shrader

It needs to be alliterative. I've got nothing.

Something needs to be said for having realistic goal. If the only goal is to win the Cup, that's a 97% failure rate league-wide. Truth be told, for the majority of the league, the Cup is not the goal. At least half of the field must know at the start of the year that it's not happening. As you're suggesting, they need to set in place those building blocks that will hopefully get them to that Cup eventually. For a team that hasn't sniffed the playoffs since what seems like the Clinton administration (oops, that was the Bills), just getting there does sound like a good place to start.

Shut it down now before someone takes the bait that's dangling out there in a couple threads now.

I love how the wind chill is at that point where the two scales cross over, the rare temperature where it doesn't matter which units you're using.

Was that really necessary?

Even more damning when you consider that she's throwing that body check from beyond the grave. That certainly does bring an added intimidation factor.

It's not even worth the hassle though. You're probably more aware of the specifics of cap recapture, but that hit would be minimal with how his contract is structured, fairly lightly front-loaded.

I'm not sure on the exact measure, but it should basically be how much your plus/minus differs from the team average. If the team as a whole is a -5 and you are a -3. Your team relative would be +2. There may be some minor tweaks in the formula, but that's the basic idea.

I'm confused. I don't see anything in your quote about a pulled goalie. Basically it boils down to this. A goal for is counted as long as you don't have more players on the ice than the opposing team (including the goalie). Goals against count as long as you don't have less.

Players no longer on an ELC have to agree to being assigned to the ECHL. But as for the Moulson scenario, that goes right back to the discussion in the Beaulieu thread about how doing right by the player goes a long way. They worked with Moulson to find the right situation for him and there's no reason to think they wouldn't try to do something similar if they had an issue with another player.

And then there's Steve Bernier. If I remember correctly, he scored twice in his debut and then wound up with a grand total of 3 goals for his entire (short) Sabre career. And wasn't Juneau a lesser version of Barnes for that one year? I feel like I remember him doing very little but then putting up a very useful performance in the playoffs.

And just think about how he probably had other concussions that were never diagnosed seeing as how it was 1996. Lafontaine may has well have been living in the stone ages compared to what they do today. 35. The only issue with someone like Okposo when it comes to retirement would be a bit of cap recapture. I'm too lazy to dig it up, but I believe that hit would be $1 million per year over the rest of his contract if he stopped after the season. It's pretty minimal, so there wouldn't be all that much need to go the LTIR route.

Looking at their team as a whole for that stat? Yeah, it's not pretty. A 10 goal lead for worst goal differential? Wow it's bad out there.

There's a company somewhere out here that has a fleet of bright green dump trucks. Each of them has a Decepticon logo on the back. I absolutely love this.

Beaulieu had requested a trade ages ago at this point. What would make you think this deal was spontaneous at this point? They completely ignored him and then finally decided to take calls at the last second? That's highly unlikely. Now someone might want to argue that he had more value and should be playing, but the opinion that matters the most on that is the people who actually set the game day roster. Beaulieu has played 5 games in 2019, so clearly the guys making that decision did not want him playing. So at that point, he has very little value to them, especially given that they've been carrying about 85 defensemen lately. From that point of view, you take whatever you can get to clear him off of the roster.

So a few extra hours because Guhle was heading out west. Makes sense.

It's always interesting when one guy in the trade is able to play but the other isn't. I'm not trying to suggest anything here, just interesting.

And take a look at those 2014-2015 Rochester Americans for even more reason why it might not be a great idea to trade out every single future.

I don't mean to suggest that they'll jump to some other team. Offer sheets never happen, so it's definitely not going to suddenly occur with someone like Girgensons or Larsson. I'd think that if it was a time where one of these guy's wanted to leave, they'd probably bring it to the GMs attention and then a trade would happen. That or they head overseas. But anyway, I'd imagine that both will just sign their qualifying offers. Or possibly they add the second year, whatever gets them to UFA status. I'm too lazy to look that up, but both should be pretty close at this point.

And let's also factor into your scenarios the fact that Kane is leaving in free agency a few if you don't make that deal. We may want to judge these deals based solely on player vs. player, but there's always far more than just that in play.

Girgensons and Larsson are both RFAs after the season, which does at least bring some uncertainty into the equation. They'd get slight raises, but there is at least the chance that they could want to leave. It would be good if someone like O'Regan would show the ability to play that role though since the depth would obviously not be a bad thing.

Drinks are on 11 while it's down.

And some of those 20 will pan out and others won't. Just like how some from 21 through whatever will make it as well. Just because there's an expected value chart that someone put together, that doesn't mean you're getting exactly what that curve tells you. If anyone is living or dying off of that chart, they're more than likely doing the latter.

Which still leaves me wanting one today. That and a lot of those drafted centers wind up as wings.

You're oversimplifying things when it comes to comparing one guy trading away two first round picks to another guy trading one. There’s the obvious difference in count right off the bat, but the biggest issue with Murray was specifically the Lehner deal. Other equally qualified goalies were being moved at the same time for a smaller price. I don’t remember the specific health of each of them, but Lehner also had the concussion cloud hovering over him at the time. Murray overpaid for one of “his guys” and that was the general consensus at the time.