kliq

Really like this contract! I was expecting him to get more then what Marcheko got, so anything less is a pleasant surprise.

If you are looking at last year in a bubble sure, 2 seasons ago Kuznetsov had 77 points in 82 games. Last season I had him in fantasy lol, he had a really bad Oct/Nov, but then came on strong.

I never said I thought they could win now, I am saying they think they can win now.

Price turns 30 in August, and the deal kicks in next season. This deal will go until he is 39.

Found the Jensen thread, most people were not that down on him, it was just @DickieDunn and @Bill Berzeench for the most part, but mostly Dickie. Krsith17 and Dickie were definitely going back and forth.

Ya results oriented thinking is a very flawed way of looking at things. The decision a GM should make is the decision that gives his team the best chance of winning. At the time, I think Holland had no choice, yes in retrospect it was a mistake. What I mean by results oriented thinking is this, and I admit this is an extreme. If we were in OT, and Blashill decided to run with a line of E, Miller, Ott, and Glendening for the majority of the period, and they scored, results oriented thinking would imply that he made the "right decision", despite the fact that 99/100 times it would not work. A person who does not have an issue with results oriented thinking, would simply say "they scored, end of story" which is a very simplistic way of looking at things.

Ok cool, if that is what you mean, that's fair. E I am not going to defend lol, I dont have disdain for him like you, but I dont want him here anymore. If it was up to me, the second we NEED to rid of his caphit, I trade a pick with him to a team like Vegas. By need I mean if getting rid of him allows us to re-sign Larkin and Mantha, or sign a guy like JT.

To be fair, at the time we were the favourite (according to TSN) in landing Stamkos and that is why the cap space was cleared. With hindsight being 20/20 of course it was a bad move, but if you go back to the moment without knowing Stamkos would sign with TB on June 30th, I get why he did it.

Why do you have so much disdain for a player like Kronwall? Guy gave everything he had to this team, and his body is breaking down. I get why you may be upset with Holland for contracts, but why do you want the guy "to rot" you make it sound like he did something wrong and deserves to be punished.

That is a big contract and it puts the Leafs 2,415,834 over the cap still needing to sign Brown and Hyman. Now once Lupol and Horton are officially placed on LTIR, it should clear things up, but if Lupol can play they are going to be close.

You are exactly right, which is why they would likely want one of Larkin, AA, or Mantha and if we have a choice and I have to lose one, I choose AA and I mean that with all due respect as I think all three will be very good NHL players but someone has to be 3rd.

No confusion, but I was sort of responding to multiple people in one post, you were just the one I quoted. Fair point though, you were not getting "upset". What I should have written is: "It's a 7th round "conditional pick", it doesn't matter. People are making mountains out of mole hills. People need to realize with it being conditional, they can just not hit the condition and give up nothing. You can't trade a player for nothing in the NHL as far as I know, so this is the only way to do it."

Ya that surprised me! 38 years old, and they signed him for 3 years at 6.25mil per year caphit. They are definitely in win now mode.

Fair point. I think it can work as long as they can keep developing young cheap effective backups, and they better hope Price doesn't regress.

Ughhh why do you have to make me think lol. That 4th line is a good one, possibly the best in the NHL. Sure as hell is better then the OMG line from a year ago.

That makes me feel a bit better, my worry was that he was going to put him on waivers. Was this interview since the expansion draft?

I am by no means saying that our goalie/cap situation is better lol. The ideal situation is that of Pittsburgh (4.2 mil for Murray & Niemi), San Jose (3.6 for Jones & Dell), or even an LA (6.7 for Quick and Kuemper). Having 11.5 mil tied up in goal is going to make it tough to win a cup. At least it's the best goalie in hockey in terms of the regular season. TBD if he can do it in the playoffs.

At 10.5 mil per year for a goalie, I dont think its as clear cut as you think. If you give him a backup like a Jared Coreau (ie. someone making under a million), it can work as then you have 11.5 mil tied up in goalies, still a lot, but having Price in net gives yo a huge advantage every night. The problem, is if Price ever gets hurt, your season is pretty much done. What do you mean by "Well it's hfboards so..."? I don't mean this in a sarcastic sense, I dont read that board. I just googled "Montreal Canadiens Message Board" and it popped up first. Is is a negative? Is it filled with people that don't know hockey?

The only reason why I ask this is because some people are making Daley sound like another low end d-man (ie a 5th or 6th on any other team) when the reality is he just played big minutes for the defending cup champs. Not saying he is elite or even close to it, but I think he is a legit top 4 guy.

Reading the Canadiens message board right now and fans are pissed at this contract lol http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=2366419&page=4 (to mods, my apologies if I am not allowed to post this)

In addition to Callahan, Edmonton Oilers have signed Eddie Pasquale. http://www.theoilersrig.com/2017/07/report-oilers-sign-keegan-lowe-eddie-pasquale/

I agree with most of this.

Depends on the return, if trading him can get you a player like a Trouba then you do it. Sure I'd rather trade Tatar or Nyquist, but teams arent going to give up elite level prospects for 2nd tier players in their prime.

I'm not even going to touch on Rasmussen, because as much as we like to think we are draft experts, I don't consider reading a few paragraphs on the internet qualifications for evaluating talent we have never seen play before. Pittsburgh and Chicago, I knew you were going there. Unfortunately due to the dominance of these two teams a false narrative has been created among fans, that narrative being that to win a cup you HAVE TO tank and get lottery picks. Here is the question I ask, and I ask you to please not look at this in a simplistic black and white way. Do you really believe that to win 16 games in the playoffs, you need to tank, but to win 14 or 15 games in the playoffs, you don't need to tank? Plenty of good teams have had deep playoff runs without having to tank to get there, but unfortunately those who think in a very black or white way always just use the argument of "you don't win the cup, doesn't matter" which is only the case because of the domination of 2 teams winning 6 cups since 2009. I'm sorry, but if you are capable of winning 14 or 15 games, you very well could have won 16 if a few bounces go in a different direction as it has been proven that hockey has the largest amount of luck of all major sports. Additionally, if we actually analyze those two teams, I think it goes a lot deeper then simply saying they tanked. I'll start with Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh was very lucky to get Crosby and Malkin down the middle, and the fact that they did is pure luck, no strategy. The Crosby lottery pick was after the locked out season, every team had a 1/30 chance in winning the draft lottery, the fact that Pittsburgh won it is as skill-full as winning a game of BINGO. After that draft pick, there future was pretty much laid out for them. Sure tanking (or just being bad) played into it, but the ultimate difference maker was the right ball coming out. Chicago is a team built by being very bad, very hard to argue this one. Kane was a lottery pick, and Toews was a 3rd overall pick but IMO the biggest move they made was drafting Duncan Keith with the 54th pick in the 2002 draft. IMO, if they dont make that move, they don't win 3 cups. Either way, my point is that tanking is not the sole reason why Chicago won, they won because of drafting smart, having the best coach in the world, and making very good roster moves despite having their roster stripped multiple times. What is being ignored are the Philadelphia Flyers, Vancouver Canucks, New Jersey Devils, Boston Bruins (who also won a cup), New York Rangers, Tampa Bay Lightning, San Jose Sharks and Nashville Predators, teams that went the distance sans one or 2 games (well lets exclude NJ, they got killed). The majority of these teams built their teams through the draft, but not necessarily by getting #1 overall picks like the ALWAYS mentioned Chicago and Pittsburgh. Now like I said before, if you want to make the simplistic argument of "2nd place in just the first loser" "they didn't win, so it doesn't count" or any of the other cliche's out there, go ahead, but in reality what this shows is that to build a contender in the NHL, you don't need to tank and have lottery picks. Maybe to build a dynasty you do, with with the new draft odds, even that is unlikely to happen. I am NOT saying that I think Holland is doing everything right, there have been a lot of mistakes made, but my point is can we please stop using Chicago and Pittsbugh as the ONLY examples of how to build a team. I have said many times, if I were Holland I would dump about half of the contracts, make a trade for a #1 d-man, play the kids, and continue building through the draft, but I'm just sick of the constant referencing of Chicago/Pittsburgh. I realize you never used the word "tank" Dickie, but you do seem to imply the only way to become good is to draft at the top of the draft. Bottom line, the key to winning in the NHL is drafting smart, not drafting high.

So in the finals with Letang out, that would be their first pairing....right?