Trettioåtta

The guy is a 50 point scorer with leadership abilities $4 million would be a pay cut and a steal. $3 mill would be moronic. The guy is worth $5 million easily. The guy would have been 3rd on our team in points. $7.5 is overkill, but let's not pretend he is some useless bum. Joel Ward gets $3 million and he is a 4th liner Yes but we also need Hecht and Boyes to resign young guys

One of the reasons other teams have gotten away with it is because: a) wasn't an over 35 contract b) the cap always went up enough c) the cba didn't penalise it With a new CBA it could be a much riskier signing. Especially as he would probably get a NMC. It would be a lot to pay for him over the next 2 years, however, the last 2 years could be crippling. We have our younger guys to resign and on a 4 year contract it isn't out of the realm that we would have to re-sign Girgs/Grigs before he is off the books

Teemu put up 16 more points and is 7 years older and took $4.5 million. I think as Doan is younger and more physical he is worth the same, despite putting up less points. The real issue is in 2 years time, when he is a lot older and still taking a large slice of the pie. I'd do 2 years 15 mil or 4 years 20 mil i think - but 4 years 30 mil seems very excessive in the future I think Doan is the physical body who opens up the ice, Cody is the pivot who is strong defensively and his no look passes are beautiful and both feed the pure goal scorer that is Vanek. Cody and Vanek seemed to work well together at the end of last season. With Cody and Vanek together i could see them hitting the 60 and 70 point barriers, respectively. Just an opinion though.

Doan is a 50 point player minimum, in todays NHL that is worth $4-4.5 million, easily, he is meant to be one of the best leaders in the game and is also very very good with the community of the area he lives in, that has to be worth another million. That salary is obviously an over payment, but that is to get him to want to play for us instead of a nicer city. I think a CVD like would be good. They would be defensively responsible and could put up the points. Doan would be the big body hitter on the line. Also Doan would be good for developing Cody as a person and a player

Betman seems to be playing a lot harder ball than the PA. The Pa's proposal seemed fairly fair and a good starting point. Where as the leagues seemed like it was doing the classic style of bargaining where you start asking for like 4 times the asking price. Not sure i like his approach with the limit just 23 days away

Just as with Crosby, from a hockey point of view it is ridiculous to give these contracts to players who struggle to stay healthy. However, from a business point of view, both those guys sell seats and jerseys and are good for the NHL's image of talented players. Weird really. He probably got a couple of million for playing in Alberta. Nobody likes it there. Not even the locals

I agree it shows out commitment to winning. But having a high profile UFA sign here because of money doesn't show to the rest of the NHL that we are a desirable city or location to future UFAs. If Doan was to come here for $4.5 million, it would show that either this is a great place for a guy like him/family or that we are committed to winning and could convince him as such. That would make future players stop and say, well if it is good enough for Doan to go to it must be good. Otherwise they will just say, well Doan only went there because the over-payed him by 50% I also don't think it would harm our reputation and would probably improve it a bit. But i don't think drastically overpaying for a player will make people consider Buffalo a desirable location. The city is considered pretty rubbish in comparison to others, (i quite liked it when i visited, but it didn't have the same feel as NYC), especially NYC which is just down the road. Thus the only thing that will make players want to play for the Sabres for a competitive rate is us winning. It is quite the vicious circle. Once you become good players want to play for you, but in order to become good you usually need good players. That is why sucking and building through high draft picks has worked in recent years If they alter the cap then the players will have their salaries rolled back. If they change the rules on contracts then either the teams get to restructure the deals, or more likely, the contracts already signed will stand. You can't punish a team for violating a rule that did not exist

Get a big-time UFA to sign with you because you offered them 50% higher than the rest of the market doesn't really say much. Also he got 50 points playing with players he has known a long time in an area he feels comfortable with. New team, new city and getting older means i think that this $7.5 million should be for a 40 point player and anything more is a bonus. I agree that we might be more talented but most UFAs have a drop in production and most over 35s have a drop off in production every year

They're about to butcher the near perfection that is the inbetweeners

He is under the cap, so it's fine. Just shows he has been giving people hefty signing bonuses (Myers accounts for like $5 of the 10 million on his own. In other news, http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=403610 Quick, quick sign your best players to long extensions before a limit on years comes in. But whine about these long contracts when other teams do them!!!!

Your point about number 3 is a little false i think, yes we will be back, yes the people who comment on TSN will be back. However, the more fair weather fans may not, or at least not for a while. Teams in struggling markets can't afford to just tell their fans they won't be back for a year.

As opposed to dry humping the clothed variety of penguin?

Oops i posted the SImmonds thing again in the other thread. However, my favourite part of this signing is the TSN users who keep asking if that is Subban in a flyers jersey and if the Habs will get compensation for the signing

Ennis should get like a 10/11 million contract over 3 years i think. Not 2 years as i believe we have Pommers, Vanek and Miller in FA that year and 1 year seems too short. I think this year is particularly slow because of the CBA - not only because of the worry about how it will change/affect the rules etc. but also because people's time is being spent talking about it/apparently doing nothing about it Also: http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=403182 Thoughts? I personally like it. I'd take him for that money - second line grit with intangibles who wil be 50ish pointer

Can hockey afford another lock out? The league needs to ride the recent success of teams no cares about winning (Pens, Hawks and Kings). I hope a lockout is not being used as a weapon instead of a last resort, but i really don't like the fact that: A) it took the lead a month to produce an offer - that should have been ready the moment the season finished. B) The fact the PA spent another replying, they should have spoken about what they wanted from the league and then modified their desires depending on the league's requests.

I really hope they don't put Pronger on LTIR for 5 years and then when his contract runs out let him retire - that would seem like such a cheat to the system.

http://www.broadstreethockey.com/2012/7/31/3206457/danny-briere-trade-flyers-sabres http://www.diebytheblade.com/2012/7/31/3205982/buffalo-sabres-philadelphia-flyers-trade-danny-briere From Sabretooth

TBH, not that it has ever affected me, but i always found the pledge to be rather weird - seemed too right wing

What did she say?

Well said - i agree completely. Andrew Amerk, i'm not sure how what you said is ever seen as an acceptable thing to say. But i hope something that fundamentally doesn't matter to life in anyway happens and you over react and your red neck justice causes you to go to prison. Chara should have been suspended, but the assault charges were ridiculous, it was a hockey play, however, if Kaleta runs Thomas or hits a player in the face with his stick, that is hard to justify as a hockey play. Quite frankly the more i think about it, the mre confused i am about how they did not suspend Lucic. It is ridiculous. It was a late play anyway, but the fact they are trying to get rid of concussions means you think they would suspend anyone to sends a another player to the hospital with a concussion

I agree. I prefer women's football for that reason

Hrm, okay after some very quick internet searches, it seems most guys carry it on their hip in a holster. Maybe it is just me, but i find it quite disturbing that a portion of the population walk around armed. Especially if alcohol is involved. So obviously most crime happens at night, which in my mind means you are probably either coming home from work or going out for a meal etc. fairly trivial activities where you have your wits about you. However, would be carry a concealed weapon if they were drinking? A lot of crime involves one of the parties being drunk (i.e. stupid or vulnerable), which to me means things could escalate quickly. Somehow, i feel more okay about a woman carrying a gun in her hand bag jsut because there is that longer time to get to the weapon than i do about someone carrying it on them. Also on a side note, if i lived in a city/place where i fundamentally felt the only way i could be safe was to carry something designed to kill other human beings then i think i would move. Is America really this dangerous? That even just walking down the street in a standard city there is the risk of needing to use a firearm? I'm also slightly confused as to the situation in which it would be used. Obviously there is these recent events where you might have time to pull a gun out and shoot the guy, although if you are carrying i would expect the person to have regular practice on the shooting range, otherwise you are probably as dangerous randomly firing off shots as the guy trying to shoot people. However, presuming most people carry it not because they are worried they will be in a room that is stormed by a mad man, but for the far more common event of being mugged or beaten up etc. Surely, if you are being mugged and guns are freely available then the mugger probably has a knife or a gun, either way would you have time to grab the gun and fire before they ahd time to shoot/cut you? I guess i'm just not really sure what event people imagine that having that gun would actually be a benefit to them? Anyone care to explain? I am not trying to be rude or patronising, and whilst i do not see a need to carry a weapon and so think it is wrong, i am genuinely trying to hear the other side of the argument. The closest thing i have found it people comparing it to how we wear seat belts, but i hope i don;t have to point out that is a moronic analogy

What?

Well it seems a bit red-neck/gangster to just walk round with a gun stuck into the back of your jeans and it seems a bit professional to walk around with a holster under your suit/on your hip

Is legal to carry a concealed weapon? Also, if you are a man, how do you concealed carry?