Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Can someone please tell me if the Sabres have to protect Moulson, Georgeso, BogosIan? Thanks.

 

Just bogo, Moulson might be an interesting thing for Las Vegas, gets them to the floor, and his buyout isn't that bad.

Posted

It's really a shame that Quebec City didn't get more of a realistic shot.  Posting those types of fees and having a building ready to go, is a shame.  The Nordiques were a model franchise back in the mid 80's into the 90's.

:huh: (Please say that was sarcasm.)

 

Starting in '86-'87 (which they SHOULD'VE missed the playoffs w/ but had the good fortune of having an even worse Sabres in division) they started an 8 year run where they only had 1 winning season (that being the year they were Moe-ray-all's 1st 2 of 10 OT victims en route to the SC) & had some expansion club level futility.

 

That club turned around when they traded for Roy; which would NEVER have happened had they stayed in Key-beck.

Posted

Just bogo, Moulson might be an interesting thing for Las Vegas, gets them to the floor, and his buyout isn't that bad.

They can't buyout players they take in the expansion draft for a full year. The appeal to Moulson would be the first point you made and the veteran appeal.

 

 

Also, despite a few reports otherwise, it appears Bogo does NOT have a NMC. I think there's a good chance he gets protected if he's here, though.

 

I could also see Buffalo choosing to do the "eight skaters" protection instead of the "seven forwards, three d and one goalie," though.

 

The seven forwards, three d and one goalie would likely be:

O'Reilly, Kane, Girgensons, Ennis, Larsson, Foligno and Deslauriers/Carrier; Risto, McCabe and Pysyk/Bogo; Lehner.

 

The eight skaters allows them to protect:

O'Reilly, Kane, Girgensons, Larsson/Foligno/Ennis; Risto, McCabe, Bogo and Pysyk; Lehner

 

I would rather protect Pysyk and Bogo than Foligno, Larsson and Ennis.

 

It also depends on what we do this offseason.

Posted

So, we don't have to protect Sam and Jack?

Nope. Don't need to protect Samson, Jack, Hudson, Casey Nelson, Justin Bailey or Nick Baptiste.

The only "prospect" we would need to protect is William Carrier.

Posted

Nope. Don't need to protect Samson, Jack, Hudson, Casey Nelson, Justin Bailey or Nick Baptiste.

The only "prospect" we would need to protect is William Carrier.

That is awesome news for us then. Sounds like it's going to completely screw teams like Tampa Bay 

Posted

 

I could also see Buffalo choosing to do the "eight skaters" protection instead of the "seven forwards, three d and one goalie," though.

 

 

It also depends on what we do this offseason.

 

 

No way we need to only protect one D as Murray will be busy soon acquiring another that we can't afford to lose. 

Posted

No way we need to only protect one D as Murray will be busy soon acquiring another that we can't afford to lose.

Huh? Neither situation forces you to protect one d. The "eight skaters" option will likely be used more by teams wanting to protect four forwards and FOUR defensemen.

Posted

Huh? Neither situation forces you to protect one d. The "eight skaters" option will likely be used more by teams wanting to protect four forwards and FOUR defensemen.

 

 

Yes disregard. Reading comprehension issue.

Posted

They can't buyout players they take in the expansion draft for a full year. The appeal to Moulson would be the first point you made and the veteran appeal.

Also, despite a few reports otherwise, it appears Bogo does NOT have a NMC. I think there's a good chance he gets protected if he's here, though.

I could also see Buffalo choosing to do the "eight skaters" protection instead of the "seven forwards, three d and one goalie," though.

The seven forwards, three d and one goalie would likely be:

O'Reilly, Kane, Girgensons, Ennis, Larsson, Foligno and Deslauriers/Carrier; Risto, McCabe and Pysyk/Bogo; Lehner.

The eight skaters allows them to protect:

O'Reilly, Kane, Girgensons, Larsson/Foligno/Ennis; Risto, McCabe, Bogo and Pysyk; Lehner

I would rather protect Pysyk and Bogo than Foligno, Larsson and Ennis.

It also depends on what we do this offseason.

Without adding another vet to a two-year contract , they will probably have to expose someone like DLo.

Need to expose three players under contract who play at least 40 games next year, or 70 this and next.

Moulson and Gorges are only two - Gionta and Franson won't be under contract.

Posted

Without adding another vet to a two-year contract , they will probably have to expose someone like DLo.

Need to expose three players under contract who play at least 40 games next year, or 70 this and next.

Moulson and Gorges are only two - Gionta and Franson won't be under contract.

It's not just "three players" by the way, have to expose two forwards and one defenseman that fall in that category (so Gorges fulfills the defensive need).

Deslauriers, veteran we sign, Larsson (if extended) and others will make the second forward easy to expose.

 

We will also have to expose one goalie under contract through 2017-18, so I imagine whoever we get as a backup will have at least a two-year deal (Chad, come on back for two years).

Posted

It's going to be great having a team here in Las Vegas. Your telling me you wouldn't want to do a trip to the entertainment capital of the world to see your team play. I know they will be bad the first couple of seasons but it's going to be great for this city and hockey community.

Posted

Las Vegas is a terrible market for the NHL.  I think its going to be a magnanimous flop.  Quebec City was the better market for hockey going forward.  But, I understand their fear with having too many teams north of the US.  We'll see.  Take Moulson, Gorges, etc :)

Posted

Las Vegas is a terrible market for the NHL.  I think its going to be a magnanimous flop.  Quebec City was the better market for hockey going forward.  But, I understand their fear with having too many teams north of the US.  We'll see.  Take Moulson, Gorges, etc :)

 

Well, at least the tips will be good while it's flopping.

Posted

Las Vegas is a terrible market for the NHL. I think its going to be a magnanimous flop. Quebec City was the better market for hockey going forward. But, I understand their fear with having too many teams north of the US. We'll see. Take Moulson, Gorges, etc :)

The issue with Quebec is the low exchange rate of the Canadian dollar due in large part to dropping oil demand, which placed an extra financial burden on Canadian teams. Plus the league would prefer to use Quebec as a relocation site in case a team like Carolina decides to move. And they want to balance the conferences and hope Seattle can get their act together to build an arena.

Posted

Plus the league would prefer to use Quebec as a relocation site in case a team like Carolina decides to move. 

 

I think this must be the working plan right now. QC gets a failing/troubled eastern team.

 

And when QC gets a team, I demand, DEMAND, that the Sabres annually (or at least biannually (??)) schedule a weekend road swing to both Montreal and QC (Friday/Saturday?). THAT would be some fun, man.

Posted

I think this must be the working plan right now. QC gets a failing/troubled eastern team.

 

And when QC gets a team, I demand, DEMAND, that the Sabres annually (or at least biannually (??)) schedule a weekend road swing to both Montreal and QC (Friday/Saturday?). THAT would be some fun, man.

 

Hell yeah!

This topic is OLD. A NEW topic should be started unless there is a VERY SPECIFIC REASON to revive this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...