woo hoo FG was listening!!

On 3 juil, 15:51, Freedom Elz <mediada....DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 3, 2:13 pm, broo....DeleteThis@videotron.ca wrote:
>
> > On 1 juil, 20:52, "Freedom Elz" <k....DeleteThis@tifle.net> wrote:
>
> > > The Colorado Avalanche have signed D Scott Hannan to a four-year deal worth
> > > $18 million.
>
> > I am extremely surprized that Colorado was able to get him in the
> > first place and for so little. It does suggest that he's not as highly
> > considered around the league as you seem think.
>
> By that logic then neither is Drury, Gomez or Rafalski. $4.5 million
> is about
> rigth for him.

??? By that logic Drury is highly considered across the league
(ridiculously so in fact) and so are Gomez and Rafalski since teams
grossly overpaid for
them. As you point out, no one cared to overpay for Hannan.


> First, why wouldn't
>
> > San Jose keep him at that price? In the last playoffs, Rivet, who was
> > a dud at Montréal, played four more minutes per game than him.
>
> You're overlooking the obvious here, money. Hannan cost $1 million
> more a
> season than Rivet did.

My point exactly. If you choose to keep an ordinary defenseman like
Rivet over Hannan at almost the same price, it is not a great vote of
confidence for someone you present as a one of the best shutdown
defensemen in the league. Rivet began his last season in Montreal 4th
on that team's depth chart, and he dropped further down during the
season, which included missing a few games as a healthy scratch. But
in San Jose, he was their No. 1 guy in ice-time. Now, I think that
Hannan is better than Rivet, but he isn't the Second Coming on defense
either. As I've said before, he's a better version of Skrastins which
is a significant upgrade to Colorado's defense.
>
> Also, Hannan had a lousy first half according to Brian
>
> > Hayward. It's also surprizing because he signed for exactly what
> > Montreal originally offered to Souray; and for 4 million dollars less
> > over 4 years than what Montreal offered Souray yesterday before giving
> > it to Hamrlik. But it's obviously a great signing.
>
> Montreal overpaid huge for Hamrlik, Gainey is off his rocker.

Gainey is very overrated as a GM. In Dallas, he did very little until
he hired Hitchcock to replace him as head coach. In Montréal, he has
not improved the organization's prospects. The Canadiens have been
stagnating for the last ten years which is one main reason why they
can't attract significant free agents. One thing that the first two
days of free agency indicate is that players don't necessarily want to
play for outright Stanley Cup contenders, but that they want at least
to go where teams are on the upswing. Two of the reasons Brière
invoked for choosing the Flyers over the Canadiens (without mentioning
the fact that with all the frontending of his deal he'll end up making
way more than its nominal 52 million dollar value) is that he's
excited about the buzz around the Flyers and that he'll get to play
with a bunch of Québécois players. There's no buzz about Montréal's
near future, and Gainey discriminates against local talent. Gainey is
getting more and more lambasted in the media for what are a series bad
moves, and especially when it clearly shows a bias against local
talent. Hamrlik's signing is just the latest stupid move on his part.
 >> Stay informed about: woo hoo FG was listening!! 

On Jul 3, 4:58 pm, broo... RemoveThis @videotron.ca wrote:
> On 3 juil, 15:51, Freedom Elz <mediada... RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 3, 2:13 pm, broo... RemoveThis @videotron.ca wrote:
>
> > > On 1 juil, 20:52, "Freedom Elz" <k... RemoveThis @tifle.net> wrote:
>
> > > > The Colorado Avalanche have signed D Scott Hannan to a four-year deal worth
> > > > $18 million.
>
> > > I am extremely surprized that Colorado was able to get him in the
> > > first place and for so little. It does suggest that he's not as highly
> > > considered around the league as you seem think.
>
> > By that logic then neither is Drury, Gomez or Rafalski. $4.5 million
> > is about
> > rigth for him.
>
> ??? By that logic Drury is highly considered across the league
> (ridiculously so in fact) and so are Gomez and Rafalski since teams
> grossly overpaid for
> them. As you point out, no one cared to overpay for Hannan.

Name me one defensive defenseman that has ever gotten a contract
the size of Hannans. Its totally disingenuous to suggest that because
the Avs signed him for less money than Drury that the market wasn't
there for him. Pure bullshit.

The Avs didn't have the money to re-sign Forsberg and Foote, that
didn't mean
that they didn't highly regard them.



> > First, why wouldn't
>
> > > San Jose keep him at that price? In the last playoffs, Rivet, who was
> > > a dud at Montréal, played four more minutes per game than him.
>
> > You're overlooking the obvious here, money. Hannan cost $1 million
> > more a
> > season than Rivet did.
>
> My point exactly. If you choose to keep an ordinary defenseman like
> Rivet over Hannan at almost the same price, it is not a great vote of
> confidence for someone you present as a one of the best shutdown
> defensemen in the league.

Its called having a budget Broonzy, plus the Sharks were supposedly
very hot after Drury
perhaps they wanted to clear out some cap room. As for why they let
him walk, it
could very well be a matter of chemistry as well since the team keeps
falling short of
expectations int he post season.



>Rivet began his last season in Montreal 4th
> on that team's depth chart, and he dropped further down during the
> season, which included missing a few games as a healthy scratch. But
> in San Jose, he was their No. 1 guy in ice-time. Now, I think that
> Hannan is better than Rivet, but he isn't the Second Coming on defense
> either. As I've said before, he's a better version of Skrastins which
> is a significant upgrade to Colorado's defense.

Exactly, which is what I've said all along, why are you arguing with
me over this?




> > Also, Hannan had a lousy first half according to Brian
>
> > > Hayward. It's also surprizing because he signed for exactly what
> > > Montreal originally offered to Souray; and for 4 million dollars less
> > > over 4 years than what Montreal offered Souray yesterday before giving
> > > it to Hamrlik. But it's obviously a great signing.
>
> > Montreal overpaid huge for Hamrlik, Gainey is off his rocker.
>
Two of the reasons Brière
> invoked for choosing the Flyers over the Canadiens (without mentioning
> the fact that with all the frontending of his deal he'll end up making
> way more than its nominal 52 million dollar value) is that he's
> excited about the buzz around the Flyers and that he'll get to play
> with a bunch of Québécois players.

And he'll get to do it in a place where he won't be paying the highest
taxes in the
league and have to face the most insane media in the league. Most
players
don't want to play for the Habs because of that.





>There's no buzz about Montréal's
> near future, and Gainey discriminates against local talent.

I don't buy that for a minute, for the most part the local talent
woudl rather go
elsewhere, make more money and not have to deal with the bullshit that
goes
with playing in Quebec. Its essentially the same stuff that plagued
the Nordiques.



Gainey is
> getting more and more lambasted in the media for what are a series bad
> moves, and especially when it clearly shows a bias against local
> talent. Hamrlik's signing is just the latest stupid move on his part.

IT wasn't a good signing, then again he may not have had much to
choose from.
 >> Stay informed about: woo hoo FG was listening!! 

On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 11:13:38 -0700, broonzy.RemoveThis@videotron.ca wrote:

>On 1 juil, 20:52, "Freedom Elz" <k....RemoveThis@tifle.net> wrote:
>> The Colorado Avalanche have signed D Scott Hannan to a four-year deal worth
>> $18 million.
>
>I am extremely surprized that Colorado was able to get him in the
>first place and for so little. It does suggest that he's not as highly
>considered around the league as you seem think. First, why wouldn't
>San Jose keep him at that price? In the last playoffs, Rivet, who was
>a dud at Montréal, played four more minutes per game than him.

Misleading stats. If you take away power play time, Hannan played
more at even strength and on the PK than did Rivet. Rivet's 5 minutes
of PP time put him above Hannan.

Hannan is here to provide defensive stability.
>So San
>Jose, a Stanley Cup contender with a whole bunch of very young
>defensemen and an ordinary No 1 goaltender, re-signed Rivet and they
>let Hannan go.

I had read in the SJ papers, and heard from friends out in San Jose,
that Hannan was not terribly fond of Ron Wilson. The other issue is
that the Sharks would like to keep both Thornton and Marleau, and have
to resign several of their young players who will be RFAs - all after
this coming season. Bernier, Goc, Michalek, Pavelski, Clowe, Carle,
Erhoff - all will be RFAs after this season. The Sharks really had to
make a cut someplace. Why not at the position where they've got half
of that position's roster filled with guys under 23?

Side notes:

Rivet is not a better defensive player than Hannan.

And Nabokov is not an ordinary goaltender. He's a top 10.

>Also, Hannan had a lousy first half according to Brian
>Hayward.

Well, we all know that if a Canadian sportscaster said it, it must be
true.

>It's also surprizing because he signed for exactly what
>Montreal originally offered to Souray; and for 4 million dollars less
>over 4 years than what Montreal offered Souray yesterday before giving
>it to Hamrlik. But it's obviously a great signing.

I think so also.

Chris
 >> Stay informed about: woo hoo FG was listening!! 

On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:58:53 -0700, broonzy RemoveThis @videotron.ca wrote:

>On 3 juil, 15:51, Freedom Elz <mediada... RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 3, 2:13 pm, broo... RemoveThis @videotron.ca wrote:
>>
>> > On 1 juil, 20:52, "Freedom Elz" <k... RemoveThis @tifle.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > The Colorado Avalanche have signed D Scott Hannan to a four-year deal worth
>> > > $18 million.
>>
>> > I am extremely surprized that Colorado was able to get him in the
>> > first place and for so little. It does suggest that he's not as highly
>> > considered around the league as you seem think.
>>
>> By that logic then neither is Drury, Gomez or Rafalski. $4.5 million
>> is about
>> rigth for him.
>
>??? By that logic Drury is highly considered across the league
>(ridiculously so in fact) and so are Gomez and Rafalski since teams
>grossly overpaid for
>them. As you point out, no one cared to overpay for Hannan.

Scoring is what teams overpay for in free agency. Gomez is really
overpaid, same with Datsyuk. And Rafalski. Just wait and see what
happens when JM Liles becomes a UFA after next season. He'll get over
$5M per season.

And it seems to me that top defensive defensemen are getting about
that much money - around Hannan's number. Regehr signed for around
that, too.

Chris
 >> Stay informed about: woo hoo FG was listening!! 

On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 10:13:30 -0400, "Freedom Elz" <kred.RemoveThis@tifle.net>
wrote:

>
>Hasek most certainly was cheap last season, ditto No-Legace prior to that.

You got a problem with getting good value for your dollar or prefer
spending $5.5 for last years and $6 million for this years back-up.
>
>
> Considering you got
>> the BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODJ Legace would be un upgrade as would
>> Ranford or Wregget over Josie "Vezina" Theodore.
>
>Well apparently Ryan Smyth isn't convinced of that.
>
>
>
>> Relax Elz, Hasek is going to re-sign with Detroit
>
>Maybe, but this guy is unpredictable, if someone makes him an offer worth
>more
>dough don't be surprised if he bails.
>
 >> Stay informed about: woo hoo FG was listening!! 

On 4 juil, 09:34, Chris <n... RemoveThis @goaway.com> wrote:

I have replied twice already to your and Freedom Elz's posts, but for
some reason Google didn't send them through.

> >I am extremely surprized that Colorado was able to get him in the
> >first place and for so little. It does suggest that he's not as highly
> >considered around the league as you seem think. First, why wouldn't
> >San Jose keep him at that price? In the last playoffs, Rivet, who was
> >a dud at Montréal, played four more minutes per game than him.
>
> Misleading stats. If you take away power play time, Hannan played
> more at even strength and on the PK than did Rivet. Rivet's 5 minutes
> of PP time put him above Hannan.
>
> Hannan is here to provide defensive stability.

Actually, it means that Hannan only played one more minute than Rivet
in defensive situations, which isn't an accolade considering that
Rivet, a defensive defenseman in his right, isn't a great defenseman
to begin with and he's coming off an awful season.

> >So San
> >Jose, a Stanley Cup contender with a whole bunch of very young
> >defensemen and an ordinary No 1 goaltender, re-signed Rivet and they
> >let Hannan go.
>
> I had read in the SJ papers, and heard from friends out in San Jose,
> that Hannan was not terribly fond of Ron Wilson. The other issue is
> that the Sharks would like to keep both Thornton and Marleau, and have
> to resign several of their young players who will be RFAs - all after
> this coming season. Bernier, Goc, Michalek, Pavelski, Clowe, Carle,
> Erhoff - all will be RFAs after this season. The Sharks really had to
> make a cut someplace. Why not at the position where they've got half
> of that position's roster filled with guys under 23?

They would have kept him if they thought Hannan was actually one of
the best defensive defenseman in the game as well as a great leader,
especially considering that he grew up in the organization, and that
he's younger than Rivet by three or four years. Because money was
certainly not the issue for them. By the way, Marleau has been on the
blocks for several weeks already.

> Side notes:
>
> Rivet is not a better defensive player than Hannan.

My point exactly. More to the point, if Hannan was so good, Rivet
would never have been compared with him. I'm very surprized the Sharks
gave up a first round pick and a seventh defenseman for Rivet since he
was as bad this past season with the Canadiens as Brisebois was last
year. I was equally surprized to see him play so much on the power
play in playoffs. Third, the Sharks obviously had enough money to
choose Hannan over Rivet, another defensive defenseman, but they
didn't. Fourth, they even had enough money to re-sign both players,
because they have apparently offered Souray more than what Hannan will
receive from Colorado.

> And Nabokov is not an ordinary goaltender. He's a top 10.

In 2005-6, Nabokov was even worse than Théodore, because he posted
equally awful numbers despite playing on a bona fide Stanley Cup
contender and also one of the stingiest defensive teams. He actually
had a losing record, and he lost his No 1 job to Toskala as soon as he
signed his 15-million dollar contract, although Toskala's own save
percentage was an underwhelming .901. This past season, he only played
once every two games because, notably, the Sharks, again a Stanley Cup
contender, had a losing record with him in net until about the end of
February. Over the last two seasons, Nabokov's winning record is only
41-35-11 against 49-17-5 for Toskala. So I'm surprized that the
Sharks, in their pursuit of the Stanley Cup, traded a cheap No 2
goaltender when their official No 1 is so unreliable when it comes to
winning games.
>
> >Also, Hannan had a lousy first half according to Brian
> >Hayward.
>
> Well, we all know that if a Canadian sportscaster said it, it must be
> true.

Actually, Hayward is the Sharks broadcaster. But speaking of a
Canadian broadcaster, Pierre McGuire has explained that Hannan has had
some difficulties adapting to the NHL's new style. This past season,
he had 29 hits and 15 takeaways, which was half less than the previous
season, and 59 hits is nothing to brag about either. In another
thread, some folks see Hannan as the Second Coming of Adam Foote. Not
so, when he almost had three times less hits than Brett Clark. He's a
cut below being one of the best defensive defenseman in the NHL,
though he is the best on the Avalanche.
 >> Stay informed about: woo hoo FG was listening!! 

<broonzy RemoveThis @videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:1183742516.739724.179940@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On 4 juil, 09:34, Chris <n... RemoveThis @goaway.com> wrote:

I have replied twice already to your and Freedom Elz's posts, but for
some reason Google didn't send them through.

> >I am extremely surprized that Colorado was able to get him in the
> >first place and for so little. It does suggest that he's not as highly
> >considered around the league as you seem think. First, why wouldn't
> >San Jose keep him at that price? In the last playoffs, Rivet, who was
> >a dud at Montréal, played four more minutes per game than him.
>
> Misleading stats. If you take away power play time, Hannan played
> more at even strength and on the PK than did Rivet. Rivet's 5 minutes
> of PP time put him above Hannan.
>
> Hannan is here to provide defensive stability.

Actually, it means that Hannan only played one more minute than Rivet
in defensive situations, which isn't an accolade considering that
Rivet, a defensive defenseman in his right, isn't a great defenseman
to begin with and he's coming off an awful season.

> >So San
> >Jose, a Stanley Cup contender with a whole bunch of very young
> >defensemen and an ordinary No 1 goaltender, re-signed Rivet and they
> >let Hannan go.
>
> I had read in the SJ papers, and heard from friends out in San Jose,
> that Hannan was not terribly fond of Ron Wilson. The other issue is
> that the Sharks would like to keep both Thornton and Marleau, and have
> to resign several of their young players who will be RFAs - all after
> this coming season. Bernier, Goc, Michalek, Pavelski, Clowe, Carle,
> Erhoff - all will be RFAs after this season. The Sharks really had to
> make a cut someplace. Why not at the position where they've got half
> of that position's roster filled with guys under 23?

They would have kept him if they thought Hannan was actually one of
the best defensive defenseman in the game as well as a great leader,
especially considering that he grew up in the organization, and that
he's younger than Rivet by three or four years. Because money was
certainly not the issue for them. By the way, Marleau has been on the
blocks for several weeks already.

> Side notes:
>
> Rivet is not a better defensive player than Hannan.

My point exactly. More to the point, if Hannan was so good, Rivet
would never have been compared with him. I'm very surprized the Sharks
gave up a first round pick and a seventh defenseman for Rivet since he
was as bad this past season with the Canadiens as Brisebois was last
year. I was equally surprized to see him play so much on the power
play in playoffs. Third, the Sharks obviously had enough money to
choose Hannan over Rivet, another defensive defenseman, but they
didn't. Fourth, they even had enough money to re-sign both players,
because they have apparently offered Souray more than what Hannan will
receive from Colorado.

> And Nabokov is not an ordinary goaltender. He's a top 10.

In 2005-6, Nabokov was even worse than Théodore, because he posted
equally awful numbers despite playing on a bona fide Stanley Cup
contender and also one of the stingiest defensive teams. He actually
had a losing record, and he lost his No 1 job to Toskala as soon as he
signed his 15-million dollar contract, although Toskala's own save
percentage was an underwhelming .901. This past season, he only played
once every two games because, notably, the Sharks, again a Stanley Cup
contender, had a losing record with him in net until about the end of
February. Over the last two seasons, Nabokov's winning record is only
41-35-11 against 49-17-5 for Toskala. So I'm surprized that the
Sharks, in their pursuit of the Stanley Cup, traded a cheap No 2
goaltender when their official No 1 is so unreliable when it comes to
winning games.
>
> >Also, Hannan had a lousy first half according to Brian
> >Hayward.
>
> Well, we all know that if a Canadian sportscaster said it, it must be
> true.

Actually, Hayward is the Sharks broadcaster. But speaking of a
Canadian broadcaster, Pierre McGuire has explained that Hannan has had
some difficulties adapting to the NHL's new style. This past season,
he had 29 hits and 15 takeaways, which was half less than the previous
season, and 59 hits is nothing to brag about either. In another
thread, some folks see Hannan as the Second Coming of Adam Foote. Not
so, when he almost had three times less hits than Brett Clark. He's a
cut below being one of the best defensive defenseman in the NHL,
though he is the best on the Avalanche.


Ouch!

That's gotta make a few Avs fan put down their pom poms. At least until the
Carolina Crackpot puts his spin on things.
 >> Stay informed about: woo hoo FG was listening!! 

>> > he's younger than Rivet by three or four years. Because money was
>> > certainly not the issue for them.
>>
>> How do you know?
>
>They obviously could have chosen Hannan over Rivet, but they didn't,

Maybe Hannan made it clear he didn't want to play for Wilson anymore.
Maybe Hannan made it clear he was going to test the market, and the
Sharks didn't want to take the chance they'd end up with neither
player.

It seems to me that the market's been set as such:

Players who are both good offensively and defensively (Lidstrom,
Neidermayer, Pronger, Blake, etc) get $6M+. Players who are top
flight defensively, but have little offensive game (Hannan, Regehr,
etc) get around $4M per.

If you have a player who has a bit of both - like Rivet, he'd get
somewhat below the $4M the good defensive guys get - say $2.5M or so
for his defensive abilities, but since he adds some offense to the
equation, he gets more.

I don't see why this is so hard to understand. Hannan got top
defensive dman dollars - $4M. Rivet, who is less of a player
defensively, but more of a player offensively, got $3.5M. The Sharks
traded defensive ability for offensive ability and paid a bit less for
it. They're not too much different, but Rivet plays the point on the
power play a lot. That should tell you that Hannan is much better
defensively. If San Jose felt they needed offense more, well, then
they signed the right guy. Which is perhaps what they wanted.

>and they have already offered Souray, whom you see as a defensive
>liability, more than what Hannan finally got.

And since Souray is hell and gone the superior offensive player when
compared to Hannan, he should get more. The NHL pays its offensive
defensemen much more than its defensive defensemen. I mean, Tom Poti
is making about as much as Robyn Regehr. That tells you all you
really need to know. Brian Rafalski, who is decent defensively (but
not great), makes $6M. Timonen, who is decent (but not great)
defensively, got over $7M. Teams pay for offense from their
defensemen, and Rivet's $3.5M number is inflated somewhat due to that.

>So in fact, they could
>have re-signed both Hannan and Rivet.

If Hannan was willing to sign. And if they wanted to take the chance
of waiting out the UFA market. Look to Buffalo to see how that can
turn out.

There are any number of plausible explanations to this phenomenon,
Broonzy. Your conjecture is only one.

>They could also have traded
>McLaren, another defensive defenseman, to keep Hannan if they thought
>he was as great as you think he is. So, any way you want to cut it, to
>claim that they couldn't have re-signed Hannan if they had wanted to
>is simply not true.

How do you know? What if Hannan simply wanted to try out the FA
market and made that clear to the team?

Chris
 >> Stay informed about: woo hoo FG was listening!! 

On 6 juil, 17:00, Chris <no....RemoveThis@goaway.com> wrote:

> Maybe Hannan made it clear he didn't want to play for Wilson anymore.
> Maybe Hannan made it clear he was going to test the market, and the
> Sharks didn't want to take the chance they'd end up with neither
> player.
>
> It seems to me that the market's been set as such:
>
> Players who are both good offensively and defensively (Lidstrom,
> Neidermayer, Pronger, Blake, etc) get $6M+. Players who are top
> flight defensively, but have little offensive game (Hannan, Regehr,
> etc) get around $4M per.
>
> If you have a player who has a bit of both - like Rivet, he'd get
> somewhat below the $4M the good defensive guys get - say $2.5M or so
> for his defensive abilities, but since he adds some offense to the
> equation, he gets more.

Rivet had 24 points this year just like Hannan.
>
> I don't see why this is so hard to understand. Hannan got top
> defensive dman dollars - $4M. Rivet, who is less of a player
> defensively, but more of a player offensively, got $3.5M. The Sharks
> traded defensive ability for offensive ability and paid a bit less for
> it. They're not too much different, but Rivet plays the point on the
> power play a lot. That should tell you that Hannan is much better
> defensively. If San Jose felt they needed offense more, well, then
> they signed the right guy. Which is perhaps what they wanted.

You're wrong. Rivet is signficantly worse defensively than Hannan, he
isn't better offensively, he's five years older, and he didn't spend
his entire career with the Sharks. Only in San Jose did Rivet play on
the first power play unit. You are belittling Hannan if you want to
argue that San Jose preferred Rivet over him for hockey reasons.

> >and they have already offered Souray, whom you see as a defensive
> >liability, more than what Hannan finally got.
>
> And since Souray is hell and gone the superior offensive player when
> compared to Hannan, he should get more. The NHL pays its offensive
> defensemen much more than its defensive defensemen. I mean, Tom Poti
> is making about as much as Robyn Regehr. That tells you all you
> really need to know. Brian Rafalski, who is decent defensively (but
> not great), makes $6M. Timonen, who is decent (but not great)
> defensively, got over $7M. Teams pay for offense from their
> defensemen, and Rivet's $3.5M number is inflated somewhat due to that.

Regher is a special case because he re-signed for less, like Iginla
and Thornton. Timonen makes 6.3 (but McCabe makes 7.2), and Rivet is a
defensive defenseman who reportedly also signed for less to stay in
San Jose.

> >So in fact, they could
> >have re-signed both Hannan and Rivet.
>
> If Hannan was willing to sign. And if they wanted to take the chance
> of waiting out the UFA market. Look to Buffalo to see how that can
> turn out.

Buffalo didn't care to keep Brière, simple as that, but they did lose
Drury, because they offered him what he got from New York. I don't
know if San Jose made a serious offer to Hannan before he turned free
agent like in the cases of Luongo, Regher, Iginla, and Thornton who
all signed one year away from free agency.

> There are any number of plausible explanations to this phenomenon,
> Broonzy. Your conjecture is only one.
>
> >They could also have traded
> >McLaren, another defensive defenseman, to keep Hannan if they thought
> >he was as great as you think he is. So, any way you want to cut it, to
> >claim that they couldn't have re-signed Hannan if they had wanted to
> >is simply not true.
>
> How do you know? What if Hannan simply wanted to try out the FA
> market and made that clear to the team?

What I mean here is that San Jose had the money to re-sign Hannan if
they thought he was that good, i.e. as good as FreedomElz presents
him. Of course, Hannan may have opted out of San Jose, but why do so
when considering that a player rarely does that in the case of the
team that drafted him (and add to that that San Jose remains a bona
fide Stanley Cup contender), unless there is a conflict at some level,
like with the head coach.

So Hannan might have left San Jose, because of some conflict and/or
because San Jose didn't think he really was one the best defensive
defenseman in hockey.
 >> Stay informed about: woo hoo FG was listening!!