Fair enough...like I said...I don't know the details. But with an Iggi acquisition the Hawks would be pretty much done.

Not sure he gets us over the top...and for a steep price too.
- ArlingtonRob

Depends on how steep of a price. I wouldn't flip Leddy for him, that's for sure. Nor would I give up Saad, Teravainen, or Danault. I wouldn't mind sacrificing some of the future, like this summer's first round pick or McNeill for him.

I think Iginla would be a good addition to this team for the playoff run. I'm not a 100% that he would get us over the top, but who out there (that's available) would provide a better shot at putting this team over the top?

JJ, here is my beef with your response. If you look at it as Keith vs. Leddy, then yes, there is no comparison in talent. But if by trading Keith (and keeping Leddy) to get peices that this team is lacking, then in the bigger picture Keith is expendable. I am all for moving Keith if the peices comming back fill needs (FO specialist, PP QB, and big body), which I think is not out of the picture.
- powerenforcer

Well, hypothetically, it's a reasonable argument. Practically speaking, Keith will never get traded and quite honestly, his contract over time gets better and better.

Depends on how steep of a price. I wouldn't flip Leddy for him, that's for sure. Nor would I give up Saad, Teravainen, or Danault. I wouldn't mind sacrificing some of the future, like this summer's first round pick or McNeill for him.

I think Iginla would be a good addition to this team for the playoff run. I'm not a 100% that he would get us over the top, but who out there (that's available) would provide a better shot at putting this team over the top?
- EKolb13

Forgetting his "upside" for a moment, Leddy is a third pairing defenseman on this team.

Have fun stopping 81-19-12. No guarantees, but that is a nightmare come playoff time, and a better line than Perry-Getzlaf-Ryan.

Depends on how steep of a price. I wouldn't flip Leddy for him, that's for sure. Nor would I give up Saad, Teravainen, or Danault. I wouldn't mind sacrificing some of the future, like this summer's first round pick or McNeill for him.

I think Iginla would be a good addition to this team for the playoff run. I'm not a 100% that he would get us over the top, but who out there (that's available) would provide a better shot at putting this team over the top?
- EKolb13

After seeing McNeill play live twice...though i like him...i'd be willing to dangle him in a trade package.

Forgetting his "upside" for a moment, Leddy is a third pairing defenseman on this team.

Have fun stopping 81-19-12. No guarantees, but that is a nightmare come playoff time, and a better line than Perry-Getzlaf-Ryan.
- John Jaeckel

no chance WPG sends big buff back here....is there????

no chance WPG sends big buff back here....is there????
- ChicagoDave

I don't know how legit the WPG dealing Buff rumors are. Don't know that they're not. I can't see the Hawks dealing for Dustin though.

JJ, here is my beef with your response. If you look at it as Keith vs. Leddy, then yes, there is no comparison in talent. But if by trading Keith (and keeping Leddy) to get peices that this team is lacking, then in the bigger picture Keith is expendable. I am all for moving Keith if the peices comming back fill needs (FO specialist, PP QB, and big body), which I think is not out of the picture.
- powerenforcer

Be careful what you wish for. Keith has some annoying tendencies in his game and he isn't offensively gifted but he can play huge minutes at a very high pace. Remove him from the Hawks lineup for an extended period of time and you won't like the result.

If Stan put Keith on the trade market he could have a deal done in no time flat. And the return would be alot more than a FO specialist. Hell, David Steckel is a FO specialist.

After seeing McNeill play live twice...though i like him...i'd be willing to dangle him in a trade package.
- philco28

Of all the top Hawk prospects,he's maybe easiest to project. He will be a solid to good NHL player. Tough, physical forward who can play C or W, but will likely be a W. Sort of a poor man's Andrew Ladd. That's where it gets tricky. There's no guarantees Danault, Clendening or Johns will be better. But they potentially could. Teravainen appears to be a legit top 6 point producer.

Be careful what you wish for. Keith has some annoying tendencies in his game and he isn't offensively gifted but he can play huge minutes at a very high pace. Remove him from the Hawks lineup for an extended period of time and you won't like the result.

If Stan put Keith on the trade market he could have a deal done in no time flat. And the return would be alot more than a FO specialist. Hell, David Steckel is a FO specialist.
- RickJ

Keith is not Lidstrom, but he is a very, very good top pairing NHL defenseman. He has his bonehead moments, but when he's on. he's awfully good and he does chew up big minutes. Ask top NHL forwards and they will tell you the guy is legit.

Of all the top Hawk prospects,he's maybe easiest to project. He will be a solid to good NHL player. Tough, physical forward who can play C or W, but will likely be a W. Sort of a poor man's Andrew Ladd. That's where it gets tricky. There's no guarantees Danault, Clendening or Johns will be better. But they potentially could. Teravainen appears to be a legit top 6 point producer.
- John Jaeckel

JJ...in the games i saw, McNeill looked like Bickell on a bad night. No appetite for body contact at all.

I don't know how legit the WPG dealing Buff rumors are. Don't know that they're not. I can't see the Hawks dealing for Dustin though.
- John Jaeckel

Especially with us the two teams being in the same division next year.

Something like that but a higher upside prospect than Smith, like a Johns or Clendening.

They might want Leddy over Stalberg—and who knows the price might be too high for the Hawks.

But the Hawks could have leverage. Iginla has a full NTC. Feaster probably has to move him where he would prefer to go. The list of teams narrows considerably. Does it come down to the one team Iggy feels gives him the best shot to win a Cup? Think about it.
- John Jaeckel

Even with NTC, doesn't a player have to give the team a list of 5 teams? Or is the NMC?

We dealt with this with Brian Cambell, I don't recall if there is a difference.

JJ...in the games i saw, McNeill looked like Bickell on a bad night. No appetite for body contact at all.
- philco28

For real ? Puke.

JJ,

Out of all the chatter you hear where does Iginlia rank among potential Hawk targets ?


Didnt he play on a line with Toews in the 2010 Olympics ?

Keith is not Lidstrom, but he is a very, very good top pairing NHL defenseman. He has his bonehead moments, but when he's on. he's awfully good and he does chew up big minutes. Ask top NHL forwards and they will tell you the guy is legit.
- John Jaeckel

I find all the "trade Keith" talk laughable. There may be some better defensemen out there (i.e. Weber) but its not like we're going to acquire any of them. There are no defensemen in the pipeline that could now or in the future replace Keith. Leddy is good, but he's only been good so far on the 3rd pairing. Leddy will likely be a 2nd or 1st pairing defenseman, but not at Keith's level.

Keith may make is mistakes, but which NHL defenseman doesn't? Doughty, Weber and Chara all make mistakes too.

A. you realize how out of shape he is correct?

B. he did not like playing forward whilst he was here, he was traded so that he could play D elsewhere, how does that work?
- fattybeef

I even thought he played some forward for Atlanta/Edmonton when he first got there. I think him getting to annoy the wussy twins will greatly increase his want to play forward.

Not sure who on MTL as far as C's Stalberg would bring back. Not Plekanec. Maybe not Desharnais.
- John Jaeckel

I do not doubt that Stalberg has been or will be offered up. Earlier made a post regarding the challenge of the hawks trading Stalberg for good value. Since he is a UFA, he is basically a rental player.

Can that issue be reconciled to allow a deal to be made, or if you are Stalberg do you refuse any extension/sign and trade and ride things out until you are a UFA this summer?

I just see his name thrown out a lot, and for good reason, I just have not seen anyone address the issue of him as a UFA a rental from the acquiring teams perspective.

Be careful what you wish for. Keith has some annoying tendencies in his game and he isn't offensively gifted but he can play huge minutes at a very high pace. Remove him from the Hawks lineup for an extended period of time and you won't like the result.

If Stan put Keith on the trade market he could have a deal done in no time flat. And the return would be alot more than a FO specialist. Hell, David Steckel is a FO specialist.
- RickJ

I never said Keith for only a FO specialist. Read my post. Please don't think I am a Keith hater - I like him, but in my view if he can get peices that this team needs, I would trade him if I were a GM. I feel this team can overcome a loss of Keith with additions like I said. And to make things more clear, a depth D-man will need to be part of the peices comming back.

For real ? Puke.

JJ,

Out of all the chatter you hear where does Iginlia rank among potential Hawk targets ?


Didnt he play on a line with Toews in the 2010 Olympics ?
- mrpaulish

I'm sure he's capable of playing physical...but he mailed it in when i saw him.

With Iginla and his 7M...who moves to fit him under the cap for 20 games and the playoffs.

Don't see it happening, or even helping.
- ArlingtonRob

Bob you pay a pro rated salary for games left. So Iginla was really a 3.5 mill guy for half season, actually a touch more, now you cut that in half...Say 2 mill for 20 games max....

Hearing today, Melrose has a piece up linking the Hawks to Iginla (I can't find the piece). BUT, this would be consistent with tips I have had going back to last year. Hawks would very much like to add him as a playoff push piece at minimum
- John Jaeckel

One of the Flames play by play men was on the NHL network yesterday....

Basically he said honestly....the days of trading Iginla to reshape the Organization have past....His trade value isn't that great, meaning he is only a rental without knowing for sure if he will play next season.

But, without a doubt the Flames recognize him as being the all time poster boy for the franchise and will not in any way try to force him out.

The decision to move Iginal is all on him....Maybe he wants to chase a Stanley Cup, and maybe not.

Even with NTC, doesn't a player have to give the team a list of 5 teams? Or is the NMC?

We dealt with this with Brian Cambell, I don't recall if there is a difference.
- TrueGrit

In a NTC you can list teams you will not go to.
That is what Ryan Miller has in place....He can list 8 teams he won't play for.

A NMC is basically just that.

My question on Jerome is what is the salary required to sign him next year and the year after

Pittsburgh,Bruins and Hawks are likely on his list

If it is still 7 million it's all a wasted trade

Tanquay is half the price and 2 years younger

I think Stan will go for a middle of the road upgrade and I would never trade the future for any Cup run (Leddy is 21 so he stays)

Nate Thompson for example

Do we really want to look like the Aging Canucks in three years?

Feaster has stuck with "make the playoffs or bust" mentality all year and I would guess he sticks with that strategy and Jerome gets moved in the summer when the Flames miss and Feaster is fired

My question on Jerome is what is the salary required to sign him next year and the year after

Pittsburgh,Bruins and Hawks are likely on his list

If it is still 7 million it's all a wasted trade

Tanquay is half the price and 2 years younger

I think Stan will go for a middle of the road upgrade and I would never trade the future for any Cup run (Leddy is 21 so he stays)

Nate Thompson for example

Do we really want to look like the Aging Canucks in three years?

Feaster has stuck with "make the playoffs or bust" mentality all year and I would guess he sticks with that strategy and Jerome gets moved in the summer when the Flames miss and Feaster is fired
- PEIHawkFan

If Iginla helps the Hawks win a cup, it's not wasted at all. Even if he signs somewhere else the next season.

My question on Jerome is what is the salary required to sign him next year and the year after

Pittsburgh,Bruins and Hawks are likely on his list

If it is still 7 million it's all a wasted trade

Tanquay is half the price and 2 years younger

I think Stan will go for a middle of the road upgrade and I would never trade the future for any Cup run (Leddy is 21 so he stays)

Nate Thompson for example

Do we really want to look like the Aging Canucks in three years?

Feaster has stuck with "make the playoffs or bust" mentality all year and I would guess he sticks with that strategy and Jerome gets moved in the summer when the Flames miss and Feaster is fired
- PEIHawkFan

Any Tanguay would be half as effective.

I'm all for acquiring Iginla, for the right price. I don't think he's worth risking the future (in any meaningful way) on. I know we took a shot in 2010 and put all our eggs in one basket, but that a risky move. I would expect Stan to address the team's specific needs through lower-end type players (Thompon, Hendricks).

With Iginla and his 7M...who moves to fit him under the cap for 20 games and the playoffs.

Don't see it happening, or even helping.
- ArlingtonRob

gotta luv the "fantasy" trade talk on this board...but gotta pass the time between games on something