Well, they just paid a high price to get rid of Bickell. Why do people assume people will take onerous contracts like Hossa’s or even Seabrook’s off your hands? This isn’t baseball, with no cap and some owners stupid enough to pay for big names that are in decline.

I still doubt they can pay Shaw. The assumption has been all along that one way or another Bickell would be off the books. He was an albatross, but he doesn’t free a “ton of money” required for Shaw’s new contract.

Some of the Hawks talk here is moot. Hawks just traded Teuvo, mostly in return for Carolina taking Bickell off their hands.

Huh? I don’t assume that at all. I don’t think Vegas would take Hossa. But Hossa has no reason to assume that and waive his no movement—which he has zero incentive to do, except for “the good of the team.” Players feel like they earned that clause, and sometimes give up money to get it. The union doesn’t like them…

Well, they’d still have to expose a goalie. Winning the cup (or just prevailing against Washington) merely showed what they might have in Murray.

Why would Vegas claim him? There will be many better players than him available.

A lot of those big contracts have no-movement clauses. They have to be protected.

Waiver rules effectively prevent legit NHL guys being “forced into AHL.” Don’t forget they can trade guys they claim—for draft picks and prospects.

The economics don’t work for Quebec. TV market too small, Quebecor in weak shape, Canadian dollar bad.

But how do they get rid of Fleury? Is somebody really going to take him?

Not sure what your distinction is between no move and no trade. I don’t think any player has a clause that says “no move except expansion exposure.” What would no trade mean other than the same as no move?

Oh, come on. An empty net with a stick lying in front of it.

They can’t protect Fleury and Murray. That is their problem now.

I agree about Vasi. I find Bishop overrated. St Louis gave up on him, and Ottawa gave him away.

Yeah, people think Vegas is still a place of cheap eats and crap buffets. On business trips, I spend more there than in other major cities.

Not seeing how they keep Shaw for the coming season.

I think Seabrook has to be in the lockup due to No Movement. Otherwise I am sure they would be glad not to protect him, and then either still have him or have protected a younger cheaper player

Why would LV draft any UFAs? And teams are going to lose a number of UFAs just like they always do, whether there is a draft or not.

He also has good trade value, so he could be the major move they make.

I doubt they want to move Keith, who is worth the money he is taking up; I doubt they can move Seabrook, other than basically giving him away, which leaves them with a hole in D for the coming season (they need some plan to replace his aging self by the next season).