POLL: What do you think about the Great Rejection?
by Carolyn Christians on Aug 9, 2010 6:36 PM EDT
Email
PrintThe ruling came down shortly after 5pm (17:17 on my twitter time stamp) that the special arbiter arbitrator in the grievance filed by the NHLPA challenging the Leagues' rejection of the Ilya Kovalchuk contract had upheld the NHL's rejection. Kovalchuk is a free-agent and what happens next is anyone's guess.
While the details are still coming out, particularly regarding the reasons behind this ruling, we'd like to know what you think of this announcement. Many are projecting that this decision has consequences for the future negotiations of the CBA which expires in 2012, as well as for the financial viability of the hockey league if the salary cap restrictions of this CBA are interpreted loosely or strictly.
Here are a few links to this breaking story, which may be updated at their source throughout the evening.
Craig Custance (The Hockey News) Source: Arbitrator Rules in Favor of NHL in Kovalchuk Case
James Mirtle (Globe and Mail) Kovalchuk contract rejected by arbitrator
Fire and Ice Blog (The Bergen NJ Record's Tom Gulitti) Arbitrator Richard Bloch uphold NHL's rejection of Ilya Kovalchuk's contract
Puck Daddy NHL wins Ilya Kovalchuk case, Devils' 17-year contract rejected
Beyond asking you if you "agree/disagree" or feel "surprised or just as expected", do you believe this decision is a good thing for hockey fans or not?
60 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I answered YES (the 1st option). It’s a good day for the NHL and the CBA.
www.prosportsblogging.com
by Great Ice-Pectations on Aug 9, 2010 6:40 PM EDT reply actions
I haven’t voted yet because I’m not sure which of the poll options to choose. I don’t think any fit my opinion exactly. So maybe I’m the last one? Or the fifth one?
Anyway, this is what I do believe.
I believe that the contract as it was written circumvented the intent of the CBA.
And it is my very strong opinion that the arbitrator got the decision right.
I don’t know whether or not it’s a good thing for hockey fans. I think most hockey fans probably won’t care one way or the other, especially if the end result is that a similarly-structured contract is eventually accepted (with perhaps a slightly smaller term or less salary drop-off in the waning years).
I do think the decision is in the best interests of the league.
Phoblographer and Finn Aficionado
SISU
Go with something else then. – though I’d interpret it as the first one.
Twitter @HMof2
by Carolyn Christians on Aug 9, 2010 7:13 PM EDT up reply actions
At first glance I thought #1 as well. However, what I actually don’t agree with is the notion of “strong” adherence to the intentions of the “hard” salary cap. I believe there has to be some reasonable flexibility in order to accommodate changing circumstances. That’s why you can never legislate everything into a contract. You can’t legislate all of the unknown. You need a certain amount of flexibility, and of course with that flexibility comes the risk of abuse, which is what the legal process determined happened here.
While I agree with the ruling, I also believe it was appropriate for the Devils to test the limit so to speak, with due process winning in the end. Which is why I never saw the arbitration process being a “bad” thing as much as I saw it being a necessary thing.
Probably doesn’t make sense, but I’ve been embroiled in a major contract negotiation at work for the last couple of months so I’m probably projecting my own business situation onto my opinions here.
Phoblographer and Finn Aficionado
SISU
by Jamie Kellner on Aug 9, 2010 8:32 PM EDT up reply actions
So anyhow I voted #2 – “Yes” but for some other reason LOL.
Phoblographer and Finn Aficionado
SISU
by Jamie Kellner on Aug 9, 2010 8:34 PM EDT up reply actions
I voted same and why explain LTD covered my thoughts fairly well. Although I do believe in strict adherence when dealing with the cap figures and teams having to remain within them to keep a level playing field. I understand the need for some slack in contracts, and agree NJ is not to be faulted for pushing the envelope of the CBA’s intent.. I just agree that it was rightfully slapped down, because the contract they wrote seemed pretty straightforward in its intent to circumvent the salary cap. If they had done a straight 12 year contract at fair values I think all would have been ok. but the extra 5 years at current league minimums that was obvious padding to tweak the avg cap hit.
It helped highlight an area that will need some tweaking come next CBA negotiation.
Either a new way of calculating players cap hits, or a max % change from year to year guide line to prevent front loading just to reduce upfront cap hits, or even a max contract length (not sure I like that idea. Or any of them really.)
Glad its not my job to sort out these things…
I voted the #1 option: Yes – strong adherence…
This version of the CBA was intended to lessen the very real differences that were occurring between the “haves” and the “have nots” prior to the “labor dispute” *cough*lockout*cough.
So, I’m pleased that the arbitrator has confirmed that this particular contract violates the intent of the CBA.
Go ahead and lock your player up long term. But take the cap hit when you do so, and quit cheating.
A more level playing field for all 30 orgs is better for the fans and for the game.
Here we are now...entertain us.
Agreed… This needed to happen. Hopefully the NHLPA doesn’t take some drastic measures in response, that would not be good for anyone… However it was clear that this type of contract could not exist. They should have nipped this in the butt with the Luongo and Hossa contracts, I agree, but to let this one go because of that fact would be a travesty.
I voted #5 because I’m not sure that the arbitrators ruling hasn’t opened a can of worms. Yes, the contract sought to circumvent the contract. If the league had stood up to the first contract of this type, I would agree with them. They didn’t, they waited until a contract was so absurd as to be ridiculous. The problem is, these contracts are still legal, as long as they are within some reaching distance of believability. An arbitrator would have a difficult time ruling against a future contract that was more in the mold of Hossa’s or Luongo’s. Because the league didn’t challenge them, they are established as “legal”. We will still see these types of contracts, but the arbitrator has established an outer limit for them. How it affects the mood of the PA in future bargaining is also unclear. Just what was really gained isn’t very clear to me.
These are my feelings as well (I voted for the fourth option). The league seemed to have no problems with all the other contracts that circumvent the cap in the same way (Hossa, Luongo, Lecavalier, et al). Is the league effectively saying it is okay to sign a player until they are 42 or 43 but not 44? The League needs to be consistent in the contracts it allows in order to keep a good relationship with the Player’s Association.
Now, if Kovalchuk bolts for Russia where he might be able to earn the kind of money he is looking for and play for a contending team, then this is a bad day for the NHL. It would basically be an indication of the League’s inability to keep the teams as competitive as it wants (through use of the cap) while at the same time keeping the world’s best players in North America. Hopefully, the Devils, the League and Kovalchuk are able to work something out quickly.
Kovalchuk leaving for the KHL would be a joke. KHL teams run out of money often during the middle of the year, leaving their players with IOUs. SKA St. Petersburg alone signed just about every single NHL Free Agent that would go to Russia… And they still probably couldn’t beat the worst team in the NHL.
I voted
Yes #1 because I too think it was too much for not only for the NJ fans to have to help support, but also for the fiscal health of the NHL over all. my hope is that and while NHLPA will and should repond but do it such a way (AD could possible help me out here) that when it comes time for the making of a new CBA there will not be any hard headed tactics and sleaz play that helped cause the last lock out to where we the fans like abused children are the unltimate losers…the NHLPA first needs to get a good 7 stable Hockey or sports business minded guy who will firmly but fairly get what he can for the players without raping the owners leaving them all with a bad taste inb their mouths & wallets…it is my hope and prayer that when it comes time both sides will see what the real deal is with the Nations of canada & usa economies and go from there…as the ownwers stand to lose more during a lock out as the rent on the rinks still gets paid games or not…other than that, this fan really dfon’t kare where “mr K” goes to play…personallybi’d like to go out est or to europe…maybe he & his agent won’t be so greedy…or made to look that way…but i’m just a middle class hocket fan…what would i know ? Be Safe !!
And if it Aint Hockey,It Aint Nothin !!
That Checkers 3rd Sweater ROCKS !!!
Voted Yes #1. We’re still a small market team and it’s a good thing for us. Also, this contract was clearly circumvention. No way can you pay close to league minimum (current minimum, which could change 15 years down the road) for some years and 11.5 mil for other years. Way too obvious a fudge of his cap number.
#1, Strict Adherence to Intent
I voted for #1. In my view strict adherence to the intent of the CBA is essential for the continued viability of the NHL and the NHLPA. The fates of the owners and players are integrally interwoven in professional hockey. I was convinced that no Judge in a bench trial would have found anything other that the contract circumvented the Salary Cap. I can only speak from the perspective of an attorney in that respect; but it was a no-brainer from the legal interpretation aspect.
On the other hand, I think Grossman is too intelligent a person not to have a detailed fall-back position. There is nothing wrong with the Devils and Grossman seeking to define the outer limits of permissibility; but now that they have a clear ruling, they need to get serious and sign an agreement along the Hossa type of contract.
So if it was a no-brainer, why did the ruling come as such a shock to so many?
I agree with you by the way, and I may have been reading the media wrong, but it seems to me as though few thought it would be ruled this way.
Phoblographer and Finn Aficionado
SISU
by Jamie Kellner on Aug 9, 2010 8:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Personally, I believe this is because many, including those in the media, don’t slow down enough to think it through for themselves.
Too quick to say “Well, you approved Hossa!” without examining the whole concept of a soft boundary and the process to discover just where it is. Or, they point to someone that played until age 44, but ignore that only 0.02 percent of all players manage to do so.
Anyway, now we know. Hossa, yes. Kolvachuk, no. Maybe Hossa’s it. Maybe there’s space between those bookends for Kolvachuk to wiggle in ahead of him.
But, there were fundamental differences between the Kolvachuk contracts and the two previous stretches which had passed the sniff test before.
Not sure why it was such a surprise to them that it would come down this way. I would have been shocked (and dismayed) if it had been otherwise.
Here we are now...entertain us.
There is definitely a surprise (outrage) from the NY based media – I think beyond that Tri-state area, the reaction is less one-sided. But I am surprised how surprised they are. I thought the way this contract was beyond all previous precedents at about 3 or 4 different categories (across the board) made it vulnerable. But the CBA wording was vague enough (intent to circumvent) that the door was open.
I think Lou Lamiorello’s comments (when it was announced July 20) said a lot about what the underlying sentiment was. I guess the media is more cynical about this than we are; they assume “anything goes” and the CBA isn’t really enforceable or has no teeth in these matters, based on all the previous front-loaded deals. The surprise is that the NHL decided to take a stand this time and actually won. There’s not a lot of precedence.
I don’t understand why they (the media tweeting it up tonight) all see this as hypocrisy and keep saying it’s not at all different from Hossa or Pronger, et al. I’ve seen several analytical posts since July 20 charting the flow of money and the ratios of this one (Kovalchuk) which showed his was several notches beyond the precedents.
I also don’t know how the lunchpail players of the NHLPA will see this. Does Chad LaRose or Jussi Jokinen (or evenTuomo Ruutu or Tim Gleason) feel like their rights to earn the maximum possible income, based on their value to a team and the league, has been undercut unfairly? Are they willing to fall on their sword over this?
Twitter @HMof2
by Carolyn Christians on Aug 9, 2010 9:08 PM EDT up reply actions
I also don’t know how the lunchpail players of the NHLPA will see this. Does Chad LaRose or Jussi Jokinen (or evenTuomo Ruutu or Tim Gleason) feel like their rights to earn the maximum possible income, based on their value to a team and the league, has been undercut unfairly? Are they willing to fall on their sword over this?
This is what I’m still a little fuzzy on. In my view, the vast majority of players in this league would NEVER qualify for a Kovalchuk type deal. So if I’m Chad LaRose, I don’t see this as all that unfair in the grand scheme of things. Now what I’m wondering is if they (the players as a whole) will adopt a union mentality and go ahead with an “all for one” position. Will they make a fuss about it because they feel the need to stick up for one of their own?
"What Carolina really has going for them is Brandon Sutter. When that kid first showed up, he looked like a skinny little thing that wouldn’t last two weeks. But he’s turned into a real star."
Many in the Media Don't Pause to Think Objectively
We are really lucky to have the media we have. I won’t repeat with names the praise for our Canes media again unless somebody asks. Much of the media, unfortunately, really doesn’t pause at all to think deeply or objectively. At every step of the Kovalchuk contract, the contract chose to flaunt the rules and intent of the CBA. The ideal a player of Kovalchuk’s pedigree and pride would play years at minimum wage, perhaps in the AHL, was absurd. Grossman and Lou were playing games when it would have been simple to follow the rough guidelines of the Hossa deal and not raise even an eyebrow. They asked for a battle and they had their heads handed to them.
I had been blogging about the fact from a legal standpoint, it was going to take a real effort by the NHL attorneys to lose the case; and somebody went off on me (not that I don’t deserve it). I think they were surprised because they didn’t pause even ten seconds to look at the overall contract and ask themselves, could Lou even take the stand and say he thought Kovalchuk was a minimum wage player in his forties.
or the fact that it’s realistic that he’ll be able to play until he’s 45 or they’ll be able to buy him out in his late 30’s and have a minimal cap hit for the duration of his contract. Any way you look at it it’s a circumvention. I have to wonder what will be the outcome or how this will affect the re-negotiation of CBA. It’s clear that the next CBA will have a clause for contract length and will outline what acceptable and what’s not. I think the arbitrator got it right, my only concern as mentioned above is where does Kovy end up.
Is there a URL link to the actual decision
I can’t find a link to the entire arbitration decision. Anybody got a link?
I haven’t perused all the media reports, but someone on another board questioned whether or not the Devils would be subject to a fine if they lost the ruling. Anyone know?
Phoblographer and Finn Aficionado
SISU
From what I understand, they would have been subject to some sort of penalty if it had been ruled they had purposefully circumvented the cap (or some such wording). According to other sources, the arbitration decision did not indicate that the Devils had been found guilty of that and are therefore penalty free.
"What Carolina really has going for them is Brandon Sutter. When that kid first showed up, he looked like a skinny little thing that wouldn’t last two weeks. But he’s turned into a real star."
Here’s where I got that information:
Let me rephrase that: Decision says there is no finding of bad faith or intent to circumvent cap by Devils/Kovalchuk. about 2 hours ago via TweetDeck
There is nothing about the Devils or Kovalchuk being fined for circumvention in the decision. about 2 hours ago via TweetDeck
Those are both tweets from Mirtle.
"What Carolina really has going for them is Brandon Sutter. When that kid first showed up, he looked like a skinny little thing that wouldn’t last two weeks. But he’s turned into a real star."
Exactly what I was looking for – many thanks!
Phoblographer and Finn Aficionado
SISU
by Jamie Kellner on Aug 9, 2010 9:52 PM EDT up reply actions
My Understanding is somewhat different
I think there is a two step process. First, the contract has to be found to circumvent the Salary Cap. I think there is a separate procedure where the NHL then issues a fine, if and only if, it so chooses. The fine is then subject to appeal to arbitration. Technically, any discussion of intent would be dicta and persuasive authority, but would not be res judicata because that holding was not central to the issue before the arbitrator. I really hope the NHL won’t go after Lou and Kovalchuk. Adding two years and six years of minimum wages is not so much flaunting of the salary cap that it warrants a fine. The idea is if an agent and GM want to try to push the outer limits in good faith, they should not be punished with fines.
Mirtle just updated his story (same link as above) with interesting quotes from agents and excerpts of the ruling. He’s pretty neutral, IMHO.
Twitter @HMof2
by Carolyn Christians on Aug 9, 2010 9:52 PM EDT reply actions
After CG posted his tweets I went back to re-read them and also to read his article in the G&M. He mentions the possibility that the league could go back after similar deals that had been previously registered. He specifically mentions Luongo, Savard, Pronger, and Hossa.
How would that work?
Phoblographer and Finn Aficionado
SISU
by Jamie Kellner on Aug 9, 2010 10:04 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m thinking this is supposed to clarify it?
Worth noting that none of Luongo, Pronger or Savard deals have been paid out yet. They were all extensions that start in 2010-11.
:shrugs: I don’t know. Some of this is way over my head.
"What Carolina really has going for them is Brandon Sutter. When that kid first showed up, he looked like a skinny little thing that wouldn’t last two weeks. But he’s turned into a real star."
Apparently, the NHL still has two more months and can withdraw the registration of the contract – meaning the NHL can find that those contracts circumvent the Salary Cap/CBA and therefore are void. The Kovalchuk decision is merely persuasive authority that the similar deals circumvent the salary cap/CBA and therefore are void. It creates a potential muddle (I would use more express language in some company). If the NHL were to void the contracts, and if the NHLPA appealed, the entire group of long term, retirement contracts could be thrown into doubt. It’s a situation nobody interested in hockey needs.
I do think it was a statement by Bettman that there was a line beyond which the gamesmanship was not going to be tolerated. On the other hand, Boston is probably begging Bettman to please, please, please void Savard’s deal; and Vancouver might well crawl to the NHL offices for such a ruling.
My other question -
most of the reports last week used the term “the arbiter”. Today it’s all the much-less-smooth-sounding than “the arbitrator” (which sounds like a mature Schwarzenegger role). Which is it?
Twitter @HMof2
by Carolyn Christians on Aug 9, 2010 9:55 PM EDT reply actions
Thank you! I hate to mess up those details – I’ll go edit that so I’ll conform. My legalspeak is hardly top quality. Thanks for putting it up with it.
Twitter @HMof2
by Carolyn Christians on Aug 9, 2010 10:01 PM EDT up reply actions
I guess it’s not really the same as the “arbiter of good taste”.
Twitter @HMof2
by Carolyn Christians on Aug 9, 2010 10:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, I was just going to grab a dictionary definition, which is:
“a person with power to decide a dispute.” The arbitrator is the title of the person who is given the authority to decide the case. As such, he is the arbiter of the issue. Arbiter is the description of his responsibilities, but is not his legal title. A Judge is the arbiter of a dispute in a bench trial, whereas, the jury is the arbiter of the disputed factual issues in jury trial.
But you are the arbiter of good fish. Surely that must count for something.
Phoblographer and Finn Aficionado
SISU
by Jamie Kellner on Aug 9, 2010 10:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Fish, Hockey, and Bleacher Report on Hurricanes 2010-2011
Alas, I think my highest calling may well include going 60 miles offshore in rough seas to get fish for my friends. That indeed does count for something – not so much, but it’s good to get even a few positive marks on the ledger. But back to hockey – lest my hands get slapped (LOL):
Here is the URL to the Bleacher Report on the Hurricanes prediction for 2010-2011 season:
“Overall, the Carolina Hurricanes should be a much improved team come the start of the NHL Premiere in Helsinki, Finland, and they along with the “’Caniac Nation” are certainly anxious to get off on the right skate on October 7 against the Minnesota Wild.
Preseason Pick: Second in the Southeast.
Playoff Chances: Good."
I like how they think, but then again I always like it when I read something that agrees with what I already thought/blogged etc.
Skinner, too, got some more praise from the Bleacher Report. I happen to think the Hurricanes had targeted Skinner all along, but kept a very, very low profile. All that talk about defensemen, Seguin, etc. was more or less Jim Rutherford doing his, “don’t mind me, I’m just here looking at all the really smart GMs trying not to embarrass myself.” Meanwhile, Skinner was the player they really, really wanted.
Getting off on the right skate will be huge for the Canes come October. The long road trip, the revamped roster (Brindy, Whitney, Yelle, A-Ward, Wallin, Alberts, and Leighton all gone…fully 30% of the roster), and memories of last year’s horrific start will put pressure on the coaching staff and the Untouchables to produce. Hopefully the enthusiasm of the young guys will carry the team through 7 games away from home to start the season — 5 of which are against playoff teams from 09-10 — but a more likely scenario is that the Canes will take the ice on October 27 with a losing record. I would consider anything north of 7 points in the standings when they take the ice against the Caps to be a good start to the season.
I’d be surprised if we had a great start to the season… We will be relying heavily on largely untested talent, which I’m guessing will result in a lot of goals and fast, exciting play but will also come at the price of lots of goals against the Canes. My predictions would be:
1 & 2) We split games with Minny in Helsinki (1-1)
3) We barely lose to the Sens in OT after a long trip back (1-1-1)
4) A trip to the west coast further compounds jet lag, loss to Canucks(1-2-1)
5) We surprisingly beat the Sharks and the team shows some life (2-2-1)
6) The Kings beat us in the 2nd of back-to-back games because the Canes are exausted (2-3-1)
7) Welcome home, Canes win their Home opener for the fans by destroying the Craps (3-3-1)
Jeff Skinner scored 9 points (6 goals) in the first 7 games including a hat-trick in Helsinki and a ridiculous goal in the home opener. He sticks.
Whoops! Forgot the Coyotes game (who could forget Phoenix?).
Tough call… I’ll go with Cam Ward vs. Bryzgalov goalie battle… Ends in 0-0 tie, Jussi and Skinner win the game in the shootout.
Is it October yet? (I’m aching for it after reading these projections.)
Twitter @HMof2
by Carolyn Christians on Aug 10, 2010 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions
Victory for Small Market Teams
I think the importance of this ruling is being understand as it pertains to small market franchises who cannot afford the “up front” payments required to complete this kind of transaction.
Carolina for example has a very delicate balance from year to year with increasing salaries to off set player losses and to compensate a player fairly. They often give up long term flexibility for dollars saved today and in the coming seasons. Teams with more liquidity are given the option of having contracts front loaded with full knowledge that the contract will never be completed, as the player would be playing for peanuts by the time the contract ends and their perceived retirement date looming.
This advantage destroys the ability for teams like Carolina to compete in free agency. The advantage to the “up front” nature of the money cannot be understated. Not only because the player gets the bulk right away, but because if such an event should occur as a buyout then said player may only get a portion of the money they were promised. If the bulk of the contract is delivered in the first two or three years, the chances for that happening are very slim. That is an advantage we simply cannot match.
This became a point of contention when Edmonton tendered an offer sheet to Thomas Vanek which would have paid him $10 million per season in the first few years of the contract and eventually tapered down into more reasonable numbers. The Oilers were attempting to structure a contract that Buffalo, recently removed from bankruptcy, could not match in terms of having the operating budget to handle. As a result, Buffalo lost a lot of quality players in the coming years that could have possibly been retained with a more team friendly salary structure for Vanek. They are another team with a self imposed budget that was victimized by this type of tactic that, in my opinion, flies in the face of the intention of the hard salary cap.
In the sake of full disclosure it must also be mentioned that there are times where these type of contracts favor small market teams when a trade occurs. For example, if Vanek was traded to Carolina today, we would only owe him $6.4 million per season for the life of the contract when the hit is actually $7.142 and thus, Carolina can achieve the cap floor without spending to the actual number. These type of deals are not commonplace without NMC or NTC so that point is largely moot, which is where the disparity is created.
Great decision! Contracts should not be allowed to exceed the existing labor agreement. It’s as simple as that!
Do you mean length of the labor agreement or beyond the end of the labor agreement? I’m assuming you mean length. However, having all contracts end at the end of a labor agreement does allow a league to start from a clean slate. There’s no hold over from previous regimes.
Is it possible to be addicted to hockey?
I was actually surprised with the decision, even though it was (IMO) the correct one to make in this situation.
by Cincinnati Reds on Aug 10, 2010 11:50 AM EDT reply actions
I voted “No – this is a thumb in the eye of the players association, and the negotiations will be contentious, possibly leading to another lockout”. Because it sounded like the best fit from what I have read about the whole situation.
Also it won’t deter New Jersey, as they can just offer him a different contract that the NHL will agree to. shrug
I think it just hurts the NHL as a whole for the upper brass to have rejected it, as he will most likely still be offered an acceptable deal with New Jersey.
Jim Rutherford is a moron.
I voted No on this while. While the contract is an obvious attempt to to skirt the CBA, it’s not the players or teams fault that the NHL’s lawyers are morons. The teams have merely found a loophole in the the CBA and used it to their advantage. No rules were broken by this contract and others like it.
These longterm contracts are bad for the league, however you simply cannot use the ends to justify the means. This sets a dangerous precedent for the league to circumvent the CBA all together.
Still not a crook!
There is a clause in the CBA that says any contract blatantly trying to circumvent that Cap can be voided. The CBA would have to be incredibly detailed to outline every single possibility. Also an agreement would take years to complete with the NHLPA and the NHL having to agree on every single little detail.
The NHL is now investigating previous deals such as Luongo and Hossa. Do you really want the NHL to have the power to retro-actively declare contracts as invalid? Pandora’s box has now been opened and the NHL has just made a huge power grab over the NHLPA.
Still not a crook!
I had to laugh
and some of the later responces from AD,HM2 and others and to go on the ‘record’ fish 7 hockey do go together well..especially and seing we do have a “finnish” connection with the Canes…or was that…"something smells fishy in Demark "??? hmmm, but anyway i too like those " prmonitions about skinner & helsiki, but do remember folks we do have one advantage..aside from McBain & Bowman none of the other teams even our division have seen much in the way of "professional’ videos of the kids coming up…so if we are able to get a good start with some young fresh legs mixed with with several battled tested youngins..blended and teamed up with the the likes of Staal,the Juice &Timmo Gleasonen on paper at least the canes do look good to start out well…but we shall sit back and wait and see huh ?/ 38 more days is it HM2 ?/
And if it Aint Hockey,It Aint Nothin !!
That Checkers 3rd Sweater ROCKS !!!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Puck Previews: Ducks’ road trip continues; Sens, Panthers in battle of most surprising teams
- Watch the weirdest goal of the year, courtesy of ECHL ref’s rulebook gaffe (VIDEO)
- Jeremy Roenick’s OK with Blackhawks trading Patrick Kane for goalie upgrade
- Puck Headlines: Rick Nash chatter; Jagr turns 40; Ovechkin too much of a rock star?
- NHL Trade Deadline Dream Scenarios: Whom do you want to go where?
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
