snafu

I'm wondering whether the expansion draft this summer will affect the trade deadline during the season -- or any trades before the expansion draft for that matter. It would be tough for me (if I were a GM) to give away picks for a guy that I may need to expose and lose to Las Vegas.

I swear, that looks like it is from an old SCTV skit with John Candy and Katherine O'Hara.

Shouldn't the question be whether Taylor will wil ANOTHER Super Bowl? I think he already has a ring with the Ravens. Maybe there should be a third question: will he win a championship as a starter or a backup?

...until Darnold decides to stay in school, or pulls a Leaf or a Manziel, or a Jamarcus Russell, or falls down a flight of stairs...

I'm always curious as to why the union doesn't complain more about Brady's salary structure. He's skewing the average for quarterbacks in a big way. It probably affects guys who get franchised.

That fourth line tonight is putrid. Putrid.

I can't help you if you think Rosie O'Donnell is a beauty. That's on you.

Win now. Win later. Do whatever it takes.

What I was trying to inartfully say about Kane is that I see merit in both ideas. I actually see keeping him as a long-term plus. It wouldn't be the worst thing in the world to keep him. I know he scores goals. However, he is difficult to fit into this lineup and I've made it clear in earlier posts what role I think he could do best (and I will add that I think Bailey can eventually replace Kane). Giving up his goal scoring for a defenseman who will presumably prevent a similar amount of goals is at least a wash.

I don't know how to respond to this.

He could be very useful later on when the talent level is increased. But if the deal is right, then off he goes.

Stupid rule. The guy played all season. Opponents can see what's going on. If his injury was limiting him on the field, other teams would have seen it,

I'm unrepentant UNTIL they find more talent. Until then:

Gionta + McCormick + Kulikov + Franson = $12.5 million. Each of their deals are done at the end of this season. By that alone, I think they could have some money left for upgrades or even one big name (which I personally wouldn't do). The biggest cap hits you see around the league are $10 million. I wouldn't count on moving anyone, but I also don't think it matters much and I don't think they have money issues.

You can ask that same question Robitaille asked about the Bills vs. the Giants (and other teams) I think they can find someone in free agency. They'll have a good amount of money to spend. I also prefer that if they do make a trade at this point of in the team's development, it is a body for a body, not picks.

I like this conversation. I'm not going to read the article until after I post this. It is much more than top six forwards. If you want a short-term, squeak into the 8th spot then I agree with you. But there are several forwards on the team that need to be upgraded in order to get to the top. Moulson, Gionta, Foligno (though he serves a purpose). Kane can be traded for immediate blue line help or can stay and eventually be a solid (best in the league type) fourth line guy in a few years, when the other forwards are upgraded. Ennis isn't a top six guy and he's not suitable for the third or fourth lines. Each of these guys have a role, but their jobs can be done better by better players. The team needs at least three defenseman, presuming that Ghule plays next season with the Sabres. Yes to Risto and McCabe, and maybe Bogosian. The Kulikov trade was bad in hindsight, but I understand the fact that they were looking for a left handed defenseman. Letting Kulikov go will be one way to save dead weight $$ (but I think there's a lot of extra salary players who won't be around next year). I think a few of those dead weight players were brought in to (a) give the younger guys some sort of example of how to act like a vet and (b) to spend up to the salary floor. They certainly weren't brought in for immediate help. I hate the focus on big goaltenders. Size doesn't mask bad goaltending. Big goalies have a hard time moving laterally, and if they go down too early then they're just big immobile walruses. People will probably argue with this, but the way this team is presently made up, they should be dumping and chasing with solid puck support as a general rule and (sorry John C) they should be trapping when the other team gets possession and moves out through the neutral zone. This is the only way I see to use the young legs and take some pressure off the blueliners. it doesn't have to be a focus of every game, but it would help against a team like Toronto who has speed and a shaky defense. All in all this is a classic .500 team. For two games or so they put in a good effort, but they can't sustain success because they're not nearly talented enough. No amount of good coaching will get them to the playoffs this year, and Bylsma won't either. Last thought: I would never get rid of Reinhart. Eventually he can become like Hossa. He's got a hockey brain and skills to go with it and he goes to the net when others won't. He can kill a penalty and contribute on the power play. He should wear the "C" when Gionta goes.

Pigs!

Somebody liked her. She had nine kids.

If it is McDermott then I wonder what he thinks about keeping Gilmore. He saw first hand what happens when a defense loses its #1 corner.

Mouse? Looks more rat sized. I think the cut might have come from the elbow he took to his face from Wpg #55.

No. Not at all. Nor should it.

I found the difference between the two articles above. No movement vs. No trade: http://winnipeghockeytalk.com/nhl-news/rfas-and-ufas/difference-no-trade-no-movement-clauses-nhl-players

Yeah, I stopped the laziness and looked it up. This link has a list of who can't be moved. Only Okposo according to what they're saying. So our two links don't necessarily agree. http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/official-nhl-expansion-draft-exempt-list-contains-surprises/

Can a team expose a guy to Vegas if he has a no trade clause?

Or if you want to compare this to Sabres history...look at Tim Murray who presided over a tank and came out on the other side. If what you're saying is true, and the Bills are looking at a major decline no matter what they try to do then they could just keep Whaley after bottoming out. Otherwise, cut him loose now and have someone else start over.