It's Gone! 2004-2006 NHL Offseason and Lockout Thread

[MrIllini]

the Blues did not QO Demitra

great move Larry, you ballbag

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by MrIllini

the Blues did not QO Demitra

great move Larry, you ballbag

The Blues' hands were tied. With Tkachuck ($9 million?) and Weight ($8 million), I don't think they could afford another mega-salaried forward. Especially with Pronger making the money he will make. Those three players alone will account for around $27 million next year.

[MrIllini]

I'd have rather seen them cut bait with Tkachuk

or at least QO the guy then move him

[Draft Dodger]

Demitra would look nice in an Avs uniform...

[MrIllini]

Lacroix ain't that smooth

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by MrIllini

Lacroix ain't that smooth

Lacroix is one of the smoothest GMs out there.

[bbor]

He must be...he traded his own son and is still married

[MrIllini]

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

Lacroix is one of the smoothest GMs out there.

well I tell you what, if he signs Demitra, we'll see

but I'll bet ya it doesn't happen

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by MrIllini

or at least QO the guy then move him

I doubt you'd be able to to trade him at $6.5M. Not without picking up a chunk of his salary, at least.

[MrIllini]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

I doubt you'd be able to to trade him at $6.5M. Not without picking up a chunk of his salary, at least.

I'd rather pick up a couple mil and get some picks/prospects out of the deal than just watch him walk *shurg*

guess it's still possible he comes back for less, but I reckon he probably feels pretty slighted at this point

[Karim]

Flames sign Simon (yes!) to a one or two year deal (still unclear) at around $1.6 million.

They also signed Byron Ritchie to a 3-year deal @ $500k/year. The key is a one-way contract that Ritchie wanted. He's from BC and played junior in Lethbridge, putting up great numbers but could never translate it into the NHL. Good 3rd/4th line depth signing for Calgary.

Rumour is Conroy to Atl for $9-$10 million/3 years...

[Draft Dodger]

sorry Leafs fans, Barnaby goes to Chicago instead.
Chicago also signs Curtis Brown.

the Avs pick up a couple of nice checking line players - Ian Lapperiere and Antti Laaksonen. Didn't realize Lapperriere had been around so long - looks like he was once part of a trade involving Jari Kurri...

[Karim]

I just finished reading an article about Joe Thornton asking for a trade being upset about management's lack of support during the Montreal series.

Apparently Keenan has offered Bouwmeester, Weiss and Horton. I think if this is true, (and I have my doubts), Boston would be foolish to pass up on a deal like this.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by Karim

I just finished reading an article about Joe Thornton asking for a trade being upset about management's lack of support during the Montreal series.

Apparently Keenan has offered Bouwmeester, Weiss and Horton. I think if this is true, (and I have my doubts), Boston would be foolish to pass up on a deal like this.

link?

[MrIllini]

lappy's a good scrapper DD

[Coder]

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

link?

http://nypost.com/sports/24428.htm

It's merely Larry Brooks theorizing. He's suggesting that Keenan would love to get Thornton back and would be willing to part with Bouwmeester to get him.. crock if you ask me.

[MrIllini]

on a related note, Guns 'N Roses is the best band of all time

[bbor]

Originally Posted by Karim

I just finished reading an article about Joe Thornton asking for a trade being upset about management's lack of support during the Montreal series.

Apparently Keenan has offered Bouwmeester, Weiss and Horton. I think if this is true, (and I have my doubts), Boston would be foolish to pass up on a deal like this.

If Keenan offered me this deal i would'nt let him off the phone until i got the confirmation fax

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by Coder

http://nypost.com/sports/24428.htm

It's merely Larry Brooks theorizing. He's suggesting that Keenan would love to get Thornton back and would be willing to part with Bouwmeester to get him.. crock if you ask me.

yep - you pretty much lose me at the "Larry Brooks" part.
he's a perfect fit for the NY Post

[Maple Leafs]

OK, after thinking about it over the weekend, I have a plan to avoid a lockout.

A few assumptions:
- Let's assume Bettman is being honest when he says he's not trying to drive salaries down, he just wants "cost certainty" that's tied to revenues
- Let's also assume Goodenow is being honest when he says he just wants to let "the market" determine salaries

(Obviously these are big assumptions. If one or both guys are just blowing smoke with their stances, then this whole thing is a waste of time and the lockout will last until the union or the owners are completely broken and powerless.)

- Let's finally assume that once you get the cap issue ironed out, the other smaller stuff (rule changes, draft bonuses, etc) can be hammered out in some fair fashion.

For sake of argument, let's assume all of these to be true. If they are, here's my Four Point plan to save the NHL.

Step 1: Create a hard salary cap, based on total revenue for each year. Yes, I know, the plan is already dead because Goodenow will never accept a cap. But stay with me. We forget about Bettman's ludicrous $31M cap, which would effectively cut player salaries league-wide by almost a half-billion dollars. Bettman just wants cost certainty, right? So we give it to him: we set the salary cap at 70% of league revenue, split evenly among the teams.

Current estimates put league revenue at a shade under $2B, so if you do the math you wind up with a salary cap of $45M per team. The owners get their cost certainty, and the players can't really complain too loudly about the 70% figure, since it's significantly higher than any other league. So far so good.

Step 2: Create a salary floor, equal to the salary cap minus $10M. Since the salary cap at the start would be $45M, the floor is $35M. No team may spend less than $35M on salaries. After all, fair is fair. If Detroit and Toronto won't be able to spend $60M every year, no sense letting Minnesota spend $20M.

So if every team spends the full $45M, total salaries will be about $1.35B, which is slightly higher than what it was last year. But Bettman can't complain, because he gets his cost certainty, right? And if all the teams decide to stick to the $35M floor, salaries drop to slightly above $1B -- a significant drop. But Goodenow can't complain, since that would just be the "free market" at work, right?

Step 3: You can't really have a hard cap with guaranteed contracts. So, we pass a new rule: at any time in the life of a contract, a team can cut a player. To do so, they pay him a total equal to one-half of the average yearly salary left on his deal. So if the Sens decide Daniel Alfredsson isn't worth the 5-year $25M deal they gave him, they can cut him at any time by writing him a check for $2.5M (half of an average $5M salary). If they do, he becomes an unrestricted free agent and can sign anywhere he wants.

You'd need some sort of rule here to limit signing bonuses to keep the players from demanding their entire contracts up front, but otherwise this seems reasonably fair to both sides.

Finally, the one that makes it all work...

Step 4: We've asked the players to make huge concession so far. We've made them accept the salary cap they say they never will, and we're taking away their guaranteed contracts. We have to give them something back, and we do: All players are now eligible for unrestricted free agency after five full seasons.

That's right, players as young as 23 years old will be able to become UFAs. This brings hockey roughly into line with other sports -- baseball is six years, basketball three, etc. Yes, that means teams won't be able to draft a guy and hold his rights for 13+ years anymore. Yes, it means guys like Heatley and Kovalchuk could be free agents and go sign with Detroit or New York in a few years. But if you want to make a deal, you have to offer something significant to the players. If you want a cap like the other sports, it's only fair to have FA like the other sports.

So there you have it. A mandatory payroll of $35-$45M, no more guaranteed contracts, and accelerated free agency. Game on!

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

OK, after thinking about it over the weekend, I have a plan to avoid a lockout.

A few assumptions:
- Let's assume Bettman is being honest when he says he's not trying to drive salaries down, he just wants "cost certainty" that's tied to revenues
- Let's also assume Goodenow is being honest when he says he just wants to let "the market" determine salaries

(Obviously these are big assumptions. If one or both guys are just blowing smoke with their stances, then this whole thing is a waste of time and the lockout will last until the union or the owners are completely broken and powerless.)

- Let's finally assume that once you get the cap issue ironed out, the other smaller stuff (rule changes, draft bonuses, etc) can be hammered out in some fair fashion.

For sake of argument, let's assume all of these to be true. If they are, here's my Four Point plan to save the NHL.

Step 1: Create a hard salary cap, based on total revenue for each year. Yes, I know, the plan is already dead because Goodenow will never accept a cap. But stay with me. We forget about Bettman's ludicrous $31M cap, which would effectively cut player salaries league-wide by almost a half-billion dollars. Bettman just wants cost certainty, right? So we give it to him: we set the salary cap at 70% of league revenue, split evenly among the teams.

Current estimates put league revenue at a shade under $2B, so if you do the math you wind up with a salary cap of $45M per team. The owners get their cost certainty, and the players can't really complain too loudly about the 70% figure, since it's significantly higher than any other league. So far so good.

Step 2: Create a salary floor, equal to the salary cap minus $10M. Since the salary cap at the start would be $45M, the floor is $35M. No team may spend less than $35M on salaries. After all, fair is fair. If Detroit and Toronto won't be able to spend $60M every year, no sense letting Minnesota spend $20M.

So if every team spends the full $45M, total salaries will be about $1.35B, which is slightly higher than what it was last year. But Bettman can't complain, because he gets his cost certainty, right? And if all the teams decide to stick to the $35M floor, salaries drop to slightly above $1B -- a significant drop. But Goodenow can't complain, since that would just be the "free market" at work, right?

Step 3: You can't really have a hard cap with guaranteed contracts. So, we pass a new rule: at any time in the life of a contract, a team can cut a player. To do so, they pay him a total equal to one-half of the average yearly salary left on his deal. So if the Sens decide Daniel Alfredsson isn't worth the 5-year $25M deal they gave him, they can cut him at any time by writing him a check for $2.5M (half of an average $5M salary). If they do, he becomes an unrestricted free agent and can sign anywhere he wants.

You'd need some sort of rule here to limit signing bonuses to keep the players from demanding their entire contracts up front, but otherwise this seems reasonably fair to both sides.

Finally, the one that makes it all work...

Step 4: We've asked the players to make huge concession so far. We've made them accept the salary cap they say they never will, and we're taking away their guaranteed contracts. We have to give them something back, and we do: All players are now eligible for unrestricted free agency after five full seasons.

That's right, players as young as 23 years old will be able to become UFAs. This brings hockey roughly into line with other sports -- baseball is six years, basketball three, etc. Yes, that means teams won't be able to draft a guy and hold his rights for 13+ years anymore. Yes, it means guys like Heatley and Kovalchuk could be free agents and go sign with Detroit or New York in a few years. But if you want to make a deal, you have to offer something significant to the players. If you want a cap like the other sports, it's only fair to have FA like the other sports.

So there you have it. A mandatory payroll of $35-$45M, no more guaranteed contracts, and accelerated free agency. Game on!

My thoughts...I realize you wrote all four points to work with each other here, so forgive me if addressing them individually ruins that.

Point 1: I like the concept of a hard cap to a point, but exceptions need to be designed into it for emergencies, such as those caused by injury. The problem there, of course, is at one point do those exceptions become essentially loopholes to get more players? To institue that plan, I think you would have to come up with something like exceptions, and that could be an iffy situation.

But that's just a quibble. My main issue with the hard cap in Point #1 is that it's too high. Yes, I know that's key to the union accepting it, but 70% is just too much of a cost. Remember, not every cost is salary, so holding salary levels at 70% of average revenue only limits one cost, but might also ensure that many, if not most teams, would not be able to make a profit. I think 65% is a much more comfortable level for this, although even that isn't going to help some teams.

Also, does your salary cap figure take into account the new TV deal? Next year's league revenue might be significantly less than this year's.

Like the NBA, salary cap issues in trades will also become a significant factor and need a whole new set of rules (not that I don't think all the lawyers in this mess couldn't devise them).

2) I like the concept of a minimum cap, but we run into the same issues that were suggested when this was thrown out in baseball. Some players will be getting ridiculously inflated contracts they don't deserve, just so a team can reach the minimum cap. It's throwing money away and is just very inefficient. It's also not the free market the union wants. They won't complain about a player making more money, of course, but if better players are out there working for less money than they should, because a team committed resources wastefully to a lesser player, that could cause unrest as well.

But my main issue is that I think setting it so high ($35 M) does two things. The first is, that teams will be forced to pay that much, and I believe there are teams for which that, plus the associated costs of running the club, end up still being a losing venture for them. And this time it would be guaranteed to be a losing venture. The second is that such a tight salary cap range (just $10 M from $35 M to $45 M) will create way too much parity. That's a lesser problem to me as I don't mind the ever changing NFL, but I know it will matter to others, and I also think the range suggested here is even much tighter than the NFL and will be even more volatile on a year-to-year basis.

3) I have no real issue with #3, except I don't see how the union will accept that their players can have multimillion dollar contracts voided for what amounts to a pittance, particularly early in a contract. I think a system for doing this will need to be put in place, with constraints that make taking this route a more iffy proposition for the club. Perhaps the half of a year's salary needs to be raised to a more significant value of the remaining contract (a precentage of the net worth of the remaining contract, for instance), or chnages to the cap a team can run would have to be implemented to give such a move longterm consequences on the club's salary structure/ability to sign and trade for new players a la NFL.

4) I completely agree with lowering free agency age. The fact teams can hold on to a player's rights for 13 years, through most if not all of their prime, is Draconian, IMO.

But I think five seasons is just too small. I don't think players should be seeing free agency until 25 or 26, when they are a little more mature and settled, and less apt to make rash decisions on the whims of their money-hungry agents or because they "want to party". A 23-year-old might make decisions like that, while I think there is a key growing stage for men from 21 to 26 or 27, at least mentally. So I think six or seven years is more appropriate, with perhaps early allowances for players who enter the league at a later age than 18 or 19.

That's my thoughts on your plan, Sean. I think it's a good plan, but that it's just too restrictive, and I am not sure the lower revenue teams would benefit from this at all (and I would guess that also includes most Canadian teams, if my understanding of the issues between them and American-based teams is right).

CR

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

But that's just a quibble. My main issue with the hard cap in Point #1 is that it's too high. Yes, I know that's key to the union accepting it, but 70% is just too much of a cost. Remember, not every cost is salary, so holding salary levels at 70% of average revenue only limits one cost, but might also ensure that many, if not most teams, would not be able to make a profit. I think 65% is a much more comfortable level for this, although even that isn't going to help some teams.

True enough. You'll notice I didn't say anything about revenue sharing. That's largely because I don't think revenue sharing should be a CBA issue -- rather, it's up to the owners to figure out what to do with their money. We know there's more than enough money in the pot to pay out the 70% number (the "other" expenses aren't that high, especially with so many sweetheart lease deals), it's just a question of how to spread it around.

Team like Toronto and Detroit will have their payrolls chopped by up to $20M -- maybe that money goes back to the smaller teams. It's up to the owners to work it out, but the money is there. From the player's perspective, why should they take a lower cap value just to help the handful of struggling teams when there's already more than enough money in the pot? If the big market owners don't want to sacrifice, fine... just don't ask the players to sacrifice for you.

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Also, does your salary cap figure take into account the new TV deal? Next year's league revenue might be significantly less than this year's.

They'd need to find a way to work that into it. The league must have an estimate of some sort that they could use as a baseline for this year.

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I like the concept of a minimum cap, but we run into the same issues that were suggested when this was thrown out in baseball. Some players will be getting ridiculously inflated contracts they don't deserve, just so a team can reach the minimum cap. It's throwing money away and is just very inefficient.

Well, players already get ridiculous contracts that they don't deserve, but that's beside the point. I concede that there are issues with a salary floor. I just can't bring myself to call it fair if a system forces Toronto to cut it's payroll by 25%+ but doesn't also force the teams that are lowballing to pay up.

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

But my main issue is that I think setting it so high ($35 M) does two things. The first is, that teams will be forced to pay that much, and I believe there are teams for which that, plus the associated costs of running the club, end up still being a losing venture for them.

Well, keep in mind that the average payroll last years was $44M, so the money is out there to pay the $35M easily if there's some sort of revenue share. Beyond that, if you look at the lowest payrolls last year you'll find that they're almost all teams that are either recent expansion teams following the low-budget blueprint (ATL, NAS, COL, and MIN) or teams that in obvious rebuilding mondes (CHI, PIT). Calgary, Ottawa, Phoenix and Carolina are already over $35M. Buffalo is just short. Edmonton was at about $31M, but that's no so far as to be out of reach.

I guess my answer to your objections would be two-fold:
- With some basic revenue sharing in place, most teams would be able to spend the $35M with room for a profit. Not necessarily a large profit, but no business should be guaranteed a large profit just for existing.
- If there are teams that legitimately can't cobble together enough revenue to cover $35M (keeping in mind, this league made $2B last year), even with revenue sharing... well, maybe they just shouldn't have a team. This league could afford to lose two or four or six teams and still have plenty to go around. If some teams are really trailing the others so badly that they can't keep up with even a modest salary floor, then at some point their owners will need to make some tough decisions.

[Simms]

"Multiple sources" (including at least one agent) have told the FAN (Toronto sports radio) that their understanding is that winger Glen Murray has already signed a deal with the Leafs. Anton Thun, Murray's agent, will only confirm that he's talked with Toronto, and not since last Friday.

Take that for what you wish.

[Maple Leafs]

Speaking of unannounced signings, Sean O'Donnell has apparently signed with Phoenix(!), not LA as had been expected.

[samifan24]

At least we'll have the AHL. I can keep track of my favorite NHL prospects next season while there's no NHL.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Boyd "The Void" Devereaux has ended up in Phoenix. And Cairns is now in Florida. I like that. I have always sort of liked Florida for some reason. No, because of Paul Laus. Now that Laus is pretty much done (due to injury), it's good to see another big, tough bruising defenseman like Cairns there to carry on the legacy.

[bbor]

Rennie is the best coach the Rangers could find?

[Karim]

I think it's a positive step for the Rangers. They've dumped some salaries, had a great draft and now have gone after a coach known for developing players instead of just getting a "name".

[Karim]

Conroy signs with LA for $12.6 million/4 years ($3.15 million/year).

In an interview, he said Sutter offered him a contract around the draft and then never talked to him again. It was a 3 year offer at around the same money he was making ($2.2 million/year) but the third year was dependant upon statistical output of year two. Also, a no trade clause was NOT included and he feared he might sign and be traded by December.

A lot of Flames fans are upset with him because Conroy talked a great game - how he loved the city, the fans, it wasn't about the money, he wanted security for his family instead, etc., etc. So to see him leave isn't sitting well with some people. It was clear however, he wasn't in Sutter's long-term plans.

In an interesting move, Sutter has signed 7 young free agents who either were let go by their AHL/ECHL clubs, were not drafted or were too old to return to junior. Apparently he's stocking up for potentially a new affiliate. Two of the players signed are the brothers of Robyn Regehr (Ritchie) and Marcus Nilson (Patrik).

[Draft Dodger]

you know, Hasek kind of LOOKS like the Sens logo...

[bbor]

So who does Sutter get to centre Jarome?

[chrisj]

I saw this posted elsewhere... I think it's funny. :P

NHL players need YOU!

Since September 11, 2001, Americans and Canadians have come together as never before in our generation. We have banded together to overcome tremendous adversity. We have weathered direct attacks on our own soil, wars overseas, corporate/government scandal, layoffs, unemployment, stock price plunges, droughts, fires, mad cow, SARS, high gasoline prices, and a myriad of economic and physical disasters both great and small. But now, we must come together once again to overcome our greatest challenge yet. Hundreds of Professional Hockey players in our very own nation are going to be locked out, living at well below the seven-figure salary level. And as if that weren't bad enough they could be deprived of their life giving pay for several months, possibly longer, as a result of the upcoming lockout situation. But you can help!

For only $20,835 a month, about $694.50 a day (that's less than the cost of a large screen projection TV) you can help an NHL player remain economically viable during his time of need. This contribution by no means solves the roblem as it barely covers the annual minimum salary, but it's a start, and every little bit will help!

Although $700 may not seem like a lot of money to you, to a hockey player it could mean the difference between spending the lockout golfing in Florida or on a Mediterranean cruise. For you, seven hundred dollars is nothing more than a month's rent, half a mortgage payment, or a month of medical insurance, but to a hockey player, $700 will partially replace his daily salary.

Your commitment of less than $700 a day will enable a player to buy that home entertainment center, trade in the year-old Lexus for a new Ferrari, or enjoy a weekend in Rio.

HOW WILL I KNOW I'M HELPING?

Each month, you will receive a complete financial report on the player you sponsor. Detailed information about his stocks, bonds, 401(k), real estate, and other investment holdings will be mailed to your home. Plus, upon signing up for this program, you will receive an unsigned photo of the player lounging during the lockout on a beach somewhere in the Caribbean (for a signed photo, please include an additional $150). Put the photo on your refrigerator to remind you of other peoples' suffering.

HOW WILL HE KNOW I'M HELPING?

Your NHL player will be told that he has a SPECIAL FRIEND who just wants to help in a time of need. Although the player won't know your name, he will be able to make collect calls to your home via a special operator in case additional funds are needed for unforeseen expenses.

YES, I WANT TO HELP!

I would like to sponsor a locked out NHL player. My preference is (check below):

[ ] Forward [ ] Defenseman [ ] Goaltender [ ] Entire team (Please call our 900 number to ask for the cost of a specific team - $10 per minute) [ ] Jaromir Jagr (Higher cost: $32,000 per day)

Please charge the account listed below $694.50 per day for the duration of the lockout. Please send me a picture of the player I have sponsored, along with an Jaromir Jagr 2001 Income Statement and my very own Bob Goodenow (Executive Director of the NHLPA player's Union) pin to wear proudly on my hat (include $80 for hat).

Your Name: _______________________

Telephone Number: _______________________

Account Number: _______________________ Exp.Date:_______

[ ] MasterCard [ ] Visa [ ] American Express [ ] Other

Signature: _______________________

Alternate card (when the primary card exceeds its credit limit):

Account Number: _______________________ Exp.Date:_______

[ ] MasterCard [ ] Visa [ ] American Express [ ] Other

Signature: _______________________

[Karim]

Originally Posted by bbor

So who does Sutter get to centre Jarome?

No one. Reinprecht takes over the role.

[Karim]

The WHA held its franchise-player draft:
http://www.worldhockeyassociation.ne.../top_story.htm

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

you know, Hasek kind of LOOKS like the Sens logo...

A little bit, he does.

I'll be the first to admit Hasek is a weird guy. There was that whole thing during the Senators-Buffalo series a few years back where Hasek was "injured" and was staying at the home of some Senator. There was the time he attacked Bondra. The talk of retirement. The injuries. All of that.

That said, he's been a pretty stand up guy when it comes to money. Last year he gave back (or refused to accept) a large portion of his contract with the Wings because he didn't play. He then goes and signs a $2 million deal with the Senators that will pay him an additional $4 million if they win the Cup. I think that's a pretty fair deal.

Not much more to say than that.

Oh, it appears as if the Wings are brining Chelios back for around $3 million. It's a one year deal. It's pretty much done, save for the details.

[Draft Dodger]

how to know your wife is a hockey fan, part 27:
you learn the Avs have a new coach from her.

I am on cloud 9 - Joel Quenneville! I hope this isn't a cruel joke (it's not official yet). Quenneville is exactly what the Avs need. Well, Bob Hartley is exactly what they need, but I digress.

this totally makes my day.

[Cards4ever]

I wonder how this will work out.


http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=1835446

[Draft Dodger]

Quenneville also gets bonus points because he was a Colorado Rockie. (I need to get one of those goofy jerseys)

[sachmo71]

Poor Tony.

[Cards4ever]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

Poor Tony.

It's what happens to former Badgers!

[Hurst2112]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

Poor Tony.

No shit. I haven't been following the off season that much, but I feel bad for Tony.

Wasn't he given a vote of confidence at the end of the year? I thought I remember hearing that, shortly after the Avs were ousted. I know that any promises for a coach don't amount to anything, but I would think Tony was taken by suprise by the move.

Not to mention Quenville isn't the greatest coach. Maybe wings fans should be celebrating the fact. Oh wait, it's 2004 and I'm talking about the Avs.

No worries! ( )

[Hurst2112]

Originally Posted by Cards4ever

It's what happens to former Badgers!

Question is, do you think he will find another job? I am not so sure he will. Perhaps as an assistant in the NHL. Hopefully.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Hurst2112

Question is, do you think he will find another job? I am not so sure he will. Perhaps as an assistant in the NHL. Hopefully.

From what I've heard, Granato is stepping down and is taking a job as an assistant coach under Quenville. I think that's what I read. He already was an assistant coach there. It could be sort of odd, but I am sure they can manage.

Lacroix loves Granato. I think he wants him to stay with the organization.

[bbor]

Odd situation in Colorado with Granato staying on as Asst.

Odder situation in Dallas where Hull may sign....again.

[bbor]

Listening to sports radio in Toronto..Leaf fans are hilarious.

They are ripping on Ottawa for signing a 39 year old goaltender.......Uhh...guys....Eddie is the same age eh..

Also they are saying that Ottawa will NEVER win a cup with Alfredsson as their captain....cause he's a SWEDE??????

I guess Sundin is Canadian?

[Johnny93g]

Originally Posted by bbor

Listening to sports radio in Toronto..Leaf fans are hilarious.

They are ripping on Ottawa for signing a 39 year old goaltender.......Uhh...guys....Eddie is the same age eh..

Also they are saying that Ottawa will NEVER win a cup with Alfredsson as their captain....cause he's a SWEDE??????

I guess Sundin is Canadian?

Hasek is 39, but he's played 14 games in 2 years....and Eddie has shown no signs of slowing down...he relies on positioning, not reflexes, so Im very happy he's back....

It's not that Ottawa's captain is swedish that they wont win a cup....It's that it's Alfferdsson, that fat, pussy, cheap shot, dirty bastard.....He's not a leader, he's a snake

[MrIllini]

'splain me this one

Granato gets demoted for playoff failure, and they turn around and hire Quenneville?

[sachmo71]

Jeez, Johnny. There are dirtier players in the league than Alfredsson. What's you beef with him?

[klayman]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

Jeez, Johnny. There are dirtier players in the league than Alfredsson. What's you beef with him?

Hell, there are dirtier players on his favorite team even.

[Maple Leafs]

Alfredsson's not that dirty. Actually, he's probably not even in the top 50 dirtiest players.

He does, however, play the "holier than thou" card in the media so often that you can forgive people for paying more attention to his cheapshots.