Salary Cap: If we do trade *blank* what do we want for him?

[Arno Dorian*]

Sorry guys, but be honest. Keith IS the top pair. Put a monkey as his partner and he'll do fine. Every time I see a games highlights and it shows the other team scoring, it's always because of him ****ing up with the puck or his inept ability to disregard players in the slot. The fact that he makes MORE than Keith is no short of a miracle for him. I'm sure you can find another player to take slap shots from the point while players screen the goalie WHILE giving a **** in his own end. Look at last years playoff record vs St. Louis: Record with Seabrook 1-2, Without Seabrook 3-0. *Game 2 was lost due to a last second goal by Tarasenko due to Seabrook's 5 minute major, then an OT goal by Jackman of all people.

You're giving Keith his due and underrating Seabrook. I think Seabrook's value is a little high at that moment, so that's a good reason to move him, but I don't think it's fair to use one year's playoff record against one team to rate a guy that has been a key part of multiple deep runs in the playoffs and two cups.

 

[Mzeppelin1]

Or Trade Crawford

He is average at best, gives up multitudes of rebounds (no short of a miracle that other teams whiff or miss on those), and his cap hit does not reflect the quality of the product. I'm not ripping on Crawford as much as I'm complimenting the Hawks offense (minus shaw) and defense (minus Seabrook). I really am in awe of how a team can succeed despite the screw ups of 3 of the team's mainstays. Most backups from other teams (including the AHL) could do even better behind the current hawks team than Crawford can. Before you try to disprove my logic, just ask yourselves; would LA have beaten the hawks if the hawks had a Quick, Rask, Miller, Bobrovsky, Bishop?

 

[Arno Dorian*]

would LA have beaten the hawks if the hawks had a Quick, Rask, Miller, Bobrovsky, Bishop?

Okay, so I'm a Chicago native, and I do a lot of following of the Hawks and Stars (T-Stars play down the street), but is there some Quick hiding in the AHL?

Goalie Prospects:

1. Antti Raanta Pro 7.0 C
2. Mac Carruth Pro 6.5 C
3. Matt Tomkins NCAA 6.5 D
4. Ivan Nalimov Europe 6.5 D

 

[CallMeShaft]

Crawford isn't merely average, and Seabrook (while a bit clumsy at times) can be an exceptional dman when he's on his game. Case in point, the series against the Wings in 2013. He struggled as hard as any player on this team for the first four games, but he picked himself up and was fantastic for the remainder of that series as well as against the Kings and Bruins.

 

[CourtneyDagger50]

He is average at best, gives up multitudes of rebounds (no short of a miracle that other teams whiff or miss on those), and his cap hit does not reflect the quality of the product. I'm not ripping on Crawford as much as I'm complimenting the Hawks offense (minus shaw) and defense (minus Seabrook). I really am in awe of how a team can succeed despite the screw ups of 3 of the team's mainstays. Most backups from other teams (including the AHL) could do even better behind the current hawks team than Crawford can. Before you try to disprove my logic, just ask yourselves; would LA have beaten the hawks if the hawks had a Quick, Rask, Miller, Bobrovsky, Bishop?

Yes they would have because the OT winner was not on our goalie. Our D-Man went to block it, didnt get a enough and deflected it over Corey's shoulder.
If you recall, Quick wasn't much better in the series.
And if we hadn't had Crawford, we wouldn't have even had to deal with LA because we wouldn't have gotten past the Wild.
And he outplayed Miller in the first round.
Please stop.

 

[Mzeppelin1]

If I do recall corretly

Crawford isn't merely average, and Seabrook (while a bit clumsy at times) can be an exceptional dman when he's on his game. Case in point, the series against the Wings in 2013. He struggled as hard as any player on this team for the first four games, but he picked himself up and was fantastic for the remainder of that series as well as against the Kings and Bruins.

was Seabrook's OT winner a result of an unfortunate deflection off the overrated Kronwall's stick?

 

[Mzeppelin1]

Okay, so I'm a Chicago native, and I do a lot of following of the Hawks and Stars (T-Stars play down the street), but is there some Quick hiding in the AHL?

Goalie Prospects:

1. Antti Raanta Pro 7.0 C
2. Mac Carruth Pro 6.5 C
3. Matt Tomkins NCAA 6.5 D
4. Ivan Nalimov Europe 6.5 D

I wouldn't invest much into those ratings on goalies, but I understand that you are more informed with you're prospects than I. I have actually met alumni of Crawford's school and the people I have met have told me that he has been average at best even when playing midget, high school, etc. I'm just saying that he isn't worth the amount Bowman has invested in and just seems to be the weak link in a very strong Hawks chain.

 

[CourtneyDagger50]

was Seabrook's OT winner a result of an unfortunate deflection off the overrated Kronwall's stick?

Yes, though it was fortunate. And?

 

[LandofLincoln*]

Versteeg for a legitimate bottom 6 guy with grit. I'm dreaming though. I'll take a draft pick for him. Any draft pick.

Clendening for same.

Versteeg is needed next season because his cap hit is a bargain....bottom six for Versteeg is crazy.

 

[bwana63]

Versteeg is needed next season because his cap hit is a bargain....bottom six for Versteeg is crazy.

Half the posters on here would've dumped Steeger for a bag of pucks not all that long ago. Comeback Player of the Year if he hadn't busted his hand.

 

[JaegerDice]

The Hawks aren't getting true value for anybody they trade this off-season.

Same issue as 2010. The other 29 GMs in the league aren't in sealed vacuums, they know that the Blackhawks are going to be desperate to make it under the cap. They're not going to be offering a lot for the favor of helping the Blackhawks shed salary.

It's 2011-2012 all over again. Be happy with mid-to-low picks, prospects, and under-performing players (your Stalbergs of the world...though Stalberg turned out to be kind of a steal when all was said and done).

 

[Kaners PPGs]

The Hawks aren't getting true value for anybody they trade this off-season.

Same issue as 2010. The other 29 GMs in the league aren't in sealed vacuums, they know that the Blackhawks are going to be desperate to make it under the cap. They're not going to be offering a lot for the favor of helping the Blackhawks shed salary.

It's 2011-2012 all over again. Be happy with mid-to-low picks, prospects, and under-performing players (your Stalbergs of the world...though Stalberg turned out to be kind of a steal when all was said and done).

I disagree with this. How did the Leddy trade work out? The Hawks had to shed salary and they still made a pretty good trade under the gun. Plus, if the Hawk players are in demand from multiple teams it will not make a difference that the Hawks have to shed salary.

 

[GGGHawks18]

I disagree with this. How did the Leddy trade work out? The Hawks had to shed salary and they still made a pretty good trade under the gun. Plus, if the Hawk players are in demand from multiple teams it will not make a difference that the Hawks have to shed salary.

Exactly. Especially when multiple teams are interested in a player, price will only go up.

I mean Leddy netted one of the Isles best young D-Men.

 

[Bubba88]

they wouldn't get the chance to get players like that without the Cap problems... think about that

 

[No Fun Shogun]

We can get value for some guys, but not others.

I still think that Bickell could be viewed as an attractive option for some teams, especially if they want to get a guy to help them reach the cap floor, but that being said if we do trade him we have to look at it as similar to the Campbell trade. We didn't just trade him for Olesz. We traded for him for Olesz + significant cap savings. Olesz didn't pan our for us, but the cap space it afforded us was invaluable.

If we need to trade Sharp and/or Seabrook, I do think we can get a mighty haul for them, especially Sharp.

Crow is a no go from a trade perspective. He's good to great, but he's not phenomenal, so not many teams are going to be willing to take on his (now average) cap hit, as contenders don't have the space or need, bad teams have other areas to focus on before they worry about their netminders, and I don't think a middling team is a Crawford away from being a true contender. Not to mention that any trade involving him would almost assuredly involve us retaining a chunk of his cap hit, so I don't think any move with him would actually net us much cap relief in return to make a downgrade in net worthwhile.

 

[Taze em]

Sharp will be worth a HUGE haul. Look at Martin St Louis as a comparable in that case.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

Sharp will be worth a HUGE haul. Look at Martin St Louis as a comparable in that case.

I wouldn't go that far, but I could see us getting a first and a prospect for Sharp.

 

[AmericanDream]

I wouldn't go that far, but I could see us getting a first and a prospect for Sharp.

Sharp being 7 years younger and a pretty consistent 30 plus goal scorer...not sure how we wouldn't get a similar return then what St Louis got the Lightning. St Louis had better years in his prime, but as it stands I think we could land something similar for Sharp.

 

[LordKOTL]

Half the posters on here would've dumped Steeger for a bag of pucks not all that long ago. Comeback Player of the Year if he hadn't busted his hand.

I agree. I'll take an appetizer of crow for that and save the main course of Crow for how he does when coming back.

After for the post-All-star break, I think for the TDL the driving factor would be for a rental to address a need with a contract expiring this year--if the 'hawks go for it. My gut says Stan won't make a move.

 

[Bubba88]

do we really want to see Sharp gone?

 

[hisgirlfriday]

do we really want to see Sharp gone?

No.

But there are zero ideal scenarios for addressing the cap.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

do we really want to see Sharp gone?

Absolutely not, but.... we might very we'll be forced to do so if the cap situation's dire.