Jump to content
North Side Baseball

nilodnayr

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    6,714

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Profiles

Joomla Posts 1

Chicago Cubs Videos

Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking

News

2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks

Guides & Resources

2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks

The Chicago Cubs Players Project

2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker

Blogs

Events

Forums

Store

Gallery

Everything posted by nilodnayr

  1. nilodnayr
    It didn't work out in the end. We haven't even seen the end. The mistake cost money, and cap space. It's the kind of thing you would expect from a guy who might have good scouting sense but doesn't appear to any managerial skills. They resigned the RFA, but they overpaid for the two big ones. The Blackhawks have multiple overpaid players, like Huet, Campbell, Byfuglien and now the RFAs and they have none of their three biggest stars signed past this season. Tallon may have done a good job bringing together this team, but it was only possible because prior teams were so bad, and draft picks were so high. And Tallon was a part of putting those teams together too. He's been in important personel positions in this organization for over a decade, and the vast majority of the time this team has sucked during that decade. What do you think they would have signed Versteeg and Barker for if they wouldn't have bungled the RFA situation?
  2. nilodnayr
    While they were waiting for an excuse, I wonder why it took them this long after the issue was resolved to fire him. I just figured they let him ride out this year and not resign him when his contract was up. That would have been the easiest thing to do from a PR perspective, unless of course the Hawks win the cup next year. I have to assume they are now going to make a move that Tallon didn't want to make. And Stan Bowman's been with the Hawks for 8 years. Stan is the reason Scotty's with the Hawks, not visa-versa.
  3. nilodnayr
    Wow, with all that went on, I missed the Gill signing. Heres the thing though, its not that Gill is such a great player, he isn't (I see him as a bit of a better version of Barker). Its that he would fit in a lot better on the team than an undersized offensive minded d-man when you have a goalie that is going to be giving up a sweet rebound right in the crease on nearly every shot. I don't give a crap to have all defensemen who can skate and pass well if the puck is going to wind up in the back of our net after every rebound.
  4. nilodnayr
    Anybody taking him wouldn't make sense. He's got a huge contract. can we toss someone some money to take him (a lot of money)? i dont know how nhl deals work too well. but I think Versteeg + Campbell + money would definitely be intriguing to some teams Well no ones yet to be able to snag heatley, so theres still a chance we can revisit the campbell +?? for heatley deal. I'd love to not have to give up versteeg, but it might be worth it to get out from under the campbell deal. Perhaps Tanguay will sign a reasonable one year deal to prove hes healthy? We have a good chunk of $ to work with this offseason, but it'll be gone next year. Id love to sign a big man who can clear the front of the net (we'll desperately need that with Huet). Hal Gill would be perfect. Failing that, Barker needs to step up big time. It'd be awesome to do all of the above (admittedly, asking for Tanguay is getting wing greedy), and I dont think its too implausible. Heatley has a larger contract than campbell. He also has a no trade clause that he has used twice in the last two days to nix trades. larger by like 0.3M, big whoop
  5. nilodnayr
    I think you underestimate the value the hawks place on their centers' defensive ability, case in point, dealing for pahlsson last year, signing bolland, signing madden. The Hawks are content going plus offensive on the wings, minus offense on center.
  6. nilodnayr
    Anybody taking him wouldn't make sense. He's got a huge contract. can we toss someone some money to take him (a lot of money)? i dont know how nhl deals work too well. but I think Versteeg + Campbell + money would definitely be intriguing to some teams Well no ones yet to be able to snag heatley, so theres still a chance we can revisit the campbell +?? for heatley deal. I'd love to not have to give up versteeg, but it might be worth it to get out from under the campbell deal. Perhaps Tanguay will sign a reasonable one year deal to prove hes healthy? We have a good chunk of $ to work with this offseason, but it'll be gone next year. Id love to sign a big man who can clear the front of the net (we'll desperately need that with Huet). Hal Gill would be perfect. Failing that, Barker needs to step up big time. It'd be awesome to do all of the above (admittedly, asking for Tanguay is getting wing greedy), and I dont think its too implausible.
  7. nilodnayr
    Truly 50/50 I would say I'd agree. I haven't put the weather on but I'm going to. It started out looking like a passing thing, but boy has it settled here on the south side. Yesterday was such a nice day for a ball game, too. Looking at weather.com's hourly forcast, we'll have a couple hour window. Looking at the radar, we should be good. We might get wet here and there, but I think they'll get this one in, or at least a few hours of it in.
  8. nilodnayr
    Cristobal [expletive] Huet
  9. nilodnayr
    Well, at least Huet had some good side to side movement there.
  10. nilodnayr
    He looked pretty darn good. Must be layin' off the rock.
  11. nilodnayr
    That'll be my last unsolicited complaint, but it was asked for a reaosn why we wouldn't win today, so I gave one.
  12. nilodnayr
    And here it goes...doesn't sound loud enough, they should have had more mics out.
  13. nilodnayr
    Yup, they showed him dressing. I look forward to him getting walked around a couple times today.
  14. nilodnayr
    Cristobal [expletive] Huet
  15. nilodnayr
    Ehh, I'm sure he'll be diplomatic about it and claim its the AL.
  16. nilodnayr
    We know the Cubs and Dodgers are two. The Angels, Brewers, Astros, and Cards may be the others? Probably doesn't matter about Atlanta since whether or not he nixed the deal with them over the offseason, they are just about the last team that needs pitching. Well at the very least, now Towers phone is going to be ringing off the hook with calls from those teams with offers for Peavy. He may have just created himself a market.
  17. nilodnayr
    If we don't allow a shot the rest of the game, I think we might win.
  18. nilodnayr
    I'm not 100% familiar with the nuances of the delay call, but that can't be right, and if it is, it needs to be changed.
  19. nilodnayr
    Ehh, the road really hasn't been a problem for us this year. And frankly they were playing to win 1-0 for pretty much the entire game except for over time. That's definitely the downside of playing that style of hockey. Did they really think they would shut down Chicago's offense for 60 minutes? OK they almost did but still. Its a strategy that when done correctly gets you very deep in the playoffs.
  20. nilodnayr
    Ehh, the road really hasn't been a problem for us this year. And frankly they were playing to win 1-0 for pretty much the entire game except for over time.
  21. nilodnayr
    Yeah, I'm going to be at a bachelor party Saturday night... which just happens to be heading to ESPN zone right about 9:30!!!!!
  22. nilodnayr
    Jesus Christ we needed that. What, did each team have about 5 quality scoring chances in those 3 minutes of OT? You put the puck to the net, you get rewarded.
  23. nilodnayr
    GOAL!!!
  24. nilodnayr
    Neutral zone seems to be opening up A LOT. That plays well for the Hawks.
  25. nilodnayr
    Absolutely absurd that wasn't called. And I'm not just channeling Cyno here. Absolutely and totally [expletive]. Bull. [expletive]. Inexcusable. There was an awful high stick behind the play that was missed. On the break itself, it looked bad at full speed but on replay, I can see a no-call. Yeah it was a brutal high stick, but when i rewatched it the canuck was flailing to the ground. Now that I have seen the highlight it was also probably a dive. There is no excuse on high stick, you are responsible for your stick. Ohh no, I wasn't trying to insinuate that it shouldn't have been a penalty, just saying that it wasn't intentional. The refs probably didn't see it as they were tyring to get into the best position to be able to call a penalty shot if needed.
×
×
  • Create New...