High Line-ups

Raskolnikov

Raskolnikov

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Aug 23, 2012
Posts:
22,241
Liked Posts:
7,739
Location:
Enemy Territory via southern C
Ton said:
I think you guys are seriously short changing Garbutt.

This guy could score 10-15 goals this year on any of the lines, maybe even 20. He's better than Desjardins and I wouldn't be surprised if Shaw was the guy to go instead of Bickell so they can bring on another defenseman. Garbutt is similar to Shaw and half the price.

Versteeg or Teuvo will most-likely take that 1st line LW spot... Panarin probably won't make it. Tikhonov probably won't make it. If I had to put my money on either one, Tikhonov stays.
Click to expand...

I worry about the length of time Shaw can continue his style of play on his frame, but he seems strong still. I'd be horrified if they traded him but he does go to the box too often. Getting rid of Shaw and Bickell would reduce a lot of stupid penalties and clumsy penalties each guilty of both types.

But the refs are going to call something on somebody, I think you need to have that balance and I prefer to let Versteeg walk as he isn't the same player. Keep the defense, move Versteeg, sign Kruger. be done.
 
Raskolnikov

Raskolnikov

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Aug 23, 2012
Posts:
22,241
Liked Posts:
7,739
Location:
Enemy Territory via southern C
Ton said:
I think you guys are seriously short changing Garbutt.

This guy could score 10-15 goals this year on any of the lines, maybe even 20. He's better than Desjardins and I wouldn't be surprised if Shaw was the guy to go instead of Bickell so they can bring on another defenseman. Garbutt is similar to Shaw and half the price.

Versteeg or Teuvo will most-likely take that 1st line LW spot... Panarin probably won't make it. Tikhonov probably won't make it. If I had to put my money on either one, Tikhonov stays.
Click to expand...


I just think we are that deep and Desjardins has chemistry with the fourth already and the edge. Garbutt will play plenty and we need to rotate these guys and get everyone rest.

We lost Saad Sharp and Richards. A ton of skill. We will be deeper next year though and thats why guys that are ready to contribute like Hartman, McNeil are nearly fringed outside of the bench. Definitely room to move 2-3 veterans Bickell, Versteeg, and Shaw.....if you could move the trio it wouldn't bother me at all from a salary, future, and penalty stand point. Just make sure you know the answer is in rockford or russia first.
 

Shantz My Pants

New member
Joined:
Dec 10, 2014
Posts:
3,923
Liked Posts:
787
Shaw is undervalued for his contract. It would be difficult to replace him at that cap hit. Only way you toss him in on a trade is if you are getting a top 6 forward or top 3 defensemen in my opinion. He just does too many things well to move him.


Sent from my Texas Instrument Calculator
 
Tater

Tater

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
May 15, 2010
Posts:
13,392
Liked Posts:
5,654
Trev said:
Shaw is undervalued for his contract. It would be difficult to replace him at that cap hit. Only way you toss him in on a trade is if you are getting a top 6 forward or top 3 defensemen in my opinion. He just does too many things well to move him.


Sent from my Texas Instrument Calculator
Click to expand...

:yep:
 

Ton

New member
Joined:
May 14, 2010
Posts:
3,991
Liked Posts:
124
Location:
Park Ridge, IL
Trev said:
Shaw is undervalued for his contract. It would be difficult to replace him at that cap hit. Only way you toss him in on a trade is if you are getting a top 6 forward or top 3 defensemen in my opinion. He just does too many things well to move him.


Sent from my Texas Instrument Calculator
Click to expand...

Ok, but by keeping him, Desjardins, and Garbutt, you now have 3 players essentially playing the same role, and the later two are much cheaper. Do we need all 3?

Of course, I'm not saying that Shaw must be traded, because they are currently under the Cap. But if they wanted some extra relief, or maybe wanted to add a defenseman, I'd rather trade Shaw than Bickell or Versteeg. Just IMO.

I suppose, if they did keep Shaw, it would make for one helluva scrappy 4th line. Desjardins-Shaw-Garbutt

It also depends on how Tikhonov and Panarin do in camp... at the moment I don't really see any room for either of them to make the team. Maybe Tikhonov as a utility forward if Morin/Tropp aren't standing out in anyway.
 
Last edited:
Raskolnikov

Raskolnikov

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Aug 23, 2012
Posts:
22,241
Liked Posts:
7,739
Location:
Enemy Territory via southern C
I agree but thats why he might be the only guy he can move. If you paid half of Bickells contract do you think we could sell him? You know? I"m not sure we can. So that could be an issue. And Versteeg just isn't healthy enough to where teams will trust us moving him. I didn't bring that up, but I thought Shaw potentially being the guy that gets moved was a good point, because

what if the question was very direct for Bowman because he can't move Bickell, Versteeg or Daley.

He has Garbutt to replace Shaw already, and its Shaw or Kruger?

Shaw or Kruger what do you do?
 
Tater

Tater

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
May 15, 2010
Posts:
13,392
Liked Posts:
5,654
Ton said:
Ok, but by keeping him, Desjardins, and Garbutt, you now have 3 players essentially playing the same role, and the later two are much cheaper. Do we need all 3?

Of course, I'm not saying that Shaw must be traded, because they are currently under the Cap. But if they wanted some extra relief, or maybe wanted to add a defenseman, I'd rather trade Shaw than Bickell or Versteeg. Just IMO.
Click to expand...

Not me, Shaw seems like the only one to consistently stand in front of the net. I'd rather see Bickell shipped. I prefer a player that gives 100% every game.
 

Shantz My Pants

New member
Joined:
Dec 10, 2014
Posts:
3,923
Liked Posts:
787
Ton said:
Ok, but by keeping him, Desjardins, and Garbutt, you now have 3 players essentially playing the same role, and the later two are much cheaper. Do we need all 3?

Of course, I'm not saying that Shaw must be traded, because they are currently under the Cap. But if they wanted some extra relief, or maybe wanted to add a defenseman, I'd rather trade Shaw than Bickell or Versteeg. Just IMO.
Click to expand...

I'd rather get rid of Versteeg and Bickell before Shaw. Bickell can't even help on special teams which Shaw does both of.

Desjardins doesn't have the offensive abilities Shaw has, so that's why he's cheaper. Garbutt probably is comparable to Shaw, but I haven't seen enough to actually make a decision.

Shaw gives you someone who can play the PP and PK, someone who you could fit into any of the 4 offensive lines. Someone who never takes a shift off. A guy who will forecheck the opposition hard and will be hustling his ass back on the back check. Plus, he's willing to muck it up and drop the gloves if needed. 2 million dollars for that type of player is a steal and I think he's going to get more playing time on the 3rd line then the 4th to be honest.

Bickell and his 4 million need to be the first to go. He's a waste of a roster spot and on ice talent.


Sent from my Texas Instrument Calculator
 

Ton

New member
Joined:
May 14, 2010
Posts:
3,991
Liked Posts:
124
Location:
Park Ridge, IL
Raskolnikov said:
I agree but thats why he might be the only guy he can move. If you paid half of Bickells contract do you think we could sell him? You know? I"m not sure we can. So that could be an issue. And Versteeg just isn't healthy enough to where teams will trust us moving him. I didn't bring that up, but I thought Shaw potentially being the guy that gets moved was a good point, because

what if the question was very direct for Bowman because he can't move Bickell, Versteeg or Daley.

He has Garbutt to replace Shaw already, and its Shaw or Kruger?

Shaw or Kruger what do you do?
Click to expand...

That's sort of my point. If someone is gonna go, and Bickell isn't the guy, then Shaw could be the one to go as we already have 2 more scrappy balls-to-the-wall forwards to play that role at less than half the price.
 

Shantz My Pants

New member
Joined:
Dec 10, 2014
Posts:
3,923
Liked Posts:
787
Ton said:
That's sort of my point. If someone is gonna go, and Bickell isn't the guy, then Shaw could be the one to go as we already have 2 more scrappy balls-to-the-wall forwards to play that role at less than half the price.
Click to expand...

Mainly because Garbutt is 8 years older, and he's had only one real decent year in the NHL. He's pretty much peaked in terms of potential. Shaw on the other hand is just entering his peak age and as I've said before brings a lot to the table. Plus Garbutt can't play center, which is something Shaw can do (not saying great but decent).

I doubt Shaw looks for more than 2.5-3m on his next contract, and that would be pretty fair.




Sent from my Texas Instrument Calculator
 
Raskolnikov

Raskolnikov

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Aug 23, 2012
Posts:
22,241
Liked Posts:
7,739
Location:
Enemy Territory via southern C
Ton said:
That's sort of my point. If someone is gonna go, and Bickell isn't the guy, then Shaw could be the one to go as we already have 2 more scrappy balls-to-the-wall forwards to play that role at less than half the price.
Click to expand...

and why I'm sorta holding my breath until Kruger is signed. I liked him in both cup playoffs. Frolik still kills me cuz of special teams game changing chaser.
 

Ton

New member
Joined:
May 14, 2010
Posts:
3,991
Liked Posts:
124
Location:
Park Ridge, IL
Trev said:
Mainly because Garbutt is 8 years older, and he's had only one real decent year in the NHL. He's pretty much peaked in terms of potential. Shaw on the other hand is just entering his peak age and as I've said before brings a lot to the table. Plus Garbutt can't play center, which is something Shaw can do (not saying great but decent).

I doubt Shaw looks for more than 2.5-3m on his next contract, and that would be pretty fair.




Sent from my Texas Instrument Calculator
Click to expand...

So Shaw is untouchable? What if you get a decent #5-6 d-man for him? Desjardins has experience playing C, that's what he did for the Sharks before coming to Chicago, so whats the big deal?

I think it's possible that he is moved, I think he's more expendable than Versteeg, just because we have two similar players that can grind as hard as Shaw did... now if they can do it as well as he can, that's another story, but Garbutt has the potential to score 15 goals and lineup on any line, and if need be, Desjardins the #4 C. If someone else is going to be traded, I would expect Bickell, Versteeg, and Shaw to be on that list.
 
Last edited:

Shantz My Pants

New member
Joined:
Dec 10, 2014
Posts:
3,923
Liked Posts:
787
Ton said:
So Shaw is untouchable? What if you get a decent #5-6 d-man for him? Desjardins has experience playing C, that's what he did for the Sharks before coming to Chicago, so whats the big deal?

I think it's possible that he is moved, I think he's more expendable than Versteeg, just because we have two similar players that can grind as hard as Shaw did... now if they can do it as well as he can, that's another story, but Garbutt has the potential to score 15 goals and lineup on any line, and if need be, Desjardins the #4 C. If someone else is going to be traded, I would expect Bickell, Versteeg, and Shaw to be on that list.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say he's untouchable at all, but I'm looking at the current cap crunch and the value of players contracts. The Hawks are getting a ton on their investment of 2 million on Shaw. Desjardins also is a career 4th liner, while Shaw has played on the 2nd line and been successful on the 3rd. He's also got some skill and decent hands. Desjardins has nothing besides taking faceoffs, physical and defensive responsible.

I would rather they bought out Bickell then trade Shaw if they really need the money that bad. Trade Shaw and have 3 million available all together and lose him, or buyout Bickell and save 3 million altogether and still keep Shaw?


Sent from my Texas Instrument Calculator
 

Ton

New member
Joined:
May 14, 2010
Posts:
3,991
Liked Posts:
124
Location:
Park Ridge, IL
Trev said:
I wouldn't say he's untouchable at all, but I'm looking at the current cap crunch and the value of players contracts. The Hawks are getting a ton on their investment of 2 million on Shaw. Desjardins also is a career 4th liner, while Shaw has played on the 2nd line and been successful on the 3rd. He's also got some skill and decent hands. Desjardins has nothing besides taking faceoffs, physical and defensive responsible.

I would rather they bought out Bickell then trade Shaw if they really need the money that bad. Trade Shaw and have 3 million available all together and lose him, or buyout Bickell and save 3 million altogether and still keep Shaw?


Sent from my Texas Instrument Calculator
Click to expand...

Eh... Idk, I'm not a big fan of buying out Bickell at this point, he's still a good player that can play on the top 2 lines, just like Shaw... but if they can't move him, then they might as well keep him IMO. Isn't it too late for that anyway? Isn't there some sort of window of opportunity for that?
 
Last edited:

ClydeLee

New member
Joined:
Jun 29, 2010
Posts:
14,829
Liked Posts:
4,113
Location:
The OP
They can't buy out Bickell... and they couldn't buy out Bickell, you can't buy out injured players and he still had the Vertigo during the 1st buy out situation on June 30th and they would of had to bring 2 guys to arbitration to open up a new buy out opportunity.

I think once he is healthier in September/October during pre-season/camp when it can been see he is skating that teams will take him. They may eat 1 Mil of his salary in a trade but that's better to pay 1 Mil 2 years than pay 1.5 for 4 years which would be what a buyout would make you pay anyway.
 

Shantz My Pants

New member
Joined:
Dec 10, 2014
Posts:
3,923
Liked Posts:
787
Ton said:
Eh... Idk, I'm not a big fan of buying out Bickell at this point, he's still a good player that can play on the top 2 lines. Isn't it too late for that anyway? Isn't there some sort of window of opportunity for that?
Click to expand...

Not exactly sure.

Bickell hasn't been worth shit since the '13 playoffs. His lack of speed and consistency drags his line mates down. Id pay the 2 million for him to go elsewhere then be a waste of a roster spot for someone else.


Sent from my Texas Instrument Calculator
 

Ton

New member
Joined:
May 14, 2010
Posts:
3,991
Liked Posts:
124
Location:
Park Ridge, IL
Trev said:
Not exactly sure.

Bickell hasn't been worth shit since the '13 playoffs. His lack of speed and consistency drags his line mates down. Id pay the 2 million for him to go elsewhere then be a waste of a roster spot for someone else.


Sent from my Texas Instrument Calculator
Click to expand...

I mean, if you look at his stat line last year, it wasn't that bad. If you want to compare Bickell vs Shaw...

Bickell - 80 GP | 14 G | 14 A | 28 P | +5 | 205 Hits | 13 BkS | 26 TkA
Shaw - 79 GP | 15 G | 11 A | 26 P | -8 | 127 Hits | 33 BkS | 17 TkA

Of course, you're talking about a $2M difference between the two. Of course, Shaw is more of the special teams player, since he plays the PK and PP, but Bickell gets more overall TOI per game.

For the price, keeping Shaw makes more sense, can't argue that... but if ya can't get rid of Bickell, he still provides just as much value as Shaw. I wouldn't want to lose both.
 

Shantz My Pants

New member
Joined:
Dec 10, 2014
Posts:
3,923
Liked Posts:
787
I'm just looking at the value of the contract pertained to the player. The Hawks are getting a ton of value out of Shaw at 2 million. Bickell they are in the red for his value to the 4 million dollar contract. I would even venture to say that for what they provide the team, you could swap their contracts and it would be fair for their value.

The main question if you can't trade Bickell is, who brings more value to the team... Shaw or Kruger?


Sent from my Texas Instrument Calculator
 
Tater

Tater

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
May 15, 2010
Posts:
13,392
Liked Posts:
5,654
Trev said:
I'm just looking at the value of the contract pertained to the player. The Hawks are getting a ton of value out of Shaw at 2 million. Bickell they are in the red for his value to the 4 million dollar contract. I would even venture to say that for what they provide the team, you could swap their contracts and it would be fair for their value.

The main question if you can't trade Bickell is, who brings more value to the team... Shaw or Kruger?


Sent from my Texas Instrument Calculator
Click to expand...

Man, that's a really tough one. I'd hate to see either go. Kruger is extremely valuable on the PK, and Q trusts him out there with 1 or 2 minutes left in a close game.
In comparing stats between Shaw and Bickell, the amount of goals that go in with Shaw screening the net are countless. Most times he doesn't even get an assist.
 

Shantz My Pants

New member
Joined:
Dec 10, 2014
Posts:
3,923
Liked Posts:
787
In all honesty, I'd probably keep Shaw over Kruger but that's because I'm a big fan of Shaw's play. While Kruger is a great 4th liner and does well defensively, it seems his offensive game just isn't what his potential at one point showed. I don't think he's ever going to be a 40 point guy which is fine, but you don't pay a 4th line center more than 2 million, maybe 3 at the most max.


Sent from my Texas Instrument Calculator
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

10,878members
93,002threads
4,372,298posts
616online users

Members online NOW

  • Member
  • Admin
  • Mod
  • Donor
  • HOF
Total: 616 (members: 35, guests: 581)
Top