carpandean

And Leino played center in Finland ... ... well, until his last/best season.

Galchenyuk would have rated above 30 based on his 2010-11 numbers, so it's pretty safe to bet that he would also have rated above 30 had he not missed basically the whole 2011-12 season due to injury. He is listed as an N/A in the chart. Filip Forsberg is also an N/A, which I believe is due to not having a number established for his league.

=22

Just Croby-lite.

nhlnumbers.com jumping the gun a little by listing Nash on the Rangers already. As Bob McKenzie noted, the deal is not official yet since the trade call has not been made. Assuming it does go through, Columbus got robbed.

Sounds like an Arby's deal ... mmmmm, Arby's.

I'd go with: Tarnasky-McCormick-Ott Scott-Finley Miller Side note: we could go with Tarnasky-McCormick-Scott, McNabb-Myers and Lieuwen for the tallest starting lineup in the league.

I had an interesting idea the other day: what if contracts were written as a % of league cap, instead of in actual dollars. The cap itself, in $'s, would move with well established rules about % of revenue, but a given player would be a fixed %. The maximum would be, say, 15% for a single player, while the minimum might be 1%. Cap floor would be around 75-80% and the ceiling would, of course, be 100%. Signing bonuses would be interesting. For example, if the current cap were $72M and a player were given a 5 year contract with a 10% basic cap hit and a $7.2M signing bonus in the first year, then the actual cap hit could be figured as 10% + ((7.2M/72M)/5)*100% = 12%. The team would have to pay an upfront amount, but it might actually be less than a 12% base cap hit contract with no bonus if the cap goes up. The idea of "guaranteed money", other than these bonuses, would be a little looser, so the rules governing the rise/fall of the actual cap would have to be very well defined.

You front load it like 12, 12, 4, 2, then you can always trade him to a team aiming for the floor in the last year or two. Of course, that assumes that there isn't a NTC beyond year 2.

Cam Janssen in a bit of hot water for a recent interview (can be found here.*) It's a loose, web-based show, so the language is pretty rough (f-bombs galore) and the metaphors/similes are off color. Most of it is funny, but some (e.g., fat chick and gay jokes) definitely crossed the line. * In case it's not clear, don't play this at work or with kiddies around.

Wojtek Wolski to Capitals for 1 yr, $600k.

I hope that they are able to properly capture the look of a young Gene Hackman ... and don't forget that hat.

You'll have to wait for the new CBA if you want that. No provision for optional years in the current one.

I haven't check either set of numbers, but is it possible that he meant "points per game (PPG)" not "power play goals (PPG)"? I had assumed the latter until you compared the former.

People are still mixing up (or focusing on the wrong one) cap and salary. IMO, Parise will not have a cap hit even close to $8M; more likely around $6.5M (a little bit for the hype.) He will, however, make around $24M in the first two years. The term will make those two things possible in the same contract. Darcy (and a few other GMs with the $$) doesn't have to consider if Parise is worth $24M in the first two years, but rather needs only to focus on whether the cap hit is affordable over the early years of the contract (they'll always be a cap floor team looking for player with a $6.5M cap hit combined with a $2M salary.) Is Myers going to be worth $12M next season? Not likely. Did that give Darcy a moment of pause? Doubtful.

My first reaction was: no and hell no. My second reaction was: hell no and hell no. If Darcy signs either, then he should be gone ... fast.

I've listened to several shows over the past week. This morning has been, by far, his biggest homer moment. He's certainly biased, as expected, but not normally to the level you heard.

Does it matter? Two-way only has to do with the AHL salary being different than the NHL one, not anything to do with waiver status. If you want an enforcer, John Scott is a good choice. If you want him to do anything else, I'm not sure that he's qualified.

Funny thing is that Darcy always argued against the fact that a team could be "built for the playoffs" (as opposed to built for the regular season) by pointing out that no 6th seed or lower had ever won the Cup, so to succeed in the playoffs a team had to succeed in the regular season. It was only this year, possibly because it was the best that we could hope for, that he said he thought this was a season where a low seed could win it all. According to his normal argument, just getting in wasn't good enough.

That was how I felt about the Leino signing last year. They knew Richards was going to the Rangers, so they had to sign somebody, anybody (well, almost, even Darcy wasn't dumb enough to signing TC again.) Even if he turns things around, they definitely overpaid given his resume. They even forced the "he's a center" thing when his background didn't really justify that either (hadn't played center since Finland, and his best season there came after he switched to wing.)

sabres13, you better listen to sabres26; you're half the poster he is. :P

Well, duh. He can't sign an extension for 10 days per the CBA. :rolleyes:

I disagree that Staal's value will dry up after 7/1. While some teams may want him for a one-year rental, other suitors looking for a player of his caliber would prefer more years, not less. Nobody, even Pittsburgh, can sign an extension with him until this year ends (after 6/30.) A team (Pens or another with permission) might be able to talk to him about whether he'd consider signing on 7/1 (haven't checked if the rules say "sign" or "negotiate" an extension), but there's little guarantee until after that date. If the Pens/Staal negotiations don't go well over the next week, I wouldn't be surprised to see Pittsburgh test the market both with (before or after 7/1) and without the possibility of additional years (trade would not go through until 7/1 or later.) If a team offers them a huge package contingent on being able to negotiate an extension, then I'd expect to see an announcement after FA starts that "Pens have traded Jordan Staal to ____ for ____," then "____ has signed Staal to a ____ year, $____ million extension."

Two of three (movie/actor) are pretty easy, but the year is tough. I had to look up the year, so I won't give the other two. There's a certain movie from 3 years later ("here's looking at you kid") with another famous actor of the era that often get confused with it.

I was thinking that whole game ... but with special emphasis on Pommer's goal. The showed up big when it mattered most, beating the team that they needed to catch in the final head-to-head match. For that one, short moment, they held their fate in their own hands. Too bad that the rest of the season (all 4 or 5 games of it) went about as badly as it could have.