Steve9347 Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Not a bad season so far for Niemi. I love seeing the true-blue butterfly first goaltender. Reminds me of a less-talented Belfour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyx81 Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 omg did anyone see that hit on Toews? My god that was violent, didn't see it coming either. Hope is ok, headed to the locker room. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 QUOTE (knightd1 @ Oct 21, 2009 -> 09:37 PM) omg did anyone see that hit on Toews? My god that was violent, didn't see it coming either. Hope is ok, headed to the locker room. Yeah, that was nasty. Hopefully he is OK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 !@#$ Too bad, because Niemi stood on his head for the first 3:15 of that PK. Now he has to do it again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFanForever Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Seriously? f***ing sloppy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilJester99 Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Terrible play by Campbell there costs a big goal....I know what they were trying to do with dropping it to Kane but you don't do a f***ing drop pass in front of the opposition in your defensive zone like that... terrible terrible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniKrush Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 (edited) Actually the worst part of the play wasn't the decision or the failed chip attempt by Kane...it was the cushion Campbell gave him after for pretty much no reason after he obtained the puck. The Canucks were in the midst of a change. Campbell pursued a bit then peeled off, an awful decision. Gave him a nice opportunity right from the dot. Edited October 22, 2009 by IlliniKrush Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Two awful periods. Stupid penalities, no offense... Ugh. Hopefully Toews and Seabrook are OK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 http://bleacherreport.com/articles/275532-...e-with-montreal Chicago Blackhawks: Talking Trade With Montreal? by TAB BAMFORD Senior Writer Written on October 20, 2009 MONTREAL- SEPTEMBER 24: Jaroslav Halak #41 of the Montreal Canadiens clears the puck during the NHL preseason game against the Boston Bruins on September 24, 2009 at the Bell Centre in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. The Bruins defeated the Canadiens 2-1 in a shootout. (Photo by Richard Wolowicz/Getty Images) (Photo by Richard Wolowicz/Getty Images) Injuries, poor play, and financial issues have teams all over the NHL thinking about their immediate and long-term roster situations. Some teams, like the Chicago Blackhawks , are positioned to potentially be buyers (or at least renters), while others are struggling and might become sellers. One team that has been rumored to be selling this season already is the Montreal Canadiens. One player to be specifically mentioned is goalie Jaroslav Halak. Halak, 24, is sitting behind 22-year-old Carey Price in the net for the Habs but is an intriguing player for the Blackhawks’ radar. Considering the issues the Hawks have had with Cristobal Huet, goalie is likely on the wish list for GM Stan Bowman. There are a number of issues with the Hawks and Canadiens becoming trade partners. The biggest, obviously, is Huet. He has not played well and has an albatross contract with a cap number of $5.4 million. Moving a salary like that in these economic times might be impossible, which means the Blackhawks would either have to demote Antti Niemi—which is doubtful both because of his play on the ice and his growing popularity in the stands—or waive Huet. Waiving Huet would be a bold statement, but might be a necessary evil for this Hawks team to progress into a legitimate Cup contender. The second issue would be the future. The Blackhawks have Niemi and Corey Crawford under contract only through this season, and Halak’s contract also ends this coming spring. Considering the Hawks will have to negotiate with Jonathan Toews, Patrick Kane, Duncan Keith, and potentially two of those three goalies, the increasing cost of maintaining the roster could be an imposing task for Bowman. Having three goalies with expiring contracts next summer could lead to more costly spending, or other players on the roster being in unnecessary jeopardy. The third issue is who the Canadiens would want in return from the Blackhawks. One rumor that has swirled is that Chicago would send Cam Barker and his $3 million cap number, to Montreal. The rumors about Halak’s availability and Montreal’s alleged interest in Barker have not been linked, but they could be a logical swap to help both rosters this season and in the future. Adding Halak, who is both younger and cheaper than Huet (and probably better), could give the Hawks young depth in goal to mirror the rest of the roster. I’m totally on board with exploring Halak, even at the expense of Barker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Hey look! It's a Bleacher Report article! Ignore! Ignore! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBAHO Posted October 22, 2009 Author Share Posted October 22, 2009 There's no way the Hawks can get Halak, and I certainly wouldn't give up Cam Barker to do so. Waiving Huet is an interesting thought though, although I certainly don't see it happening, not at the moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Chappas Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 What are thh cap ramifications of waiving players? The Hawks are turning into a cash cow and can eat salary for cap relief. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 QUOTE (Jenks Heat @ Oct 22, 2009 -> 09:31 AM) What are thh cap ramifications of waiving players? The Hawks are turning into a cash cow and can eat salary for cap relief. There are none. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Waivers: When a player is waived (sent to the minors), each of the 29 NHL teams can put in a claim for the player. In the case that more than one team puts in a claim for a waived player, the team with the worst record gets the claim. The player is moved to the claiming team for the full (or, if mid season, pro-rated) salary cap hit. If a player clears waivers, he can be reassigned to the minors, and the salary cap hit is cleared until the player is recalled. Only players with one-way contracts pass through waivers. Players with two-way contracts do not pass through waivers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 QUOTE (Tony82087 @ Oct 22, 2009 -> 10:24 AM) Thats not entirely true. No one is going to claim Huet off of waivers right now. If they would, he would have been gone yesterday, and 88 and 19 would be signed today. So while your statement is true, it really doesn't have any baring on this situation, since Huet won't be claimed in full. The next option is re-entry waivers. If Huet was sent down to Rockford, then recalled to the Hawks, he would be placed on re-entry waivers, and a team could claim Huet for half of the cap hit. The Hawks would be on the hook for the other half. Well, you're missing the big one. If they were to waive him, obviously no one would pick him up. However, then he can be sent to Rockford, where he does not count against the cap. My guess is that's when you eat the contract and let him enjoy busing around the midwest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 QUOTE (Tony82087 @ Oct 21, 2009 -> 11:27 PM) Vintage Campbell tonight. Not only the turnovers, but he just gets beat to every puck in the corner. Any Canuck that put a body into him in the corner or behind the net got the edge on the puck. When I saw him out there for some of the 4 min kill, I did a facepalm. 31 gave up a softie, but kept the Hawks in a game they had no business being in. It was the total opposite of the Dallas game. Hawks controlled the play almost the entire way, but had to climb uphill because of Huet. Tonight, after the first, it could have been a 3 or 4 goal lead for the 'nucks. I could tell he was going to give up a goal, you can clearly see when Campbell is going to do something boneheaded at some point in the game. I just dont understand how he can be so soft on the puck, he's not a small guy. Barker played fairly poorly as well. Big Buff continues to improve in his role however which is a nice sign. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Oct 22, 2009 -> 11:31 AM) Well, you're missing the big one. If they were to waive him, obviously no one would pick him up. However, then he can be sent to Rockford, where he does not count against the cap. My guess is that's when you eat the contract and let him enjoy busing around the midwest. It is worth eating $2.8 million a year for two years to let the guy walk away? Or do we wait and see if we can do a bad contract for a bad contract kind of a dump? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Chappas Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 22, 2009 -> 07:55 PM) It is worth eating $2.8 million a year for two years to let the guy walk away? Or do we wait and see if we can do a bad contract for a bad contract kind of a dump? No question, yes. The Hawks are a cash cow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 QUOTE (Tony82087 @ Oct 22, 2009 -> 10:59 PM) Bad contract for almost as bad contract doesn't even help the team that much. That is what is so frustrating about this whole situation, is that more and more it looks like the window is only open for this year, then it's closed. This off-season is the key. It's about fitting Toews-Kane-Keith all in for next year. It can be done, but it means Sharp-Versteeg-Barker-Madden-Ladd are all probably playing somewhere else next year. Looking at it optimistically, the cap will stay the same this off-season. The more realistic view point is it drops 2-3 million. Again, lets just say it stays the same. Estimated Cap Hits for 2010 Toews-5.5 Kane-5.5 Keith-5 Campbell-7.1 Hossa-5.2 Huet-5.6 Thats 34 million for 6 players. 22 million left for 18 spots. Oops..... That is why it is so key for some of the young guys to take a big step forward. The numbers work a lot better if a Beech or Aliu contribute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clyons Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 Yesterday, McNeil and Spiegel were debating the wisdom of Versteeg getting sent off after "retaliating" for the big (but clean) hit on Toewes. Today, Rosenblum chimes in and (with the full benefit of hindsight) is all against it. http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune....ing-a-game.html I'm really not adamant for or against fighting, but I had absolutely no problem with what Versteeg did, even the way things turned out. I like the (mostly internal) message it sent. This early in the season, I think you can afford to lose a few battles if it helps win the war in the end. Any thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Oct 23, 2009 -> 11:33 AM) Yesterday, McNeil and Spiegel were debating the wisdom of Versteeg getting sent off after "retaliating" for the big (but clean) hit on Toewes. Today, Rosenblum chimes in and (with the full benefit of hindsight) is all against it. http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune....ing-a-game.html I'm really not adamant for or against fighting, but I had absolutely no problem with what Versteeg did, even the way things turned out. I like the (mostly internal) message it sent. This early in the season, I think you can afford to lose a few battles if it helps win the war in the end. Any thoughts? You have to protect your guys. The problem is with Burish and Eager out is they don't have anyone who can really do that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 Tonight is as good as Huet has looked all year long. That sequence where he made saves on back to back tough deflections was really impressive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 Great game by Huet with the SO. Hopefully this is the start of something for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Oct 23, 2009 -> 11:33 AM) Yesterday, McNeil and Spiegel were debating the wisdom of Versteeg getting sent off after "retaliating" for the big (but clean) hit on Toewes. Today, Rosenblum chimes in and (with the full benefit of hindsight) is all against it. http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune....ing-a-game.html I'm really not adamant for or against fighting, but I had absolutely no problem with what Versteeg did, even the way things turned out. I like the (mostly internal) message it sent. This early in the season, I think you can afford to lose a few battles if it helps win the war in the end. Any thoughts? While it probably ended any shot of winning that particular game, its good for the team and will probably result in many more wins during the season. Usually I'm against the goonery, but protecting and sticking up for your guys pays big dividends. Its like a pitcher retaliating. It may not help you win that particular game, but its great for team chemistry and other teams know that the team has everyone's back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesoxfan101 Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 (edited) QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 24, 2009 -> 10:04 PM) While it probably ended any shot of winning that particular game, its good for the team and will probably result in many more wins during the season. Usually I'm against the goonery, but protecting and sticking up for your guys pays big dividends. Its like a pitcher retaliating. It may not help you win that particular game, but its great for team chemistry and other teams know that the team has everyone's back. They were pretty well dominated in that game too, so they probably deserved to lose. Nice to see Huet play well tonight and the Hawks get a win. Edited October 25, 2009 by whitesoxfan101 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.