Jump to content

2016-17 NHL Thread


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Dec 14, 2016 -> 10:05 AM)
Darling is a UFA after this season. If he keeps playing this way, he won't be as big of a discount from Corey as he would be now.

 

I'm willing to bet he gets no more than 2.5-3 mil which is still half of Crawford's contract. I wish the Hawks knew this a year or two ago. Could've traded Crawford and kept Saad. I probably wouldn't deal him now (Vegas could take Kruger in the expansion draft) but I wouldn't be opposed to it either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Dec 14, 2016 -> 11:34 AM)
I'm willing to bet he gets no more than 2.5-3 mil which is still half of Crawford's contract. I wish the Hawks knew this a year or two ago. Could've traded Crawford and kept Saad. I probably wouldn't deal him now (Vegas could take Kruger in the expansion draft) but I wouldn't be opposed to it either.

It comes down to whether or not the Blackhawks can reasonably move Brent Seabrook. That's a long, ugly contract, but he is a blue liner. If not him, pray for an increase and try to move Kruger.

Edited by Deadpool
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 14, 2016 -> 02:46 PM)
No offense, but Crawford has essentially carried this team until his appendix burst. He's not going anywhere quite yet.

I tend to agree. I would hate to lose Panarin, however. A young talent like him may be too hard for this organization to lose. Saad was bad, Sharp was necessary, but Panarin looks like he has a bright future and I would hate to see it in another uniform.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (ChiliIrishHammock24 @ Dec 16, 2016 -> 12:53 AM)
No-movement? Never heard of that clause in sports. Specifically made in case of expansion teams?

 

It's just an added bonus to Seabrooks contract, and they do exist around the NHL. They are similar to No Trade Clauses in the MLB. For any player who has a NMC in their contract, their team is required to use an expansion protection spot on that player.

Edited by South Sider
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (ChiliIrishHammock24 @ Dec 16, 2016 -> 12:53 AM)
No-movement? Never heard of that clause in sports. Specifically made in case of expansion teams?

 

The no movement blocks a team from putting a player on waivers and dumping him in the minors, that's the added difference between it and a no-trade clause. Basically, it prevents a team from doing anything other than buying a player out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Deadpool @ Dec 14, 2016 -> 05:56 PM)
I tend to agree. I would hate to lose Panarin, however. A young talent like him may be too hard for this organization to lose. Saad was bad, Sharp was necessary, but Panarin looks like he has a bright future and I would hate to see it in another uniform.

 

Panarin has been the Hawks' best skater this year (I said it). Without him, the Hawks would likely have a bottom 10 offense in the league. I think you can't lose him. Order of priority should be to move Kruger, Seabrook (if there's a way), Crawford, and then Planarian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Tony @ Dec 28, 2016 -> 04:54 PM)
I mean, for a "bridge" deal the money is still high, but it buys them some more time for the cap to hopefully go up, Hossa to retire, or figure out a way to kill Seabrook and Kruger, ha.

 

Figure Kruger will be gone in the expansion draft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...