Waived: Jan Rutta

ChiHawk21

Registered User
Jan 15, 2011
7,310
1,552
for 2 months??? you have to sit this guy for a long time which then weakens his value even more...I am sure they tried to move him, maybe they got offers for a 7th rounder but felt F that, just release him and see if someone picks up the tab...if not he goes to Rockford, plays well and can get called back up at some point to maybe peak interest again..we have seen players clear waivers prior only to come back up and get traded months later, it can happen...
i agree on bouncing back in the A but if you think hes a 3rd at the deadline potential hes not gunna clear waivers... any team with space would take him and play him or wait 2 months of junk play and turn him for your 3rd. IMO he didnt have the value but again i was high on this guy at one point too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AmericanDream

BK

"Goalie Apologist"
Feb 8, 2011
33,636
16,483
Minneapolis, MN
ian cole maybe johnny more and get some help on the bottom 6

Yeah that wouldn't have been bad but didn't they get longer term? We couldn't do that with our kids coming and Murphy/Forsling/Keith all still here.

What did Riley Nash sign for?
 

Hawkaholic

Registered User
Dec 19, 2006
31,581
10,915
London, Ont.
Sure but who would you have signed for that?

This is pure speculation but I think they signed him for 2.3 AAV because he wanted 2-3 years but the Hawks only wanted to take the risk for 1 year.

I don't get Manning signing now and didn't get it when it happened. I wish we knew why. Manning mentioned that Q recruited him but it is still on Stan for signing him.
I don't know, but I would have rather just went with a young Dman instead of Ruuta, and maybe you could pull off a trade instead of a signing. It just didn't make sense to sign him to that contract, probably could have got an equal player for less on July 1st.
 

Hawkaholic

Registered User
Dec 19, 2006
31,581
10,915
London, Ont.
Yeah that wouldn't have been bad but didn't they get longer term? We couldn't do that with our kids coming and Murphy/Forsling/Keith all still here.

What did Riley Nash sign for?
Both got 3 years, which would have been a pretty good stop gap.
 

ChiHawk21

Registered User
Jan 15, 2011
7,310
1,552
Yeah that wouldn't have been bad but didn't they get longer term? We couldn't do that with our kids coming and Murphy/Forsling/Keith all still here.

What did Riley Nash sign for?
3 years. so if u think your guys can make that jump next year then thats a question. im not sure but hasnt riley nash been trash this year so far?
 

AmericanDream

Thank you Elon!
Oct 24, 2005
37,026
26,368
Chicago Manitoba
i agree on bouncing back in the A but if you think hes a 3rd at the deadline potential hes not gunna clear waivers... any team with space would take him and play him or wait 2 months of junk play and turn him for your 3rd. IMO he didnt have the value but again i was high on this guy at one point too.
well maybe not a 3rd, but team needs change in a few months...injuries happen and teams that right now aren't looking to add might be come the deadline because they are now in the hunt and want some more depth. Rutta has so little value right now, but at the deadline if the guy can play consistent hockey over the next month or so and get called back up, he certainly would have some interest - what that value is, would be beyond me...but he is on a 1 year deal only, there will be a few teams that look at him as a free lotto ticket like we have with many of the guys we tried to reclamate..
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChiHawk21

ChiHawks10

Registered User
Jul 7, 2009
28,059
21,356
Chicago 'Burbs
well maybe not a 3rd, but team needs change in a few months...injuries happen and teams that right now aren't looking to add might be come the deadline because they are now in the hunt and want some more depth. Rutta has so little value right now, but at the deadline if the guy can play consistent hockey over the next month or so and get called back up, he certainly would have some interest - what that value is, would be beyond me...but he is on a 1 year deal only, there will be a few teams that look at him as a free lotto ticket like we have with many of the guys we tried to reclamate..

Check your PMs.
 

BK

"Goalie Apologist"
Feb 8, 2011
33,636
16,483
Minneapolis, MN
3 years. so if u think your guys can make that jump next year then thats a question. im not sure but hasnt riley nash been trash this year so far?

I think they make the jump quickly so that impacts it for me plus I think Murphy/Forsling are keepers.

Nash has not been great but I am not using hindsight here (it would be cheating).
 

Panzerspitze

Registered User
Mar 4, 2010
4,957
998
I still like him, but whenever I saw him falling to the ice trying to block a pass around the net, I knew the opposition would score shortly thereafter, 95% of the time.
 

boxcar65

Registered User
Sep 24, 2007
1,545
1,643
Richmond, VA
Manning does suck but I think he’s been a little better lately. Playing with Seabrook would make anyone look just awful. I mean Manning is awful but Seabrook I think is worse at this point

Exactly. Manning has been better the past several games while Seabrook has looked like he’s ready for the ECHL. Keep the Dog around!!
 

piteus

Registered User
Dec 20, 2015
12,122
3,367
NYC
I can't deny Manning hasn't been that bad recently. Of course, he's also part of our terrible Defense Corp. I won't shed a tear if he goes for a bag of pucks.
 

Pez68

Registered User
Mar 18, 2010
18,486
25,439
Chicago, IL
When this team is fully healthy, there's no room for Manning, either.... He's gotta be next to be waived. This is why they were aggressively shopping Manning and Rutta. They don't plan on keeping them on the roster.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChiHawks10

piteus

Registered User
Dec 20, 2015
12,122
3,367
NYC
When this team is fully healthy, there's no room for Manning, either.... He's gotta be next to be waived. This is why they were aggressively shopping Manning and Rutta. They don't plan on keeping them on the roster.
Unfortunately, Manning has 2 years guaranteed.
 

CallMeShaft

Calder Bedard Fan
Apr 14, 2014
15,854
21,395
Manning is one half of arguably the worst defensive pair in the league. He deserved to go way more than Rutta, but Bowman had to sign Manning for multiple years for some damn reason so we're all stuck with #23's stupid ass on the roster and Boxcar in our comments.
 

piteus

Registered User
Dec 20, 2015
12,122
3,367
NYC
Who cares. It's only $2.2M. Bury the mistake, reclaim the mil in cap space, and be done with it. All that contract means is whoever replaces Manning has a cap hit of $1.9-2M. Not the end of the world. He doesn't belong in the NHL.

The bigger problem is the guy making $7M that doesn't belong in the NHL.
Because I want Rockford to win :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: joshprost99

AmericanDream

Thank you Elon!
Oct 24, 2005
37,026
26,368
Chicago Manitoba
Yeah that wouldn't have been bad but didn't they get longer term? We couldn't do that with our kids coming and Murphy/Forsling/Keith all still here.

What did Riley Nash sign for
?
3 years @ $2.75 per...

didn't see anyone answer that......then saw your comment after...

Nash would have looked good here IMO...
 

Pez68

Registered User
Mar 18, 2010
18,486
25,439
Chicago, IL
Because I want Rockford to win :)

That team is gutted right now. Transitional year for Rockford. All of the Hawks' talent, for the most part, is in the NHL, juniors, or the NCAA. Manning isn't going to make a bit of difference.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad