slavetothehotlight

That was no Bob Probert style head butt. It was more like a bump of visors.

Don't know. I searched but they say GM salaries are not made public. I did see a funny article about Carolina and their GM search last year, they were rumored to be only offering 400K per year. In that article they referenced a source as saying GM salaries were 1.5 -2 mil a few years before that.

The Sportsnet guys were just talking about Holland, next 24-48 hours for decision. Rumored to be 5 years 5million per year on the table.

I don't think so. I think as i said the coach of this team is a bit indifferent right now so maybe that was his reasoning. Its a no lose situation with Blashill, either the team surprises and overachieves and that would be fine or the team misses the playoffs again and Yzerman has at that point the ability and reasoning to bring in his next choice. If he brings in his first choice right off the bat and the team struggles again next year then maybe his stock declines. Blashill is a safe choice for at least another year. He at least officially speaking is not responsible for his extension so he has a bit of a built in safety net, even though I'm sure he was part of it.

Yzerman clearly had to sign off on Blashill extension. The team will continue to improve next year but still probably misses the playoffs so the coaching spot is indifferent at this point, however no coach would sign a one year extension so he is given 2 years. After next year if Vegas falls back to earth and misses the playoffs or goes out early, Gallant will be the next coach to take over the team as it ascends to the next level and competes for the cup again. Things that could derail this.. Vegas winning the cup... and the fact that i have no idea if they even like each other but it sound like a hella cool 80's reunion thing.

He will be our next GM , next year or sooner. Assuming we suck again this year or even if we improve or somehow make the playoffs, Blashil still goes bye bye. His first move will be hiring Gallant as the next coach, Vegas will not be able to replicate what it did last year.

I see. Yeah that makes more sense, Mickey would be talking about him taking a "coaching or management" role with the team. I didn't see the interview or the game so i heard Mickeys comment without any context.

Like i said. I think it's an absurd premise and why would Nick want to come back to this team. The comment was probably about something else. Im sure the organization would have him back as a side-show for the new arena.

Did anyone catch Mickeys little blurb about Nick Lidstrom. He said he wouldn't say what some people are saying. Followed that with something to the effect of "lets just say he really enjoyed playing in the alum game". Was that a hint of a comeback. Ha Ha. I know that sounds absurd but maybe Chelios is talking him into it.

Had this happen to a young family member several years ago (died after they went to sleep). While I'm not suggesting its the reason in this case, for my family member it was by all accounts a first time using heroin that turned out was laced with fentanyl. If anyone remembers, there were multiple deaths that year (about 10 years ago actually) where people took this bad heroin. Hopefully it wasn't something like this but either way it is still very sad. RIP.

Gotta agree with a few here saying it. You don't blindly dump the puck around the boards in OT. Keep it on your stick until tired bodies are replaced.

Not to take away from Millers great save and it is obviously a moot point. However, should he have received a penalty for having the puck in the trapezoid? Maybe the whistle blew before his glove hand slid in there?

The standards for jersey retirements are super high for the Wings and most teams. I think next to us the AVS might be the next most strictest team.

Thanks for the link. So the rollback occurred and teams like the wings still had to buy out contracts to get more lower priced players signed. I didnt see the video of the OP but i cant imagine the cap going down all that much, although i wouldnt have imagined a 37 mil cap when we were spending like 70+.

I am trying to recall what exactly happened at that time. Im not sure if its as you are suggesting that a proportional drop of all player salaries occurred to all the teams to keep them all intact. We had to buy out Hatcher if i recall to get under the cap. I believe the rule was created that still stands that any one player cannot make more than 20% of the overall cap. If your simply saying that the market for players adjusted to go along with the much smaller cap number then that would be correct. My memory could be foggy though or maybe im reading your post wrong. Sucks getting old. Now im thinking you are correct and the reason teams bought out higher priced players is because they needed to fill out roster spots with more players and couldnt get cap/roster compliant until they dumped the big salaries. It would be like getting rid of one big salary to take on 2 or 3 smaller ones. Oh well im sure someone will fill in my memory gaps.