I'm wondering if Lundberg is a replacement for Rasmussen. There should be room for both but the seem like similar depth players (although Lundberg sounds more physical).
- DarthKane

I thought the same thing when I saw his 1 way deal and low cap hit. sounds like it to me.....if Rasmussen was a Q guy he would have been playing all playoff long for the experience factor. Seems they feel they can do better and helps their PK AND takes extra ice time possibly away from 19/81 to keep them fresh(er).

If true, that's REAL interesting.

Tells me they see him as a surefire upgrade over Darling.

But then that raises a question, how good is he relative to Crawford (who makes $6 million a year)?
- John Jaeckel

In Football your only as good as your backup Quarterback and in Hockey only as good as your back up Goalie
Ask Montreal and Pittsburgh

A deal being two way and waiver exemption are two separate things. Waiver eligibility is based on the years/number of games played. Here's an explanation from capfriendly.com:

https://www.capfriendly.com/waivers-faq
- DarthKane

Darling is 27 and has played 43 NHL games.

I'm wondering if Lundberg is a replacement for Rasmussen. There should be room for both but the seem like similar depth players (although Lundberg sounds more physical).
- DarthKane

It sounds like he is also willing to fight. I was thinking more a cross between Des and Mash. a little more size then Des and a little more speed then Mash.

There is definite some type of plan that might mean he starts the year in the AHL. Because of the 2 -way deal. Why would Lars only cost $575 and Lundberg $925 and $90K in the AHL? I think the plan for Lundberg is to play in the AHL for a year and maybe end up bottom pairing in 17-18? otherwise why would you not sign him for $600K on a 1 way and save the $325 Vs the cap? Unless Lunberg was considered a better prospect then Lars which seems unlikely.

I don't understand all the talk about going the Murray route with goaltending. Sure, ideally it would be great to spend less than $1,000,000 on your starter but it doesn't always work out that wee (see Ducks, Anaheim).

Also, lets look at the Cup winning goalies over the past few years:

2011 - Rask
2012 - Quick
2013 - Crawford
2014 - Quick
2015 - Crawford

All big name goalies, all with a relatively higher price tag. If you can make it work then great, but there is significant risk. I'm more inclined to believe that Johansson is an insurance policy against Darling leaving versus a plan to trade Crawford (but I will acknowledge that anything is possible).

Darling is 27 and has played 43 NHL games.
- jt19

I think there's little chance Darling would be sent to Rockford, I think he's solidly the #2 right now. If for some reason he's not in the teams plans then he'll be traded, not demoted.

I don't understand all the talk about going the Murray route with goaltending. Sure, ideally it would be great to spend less than $1,000,000 on your starter but it doesn't always work out that wee (see Ducks, Anaheim).

Also, lets look at the Cup winning goalies over the past few years:

2011 - Rask
2012 - Quick
2013 - Crawford
2014 - Quick
2015 - Crawford

All big name goalies, all with a relatively higher price tag. If you can make it work then great, but there is significant risk. I'm more inclined to believe that Johansson is an insurance policy against Darling leaving versus a plan to trade Crawford (but I will acknowledge that anything is possible).
- DarthKane

Only thing i will say is in 2013 Crawford wasn't that known stud goalie yet, he was up and coming and shared a lot of time with Emery who also looked amazing mainly because the team defense was tops in the league, deep and mobile. If moving Crawford gets next years D a step closer to looking like that again, and allows us to keep Shaw, it is something to consider.

Only thing i will say is in 2013 Crawford wasn't that known stud goalie yet, he was up and coming and shared a lot of time with Emery who also looked amazing mainly because the team defense was tops in the league, deep and mobile. If moving Crawford gets next years D a step closer to looking like that again, and allows us to keep Shaw, it is something to consider.
- SimpleJack

Fair enough, but Crawford wasn't $620,000 unknown goalie either. Going the cheap goalie route can be done, there's just more risk involved.

I don't understand all the talk about going the Murray route with goaltending. Sure, ideally it would be great to spend less than $1,000,000 on your starter but it doesn't always work out that wee (see Ducks, Anaheim).

Also, lets look at the Cup winning goalies over the past few years:

2011 - Rask
2012 - Quick
2013 - Crawford
2014 - Quick
2015 - Crawford

All big name goalies, all with a relatively higher price tag. If you can make it work then great, but there is significant risk. I'm more inclined to believe that Johansson is an insurance policy against Darling leaving versus a plan to trade Crawford (but I will acknowledge that anything is possible).
- DarthKane

Now they are....but Rask was the Thomas replacement, Quick was probably the best known out of the 3 BEFORE they won the cup, and Crawford in 2013 was down to his last bullet with the Hawks after 2 1st round exits the year before, and giving up 2 crap soft goals in OT vs Arizona.

So while NOW they are well known, they weren't that relied upon at least 2 of 3 weren't.

I dont' discount your argument but also this is a copy cat league and if Jones wins a cup being a backup from LA for years....and teams can find that quality to promote to starters, you can put cap dollars elsewhere........

Only thing i will say is in 2013 Crawford wasn't that known stud goalie yet, he was up and coming and shared a lot of time with Emery who also looked amazing mainly because the team defense was tops in the league, deep and mobile. If moving Crawford gets next years D a step closer to looking like that again, and allows us to keep Shaw, it is something to consider.
- SimpleJack

I just posted similar....see we can get along........

Now they are....but Rask was the Thomas replacement, Quick was probably the best known out of the 3 BEFORE they won the cup, and Crawford in 2013 was down to his last bullet with the Hawks after 2 1st round exits the year before, and giving up 2 crap soft goals in OT vs Arizona.

So while NOW they are well known, they weren't that relied upon at least 2 of 3 weren't.

I dont' discount your argument but also this is a copy cat league and if Jones wins a cup being a backup from LA for years....and teams can find that quality to promote to starters, you can put cap dollars elsewhere........
- SteveRain

Sad but true. If that's the case then good, and if Stan can get the return for Darling that Boston got for Jones (1st round and prospect) then I say trade him today.

I have seen a shot (granted a couple of years ago) of Kruger without a shirt and he was pretty scrawny. That said, he looks to have a classic hockey player's build, very strong through the hips and thighs. Kruger gets a helluva lot out of his 180-185, and that is without question. He wins a lot of pucks against much bigger guys. So I would say while they appear similar, in terms of the down low work and battles along the wall, Kruger gets a lot more out of his size.
- John Jaeckel

Yes....But Kruger is 4 years older which is huge difference.
Point I was making is Kruger was more like TT when I first saw him.
TT could get the strength to work the puck along the wall without growing any larger, but it requires work.

I don't understand all the talk about going the Murray route with goaltending. Sure, ideally it would be great to spend less than $1,000,000 on your starter but it doesn't always work out that wee (see Ducks, Anaheim).

Also, lets look at the Cup winning goalies over the past few years:

2011 - Rask
2012 - Quick
2013 - Crawford
2014 - Quick
2015 - Crawford

All big name goalies, all with a relatively higher price tag. If you can make it work then great, but there is significant risk. I'm more inclined to believe that Johansson is an insurance policy against Darling leaving versus a plan to trade Crawford (but I will acknowledge that anything is possible).
- DarthKane

What isn't stressed enough and understood is Quick and Crawford were younger goalies that grew up with their club...They were rewarded for winning the Cup.
Quick got a 10 yr extension after he won the Conn Smythe.

LA and Chicago didn't go out an spend $6 mill per on a goalie with the hope of building around them to win a Cup.

Quick's cap hit was $1.8 mill before the extension and Crawford was $2.6 mill.

So the argument about big money goalies and winning the Cup is flawed as neither were big money goalies before they won a Cup.

Yeah too early to speculate any or all of the four new Blackhawk hopefuls entrenches himself in the line-up or replaces a fat contract.

We do know the two defenders have different skill sets and check the boxes as replacements IF they fit.

You want to know what solves the hawk problem temporarily/

The GM around the league that NOW suddenly have the same Cap issues that have haunted the bowman hawks for a long while...they will go to their owners and the swauking will start discussions of increasing the cap.

You have to look at the continual signings as more insurance that they can provide Las Vegas with more than one trade chip to select a hawk player that the hawks want them to select...heck two long term prospects helps the "Gamblers" more than a hawk roster guy, right?

If true, that's REAL interesting.

Tells me they see him as a surefire upgrade over Darling.

But then that raises a question, how good is he relative to Crawford (who makes $6 million a year)?
- John Jaeckel

I have a feeling this is strictly a move to ensure the Hawks have a backup to Crawford in case Darling is picked up in the entry level draft next year as a backup goalie with potential to be a number 1 goalie.

I just posted similar....see we can get along........
- SteveRain

Well would ya look at that......

The Johansson contract is interesting, it is one-way and he will be UFA next year, right? I am not really sure what is the endgame there.

(BTW I just noticed, Drew MacIntyre, who spent some time in Rockford this year, signed a contract with Hamburg Freezers in Germany, but the club folded…)
- stonefire

To me this means they will look to move Crawford.

No way to know how good he is compared to Crawford, or Darling for that matter, until he gets some ice time in the NHL.

The move CC crowd can relax. To me this is about knowing as a pending UFA next year Darling wants to get paid and the organization has no room to do so.
- Return of the Roar

Can someone who has played/coached the game please explain why the KHL v. NHL game would be different for a goalie. My (never played) mind says "a shot on goal is a shot on goal" and as such, his save and win percentages look pretty impressive. Is it the aggressiveness around the net that is different?

Yeah too early to speculate any or all of the four new Blackhawk hopefuls entrenches himself in the line-up or replaces a fat contract.

We do know the two defenders have different skill sets and check the boxes as replacements IF they fit.

You want to know what solves the hawk problem temporarily/

The GM around the league that NOW suddenly have the same Cap issues that have haunted the bowman hawks for a long while...they will go to their owners and the swauking will start discussions of increasing the cap.

You have to look at the continual signings as more insurance that they can provide Las Vegas with more than one trade chip to select a hawk player that the hawks want them to select...heck two long term prospects helps the "Gamblers" more than a hawk roster guy, right?
- wiz1901

Wiz,

Interestingly, when you take the exempt NMC players (of which they cant add any more players to), the exempt pending RFAs, and the exempt ELCs that are currently on the roster at least through the end of next season, only Kruger, AA, and if re-signed, Shaw, are currently exposed to the draft. It appears that the FO is looking to round out the holes in the roster this year with players that would have ELCs making them exempt from the draft as well.

I'm wondering if Lundberg is a replacement for Rasmussen. There should be room for both but the seem like similar depth players (although Lundberg sounds more physical).
- DarthKane

Sounds like he and Kruger could be a future PK1 tandem.

I mentioned on Twitter that what I had read yesterday reminded me of former Blackhawks forward Joakim Nordstrom, to which Tab Bramford made a good point:

"@tycam better player imo. haven't seen Nordstrom getting special teams duty for Sweden in international events"

Can someone who has played/coached the game please explain why the KHL v. NHL game would be different for a goalie. My (never played) mind says "a shot on goal is a shot on goal" and as such, his save and win percentages look pretty impressive. Is it the aggressiveness around the net that is different?
- pdx2ord

NHL ice surfaces are smaller, having the impact of a goalie seeing a faster game in closer quarters with more traffic near the crease.

Not to mention the talent level being higher in the NHL.

Sounds like he and Kruger could be a future PK1 tandem.

I mentioned on Twitter that what I had read yesterday reminded me of former Blackhawks forward Joakim Nordstrom, to which Tab Bramford made a good point:

"@tycam better player imo. haven't seen Nordstrom getting special teams duty for Sweden in international events"
- TyCamScore

Lundberg is also 2 years older than Nordstrom...

I mean, you're talking about comparing Nordstrom who just finished his first full NHL season at 23 years old, to Martin Lundberg who MIGHT be entering his first NHL season at 26 next year.

I think there's little chance Darling would be sent to Rockford, I think he's solidly the #2 right now. If for some reason he's not in the teams plans then he'll be traded, not demoted.
- DarthKane

According to Powers the Darling deal was 2-way last season and 1-way this year, so they would have to waive him to assign him to Rockford, and we all know he would be gone if that happened

NHL ice surfaces are smaller, having the impact of a goalie seeing a faster game in closer quarters with more traffic near the crease.

Not to mention the talent level being higher in the NHL.
- Return of the Roar

Thank you. Should be interesting to see how/if he adjusts.

Lundberg is also 2 years older than Nordstrom...

I mean, you're talking about comparing Nordstrom who just finished his first full NHL season at 23 years old, to Martin Lundberg who MIGHT be entering his first NHL season at 26 next year.
- PepinoPamplemousse

I was more referring to style of play when they both entered the NHL.

Just looking to find some sort of a comparable.

Nordstrom was pegged as more of a responsible, aggressive checking forward when he came up. Plus I had friends that played in Sweden at the time and said he also had no offensive upside. He's trying to prove them wrong with his 10 goals/24 pts. from last year though.