kelmitchell
Registered User
I would be the most objective one here.
Have you by chance been on heavy narcotics today?
I would be the most objective one here.
I would be the most objective one here.
If(or when)he plays well this year, I expect formal apologies from everyone. In addition, I will expect premium seats when I come up to Philly from Richmond for a couple of games this year. Beer would be nice as well
I would be the most objective one here.
And again, you apparently need to be reminded that Manning is easily the worse defensemen on the roster. Streit, Schultz, and MacDonald are all better than him (disregarding contracts).
I love how it's had to be explained 50 times in this thread why a 2 year deal was necessary. Read the thread, guys. Hextall isn't stupid. There's an easy explanation for this. Don't just lash out with no background info like a ****ing WIP caller.
Technically, a one year deal and a qualifying offer afterwards would have done it too. The rules say player under contract or restricted free agent.
Result would've been the same though.
Contracts doesn't matter anymore, at least with regard to players send down to the minors. Each of the four mentioned makes more than the $950k you can hide in the AHL. There isn't any cap relief for sending MacDonald instead of Manning to the AHL, therfor the "best" will stay in Philadelphia.
Manning would have been a UFA next summer not an RFA. He'll be 27 on June 4th, 2017.
Manning would have been a UFA next summer not an RFA. He'll be 27 on June 4th, 2017.
Shoots a hole in that logic, huh?
It's obvious that he was resigned to "handle" McDavid twice a year
Can some one explain to me (and I'm sorry if I'm late to the party) but for expansion purposes why is manning so necessary? I mean maybe it's just me but I'd perfer to rotate streit Shultz and Mac to get amac to the number of games?
Or do you guys really think amac is gonna get buried in the minors again? I can't makes sense of the log jam on d especially with multiple ahl signings. Don't really get where everyone is to go
Can some one explain to me (and I'm sorry if I'm late to the party) but for expansion purposes why is manning so necessary? I mean maybe it's just me but I'd perfer to rotate streit Shultz and Mac to get amac to the number of games?
Or do you guys really think amac is gonna get buried in the minors again? I can't makes sense of the log jam on d especially with multiple ahl signings. Don't really get where everyone is to go
Yup....I thought this sums it up nicely:
Philly HAD to give him 2 years to make sure they have at least 1 Dman UNDER CONTRACT to expose to Vegas. We need to play him 14 games this year...or 40 to AMac. If AMac got hurt, we would have no one to expose....so would have to expose Gudas instead of protecting him.
That's all this is. If there was no expansion, Philly only signs him for 1 year....or maybe not at all. Who knows. But we HAD to have someone to expose to Vegas.
MDZ: no contract....protect if he re-signs.
Ghost: protect
Gudas: protect
Streit: UFA next summer
Schultz: UFA next summer
Provy: obviously protected
AMac: needs to play 40 games to expose to Vegas if Manning doesn't play 14
Manning: needs you play 14 games to expose to Vegas if AMac doesn't play 40
So again....this is just as much an expansion move as it is a hockey move.
Really wasn't expecting "meat shield" to catch on like this.
It's here to stay