Just got more info. Looks like deal is dead. Would have been significant. Other team asked a lot. But digging on it because I could see it being revived with different players involved.

(Not Anderson or Nabokov—for now anyway—either)
- John Jaeckel

Of course the deal is dead. What a joke.

Like I said in a Tweet. Just let us know when a trade happens.

How many times in the Stan Bowman tenure have we heard they're close on a deal, and then it's dead. Over and over and over again. What a joke! Then Stan steps to a microphone and says they tried, but just couldn't make it happen.

the loss of montador HAS impacted their plans?
Who was counting on him enough this year to consider trading hammer and/or leddy? the guys was concussed more than once last year & was moved to forward! what are they thinking? guess I haven't lowered my expectations enough
- dpard

I wonder if the Hawks were shopping both Leddy and Hjalmarsson. The Sens are in need of d-men so maybe they were looking at getting getting one of their centers Smith ? possibly in a larger deal. Now I wouldn't trade both Leddy and Hjalmarsson because I don't think the Hawks are as deep with defensemen and I certainly don't believe Brookbank and Rozsival would be adequate replacements for them.

If that was the deal, I would looking for a tweek as well. Can't fault Bowman here.
- 67hawks

It wasn't the deal. Like I said, wild guess, but I got the team and position right . . . stay tuned, the "deal" could get revived with other players involved, though that is an outside chance

Of course the deal is dead. What a joke.

Like I said in a Tweet. Just let us know when a trade happens.

How many times in the Stan Bowman tenure have we heard they're close on a deal, and then it's dead. Over and over and over again. What a joke! Then Stan steps to a microphone and says they tried, but just couldn't make it happen.
- GoHawks1

Read my post above, you will probably know if a trade actually happens when I do.

I understand your frustration, but it's not what I do. I report on rumors and conversations.

Very, very few people actually break actual trades before the teams announce them—and that only happens every once in a while.

Bryz for Crawford

Of course the deal is dead. What a joke.

Like I said in a Tweet. Just let us know when a trade happens.

How many times in the Stan Bowman tenure have we heard they're close on a deal, and then it's dead. Over and over and over again. What a joke! Then Stan steps to a microphone and says they tried, but just couldn't make it happen.
- GoHawks1

Let me also add, and NOT to defend Bowman or the Hawks, but teams don't just conveniently give away top players or prospects because the Hawks want them or we want the Hawks to get them. Point being, I think in the case of this, and many other, "almost" deals, the other team is gun shy too and makes the asking price almost prohibitively high.

Like I said, I get your disappointment/frustration, but i will continue to report on rumors as I hear them. because they do indicate what the team is trying to do—and, maybe, at osme point, what they will do with some team.

I need to go offline for a couple of hours. But will try to stay in touch via phone/email/Twitter.

Let me also add, and NOT to defend Bowman or the Hawks, but teams don't just conveniently give away top players or prospects because the Hawks want them or we want the Hawks to get them. Point being, I think in the case of this, and many other, "almost" deals, the other team is gun shy too and makes the asking price almost prohibitively high.

Like I said, I get your disappointment/frustration, but i will continue to report on rumors as I hear them. because they do indicate what the team is trying to do—and, maybe, at osme point, what they will do with some team.
- John Jaeckel

Understood. Stan/the Hawks seem to be getting a track record is all.

No frustration here.

There's a reason a site like this is popular. Even the most vague, potentially way-off, rumors are fun.

I wonder if the Hawks were shopping both Leddy and Hjalmarsson. The Sens are in need of d-men so maybe they were looking at getting getting one of their centers Smith ? possibly in a larger deal. Now I wouldn't trade both Leddy and Hjalmarsson because I don't think the Hawks are as deep with defensemen and I certainly don't believe Brookbank and Rozsival would be adequate replacements for them.
- jhawk159

The Hawks wouldn't be 'shopping' Leddy because if they were they could move him in a nanosecond. They may be dangling him to a team that needs defenceman for something very good - like Coutourier with Philly or Lehner with the Senators.

Leddy gets you more than Hammer but both can't be moved unless a defenceman comes back in another deal.

The Hawks have forwards like Stalberg, Bickell, Hayes, Shaw, Morin, Saad, Kruger, Smith - its from that group that Bowman would be likely be trying to use to turn into a more needed asset.

Of course the deal is dead. What a joke.

Like I said in a Tweet. Just let us know when a trade happens.

How many times in the Stan Bowman tenure have we heard they're close on a deal, and then it's dead. Over and over and over again. What a joke! Then Stan steps to a microphone and says they tried, but just couldn't make it happen.
- GoHawks1

Let me also add, and NOT to defend Bowman or the Hawks, but teams don't just conveniently give away top players or prospects because the Hawks want them or we want the Hawks to get them. Point being, I think in the case of this, and many other, "almost" deals, the other team is gun shy too and makes the asking price almost prohibitively high.

Like I said, I get your disappointment/frustration, but i will continue to report on rumors as I hear them. because they do indicate what the team is trying to do—and, maybe, at osme point, what they will do with some team.
- John Jaeckel

To get value, you often have to give up value. It's not rocket science. If you can fleece another GM..all the better.

TSN's Lebrun reporting Cam Barker signing in Vancouver to a pro rated $700,000 contract.

The Hawks wouldn't be 'shopping' Leddy because if they were they could move him in a nanosecond. They may be dangling him to a team that needs defenceman for something very good - like Coutourier with Philly or Lehner with the Senators.

Leddy gets you more than Hammer but both can't be moved unless a defenceman comes back in another deal.

The Hawks have forwards like Stalberg, Bickell, Hayes, Shaw, Morin, Saad, Kruger, Smith - its from that group that Bowman would be likely be trying to use to turn into a more needed asset.
- RickJ

If the hawks want to win it all this year stalberg and bickell should not be moved and kruger should also probably be off limits

If they are all in to win the only defenseman that is replaceable is leddy with oduya taking his minutes although i am not a fan of oduya.

Froelic should be included in any deal but i still dont think this coaching staff can get optimal output from their available talent

TSN's Lebrun reporting Cam Barker signing in Vancouver to a pro rated $700,000 contract.
- eagle50

He'll fit right in with Ballard.

To get value, you often have to give up value. It's not rocket science. If you can fleece another GM..all the better.
- philco28

I agree, and I have a very critical blog prepared.

The problem seems to be that Bowman and the Hawks really lack confidence in their judgement of opposing players, while at the same time being overconfident in the value of their own.

Put another way, if you believe player X can be your "goalie of the future" for the next ten years and you're willing to pay some relatively high price based on that belief, then you step up and pay all the way to get the player.

Here's why: goalie is arguably the most important position on the ice. Now, I am of the school that says a great defense can mask an average to above average goalie. The problem is, you at least want an average goalie who can come up with the big save when it really matters. Evidence suggests the Hawks don't have that . . . which is precisely why, if we are to believe the incessant rumors, they are shopping for an upgrade in net.

Well, do you want it . . . or do you want to cover yourself with the constant "we tried but the price was too high"?

There is another narrative emerging here that Bowman wants the public to believe he is "trying" and that's good enough (perceptually).

It won't be for long, especially if Crawford fails again this year.

To get value, you often have to give up value. It's not rocket science. If you can fleece another GM..all the better.
- philco28

I agree, and I have a very critical blog prepared.

The problem seems to be that Bowman and the Hawks really lack confidence in their judgement of opposing players, while at the same time being overconfident in the value of their own.

Put another way, if you believe player X can be your "goalie of the future" for the next ten years and you're willing to pay some relatively high price based on that belief, then you step up and pay all the way to get the player.

Here's why: goalie is arguably the most important position on the ice. Now, I am of the school that says a great defense can mask an average to above average goalie. The problem is, you at least want an average goalie who can come up with the big save when it really matters. Evidence suggests the Hawks don't have that . . . which is precisely why, if we are to believe the incessant rumors, they are shopping for an upgrade in net.

Well, do you want it . . . or do you want to cover yourself with the constant "we tried but the price was too high"?

There is another narrative emerging here that Bowman wants the public to believe he is "trying" and that's good enough (perceptually).

It won't be for long, especially if Crawford fails again this year.

Tim Sassone ‏@TimSassone

Other #Blackhawks lines: Toews, Hossa and Carcillo; Shaw between Stalberg and Bickell; Kruger between Bollig and Frolik.

hmmmmm.

It wasn't the deal. Like I said, wild guess, but I got the team and position right . . . stay tuned, the "deal" could get revived with other players involved, though that is an outside chance
- John Jaeckel

I wouldn't mind Bishop at all. He would be easier to get, too

I hear ya, and you are consistent with some tweets I'm getting. Having followed these rumors pretty hard for 4 years now, I will tell you it feels like the Hawks are fairly intent on adding a goalie. Anything else is going to be incidental, I think.

A few thoughts also . . .

MANY, MANY more conversations take place than actual deals that happen.

Honestly, I report on conversations. really; the only guys who break actual deals and details are the guys who talk to GMs or people at the league office (Dreger, Kypreos, McKenzie, Ek) and they get details right before the deals are announced.

On the other hand, some of the conversations I report on do turn into deals, albeit often with different details than what I first hear/report—which goes back to ongoing conversations between teams, requested tweaks, etc

Not to be a Bowman defender, but I question how much of the Hawk indecision is Bowman himself, or the front office, second guessing apparatus around him (including McDonough and possibly other non-hockey functionaries). I still wonder if that dynamic wasn't the cause of the RFA fiasco in 2009.

I will say there is a pattern to be discerned here: the "marketing" of prospects, overpromotion onthe ice of said prospects and a corresponding unwillingness to deal prospects (or players) for needed NHL help.

I am hopeful, as a fan, that the Hawks break the pattern here soon, because I really don't think Sheldon Brookbank and Michal Rozsival are enough to change the fortunes of this team from last year.

And if they don't make a move, then I think the "official" line will become adding defensive depth, maturation of Kruger and Leddy, Saad is on the way, blah blah blah . . .
- John Jaeckel

Which is why - when so many others are talking about Rocky being pissed about the FO dys-function - I question how upset he really is.

Going into the third year now (with, of course, time left to do something this year) of not solving the team problems, Rocky has (seemingly) done nothing to improve the FO.

Let me also add, and NOT to defend Bowman or the Hawks, but teams don't just conveniently give away top players or prospects because the Hawks want them or we want the Hawks to get them. Point being, I think in the case of this, and many other, "almost" deals, the other team is gun shy too and makes the asking price almost prohibitively high.

Like I said, I get your disappointment/frustration, but i will continue to report on rumors as I hear them. because they do indicate what the team is trying to do—and, maybe, at osme point, what they will do with some team.
- John Jaeckel

Not frustrated with you - frustrated with a GM, FO, and owner that can't do their jobs - make the team better.

Tim Sassone ‏@TimSassone

Other #Blackhawks lines: Toews, Hossa and Carcillo; Shaw between Stalberg and Bickell; Kruger between Bollig and Frolik.

hmmmmm.
- Beaver-Warrior

Though it wasn't a lot of games to go by, Stalberg and Bickell looked really good together. I don't like shaw at center, though. Carcillo and Hossa also looked good together.

Tim Sassone ‏@TimSassone

Other #Blackhawks lines: Toews, Hossa and Carcillo; Shaw between Stalberg and Bickell; Kruger between Bollig and Frolik.

hmmmmm.
- Beaver-Warrior

So looks like they really want to try Bolland at 2C. It'll be interesting as to whether he can elevate his offensive game enough to keep up and produce with 88 and 10. Also can Shaw win a draw? Is he positionally sound enough defensively to match up with top lines in the west? Don't know how I feel about this

the loss of montador HAS impacted their plans?
Who was counting on him enough this year to consider trading hammer and/or leddy? the guys was concussed more than once last year & was moved to forward! what are they thinking? guess I haven't lowered my expectations enough
- dpard

Though it wasn't a lot of games to go by, Stalberg and Bickell looked really good together. I don't like shaw at center, though. Carcillo and Hossa also looked good together.
- tomcat24

Shaw at C was the root cause of my "hmmmmmm". I don't question his heart or grit but his size to play the position long term against the bigger boys with same amount of heart and grit.