Around the league (signings, RFAs injuries)

[Hockey Widow]

As I said before, Voynov was suspended before charges were laid. Richards had his contract terminated before charges were laid. It seems in both of those cases the fact that they were under investigation was enough to be suspended/terminated, pending outcomes.

I can't understand why Kane has not been suspended pending the outcome of that investigation. The precedent has been set by Bettman, IMHO.

I might be wrong, but weren't both Voynov and Richards at least arrested prior to being suspended?

You are correct, both had been arrested pending completion of investigations with charges being filed much later. In Kane's case he has not been arrested, a complaint is being investigated. Granted a huge, huge difference.

Withstanding that, the league is able to suspend players while they are part of a criminal investigation, under section 18-A.5, "The league may suspend the player pending the league's formal review and disposition of the matter where the failure to suspend the player during this period would create a substantial risk of material harm to the legitimate interests and/or reputation of the league. (From the CBA)

But, having researched further, you are correct IN, a big difference in the three cases and I will stand down on the matter, I get it.

[Chef Boi RD]

I saw one of Blobby's and INs tribe members at Canucks Hockey'sfuture board propose the idea that the Canucks should offer Seabrook a 6 year, $8 million per year contract. LMAO. Let's see, Seabrook turns 31 next April, that's a brilliant idea, offering ridiculous money to a 31 year old overrated D-man. LOL

[Blob Mckenzie]

Why the hell pay a top 15 defencemen market value ( 7-8 million a year) when you can pay a bottom 15 d man and a third line centre ,8 million a year combined ,for the next three years +? Elite teams are built through their 7/8 d men and third line plugs . Pftttt like ANY team would give up Luca Sbisa and Brandon Sutter for Brent Seabrook .

Game set and match to Blobcat . This shit is getting old . This is where cap space comes in handy to all you handicaps that can't get that through your ape skulls . As it is Fish Eyes and Radim will need to be replaced in July if the plan is to remain competitive . Pay the elite players not the scrubs . Problem is with the way Ignitowski is weaving around managing the ship who the hell would sign here ?

[Chef Boi RD]

Lucic just turned 27 in June. Seabrook turned 30 in April. Throwing the bank at Lucic is much the wiser than tossing it at Brent Riding Duncan Keiths Coattails Seabrook

Seabrook Market Value $7-8 million LMAO. I'd rather have Garrison back and his Gillis contract

[Hockey Widow]

Seabrook will get a Gio type of contract. 6 years at about 6.50-6.75.

[Hockey Widow]

Slava Voynov has now been taken into custody by U.S. Customs and Immigration Authority. He will be held in detention until his immigration hearing for revocation of his U.S. Work Visa. This is unusual as California is usually seen as a safe haven but I guess with all the press of illegals killing people and the Trumpinator making the rounds ICE is making a statement.

Legal experts feel with a domestic a battery conviction his chances of keeping his work visa are less than 50%. Given that he is Russian I doubt politics will play a role although I'm sure the KHL will welcome him back with a huge contract.

LA may get out of cap hell if he is sent home and the Richards termination is upheld. But they will need to upgrade their defence. Maybe we could trade them Sbisa? Or maybe Hamhuis for two firsts and Lucic

[Island Nucklehead]

I saw one of Blobby's and INs tribe members at Canucks Hockey'sfuture board propose the idea that the Canucks should offer Seabrook a 6 year, $8 million per year contract. LMAO. Let's see, Seabrook turns 31 next April, that's a brilliant idea, offering ridiculous money to a 31 year old overrated D-man. LOL

Yeah cus I see a whole host of folks here proposing that kind of deal. Figure it out, Dude. You're arguing against the voices in your head again.

In terms of what THIS team needs, we need a Seabrook (ie, a top-pairing D-man) way more than we need a Lucic (ie, a big-bodied winger). Nobody is suggesting giving Seabrook $8M per. If he wants that he can get it from someone else. But I see a lot of signs towards us giving Lucic that $7M+ deal. With the log-jam we have at forward already, and the young guys looking to break into the NHL over the next couple years, it makes no sense to sign Lucic to what could possibly be a retirement deal.

I'm hoping Lucic's recent media love-in with Vancouver was a ploy to get the Kings and his Agent talking extension. I hope he stays there on a contract that is more expensive than Dustin Brown's, so we won't have to worry about tempting Jimbo to go full "meat and potato intangible character" fest next summer.

[2Fingers]

I saw one of Blobby's and INs tribe members at Canucks Hockey'sfuture board propose the idea that the Canucks should offer Seabrook a 6 year, $8 million per year contract. LMAO. Let's see, Seabrook turns 31 next April, that's a brilliant idea, offering ridiculous money to a 31 year old overrated D-man. LOL

Yeah cus I see a whole host of folks here proposing that kind of deal. Figure it out, Dude. You're arguing against the voices in your head again.

In terms of what THIS team needs, we need a Seabrook (ie, a top-pairing D-man) way more than we need a Lucic (ie, a big-bodied winger). Nobody is suggesting giving Seabrook $8M per. If he wants that he can get it from someone else. But I see a lot of signs towards us giving Lucic that $7M+ deal. With the log-jam we have at forward already, and the young guys looking to break into the NHL over the next couple years, it makes no sense to sign Lucic to what could possibly be a retirement deal.

I'm hoping Lucic's recent media love-in with Vancouver was a ploy to get the Kings and his Agent talking extension. I hope he stays there on a contract that is more expensive than Dustin Brown's, so we won't have to worry about tempting Jimbo to go full "meat and potato intangible character" fest next summer.

Don't disagree with you that we need a Seabrook just saying we don't need to it now, we don't need anyone right now that helps this team "make" the playoffs only to be bounced out in the 1st round again. The team needs to make a plan and stick with it, taking anyone on right now that is closer to 30 than 20 is not the right way to go.

[Chef Boi RD]

I saw one of Blobby's and INs tribe members at Canucks Hockey'sfuture board propose the idea that the Canucks should offer Seabrook a 6 year, $8 million per year contract. LMAO. Let's see, Seabrook turns 31 next April, that's a brilliant idea, offering ridiculous money to a 31 year old overrated D-man. LOL

Yeah cus I see a whole host of folks here proposing that kind of deal. Figure it out, Dude. You're arguing against the voices in your head again.

In terms of what THIS team needs, we need a Seabrook (ie, a top-pairing D-man) way more than we need a Lucic (ie, a big-bodied winger). Nobody is suggesting giving Seabrook $8M per. If he wants that he can get it from someone else. But I see a lot of signs towards us giving Lucic that $7M+ deal. With the log-jam we have at forward already, and the young guys looking to break into the NHL over the next couple years, it makes no sense to sign Lucic to what could possibly be a retirement deal.

I'm hoping Lucic's recent media love-in with Vancouver was a ploy to get the Kings and his Agent talking extension. I hope he stays there on a contract that is more expensive than Dustin Brown's, so we won't have to worry about tempting Jimbo to go full "meat and potato intangible character" fest next summer.

Seabrook will be 31 years old when he becomes a UFA. So you have no problem throwing him a 6 year/$7 million per type contract to Bent at his age and during a transitional phase for this team? All I'm saying is I would rather throw big money with long term at a 27 year old than a 31 year old. You are not going to get Seabrook on a short term deal. I still stand by that there is potential for disaster when it comes to chasing a UFA Seabrook who IS NOT a no. 1 type of D-man. He's good but he certainly isn't great, especially at money you throw at star no. 1 D-men. I'd take Giordano over him cause at least Giordano has been playing like a no. 1 D-man the last few years and hasn't needed a Duncan Keith to make him look good. What is Seabrook like without Keith and the Blackhawk dynasty? I bet he's pretty ordinary

[Blob Mckenzie]

Seabrook is a number one guy on half the teams

[Island Nucklehead]

The point I'm trying to make here Dude, (and I think I personally agree with Reef that we shouldn't sign anyone) is:

If we're going to dump big money into the free agency pool, I'd target any one of Johnson, Seabrook, Byfuglien, Coburn, Yandle that don't get re-upped. Someone that can help with our pathetic defence.

It seems pretty clear to me that (unfortunately) Benning isn't going to sit around with cap space on his hands and wait for this team to bottom out and build through one or two high-end draft choices. He's going the Flames route circa 2009 and spending money in Free Agency as a way to try to remain relevant in the West. In terms of impact, Lucic would likely not even be our version of Jokinen.

So, IF Benning is hell-bent on spending to the cap and throwing money around like a drunken sailor on leave, I'd prefer he spend it on defence.

[Chef Boi RD]

If you can get Seabrook on a 3-4 year contract at a million less per than Giordanos new contract then yeah, do it. But ya know Brent wants to win the Lotto Max on what should be his final contract. Have no interest in those 3 Americans and Coburn. Johnson and Coburn? You're kidding right?

Good luck with that.

[lostinarink]

LA may get out of cap hell if he is sent home and the Richards termination is upheld. But they will need to upgrade their defence. Maybe we could trade them Sbisa? Or maybe Hamhuis for two firsts and Lucic

How about we send them Hammy for Forbert. Take Hammy's $$$ and make a substantial multi year offer to Franson WITHOUT a NMC. Franson gets time to prove his capability or be traded. Will he be upgrade or downgrade on hammy - I dont know. Kids get a bit more time to develop. If thing go well, Franson becomes a big #1/2 D as part of the team core. Forbert sounds like he has 1/2 potential down the road.

[Meds]

LA may get out of cap hell if he is sent home and the Richards termination is upheld. But they will need to upgrade their defence. Maybe we could trade them Sbisa? Or maybe Hamhuis for two firsts and Lucic

How about we send them Hammy for Forbert. Take Hammy's $$$ and make a substantial multi year offer to Franson WITHOUT a NMC. Franson gets time to prove his capability or be traded. Will he be upgrade or downgrade on hammy - I dont know. Kids get a bit more time to develop. If thing go well, Franson becomes a big #1/2 D as part of the team core. Forbert sounds like he has 1/2 potential down the road.

Problem with that is that if you give Franson the same money as Hamhuis, then even with the lack of a NTC nobody will want him if he doesn't earn it.

[Hockey Widow]

If Voynov gets deported I think LA will pick up Franson. They could probably get him on a two year deal for under 4 million per right now. Hell, he may even take a one year deal for a chance at a cup. But they could be an interesting trade partner for Hamhuis for sure. I think he would waive to play in a warm climate too. Maybe we could get them to take Vey back?

But seriously, if Voynov is done in the NHL Hamhuis would be a very good target for them.