Habsterix

Bad for whom? Subban is producing, Giroux is not. I think it's a much, much bigger gamble for the Habs don't you think?

Man, how low has he fallen? What's going one with him? I'd take a shot at him in Montreal, behind Subban on the right side... at the right price though.

I am convinced that Subban has never been so close to being made available. Therrien took him as a project, a purebred who needs to be tamed, as he calls him.While he has shown promises on that aspect, he's far from being tamed and that's why the Habs are reluctant to give him that big contract. It's a gamble that the organization has to decide if they're willing to take or not, as there is no denying that he has all the tools to be one of the best defensemen in the league.

How much do you want to bet that had it been Parros or Prust in the corner instead of Gallagher, he wouldn't have delivered that hit? I'm 100% positive...

If there's any truth to this rumour, Flyers' fans better hope that Holmgren gets canned before he does more dammage than he already has... You build around guys like Couturier. You don't trade them.

To Philly: PK SubbanTomas Plekanec To Montreal: Claude GirouxLuke Schenn Add minor pieces here or there to make it work for both teams.

Subban's an idiot. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnoUCfur70M

He's the single most guilty party for the Flyers' drop.

Two teams really struggling so far this season. What do you feel is available in trades from one or both teams, and what kind of return is/should be expected for each player you name? For example: Andrej Meszaros: draft pick to make room under the cap. Brian Boyle: B prospect. PS: I'm not saying that those are the returns expected as I'm not a fan of either team, but I'm curious to see what fans of those two teams would like in return for players that THEY feel should be available...

@ihabs1993 I can't agree more. Refs going out of their way to invent rules as they go, it seems. Incompetence at its best. Very unfortunate as fans pay big bucks to attend those games, yet get incompetent refereeing. A couple of games ago, Subban gives a clean check and gets called for elbowing. Replay clearly shows that it was not the case. One time, **** happens. Yesterday, Subban called for "embezzlement". What the hell is that? New rule? Did he steal a gun or something? Than that Eller goal/no-goal... Ref points at the net as a good goal, then goes upstairs to see if the call should be overturned. Up until now, everything is normal. Call on the ice is made, they now need conclusive evidence to reverse that call, as stated in the rulebook. Upon watching every angle, although I personnally don't think that the puck crossed the red line, there are no conclusive evidence one way or another, no one can see the puck. The call on the ice, by rule, should stay. Had he called "no goal" to start with, they wouldn't and couldn't overturn it. Well here's what the ref had to say: http://www.nhl.com/ice/search.htm?q=situation+room+predators+canadiens&tab=video Why did you point at the net, claiming to have seen it crossed?!?! Frustrating those referees...

See, this is why I'm against hybrid icing. The last thing this league needs is to add more calls to the jugement of officials, who are already too brutal since the implementation of the two referees system. Call the automatic icing as soon as the puck crosses the line, no ifs and buts about it.

I hate seeing stuff like that... I truly do. I can't help myself but to think back, however, at the good ol' days when players knew how to protect themselves, meaning that they rarely faced the boards, instead going shoulder to shoulder before going in the corners and the strongest one, the one who stood up, would take the puck. Today, the "winner" would take an interference penalty. Since the arrival of several European players in the NHL, and the newer rules of hitting from behind, players are now using that position in order to avoid getting hit and it has now become second nature to do so. It's a fast game, with tons of intensity and a lot of money and importance, as much for the players as for the teams, is on the line and players put themselves at risk more than ever, with hope and a prayer that they won't get hit while in a vulnerable position. The onus is now 100% on the player forechecking and that, in my opinion, it absolutely wrong. Hockey changes... rules do to. But this is living proof that it's not always for the best. Hoping for speedy recoveries for both Boyle and Kronwall.

If someone claims that fighting "prevents" cheap shots from happening, they are mistaken. Prevent is the wrong word. Fighting DOES however bring accountability for rats' actions, as they know the risk they're taking. Preventing? No. Those who CHOOSE to do it KNOW the risk, with fighting involved. Take fighting out, they'll also KNOW that there will not be retribution on the ice. That's a huge risk. It does allow players to police themselves... somewhat as they've done a pretty good job (if we can call it that) at tying the players' hands with the instigator rule as we know it, the worst rule in hockey, in my humble opinion. I truly hate using that line as it comes across as presumptuous, but it's a fact in this case: those who have played hockey at a level where fighting was allowed know about intimidation and its effect on a game, or on players' actions (and lack of there of) during a hockey game. It's not impossible to understand otherwise, it's just much harder to wrap your head around it and much easier to downplay its effect on a game when one hasn't experienced it for himself.

I'm not denying this, I'm only saying that it's a bit early to jump the gun, especially hockeybuzz with senstionalism reporting. Therrien himself downplays the move and so did Briere, who responded with a goal and an assist against the Jets last night.

It looks worse than it really was. While Lapierre is a mouth piece, he isn't a dirty player. I'm expecting a couple of games for the hit itself, but this league unfortunately punishes as much the result of the hit as they do the action itself.