Sharks sign CHI's Hjalmarsson to offer sheet

Flo The Action wrote:

Hoags wrote:I wonder who's gonna take Campbell at that Titanic-sized salary cap hit.

i think the biggest problem with campbell is which team he's willing to waive to go to...
could theCBJ be interested? they need a D-man of his caliber. would he want to go there? i doubt it...

They have an internal cap that would prevent that from happening. They could have had Souray for nothing and they didn't do it, so I doubt they even entertain the notion of Campbell.

Islanders could use Campbell to get the cap floor since they won't land Kovalchuk but I doubt he'd go there.

Unless they threaten him with waivers like Boyle.

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:Yeah, I'd make a move for one of the UFA goalies - like Turco - I'm not a fan of Turco at all, but if he can play another year or 2, it'll be in Chicago.

I'd EASILY let Niemi go before Sharp or Bolland. I love those two guys, what great strength down the middle.

Someone will pay for Niemi. I agree with you. Let Niemi walk if he wants too much money. He was okay to good this year from what I saw. His cup ring as a starter will drive his price up and good for him but he's not worth it IMO.

I remember a few goalies who took their teams to the Finals and got rewarded with a nice, fat paycheck. Two of them played for Ottawa recently. Neither one is in the NHL right now.

The Hawks would kill for an offersheet right about now. Niemi didn't win them the Cup (wait, is Neely around?)

wprager wrote:I remember a few goalies who took their teams to the Finals and got rewarded with a nice, fat paycheck. Two of them played for Ottawa recently. Neither one is in the NHL right now.

Are you talking about Gerber here? He was on the bench for all three Finals.

asq2 wrote:

wprager wrote:I remember a few goalies who took their teams to the Finals and got rewarded with a nice, fat paycheck. Two of them played for Ottawa recently. Neither one is in the NHL right now.

Are you talking about Gerber here? He was on the bench for all three Finals.

Sorry. He got his paycheck for winning 38 games, right?

wprager wrote:

asq2 wrote:

wprager wrote:I remember a few goalies who took their teams to the Finals and got rewarded with a nice, fat paycheck. Two of them played for Ottawa recently. Neither one is in the NHL right now.

Are you talking about Gerber here? He was on the bench for all three Finals.

Sorry. He got his paycheck for winning 38 games, right?

There was Hasek too, but he didn't really get a fat pay check

Hoags wrote:I wonder who's gonna take Campbell at that Titanic-sized salary cap hit.

My guess is nobody.

I don't think they'll keep Niemi if his asking price is that high. It really seems to have started a trend to have low-paid starting goaltenders.

Hoags wrote:I don't think they'll keep Niemi if his asking price is that high. It really seems to have started a trend to have low-paid starting goaltenders.

Yeah, I can't see this being settled pre-arbitrator. It will be up to the arbitrator to figure out Niemi's worth and I can see Chicago not accepting the awarded amount.

Niemi will walk, Huet to the minors or traded for nothing of consequence. Crawford will be the starting goalie, in my opinion.

We will see though.

CockRoche wrote:

Hoags wrote:I don't think they'll keep Niemi if his asking price is that high. It really seems to have started a trend to have low-paid starting goaltenders.

Yeah, I can't see this being settled pre-arbitrator. It will be up to the arbitrator to figure out Niemi's worth and I can see Chicago not accepting the awarded amount.

Niemi will walk, Huet to the minors or traded for nothing of consequence. Crawford will be the starting goalie, in my opinion.

We will see though.

Yeah, Crawford's been pushing for a while. If I were Chicago, I'd get a nice, veteran backup to go with Crawford. Someone like Clemensson for example who can step in if needed.

SpezDispenser wrote:

CockRoche wrote:

Hoags wrote:I don't think they'll keep Niemi if his asking price is that high. It really seems to have started a trend to have low-paid starting goaltenders.

Yeah, I can't see this being settled pre-arbitrator. It will be up to the arbitrator to figure out Niemi's worth and I can see Chicago not accepting the awarded amount.

Niemi will walk, Huet to the minors or traded for nothing of consequence. Crawford will be the starting goalie, in my opinion.

We will see though.

Yeah, Crawford's been pushing for a while. If I were Chicago, I'd get a nice, veteran backup to go with Crawford. Someone like Cle[m]menss[e]n for example who can step in if needed.

Perfect fit! In every aspect.

Cap-wise - $1,000,000
Style-wise - makes the first save, just let's the puck hit him. Good positional goalie. That is all Chicago needs.
Personality-wise - Team player in every aspect of the game. Somewhat of a local boy as well, close to home.

SpezDispenser wrote:

CockRoche wrote:

Hoags wrote:I don't think they'll keep Niemi if his asking price is that high. It really seems to have started a trend to have low-paid starting goaltenders.

Yeah, I can't see this being settled pre-arbitrator. It will be up to the arbitrator to figure out Niemi's worth and I can see Chicago not accepting the awarded amount.

Niemi will walk, Huet to the minors or traded for nothing of consequence. Crawford will be the starting goalie, in my opinion.

We will see though.

Yeah, Crawford's been pushing for a while. If I were Chicago, I'd get a nice, veteran backup to go with Crawford. Someone like Clemensson for example who can step in if needed.

I agree. I think the whole depletion of the Hawks' roster this off-season could have been avoided.

I would have happily taken the picks for Hjalmarsson. Not qualifying him would have helped Chicago with their cap situation and would have ensured that they don't take money back on a trade. The decision to qualify him only deepened their cap problems, forcing them to likely trade Sharp for what I think will be less of a return than the picks.

Niemi will become a UFA and lost for nothing if they decide against the arbitration ruling, which is a definite possibility right now. I said it before but Chicago should have put Campbell on waivers and buried/loaned Huet. They've lost half of their roster when over $12 million (roughly 4 players) could have been saved by acting proactively and moving two overpaid assets. Instead they will be middle of the pack next year.

I'm calling it now, if Kovalchuk signs in LA, they will win the West with Vancouver as a close second.

CockRoche wrote:

Perfect fit! In every aspect.

Cap-wise - $1,000,000
Style-wise - makes the first save, just let's the puck hit him. Good positional goalie. That is all Chicago needs.
Personality-wise - Team player in every aspect of the game. Somewhat of a local boy as well, close to home.

Yeah, I think so too. And not just for Chicago, that could go for Ottawa if they could shed Leclaire's salary. I'd take Elliott, Clemmensson and open up the cap room for Savard over Elliott and Leclaire, but that's probably because I don't trust Leclaire in the least.

These career backups like Clemmensson are (IMO), the perfect solution for teams in transition/close to the cap. They can make saves and are nice and cheap. Like Leighton, Boucher, Biron etc. etc. Good time to be looking for netminding in the NHL.

Kovalfie wrote:I agree. I think the whole depletion of the Hawks' roster this off-season could have been avoided.

I would have happily taken the picks for Hjalmarsson. Not qualifying him would have helped Chicago with their cap situation and would have ensured that they don't take money back on a trade. The decision to qualify him only deepened their cap problems, forcing them to likely trade Sharp for what I think will be less of a return than the picks.

Niemi will become a UFA and lost for nothing if they decide against the arbitration ruling, which is a definite possibility right now. I said it before but Chicago should have put Campbell on waivers and buried/loaned Huet. They've lost half of their roster when over $12 million (roughly 4 players) could have been saved by acting proactively and moving two overpaid assets. Instead they will be middle of the pack next year.

I'm calling it now, if Kovalchuk signs in LA, they will win the West with Vancouver as a close second.

Yeah man, the Canucks and the Kings are as strong as the Hawks now. We'll soon see if Chicago can even keep up with Detroit or Nashville anymore.

A lot has changed in the last few months in the West.

Also, the Sharks are WAY worse than they were last year. Way worse, so they'll topple as well IMO. Should still make the playoffs of course, but it won't be a runaway President's Trophy for them I don't think.

Time for a poll?

Kovalfie wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:

CockRoche wrote:

Hoags wrote:I don't think they'll keep Niemi if his asking price is that high. It really seems to have started a trend to have low-paid starting goaltenders.

Yeah, I can't see this being settled pre-arbitrator. It will be up to the arbitrator to figure out Niemi's worth and I can see Chicago not accepting the awarded amount.

Niemi will walk, Huet to the minors or traded for nothing of consequence. Crawford will be the starting goalie, in my opinion.

We will see though.

Yeah, Crawford's been pushing for a while. If I were Chicago, I'd get a nice, veteran backup to go with Crawford. Someone like Clemensson for example who can step in if needed.

I agree. I think the whole depletion of the Hawks' roster this off-season could have been avoided.

[1]I would have happily taken the picks for Hjalmarsson. Not qualifying him would have helped Chicago with their cap situation and would have ensured that they don't take money back on a trade. The decision to qualify him only deepened their cap problems, forcing them to likely trade Sharp for what I think will be less of a return than the picks.

Niemi will become a UFA and lost for nothing if they decide against the arbitration ruling, which is a definite possibility right now. I said it before but [2]Chicago should have put Campbell on waivers and[3]buried/loaned Huet. They've lost half of their roster when over $12 million (roughly 4 players) could have been saved by acting proactively and moving two overpaid assets. [4]Instead they will be middle of the pack next year.

I'm calling it now, if Kovalchuk signs in LA, they will win the West with Vancouver as a close second.

[1] Chicago wanted their Top 4 D to remain the same though and for good reason. They know that their goaltending is not up to snuff whether it be Niemi or Crawford. You can't let Hjalmarsson go and have 3 of your Top 6 D be John Scott, Jordan Hendry and Brian Connelly. That is a recipe for disaster. They know what they have with Keith, Seabrook, Campbell and Hjalmarsson. Sure they are a lot of money those four guys, but they are worth it.

[2] Even if you put Campbell on waivers (not a sign of respect) no one is taking him. Re-entry waivers kills your cap hit to not have him play for you. I'd rather have him help the team at full price, than another team at half price.

[3] That will happen.

[4] That's the price you pay for winning the Cup. They were very aggressive with their contracts, they had a one-year window to win the Cup and they did it. Good for them I say.

I'm not trying to pick your post apart even though it may seem that way, I just see things a bit differently I guess and wanted to express my thoughts.

SpezDispenser wrote:

CockRoche wrote:

Perfect fit! In every aspect.

Cap-wise - $1,000,000
Style-wise - makes the first save, just let's the puck hit him. Good positional goalie. That is all Chicago needs.
Personality-wise - Team player in every aspect of the game. Somewhat of a local boy as well, close to home.

Yeah, I think so too. And not just for Chicago, that could go for Ottawa if they could shed Leclaire's salary. I'd take Elliott, Clemmensson and open up the cap room for Savard over Elliott and Leclaire, but that's probably because I don't trust Leclaire in the least.

These career backups like Clemmensson are (IMO), the perfect solution for teams in transition/close to the cap. They can make saves and are nice and cheap. Like Leighton, Boucher, Biron etc. etc. Good time to be looking for netminding in the NHL.

i'd rather keep leclaire to be honest.what he showed us in the playoffs is that when he's going he's got the ability to be "the guy" for us. he was amazing in some of those games. i tell you if that injury didn't set him back a month last year we very well might have been wistling a different tune going into the playoffs last year. might have beaten pittsburg. i understand elliott had his first playoff apearances but so did leclaire. and he stood on his head. there are other ways to clear space if we want to bring in savard,(and i do want him here) but leclaire shouldn't be one of them.

we all know both our goalies will be looking for a new deal after this year. IMO, if pascal played well, we go and sign them both to 2 year deals agin and see if lehner can push one out of the job from bingo. i'd much rather have leclaire(if he's hot) mentor lehner and good to average elliott.

CockRoche wrote:
[1] Chicago wanted their Top 4 D to remain the same though and for good reason. They know that their goaltending is not up to snuff whether it be Niemi or Crawford. You can't let Hjalmarsson go and have 3 of your Top 6 D be John Scott, Jordan Hendry and Brian Connelly. That is a recipe for disaster. They know what they have with Keith, Seabrook, Campbell and Hjalmarsson. Sure they are a lot of money those four guys, but they are worth it.

[2] Even if you put Campbell on waivers (not a sign of respect) no one is taking him. Re-entry waivers kills your cap hit to not have him play for you. I'd rather have him help the team at full price, than another team at half price.

[3] That will happen.

[4] That's the price you pay for winning the Cup. They were very aggressive with their contracts, they had a one-year window to win the Cup and they did it. Good for them I say.

I'm not trying to pick your post apart even though it may seem that way, I just see things a bit differently I guess and wanted to express my thoughts.

Why a one year window? They certainly didn't need to sign Cam Barker to a 3 million dollar deal, same with Versteeg, same with Bolland, same with Byfulglien. They made a terrific mistake with Huet, but they found they could win with just sturfy goaltending.

I think if they had handled their pending RFAs better, they'd still be a powerhouse, possibly losing only Versteeg and possibly one other piece. But they chose to pay every Tom, D and Harry 3 million or over and that left them in this mess.

This is all really Tallon's fault. The team won the Cup, which is obviously the main goal and can never be taken away, but now the Hawks will pay for it.

CockRoche wrote:

Kovalfie wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:

CockRoche wrote:

Hoags wrote:I don't think they'll keep Niemi if his asking price is that high. It really seems to have started a trend to have low-paid starting goaltenders.

Yeah, I can't see this being settled pre-arbitrator. It will be up to the arbitrator to figure out Niemi's worth and I can see Chicago not accepting the awarded amount.

Niemi will walk, Huet to the minors or traded for nothing of consequence. Crawford will be the starting goalie, in my opinion.

We will see though.

Yeah, Crawford's been pushing for a while. If I were Chicago, I'd get a nice, veteran backup to go with Crawford. Someone like Clemensson for example who can step in if needed.

I agree. I think the whole depletion of the Hawks' roster this off-season could have been avoided.

[1]I would have happily taken the picks for Hjalmarsson. Not qualifying him would have helped Chicago with their cap situation and would have ensured that they don't take money back on a trade. The decision to qualify him only deepened their cap problems, forcing them to likely trade Sharp for what I think will be less of a return than the picks.

Niemi will become a UFA and lost for nothing if they decide against the arbitration ruling, which is a definite possibility right now. I said it before but [2]Chicago should have put Campbell on waivers and[3]buried/loaned Huet. They've lost half of their roster when over $12 million (roughly 4 players) could have been saved by acting proactively and moving two overpaid assets. [4]Instead they will be middle of the pack next year.

I'm calling it now, if Kovalchuk signs in LA, they will win the West with Vancouver as a close second.

[1] Chicago wanted their Top 4 D to remain the same though and for good reason. They know that their goaltending is not up to snuff whether it be Niemi or Crawford. You can't let Hjalmarsson go and have 3 of your Top 6 D be John Scott, Jordan Hendry and Brian Connelly. That is a recipe for disaster. They know what they have with Keith, Seabrook, Campbell and Hjalmarsson. Sure they are a lot of money those four guys, but they are worth it.

[2] Even if you put Campbell on waivers (not a sign of respect) no one is taking him. Re-entry waivers kills your cap hit to not have him play for you. I'd rather have him help the team at full price, than another team at half price.

[3] That will happen.

[4] That's the price you pay for winning the Cup. They were very aggressive with their contracts, they had a one-year window to win the Cup and they did it. Good for them I say.
I'm not trying to pick your post apart even though it may seem that way, I just see things a bit differently I guess and wanted to express my thoughts.

i expect a few more teams to go that way in the future. it might be what NJD is trying to do with kovy. besides in this league there is always a few teams that are more then willing to aquire players via trades since not many FA will go there. all and all if chicago hadn't gone out there and signed all these players would they have won the cup? very questionable.
what they did is come back down to the level most teams are at, BUT have aquired a number of picks and prospects in the process. they won on all sides.