Simmonds: I'm a little concerned that he continues to make the same defensive mistakes over and over again. I love his grit, but I'm really starting to question his hockey sense.
- BiggE

Agreed. Simmonds made a ton of costly neutral zone turnovers last year and on many occasions looked lost in the defensive zone. He seems to get a pass because of his hustle and grit.

Agreed. Simmonds made a ton of costly neutral zone turnovers last year and on many occasions looked lost in the defensive zone. He seems to get a pass because of his hustle and grit.
- psuhockey

I'm not too concerned with him, really. He made some dumb plays last year, but I have faith he'll get it done this year.

I know, just kidding. It would be 5.81 games, so yeah, 5 games.

But now I still don't get the Mark Scheifele thing.
- jmatchett383

The CBA thing is very confusing. Without knowing exactly what the rule is off hand, I would specualate that the players age has something to do with it.

The CBA thing is very confusing. Without knowing exactly what the rule is off hand, I would specualate that the players age has something to do with it.
- MJL

Could be his age. Some of the CBA is pretty clear, some gets very confusing.

Agreed. Simmonds made a ton of costly neutral zone turnovers last year and on many occasions looked lost in the defensive zone. He seems to get a pass because of his hustle and grit.
- psuhockey

Agree totally. He needs to drastically improve that area of his game. But he's so strong on the puck in puck battles and around the net.

Could be his age. Some of the CBA is pretty clear, some gets very confusing.
- jmatchett383

Most of it is pretty confusing!

I wanted to point out a specific reason why hybrid is a bad idea.

The Flyers iced the puck, and it was a pretty dead heat between Lecavalier and the defenseman. However, Biron stepped out from his crease to behind the net to play the puck (which should negate an icing) so Lecavalier, seeing this, stopped skating so hard. The linesman was so much more concerned with seeing who established a lead that he didn't notice Biron coming out of the net, and blew the whistle for icing.

Again, hybrid icing does not come into play on the plays where the injuries they want to prevent actually occur. I really don't get the idea.
- jmatchett383

lecavalier looked irritated there

Last night the commentators said Lundqvist lost 2.5 inches off each pad.
- Feanor

i hope that's accurate. it's not just the 5" when down in the butterfly, but when they're in other positions, like the reverse VHS on the post - that huge thigh rise in an upright position on the upright leg and outward position down on the ice - just gets in the (frank)ing way - not protective in either way. i like the reduction.

i'm interested in watching crawford especially because his very straight pads with no break above the knee form a protective triangle for rebounds to drop into that hit him in the pants or upper body - meaning between his thighs and the pad thigh rise. see the bottom photo for an example. with smaller pads the puck is now likely to drop in front of the pads, leading to more scoring chances.

So let's see if I'm doing this right.

(d) (i) In the event that an 18 year old or 19 year old Player signs an SPC with a
Club but does not play at least ten (10) NHL Games in the first season
under that SPC, the term of his SPC and his number of years in the Entry
Level System shall be extended for a period of one (1) year, except that
this automatic extension will not apply to a Player who is 19 according to
Section 9.2 by virtue of turning 20 between September 16 and December
31 in the year in which he first signs an SPC. Unless a Player and Club
expressly agree to the contrary, in the event a Player's SPC is extended an
additional year in accordance with this subsection, all terms of the SPC,
with the exception of Signing Bonuses, but including Paragraph 1 Salary,
games played bonuses and Exhibit 5 bonuses, shall be extended; provided,
however, that the Player's Paragraph 1 Salary shall be extended in all
circumstances.

(ii) In the event that a Player signs his first SPC at age 18 and has had his SPC
extended pursuant to Subsection (i), and such Player does not play at least
ten (10) NHL Games in the second season under that SPC, then the term
of his SPC and his number of years in the Entry Level System shall be
extended for one (1) additional year. Unless a Player and Club expressly
agree to the contrary, in the event a Player's SPC is extended an additional
year in accordance with this Subsection, all terms of the SPC, with the
exception of Signing Bonuses, but including Paragraph 1 Salary, games
played bonuses and Exhibit 5 bonuses, shall be extended; provided,
however, that the Player's Paragraph 1 Salary shall be extended in all
circumstances.

I might be missing something here (it;s a very confusing document), but does the bolded not say Laughton gets another tryout this year?

(This excerpt is from Article 9, 9.1 Applicability and Duration, subsection (d), found on page 23 of the CBA, or page 43 of the PDF.)

So let's see if I'm doing this right.



I might be missing something here (it;s a very confusing document), but does the bolded not say Laughton gets another tryout this year?

(This excerpt is from Article 9, 9.1 Applicability and Duration, subsection (d), found on page 23 of the CBA, or page 43 of the PDF.)
- BulliesPhan87

In my opinion, it doesn't say anything about multiple 10 game tryouts for a player. It just talks about the slide rule. The subject of the section is Applicability and Duration.

In my opinion, it doesn't say anything about a tryout. It just talks about the slide rule. The subject of the section is Applicability and Duration.
- MJL

So the "does not play at least ten (10)" games part doesn't mean he can play nine games and still slide a second time? Because it seems to clearly say that to me.

So the "no less than ten (10)" games part doesn't mean he can play nine games and still slide? Because it seems to clearly say that to me.
- BulliesPhan87

Yes it does say that clearly. But what it doesn't say, which is where the confusion is, is that a player can have a 10 game tryout in multiple Seasons. At least it doesn't to me. But like you said, it's pretty confusing at times.

Yes it does say that clearly. But what it doesn't say, which is where the confusion is, is that a player can have a 10 game tryout in multiple Seasons.
- MJL

It looks to me like that section is saying, if he got the slide in the first season under the rules outlines in (i), he may slide a second time if he (again) plays less than 10 NHL games in the second season. I don't see any language suggesting you can only have that less than ten games once. Is there another section of the CBA where I can find that?

It looks to me like that section is saying, if he got the slide in the first season under the rules outlines in (i), he may slide a second time if he (again) plays less than 10 NHL games in the second season. I don't see any language suggesting you can only have that less than ten games once. Is there another section of the CBA where I can find that?
- BulliesPhan87

It says that to me too. And no, it would all be in this section

It says that to me too. And no, it would all be in this section
- phatpat44

There's a lot of sections, and it's not the most straight forward document in the universe. I wouldn't be surprised if there's something more. But the way I'm understanding it, Scott Laughton can play nine NHL games this season and still slide a second time.

It looks to me like that section is saying, if he got the slide in the first season under the rules outlines in (i), he may slide a second time if he (again) plays less than 10 NHL games in the second season. I don't see any language suggesting you can only have that less than ten games once. Is there another section of the CBA where I can find that?
- BulliesPhan87

Honestly, I've been looking for that information myself, and I haven't found any specific language to that. What Holmgren stated to the STH suggests that you can't. The example that Jmatchett provided with the Jets Schiefle suggests that you can. It may be an age issue, I don't know. Someone apparently Emailed Capgeek asking about that. That might provide some clarification.

It says that to me too. And no, it would all be in this section
- phatpat44

Not neccessarily. The CBA is funny like that. Sometimes issues such as that are covered elsewhere, where you wouldn't think it would be.

Looking for unbiased fantasy advice here.

In a keeper league (points only) who would you keep and why...

Dougie Hamilton or Jake Gardiner?

Honestly, I've been looking for that information myself, and I haven't found any specific language to that. What Holmgren stated to the STH suggests that you can't. The example that Jmatchett provided with the Jets Schiefle suggests that you can. It may be an age issue, I don't know. Someone apparently Emailed Capgeek asking about that. That might provide some clarification.
- MJL

I'm going to go ahead and say I think Holmgren is wrong here. I'm bracing for egg-to-face impact, but the evidence does seem to suggest as much.

I'm going to go ahead and say I think Holmgren is wrong here. I'm bracing for egg-to-face impact, but the evidence does seem to suggest as much.
- BulliesPhan87

As I re-read the section you posted, I would seem to agree with you. But then it's puzzling why Holmgren would say that. Unless he's purposely misleading the STH for some reason.

I've been through this before. You read something, and it appears clear cut. But then there's another section which trumps that, or changes it.

I'm not too concerned with him, really. He made some dumb plays last year, but I have faith he'll get it done this year.
- jmatchett383

I think he gets into trouble when he tries to be playmaker. He needs to simplify his game. He should be more of a straight point A to point B guy. It's not sexy, but it should make him a more productive player. When Hartnell's at his best, his game is fairly simple.

I think he gets into trouble when he tries to be playmaker. He needs to simplify his game. He should be more of a straight point A to point B guy. It's not sexy, but it should make him a more productive player. When Hartnell's at his best, his game is fairly simple.
- PhillySportsGuy

Looking for unbiased fantasy advice here.

In a keeper league (points only) who would you keep and why...

Dougie Hamilton or Jake Gardiner?
- As_I_See_It

Hamilton is the safer pick. He will probably see more ice time in his career. Gardiner has tremendous upside though. If you take Gardiner, you may want to make sure you have other reliable Dmen.

As most have said, Morin looks pretty good out there. At the very least he doesn't look like he doesn't belong. I hope this doesn't cause them to rush him, I don't think so but our ability to develop Dmen is suspect at best.

The best thing, to me at least, is seeing Hartnell looking faster, back in the mix in positive ways compared to last year. If he could curtail his minor penalty affinity I'd be very happy.
- shekkie

Morin looks like a deadringer to Pronger. I am not talkin actual talent (not yet anyway - but, I see potential)... just looks; the way he stakes, size, even face/hair (from a distance) reminds me of Pronger.

Although, I agree that it is generally wiser not to rush players into the NHL. I'm not so sure on rushing someone into the NHL is a bad thing for some individuals. After watching last nights game (based on only one game), Morin looks capable. If he did make the roster, I wouldn't be upset. He was clearly one of the best on the ice. The only way he gets better is through experience, what better experience than playing in the NHL. The downside is if he gets overwhelmed - with limited data - it doesn't appear that he would, especially if they managed him differently than the vets.

Hamilton is the safer pick. He will probably see more ice time in his career. Gardiner has tremendous upside though. If you take Gardiner, you may want to make sure you have other reliable Dmen.
- PhillySportsGuy

Fair point. Thanks for the feedback!