Mrazek costs you a 1st to move

Mrazek was a train wreck with the leafs I doubt they want to try that again

Hawks would not have any interest in bringing in any LDs, let alone offer sheeting 1. Mrazek will not be moved. He had an excellent year playing before a poor team & got rewarded with an extension. He wants to be in Chicago & the front office wants him here for the next 2 seasons. With Commesso & Gajan in the pipeline no need to try & grab another goalie.

Everyone of those moves makes the Hawks worse.

Downgrade in net
Downgrade in prospect
Downgrade in draft picks
Brutal use of an offer sheet for a player at a position of depth.

No thanks

That's funny.

Why would Gus cost that much? Weren't MIN fans and media talking about dumping him just a few months ago? Either way, none of this is happening, aside from maybe the Guentzel signing, apparently.

Yeah, hilarious now that he's worth more than before despite being older and still awful

You mean now that CHI's strength and conditioning team has taken the time to figure out what is going on with him and actually address it and now he is feeling better than he has in 6 years and was one of the best goalies in the league this past season, despite being behind a historically bad and inexperienced roster? That Mrazek? CHI wouldn't have signed him to a 2 year raise and extension if he was "awful".

Yes, they would have. They signed many bad contracts recently and mrazek is the worst.
He sucks, his contract sucks and he's all yours unless you wanna pay to dump him

CHI doesn't have any bad contracts. Thank you, come again.

Lol, great joke

Mrazek, Foligno, and Dickinson are INTENTIONALLY overpaid by a marginal amount. For a contract to be "bad", it first needs to be a problem. CHI doesn't have any contract related problems currently, and none of them will be a problem in the future. I don't know why I'm arguing, though, because CHI isn't moving him. He will more than likely play out his brand new two year deal with CHI, unless CHI gets an offer they can't refuse.

Dude, if you have to significanty over pay players to play for your team they are still bad contracts. And, like in this AGM, if you want to move one of those bad contracts you have to pay teams to take them from you. I dont know why you are arguing either, but you keep saying silly things like that the hawks dont have bad contracts

They literally don't have bad contracts, and that isn't why they overpaid them.

if someone is over paid it is a bad contract. It is really that simple. So yeah, Chicago has lots of bad contracts.

It really isn't that simple.

it is, it really is. Unless you think you can just make up a reason and say that a contract is good for that reason, then there are no bad contracts.

Nope. Just keep thinking about it. You'll get there eventually.