Neomaxizoomdweebie

You are just plain wrong. I don't think his mother would have. Murray is playing in only his 3rd NHL season and he has already missed significant time to injury 5 different times (including the playoffs) from a broken hand, a lower back injury and concussions. This would greatly concern me. http://pittsburghhockeynow.com/matt-alytics-matt-murrays-durability-stack/ Murray had help in the playoffs. He only won 7 games in the 2016-17 playoffs to Fleury's 9. The fact that Murray isn't playing as well since MAF left makes me wonder if his early success was a benefit of having a tandem goaltending situation. http://pittsburghhockeynow.com/matt-murray-bad-season/ Because Murray is so young, I am not convinced that his success will be long term. It wouldn't be the first time a young goalie stormed into the league for a year or 2 and then fizzled out. Fleury may not be spectacular (I never said otherwise), but I know what I am getting there. The Pens reached the Cup Finals 4 times while he was there. He has his name on the Cup 3 times. That's LONG TERM success IMO. Murray's is not certain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Carey_(ice_hockey) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cam_Ward https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Boucher That doesn't mean that going with Murray wasn't the logical choice. It was. I just would have tried to keep Fleury a little longer until I was sure that Murray was my long term solution. I would have made a deal with VGK not to take either goalie in the expansion draft. Then I would have traded MAF later for a good return. Right or wrong, it's just how I would have done it. Even if I am the only one (among humans anyway).

Sorry. You didn't bring up Hanifin. I was referring to one of their young D when I said "one of them", Hanifin being the one I would want the most. But since you mentioned Skinner and Faulk, I see now how you thought that's who I was referring to. I have a habit of skimming thru posts sometimes, I need to work on that.

Not anymore. The league learned from past expansions that putting a bad product in a new market is a recipe for failure from which some teams never recover (see AZ, CBJ, ATL). They remedied that problem by giving Vegas a more competitive roster. It has turned out to be a huge success for that market and exactly how you grow your brand. If you are expanding your business into a new market, how successful do you think it will be if you only send your worst employees from other locations to operate it? Obviously you don't take your best guys and hurt your current locations. You send some of your solid, if not remarkable, employees and younger, less experienced guys with promise in the hopes that they turn into "all stars". I don't know why people think that the NHL shouldn't follow basic business principles. I wouldn't. Fleury has been the better goalie. He has been really good for a long time. I was never completely sold on Murray.

Mostly agree with these. 8 year deals scare me, I would do 6 for Larkin. I would sign Mantha to more than 2 years tho. He hasn't proven enough yet to justify 6 years, but I would go 4. AA and Bert I agree with. I would go 2 years on Frk's deal. No way Green gets that deal on this team, nor should he. I would be willing to go no more than 3 years at no more than a 5.0 AAV.

Larkin and Mantha, yes. AA and Frk are not top 6 forwards. AA is a middle 6 winger who should not be given more minutes when he's cheating on defense (which happens a lot). I wouldn't even consider Frk a middle 6 F. He is a depth player, nothing more.

That would be a solid signing. Scouting and signing new blood from overseas instead of bringing back retreads is exactly what he should be doing. Whether it's what he always does or not doesn't matter to me. Holland is replacing Machovsky would be my guess. Nothing to really debate here.

I wouldn't go that far. My biggest concern is that it means he picks someone that none of us expected. As much as I would like to see us get both players, 2 middle six wingers on expiring contracts and essentially a 2nd round pick isnt getting you #7.

That's too much. AA, Svech, First of 2 Second Rounders for Hanifin and Carolina's 3rd Rounder is where I start. I would bump it up to the VGK 1st rounder to get it done, but there has to be more than just Hanifin coming back. No amount of your B. Smith/Jurco voodoo can save him now.

I never took one business class in college, and I understand this. To use the Wal-Mart model, if they only built stores where they were already known and successful, they never would have expanded north of the Mason-Dixon Line or west of the Mississippi River. They would have continued to build stores across the street from other stores, competing against themselves. That's not growth, its shuffling money around. To grow their company, they expanded into the Northeast, Midwest, and western US; then into Canada, Mexico, and overseas. That's real growth. That is exactly the model the NHL is following. Move into virgin markets and bring in new customers. Sometimes those new markets fail, just like some new Wal-Mart stores fail. But, the NHL has grown from 6 to 31 teams in 50 seasons. Only 6 of those expansion teams were ever Canadian based, the rest in US markets. There hasn't been expansion in Canada since 1992. 7 teams (Seattle will make 8) have been added in the US since then. The league is a business. Money is the ultimate goal. If there was more to be made in Canada, the NHL would put more teams there. They would have no reason not to. They haven't because the market is tapped. ECON101

Canadian based franchises make up just under 25% of the league. Yet, they haven't won a Stanley Cup since 1993. In fact they have only 5? Finals appearances since then. Statistically speaking a Canadian team should win the Cup every 4 to 5 years and have a team in the Finals every 2 to 3. And yet we need to put more franchises in Canada? Why? If they aren't winning now, how does adding more teams change that? As much as purists hate having teams in places like Arizona, Miami and Carolina and want to relocate them, Carolina and Florida have more finals appearances since their inceptions than Montreal, Toronto, and Winnipeg. And Arizona has just as many- 0. Florida has just as many Finals appearances as Ottawa, Calgary, and Edmonton (1) since their expansion. Only Vancouver (2) has more in that time. And Carolina has more Finals appearances (2) than every Canadian franchise since they moved to Raleigh. And 1 Stanley Cup to Canada's 0. In 16 seasons, the Nordiques missed the playoffs 7 times, made the Conference Finals only twice, and never once made it to the Cup finals. Why do they deserve another team over the "non-hockey" markets?

Agreed. Drew Doughty has a good shot.

Really? I thought hockey was religion up north. I mean even non-football fans watch the Super Bowl in the US regardless of who is playing in it.

You'll enjoy this then: https://www.wingingitinmotown.com/2018/5/19/17364276/noah-hanifin-andrei-svechnikov-and-the-red-wings-flagging-down-canes-country-for-some-trade-talk The big deal In talking about what makes sense, Brian did bring up that there is a bit of smoke around Noah Hanifin. The 5th overall pick in that same 2015 draft in which the Red Wings took Svechnikov. While obviously you’re not getting that one-for-one, but in including Andreas Athanasiou, it seems we struck a balance that was the right kind of uncomfortable for both sides. Detroit would be giving up two wingers who add scoring from a team that needs a lot more scoring while Carolina would be pulling the plug on an all-star defenseman to take a gamble on an unproven guy and an electrifying-but-inconsistent youngster. To be perfectly honest, this is probably a deal that requires Detroit to throw in slightly more value, but there’s a decent chance that the extra intangible value of the Svechnikov brother connection doesn’t boot this off the table from the get-go.

Just because she runs on batteries doesn't mean she's not real. Don't be a #fembotaphobe.

Carley Johnston is Olivia Munn hot. Not a 10, but attainably hot. The kind of girl you wanna hang around with.

Maybe just a tiny bit?

What? you wouldn't give up the 7th pick for Faulk? I would. A 25 year old team captain, right handed, puck moving, top pair defenseman? What are you going to get at 7 that's better? Wahlstrom? Is a winger more valuable than a Dman? Dobson, Hughes? Unknowns who may not turn out to be as good as Faulk? Yes, I think it would take more than that pick. For Skinner? NO. For Hanifin? Yes. And as far as Boeser goes, would I trade a 21 year old winger for a future 21 year old top pair D in Hanifin? 8 days a week I would make that trade. If I am the Canucks, I don't even hesitate.

NOOOOO. There is no offer that I would trade her for. Hubba Hubba. OK this guy.

I would "Like" this if I knew who that was. BTW, "Car Guy" intrigues me, but since this isn't a website for auto enthusiasts, i don't see how he's relevant.

Vancouver's #7 overall to start. If it's a hockey trade, how about Boeser for one of them straight up? I'd do it. Fixed.

Don't jinx us dude. SO then we should be able to get Bouchard for future considerations, right?

Lots of blowing and occasional showers. Her warm front is impressive. Which is ironic considering they're trying to get rid of cheerleaders and dancers because it "objectifies" women. As long as you put up a good appearance tho, that's what matters.

I don't either. I prefer Dill Weed. I heard Some Guy had a great year in juniors and led his team in playoff scoring. He seems promising, but I am more excited about possibly getting Other Dude. he's legit.

That makes sense. Her former job certainly involved precipitation.