mfitz804

Not with our payroll, it wouldn't. We could give him a raise for 2 years and it would probably be irrelevant.

Well, he has played two games, so we are now guaranteed the pick, whether this or next year.

I guess that's a little better, but I would rather give him his options. I guess if he was excited about moving 3,000+ miles away from his family to play for an expansion team, then I wouldn't mind the agreement. But where we know he wants to finish here, that's likely the last place he would want to go. Maybe he gets picked, but maybe he doesn't. It would be treating him purely as an asset instead of as a person, which would sit the wrong way with me. As far as hanging onto him goes, it goes back to the old thing I have said many times. if not him, then who? Would I rather have 35 year off Travis Zajac or Mike McLeod centering my 4th line? I'm not saying give him a 7 year deal, but if he would take 2 years at a bit of a cut from his current salary, I would consider it.

Tough question, but mostly because I’m not sure there’s many guys I care about protecting. I like Wood, but do I feel like we have to protect him? Not really. Would Butcher really be that big of a loss? Or Subban? I wouldn’t expose Subban for the simple reason that I think if he has even a marginally good 2020-2021 (or whatever the fvck it’s called if it’s delayed), you can probably get pucks back for him. And the salary isn’t hurting us. Signing Zajac to expose him would be really disrespectful toward a guy that was here a very long time and probably wants to finish here. That doesn’t mean it won’t happen, because that was for different ownership/management for part of his tenure. Maybe they don’t feel that loyalty toward him. I would rather let him walk and leave where he signs up to him. But, I also wouldn’t rule out bringing him back in a 4th line/specialty type role, because he’s really not taking a spot away from anyone good. Schneider you definitely expose, and you probably are still stuck with him.

If them losing didn’t get them a better chance at #1 OA, I would love it. Now I see it as a fringe playoff team maybe giving their longtime starter, now 3rd stringer one last goodbye and improving their draft position. Maybe that wasn’t the intention, but still.

Now I’m picturing you with Steve hair.

Now that’s a party.

Well you got that part right.

That’s what I read as well, equal chances among the play-in losers.

I think for the top guys it won’t make a difference. While you would have liked to see what they all would have done in the last few months, the known top 10 type guys were probably fully scouted up to that point. If that isn’t the case, I would argue that management failed to do their job. I see it as more of an issue for the second round and beyond, that’s more of the deep dive issue to me.

They should’ve just said from the start that they aren’t. This is just finishing the regular season without the sh!tty teams. They should’ve just labeled it as such. And they should’ve just done the lottery AFTER the play-in.

I think this is right on the money. They should have done the lottery later. But the play-in losers didn’t have a “shot at the cup” any more so than any other team that was in the lottery.

You mean “when”.

Still have a landline. my Verizon FIOS package is (allegedly) cheaper with the phone than without (thought i have not double checked that in years), so I keep it. I never answer it or use it at all. The only people who call it are telemarketers, my mother-in-law, and one of my wife's friends. The wife insists we need it, so we have it. I also like to turn off my cell at night, which I wouldn't do if I had no landline.

Yeah, like not since like 2012...