AJgoal

60 minutes in, still waiting. Great game.

Seems doubtful, based on the article. I'd want to have him back at least a week before, preferably two, to get his conditioning back. But if he sits out 10 more games, it may work in our favor.

No, he probably would have waffleboarded his face.

And crack one of the Wings behind the knees, instead of wasting his energy hitting the ice?

@aziz - Exactly. Players won't protect themselves if they don't have to. And I hate the calls the way they've become, but if you're going to call them, you have to call them all the time. Because the hitters won't learn not to make that hit if they're not penalized. At the same time, the hittees are learning that the hitter can't make that hit. So when a hitter and a hittee meet who have learned the opposite lesson, someone's career will end. And as for the explanation, how can the head be the primary point of contact, yet it still be a "full body on body hit?"

Here's the problem though. I think a lot of us would be fine with the hit...If the NHL hadn't suspended other players for similar and even less violent hits that hit the head. But the NHL has put out that if the head is the primary point of impact, it doesn't matter if the cause is the hitter leaping into the guy's head, throwing an elbow at it, the hittee ducking his head into the hit, or the hitter being a foot taller than the person being hit, making it impossible NOT to hit him in the head. If that's the way the NHL wants to treat hits to the head, they need to suspend Kronwall. Period. If they don't want to, then don't suspend him. But don't suspend other players for doing the same thing. As before, it's a problem of consistency. @canoli - I'm with you on players needing to protect themselves. Jake shouldn't have lowered his head with Kronwall that close. But like I said, it's the treatment of prior, similar hits by other players that have set the bar for this. If the league's not going to be consistent on head hits, then they shouldn't have added a rule to protect players from head hits.

One of the things that struck me was in the postgame interview. It seemed like Engblom was trying to lead Bryzgalov into saying something, and Bryzgalov wouldn't. A lot of "I'm not sure what you mean." Engblom started to look flustered partway through. I noticed his interviews were starting to seem tamer a little earlier on, like when he complimented the whole team for blocking shots and deflecting credit for one of the wins a few weeks ago.

Flyers had one 2nd round pick in the upcoming draft at the start of this season - LA's. They traded their 2nd round pick this year to TB in the Meszaros trade. Florida's pick was either this year's or next year's, Florida's choice. Given the depth of this draft, it's highly likely that Florida will choose to send their 2013 2nd rounder to TB to complete the trade.

Probably Wellwood. Not sure where the Flyers stand with the cap, but he's cheaper then Harry Z.

Yeah, if you look at what CBJ wanted from NY, you're probably looking at JVR, Gustafsson, Read/Schenn, and Couturier, and a first. No thanks. Too bad Sather didn't bite, though.

Aziz, don't forget that the team that's hot in January/February usually isn't the one that is hot entering the playoffs. Momentum in the NHL is such a fickle thing. It's why the playoffs are so hard to predict. If the Flyers get on a hot streak like they had in the first quarter of the season, look out.

Gaustad and a 4th to Nashville for a 1st. Zanon to Boston for Kampfer. Rolston and Motteau to Boston for Marc Cantin and Yannick Riendeau John Scott to NYR for a 5th

Zanon to Bruins

Seems that way, but not necessarily. Probably be 5-6 before we know all of the deals, since they just have to be in to the league office by 3.

Gaustad to Preds Rolston and Motteau to Boston

They're also next year's picks

Quick hits: Oduya to Hawks Pahlsson to 'Nucks Winnick/Galiardi to Sharks

Yeah, they basically gave back the pick from the Gill trade.

Kostitsyn to Nashville for a 2nd round pick.

Confirmed on ESPN.com. Think LA overpaid.

Maybe I just don't get it. In my experience, a leader leads. They don't need a letter on their chest or a rank on their shoulders to step up and start pulling everyone along with them if they know it needs to be done. Case in point: Briere in game 6 of the Buffalo series last year stood up and told the team that he wasn't ready to go home, and they shouldn't be either. He wasn't Captain, he wasn't an Alternate, but he took charge and did something. Either this team has someone who can do that full time or they don't. Assigning Talbot or Timonen or Giroux or Rinaldo the Captaincy won't change who the leaders are in the locker room, and it won't miraculously make whomever they choose any more of a leader than they already are. It won't all of a sudden make the players on the team respect him. This idea that they MUST have someone wearing that letter on their chest in order for the team to have leadership and direction is a bunch of horsedung, IMO. There has to be someone willing and able to take on that responsibility. And if that person exists in the locker room, they're already doing it, and the other players know who it is, and the C is irrelevant. If nobody's doing it, then there's nobody on the team capable of truly being that leaader (yet), and giving the C to someone serves no purpose.

Which is exactly what I said. If he gives it up, that's fine. In fact, I agree that at this point, Pronger should give it up. But taking it away from an injured player, regardless of the fact that everyone involved is 99% sure he'll never play again, sets a poor precedent and gives the players the wrong message. Anyone in that room could step up and talk to the media and take them away from Bryzgalov. Giving the C to someone and forcing them to take that role when they may not be comfortable with it can be a recipe for disaster. See: Richards, Mike. The Alternate Captains have just as much right to talk to the refs as the Captain does. The two minute unsportsmanlike given to Timonen in the Pittsburgh game had a lot more to do with the Ref involved than whether Timonen had an A or a C. Since my assumption is that should the captaincy get moved, it would go to Timonen, it's unlikely the result would have changed, since he already has an A.

A Hundred times no. I said this before when it came up and I'll say it again. Until Chris tells the team to give the C to someone else, you do NOT take it away. It sends a poor message to everyone else. Besides, Timonen, Jagr, Talbot...they're not going to become better leaders just because you slap the C on their chest. A leader is a leader regardless of title. The team needs a real leader in the locker room. If they have one, he's already stepped up and assumed de facto captaincy through his words and actions. If they don't, a letter isn't going to change things, and may make things worse by putting pressure on someone who isn't comfortable in the role.

I honestly don't have a problem with the Leafs making it anymore. There's really nobody on the team I actively hate anymore. I'd prefer they made it over Washington, or any of the other southeast team that are actually in the southeast.

I actually thought this year might be a year for all five to make it. Isles looked to me like a team ready to vie for a 7-8 seed. Looks like they won't again, but they're not that far out either. I'm also rooting for Winnipeg to knock both Florida and Washington out of the playoff picture.