February NHL News

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
36,207
306, row 14
Of course. That’s still a really high price Tampa paid for him. Hall got a similar pick and a pupu platter of prospects. Coleman got them a similarly ranged pick and a top 50ish prospect.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
36,207
306, row 14
Schaller, 2nd and prospect Tyler Madden is apparently the package for Toffoli.

Madden was a 3rd round pick in 2018, plays at Northeastern. 38 points in 27 games this year.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
36,207
306, row 14
That is a steep price for a rental, and Vancouver is nowhere near a Cup contender. FWIW, Madden was 40th on Pronman’s mid-season rankings. Studnicka was 37th, to put into some Bruins perspective.
 

veritas

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2009
3,151
Somerville, MA
Yeah that's a lot for a very good but not elite UFA winger. Would not want the Bruins to have paid that. I'd rather them target a cheaper depth winger like Jesper Fast
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
36,207
306, row 14
Montreal traded a 4th to Buffalo for Scandella like a month ago. Habs pick up 2nd in addition to the 4th they recouped. Nice work, Sabres.
 

NYCSox

chris hansen of goats
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 19, 2004
10,476
Some fancy town in CT
Watched the McDavid documentary last night. That was insane. He was this close to missing the season and potentially jeopardizing his career.

I can't believe the Oilers were able to keep it under wraps.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
36,207
306, row 14
Relatively minor deal, but FLA trades depth F Denis Malgin to Toronto for AHL F Mason Marchment. Rare to see two teams battling for the same playoff spot make a trade.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
36,207
306, row 14
Vegas trades Cody Eakin to Winnipeg for a 4th that could become a 3rd if the Jets make the playoffs or re-sign Eakin.

Straight cap dump for Vegas, have to wonder if they are working on something else.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,445
deep inside Guido territory
Gov. Cuomo is expected to announce that the Islanders will play all of the postseason and next season at Nassau Coliseum before moving to the new arena at Belmont the following year. What a great decision. Barclays Center sucks for hockey and Nassau is such a better atmosphere.
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
16,149
Tuukka's refugee camp
I've never been but my brother said that most of the rinks we played at in our youth were as nice or nicer than Nassau. And we played at a lot of shitholes.
 

Haunted

The Man in the Box
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2006
6,221
Anecdotal, but my Long-Island-born girlfriend also said the Coliseum was a pit, but she only ever went for concerts.

Also, why would the governor announce this and not, like, the team owner?
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
36,207
306, row 14
Nassau is a shithole but the logistics are far better than the Barclays Center for all involved. Barclays was built for basketball and events without the slightest thought about hosting hockey. Obstructed views all over the place, the scoreboard is over a blue line, and it’s not an easy ride/commute for the bulk Islanders fans. Players don’t like having to commute to two different arenas either. Nassau is a dump but just seems like a better solution for all parties.

Think Cuomo has been heavily involved and has brokered some of the arena deals between the Isles, NHL, Belmont Project,etc. so that is why he is doing the announcing. I haven’t paid close attention so I could be wrong.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,445
deep inside Guido territory
Nassau is a dump but it's less of a dump since the upgrades they did after the Isles originally moved to Brooklyn. My comment about the atmosphere is that it's a barn-type feel to it and gets pretty loud when it's filled up. I've been to a bunch of Bruins games there and an Isles-Rangers game and it can get crazy in there.

Cuomo is involved because he originally was the one who brokered the agreement to split the games between Brooklyn and Nassau for the time being while the new arena at Belmont is being built.
 

NYCSox

chris hansen of goats
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 19, 2004
10,476
Some fancy town in CT
Assuming they don't catch the Bruins, they'll beat whatever lame team finishes third in the division with or without him.
 

SemperFidelisSox

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2008
31,346
Boston, MA
The league is very fortunate Ayers played it straight and didn’t give up five goals to benefit the team he is employed by. This is the issue I have with it. The next guy might not be as decent as Ayers and would intentionally let pucks in to benefit his team in a playoff race.
 

Salem's Lot

Andy Moog! Andy God Damn Moog!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
14,610
Gallows Hill

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
36,207
306, row 14
What do they mean by breaking the plane? I assume the puck just needs to be touching blue now to be considered in the zone?
 

tonyandpals

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 18, 2004
7,860
Burlington
What do they mean by breaking the plane? I assume the puck just needs to be touching blue now to be considered in the zone?
I think they are still talking about the skate in the air, breaking the plane of the blue line while in the air, will still be considered on-side. But I am just guessing. If that's the case, why just the skate? Could it be an extended arm as well?
 

PedroSpecialK

Comes at you like a tornado of hair and the NHL sa
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2004
27,168
Cambridge, MA
The issue is two-fold right now, IMO:
  • Coaches have 60-90 seconds now to decide whether to not to even challenge a play
  • Once challenged, it can take upwards of 6 min (i.e. the Detroit game) to reach a verdict. That's just ridiculous - if you can't spot a clear reason to overturn within 90 seconds, it stands.
The proposed change would fix nothing if they don't change the two issues above
 

tonyandpals

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 18, 2004
7,860
Burlington
The issue is two-fold right now, IMO:
  • Coaches have 60-90 seconds now to decide whether to not to even challenge a play
  • Once challenged, it can take upwards of 6 min (i.e. the Detroit game) to reach a verdict. That's just ridiculous - if you can't spot a clear reason to overturn within 90 seconds, it stands.
The proposed change would fix nothing if they don't change the two issues above
If anything it introduces more of a gray area. I'd be for leaving the criteria as it as is and adding a 30 second timer to challenge and 60 second timer on the refs to view it and make a decision to overturn or not.