pi2000

6-year bridge?

Actually, you could've got Stoner for nothing... he cleared waivers last thurs.

what!? no partial credit? http://forums.sabrespace.com/topic/24159-ristolainen-signed-6yrs-54mil-per/?view=findpost&p=865818 "GMTM still hasn't offered a bridge deal yet. He's hoping he signs a medium term deal for 4.5-5.5." http://forums.sabrespace.com/topic/24159-ristolainen-signed-6yrs-54mil-per/?view=findpost&p=865673 "Risto will sign within 48hrs." "...Bogo will be ready to play the opener, as will Kulikov."

In - Grant, Fasching, Nelson Out - Nylander, Guhle (WHL), Baptiste, Catenacci, Falk

haha originally i said 5 @ 5.5, but would also accept 6 yrs. tho i really thought this would end in a bridge, the further along it went. I'm wondering if Risto finally came to his senses and took the deal he was offered, or if GMTM caved on term. maybe only 1? an "accrued season" is defined as being on the active roster for 40 NHL games, he only played 34 his first year, not sure how many we was on the active roster for tho.

I wouldnt go that far.. Myers deal was for 7 years at 5.5 AAV, whcih was a much bigger cap% 5 years ago.

IMO it's a little on the long side, but the AAV is decent. Let's hope he keeps working to develop into a true first pairing defenseman. I, for one, expect him to be a plus player this season... if he's not I will be disappointed.

This.

The glasses make it work.

6 years 5.4 per

@BuffNewsVogl: Tim Murray confirms the Sabres and Rasmus Ristolainen have come to terms on a new contract.

I don't understand it at all. Therefore, I am in.

Exactly. GMTM holds all the cards, he just letting it play out.

Gaudreau signs 6.75/6. Great deal for CGY.

Moulson 30g. no excuses.

A rainbow happy future is all we can really hope for... right? We shouldn't stop trying just because it's unattainable... after all... perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence. IMO, a good first step would be to eliminate the "women's sports" nomenclature. Change the name to something non-gender specific.... "alternate 100m relay" for example.... instead of the " women's 100m relay". At the same time enforce strict hormone guidelines... allowing athletes to compete in whatever competition they'd like as long as their naturally occurring hormone levels are within bounds. Maybe even have a third category for those using synthetic hormones.

I disagree. We don't segregate athletes based on size of body parts. We DO segregate athletes based on sex, because humans with higher testosterone levels have an advantage in most athletic competitions. Phelps, Bolt, Ledecky, etc.. are naturally physically gifted, but they fall under either man or woman. That said, if you want to be completely fair to everybody, eliminate all women's sports... across all competitions. Let all humans compete in their natural state against all other humans. Otherwise you absolutely need to have a line drawn between what is a man and what is a woman... and IMO that line should be the same for all competitors.... we should not let athletes dictate where to draw the line for themselves.

Yes, both have an advantage, and it's not their fault... that we can agree upon. However, Shaq is not trying to compete in a league for short people only, there are no height limitations in competitive basketball. The woman with high testosterone (eg, tall person in the example i gave above) is competing in a women's only (eg, short people) league.... which, to me, seems unfair to women with normal hormone levels.... and it encourages doping to compete against the testosterone advantaged. I'd like to clarify, I don't have an opinion on the right way to handle these cases because I don't know enough about it.... which is why I'm bringing it up. I respect folks to identify however they want, but when it comes to competitive sports with money, sponsorships, livelihoods on the line, there has to be some rules in place to prevent a "man" from competing as a woman.

That's.... unusual? It sounds like he got in a fight? Otherwise, why would the keep it in house?

I understand your point. A bridge might rub Risto the wrong way... or it might motivate him to continue developing his game. If he turns out to be a franchise guy, there's no reason GMTM wouldn't start working on an extension long before his deal is up. Hell, he asked for permission to skate with the team during negotiations.... that doesn't sound like a guy who wants to leave. The team will likely be a contender at that point (assuming he blossoms), so he would have even more reason to stay.

If there were two basketball leagues, one for folks under 6'0", another for folks over 6'0"... would you let 7'11" Shaq compete in the short league because he "identifies" as a short person? Or are you a heightist?

How do you allow women with high testosterone levels to compete while keeping it fair for women with "normal" hormone levels? In your opinion, should the IAAF go back to requiring female atheletes with high testosterone levels to take hormone suppressants? https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/olympics/whispers-on-the-track-in-rio-does-caster-semenya-have-an-unfair-edge/2016/08/17/840cf088-6486-11e6-be4e-23fc4d4d12b4_story.html ..."The 25-year old South African runner is believed to have an intersex condition called hyperandrogenism, which means her body may be producing testosterone at levels much higher than most women." I understand it's not her fault she has this condition, but it obviously gives her an advantage over her competitors... is that fair? WRT Harrison, we know he hasn't undergone hormone therapy because that would be considered doping, but we don't know what his naturally occuring testosterone levels are. That said, should there be a cutoff at some testosterone level where we no longer allow the individual to compete in women's sports?

We're out of tank mode people, BUF is no longer in desperate need for merely serviceable NHL players. Why would we take somebody else's scraps? It ain't happening. There's a reason these guys are being waived.

Lindholm is currently a much better player than Risto. It's not even close. Why should GMTM bow to his demands? Again, Risto has no leverage here. He either signs or he doesn't play... and at this point of his career he needs to be playing or he will regress.. maybe permanently. I'm hearing he'll settle on a bridge deal in the next 36 hours.... but it won't be anywhere near $6.0.

GMTM still hasn't offered a bridge deal yet. He's hoping he signs a medium term deal for 4.5-5.5. If nothing gets done by end of day Monday, they'll settle on a bridge deal. Risto isn't going anywhere.