dilbert719

Lebrun clarifies again! Conditional 2 from Florida (acquired in Versteeg deal) and 2013 4th rounder for Kubina.

I so desperately want to throw out the "suggestion" of Kalinski to Columbus for Nash, but even I can't crack a joke that ridiculous. That's Ek territory.

And now LeBrun's saying Kubina was a 2 and a 4.

Per LeBrun: for two draft picks. Per DLeed: doesn't work, since we're at 50 contracts. Have to shed a deal somewhere, somehow.

All the more reason why he should welcome a trade to Columbus!

If we're going to package Carle and JVR, it would have to be for a signed Suter, or in an attempt to get Weber, who we could at least keep from hitting the open market. There's no real point to hand Nashville JVR for half a season of upgrading from Carle to Suter and a brief exclusive negotiation period.

Though (and this is pure speculation here) if the Flyers don't think they'll be able to retain both Carle and Grossman, it makes sense to see a potential pair for next year, and evaluate how that'll work, rather than sticking him with someone he won't be working with next year. After all, both sides need to see whether it makes sense for Grossman to come back, and it wouldn't be an accurate picture otherwise.

The one thing that makes me think this is not even close to the end is this quote from one of Carchidi's articles: "Asked if it was unlikely he would make a major move before the Feb. 27 trade deadline, Holmgren paused for a few seconds. "Unlikely? I don't know if I'd use that word, but it's probably not something we're talking about at length," he said." He didn't answer right away (thought process: "now what the hell do I say to not spill the beans?"), "[didn't] know" if he'd use the word "unlikely" (If it's not unlikely, it's likely, Paul), and had to qualify whether they were or weren't considering it twice (both "probably" and "at length"). Holmgren was grasping at straw after straw, trying desperately to avoid coming out and saying that he wants to do something big. The more interesting element is that the quote above was from Carchidi's article, but it doesn't show the full prompt. Seravalli had an article up in which the preface to Homer saying what he did wasn't "major move," but "superstar forward." "Holmgren then added to the intrigue, after being asked about Grossman, whether he'd use the term 'unlikely' to describe the Flyers' chances on landing a "superstar forward," a la Nash." From there, Seravalli paraphrased the same quote Carchidi used. Take that for what it's worth.

So... you're saying we're going to trade Carle, Bob, and a 1st for Nash? Sweet!

Not bad. I am so much happier with us picking up Grossman over a Hal Gill type. So, the sum total: Flyers give: Mike Richards Rob Bordson Darroll Powe Flyers get: Wayne Simmonds Brayden Schenn Niklas Grossman That looks pretty darn good to me.

I know, right? LeBrun's being ridiculous, as usual. The only person in the league who would make me even think about that kind of Godfather offer for a second plays for a team I'd refuse to trade that much to. Though I'd at least think about doing that for Lundqvist before realizing just how big a mistake I'd be making and stepping back from the ledge.

Credibility: a Journalist's Guide to Sourcing Rumors, by "Eklund"

And how do you get under the cap? I would trade for Nash if Homer was able to convince Howson that he's getting a Godfather offer when we're really offering a modest deal, but unless Howson's even dumber than the Carter trade made him look, and we find some way to fit Nash into our salary structure, we're not going to be able to swing this. Honestly, none of Briere, Hartnell, Timonen, Pronger, or Bryzgalov would accept a deal to Columbus, so I don't even know how we could offer them a deal that would leave us cap compliant. EDIT: and it might be irrelevant, anyway. Eklund (yeah, yeah, I know) just posted something about Nash to the Kings for Bernier, Penner, and prospects, said it "looks done," which is likely code for "Hay, guiz, look what I thoughted up!" but you never know.

Dan Hamhuis. Edit: Dammit. Late.

From Seravalli's article: OK, Burkie, we get it. You and Homer are talking JVR for Schenn. If you're dropping lines like that, just stop pretending and say their names outright. I'm still hoping this deal will be bigger, something like JVR, cap filler, and Blake Kessel (balance's sake - we get the Schenns, they get the Kessels) for Schenn and Kulemin/Kadri/(or someone like that), but it looks pretty clear that this is the basis of what they're discussing.

On the ice, it's a great deal for Montreal. Off the ice, it's great for Carolina, since they just cleared 2 years at $4.25M each off their cap, plus saved a bit of change this year. Got to think they'll put that money to good use this offseason. They have to, given the severely reduced odds that they make the playoffs with the new structure.

Theoretically, though all four teams would need to be so obscenely strong that they lose almost nothing outside of splitting the games against each other. I wouldn't worry too much, though; the league changes playoff systems and structures seemingly every expansion, or every other CBA, so in a few years' time, we'll probably have moved on again to something more to your liking.

First and second, though it's not guaranteed to be the Pens or an NY team. Could be Washington or Carolina. And it is the first two rounds. Round 1: Conference playoff. 1 vs. 4, 2 vs. 3. Round 2: Conference championship. 1/4 vs. 2/3. Round 3: Conference champions playoff. Nobody's quite sure how this will go. Could be the teams are seeded by record, 1 vs. 4, 2 vs. 3. Could be (less likely) the two "East" conferences face off, as do the two "West" conferences. Could also be rotational, where our conference plays (picking teams since there are no names) Boston's one year, Detroit's the next, and Vancouver's the last, etc. I expect, and hope, that it'll be champs seeded by record. Round 4: Stanley Cup Finals. As to names, I still say Smythe, Norris, Adams, Patrick, based on where the majority of teams in the conference played when those names were last used (so, our conference would be the Patrick, Boston's the Adams, Detroit's the Norris, and Vancouver's the Smythe.) But I did hear an alternate suggestion that amused me: Gryffindor, Hufflepuff, Ravenclaw, and Slytherin.

It's a fairly safe bet that this is a temporary measure, which Bettman will use as leverage to expand to 32 teams. I think we can expect Phoenix to move after this season, probably to Quebec. They'll go into the Snowbird Conference. One or two more teams will likely also move, and whichever cities are left without a team will get expansion franchises sometime down the road. (The theory that makes the most sense to me is that Bettman will use the additional expansion franchises as a sop to the NHLPA in the next round of CBA bargaining, as a tradeoff for giving the owners a greater percentage of revenues. Owners get more money, plus the expansion fees, players get more jobs.) The postseason format annoys me a bit, but it's not a huge problem for us. It is for Carolina, NYI, and NJ, but not our problem. The Wales and Campbell trophies are likely to be retired, unless they're given out to two of the four conference champions, with two more awards created for the other conferences. (Oh, and Gary? They're divisions. Calling them conferences doesn't fool anybody.) I guess the best way to look at the playoffs is that the first two rounds are essentially play-in rounds. Looking at it like that, only one team from each conference gets to play for the Stanley Cup, and you have to play within the conference to determine which team that will be. After that, the four conference champions play in the third round, and the last two standing meet for the Stanley Cup. It's likely, though not a given, that the conferences won't be aligned by geography, so that the third round of the playoffs will be seeded by record. If the Flyers (101 pts.), Lightning (95), Kings (98), and Red Wings (108) were the four conference champions, the Wings would play the Lightning, the Flyers would play the Kings, and if the Flyers and Lightning won their rounds, we'd play Tampa for the Cup. One very important thing for everyone to consider: Just because our conference seems to have a particular set of strong teams now, doesn't mean that will always be the case. If our incoming conference system existed in 2006-7, the "Eastern" conference standings would look like this: NJ - 107 PIT - 105 NYR - 94 NYI - 92 CAR - 88 WAS - 70 PHI - 56 BUF - 113 OTT - 105 TB - 93 TOR - 91 MTL - 90 FLA - 86 BOS - 76 Just five seasons ago, WAS, BOS, and the Flyers were atrocious, both OTT and NJ were ridiculously good, and both NYI and TOR would have been in the playoffs. Who's strong and who's weak can change at a moment's notice, so there's no reason complaining about competitive imbalance. You're likely to end up on the wrong side of the imbalance soon enough.

Panooch is reporting that Walker cleared. Edit: Just saw a tweet from McKenzie confirming.

From what I can tell, Anaheim needs defense as badly as we do, so nothing we can offer is going to look as good to them as deals from teams with D prospects to spare. If we could somehow use Hartnell, picks, or something like that to acquire NHL-quality D, we could possibly offer Anaheim something based around Schenn/Carle/picks, but I don't really see a legitimate means of outbidding teams like Toronto, Boston, or NYR for Ryan, which sucks quite badly.