3 unreasonable offseason moves that would actually make complete sense for Blackhawks

1 of 3

The Chicago Blackhawks should be active in the offseason, but sometimes acting in counterintuitive ways makes a ton of sense when you break things down and take a deep dive into them. Today, we’ll be talking about three potential offseason moves that make little sense on the surface, but upon further review, wouldn’t be a half-bad idea.

This is not an endorsement of any of the three possible organizational transactions being made. Instead, I’m talking about those that some in the NHL universe may see as ‘head-scratchers’ if general manager Kyle Davidson made them, but in actuality, would help the Blackhawks either in the short or long term.

Making zero major trades or free agent signings

While it’s fun to talk about trades and free agent signings the Blackhawks could (and should) strongly consider, it also makes sense for the organization to refrain from making any big free agent signing or trade. By extension, it would mean hanging onto most if not all of their existing restricted free agents, giving them another year or two to play full-time at the NHL level to see how well they mesh in 2024-25 and 2025-26.

Refraining from signing free agents or making major trades will also reduce controversy at all positions, allowing a young team like the Blackhawks to gain a better measuring stick of where they stand as a team while they still have another season to burn. The real effort to be competitive can wait another year, so for 2025, signing those free agents who provide more contributions or pulling off that big trade would also make sense.

To be fair, I’m not saying that trading for someone like Trevor Zegras would make zero sense if that became an option. It would also make sense to bring in a free agent to help this team win now if that’s the option the Hawks want to take. This is just a case where, regardless of what the Blackhawks do, there are no real downsides.

Well, such downsides could exist, but that would only be the case if Kyle Davidson overpaid for someone who hasn’t yet established themselves, or for a player who may have enjoyed success elsewhere but doesn’t factor in as a good system fit. Overall, he can’t go wrong if he signs the right players, or refuses to, but there is another exception.

Signing a player or two looking for a ‘career renaissance’

Going down the current list of unrestricted free agents, there are many players in need of a ‘career renaissance’ whom Davidson could sign as ‘rentals.’ John Klingberg is one player who jumps out, as he is someone who can still play but would need a team to take a flier on him.

Few are better equipped to do this than one that is ‘rebuilding’ and could easily fit him in on a smaller deal. Klingberg played in just 14 games last year and accumulated five assists, but for most of the time he’s been in the league, Klingberg has been an outstanding two-way player.

He’s just one of many examples, but you get the point of what I’m saying. Overall, you may find this section and the above section contradictory, but the main difference is that there would be no incentive to keep a player signing on and looking for a ‘career renaissance.’ Instead, the Blackhawks can sign such a player and trade them at a later date, likely between January and March.

Other players in this mold include just about every unrestricted free agent from the San Jose Sharks, Tyson Barrie, Anthony Beauvillier (probably wouldn’t come back to Chicago), and Dominik Kubalik.

The early downside of making such a move could involve such players getting in the way of a prospect. But the overall upside is that the Blackhawks would get trade value, and there would be no incentive for them to keep such players. It would be a win-win-win situation for the free agent, the Hawks, and any team trading for such a player.

Trading away the second-overall pick for more draft capital

Yep, the trade Kyle Davidson made last week inspired this one, and it accounts for the entire ‘quantity’ over ‘quality’ cost, but with a potential ‘quantity’ with ‘quality’ outcome. In a situation like this, Kyle Davidson would trade away the second overall pick and accumulate more draft capital in 2024 and 2025 - or, as implied in a previous slide, use that draft capital to make such a big trade next season.

This is not an endorsement for the Blackhawks to trade the second overall pick, as keeping it would land them a surefire NHL star or at least increase their odds of doing so. But to some, it may seem unreasonable to trade the pick because of their high probability of landing a star to put onto the same line with Connor Bedard or to take up a place on the top-pairing.

What I am saying is if Davidson traded the second overall pick for even more selections in 2024 or even in the future, it shouldn’t be a deal-breaker. The 2024 NHL Draft is laden with talent beyond the first two selections, with players like Berkley Catton, Cayden Lindstrom, Cole Eiserman, and Zeev Buium making a small cluster of how the Hawks could spend a pick if they traded out of the top two.

There are also a couple of players there who, thanks to their overall size and natural talent, could even be NHL-ready within the next year for at least a trial run. We saw this happen with Zach Benson of the Buffalo Sabres last year, so the possibility of unearthing an NHL-ready prospect outside the top two is likely.

feed

(Statistics provided by Hockey-Reference)

Home / Blackhawks News

3 seemingly unreasonable offseason moves that would make complete sense for the Blackhawks

Making zero major trades or free agent signings

Signing a player or two looking for a ‘career renaissance’

Trading away the second-overall pick for more draft capital

Schedule