Blackhawks Re-Sign Joakim Nordstrom
On Wednesday afternoon, the Blackhawks announced that the team has signed forward Joakim Nordstrom to a one-year contract.
Nordstrom, 23, was named the captain of the Rockford IceHogs last season, but saw action in 38 regular season games and three postseason games with the 2015 Blackhawks. He has recorded six points (one goal, five assists) in 54 career NHL games.
The Blackhawks originally selected Nordstrom in the third round (90th overall) in the 2010 NHL Draft. Nordstrom is now the last player left in the Blackhawks organization from that draft class; defenseman Nick Mattson, a sixth round pick in 2010, and goaltender Mac Carruth, a seventh round pick that summer, each signed an AHL contract with the IceHogs for the 2015-16 season earlier this summer.
15 thoughts on “Blackhawks Re-Sign Joakim Nordstrom”
Does this mean they gave up on room for kruger?
^No it does not mean that.
While it is nothing major, I like bringing Nordstrom back. He’s a good “depth” guy to have, understands Q’s style of play, and is a good defensive player. He could certainly plug right into the fourth line of Kruger-Dejardins-Shaw, should an injury occur.
^Yes, agree, or if someone is traded in the next few weeks which is a distinct possibility.
Possibility…. Or inevitability?
Kane is very likely to start the NHL season on the suspension list. And I’m convinced regardless the outcome of the rape allegation he is done playing for the Blackhawks. So fair to say around $10 M in cap money is going to be freed up. People can scream and holler and claim I’m full of crap. You are each entitled to an opinion on how this thing breaks. But money for a Kruger contract and a Seabs extension will be there by puck drop for game one.
Rufus, first I’d like to say you are full of crap. Second, you are probably right in this case.
One can’t talk about Nordstrom’s contract, because another is throwing Kane’s cap relief after he gets traded/banned into the mix. Based on nothing if not own paranoia, questionable view of the world.
Yeah… I’ll talk about Nordstrom/roster depth another time.
Ah, need more from this guy, until then he is a guy with a really cool arm tattoo
Once again, Rufus is off point in his comments.
Rufus analysis is likely bang on and certainly realistic
So if Kane is innocent he is still done playing for the Hawks? That is outrageous. I am so tired of people judging Kane before the facts are known. The press can’t resist judging him and pontificating and trying to browbeat the Hawks into getting rid of Kane. And there are lots of jealous people out there who like to see successful people fall.
Innocent or not, Kane has worn away the patience of the Hawks brass. I’d bet the ranch they are absolutely , 100% sick and tired of the situations he gets himself into. This one takes the cake. He cannot be trusted and will be gone at some point.
Especially if the holier than now press have their way. If he is innocent his career should continue as is WITH THE HAWKS. Hawks fans should not give in to media peer pressure. With respect to Hawks marketing, there isn’t much to market if you lose. The judgmental media is desperate to tell people how to think and to try to intimidate political correctness on to everyone. The rule of law says innocent until proven guilty and the grand jury should be looking at this very soon. If they don’t indict then its over as far as I am concerned and the legal process has spoken and Kane is innocent regardless if she sues him for millions and you know that is coming. IF he is indicted then its a lot more complicated even though he would still be innocent until proven guilty and my expectation is that the Hawks stay with him until the case is decided in criminal court. Anyone remember the William Kennedy Smith trial. That was a big fat not guilty at trial. I saw part of that trial and it wasn’t even a close call. The case never should have been brought so an indictment does not mean guilt even if it happens.
Also, ZebraGreg I think its outrageous that if Kane is innocent the Hawks get rid of him. Why, because he goes out drinking with his friends and brings a couple girls back to his house? What are the standards on this nonsense? Is he allowed to talk to strangers without an ironclad witness? Bottom line is that if he is innocent he is the victim and the moral pontificating should just stop and we should all mind our own business and enjoy hockey. The legal process will decide this one way or the other and the press should shut up with their efforts to intimidate the Hawks in the interim.