RockRaines Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 (edited) QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Jun 9, 2014 -> 01:50 PM) Replacing Seabrook and Oduya with rookies is risky. Oduya is as good as gone IMO. Edited June 9, 2014 by RockRaines Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 (edited) QUOTE (soxfan49 @ Jun 9, 2014 -> 02:25 PM) Losing Kane or Toews is riskier. Plus, with the way Seabrook played this year, I'm not sure Johns can be worse. Dahlbeck was great this year, so I think he could replace Oduya and do a fine job. Seabrook WAS good "this year," he just had a pretty bad playoff run. I'm sure that's why you think he was bad all year. I would be shocked to see Johns put up half a point a game and a +23 rating. Edited June 9, 2014 by RockRaines Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 9, 2014 Author Share Posted June 9, 2014 QUOTE (soxfan49 @ Jun 9, 2014 -> 02:14 PM) FWIW: http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/John-Jaecke...esler/128/60487 I get the feeling that both Toews and Kane have no interest in signing cap busting deals. They seem to be more interested in winning, then an extra couple of million a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxfan49 Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jun 9, 2014 -> 02:44 PM) Seabrook WAS good "this year," he just had a pretty bad playoff run. I'm sure that's why you think he was bad all year. I would be shocked to see Johns put up half a point a game and a +23 rating. Hahahah ok. He was not good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxAce Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Kings are gonna sweep the Rangers. Sigh... what could have been.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 QUOTE (soxfan49 @ Jun 9, 2014 -> 09:05 PM) Hahahah ok. He was not good. Brilliant analysis. Thanks for the info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Can you believe all the Hawks had to do was win a Game 7 at home and another Cup would have been Chicago's? Amazing. The Hawks would have clowned the Rangers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 10, 2014 Author Share Posted June 10, 2014 QUOTE (SoxAce @ Jun 9, 2014 -> 09:33 PM) Kings are gonna sweep the Rangers. Sigh... what could have been.. I said it during the last round... The Stanley Cup was decided in the last series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniKrush Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 9, 2014 -> 10:37 PM) I said it during the last round... The Stanley Cup was decided in the last series. We all did. Well, except Rock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxfest Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 QUOTE (greg775 @ Jun 9, 2014 -> 09:59 PM) Can you believe all the Hawks had to do was win a Game 7 at home and another Cup would have been Chicago's? Amazing. The Hawks would have clowned the Rangers. Makes game 7 loss even tougher, the Eastern Conference is weak sauce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 QUOTE (SoxAce @ Jun 9, 2014 -> 09:33 PM) Kings are gonna sweep the Rangers. Sigh... what could have been.. Same Kings team that was outscored 13-5 in its first two playoff games and spotted San Jose a 3-0 series lead, crazy. But yeah, that game 7 loss keeps stinging a bit more thinking that the Hawks should have cruised in the Finals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 (edited) QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Jun 9, 2014 -> 10:40 PM) We all did. Well, except Rock. Actually I mentioned it several times on the HFBoards surprisingly. 2OT games so far in this Cup finals so it hasnt been very close. Last night was actually the first time the kings had a lead during regulation. Edited June 10, 2014 by RockRaines Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jun 10, 2014 -> 09:01 AM) Actually I mentioned it several times on the HFBoards surprisingly. 2OT games so far in this Cup finals so it hasnt been very close. Last night was actually the first time the kings had a lead during regulation. And they were outshot 32-15 yesterday, so it's not like they have dominated the Finals. But 2012 Quick has returned since the 3rd period of game 2, add in a little puck luck and they are on the doorstep of the Cup again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniKrush Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jun 10, 2014 -> 09:01 AM) Actually I mentioned it several times on the HFBoards surprisingly. 2OT games so far in this Cup finals so it hasnt been very close. Last night was actually the first time the kings had a lead during regulation. Sure it hasn't been a blowout, but it's still 3-0. Anyone who watched the WCF and the ECF knew that the 2 teams in the WCF were the best 2 teams left. The NYR-MTL series wasn't very good hockey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Jun 10, 2014 -> 09:54 AM) Sure it hasn't been a blowout, but it's still 3-0. Anyone who watched the WCF and the ECF knew that the 2 teams in the WCF were the best 2 teams left. The NYR-MTL series wasn't very good hockey. I still think the Rangers would have given the Hawks some issues, they sure can skate and shoot and in theory have a hot goalie. With the way the Hawks D had been playing I think it would have been close. I was hoping for a 7 game finals and it looked like it was going to happen in the first two games but then Quick got hot and its all but over unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jun 10, 2014 -> 03:08 PM) I still think the Rangers would have given the Hawks some issues, they sure can skate and shoot and in theory have a hot goalie. With the way the Hawks D had been playing I think it would have been close. I was hoping for a 7 game finals and it looked like it was going to happen in the first two games but then Quick got hot and its all but over unfortunately. I agree, also Rangers had some great chances in game 2, a wide open net that didn't elevate enough and a poster. I don't think Hawks would've finished it off in less than 6. Does hurt though, just one good bounce and we could be getting ready for a parade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 10, 2014 Author Share Posted June 10, 2014 Renaud Lavoie @renlavoietva 18m #blackhawks signed Swedish C Dennis Rasmussen. One year contract at $793,000 (2 way) #tvasports Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniKrush Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jun 10, 2014 -> 10:08 AM) I still think the Rangers would have given the Hawks some issues, they sure can skate and shoot and in theory have a hot goalie. With the way the Hawks D had been playing I think it would have been close. I was hoping for a 7 game finals and it looked like it was going to happen in the first two games but then Quick got hot and its all but over unfortunately. Obviously nothing is for sure, and any team with a goalie playing well can keep a team in it. But the fact remains, the best two teams were in the WCF. I certainly didn't think the Kings nor the Hawks would possibly sweep. But while watching both the WCF and the ECF I didn't doubt that whoever came out of the WCF would ultimately win, not saying it wouldn't be close. That has been my stance the entire time. Since we don't have a horse in the race, I'd rather have a 6 or 7 game series. I was pulling Rangers in game 2 and then 3 just to try to make it a series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Jun 10, 2014 -> 10:58 AM) Obviously nothing is for sure, and any team with a goalie playing well can keep a team in it. But the fact remains, the best two teams were in the WCF. I certainly didn't think the Kings nor the Hawks would possibly sweep. But while watching both the WCF and the ECF I didn't doubt that whoever came out of the WCF would ultimately win, not saying it wouldn't be close. That has been my stance the entire time. Since we don't have a horse in the race, I'd rather have a 6 or 7 game series. I was pulling Rangers in game 2 and then 3 just to try to make it a series. Agreed. Montreal would have been incredibly out of place if they made the finals. I've been pulling for the longest series ever, I am not ready for hockey to end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 10, 2014 Author Share Posted June 10, 2014 QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jun 10, 2014 -> 11:00 AM) Agreed. Montreal would have been incredibly out of place if they made the finals. I've been pulling for the longest series ever, I am not ready for hockey to end. Once the Hawks lost, it officially became baseball season for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 So for those that would know, how much importance do you place on Hayes signing? Would he be a big boost to our prospects/will he be blocked regardless? How good our the young D players coming up? Are we just talking solid contributors or do any look like future first line defenseman? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxfan49 Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jun 9, 2014 -> 09:45 PM) Brilliant analysis. Thanks for the info. Michal Roszival was a +25 combined for the last 2 seasons. Patrick Kane was a +18 for the last 2 seasons. The +/- stat is ridiculously stupid. As for Seabrook's offense, I couldn't care less. I'd rather have a defensive rock there, not an offensive guy. Keith and Leddy can put up offense, and I think that's enough d-men who can rack up points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 QUOTE (soxfan49 @ Jun 10, 2014 -> 12:38 PM) Michal Roszival was a +25 combined for the last 2 seasons. Patrick Kane was a +18 for the last 2 seasons. The +/- stat is ridiculously stupid. As for Seabrook's offense, I couldn't care less. I'd rather have a defensive rock there, not an offensive guy. Keith and Leddy can put up offense, and I think that's enough d-men who can rack up points. Show me stats on how bad he was during the regular season then. Because he wasn't, and I hate him, but he had a good season this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiliIrishHammock24 Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 10, 2014 -> 11:48 AM) Once the Hawks lost, it officially became baseball season for me. Pretty much, although I was still tuning in for every Abreu AB and Sale start. Now my full attention is back to the Sox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts