Man, I'm a huge hockey fan, and I just can't see the appeal, other than the right to, at some later date, say you went to a hockey game at Wrigley Field, which I guess is important to some people. It will be very cold, with generally uncomfortable seating, and you won't be able to see the game all that well. Though I suppose the National Anthem will be pretty cool.

January 1st? In Chicago? Ok. Have fun with that.

I am so there.

Why throw X tons of ice onto your brand new field? Must be getting real paid.

This sounds awesome. If it worked in Edmonton and people didn't die of cold, it will work in Chicago. Don't they play football ourdoors in Chicago in January? What's the difference?

Don't they play football ourdoors in Chicago in January? What's the difference?

Wrigley's north of Soldier Field.

But you're right. If they can play an overtime NFC championship game, in Green Bay, in January, at night, then a daytime hockey game in Wrigley shouldn't be a source of worry.

There isn't much of a difference. But I would never go to a football game in Chicago in January, so I still think it's crazy.

I went to the game in Buffalo this January, and I can say with 100% confidence that nobody will be able to see anything, the hockey will be subpar, it'll be uncomfortably cold, and it will be the best $70 anyone there spends on sporting event tickets all year. It was an amazing experience, and I recommend it completely.

I was at the game in Buffalo as well. I'd generally agree with Fly, it's worth going if you can. But not more than once.

Didn't they already announce this?

**stretches, yawns**

Don't they play football ourdoors in Chicago in January? What's the difference?

Well, primarily, the field and the ball are both a lot bigger.

I have no problem with the concept. I don't think people are going to die. I just think it would be a very uncomfortable way to spend three hours, which might be worth it if I could actually see the action. But when you pair the conditions with a view of the action that's much worse than a regular game, it doesn't really appeal to me. But the pull of the "event" nature of the game is strong, apparently.

But when you pair the conditions with a view of the action that's much worse than a regular game, it doesn't really appeal to me

Then add in that the Wings are really really good, and the Hawks, well, aren't.

Hmm. You know, I hadn't thought of this, but Wrigley Field doesn't have a video board. That means they're either going to have to bring in a smallish one, which will block a LOT of seats, or fans will have to do without video, which isn't a problem in most situations, but it is when you're at a hockey game in a stadium built for baseball. I spent a lot of time watching the video in Buffalo, and I bet it'd be even more necessary at Wrigley.

Then add in that the Wings are really really good, and the Hawks, well, aren't.

The Hawks are going to be pretty good this year, I think, health permitting. Which sucks, because it means that tickets will be harder to get when the Kings come to town. Of course, that's mitigated somewhat by the Kings totally sucking.

Then add in that the Wings are really really good, and the Hawks, well, aren't.

I wouldn't necessarily say the Hawks have, with a couple big FA splashes, moved into the "good" range -- but I think they're separating themselves from the "well, aren't" class.

The organization is quickly recovering from the Wirtzian decline.

In RoY Patrick Kane and #3 Jonathon Toews (who probably would have challenged Kane if not for the injuries) -- the surprise FA signing of the best available defenseman in Brian Campbell, plus adding Huet -- the Hawks should be a legitimate playoff team this year.

No, they're not in the Wings' class... YET.

But with the two wunderkinds, the power play improvement that Campbell will bring, and a pretty good goalie tandem -- the Hawks are headed in the right direction for the first time in a decade.

The Hawks are going to be pretty good this year, I think, health permitting.

They may make the playoffs. MAY. Still, they aren't near the Wings class. You'd think in a game like this you'd want more even teams, but I guess the rivalry will sell. Also, the shitty conditions will actually help the Hawks more.

the surprise FA signing of the best available defenseman in Brian Campbell, plus adding Huet -- the Hawks should be a legitimate playoff team this year

Actually, I think these two signings are going to really bite the Hawks in the ass. Campbell's a nice player, but he's not Nick Lidstrom or Paul Coffey here (even though he's earning the same money Lidstrom is). If he were that good, the Sharks would've done better. Plus, an 8 year deal for any non-Hall of Fame caliber player is lunacy, especially a defensemen who's had 2 good seasons and isn't a rock on D.

Huet has been good, but nothing great.

You'd think the Hawks would've learned from a few years ago when they were getting better and then blew a bunch of money on guys like Khabibulin and Martin Lapointe.

Still, they aren't near the Wings class.

No one is though.

The Hawks look to be a playoff team. It won't matter for this game though, the Sabres/Pens game showed that this is the NHL's version of a bad weather football game--the conditions are a huge equalizer and it won't be a "good" game.

Come one, come all to see your beloved Blackhawks get torn apart by the Stanley Cup Champion Detroit Red Wings without your usual heating, sightlines or cover from the elements!

As a Capitals fan, I would hope that if the team becomes a Cup contender in a few years, the NHL does one of these games at Nationals Park to help spotlight Ovechkin (and the Caps traditionally host an afternoon game on that date). My only concern is that D.C.'s weather isn't necessarily chilly every Jan. 1.

The difference between a football game in a football stadium in January and a hockey game in a baseball stadium like Wrigley during January is the indoor seating. You'll notice when watching cold Bears games that almost the entire east side of the stadium is missing. That is because they are in the Cadillac club. Throw in the executive and skyline suites and you have a ton of indoor seating areas, Wrigley field cannot compare to that.

Actually, I think these two signings are going to really bite the Hawks in the ass. Campbell's a nice player, but he's not Nick Lidstrom or Paul Coffey here (even though he's earning the same money Lidstrom is). If he were that good, the Sharks would've done better. Plus, an 8 year deal for any non-Hall of Fame caliber player is lunacy, especially a defensemen who's had 2 good seasons and isn't a rock on D.

Well, I think the Campbell deal was probably made, more than anything, because he does excel on the power play, which is where the Hawks' sorely needed the help.

The Blackhawks reputation in the city was terribly damaged during the final years of Dollar Bill; they really needed to make a splash for the health of the franchise... The Wolves were outdrawing them on occasion (and certainly getting as much --and better -- press).

Even off the ice, the changes have been amazing... The silly home game TV blackouts are coming to an end. They've moved their radio casts to WGN (who are heavily promoting them). It's really been night and day. It will take time to get back to where they were 15-20 years ago, but they're finally on the right track.

Well, I think the Campbell deal was probably made, more than anything, because he does excel on the power play, which is where the Hawks' sorely needed the help.

The Blackhawks reputation in the city was terribly damaged during the final years of Dollar Bill; they really needed to make a splash for the health of the franchise... The Wolves were outdrawing them on occasion (and certainly getting as much --and better -- press).

Even off the ice, the changes have been amazing... The silly home game TV blackouts are coming to an end. They've moved their radio casts to WGN (who are heavily promoting them). It's really been night and day. It will take time to get back to where they were 15-20 years ago, but they're finally on the right track.

That's all true. Trust me, I know. They lost me as a fan when they traded away a bunch of Hall of Famers for trash and then kept jacking up prices.

Still, all this stuff is nice, but you have to win. And, handicapping yourself with the salary cap right when when your two young best players hit their prime isn't the best way to accomplish that.

The winners of this NHL offseason are all the teams that have sat back and watched Chicago, Tampa, the Rangers and others waste money.

The difference between a football game in a football stadium in January and a hockey game in a baseball stadium like Wrigley during January is the indoor seating. You'll notice when watching cold Bears games that almost the entire east side of the stadium is missing. That is because they are in the Cadillac club. Throw in the executive and skyline suites and you have a ton of indoor seating areas, Wrigley field cannot compare to that.

How much indoor seating did Soldier Field have prior to the recent renovation? I'm sure it was more than Wrigley, but it couldn't have been that many. The place was paced in the '85 playoff wins (and losses in subsequent years).

Fun fact: Wrigley Field has hosted more football games than any other stadium. Maybe some other place finally caught in, but a few years ago it was still true.

I think it's dumb to go to an outdoor sporting event in winter in Chicago, but dumb people are a larger market for a sports team to cater to.

You'd think the Hawks would've learned from a few years ago when they were getting better and then blew a bunch of money on guys like Khabibulin and Martin Lapointe.

Lapointe wasn't *that* bad. You're thinking of the Bruins giving him 4 times what he was worth in his previous contract.

So they can play hockey outdoors in Chicago, but they can't play baseball outdoors in St. Petersburg, Florida?

Come one, come all to see your beloved Blackhawks get torn apart by the Stanley Cup Champion Detroit Red Wings without your usual heating, sightlines or cover from the elements!

The Hawks took five of eight from the Red Wings last season.

Even off the ice, the changes have been amazing... The silly home game TV blackouts are coming to an end. They've moved their radio casts to WGN (who are heavily promoting them). It's really been night and day. It will take time to get back to where they were 15-20 years ago, but they're finally on the right track.

Rocky did an excellent job of ending some of his father's most ridiculous business practices without pissing on his grave. He slowly worked in some games on T.V., and now they're going full bore. I thought, when Bill died, that the best thing they could do was to eliminate Bill's legacy as soon as possible, but they did it more respectfully, and are probably better off for it. I think there are a lot of people out there who wanted to be Hawks fans for the last ten years, but were turned off by the quality of the product, the attitude and tight fists of the owner, or both. Now that they're turning away from the Bill Wirtz era, I think a lot of those people will come back.

Well, I think the Campbell deal was probably made, more than anything, because he does excel on the power play, which is where the Hawks' sorely needed the help.

These deals differ from the LaPointe and Khabi deals in that the Hawks have a solid core right now. Kane, Toews, Seabrook, Keith, Sharpe, and Byfuglien are all players they can build around. And with those guys in place, they can added pieces that don't necessarily have to carry the weight. I'd add Havlat, but he's always hurt, and I wouldn't be surprised if they moved him.

The winners of this NHL offseason are all the teams that have sat back and watched Chicago, Tampa, the Rangers and others waste money.

Well, the Kings must be huge winners, then.

How much indoor seating did Soldier Field have prior to the recent renovation? I'm sure it was more than Wrigley, but it couldn't have been that many. The place was paced in the '85 playoff wins (and losses in subsequent years).

The playoff games in 1986 were not bitterly cold days. Secondly my point wasn't that people are not going to show up, of course people are going to show up to a 15-1 teams playoff games, my point was that Soldier Field has ways of dealing with the cold for a much greater audience then Wrigley Field ever will. Is that really up for debate? Have you ever gone to a game at Soldier Field when it is freezing arse cold? Have you ever watched a game in which the game is being played at Soldier Field and it is freezing arse cold?

As a Capitals fan, I would hope that if the team becomes a Cup contender in a few years, the NHL does one of these games at Nationals Park to help spotlight Ovechkin (and the Caps traditionally host an afternoon game on that date). My only concern is that D.C.'s weather isn't necessarily chilly every Jan. 1.

The chilly isn't the problem. They just need "not rainy". There was an exhibition game played in a parking lot in Las Vegas in september, about 10 years ago. The refridgeration systems can get the ice to a passable level in pretty much any temperature ambient air. If it rains, though, all bets are off.

Lapointe wasn't *that* bad. You're thinking of the Bruins giving him 4 times what he was worth in his previous contract.

Considering that the guy had 17 points and 11 points in his two full seasons, he was that bad. If they were paying him anything over the minimum, they were overpaying him.

These deals differ from the LaPointe and Khabi deals in that the Hawks have a solid core right now. Kane, Toews, Seabrook, Keith, Sharpe, and Byfuglien are all players they can build around.

But they aren't winning the Stanley Cup this season, and they aren't winning it next season either. They're dumping huge money on a guy that's almost 30 and they're not going to contend for a few more seasons when he'll probably be past his prime.

Well, the Kings must be huge winners, then.

Stinking and gathering talent is a winning way in the NHL. Look at what the Pens did. I think the Kings are going to be halfway decent next season. They have enough talent.

The playoff games in 1986 were not bitterly cold days.

The Giants-Bears game (14 degrees, wind chill of zero at kickoff) was much colder than you would expect the New Year's hockey game to be.

That's all true. Trust me, I know. They lost me as a fan when they traded away a bunch of Hall of Famers for trash and then kept jacking up prices.

Still, all this stuff is nice, but you have to win. And, handicapping yourself with the salary cap right when when your two young best players hit their prime isn't the best way to accomplish that.

The winners of this NHL offseason are all the teams that have sat back and watched Chicago, Tampa, the Rangers and others waste money.

Oh absolutely... I'll take winning over buzz any day of the week. But - for the first in what seems like forever, the Hawks are actually generating talk in a good way. It's been a decade since anyone - the evening news sports segment, anyone beyond the hocky beat writer, sports radio, etc talked about the Hawks as anything beside a punchline.

Considering that the guy had 17 points and 11 points in his two full seasons, he was that bad.

Those were his assist totals.

]Stinking and gathering talent is a winning way in the NHL. Look at what the Pens did. I think the Kings are going to be halfway decent next season. They have enough talent.

That's what Kings fans said last year.

Those were his assist totals.

Sorry. Still, he sucks.

That's what Kings fans said last year.

Better to just rack up the top 10 draft picks than give out some of the asanine contracts that we've seen this offseason.

Wade Redden for 6 years, over $6 mill per? Really?

Ryan Malone for 7 years? He's a 3rd line player, and they're giving him 7 years?!?

Mike Commodore for 5? Jeff Finger for 4?

These contracts are nuts. It's better just to sit out.

Ryan Malone for 7 years? He's a 3rd line player, and they're giving him 7 years?!?

Well, I think it's safe to assume that they'll still have 3 lines in 7 years. Someone's got to play on them.

Better to just rack up the top 10 draft picks than give out some of the asanine contracts that we've seen this offseason.

Well if your only options are do nothing to sign a guy who's played 97 games to a 4 year, $3.5M per year contract, yes do nothing is a wise choice. But those aren't the only choices. You can also chose to not trade Mike Cammalleri for picks when you've already got a good group of prospects and can't reach the cap floor.

Well, I think it's safe to assume that they'll still have 3 lines in 7 years. Someone's got to play on them.

Sure, but you don't need to pay them 2nd line money for 7 years to do it.

But they aren't winning the Stanley Cup this season, and they aren't winning it next season either. They're dumping huge money on a guy that's almost 30 and they're not going to contend for a few more seasons when he'll probably be past his prime.

Why not? In the last five years, three teams seeded sixth or lower have gotten to the finals, and all took the series to seven games. The NHL is fairly wide open once the playoffs start, and more than any other sport, one guy that gets hot (if it's your goalie) can carry you to the finals.

Stinking and gathering talent is a winning way in the NHL. Look at what the Pens did. I think the Kings are going to be halfway decent next season. They have enough talent.

I'm not really complaining. There's only a couple of guys I would have liked to seen the Kings go after, and they did. They just didn't get them. I don't blame the Kings for not being active, and I don't blame other players for not wanting to play for the Kings.

You can also chose to not trade Mike Cammalleri for picks when you've already got a good group of prospects and can't reach the cap floor.

That was actually a great deal. Cammy was hurt a lot last year, and is a bit of a liability because of his size. Plus, he's a UFA after this season, and he wasn't coming back. I think the wounds from last year's arbitration still haven't really healed. And they ended up with Colton Teubert out of it, who is not only going to be a stud defenseman, but a huge fan favorite as well (he's already the latter). It's the Visnovsky trade that's a little less defensible, because they didn't get a lot back for him compared to what the Lightning got for Boyle. But they traded him before July 1st. Tampa had the advantage of shopping Boyle to teams that had been shut out of a good defenseman in free agency. When the Kings traded Lubo, teams thought they could fill the needs without giving up players or picks in return. Unfortunately, he had a no movement clause that kicked in on July 1st, so it was either trade him when they did, or get stuck with his contract for four more years.

But the Kings are not going to be halfway decent next year. They'll be awful. Primarily because they have average or below average goaltending, and defense corps with a lot of promise, but no experience. Tom Preissing is their most experienced defenseman right now. Jack Johnson and Drew Doughty will be awesome, and Hickey should be fun to watch if he makes the club, but everyone else kind of sucks. Their forwards will be good, though.

Have you ever gone to a game at Soldier Field when it is freezing arse cold?

Yes. I recommend long underwear, heavy wool pants, hot coffee, and bourbon. I also recommend covering James Lofton, but that's really not germane to this conversation.

my point was that Soldier Field has ways of dealing with the cold for a much greater audience then Wrigley Field ever will. Is that really up for debate?

No it's not up for debate, providing you stick to present tense. My issue is how short a history that present tense is. Is going to a Wrigley Field game in January 2009 really much different from going to a Soldier Field winter game in 2003? They had 70-80,000 show up every game in winter conditions for until just a few years ago.

Oh, and I did ask it as a question -- because I didn't know the answer -- was Soldier Field pre-recent times any better equipped? I'm under the impression it wasn't and your answer leads me to believe I'm on the right track.

If the situation at Wrigley on 1/1/09 is roughly the same as the conditions Bears fans put up with for 80 years, I'm not going to be too concerned.

You can also chose to not trade Mike Cammalleri for picks when you've already got a good group of prospects and can't reach the cap floor.

I thought this trade was really good for them.

Jack Johnson

This trade still pisses me off to this day. What the hell were the Canes thinking? Rutherford had his freaking temper tantrum and the Canes are still searching for a young defensemen. Nice.

Well, I think it's safe to assume that they'll still have 3 lines in 7 years. Someone's got to play on them.

With the salary cap and the way things are structured, I think you'll see the 3rd line turn almost into a development line, and the 4th line will just be minimum-salary grinders. Paying big money and making big commitments to these guys is not going to be a good strategy, in my opinion.

Rutherford had his freaking temper tantrum and the Canes are still searching for a young defensemen. Nice.

Well, it was a good trade for the Kings, but the Canes would still be looking for a young defenseman regardless of making that trade. They did get one back, remember. And they just re-upped him for something like four more years. Gleason doesn't have JFMJ's upside, but Kings fans weren't exactly happy to see him go.

What I can't understand is the animosity towards JFMJ I've seen on Canes boards. He didn't say he wouldn't play in Carolina. He was going to come. He just wanted to play in college for another year. He wasn't pulling a Lindros or Eli Manning.

He didn't say he wouldn't play in Carolina. He was going to come. He just wanted to play in college for another year.

He said he wanted to play for four years.

What I can't understand is the animosity towards JFMJ I've seen on Canes boards. He didn't say he wouldn't play in Carolina. He was going to come. He just wanted to play in college for another year. He wasn't pulling a Lindros or Eli Manning.

I know. People down there were crazy when all that went down. He wasn't really guaranteed making the big club, and if he would've, there's no guarantee he would've been more than a 7th defensemen (since Laviolette suits up 7 usually). I never understood it. You spent the 3rd pick in the draft on him, you obviously think he has talent, just give it a year. Now, all those defensemen they had in front of him are retired or gone, and they have Tim Gleason to show for it. Gleason's good, but he's maybe a #3 man in his best year. Johnson's a 1 or 2. That trade pisses me off.

If the situation at Wrigley on 1/1/09 is roughly the same as the conditions Bears fans put up with for 80 years, I'm not going to be too concerned.

I believe the Bears have played a grand total of 2 regular seasons games in January pre-renovation. Once in 2001 season and once in 1999 season.

He said he wanted to play for four years.

I don't know what he did or didn't say, but as a Kings fan, I can tell you that there was very little doubt that he'd come after his second, or maybe his third year. And we weren't exactly in a hurry to see the Kings compete right away. But Rutherford panicked, got ticked off, and dealt a superior player because he thought he needed the help right away, and STILL missed the playoffs. That's not JMFJ's fault.

Besides, there are almost no NHL ready college players that stay four years. The guys that usually do are guys like Brian Boyle, who are drafted as projects.

January is generally worse, but on any given Sunday, December can be plenty windchilliferous.

I don't know what he did or didn't say, but as a Kings fan, I can tell you that there was very little doubt that he'd come after his second, or maybe his third year.

Which it appeared that he wasn't going to do with the Hurricanes, hence why Canes fans were pissed off.

Fun fact: Wrigley Field has hosted more football games than any other stadium.

If my math is right, Wrigley has hosted 565 regular season and playoff pro football games (Tigers, 1920 and Bears, 1921-70), while all other stadia in Chicago have hosted 329 (Bears since 1971, Cardinals, AAFC Rockets/Hornets, WFL Fire/Wind, USFL Blitz and XFL Enforcers). The Packers have played at Lambeau since 1957, but remember they used to play one or two games a year in Milwaukee; the playoff loss to the Giants last year was only the 301st game to be played at the stadium. Unless the schedule gets radically expanded, Lambeau is more than three deacdes away from beating out Wrigley. In fact, second place goes to Giants Stadium (hosting two teams helps) with 403...but, of course, that's coming down at the end of 2009.

Leaders by city (I think):

Chicago 894
Philadelphia 575 (passed NY in 2006)
New York 565 (last in 1983)

East Rutheford NJ has hosted 403 games, as mentioned above; unless the Bears move out of Chicago, ER is the only team than can catch Chicago, with two teams to the Windy City's one. Still, it'll take them more than sixty years...

Which it appeared that he wasn't going to do with the Hurricanes, hence why Canes fans were pissed off.

That's what I'm getting at. He clearly wasn't coming to Carolina after one year in school, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that he would have gone after his second year. I don't think there's any way he would have stayed four years if Carolina had held his rights. Rutherford just panicked, made a dumb trade, and apparently the Rubes blame that on JMFJ.

And what would the result had been if they'd kept him? They still would have missed the playoffs two years ago. And they'd still have the rights to a guy who looks like he's going to be a future all-star. He was arguably the Kings best defenseman last year, and he took some big steps the last month or two of the season.

If Canes fans are/were pissed, it should be at Rutherford, not JMFJ.

I'm not saying I think he was going to stay, just that he was saying he was and Canes fans believed he was, and so did, apparently, the Canes. On top of that, Rutherford tried and failed a few times to sign him and he wouldn't sign. And then he goes and signs with the Kings at the end of the season. It was a panic move by Rutherford, and Canes fans should be pissed at him for it. I'm not arguing that. I'm just saying, Johnson didn't seem to want to play for Carolina, and Canes fans are pissed at him for that. Can't entirely blame them.

I'm just saying, Johnson didn't seem to want to play for Carolina, and Canes fans are pissed at him for that. Can't entirely blame them.

But he didn't want to play for the Kings at first either. He wanted to play for Michigan. They got him before the season and tried to sign him, but he wouldn't sign. There was no doubt that he would eventually, but no one really knew when. There wasn't even necessarily an agreement to have him sign after the college season. The difference was the Lombardi was cool with that, and let JMFJ make the decision on his own.

You're arguing things I agree with you about.

I believe the Bears have played a grand total of 2 regular seasons games in January pre-renovation. Once in 2001 season and once in 1999 season.

And plenty more late December games. This hockey game will be January FIRST. It ain't like the wind chill factor annually drops 43 degrees overnight because the calender changes. It'll be a degree or two colder, but then again it's only half as many people asked to go out in the cold.

If my math is right, Wrigley has hosted 565 regular season and playoff pro football games (Tigers, 1920 and Bears, 1921-70)

Really? That many? I'm not doubting - I'm just amazed how high the number is.

If they're going to use Wrigley Field, I think the rink should use the actual dimensions of the baseball field.

my point was that Soldier Field has ways of dealing with the cold for a much greater audience then Wrigley Field ever will.

Flask of one's favorite anti-freeze should do the trick in either location. Seriously, you'd have a problem doing a full schedule of outdoor games, but as a one-time event it figures to be a big draw.

And plenty more late December games

They have played a grand total of 3 regular season games in late December in Chicago; Dec. 27, 1998, Dec. 26, 1993, and Dec. 29, 1990.

Until they went to the expanded 17 week schedule the season was usually over in the middle of the month, and when they did have late season games they scheduled them as away games in the warmer climates or in domes.

I just noticed you're only counting regular season games. Post-season counts, too. It ain't like God raises the temperature by a slew just because the Bears are in the playoffs.

Playoff games are different, though if you wish to count them that is about 12 more games in their history the bears have played less 20 games in late december or in January, it is a different kind of demand for the game when it is the playoffs.

I'd go to see the Cubs in game 7 of the World Series even if it was 40 below.

The NFL in their infinite wisdom has historically realized that scheduling regular season games in potentially freezing your ass type environments is not the best thing in the world to do. They tend to avoid it unless there other things that can soften the blow.

You're arguing things I agree with you about.

Fair enough.

Hasn't the Meadowlands passed Wrigley as the stadium hosting the most NFL games?

Wouldn't the stadium which has hosted the most football games be Notre Dame's or Michigan's or some Ivy League school's? What stadiums have generally hosted both the NFL and a college team?

What stadiums have generally hosted both the NFL and a college team?

Soldier Field has done it. It has been the home of the Enforcers, Blitz, Winds, Fire, Cardinals, and Rockets to go along with the Bears. It has hosted 41 college all-star games, an Army-Navy game, Notre Dame in the old days, Northwestern played 8 games here, NIU played a game there last year, and numerous high school football games.

It's the Visnovsky trade that's a little less defensible

I thought it was thoroughly defensible but then I'm an Oilers fan. Hockey's such a weird sport - LA dumps salary on Edmonton. Drop me a message if Matt Greene figures out how to skate at any point in the coming year. He killed us in 2006 and I still think he was partially to blame for Roloson's injury. Between him and Jarret Stoll being distracted by the duties associated with raising Rod Stewart's children, you guys should be quite happy with the return.

I thought it was thoroughly defensible but then I'm an Oilers fan.

Well, good luck. He didn't earn half his contract last year, so maybe he'll bounce back this year. But last year was arguably his worst as a King. I'd still like to have him, but he could go from slightly overpaid to very overpaid pretty quickly.