Taro T

He's already there. 😉 Wait, you meant the one that got into trouble in Buffalo. He's already there. 😉 Oh, the one born and raised in Buffalo. Doubt it happens, but who knows.

Eichel & Reinhart are still playing. Nylander is vicariously living through his brother. Not sure on the rest.

Missed Bailey not getting qualified. Noted the other 3.

Would consider best realistic case trading for Quick & signing Samsonov but expect at most Adams would only do 1 or the other.

They can get all the rejects, er, highly valued prospects back: Lemieux, Johansson, Guhle. Boys, we're getting the band back together! 😄 (Would actually take a shot at landing Samsonov.)

They used his stunt double for that? Wtf?!? And, it's not like the next 3 attempts were any better. 😄

Never claimed he was considered a God when Chicago sent him packing, but he sure as heck was not considered a "scrub." Unkike PK's younger brother. 😉

But Connery's turn and shoot down the barrel was comically bad. He's waaaaaay better in the rest of the movie. 😉

Wouldn't say there's a particular order to watch, but of the Connery's would start with From Russia w/ Love, Goldfinger, or Dr. No. Would go with Live & Let Die, the Spy Who Loved Me, or the Man w/ the Golden Gun for Moore. Would go w/ License to Kill for Dalton. Golden Eye is the one for Brosnan. Casino Royale or Skyfall for Craig. (Yeah, realize there was 1 more official Bond. Silence speaks volumes. 😉 ) Have seen the whole series multiple times (minus the new one) including Never Say Never Again which isn't part of the series and had Connery remaking Thunderball. (The original was way better.) Have only seen parts of the original Casino Royale as that's not in our collection, wasn't a "true" Bond film, and rarely is on the tube. Neither Broccoli nor his daughter had any part in producing it. There's only a handful of dogs in the entire franchise. (Though personally would unfortunately include No Time to Die in that group. Very disappointing movie IMHO.)

You said he was a "scrub" because he was "expendable." Well, Gretzky was expendable, ... Dom Hasek was the best goalie ever to play in the 3rd best league in the world and had excelled at every level he'd played. And maybe had Captain Hook given him a start, he might not have been swept by the Pens. He kept the guy who got 70+ starts the year before and after only playing in 50 some RS games. That ain't a "scrub."

He will simply be IR'd. Being placed on BF-LTIR is meaningless until the team payroll will exceed the salary cap. And players can be retroactively placed onto BF-LTIR, so teams only invoke it when their team salary is about to go over the cap. That is because a team doesn't gain the player's full salary's worth of relief, but rather only the potion that they'd be over the cap. So, with an $82MM cap and a team with a $2MM player ready to go on BF-LTIR, if the team brings up a player raising the team payroll to $83MM when they invoke BF-LTIR, they can only go to $83MM w/ their cap and only gain $1MM in cap relief (not the $2MM of the player's full salary). They'd rather have the payroll at $84 w/ the BF-LTIR guy when they activate it to gain the full $2MM in relief.

PS - One further point, Muckler trading for whom he considered the best goalie in the league doesn't mean he considered Hasek a "scrub." It simply reinforced that he was too stupid to understand what he'd lucked into and was akin to the Bills drafting Spiller in the 1st round when they already had Jackson & Lynch. Sometimes GMs outsmart themselves trying to upgrade that which doesn't need upgrading.

And again, Muckler being a ####ing idiot doesn't make Hasek a scrub nor mean it was the prevailing sentiment. Guess who was between the pipes when "May Day" occurred? Guess who let in at least 1 bad goal in 4 straight 4-3 losses (3 of which came in OT)? It wasn't the guy that wore a full cage. Had Muckler not been a MFing idiot, that team could've won the Stanley Cup.

Of course he was considered ####ing expendable. They had a good chance to lose him for nothing because of the expansion draft and they had another goalie heading into his third season after having played 70+ games as a rookie cleaning up on the league hardware and then being the primary starter on a run to the Finals. By your definition, Gretzky was a "scrub" as HE was "expendable." When you have Montana & Young or Favre and Rodgers, necessarily one of them becomes "expendable." It doesn't make one a "scrub." Dude, stop digging. 😉

Jokiharju didn't get burned often when paired w/ Power because Power could cover for his mistakes. Power's mistakes burned him, because Joki could not return the favor. Give Power a partner that he can make the mistakes that come from being young in the best league in the world and watch him take his game to another level. Dahlin picked up his game post-AS game but it got even better when he got Samuelsson as a partner (swapping to the side he'd played in junior didn't hurt any either). Having a guy you can trust to do what he's supposed to/ needs to do works wonders for a young guy. Heck, Joki himself was looking very solid when he had Scandella to cover for his mistakes.

You never saw 81 in the Shatanic Goatheads play? Could've sworn you had. 😉

You said Hasek was considered a scrub which is serious hyperbole at its most favorable reading and a significant mischaracterization . Forgive any misconstruing of your meaning.

If he's re-signed, that's where he should be looking for an apartment.

No they didn't down in the prospect pool, but they have 4 young guys on the big squad that can play C, 5 if Asplund is included. So, yes, it's a need but 1 would've addressed the need. It's like saying they have no LHD in the system. They have 3 young studs in Buffalo & the adequate young guy in Bryson. Even if Johnson & Pilut don't arrive it isn't as pressing a need as G was and RHD still is at the prospect level.

Have to believe it was BPA. Forton said all 3 were well in the top 1/2 of their 1st round draft board. And the goalie had a 1st round grade as well. (Though need & a dearth of other viable candidates temper the validity of that particular ranking IMHO.)

It's the fool's gold of those extra "generational" players that goad GMs into full tear down mode. Expecting they'll regret it as much as the Sabres do. Adams should definitely kick the tires there (expecting he is) as the Sabres have prospects that they know won't make their own team because there are too many guys the same age that fit their plans better. But Chicago's cupboard is bare and they'll need players while waiting for the Saint Berard to arrive.

They & the NHL apparently don't have the KHL paperwork proving he's no longer encumbered yet. Until they have that, there's nothing they need to do to retain his rights; their paperwork remains on file.

Wonder why they put the photos up in a different order than they were listed in the tweet? (And for the handful of non-regulars here, that's R2, UPL, & Murray, followed by Goalofsson in the photos.)

They had what they thought was a future HoFer in Belfour. And they were only allowed to protect 1 goalie. They weren't getting a king's ransom for him. And the Hawks didn't trade him for Beauregard. They ended up w/ Ruuttuu and the pick that became Daze. The amazing thing wasn't him getting through 1 expansion draft unclaimed, it was his getting through a 2nd one as well. (Muckler was in full blown moron mode.) And again, getting exposed to an expansion draft doesn't mean you are considered a "scrub" unless guys like Fluery were scrubs too. Heck, Luongo at a similar stage of his career after having been the 4th overall pick could only bring back Parrish & Kvasha and the Aisles had to throw in Jokinen to get even that. Young goalies that haven't established themselves in the NHL bring back underwhelming returns. It doesn't make them "scrubs." IMHO, it was a poor analogy. What leagues have Malcolm Subban been hands down the best goalie in the league? And yes, he made ONE Hasekesque save in Buffalo, but given the injury he suffered later that game, his ability to do that again is very much in question.

Thus the "(d)oubt he can." 😉