Baggins

No. If I recall correctly that was Backes on the Blues he was digging. They played had together the year before for Team USA and didn't like each other at all. As to Karlsson he's already stated he wants to sign and come over for next season. So I doubt it's going to be much of a problem signing him.

Yes, he wanted the ELC maximum salary and maximum bonus package and got into a public feud with Kesler because he had accepted less than the max on his ELC at the time. Between his contract demand, and the public feud with Kesler, Burke traded Umberger's rights to the Rangers.

because Petey is so good you're trying to handicap him? I doubt Hogs makes it to being a regular first line player. Unless he improves his defensive game and finds some consistency he will likely become expendable. At 21 age is on side for now so there's hope. Karlsson is more likely to spend a year in the AHL to aclimate, work on faceoffs and his defensive game in a larger role. But you never really know until he arrives and we see him in preseason. I'd say the odds are he'll end up a 3rd line player in the NHL and 2nd line would be a real win. But again, you never know until you see a guy play here. He may not make it at all. it's best to temper expectations. Better to be surprised than utterly disappointed.

Nope. Toffoli hits guys and kills penalties....

Miller has the same number of pts as Matthews and Driasiatl (22) since then as well.

Obviously games played will come into it. But if the quantity is there and a similar number of games it not deceiving at all. Richardsons number could be called deceiving as you're comparing 6 games played to 60 games. The more games played the clearer the picture with a stat like this. But our wingers have played with all three centers. Bouda really likes mixing them up. I'd wager the C Garland has played the least with is Petey. As to the PP, Garland has spent virtually no time on our 1st unit with the most talented guys. A distinct advantage Boeser has enjoyed. Also the PP stat you highlighted is goals scored while the player was on the PP not goals or pts per 60 by the individual players. Does it not make sense the four forwards on the 1st unit the most often would have the highest number of goals scored per 60 as a grioup? They do get a much better opportunity with 60-75% of the ice time on every penalty and once in a blue moon the entire PP. Not to mention being among the teams best players. Here's the individual points per 60 on the PP. Boeser is the least production of the primary 1st unit players. Now over the previous two seasons in Arizona Garland was at 4.25 pts per 60 over 117 games with an average PP ice time per game of 2:25. Almost a minute less per game than what our top unit forwards are currently getting per game. Given the other four typically on our 1st unit I'd wager Garland would be at least as productive as Boeser. But there's also an argument Chiasson would be the better player to slot in as the fourth forward. He does do a better job in front of the net than Boeser. I'd wager the vast majority of Chiasson's PP pts have come while on the top unit.

Come on. Contending and contender are two different things in this context.

Currently Garland is 5th in points among forwards and 6th in ice time. He is one point behind Boeser despite little to no PP1 time. He's second among the forwards in ES points per 60 minutes (Boeser is 12th, Horvat is 5th) and first among forwards for penalties drawn (3 ahead of Petey). He also has the best +/- among the forwards (Boeser is tied for worst with Hogs). He does more with less ice time than Boeser does. What could he do with top line minutes and PP1 time? I was rather disappointed that Bouda put Chiasson on PP1 rather than Garland. Chiasson has averaged more PP time per game than Garland has this season. If Garland was given a 1st line spot and PP1 time I'd say it's about time he got the opportunity.

Tampa - Kucherov 9.5, Stamkos 8.5, Point 6.75, Hedman 7.875 Colorado - Rantenen 9.25, Landeskog 7.0, MacKinnon 6.3, Makar 9.0 Can we afford not to keep our best players?

Reps from every team (team option) are invited plus some media people to witness the ball drops and have a copy of the guides showing numbers assigned to each team. They have to leave their phones at the door and can't leave the room until the reveal is done live on TV. Cameras are rolling on the draw every year. On the upside there's a buffet and beverages supplied while they're locked away for hours. The obvious reason they don't show the draw live on TV is it reveals first overall pick first, then second, then third. Not much of a show. It's a longer show starting at 15 (now 16) and letting the suspense build to the first overall pick. People have to watch the whole show to know where their team drafts and who got that number spot. It just makes for a better show. Unless you think this would make for better TV....

I don't think teams really develop their identity until the core is a set and the team is actually decent. The way that core plays and acts becomes the team identity.

4-1 Nucks Miller GWG

The draft doesn't need to be rigged. The odds are you'll move down if you're among the worst teams. Worst team in the league has almost a 75% chance of dropping. They have a 55% chance of 3rd overall. The 5th worst team has 17% chance of moving up and a 61% chance of moving down. The odds aren't good. It's not until 7th worst that the odds are actually in favor of moving up or staying the same, with a 46% chance of dropping position. From positions 1 to 6 the odds are in favor of dropping position.

He just couldn't seem to adapt to the head contact rule and he was a headhunter. Had he been able to adapt to hitting into the body he would have had a longer career. Many don't seem to get head contact is not illegal when hitting into the body. It's picking the head, without hitting into the body, that's illegal. There's a fine line there where a player can be just a little off and it's a suspension. But Torres was terrible for picking the head and just never learned from his suspensions.

Nonsense. Does anybody actually believe there are 16 actual contenders every year? Teams labelled 'contenders' are the ones favored, or as having a legitimate chance, for the cup. But, and it's a big but, anyteam that makes a the playoffs has a chance. Even if it's a slim chance. Was Montreal a legimate contender going into the playoffs last year? No, but they are certainly an example of "anything can happen" if you make the playoffs. You have to make the playoffs to have a shot. Being a longshot and being a legitimate contender are two very different things. Typically there's about six teams going into the playoffs labelled as contenders. All Benning said was make the playoffs and anything can happen. That's a far cry from declaring we'll be contending for the cup. Benning said from day one he wanted to be a playoff team every year. He also talked about transitioning to a younger team. Trading Forsling for Clendenning was doing exactly that. Trading for an NHL ready AHL prospect to inject youth into the lineup. It's exactly the same thing without waiting 4+ years for a late round pick to develop. We had nothing on the farm worth that shot. Knowing we needed some youth on the team to replace guys aging out can you just wait 4+ years? Youth is youth regardless of where it comes from. Teams that believe they are contenders don't trade for guys like Clendenning, Vey, Baertschi etc to insert into the roster. Those were just rebuilding moves inserting youth to the roster. Those AHL players were prospects. Prospects are prospects whether drafted or traded for.

Well when Burke came in with the order to cut payroll, and stop the financial bleeding, after trading away Bure and Mogilny (among others) attendance dropped below the Coyotes. And he didn't actually do a full on team tank going after only unproven prospects and picks in return. Benning tried to put a team on the ice with a chance, even if slim, while rebuilding and attendance didn't fall off a cliff, like it did for Burke, throughout it.

Well, this mediocre year we're in the top 10 for attendance. Perhaps some of us see the difference between a team given a chance to win games and a team set up to lose games.

If todays pactice is any indication... The trickle-down effect of Quinn Hughes missing with a non-COVID illness had Travis Dermott lining up with Tyler Myers and Oliver Ekman-Larsson with Luke Schenn. That left Vancouver native Burroughs, 26, with always-enthusiastic Maple Ridge product Hunt, 33 Canucks’ Kyle Burroughs buoyed by return, possible pair with Brad Hunt | The Province

Would they buck up for games though? I thought Benning was pretty clear. But any plan is fluid simply because you never know when somebody may become available.

Of course 'their plans' could be to move him as part of a deal in the offseason.

I'm sure Boeser would love LA...

If we're trading high quality players there better be something quality coming back onto the team. If we're trading for hopes and dreams we may as well trade them all, inlcuding Horvat, and call the next 5 years a fresh rebuild. I'm not saying no prospects/picks in a return, but there had better be some good roster players in the deal.

So you want to trade quality players for prospects about 5 years away from the NHL?

Do fans actually have a choice? Unless a fan has the money to buy the team we don't have any choice other than accepting their plan. Liking and accepting are two different things. Many, like me, don't like the idea of setting the team up to lose from day 1. Why would I spend my hard earned money on a team set up to lose? A five year waiting list disappeared here after missing the playoffs. VanFans are a fickle lot. We're not like the Oilers and Leafs where fans are afraid to give up their season tickets because they may never get them back. Both went through a decade of futility and maintained season ticket sales. The acceptance here is many fans won't go to games if there's an intentional tank. They're hard pressed when the team is questionable for the playoffs.

As long as we don't start the season 8-15-2 we'll be fine.