I read somewhere that if they claimed him off waivers, they wouldn't be able to assign him to Rockford. I'm guessing the situation with Hutton also played a factor.
- CrisCrossCrease

Bowman also saves his place in line for future waiver claims...at least I think it works like that...and doesn't lose his new goalie sending him down to Rockford. This for a spare 7th round pick.

No issues with this.

It'll be interesting to see what the full story on Hutton is.

A+ showing by Orr

Very impressive.
- AceRatbang

Agreed...Orr snapped his head back with a couple good shots early and Big John never did find the range.

Holy shît Stan gave a 7th round pick for a goalie he could have got for nothing.....

I'm guessing he's on a 2 way deal and if that's the case he could go to rockford after being claimed

It might be a fake twitter page but someone said Gillis was interviewed and said he has a deal in place for Lu and he is just waiting for the other team to make a move to free up space on their roster.

Hey philco what's the word ...

I bet brookbank is in the line up vs the blues.....maybe Mayers to

Hey philco what's the word ...
- southernhawk

Hey Southie....Birdbird is the word...home opener vs a hot Blues club should be a barnburner

Hey Southie....Birdbird is the word...home opener vs a hot Blues club should be a barnburner
- philco28

Phuck the blues....and Vancouver ....and the coyotes

Phuck the blues....and Vancouver ....and the coyotes
- southernhawk

I'm feeling the love, Bro

Hey Southie....Birdbird is the word...home opener vs a hot Blues club should be a barnburner
- philco28

But I gotta say I'm liking the brookbank signing ...and the lines our 2nd line and 4th line look good...that line of bollig and fro, kruger can out skate any 4th line in hockey and bollig hits anything that moves that line is trouble for any 4th line that goes against them....and they hold there own vs top lines as well.

I'm feeling the love, Bro
- Beaver-Warrior

Hey beav how's things with u what's your thoughts on this team we have?

But I gotta say I'm liking the brookbank signing ...and the lines our 2nd line and 4th line look good...that line of bollig and fro, kruger can out skate any 4th line in hockey and bollig hits anything that moves that line is trouble for any 4th line that goes against them....and they hold there own vs top lines as well.
- southernhawk

That 52-16-67 line is almost another 3rd line...just like madden's line for some of the cup run (until Bolland wnt down). Rolling 4 lines makes me fee warm andl fuzzy inside.

Holy shît Stan gave a 7th round pick for a goalie he could have got for nothing.....
- southernhawk

Uh no, If you claim a player on waivers he is on your active roster. If you then waive him yourself, you have to offer him back to the original team. Basically they get "first position" on waivers claiming him back. So you can't get him for free if you want him in the A.

Instead if you want him in the minors, you let him go through the original team's waivers and then make a trade. Then he is on your 50 man roster but in the minors.

Also, by making the trade instead of claiming him on waivers it shows that this is a depth move. With no re-entry waivers in the new CBA, he can now play in 9 NHL games or be on the active roster for 29 days without having to be waived again. That is if those sections of the new CBA do not have any additional unspecified changes.

A bit off topic here...but who would you rather have in a hockey pool: Bolland or Turris. The points are G, A, +/-, PPP, GWG, and PIMs. I have Turris but I've been talking trade within another poolie who has Bolland.

Uh no, If you claim a player on waivers he is on your active roster. If you then waive him yourself, you have to offer him back to the original team. Basically they get "first position" on waivers claiming him back. So you can't get him for free if you want him in the A.

Instead if you want him in the minors, you let him go through the original team's waivers and then make a trade. Then he is on your 50 man roster but in the minors.

Also, by making the trade instead of claiming him on waivers it shows that this is a depth move. With no re-entry waivers in the new CBA, he can now play in 9 NHL games or be on the active roster for 29 days without having to be waived again. That is if those sections of the new CBA do not have any additional unspecified changes.
- DaleHalas

Gottcha...

A bit off topic here...but who would you rather have in a hockey pool: Bolland or Turris. The points are G, A, +/-, PPP, GWG, and PIMs. I have Turris but I've been talking trade within another poolie who has Bolland.
- DarthKane

Bolland.....that 2nd line with sharp and Kane will help his ppg

That 52-16-67 line is almost another 3rd line...just like madden's line for some of the cup run (until Bolland wnt down). Rolling 4 lines makes me fee warm andl fuzzy inside.
- Kentxo

Yup ...its is nice...glad to see the 4 th line out there more

LA's down a D-man, who would you give up for Bernier?

Leddy, Crawford, and a 2nd get it done?

Throw in Saad...McNeil...Olsen?

LA's down a D-man, who would you give up for Bernier?

Leddy, Crawford, and a 2nd get it done?

Throw in Saad...McNeil...Olsen?
- Ogilthorpe2

I would keep mcneil......saad looks soft as baby shît...send him

LA's down a D-man, who would you give up for Bernier?

Leddy, Crawford, and a 2nd get it done?

Throw in Saad...McNeil...Olsen?
- Ogilthorpe2

That would be a lot for an unproven goalie. I realize we'd have to pay a premium, but not as much as we had to one week ago. Leddy, Crawford and Lalonde should get it done. But LA may not want Crawford given what they're paying Quick. I'd be fine with keeping Crawford and trading Emery. It migh get tricky in the summer with Bernier's contract expiring but I'm sure it could be worked out.

LA's down a D-man, who would you give up for Bernier?

Leddy, Crawford, and a 2nd get it done?

Throw in Saad...McNeil...Olsen?
- Ogilthorpe2

Woah. That's massive overpayment for an unproven goalie IMO. Especially with Leddy's recent play.

Woah. That's massive overpayment for an unproven goalie IMO. Especially with Leddy's recent play.
- CBHawks88

Agreed. I hate to stick up for Crawford because I'm not a huge fan but if you trade him for a basically unproven #1 and that guy ends up not being able to handle the load of a #1 you just flushed the season down the drain.

Crawford in some package for a true, established #1, sure. I don't know who that would be though.

I would to see us get Bishop

I would to see us get Bishop
- southernhawk

For?