Sharks sign CHI's Hjalmarsson to offer sheet

shabbs wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

CockRoche wrote:

wprager wrote:What if it's a team-elected arbitration? My guess would be "no" because how can the team determine what the player (not under contract) can and cannot sign.

Doesn't matter if the player files or the team files, once an arbitration hearing is asked for, no other teams have any power to negotiate until the award and post award deadlines are met. I'm not guessing (joke in reference to Rooney guessing his answer in the post above).

I'm so smart that usually my guesses are right. :O

Oh dear...

You've got to admit, though, that Roche's post was iffy. Rooney's response was clearly tongue-in-cheek. Of course, if he was really smart -- like you and I -- he wouldn't ever have to guess.

The one time, I thought I was wrong, but it turned out I was wrong cuz I was right.

shabbs wrote:The one time, I thought I was wrong, but it turned out I was wrong cuz I was right.

Oh, man, dude. Admitting it, out in public, like this ... that's the *second* thing you did wrong.

wprager wrote:

shabbs wrote:The one time, I thought I was wrong, but it turned out I was wrong cuz I was right.

Oh, man, dude. Admitting it, out in public, like this ... that's the *second* thing you did wrong.

I can't help it if I have to admit that I was right.

Bottom line here:

Who's more important to the Hawks, Hjalmarsson or one of Sharp or Bolland?

No one can add Campbell, that's obvious now. Huet's gone soon to the minors or Europe, so there's almost no wiggle room.

EDIT: Take the 1st and the 3rd and replace Hjarmarsson with Andy Sutton @ 2.5. There's nothing more you can do really.

Teams like the Hawks and Penguins, and I guess the Caps, are going to be a few of those teams that see huge roster turnovers year after year because they have a core group of players that they will continue to surround with cheap players. Nothing wrong with it, but they will likely lose a lot of young players once they reach their 2nd contracts.

Easier said than done, but my top priorities if I was the Chicago GM would have been moving Huet and Campbell by any means necessary. That alone would have saved $12.7 million, compared to the $8.3 million saved trading Versteeg, Bufuglien and Sopel. They also risk losing Hjalmarsson (albeit replaceable) and Niemi. Even buying out Huet ($1,875,000 cap hit for the next 4 years as per CapGeek) would have been worth it IMO than trading away those three. FYI, a Campbell buyout would cost $2,380,958 per season for the next 12 years. Buying out the both of them would have cost just under $4.3 million (a savings of $8.4M) which is slightly more than they saved trading those 3 players.

wprager wrote:

shabbs wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

CockRoche wrote:

wprager wrote:What if it's a team-elected arbitration? My guess would be "no" because how can the team determine what the player (not under contract) can and cannot sign.

Doesn't matter if the player files or the team files, once an arbitration hearing is asked for, no other teams have any power to negotiate until the award and post award deadlines are met. I'm not guessing (joke in reference to Rooney guessing his answer in the post above).

I'm so smart that usually my guesses are right. :O

Oh dear...

You've got to admit, though, that Roche's post was iffy. Rooney's response was clearly tongue-in-cheek. Of course, if he was really smart -- like you and I -- he wouldn't ever have to guess.

What do you mean my post was iffy?

Rooney took my attempt at dry humor in stride and didn't seem to miss a beat. He said twice he wasn't sure in his post, I was positive in my response.

Just dry humor is all. I was tired at that time and still trying to figure out some personalities on this site.

SpezDispenser wrote:Bottom line here:

Who's more important to the Hawks, Hjalmarsson or one of Sharp or Bolland?

No one can add Campbell, that's obvious now. Huet's gone soon to the minors or Europe, so there's almost no wiggle room.

EDIT: Take the 1st and the 3rd and replace Hjarmarsson with Andy Sutton @ 2.5. There's nothing more you can do really.

I am looking at things a bit differently than you I guess here.

In my opinion, if I were making decisions for the Blackhawks, I would most likely match the offer sheet to Hjalmarsson.

Here's my reasoning and thought process.

Try to get Niemi signed if you can to a contract in the 1.5 to 2 million range. If you can't get him under contract you are at the mercy of his arbitration hearing where if the award is too high, you have to let him walk.

Chicago has goaltender Corey Crawford waiting in thw wings and some feel is already a better goalie than Niemi anyway.

I don't think Niemi wants to play in Chicago, so let's say he is as good as gone as I don't think a contract will be signed prior to arbitration either. Once the hearing is over, the Stanley Cup ring may ensure Niemi gets a raise to steep for Chicago's cap nightmare.

So, I have Hjalmarsson to solidify my Top 4 D and Crawford as tender. Way better in my mind to have that scenario than to have Niemi in net with #4, 5, and 6 defenseman by the names of John Scott, Jordan Hendry and Brian Connelly.

To me this decision is:
a solid Top 4 D and a rookie goalie
versus/or
only 3 D and Niemi in the pipes.

I choose the deeper D.

CockRoche wrote:
I am looking at things a bit differently than you I guess here.

In my opinion, if I were making decisions for the Blackhawks, I would most likely match the offer sheet to Hjalmarsson.

Here's my reasoning and thought process.

Try to get Niemi signed if you can to a contract in the 1.5 to 2 million range. If you can't get him under contract you are at the mercy of his arbitration hearing where if the award is too high, you have to let him walk.

Chicago has goaltender Corey Crawford waiting in thw wings and some feel is already a better goalie than Niemi anyway.

I don't think Niemi wants to play in Chicago, so let's say he is as good as gone as I don't think a contract will be signed prior to arbitration either. Once the hearing is over, the Stanley Cup ring may ensure Niemi gets a raise to steep for Chicago's cap nightmare.

So, I have Hjalmarsson to solidify my Top 4 D and Crawford as tender. Way better in my mind to have that scenario than to have Niemi in net with #4, 5, and 6 defenseman by the names of John Scott, Jordan Hendry and Brian Connelly.

To me this decision is:
a solid Top 4 D and a rookie goalie
versus/or
only 3 D and Niemi in the pipes.

I choose the deeper D.

Depending on what you do with Hjarl, you can sign a solid defender for 2.5 million tops. A Sutton type guy who can provide some nice defense and a big body back there - and won't need more than a 2 year deal. Or you can come out of it with a 1st and a 3rd and make a trade for a sturdy defender.

3.5 might be worth it down the road, but I think that's a hefty price for him right now. I'm not sure what to think though, some Chicago fans love him, some are so-so on him.

Dash wrote:Teams like the Hawks and Penguins, and I guess the Caps, are going to be a few of those teams that see huge roster turnovers year after year because they have a core group of players that they will continue to surround with cheap players. Nothing wrong with it, but they will likely lose a lot of young players once they reach their 2nd contracts.

Easier said than done, but my top priorities if I was the Chicago GM would have been moving Huet and Campbell by any means necessary. That alone would have saved $12.7 million, compared to the $8.3 million saved trading Versteeg, Bufuglien and Sopel. They also risk losing Hjalmarsson (albeit replaceable) and Niemi. Even buying out Huet ($1,875,000 cap hit for the next 4 years as per CapGeek) would have been worth it IMO than trading away those three. FYI, a Campbell buyout would cost $2,380,958 per season for the next 12 years. Buying out the both of them would have cost just under $4.3 million (a savings of $8.4M) which is slightly more than they saved trading those 3 players.

Yeah, pretty much. The Hawks have to rely on their scouting staff now, they've received first rounders, mid-rounders, prospects etc. Pieces that can be put into play cheaply and effectively - if used right.

As someone mentioned, now we're seeing why Tallon was fired though. He can't manage the cap properly and created situations that aren't easily fixed. They won a Cup - which is the main thing obviously - but you still have to ice a team the year after.

I think I'd still take that situation over a lot of others. A Cup buys you a lot. One thing it buys you is time to right the Cap situation in terms of fans support.

Cap'n Clutch wrote:I think I'd still take that situation over a lot of others. A Cup buys you a lot. One thing it buys you is time to right the Cap situation in terms of fans support.

It really is unbelievable what they did. They had a one year window to win the Cup and they did just that. That doesn't happen. Congratulations to them, whatever happens to their team this year due to terribly misjudging the power of the salary cap.

SpezDispenser wrote:

CockRoche wrote:
I am looking at things a bit differently than you I guess here.

In my opinion, if I were making decisions for the Blackhawks, I would most likely match the offer sheet to Hjalmarsson.

Here's my reasoning and thought process.

Try to get Niemi signed if you can to a contract in the 1.5 to 2 million range. If you can't get him under contract you are at the mercy of his arbitration hearing where if the award is too high, you have to let him walk.

Chicago has goaltender Corey Crawford waiting in thw wings and some feel is already a better goalie than Niemi anyway.

I don't think Niemi wants to play in Chicago, so let's say he is as good as gone as I don't think a contract will be signed prior to arbitration either. Once the hearing is over, the Stanley Cup ring may ensure Niemi gets a raise to steep for Chicago's cap nightmare.

So, I have Hjalmarsson to solidify my Top 4 D and Crawford as tender. Way better in my mind to have that scenario than to have Niemi in net with #4, 5, and 6 defenseman by the names of John Scott, Jordan Hendry and Brian Connelly.

To me this decision is:
a solid Top 4 D and a rookie goalie
versus/or
only 3 D and Niemi in the pipes.

I choose the deeper D.

Depending on what you do with Hjarl, you can sign a solid defender for 2.5 million tops. A Sutton type guy who can provide some nice defense and a big body back there - and won't need more than a 2 year deal. Or you can come out of it with a 1st and a 3rd and make a trade for a sturdy defender.

3.5 might be worth it down the road, but I think that's a hefty price for him right now. I'm not sure what to think though, some Chicago fans love him, some are so-so on him.

Sutton is twice the size of Hjalmarsson...but half the talent. I can't see any West Coast teams even looking at Sutton to be honest, but I am biased.

You are right. San Jose's offer was toooo much money, but I think Chicago will match still. We will see if my scenario plays itself out or not. That's what I would do at least.

Is Chi-town still in cap trouble though? That will be a big factor in deciding whether or not to over pay Hjalmersson (sp).

Bowman's gonna match it, as per everyone on twitter.

Big Ev wrote:Bowman's gonna match it, as per everyone on twitter.

Bye bye Campbell then for sure. Where before there might have been a chance to keep him, there won't be anymore.

# My ESPNChicago colleague Jesse Rogers believes Patrick Sharp could be in play as well now and he's much more easily moveable... We'll see

With Hawks deciding to match Hjalmarsson offer, source said today Brian Campbell being shopped. Have hard time seeing that contract moved

And sure enough, this comes from LeBrun's Twitter.

Some are saying that Sharp may be shopped instead. Who knows at this point.

Insert "Sharp to the Sens" comment here.