shrader

Trading away your top guy while you're hosting a draft that doesn't have any of the big name prospects of previous years is probably not the kind of splash I'd want to make. I think it would anger more fans than it would please.

Signing a guy to a $750k contract is hardly the evidence you should be looking for if you think a team is about to walk away from their starter. This isn't even backup money, it's very young guy in development money.

Let's wait and see what we would be giving up before saying that. If it was Tim Murray, we'd probably be handing away a first round pick in that trade.

Jersey would invest $16 million into a pair of wings. Makes perfect sense.

He's praying for a Bieber and Nickelback sighting?

You probably know my thoughts on bounceyball already, but I do wish they had gotten the sweep. It would have been a perfect close to a pointless postseason. But beyond that, 16-0 would be pretty cool in any series-based playoff.

How does that work, playing around with the dosage? Is there at least a recommendation or do you have to completely wing it?

It's the only sport where the casual observer doesn't have any clue where a prospect comes from. They pretty much materialize out of thin air. Maybe it's different if you're in a market where college baseball is big, but other than some of the mega prospects like Harper, you pretty much never hear just about anything about these guys right up until they're about to get called up.

Ok, confusing is the wrong word. People love drafts in every league except MLB. It's the ultimate off the radar event even though it's huge in every other league.

Is there anything more confusing than the MLB draft? I understand why they have to hold it in the middle of the season, but it's so incredibly awkward.

You saw one right here in Buffalo just a couple years ago.

No, you're right. I think it's a good example of where the real issues lie here though. What you're talking about with the CHL and what others have said about the NCAA are issues with those organizations, not the NHL.

I thought your girlfriend was quickly disappointed.

Exactly. And now they're about to lose one that they actually drafted and invested time into. It was never a problem until that long shot hit close to home. My main problem with everything discussed here is that each suggested "fix" is nothing more than a punishment to the player who goes the college route. If these suggestions miraculously came to be, all it does is dry up the college talent pool.

So you sacrifice that right to let them develop while under contract and in exchange hold the rights for an additional amount of time. It's kind of a double edged sword though, isn't it? If you sign that junior kid early but then he doesn't develop, you're stuck with a wasted contract for three years once he does leave juniors. So they'll roll the dice on certain guys in those leagues, not sign them, then see what happens (Gloria Estefan). This whole exercise we're going through right now is focusing on draft rights from one very specific angle. From that, we say that the system is broken, completely ignoring the other scenarios that play out just fine. If people want it changed, that's fine, but we can't ignore what those changes are going to do to those other scenarios that work just fine. So do you want to fix 10% so that you can break the other 90?

They don't. They only difference is that junior players can go back into the draft after 2 years. Both, if unsigned, can be free agents at the same age, depending on where birthdays fall.

It exists because of Mike Van Ryn. They had to put something in writing so that players couldn't flee to major junior and become free agents anymore.

With they way they jump around from shot to shot during the handshake line, I'm amazed that I actually got to see the when Bonino and Wilson got to each other. They gave me the most entertaining year I ever got out of college hockey, so it's good to see them on this stage.

You are opening a huge can of worms with this idea. To make them re-enter the draft, you are essentially expanding the age of draft eligibility beyond age 20. If you do that, guess what, the junior players are also forced to go back in beyond that age. Why would the union ever agree to this? Comparing the two leagues is apples and oranges. There's a huge age gap between players drafted in the two leagues. Also, NFL players don't really have anywhere to go if they don't sign, which is why the rule you're stating is about as rare as a liger post without a youtube clip. They already do, but only if the player was taken in the first round. If you're going to compensate in this case, you're going to have to compensate for every single unsigned draft pick. Why are the college guys special?

A loophole is an unexpected discovery due to a poorly written contract. This is not a loophole. It is explicitly stated in the CBA. It is exactly what they wanted. Van Ryn was a loophole. This is not. What I'm still trying to figure out is why people think there is an added risk in drafting a guy who you control for four years instead of one you control for two.

No, it's the word "pregnant" that you really have to worry about

In about 3 minutes

I found inkman's.

Beyond the Sabres, it starts to become more about the individual players for me. There are certain guys I will always pull for. Then again, it gets difficult when one of those players currently plays for the Hurricanes.

She teaches second grade, so I'll never be all that worried about her becoming an object of obsession for anyone.