ruxpin

As in does he report? Or does he get traded again? Or does his psychotic girlfriend kill him in his sleep? I suspect he's not traded again unless something becomes far worse with the Karlsson story. And I don't know why he wouldn't report, but crazier things have happened. My money is on that he should sleep with one eye open.

There you go! That makes sense to me.

Honestly, I'm not a huge fan of Skinner. @OccamsRazor asked what it would cost, and I honestly have no idea. I have a feeling he's probably worth more than what I want to give him credit for, but I'm lukewarm to him at best. I think my problem with him is more fantasy-league driven than maybe actual on ice. He's of little use to me in fantasy. I think seeing what Lindblom can do is more than likely the way this goes. And while I would like a scoring left winger, it's behind goalie and 3C on my list of priorities. If Skinner really is available, I think due diligence dictates you at least check into it and if the asking price is doable then you pull the trigger. I think it takes more than I want to give up, though.

Yeah, the May 15 was the second time (just obtaining the rights back). But what I can't find is the date he actually agreed to return (his rights were traded back to Philly while he with the Blades in the WHL). The June date makes a lot of sense to me for this, but I cannot find it.

I thought so, but I was also very much a Johnny Carson fan back then. The thing is, his schtick never changed over the years. Sometimes the humor coming from a young 30 something doesn't quite work coming from someone in their sixties. Especially when its oddball immaturish humor to begin with.

Was that the first time? Because when they traded Toronto for his rights, it was May 15, 1973. That was his rights, though. Did he sign with the flyers on June 23 the following month? That's still some coincidence, huh?

Yes, but in all of those years, June 23 was either before the draft or on the day of the first round of the draft. So, it's not necessarily the date as the draft day. I think if it happens, it happens Friday night. You know, we've talked about this all year long and often clinically and "it's business," but now that it's approaching the possibility saddens me some.

Nor the return. Panarin is already a point per game and we're only hoping Skinner will be despite being in the league 8 years and not coming close (my God, has it been that long already?). Your bolded, though, is pertinent. I'm with you that I highly doubt anything with Panarin. I also agree that the cost, both in terms of assets in trade and in cap on a new deal, makes me more than hesitant. If it's me, I want to see what it would actually take rather than reading on Twitter afterward that I could have had him for Raffl and a 2nd (deliberate hyperbole, but the point is I want to know before finding out via a trade with someone else that it was well-less than I thought). Skinner is intriguing to me and I agree he's a little better-suited to the 2nd line than Panarin might be. And honestly, while he's not the point producer Panarin is, he's pretty similar in goals. And I just got done saying I want a winger that can score. Maybe he increases some with better linemates and a fresh start. If it doesn't take much in a trade, I'm onboard, and I agree he should be less than Panarin.

Out of curiosity, how ya feeling now?

Yeah, terrific point. It's a whole barrel full of ironic laughs!

Sorry to double post. I forgot about this. I think I keep Giroux at wing. He got really good at faceoffs, but otherwise I think that's where he really should have been all along. I really like the look of the top two lines: Giroux - Couturier - Konecny Panarin - Patrick - Voracek We'll have to float with something at 3C this year and possibly next, but there should still be cap room in that time frame to work it. But eventually, maybe even 2019-20, you're looking at a potential third line of Ratcliffe -- Frost -- Allison (Kravstov if we're lucky!!!) And Twarynski should really get a look on LW next year if not this year. Maybe Strome eventually if he ever learns to skate. Yeah, make the call.

Yeah, that's the way I meant it, but I'm a little hesitant even straight up. Mine is more long-term cap concern than anything else. That may not be a deal-breaker, though. He'll be 27 before any new contract starts. Panarin is currently a $6M cap hit and I don't see that going down. I didn't think he had as strong a year as previously, but I just looked at his stats and that really isn't true, is it? So, what do you think he gets? $7m? Clearly, he's a proven point-getter, so I guess that's fine. $7M, 5 years? Do you think he'd insist on longer? My concern is the 3rd year from now when $23M is tied up with Giroux, Voracek, and Panarin and we need to pay Provorov, Patrick, Sanheim and Konecny. McDonald is off by the third year, so maybe we're fine there. Hockeywise, a 30 year old 60-point 3RW where we're currently 3 lines deep for a 26 year old 75-85 pt. left-winger where we're only a converted-center deep (yes, radoran, I know), I think that's probably a no-brainer. We do have RWers coming that should be good in the bottom six role. So, yes, I do it, Regis. Final answer.

No idea. I don't know if this has anything to do with it, but I don't think he was happy with the trade that sent him there. And really, I don't know if he's the right fit. Neither Atkinson nor Wennberg were the same this year and I wonder if the Saad/Panarin switch wasn't part of that. If Panarin wasn't happy about going there to begin with, maybe that also contributed to the line not being better and may be the reason he wants to move. Maybe he hates Buckeyes, they're apparently big in Columbus. I don't know. Just throwing out guesses. Maybe Letestu's wife was mean on Facebook to his girlfriend. I think I'd look into it, but not what it would take or if I'd like the answer.

That's why I threw in Bobovsky, who i think is also expiring, though. Really, if it helps, it would amount to Simmonds for Panarin and then 2 firsts for Bob and 2nd. Still a little lopsided, I think. But like I said, really wasn't serious. I don't really like the trade involving Simmonds if it's just Panarin.

Damn those top two lines look good, though, don't they? I don't know. I agree that involving Simmonds seems silly. If you're trading Simmonds, you gotta think you can get something a little more beneficial long term. I guess it's not gonna happen, but that's an enticing top two lines