Jump to content

Around The NHL 2016/2017


Recommended Posts

It's to early to worry about where they are in the standings. Being this high up in the standings with half a moose roster is reason for optimism tho.  

Say what you want about any of these guys but.... 

Little Perreault Armia stafford myers Mathias Connor are all hurt. Those aren't minor losses. Those are huge losses. 3 top 6 players. A top d man. And some bottom 6 players. Huge losses. No other team has had to deal with that 

Edited by Goalie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say that Buffalo almost equals or surpasses our injury woes.....let's not forget Trouba wasn't here for some of these games too. I was just pointing out that it is early and you also have to look at the ampunt of games played and the games in hand when you are looking at standings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/18/2016 at 1:07 PM, The Unknown Poster said:

TSN's stats referred to 6 top-9 players on IR.  Thats unbelievable.  Two full lines in the top 9 on injured reserve.  Not many times can absorb that and win.  The Jets have actually done very well.

Yup. We do though need to stop the bleeding.

We've been managing nicely until this 3 game losing streak. Go five hundred from here until Little and company get back and we'll be okay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Ducky said:

I haven't seen that before.

It says the Jets will travel ~8,000 fewer miles this year over last. If accurate, that's pretty incredible. We're nowhere near the top in terms of miles traveled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jimmy Pop said:

I wonder if the Sharks were worried he'd be the only fish in the FA pond this summer?  Partially explains the term.... dollar wise it seems pretty fair.

How is it fair? You're going to pay him $8M when he's 37? 38? 39?

I know it's AAV but it's an anchor. Seems desperate for a player that's already at your club.

Edited by JCon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jimmy Pop said:

I wonder if the Sharks were worried he'd be the only fish in the FA pond this summer?  Partially explains the term.... dollar wise it seems pretty fair.

Dollar value is probably right on but the term is way to much, 6 would have been much better, can't see him playing til his 40 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JCon said:

How is it fair? You're going to pay him $8M when he's 37? 38? 39?

I know it's AAV but it's an anchor. Seems desperate for a player that's already at your club.

I said dollar wise it's fair.  It's the term that's the problem.  Give Burns Buff's contract and it's done when he's 36.  That's more palatable. 

And you're right, it is desperate.  That was my point - - I think they looked at the upcoming crop of FAs and went, **** OUR guy is really the only notable star out there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jimmy Pop said:

I said dollar wise it's fair.  It's the term that's the problem.  Give Burns Buff's contract and it's done when he's 36.  That's more palatable. 

And you're right, it is desperate.  That was my point - - I think they looked at the upcoming crop of FAs and went, **** OUR guy is really the only notable star out there. 

My point is that it's only fair dollar wise, if it's for a shorter term. If you're tacking on 3 garbage years, the AAV should go way down.

The most he could get on the market is 7 years. So why pay him for 8 and not get a discount at all?

I'm glad the Sharks are paying him and not us for those terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...