papazoid

should be a few fights tonight....... btw, removing helmets should be as mandatory as removing gloves.....

Kassian 5 - Hodgson 3 in goals......interestingly, neither has an assist....

just got back from game...... saw 2 grigo jerseys in crowd.....i actually stopped a guy wearing one and chatted him up....said he got it during the 50% off week. sabre store had nothin......said big shipment coming out end of february.....but taking orders now. on to the game....i watched his every move......grigo was 2nd star, mostly for getting the tying goal. he played a good game, he had very short shifts in 1st due to stoppage and timing of shift changes. struggled during middle of second period in the defensive end.....for a couple shifts he was lingering on half wall, waiting for puck to cycle out from down low, lost his man, defense sucked and led to a goal......lindy benched him for rest of 2nd. he came out strong in 3rd and had lots of playing time.....looked real good.

STANDING OVATION WHEN #25 HITS THE ICE !!!

going to the game tonight.....CAN'T WAIT !!!!

i think the sabres will "punt" and not make a decision yet.....grigs will be inactive for tuesdays toronto game.... although i feel grigs should stay......it's reasonable for darcy and lindy to go over all scenarios with and without grigs in the lineup before making a decision......it's not gonna hurt to watch a game or two without him.

right now, he is easily the 2nd best centerman on team......possibly our best as hodgens is weak defensively and on faceoffs. he will develop quicker and better if he stays up and gains experience versus nhl caliber players...... in these five games he sacrificed some offense to demonstrate he can handle it mentally, physically and defensively. 100% he should stay !!

the Sabres Store did $2 million in merchandise sales this week......

The Boston Bruins will host the New York Rangers in both teams' season opener on Jan. 19, according to a Boston Globe report.

they should just make that a line.....

wouldn't adding Hecht just about ruin grigorenko's chances of staying up ?

i'm mad as hell......in protest.....i am NOT watching the first period of the first game.....after that, i'm all in....

hopefully they keep fehr and bettman SEPERATED until the first puck drops.....

i still say this will be settled in court..... neither sides wants this deal..... all this posturing is so both sides can claim they bargained in good faith......

they need to agree TODAY !!!!! wednesday (tonight) at midnight is the deadline for the NHLPA to file a disclaimer of interest that would dissolve the union.....

tonights game is a sellout.....

I'M HOPING THIS DRAGS OUT IN COURT FOR TWO YEARS.... i put the blame squarely on the owners.... they locked out the players the last time and agreed to a 43/57% share of $2 billion......revenue skyrockets to $3 Billion and all of sudden their 43% isn't good enough ???? even though their share incresed by $430 million a year...... so the players agree to get to a 50/50% split as fast as possible as long as they honor all existing contracts,,,,,,but, NO !! the owners want even more club control by ways of restricting player movement, etc..... as revenue sharing "partners"...i think it is going to be pretty easy for the players to argue in court that the owners have NOT acted in the best interest of both partners and are liable for significant damages....

LEGAL LOOK....the NHL"s Lawsuit and what's next.... http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=411804

no hockey....and the bills suck.... expect a baby boom in 9 months....

Michael Russo of The Star-Tribune has a lengthy read going over all of this that’s worth your time as well. http://www.startribune.com/sports/blogs/183635241.html

NHL will argue contracts are null and void if union decertifies If you scan ahead to section 14 of the filing, linked here at Sportsnet, the league says that if the National Labor Relations Board declares the NHLPA’s bid for decertification or disclaimer to be upheld, “all existing contracts between NHL players and NHL teams would be void and unenforceable.” http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2012/12/15/nhl-will-argue-contracts-are-null-and-void-if-union-decertifies/

In the United States, antitrust laws prohibit owners from locking out employees who don't belong to a union, with the punishment triple the wages lost during the lockout. As long as the NHL players continue to negotiate under Fehr as part of the NHLPA, they don't receive that protection. But if they're no longer a union through decertification, that changes the dynamics of the entire lockout. Then, they can file antitrust lawsuits, targeting the wallets of their owners. Don Fehr ultimately wants two things: #1- compensation for the players "lost wages" #2- total free agency.

The NHL did not remain idle as the NHLPA debated the move. Anticipating a court battle that could result if the NHLPA was to disband, the league made a pre-emptive strike by filing both a class-action complaint in Federal Court and an Unfair Labor Practice Charge with the National Labor Relations Board. http://espn.go.com/new-york/nhl/story/_/id/8747518/nhlpa-makes-preliminary-move-break-union and the court battles begin......threatening the start of NEXT season....

Detroit’s Cleary: Jan. 15 “end-all” date to save NHL season http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2012/12/11/detroits-cleary-jan-15-end-all-date-to-save-nhl-season/

Disclaimer of Interest While decertification is the players walking away from the Union, a disclaimer of interest is the Union walking away from the players. So a disclaimer of interest occurs when the Union terminates its right to represent the players. It's also a less formal process than decertification. It can be as quick as Donald Fehr sending a letter to the Commissioner's office declaring the NHLPA no longer represents the players as a bargaining agent. There's no vote, no petition and no decertification election. http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=411412 Is the Result of the Two The Same? Yes. While they are different, the net effect is the same: the Union is dissolved and the players are free to sue for antitrust violations.