Leopold/Weber/Ehrhoff/Myers/Sulzer/Sekera/Pardy/Mcnabb/Brennan/Regehr and that doesnt include Pysyk/McCabe/Finley/Leduc/Schiestel and a kid I like in Fienhage who looked great at developmental camp.

Sabres do not need dmen my friend they have plenty in the pipeline.
You need to offer the Sabres something other than dmen in my opinion to draw any interest from them to be a trade partner.

Now centers is a different story.
- BuffaloHardHat

If your intent was to list a lot of marginal D and marginal prospects, most of the current NHL dmen are done after this year, you've done a superb job.

Again, what's your point? If you're trying to point out the new clause that you can retain cap hit, you are totally out to lunch. The Canucks are looking to get rid of Luongo because of his cap hit. Trading him and retaining some of it totally defeats the purpose.

Seriously, smarten up.
- prock

First it's better than not moving him. I am sorry, but where are you move him to. If Tampa, your right, but if you look at other options it would help. It's like trading money in baseball. It helps make Luongo more movable, but your right it does not help move he to Tampa. I was only try to share something with the group

If your intent was to list a lot of marginal D and marginal prospects, most of the current NHL dmen are done after this year, you've done a superb job.
- prock

My point is that the Sabres are pretty well set on defense prock.

The need to unload defensemen not add them.

If your intent was to list a lot of marginal D and marginal prospects, most of the current NHL dmen are done after this year, you've done a superb job.
- prock

Further, I'd bet my last dollar that the Sabres dont dance with any team offering dmen prock. That's how sure I am.

First it's better than not moving him. I am sorry, but where are you move him to. If Tampa, your right, but if you look at other options it would help. It's like trading money in baseball. It helps make Luongo more movable, but your right it does not help move he to Tampa. I was only try to share something with the group
- Dudestar

Everyone on these boards knows you can retain salary in a trade. Tampa makes one of the worst trade partners in the league for Luongo. They both have to shed some cap. Vancouver would never trade him if it meant they end up with a $3M cap hit instead of a $6M one. Two of the worst teams in the league, cap wise.

My point is that the Sabres are pretty well set on defense prock.

The need to unload defensemen not add them.
- BuffaloHardHat

Well, then you’re an incredibly short-sighted person. After this season, they’re likely left with two good Dmen, one marginal one, and a few decent prospects they hope fill the holes.

Luongo going to the Leafs probably isn't going to happen, I don't see Burke doing it, the Canucks will want a good prospect going the other way and I don't see Burke trading that to the Canucks. If Luongo has trouble with the media in Vancouver, the Toronto media will almost kill him.

Everyone on these boards knows you can retain salary in a trade. Tampa makes one of the worst trade partners in the league for Luongo. They both have to shed some cap. Vancouver would never trade him if it meant they end up with a $3M cap hit instead of a $6M one. Two of the worst teams in the league, cap wise.
- prock

I am not talking about retaining salary.

I am not talking about retaining salary.
- Dudestar

Well then?

well i officially miss lockout blogs. back to fricking "rumors".

Well, then you’re an incredibly short-sighted person. After this season, they’re likely left with two good Dmen, one marginal one, and a few decent prospects they hope fill the holes.
- prock

But you were offering prospects and I am shortsighted?

The Sabres at the moment have 10 NHL ready dmen and are loaded with prospects so why do I want Nashville prospects?

Everyone on these boards knows you can retain salary in a trade. Tampa makes one of the worst trade partners in the league for Luongo. They both have to shed some cap. Vancouver would never trade him if it meant they end up with a $3M cap hit instead of a $6M one. Two of the worst teams in the league, cap wise.
- prock

I know Tampa and Vancouver are bad trade partners cap wise. Vancouver is free to trade with other teams, right? $6m>$3m duh. $3m is an easier pill to swallow, than $6m. If Edm could trade 99. Anything could happen in the NHL.

Well then?
- prock

Trading money. This by the way was the brainchild of Brian Burke. Lou to TOR could that does not mean it should or will, but it could. Forget Tampa they don't need him as bad as everyone thinks.

I know Tampa and Vancouver are bad trade partners cap wise. Vancouver is free to trade with other teams, right? $6m>$3m duh. $3m is an easier pill to swallow, than $6m. If Edm could trade 99. Anything could happen in the NHL.
- Dudestar

You directly replied to a post where I was talking about a trade with Tampa. Stop backtracking.

Trading money. This by the way was the brainchild of Brian Burke. Lou to TOR could that does not mean it should or will, but it could. Forget Tampa they don't need him as bad as everyone thinks.
- Dudestar

Read your own link there chief. Trading cap space was proposed early on, but never made it into the CBA. You can't do it. You can only retain cap space/salary, in trades.

1 comment, should Luongo go to the Leafs, goaltending battles (with the exception of Ottawa) in the northeast division will be fun to watch

Luongo
Price
Miller
Rask/Thomas

1 comment, should Luongo go to the Leafs, goaltending battles (with the exception of Ottawa) in the northeast division will be fun to watch

Luongo
Price
Miller
Rask/Thomas
- cor99

Thomas is not playing this year, and I doubt we see him back.

1 comment, should Luongo go to the Leafs, goaltending battles (with the exception of Ottawa) in the northeast division will be fun to watch

Luongo
Price
Miller
Rask/Thomas
- cor99

Well, Ottawa has Lehrner (sp.?) Bishop and Anderson.

I hear Lehrner has been playing lights out.

I kinda like what Ottawa has going in goal. Better than the Leafs goaltending for sure.

Well, Ottawa has Lehrner (sp.?) Bishop and Anderson.

I hear Lehrner has been playing lights out.

I kinda like what Ottawa has going in goal. Better than the Leafs goaltending for sure.
- BuffaloHardHat

Lehner - jesus dude

Lehner - jesus dude
- Feeling_Glucky

Lehner is Jesus?

Lehner is Jesus?
- BuffaloHardHat

no spell names correctly or Google it - takes 3 seconds to do that or cap central right above this message reply.

Well, Ottawa has Lehrner (sp.?) Bishop and Anderson.

I hear Lehrner has been playing lights out.

I kinda like what Ottawa has going in goal. Better than the Leafs goaltending for sure.
- BuffaloHardHat

Lehner is a very good young goalie prospect. I think the point was more along the lines of the current goaltending. Neither Anderson or Bishop, or whatever, are top NHL goalies, despite how well Anderson played last year. I would prefer Lehner to every current Leafs goalie prospect, and Anderson to every current Leafs goalie as well.

However, if the Leafs ended up with Luongo, the Leafs (i.e. not the farm) goaltending would look better for at least the next 3 or 4 years, until Luongo gets on in age.

Lehner is Jesus?
- BuffaloHardHat

No he plays for us

Read your own link there chief. Trading cap space was proposed early on, but never made it into the CBA. You can't do it. You can only retain cap space/salary, in trades.
- prock

Take, for example, San Jose Sharks forward Patrick Marleau, who has two years remaining on his four-year, $27.6 million deal — he’s owed $6.9 million in salary annually and carries a $6.9 million cap hit.

Now, say the Sharks want to trade him to Montreal. (NOTE: Marleau has a no movement clause. ANOTHER NOTE: Montreal is mentioned solely for example purposes.)

The new rule would allow San Jose to absorb $3.45 million in both salary and cap hit to facilitate the deal, leaving Montreal to pay the remaining $3.45 million.

Take, for example, San Jose Sharks forward Patrick Marleau, who has two years remaining on his four-year, $27.6 million deal — he’s owed $6.9 million in salary annually and carries a $6.9 million cap hit.

Now, say the Sharks want to trade him to Montreal. (NOTE: Marleau has a no movement clause. ANOTHER NOTE: Montreal is mentioned solely for example purposes.)

The new rule would allow San Jose to absorb $3.45 million in both salary and cap hit to facilitate the deal, leaving Montreal to pay the remaining $3.45 million.
- Dudestar

Holy crap. We all know this. That is NOT trading salary/cap, and not what Burke proposed many months ago. It’s retaining salary in trades, and for the fifth time, this really has no relevance to the topic of a Tampa/Vancouver trade, because the entire point would be to shed salary. They’re both looking to SHED salary, not take huge cap hits and share them.