RockRaines Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 (edited) I dont mind that deal, but Huet is the wildcard here. Who really wants to take him at this point? He'd be a seriously expensive backup for a contender and a money pit for a rebuilding team. Edited January 30, 2010 by RockRaines Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 Didn't Huet get run out of MTL before? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MurcieOne Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jan 30, 2010 -> 01:27 PM) I dont mind that deal, but Huet is the wildcard here. Who really wants to take him at this point? He'd be a seriously expensive backup for a contender and a money pit for a rebuilding team. Â Carey Price is a wildcard too. . . he is bascially in his second full season and his not lived up to the billing. I love the idea of acquiring Price if this team was still developing, but we're on a collision course with the finals right now and I'm not sure if Price is even an upgrade over what we already have. Â Price may just need a change of scenery, but I wouldn't want to gamble our Cup aspirations on that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Chappas Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Last night was another case of a guy standing on his head. Huet simply is not good enough to win a game for this team. Niemi can on certain nights but not consistently. Â Huet just looks very slow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chimpy2121 Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 (edited) Phaneuf and Giguere to the Leafs? Burke is going crazy. I wonder if Calgary is clearing up cap space for Kovalchuk. Edited January 31, 2010 by chimpy2121 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 QUOTE (chimpy2121 @ Jan 31, 2010 -> 10:35 AM) Phaneuf and Giguere to the Leafs? Burke is going crazy. I wonder if Calgary is clearing up cap space for Kovalchuk. Â Wow, that is a couple of huge changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chimpy2121 Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 Calgary not done yet: Olli Jokinen and forward Brandon Prust to the Rangers in exchange for forwards Ales Kotalik and Christopher Higgins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilJester99 Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 (edited) Wonder if they'd look to deal Iginla...not likely but damn I would love him on the Hawks. Burke is weaving some magic...Trades Two UFA's and 2 spare parts and steals Phaneuf PLUS Defensive prospect Aulie. Edited February 1, 2010 by EvilJester99 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxAce Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 (edited) QUOTE (EvilJester99 @ Jan 31, 2010 -> 09:58 PM) Wonder if they'd look to deal Iginla...not likely but damn I would love him on the Hawks. Burke is weaving some magic...Trades Two UFA's and 2 spare parts and steals Phaneuf PLUS Defensive prospect Aulie. Â Man.. traded alot of scoring depth that they had though. They are solid on defense (with some youth), but they literally have Phil Kessel and.... noone. Don't worry, they can tank and get a top 3 pick..... whoops... Boston has there pick. Probably the happiest team in the NHL right now. Edited February 1, 2010 by SoxAce Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulokis Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 Nick Boynton is waived by the Aneheim Ducks. I do not know much about him but he seems like a big, physical defenseman we can pair with Barker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 Good player we can't afford. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 http://www.suntimes.com/sports/morrissey/2...issey01.article  Great write up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFan1 Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 1, 2010 -> 08:00 PM) http://www.suntimes.com/sports/morrissey/2...issey01.article Great write up. While I agree that hockey fans could very well be the snobbiest of them all, I think he really does the sport an injustice by simplifying it the way he does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 (edited) QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Feb 1, 2010 -> 07:32 PM) While I agree that hockey fans could very well be the snobbiest of them all, I think he really does the sport an injustice by simplifying it the way he does.  I agree. I think hockey and soccer are cousins in terms of team strategy, although hockey is much faster moving due to matters of physics—a puck moves faster along the ice than a ball through the air or on the ground, and 200' x 85' is a smaller surface than 110 x 80 yds. Plays and shooting/passing lanes are set up similarly, and offensive attacks and defensive parrys are not identical, but definitely related.  Unlike football and baseball, the skill sets to make a great hockey player are less specialized (a goaltender being the obvious exception). Baseball has infielders, outfielders, leadoff men, DHs, catchers, and pitchers. Football has linemen, backs, and receivers, and special teams—each with a specialized skill set. In hockey, you have to skate well, handle the puck well, and know how to deliver, finish, and survive a check. That's really it, and what differentiates a forward from a defenseman in skill set is slimmer than a lineman and a receiver in football, or a pitcher and an infielder in baseball. That's a big part of what makes it appear the way Morrissey paints it.  Hockey is certainly the underdog of the four major professional sports—the 2004-05 season cancellation did little to help—and as such, there are fewer knowledgeable people about it in both the media and the stands. Outside Minnesota, Michigan, and New England, it is often viewed as a foreign language of team sports.  Granted, I'm a four-hour plane ride from Chicago, but is this really a problem that neophyte Hawk fans aren't welcoming the newcomers and would really rather go back to the last days of Dollar Bill's Lack Hawks and 5,000 paid attendance per game? Edited February 2, 2010 by Drew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniKrush Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 (edited) QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 1, 2010 -> 07:00 PM) http://www.suntimes.com/sports/morrissey/2...issey01.article Great write up. He just wrote the article to try to give himself some credibility, and possibly to give confidence to the newbies. We all know hockey isn't as simple as he tried to make it. Pretty ignorant.  The problem, though, is that he missed the whole point - why long time fans are upset with the newbies. No one has a problem with the "basketball guy" or "football guy" picking up on hockey/Hawks, trying to learn something about the game. Helps the game grow.  It's the jokers that go to the UC to be seen, because it's the place to be. Getting up in the middle of play, not really caring about the game or attempting to learn something. Hurting the overall atmosphere and other fans' game experiences. Right now, the ratio of jackasses to people who want to learn about the game is quite high.  You know, like the people in section 5 of the Jan 21 Tribune, which might have been the worst piece of media I've ever seen put together. Edited February 2, 2010 by IlliniKrush Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Feb 2, 2010 -> 02:00 PM) He just wrote the article to try to give himself some credibility, and possibly to give confidence to the newbies. We all know hockey isn't as simple as he tried to make it. Pretty ignorant. Â The problem, though, is that he missed the whole point - why long time fans are upset with the newbies. No one has a problem with the "basketball guy" or "football guy" picking up on hockey/Hawks, trying to learn something about the game. Helps the game grow. Â It's the jokers that go to the UC to be seen, because it's the place to be. Getting up in the middle of play, not really caring about the game or attempting to learn something. Hurting the overall atmosphere and other fans' game experiences. Right now, the ratio of jackasses to people who want to learn about the game is quite high. Â You know, like the people in section 5 of the Jan 21 Tribune, which might have been the worst piece of media I've ever seen put together. Exactly. New fans are fine if they are generally interested in being fans of Hockey and the Hawks. Its the bleacher bums from Wrigley that come over and jack up the prices of our tickets so they can roam the concourse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 Rick Morrissey is the king of pandering. Â In other actual news, the Hawks are close to acquiring a defensemen, according to Tim Sassone. Â Also, Dave Bolland is playing Wednesday, and was centering a line with Hossa and Sharp. The injured Ladd will probably sit this one out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 Do we have the cap room for that? Or are we looking to dump someone for a draft pick or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 2, 2010 -> 02:34 PM) Do we have the cap room for that? Or are we looking to dump someone for a draft pick or something. Well, we all know the Pens want a winger. The question is, do we want to send said winger to them? Our problem has not been defense and shots against per game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilJester99 Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 I seen on Stuy's board supposedly its McKee for maybe Steeger...TIFWIW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Feb 2, 2010 -> 02:41 PM) Well, we all know the Pens want a winger. The question is, do we want to send said winger to them? Our problem has not been defense and shots against per game. Â Yeah, I am afraid to see the goaltending if the D hadn't been so awesome this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 QUOTE (EvilJester99 @ Feb 2, 2010 -> 02:57 PM) I seen on Stuy's board supposedly its McKee for maybe Steeger...TIFWIW. Makes sense to be honest. As much as I love Steeger, he could be the odd man out and with Bolland and Burish coming back, theres plenty of filler. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilJester99 Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 QUOTE (RockRaines @ Feb 2, 2010 -> 04:01 PM) Makes sense to be honest. As much as I love Steeger, he could be the odd man out and with Bolland and Burish coming back, theres plenty of filler. Well you have to figure that its either going to be Steeger or Sharp and if its those 2 then it has to be Steeger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 QUOTE (EvilJester99 @ Feb 2, 2010 -> 04:03 PM) Well you have to figure that its either going to be Steeger or Sharp and if its those 2 then it has to be Steeger. I don't see why. Steeger is cheaper and I appreciate his complement of talents a bit more than Sharp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Feb 2, 2010 -> 04:16 PM) I don't see why. Steeger is cheaper and I appreciate his complement of talents a bit more than Sharp. I just find it difficult to believe that they would deal Sharpie before seeing him on a line with Bolland and Hossa. You have two dynamic 2 way players and Sharp in his natural position. 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.