Toggle sidebar

Proposal: Pacioretty Offers

echlfreak

Registered User
Aug 1, 2003
1,955
456
What would it take to acquire Pacioretty from Vegas. Obviously they need cap relief so there is some degree of leverage.

Pacioretty
For
DeHann or Murphy
Strome
Barrett

Pacioretty-Toews-Kane
Kubalik-Dach-DeBrincat
Click to read more...
 
Hinterland

Hinterland

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Sep 29, 2016
11,966
5,630
echlfreak said:
What would it take to acquire Pacioretty from Vegas. Obviously they need cap relief so there is some degree of leverage.

Pacioretty
For
DeHann or Murphy
Strome
Barrett

Pacioretty-Toews-Kane
Kubalik-Dach-DeBrincat
Click to expand...

Too many forwards in the mix already. I'd much rather trade for a goalie or for a defenseman.
 
Hinterland

Hinterland

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Sep 29, 2016
11,966
5,630
BK said:
Trade for a D? Not with our pipeline.
Click to expand...

Depends on what's going the other way. I also wouldn't necessarily trade for a top4 player. But a bit of depth couldn't hurt knowing about how fragile De Haan is, considering that Keith should play less and that the Blackhawks are gonna have two very young defenders on the roster. Having said that, they could probably just sign a depth defenseman to a two way or league minimum contract. Jeremy Roy or Mirco Mueller for example. Roy is particularly interesting. Huge upside, just always injured.

Pacioretty isn't even that bad. Blackhawks could use another big body. But the Blackhawks are trying to get younger and they have lots of young forwards in the mix already. If they do trade for a forward, it better not be for a defenseman.
 
Last edited:

echlfreak

Registered User
Aug 1, 2003
1,955
456
BK said:
Pass.

why trade Murphy? Makes zero sense.
Click to expand...

Murphy is cheaper for VGS. I don’t want to trade him either but I would for a 30 goal winger

Murphy is great at 3.8 now but in two years he is going to cost 4.5 to 6 per year.
 
Hinterland

Hinterland

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Sep 29, 2016
11,966
5,630
CallMeShaft said:
Hawks announced a 'rebuild' just a month or two ago. So why should we get Patches?!?
Click to expand...

I agree. But they've also said that they want to be harder to play against. So far, I haven't seen it. Zadorov is a start but after that announcement, I expected more. While Pacioretty isn't necessarily overly tough or intense, he's still a big body and does know how to use his size...
But like I said...I agree Pacioretty wouldn't make sense.
 

echlfreak

Registered User
Aug 1, 2003
1,955
456
I would prefer seeing Patches in the top 6 over Nylander. I get it takes away from the back end but I don’t expect the Hawks to keep many pucks out of the net anyways. So I would rather see a few more goals on the offensive side.
Just personal preference. I have more confidence on our D prospects to make up the difference than I do our younger forwards
 
CallMeShaft

CallMeShaft

Calder Bedard Fan
Apr 14, 2014
15,956
21,818
Hinterland said:
I agree. But they've also said that they want to be harder to play against. So far, I haven't seen it. Zadorov is a start but after that announcement, I expected more. While Pacioretty isn't necessarily overly tough or intense, he's still a big body and does know how to use his size...
But like I said...I agree Pacioretty wouldn't make sense.
Click to expand...
Tougher to play against can mean multiple things. Hawks want guys who can win board battles, net front skirmishes, PK, you name it. They don't want floaters out there. They want those types that'll do whatever is needed to win and they got some more of 'em with the additions of Wallmark and Janmark.

They don't need past-their-prime players like Max Pacioretty.
 

echlfreak

Registered User
Aug 1, 2003
1,955
456
CallMeShaft said:
Tougher to play against can mean multiple things. Hawks want guys who can win board battles, net front skirmishes, PK, you name it. They don't want floaters out there. They want those types that'll do whatever is needed to win and they got some more of 'em with the additions of Wallmark and Janmark.

They don't need past-their-prime players like Max Pacioretty.
Click to expand...

Pacioretty had one less goal than Kane and is one year older. I appreciate the grit that Wallmark and Janmark will bring. Love them as adds. I prefer a few more goals when we are losing vs board battlers.
I won’t beat this to death.
Clearly a No.

Closed case move along. Thumbs up!
 
CallMeShaft

CallMeShaft

Calder Bedard Fan
Apr 14, 2014
15,956
21,818
echlfreak said:


After watching this I wouldn’t want this past his prime, 6’2”, former captain of an original 6 hockey team, 32 goal scoring winger either.
Click to expand...

He's 33. If we trade for him, we will have traded for a guy who won't fix our biggest liability this season, goaltending, but instead fix something we won't have any issues with as is (scoring). Do you really want to trade for him just to piss away what would be his best season here because we still don't have the goaltending required to win jack shit?!?

And about your previous comparison between him and kane? Who f***ing cares? The only reason we still have Kane, Toews, and Keith is because they are legends here. If all three weren't former 3 time cup champs here, all of them with a Conn Smythe, then they would be on the market right now; because that's where this organization is right now. We aren't looking to acquire those types of players. If anything, we're looking at dumping them.

This is another one of your crappy proposals that you feel so happy to post that you make an entire thread about it and then bemoan everyone who disagrees. Might have a better time discussing this with a mirror, because nobody here seems to agree with you on this proposal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kevin Musto, Callidusblackhawk, clydesdale line and 2 others
Hinterland

Hinterland

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Sep 29, 2016
11,966
5,630
CallMeShaft said:
He's 33. If we trade for him, we will have traded for a guy who won't fix our biggest liability this season, goaltending, but instead fix something we won't have any issues with as is (scoring). Do you really want to trade for him just to piss away what would be his best season here because we still don't have the goaltending required to win jack shit?!?

And about your previous comparison between him and kane? Who f***ing cares? The only reason we still have Kane, Toews, and Keith is because they are legends here. If all three weren't former 3 time cup champs here, all of them with a Conn Smythe, then they would be on the market right now; because that's where this organization is right now. We aren't looking to acquire those types of players. If anything, we're looking at dumping them.

This is another one of your crappy proposals that you feel so happy to post that you make an entire thread about it and then bemoan everyone who disagrees. Might have a better time discussing this with a mirror, because nobody here seems to agree with you on this proposal.
Click to expand...

I think their NMC's are why they're still with the Blackhawks. Most GM's don't give a rats ass about legend status or whatever players used to do for the Franchise. If it makes sense to move on, they're donzo.
 

giza

Registered User
Jul 19, 2011
1,342
549
I like the type of player Pacioretty is and what he brings to the table, but he is a real good 2nd tier player so the kind of money he makes is not a good value which is what the Hawks desperately need. That's why Saad was expendable.....50 point guys making $6MM just isn't that great of a value. I would also not have Murphy on that list so if we could do this with DeHaan, Strome and the right prospect, but I wouldn't take on more than 1MM in incremental salary at a max.
 
Backyard Hockey

Backyard Hockey

Dealing With It
Feb 13, 2015
13,492
5,228
It would take Pacioretty to change the y to an i in his name, as there is no 'y' in the Italian language and that has always bugged me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom