|
|
Post by Roggy on Jun 21, 2010 9:50:21 GMT -5
I have no basis for this, only reports that Byfuglien is available to help sort out Chicago's cap woes.
How about Sergei (Kane's old Junior linemate) and next year's 1st for Byfuglien.
It takes away any cap space we have to sign a UFA, and likely writes Plekanec off resigning, but it gets them a huge body that knows how to park himself in front of the net.
If they can finally get someone to pony up a bag of pucks for Andrei, then we almost come out even on salary and could squeeze Byfuglien in this year. The year after would be tricky though.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 21, 2010 10:18:40 GMT -5
I don't get why SK is constantly thrown out as trade bait ..
He is RFA. I guess we trade the rights/i] to Sergei.
He is going to be signed for peanuts if he does indeed sign. He has, it appears, some kind of attitude problem. The Hawks are going to take him for a big piece of their Cup win? OK, along with a nothing first.
All that to say I'd take Byfuglien, boss, but it'll take more than you are suggesting.
And wouldn't it be great to have a big body in front of the net? Of course, with JM coaching they'll we working on his defensive responsibilities and he won't have a shot at repeating his half-decent play.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marvin on Jun 21, 2010 10:25:11 GMT -5
I have a good friend in Chicago who is an avid Hawks fan. He says that many fans are indifferent to Byfuglien because he doesn't show up during the season, and doesn't warrant the $3M contract that he has.
|
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jun 21, 2010 10:28:44 GMT -5
Our first and SK for Byfuglien and a conditional pick. If SK signs, we get a 5th or 6th out of it. If he doesn't sign with the Hawks, nothing. We get rid of the head case and get a player that's likely better than whatever we'll be looking at when our number is called.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roggy on Jun 21, 2010 10:32:06 GMT -5
You're right, I guess they'd be trading the "rights" to Sergei. And the first isn't nothing, I'm talking the 2011 1st, not 2010's 27th overall.
As for why I'm throwing Sergei out there as trade bait...really? Press Box in the playoffs, disappearing not once, but twice during the season...the guy is a complete prima donna. That's why he'd be a cheap fit for Chicago, with a lot of potential upside playing for a winning team. I seriously doubt that upside will ever be seen while playing for Montreal. Worst case, He signs in the KHL, even his "home" team of Dynamo Minsk.
Chicago has major cap issues and can't take back much salary when trying to trade away Byfuglien. I don't think they'll get much more than a 1st and possibly some junior aged prospects.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 21, 2010 12:38:16 GMT -5
I have a good friend in Chicago who is an avid Hawks fan. He says that many fans are indifferent to Byfuglien because he doesn't show up during the season, and doesn't warrant the $3M contract that he has. they'll love SK then -- he doesn't earn $3M to not show up during the season. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 21, 2010 12:45:46 GMT -5
And the first isn't nothing, I'm talking the 2011 1st, not 2010's 27th overall. well, it won't be 27th but it won't be first/lottery either. add that to the fact that 2011 isn't supposed to be strong [not that I have a clue]. exactly. I wasn't suggesting he not be thrown out . . . there [better add that] . . . but that he isn't much, bait-wise. I'd expect that GMs would see the proverbial bag of pucks as too much for him. He's often included in the "let's trade him for something" -- but who would we get for him, really? he'd be cheap . . . but would he show up? they want a player not a pouter. potential . . . I guess we traded Halak for potential . . . but why not bring someone in their organization in on the cheap rather than take the risk? I seriously doubt that upside will ever be seen while playing for Montreal. Worst case, He signs in the KHL, even his "home" team of Dynamo Minsk. so picks and prospects to the A would be it . . . they really are in a bind . . . but they are in a bind as Stanley Cup winners, as opposed to us.  and occasionally we agree  |
|
|
|
Post by roke on Jun 21, 2010 13:15:49 GMT -5
I'm not a fan of Byfuglien. At even-strength he was worse than Tom Pyatt last year, and it's not like our PP had trouble scoring once Markov came back from injury.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 21, 2010 13:23:46 GMT -5
Byfuglien was -7
Pyatt was -5
and Byfuglien got 11 of his 24 points on the PP.
He was in the dog house for a bit but woke up.
and I'd rather have him slip back to defense in a pinch than that guy we had.
he's a presence . . . something we don't have. if we get him cheap I'm up for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by roke on Jun 21, 2010 13:35:43 GMT -5
Byfuglien was -7 Pyatt was -5 and Byfuglien got 11 of his 24 points on the PP. He was in the dog house for a bit but woke up. and I'd rather have him slip back to defense in a pinch than that guy we had. he's a presence . . . something we don't have. if we get him cheap I'm up for it. Byfuglien's 5on5 +/- 60 minutes was -0.28. When he was off the ice Chicago was +-.72. Pyatt was -0.77 when he was on the ice, but the Habs were even when he was off the ice. He hurt the Habs less than Byfuglien hurt Chicago. Granted, the Habs are better than Chicago which means on average they have better players on the ice, but I would presume that Byfuglien spent his even-strength time with better players than Pyatt when he was playing. Let me try another angle. Chicago scored 262 goals last season (taking away the NHL crediting them with a goal when they win the shootout). Montreal scored 210. Without adjusting for ice-time, Byfuglien would be expected to have scored 13 goals last season with the Habs. If the Habs are looking at acquiring a forward from Chicago, Versteeg and Sharp are the guys they should be looking into, and I'm not really sure about Versteeg. |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Jun 21, 2010 13:38:51 GMT -5
Byfuglien was -7 Pyatt was -5 and Byfuglien got 11 of his 24 points on the PP. He was in the dog house for a bit but woke up. and I'd rather have him slip back to defense in a pinch than that guy we had. he's a presence . . . something we don't have. if we get him cheap I'm up for it. including a 1st in a deal for this guy is overpaying. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 21, 2010 14:20:12 GMT -5
First, an edit: and Byfuglien got 11 of his 24 points on the PP. He got 34 points Second, I’m with you all the way here: If the Habs are looking at acquiring a forward from Chicago, Versteeg and Sharp are the guys they should be looking into, and I'm not really sure about Versteeg. Third, you, my friend, have an overinflated value of Sergei: including a 1st in a deal for this guy is overpaying. Have you been taking lessons from Mad Mike? The thing about Byfuglien [if I may repeat myself]: he's a presence. He goes to the net. He stands in front of the net. He pays the price in front of the net. Something we don't have. Something we desperately need. And I'd rather have him slip back to defence in a pinch than that guy we had. |
|
|
|
Post by roke on Jun 21, 2010 14:28:30 GMT -5
I'm putting words in jkr's mouth here, but I think he meant including a first in any trade for Byfuglien would be overpaying, not including a first along with Sergei. That's how I interpreted it.
|
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Jun 21, 2010 15:11:06 GMT -5
I'm putting words in jkr's mouth here, but I think he meant including a first in any trade for Byfuglien would be overpaying, not including a first along with Sergei. That's how I interpreted it. That's pretty much what I meant. I like this guy but a package that includes a 1st is too much, IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 21, 2010 17:10:38 GMT -5
Didn't Byfuglien play a big portion of his time on defense?
What's his +/- as a forward vs as a defenseman?
I'd take him.
|
|
|
|
Post by roke on Jun 21, 2010 18:10:47 GMT -5
Didn't Byfuglien play a big portion of his time on defense? Good point Skilly. Looking at Chicago's roster sheet for their games this season, Byfuglien probably played D from March 18th-April 11th, playing 13 games and putting up 1G 5A +3. I say probably, because those are the games where Chicago only had 5 defensemen listed in their starting lineup. Taking way those games from his season, Byfuglien has this line: 69GP 16G 12A 28PTs -10 pro-rated over 82 games, for the sake of it: 19G 14A 33PTs -12 So, last season as a forward he was slightly better offensively than Andrei Kostitsyn (same points, 3 more goals but goals are more valuable than assists) but was worse by 13 in the +/- column, on a team who had a goal differential 68 goals higher than the Habs. Edit: The Kostitsyn comparison is without pro-rating Kostitsyn's stats over 82 games. He played 59. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 21, 2010 18:30:05 GMT -5
I think Byfuglien played alot on defense at the start of the season too ... He was only moved up to forward in the San Jose series because of the success he had in last year's playoffs. I see some games in his game logs that are 18-20 + minutes ... that's probably as a defenseman, guessing there, but Kane only average 19 minutes a game. You also have to factor in that his points will be down because of his time on defense. I still don't like the comparison ... one could say that Byfuglien prorates to 6 goals, 32 assists, and +19 as a defenseman. I'd take that. |
|
|
|
Post by roke on Jun 21, 2010 18:51:33 GMT -5
I think Byfuglien played alot on defense at the start of the season too ... He was only moved up to forward in the San Jose series because of the success he had in last year's playoffs. I see some games in his game logs that are 18-20 + minutes ... that's probably as a defenseman, guessing there, but Kane only average 19 minutes a game. You also have to factor in that his points will be down because of his time on defense. I still don't like the comparison ... one could say that Byfuglien prorates to 6 goals, 32 assists, and +19 as a defenseman. I'd take that. Looking at the Blackhawk's Game Day Threads on HF, Byfuglien is slated to be playing in the top 6 along with either Kane or Toews, up until January 28th against Anaheim at which point he was dropped to the third line for a couple games. If he played D early in the season, it was probably only for a few shifts. Going through the roster sheets earlier, I also noticed that Chicago dressed 7 defensemen fairly often during the season (not including Byfuglien). That isn't related at all to this in any way, but it's not like they have a MAB they had to babysit on defense this season. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jun 21, 2010 18:54:50 GMT -5
Byfuglien played at forward in the second round vs. Vancouver as well. He got a hat-trick in one game...and was a force around Luongo.
Don't know if he played F vs. Nashville or not....but he's listed as a RW in the ESPN box scores.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 21, 2010 20:35:13 GMT -5
Byfuglien played at forward in the second round vs. Vancouver as well. He got a hat-trick in one game...and was a force around Luongo. Don't know if he played F vs. Nashville or not....but he's listed as a RW in the ESPN box scores. Thats the series I meant CH ... Vancouver. He played defense against Nashville definitely. I drafted him in our pool, and my fellow poolies informed me "you know he is a defenseman right?" (I rarely draft d-men). I watched to see if they were right, and he played defense the little I watched the series. Then TSN had a "Byfuglien is being moved up" article just before the Canuck series and an interview with Luongo about the difference between last year and this year dealing with Byfuglien.... |
|
