Dan-o16

Which part of "after the lockout" didn't you understand? I'm sure Milbury is both smart and (unfortunately) impulsive. You, on the other hand, are obsessed.

Has camp started yet? I wasn't aware that Rick was "holding out". Are we getting our panties in bunches over tough talk from agents? Please! Teams know that fans will hold them to account for mismanagement (i.e. not signing your franchise player) after the lockout. Players and agents understand the backlash that would come from holding out with unreasonable demands after the lockout. There is too much incentive on each side to get a deal done to expect any kind of protracted dispute. All this talk about Luongo when there's a difficulty with the Rick (e.g. every minute he hasn't signed a contract yet, and later - every time he lets in a goal) is just tiresome. Blech. Cheers, Dan-o

Doesn't matter the age of the return if Parrish is set to test UFA next year. I don't like Hill that much, but the idea is right. Basically, trade would have to be one-year of rights for one-year of rights if you want the return to be comparable. Good idea. Cheers, Dan-o

Of course anyone would do this, I believe, except the Oilers...

This is a simple one I just posted on hfboards - Parrish to Calgary for Lydman. Gotta give to get, and this makes sense from both a personnel (overstock on RW, understock on D), and salary cap (defense more of a premium than forwards) viewpoints. It isn't bad from the Flame's point of view, either. In my mind, it's better than spending another 3.5 million on a less than first-pairing defenseman if you can get one for 2 million and you can use the remainder to sign a forward that more fits our needs - i.e., a speedy one that plays the left side. Cheers, Dan-o

Colorado should take a good look over at San Jose before doing anything. I heard this stuff about Brad Stuart this year. Sharks were smart, they held 'em. Cheers, Dan-o