I prefer Hawks keep him and re-sign. Him and Foligno are the two veteran forwards that bring it every night and set an good example for the younger players.
Hawks have enough picks, they need players
Don’t understand why the Hawks would get rid of him. They have plenty of picks and developing prospects and are about to get another high pick. Unless he’s unwilling to resign they need players now
Works for me. Eventually they gotta pair Bedard with some actual teammatesNot many C options so someone may overpay with a 2nd
Do both . Trade and sign as ufa
Not sure why this doesn’t happen more often
I don’t mind if the hawks extend Donato ala 2 year deal. All depends on what’s offered deadline time.Hawks made a mistake a couple of years ago when they didn’t move Raddysh when he was having a career year, they can’t let that happen again with Donato.
This narrative that they need veterans for next season is crazy, they still have Foligno, Dickinson, Teravainen, Bertuzzi, Mikheyev, Murphy, Brophy etc. signed not to mention any potential FA additions.
As for having too many picks again that is crazy, you can always bundle picks to move higher up in the draft as we have seen Davidson do in the past or trade the picks for players.
Sure, you could say that Raddysh had more value after the career year than he did after last year. But what was he worth at his peak? A 3rd? Maybe a 2nd? What does that really do for the Hawks who have more draft picks than they know what to do with?Hawks made a mistake a couple of years ago when they didn’t move Raddysh when he was having a career year, they can’t let that happen again with Donato.
This narrative that they need veterans for next season is crazy, they still have Foligno, Dickinson, Teravainen, Bertuzzi, Mikheyev, Murphy, Brophy etc. signed not to mention any potential FA additions.
As for having too many picks again that is crazy, you can always bundle picks to move higher up in the draft as we have seen Davidson do in the past or trade the picks for players.
Seravelli indicated leading up to the deadline that there was significant interest in Raddysh because of his production and cap hit which was less than $800,000, so yes I would assume a 2nd…. Compared to losing him for nothing.Sure, you could say that Raddysh had more value after the career year than he did after last year. But what was he worth at his peak? A 3rd? Maybe a 2nd? What does that really do for the Hawks who have more draft picks than they know what to do with?
No matter what they decide to do with Donato, it doesn't really move the needle for me. If they keep him and sign him, great even if his game falls off and if they get a 2nd for him, ok that's cool too.
Exactly what the Jets need.I think he could be a pretty popular option as the deadline approaches. He's pretty cheap and no commitment and he's good at generating offense. I think a team looking to zhuzh up their third line output with a guy who is crafty and can put the puck in the net, he's certainly a solid option.
I think there will be pitfalls if a team looks at his minutes and production and says "oh, well we can amplify this by giving him scoring line minutes". He's been proven time and time again to be a guy who will create in a limited role, but the role has a definite limit where there is rapid falloff once you past that 14 minute range.
It also has to be a team that constructs their third line (or some bottom six "tertiary scoring line") in a certain way. A lot of teams want their third line for the playoffs to be all speed, forechecking, hitting and crazy up-tempo pace. That's probably not the line for Donato.
But...a 20 goal, 40-point third liner who can play on your second PP unit and has some wing-center versatility should be able to nab something decent. I wouldn't be surprised if he got the Hawks a 2nd round pick.
My gut feeling is Chicago keeps him and he re ups here.
It would have to be a big overpay to move him
0% chanceMy gut feeling is Chicago keeps him and he re ups here.
Interesting pkg ideaI continue to hope they package Donato with a second rounder for a first.