I think it’s meant to say put instead of but. As in, put your children in goal so they can get paid one day!
Less expensive to teach them to shoot right and play defense. Goalie gear is backbreakingly expensive.
I think it’s meant to say put instead of but. As in, put your children in goal so they can get paid one day!
It is better than the Flyers strategy of locking up older players longerCertainly Buffalo’s strategy of locking up young players early. It’s a gamble, we’ll see how it turns out
Funny thing is I'm totally sober, been 2 weeks.I’m not drunk enough to understand this. Could you please elaborate?
Funny thing is I'm totally sober, been 2 weeks.![]()
i would have liked to see a short term contract given how hot and cold young goalies are
this would help the quality of my posts, if not the frequency - atta boyFunny thing is I'm totally sober, been 2 weeks.![]()
He was 2 yrs to UFA. By signing him th o longer they now have a trade chip between him and Levi in a few yrsi would have liked to see a short term contract given how hot and cold young goalies are
Too much, or too long, at least. He had one decent season. I hope this doesn't turn into a dog of a contract.
]I don't think it's bad per say, but rather "risky". Goaltending is so volatile anymore that we frequently see teams hamstringing themselves with bad goalie contracts. If they are short-term deals, they are much more workable if something goes wrong. When you are talking 4-5 years, you're stuck.
He was 2 yrs to UFA. By signing him th o longer they now have a trade chip between him and Levi in a few yrs
only if it works out. i think 3 years would have been ideal.He was 2 yrs to UFA. By signing him th o longer they now have a trade chip between him and Levi in a few yrs
The problem with 3 yrsonly if it works out. i think 3 years would have been ideal.
Same with naking tradesSabres re-sign player to shorter contract HFB-what are Sabres doing. Sabres re-sign player to longer contract-HFB -what are Sabres doing..![]()