Canucks Have Interest In Forsberg
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 5, 2009 11:38 PM PST
in The Gillis Era
79 comments
UPDATE: 3:22 PM PST: Globe and Mail is reporting that Forsberg will make his decision about playing in the NHL next week. Gillis believes he has a good chance at landing Forsberg because he has good relations with Peter's agent Don Baizley. I say Forsberg will choose wherever the hell he wants to go, if he plays.
UPDATE: 11:27 AM: The Canucks have sent Director of Player Development Dave Gagner to Finland to monitor Forsberg and see if he is worth pursuing.
****************
Like it or not, a big can of worms was opened up on the Team 1040 Thursday, where they reported that the Canucks have Inge Hammarstrom and Thomas Gradin scouting Peter Forsberg at the Karjala Cup Tournament in Finland. That could have been chalked up as potential bunk, but then the guys talked to Mike Gillis, who confirmed Vancouver's interest in the 36 year-old.....if he's fully fit, reports Matt Sekeras of the Globe and Mail.
Said Gillis:
"First of all, he needs to find out if he can still play," Gillis said. "If he can, we're definitely interested. I've known his agent, Don Baizley, for a long time and I think we'd be on his short list if Peter decides he wants to play."
So Gillis is chasing a big-name Swedish rental again. So are the Rangers, who have scouts there as well. Deja-vu almost. Forsberg, however, has only played in 6 games over the past 2 years, all for Modo. The previous season he played 9 games with the Avalanche, registering 14 points. His ankle and especially foot ailments have plagued him the whole time. He is still unsure if his foot will heal to the point of playing much longer. But that doesn't mean he's not trying to make a comeback. He still loves to play. But he has told Swedish papers that he has not talked to any NHL team.
To be honest, my interest is piqued, especially if he can get in shape and not have his foot problems get in the way. Look at that picture. That doesn't make you drool a bit?
0 recs |
79 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
would you mind adding a “maybe / i don’t give a rat’s ass” option to the poll? thx
http://canuckpuckbunny.blogspot.com
GO CANUCKS GO!
by missy on Nov 5, 2009 11:43 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
" / i don’t know " in there as well.
http://canuckpuckbunny.blogspot.com
GO CANUCKS GO!
by missy on Nov 5, 2009 11:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If you don’t know or don’t give a shit then don’t answer the question ya smartass! ;)
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 6, 2009 9:25 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well missy…if he is healthy, he would have more impact than the last “Old Swede” that was on the team.
Forsberg can still play…its all about wether his foot passes inspection.
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
by vancitydan on Nov 5, 2009 11:47 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
true, but how can we guarantee he will? maybe he does get into game shape and his foot gets better, but how can we guarantee he’ll have a bigger impact on the team than sundin?
and another point: the healthy players we have on the ice right now seem to be finding more and more chemistry right now, and it’s already going to have a huge impact on that chemistry when daniel and demitra are fully healed and ready to play. of course, it’s obvious that daniel’s coming back, but we can’t even guarantee how lines would work out with him back in. when demitra’s ready to play again, it will be even worse to the chemistry that’s already been built. now, imagine trying to throw forsberg in there. there’s going to be players sent away (to the Moose or off in a trade), and it’s going to have an impact on the chemistry that seems to be forming right now. and here’s the big if: what if we should have kept those players instead of ditching them for forsberg?
this is why i can’t say yes or no yet. we need to see what happens when our injured players come back into the lineup first.
hopefully what i’m saying here makes sense. i’m often horrible at conveying my opinion through text.
http://canuckpuckbunny.blogspot.com
GO CANUCKS GO!
by missy on Nov 5, 2009 11:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
already a quick edit:
when i was talking about sending players away, i mean it in the way that a roster spot will have to be emptied for a new player to come in, whether by reassigning the players to the moose, trading them away for draft picks, etc.
http://canuckpuckbunny.blogspot.com
GO CANUCKS GO!
by missy on Nov 6, 2009 12:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m with you on this, don’t like the idea at all. I think a lot of the younger guys who have been called up have really shown they can play this level. Look at Tanner Glass for example.
Burrows + Canucks = Stanley Cup!
by SpeakUp on Nov 6, 2009 9:19 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I love how our GM acts like a spurned lover towards Swedish vagabonds.
'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
by Yankee Canuck on Nov 6, 2009 12:02 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Missy, your assumption rests on no one else getting injured. I suspect Gillis is looking at this from the perspective of better safe than sorry. If someone else goes down, having Forsberg as a potential recruit is better than having to get Joe Puck AHL replacement level player. With that in mind, I don’t care, it’s such a long shot that it’s not worth considering until it happens.
by rsm on Nov 6, 2009 2:57 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
i did realize that when i wrote that. this is why i said i can’t say yes or no yet, i want to see what ends up happening first. who knows? maybe demitra won’t return at all, we lose some chemistry on one of the top lines, and we end up needing forsberg. i’m just on the fence right now, waiting for the current injury bug to stop attacking us.
http://canuckpuckbunny.blogspot.com
GO CANUCKS GO!
by missy on Nov 6, 2009 3:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Forsberg
HELL NO!
Remember a guy named Messier? Sundin?
0-2 for old superstars. Give it up. If you wanted a great player you should have signed Guerin or Recchi or Shanahan.
by Acevntura on Nov 6, 2009 8:27 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Abso-fucking-lutely. If only so that he doesn’t score against us with another team like he always does.
by Beantown Canuck on Nov 6, 2009 10:00 AM PST via mobile reply actions 0 recs
No downside
Unless it keeps us from getting a better player somehow. If that’s not in the cards, sign him up.
by Jevant on Nov 6, 2009 10:03 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I’d take Peter over Demitra any day of the week. Way more heart and soul. It’s just that I’m only giving him a 20% chance of being healthy and returning to the NHL though
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 6, 2009 10:52 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Well if Soup was worth $20M over two
Gillisgan should offer Foppa $40M
by yoata on Nov 6, 2009 10:55 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Is this even a remote possibility?
I thought he needs to clear waivers to get into the NHL, since he’d played this year in the Swedish league. WHat are the chance of Van signing him, and trying to re-call him, and some other team not stealing him away?
by Shabbadoo on Nov 6, 2009 11:03 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Nope he doesn’t have to clear waivers; see Paul Kukla and Spector (along with Bill Daly!) lay it out here.
'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
by Yankee Canuck on Nov 6, 2009 11:19 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Sounds like this just got kicked up a notch
Bure Fodder just went over there to scout him in person too.
'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
by Yankee Canuck on Nov 6, 2009 11:17 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Has Gillisgan
ever made a move that actually cost anything?
Does he have the balls to give up something to get something or is his MO just keep spinning those penny-slots and hope for a jackpot eventually?
by yoata on Nov 6, 2009 11:40 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
No point in turning down a lottery ticket if it’s free. And one would have to be a fool not to at least check the guy out before making a decision in either direction.
Interesting set of scouts, btw. Gradin in particular has shown a good eye for assessing talent in the past. He’s the one, for ex, who spotted Edler back when the kid was playing little more than beer-league hockey and no one else, other than maybe Detroit, knew he existed.
If Gradin thinks Forsberg has the skills, then Forsberg has the skills. The injuries are awfully worrisome tho.
by casual on Nov 6, 2009 11:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Didn't
answer my questions.
I’m not saying don’t look for opportunities in all forms, I’m saying the reality is you usually have to give up to get, unless you are just banking on luck, in which case they might as well have AV act as GM too.
by yoata on Nov 6, 2009 12:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Gillis picked up Ehrhoff as, essentially, a freebie and you’re complaining that he didn’t pay enough? Ditto for Samuelsson.
You’re getting obsessed, yoata, like that old Saturday Night Live skit, "The Shooting of Buckwheat."
"What was he like?"
"Nice guy, quiet, kept to himself."
"Are you surprised he shot Buckwheat?"
"Oh, no — it’s all he ever talked about."
by casual on Nov 6, 2009 1:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah that's what I said...
Why do you need to deliberately spin things into something that was never said?
Did I not say “look for opportunities in any form?”
It is you who is obsessed, and blinded by your love of all things Gillisgan.
by yoata on Nov 6, 2009 1:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Sure it was said. Gillis went out and got two fine players for free and you complained that he doesn’t spend enough. yoata, “free” is a very good price!
by casual on Nov 6, 2009 1:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Keep spinning
You know damn well what was meant, he doesn’t have the balls to actually let go of anything in order to get quality, instead he relies on chance and hope and the next spin of the roulette wheel.
You’re like Pepe Le Peu, in love with the idea of someone who isn’t what you think they are.
by yoata on Nov 6, 2009 1:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You’re like Pepe Le Peu
I take that as a compliment! I loved Pepe! Love all those characters, actually, brilliant show, brilliant writing, brilliant animation, brilliant voices.
As for Gillis … what deal was available that he didn’t have the “balls” to make? Or are you just makin’ shit up?
by casual on Nov 6, 2009 1:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
lol
yeah nobody’s made any real trades since Gillis has been GM, come on, are you serious?
They guy’s got his head in the garbage bins looking for chicken wings with a little meat left on them for free instead of doing his job of making real moves with real assets to affect real positive change on the ice, and it begs the question of whether he’s got the stomach to make a big move that might actually come with a cost.
by yoata on Nov 6, 2009 2:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Like what? What trades are you talking about? Like the blockbuster deal that saved the Leafs and made them the powerhouse they are today? Or some other trade that you’ve thought of yourself?
What trade offer would you make today, yoata? remember, it has to appeal to the other GM, too.
There’s a shorter term for any GM desperate to make a deal: a mark. That’s why the good ones take their time and pick their spots and only deal away assets when they have to instead of as a symbolic pissin’ match to prove they “got balls.” When you really got ‘em, you don’t need to prove it.
by casual on Nov 6, 2009 2:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Have you not
paid any attention to the NHL for the last year and a half? Do I really need to list all the trades that have gone on in that time?
Make all the excuses you want, until he’s got the stomach to pull the trigger on a deal that actually means he has to give up something to get something, he will be a weak GM, or one who gets “lucky” by the sheer number of rabbits he attempts to pull out of hats.
Remember, he was the one who said they “weren’t close to contending” when he took over, ok, so what has he done to remake/add to the core of the team?
Who said anything about desperate? However, how desperate does it look playing Rome and Bieksa as forwards, Bieksa on the top line?
by yoata on Nov 6, 2009 2:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You don’t trade good players just to cover off a few weeks of injury early in the season! Not when the team is doing OK anyway.
how desperate does it look playing Rome and Bieksa as forwards, Bieksa on the top line?
Not desperate at all when they keep winning games that way. Looks more to me like an unusual tactic to cover off an unusually bad run of injuries without having to desperately make a trade instead. Probably wouldn’t work as well long-term cuz other teams would scout and adjust, but as a quick and dirty means of getting us thru our rash du jour, I’ll let the results speak for themselves.
Empirical data trumps hypothesis.
by casual on Nov 6, 2009 2:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
OK
so let’s talk about the empirical data of Gillisgan’s big moves so far?
Demitra, $4M = ?
Soup $10M x 2 oops, luckily only $8.6M x 0.6 = ?
Wellfed?
Bernier?
So far his moves this year have looked better, but isn’t it too early to really judge them yet?
by yoata on Nov 6, 2009 2:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I’ll let the results speak for themselves.
Me too. I like how Gillis doesn’t shake things up too much. Addition by minimal subtraction. They obviously believe in most of this team. Hell, they foster guys like Bernier and Wellwood. I like the atmosphere they are creating. It makes Vancouver perhaps a little more inviting to star players.
Questioning Gillis’ balls because he hasn’t pulled a deal yet is guesswork. Maybe he hasn’t seen a deal that he liked yet. Maybe yoata is right about him. WE DON’T KNOW.
Either way, Gillis has my vote of confidence. That’s just me.
When was the last time this franchise had this much depth?
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 6, 2009 3:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Again though
he was the one who said they weren’t close?
Foster Wellwood and Bernier? That’s a good thing? Wellfed has been invisible this year, and Bernier is a $2M 3rd liner. Only reason he’s still around is because Gillis had to re-sign him because he’s the one guy he actually gave something up for. (which may explain why he’s so hesitant to do so again)
Depth??? Not that again. What depth? On D yeah, certainly not up front, not quality depth anyway.
by yoata on Nov 6, 2009 3:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No depth at fw, none at all. Man if we ever got any of or fw’s injured, we’d be doomed. No way the remaining guys could string together wins or score 5 goals in one night, cuz we got no depth.
Oh wait….
by casual on Nov 6, 2009 3:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Guys
will score better with more minutes. That does not always = great depth.
To me, when you can roll 3/4 lines and all can contribute and be responsible defensively that = great depth.
You think this team can do that even when healthy?
Are you counting Demo in the top 6? Can we count on that?
You loving Wellfed as a 3rd line centre?
Does Hordichuk count as depth?
by yoata on Nov 6, 2009 3:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Patience, Skywalker. You must learn patience!!!!
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 6, 2009 3:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
what has he done to remake/add to the core of the team?
Added Ehrhof, a puck-carrying D-man, to fill a role long considered a vital missing cog in the club. Said player leads club in +/-. Cost: nada.
Added Samuellsson, a top 6 fw with Stanley Cup experience cuz he saw a 70 point guy who could be had for a 50-point salary. Said player leads club in goal scoring. Cost: nothing.
Added M.Schneider, a vet D-Man tailor-made to improve the the PP. Cost: zilch.
by casual on Nov 6, 2009 3:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Again
you mention guys that have played but a few games as Nucks, way too early to judge those moves yet.
by yoata on Nov 6, 2009 3:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I’d take M. Schneider any day over SOB.
by marcness52 on Nov 6, 2009 3:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
SOB
was another Gillis acquisition… and then re-signing…
by yoata on Nov 6, 2009 3:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
well he was half decent last year but this year he’s been really bad imo. You could count that as a bad move by Gillis I guess. We should put SOB on waivers and hope someone picks him up.
by marcness52 on Nov 6, 2009 4:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
YES YES THIS IS WHAT IVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG. My christmas wish is to have Gillis put O’Brien on waivers.
by Chuck Canuck on Nov 6, 2009 4:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed. O’Brien is terrible this year, was terrible last year.
by Chuck Canuck on Nov 6, 2009 4:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Is he really that terrible? I think he’s more steady than people give him credit for. Bieksa and Edler have been worse.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 7, 2009 3:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Raycroft is trying to play his way back to a starting goalie position in the NHL, and is doing a good job of it so far. But long-term, Luongo is our man, and everyone knows it, so at some point I suspect Raycroft becomes trade bait, good bait too if he keeps playing this way.
by casual on Nov 6, 2009 12:01 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I think it’s a little early to say that. Let’s see how Schneider plays tonight for starters.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 6, 2009 12:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh I don’t mean Raycroft is traded real soon … just that he’s looking to work his way back to a starting job, which won’t happen in Vancouver. More a question of “when” than of “if”… provided Raycroft doesn’t get too comfy being the happy backup, that is!
by casual on Nov 6, 2009 12:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Definitely worth a look.
I have no doubt a player as determined as Foppa can be productive if he is in shape to play. Even if the injury gets reaggrivated, he can hang out with Demo and compare IR stories. Which would still leave room to go after someone else or give salary flexibility if they go the trade route.
Still, I’d like to hear at least a ballpark of the kind of dinero we are talking about.
by kesrows on Nov 6, 2009 1:10 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Agreed. What is the cost and what is the length of contract being discussed?
The “upside” of the injuries: more cap room for a short-term rental?
by casual on Nov 6, 2009 1:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s hard to see how Raycroft could garner much of a return in a trade, even if he continues to play lights-out. He’s a UFA again next season (IIRC), so if someone wanted him, they could sign him next summer without giving anything up.
by Shabbadoo on Nov 6, 2009 1:41 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
You’re right. Damn, I thought we had Raycroft on a 2-year deal. Dunno where I got that idea from.
by casual on Nov 6, 2009 1:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, Razor may go the free agent route again next summer.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 6, 2009 3:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I hope Schneider can step up and we trade Rayzor at the deadline. That would be ideal. Assets, baby! Assets!
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 6, 2009 3:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I find it amazing we can actually talk about Rayzor as a tradeable entity.
One month ago the speculation was we got him so we could bring him up and down from the minors with zero threat of him even being picked up. Just so we would have a better shot at showcasing Schneider.
by kesrows on Nov 6, 2009 3:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, that’s why I wondered – in a comment below that I mistakenly dropped into the wrong pt in the discussion – if we might get back a little something for him at the deadline, to a team, if one can be found, that needs a goalie to make a run at a playoff spot. Better’n getting nothing.
by casual on Nov 6, 2009 3:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, I see we are sharing the same thought!
by casual on Nov 6, 2009 3:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Still...
We might be ale to trade him to the Leafs.
by kesrows on Nov 6, 2009 1:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Gawd, if the Leafs could get into the hunt for a playoff spot and if Gustavson were to go down injured … it could happen! Oh that’s too delicious to imagine! I know you were just joking, kesrows, but wouldn’t it be sweet!
Gillis could float the rumor just to give Burke a taste of his own medicine.
by casual on Nov 6, 2009 1:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
We might be ale to trade him to the Leafs.
I wonder what Leaf fans are thinking right now.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 6, 2009 3:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Check out their Rayzor thread. Pretty funny.
Lot of guffaws after the Anaheim game. Now it has become the elephant in the room.
by kesrows on Nov 6, 2009 3:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The again, maybe if a team needed a goalie at the deadline for a playoff spot run … we might get a prospect or a draft pick or something. Ya think?
by casual on Nov 6, 2009 1:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You bet! But only if Schneider proves himself.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 6, 2009 3:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed. But of CS can step up, he’s our backup the rest of the year and Rayzor become trade bait, which prob suits him just fine anyway as his dream job of starting NHL goalie is not in Vancouver for him.
by casual on Nov 6, 2009 3:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If you could pick up Forsberg cheap then I’d say it’s worth it but I wouldn’t put Mats Sundin type of money on him. Once the Canucks get healthier, say get 3 or 4 guys back then we won’t really need him. We already have a lot of top 6 forwards: Henrik, Daniel, Burrows(with the Sedins), Samuelsson, Kesler, Demitra (if he ever gets healthy), and Raymond and Grabner having proven themselves to be 2nd line material. Although I guess if you pick up Forsberg then we can put Grab and Raymond on the 3rd line and have 3 pretty strong lines. I say they should only do it if the price is right.
by marcness52 on Nov 6, 2009 2:40 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I’ll take Samuelsson on the 3rd line and Forsberg on the 2nd. Depth!
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 6, 2009 3:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This raises a thought: the Canucks have lots of good forwards, but maybe not so many great ones, and by great I mean really, really great, like Crosby, Ovechkin, Datysuk….
What we do have is depth. If we can roll 4 really solid lines and play a tight checking style then we have a chance to beat anyone. Our D and our goaltending are excellent. So if we can check other teams’ top lines down to breakeven, our remaining depth can win us a lot of games.
I think I’ve been converted. So this is what it feels like!
by casual on Nov 6, 2009 3:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Forsberg
Canucks young guns are a few years away yet, he could fill the void right now
by tshukin on Nov 6, 2009 3:26 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
right now
I wonder, if we did land Forsberg, how long it would take him to come over here and play and…how this affects the cap when Demitra decides to come back. Will we have enough cap space?
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 6, 2009 3:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Demitra’s coming back?
I’ll believe it when I see it, but it’s possible, I guess. If he does tho, he becomes, say, a $2m player if he only plays half the year, and that frees up some cap room for a Forsberg rental.
by casual on Nov 6, 2009 4:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Is that true? Doesn’t his whole $4 mill count against the cap when he returns? We’re only saving $$$ right now while he’s out. Actually we’re over the cap and are allowed to be.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 7, 2009 3:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
ANOTHER OVERPRICED EURO?? NOT AGAIN AND AGAIN AND......
The reason this euro is there for us to sign is the same reason sundstum was availiable to sign. NOBODY ELSE WANTED THEM. He isn’t signed is he!!
We resigned the Sedins , wow, more of the same, only older and more expensive.
Sorry for the vent, people but am I the only one who thinks what we’ve been doing SUCKS??
Trade the twins for a young northamerican stud. Get a real leader, somehow!!
Bottem line?? Start starting over, this isn’t getting us anywhere, fast.
by nwtrucker on Nov 6, 2009 11:41 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
How can you say he’s overpriced when nobody has even signed him yet. If you can pick him up at the 2 mil range then I think he’s worth it.
by marcness52 on Nov 7, 2009 2:17 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
A good “northamerican stud” with a proven Stanley Cup track record, like Malkin or Datysuk or Selanne?
Twins are good/great players, a notch below the embarrassingly brilliant handful of the best in the league. But the team overall has depth and can win with forward-depth + solid-defense (sans the ice-tilting shells) + good goaltending, all of which are in place and/or coming together.
p.s. Now that I think of it, we already have a ’northamerican stud". His name is Kesler.
p.p.s marness52: yup, the key is the price. i suspect alot of teams would grab Forsberg at $2m or so, but Canucks could get first crack cuz they have a solid reputation among the Swedes.
by casual on Nov 7, 2009 1:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
@nwtrucker: Welcome and thanks for ranting. If Forsberg decides he will play in the NHL several teams will line up to get him.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 7, 2009 3:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Follow The Misconduct
 |
 |
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Tuesday's Three Stars: Nitty keeps rolling; Sens rebound
- Kari Lehtonen traded to Dallas, Turco move to come?
- Puck Previews: 'Hawks, Stars battle; Franzen in for Sweden?
- Evgeni Nabokov puts his name in the Vezina race
- Puck Daddy chats with Brandon Yip about life as a rookie, his first NHL game, Colorado’s success this season and the upcoming Olympics
SBNation.com Recent Stories
SCOREBOARD
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
