Rich

I think your missing the point here and with your ridiculous reply in the Marco Dano thread. No one has said Ladd should have been traded for an ageing vet. I even said I was fine with the Ladd trade given where we are in the standings. I also have no problem with not signing Ladd for what he wanted. The comment that Atomic made is that we are a worse team today then we were two days ago. That is absolutely true. Looking at the team again next year, I think there is a good chance you are going to see much of the same as this year. If we have to add another 2 -3 rookies, I would be shocked to see it turn out much different. It isn't fun paying $100+ a game to watch this team play right now. I'm not really looking forward to doing it again next year. Funny thing is the Jets also just sent out the email looking for deposits for the playoffs (although it did said credit cards won't be charged until a playoff spot is confirmed, they are just looking for commitments so they know if they have to sell the playoff tickets). I get that they have to do it because we aren't technically eliminated yet, but that is a brutal email with the team's record and play this year. This is more about the macro direction of the team, not the specifics of Ladd. If we are going to always be one of the younger teams amongst the lowest payroll, I wonder how long the shine of this team will stay on. By the time Scheifele, Trouba, and Ehlers hit their late 20's, are we going to have to move them out as well to "make way for the youth".

There is a pretty good correlation between the average age of a team and where they currently sit in the standings (younger = lower). The other problem with getting all these young players around the same time is that they will all also be coming up for big contracts around the same time, and it is unlikely to be able to afford them all. Unless the plan is to hope that you can get / identify 6 - 8 true core players like Chicago has out of all the prospects, sign them and trade the rest, then maybe that works, but we are a ways out from seeing that. Getting the feeling that fans are generally underwhelmed with the return on Ladd. Before the trade deadline a lot of people were talking about how we had to get something for Ladd and something for Buff or it would be devastating and a huge fail on the organization. I always argued there was value in keeping a player if it meant a playoff run, especially for getting playoff experience for younger players. Now of course it made sense to trade Ladd because we weren't getting into the playoffs and all of this is purely hypothetical, but now that we've seen the return for Ladd, does it really make that big of a difference in the future of this organization? If Ladd was unsigned and we were heading into the playoffs, would you rather keep Ladd or get the pick and Dano? I'd rather have kept Ladd. Agree with Atomic. People love to criticize the players on this team when they see them play every day. Depending on the day and poster, Enstrom, Myers, Stafford, Stuart, Thorburn are all the favourite whipping boys. But future pick and prospects are all fantastic. The truth is most of them will turn into the equivalents or be lucky to have the career of the favourite whipping boys.

Fronk spent most of the year with the Moose, but was just sent down to the ECHL affiliate (Tulsa Oilers) earlier this week.

Looks like it is Halischuk. Petan stays with the Moose.

They estimate that urban centres take up only 2.7% of the land (excluding oceans and Antarctica). Chances of something like this hitting where it matters is pretty low.

Yes, which is why this was in the original article:

When the Jets moved to Phoenix, the old Jets logo became property of the NHL. When True North bought the Thrashers, they also bought the rights to the old logo. I'm pretty sure the heritage jersey will either be the logo the Jets had when they left or the old WHA logo. No way it is the Thrashers logo. True North would sell a ton of old Jets Jerseys. They'd be lucky if they sold 10 Thrashers jerseys.

I think he means for next year, they better pay someone in UFA for the $4.5M to get an experienced player in the lineup. Not to replace Ladd with a rookie.

That is a crazy amount of money. Even crazier for a 36 year old athlete. http://www.tsn.ca/sources-bautista-s-demand-is-five-years-150m-1.442180

http://www.hockeysfuture.com/prospects/nick-schmaltz/ Hockey's future rates him as a 7.5 with a probability of success of C.

Rumour is he wants in the ballpark of Toews and Patrick Kane .. around $10M

I don't know if its the way they did his hair or the greying they added to it, but when I see Ben Affleck, I actually think George Clooney, and that is a bad Batman history to resurrect. I think it is the shot 33 seconds into that youtube video above that does it.

Teams aren't as likely to trade for Stafford, Perreault and Thorburn as they aren't rentals and it means they need cap room next year and beyond. The salary ramifications make the trade much more complicated to make. There is a reason it is rare to see trades for these types of players at the deadline. Man does it get tiring reading the constant posts about trading the whole team this year. If you trade all the vets and replace them with picks and rookies next year, guess what? The team is going to suck again next year and the cycle will return where everyone wants to trade every ageing player again. Picks and prospects are nice but they don't payoff until 2 - 4 years down the road.

Roster bonuses were put in to avoid teams bringing a player to training camp, even if they knew he wasn't going to make the team, only to cut him at the end of it knowing full well it would be harder for another team to pick him up at that time of the year. By putting a roster bonus at the beginning of the year, the team is committing to the player to be there throughout the season. Yes, it sucks to get cut, but at least with a roster bonus, if the date of it is done properly (hello Muamba), there is a good chance you can get signed with another team. Can't see the agents and players giving these up so easily.

So by this logic, There is no issue with TBURGESS using his own name. He just needs to change the number. Personal preference, but I wouldn't put my own name on a jersey, but I have no issue with people who do. I do find as I get older, I find it tougher and tougher to put the name of a current Bomber on my jersey. Not sure if it is because it seems weird when they are all now younger then me, or because there is no "long term" player to spend that kind of money on. Last Bomber jersey I bought was Muamba in his rookie season. Since he left, I've been wearing a retro Walby. No idea who I would get if I were to buy a new one.

Any professional organization should have a QA process that reviews changes like this on their website before they are released to the public. Unless of course the schedule the web people were given was flawed to begin with, then your QA process is kind of meaningless.

What is weird is his NMC didn't kick in until this season started. They could have traded him last off season.

Not a fan of it either. The new formatting makes it very difficult to highlight to copy and paste the details of the schedule. The formatting separates everything too much to really compare and look at a global view of it. It is similar to the new NHL.com. I think they wanted to format the websites in such a way that it presents well on both mobile and desktop. Unfortunately, that makes the desktop experience poorer.

I don't think that stops them from shrinking. That may stop wear and tear on the logo and lettering. The amount of water and heat will be the same if they are inside out or not. Let them air dry instead of putting them in the dryer and washing them in cold water will stop them from shrinking (ie. stay away from heat).

Big difference between Stamkos and Ladd in their age. in 6 years Stamkos will be 32 and well within that range where experience can make up for whatever declines age starts to give you. Hell, Stamkos is really just entering his prime as he just turned 26. in 6 years Ladd will be on the wrong side of 35.

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/12/19/stamkos-slams-rumors-about-leaving-tampa

Maybe I'm jaded but I don't put any faith into anything a public person says to the media. You keep getting hung up on this "I want to help the team" quote and using that as the foundation of why you think he is in the wrong here. And to me, that is just such a small part of the whole thing. Maybe it was a poor choice of words to say instead of blurting out whatever is really going on there. But to me, that is just keeping what is private and behind closed doors out of the media, which it should be.

I never said he was a wonderful person either. I've never met him. I really don't know one way or the other. Though I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume they are wonderful people until proven otherwise. There are some athletes who are always in the media for the wrong reasons and you get the feeling that you can somewhat judge their character over repeated patterns. I've never seen or heard any of that with Stamkos. I would think if there were character issues there, they would have come out at some point before for an athlete of his stature and the spotlight he gets put under. So when something like this comes up, it seems like a more likely scenario to me that something has transpired behind the scenes between both parties that has soured the relationship. And without knowing what that is, I'm not quite so quick to put the 'jerk' tag on him. Maybe more information will come into light down the road on other things he has done or why their relationship has come to this point. But until then, in my opinion calling him a jerk isn't warranted.

Just in case it flew over your head, yes I tried to "judge" you in that post in the exact same way you are doing to Stamkos to illustrate the point of it. Didn't feel very good. Did it?