falling in love with Darling I'd think because there should be quite a few goalies available which would keep the price low. Miller and Bishop are big name FAs that teams might like (despite bad numbers) and Greiss and Robin Lehner are having big seasons on non-playoff teams so they would be good options that could be available. But if a real return was there for Darling I'd be interested.

here is a question, what are a viable option for the hawks to pursue??

Probably just get a rental at the deadline and look to the offseason to make a bigger move. Too many moving parts for the Hawks to add long term salary in the middle of a season while they're trying to compete.

 

[CourtneyDagger50]

Bishop is ALWAYS injured. Darling will probably come in cheaper than both of those options as well.

 

[BK]

Players agree to waive all the time, they don't agree to waive for a rebuilding last place team when they're on a Cup contender. If the Hawks wanted to trade Seabrook he'd probably give them a handful of teams he'd waive for and those teams won't be on pace for 54 points.

There are many more factors on each team and outside of hockey that could influence each players choice. His wife is from Calgary which opens up that part of Canada along with him being from BC. They key thing here is we don't know if he would say no or not to Colorado. Hell he could just not care and love Colorado for all we know.

I know how the process works and the factors but automatically dismissing a trade like this when you or I don't know the factors is the wrong way to look at it. I am not saying you are wrong or I disagree.

 

[LDF]

It'd have to be a case of a GM really falling in love with Darling I'd think because there should be quite a few goalies available which would keep the price low. Miller and Bishop are big name FAs that teams might like (despite bad numbers) and Greiss and Robin Lehner are having big seasons on non-playoff teams so they would be good options that could be available. But if a real return was there for Darling I'd be interested.
re kaner reply: that is unless their, the team goalie gets hurt and goes in the IR. their b/u is nothing more than a filler for the expansion draft, and the team feels they still can make a run for the playoff. Darling did perform and has perform very well and may be warrant a try out as the #1 goalie. we in chi have witness that he is more than capable of handling the #1 goalie for a while until the other goalie comes back.

Probably just get a rental at the deadline and look to the offseason to make a bigger move. Too many moving parts for the Hawks to add long term salary in the middle of a season while they're trying to compete.

again for me, it goes back to the cost, the cost of getting a realy young forward/center vs the cost of a rental.... i still think it would be a bad move bordering on stupidity/insanity, as albert einstein said "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results".