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

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. 

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. 

(Statistics provided by Hockey-Reference)