Rick Sadowski: Line changes for Jost, Kerfoot

Duchene for....












Karlsson?

Duchene for....












Karlsson?
- Nucker101

tough by fair

tough by fair
- DDM-Coga

I want to do a position change with you

Whoooooaaaaa Hello!

Duchene for....
Karlsson?
- Nucker101

“It’s been three pieces,” said Dreger on Winnipeg's TSN 1290 on Wednesday. “That’s kind of been the ask from the get-go. My understanding is Sakic has changed his view on the type of defenseman he needs. I think at the draft he was pretty specific. He wanted a young left-shot D as part of the package, and then a prospect – a highly-touted prospect – and a big-time draft pick."

“My understanding is, from those with interest, that maybe he’s shifted a little bit. But he still wants a real good Top 3/top-pairing defenseman, and a good prospect, and a top draft pick. And my sense is he hasn’t relented from that position yet.”

If this is accurate than Thomas Chabot would be the ideal piece at that time. Sens won't do that. Ceci will be a solid top 3 guy for years - at worst a top 4 D-man that can log tons of mins and play in all situations. I don't like his decision making and wanted to trade him but the season started, but he's played much better so far. I still say that Ceci, either White OR Brown, and a 1st is a solid return. Day and night compared to RoR

“It’s been three pieces,” said Dreger on Winnipeg's TSN 1290 on Wednesday. “That’s kind of been the ask from the get-go. My understanding is Sakic has changed his view on the type of defenseman he needs. I think at the draft he was pretty specific. He wanted a young left-shot D as part of the package, and then a prospect – a highly-touted prospect – and a big-time draft pick."

“My understanding is, from those with interest, that maybe he’s shifted a little bit. But he still wants a real good Top 3/top-pairing defenseman, and a good prospect, and a top draft pick. And my sense is he hasn’t relented from that position yet.”

If this is accurate than Thomas Chabot would be the ideal piece at that time. Sens won't do that. Ceci will be a solid top 3 guy for years - at worst a top 4 D-man that can log tons of mins and play in all situations. I don't like his decision making and wanted to trade him but the season started, but he's played much better so far. I still say that Ceci, either White OR Brown, and a 1st is a solid return. Day and night compared to RoR
- AlfieisKing

why are you the way that you are

“It’s been three pieces,” said Dreger on Winnipeg's TSN 1290 on Wednesday. “That’s kind of been the ask from the get-go. My understanding is Sakic has changed his view on the type of defenseman he needs. I think at the draft he was pretty specific. He wanted a young left-shot D as part of the package, and then a prospect – a highly-touted prospect – and a big-time draft pick."

“My understanding is, from those with interest, that maybe he’s shifted a little bit. But he still wants a real good Top 3/top-pairing defenseman, and a good prospect, and a top draft pick. And my sense is he hasn’t relented from that position yet.”

If this is accurate than Thomas Chabot would be the ideal piece at that time. Sens won't do that. Ceci will be a solid top 3 guy for years - at worst a top 4 D-man that can log tons of mins and play in all situations. I don't like his decision making and wanted to trade him but the season started, but he's played much better so far. I still say that Ceci, either White OR Brown, and a 1st is a solid return. Day and night compared to RoR
- AlfieisKing

Honestly, I really think they should just jump with both feet in and include Barrie too. He and Duchene are still young so I'd do the deal you proposed the other day.

Ceci is Garbage

Ceci is Garbage
- Avs_R_back

Come on. Just give him a chance.

Come on. Just give him a chance.
- Nucker101

won the ROR trade too. Zadorov plays in top 4 Compher just getting into NHL good 2 way player with great shot. Grigs dud. 2nd round pick could of been Carlo if we didn't trade it down.

won the ROR trade too. Zadorov plays in top 4 Compher just getting into NHL good 2 way player with great shot. Grigs dud. 2nd round pick could of been Carlo if we didn't trade it down.
- Avs_R_back

Agreed

“It’s been three pieces,” said Dreger on Winnipeg's TSN 1290 on Wednesday. “That’s kind of been the ask from the get-go. My understanding is Sakic has changed his view on the type of defenseman he needs. I think at the draft he was pretty specific. He wanted a young left-shot D as part of the package, and then a prospect – a highly-touted prospect – and a big-time draft pick."

“My understanding is, from those with interest, that maybe he’s shifted a little bit. But he still wants a real good Top 3/top-pairing defenseman, and a good prospect, and a top draft pick. And my sense is he hasn’t relented from that position yet.”

If this is accurate than Thomas Chabot would be the ideal piece at that time. Sens won't do that. Ceci will be a solid top 3 guy for years - at worst a top 4 D-man that can log tons of mins and play in all situations. I don't like his decision making and wanted to trade him but the season started, but he's played much better so far. I still say that Ceci, either White OR Brown, and a 1st is a solid return. Day and night compared to RoR
- AlfieisKing

I think you might finally be winning them over...keep pushing.

“It’s been three pieces,” said Dreger on Winnipeg's TSN 1290 on Wednesday. “That’s kind of been the ask from the get-go. My understanding is Sakic has changed his view on the type of defenseman he needs. I think at the draft he was pretty specific. He wanted a young left-shot D as part of the package, and then a prospect – a highly-touted prospect – and a big-time draft pick."

“My understanding is, from those with interest, that maybe he’s shifted a little bit. But he still wants a real good Top 3/top-pairing defenseman, and a good prospect, and a top draft pick. And my sense is he hasn’t relented from that position yet.”

If this is accurate than Thomas Chabot would be the ideal piece at that time. Sens won't do that. Ceci will be a solid top 3 guy for years - at worst a top 4 D-man that can log tons of mins and play in all situations. I don't like his decision making and wanted to trade him but the season started, but he's played much better so far. I still say that Ceci, either White OR Brown, and a 1st is a solid return. Day and night compared to RoR
- AlfieisKing

Quoting anything Dreger related is embarrassing.

I think you might finally be winning them over...keep pushing.
- ghostofRC

Honestly, I really think they should just jump with both feet in and include Barrie too. He and Duchene are still young so I'd do the deal you proposed the other day.
- Nucker101

I agree

One of Logan Brown or Colin White + Thomas Chabot + 1st or Ceci. I think that's a very good return and would benefit both teams

Quoting anything Dreger related is embarrassing.
- SRam19

I think Dreger's "Avalanche insider" is Mike Chambers cause they spew the same negative crap about the team. how Chambers is still employed to cover the Avalanche is absolutely mind boggling. they could win the cup and he'd find something negative to say or a worn out narrative to pursue

finally the coaching staff makes the right decision and sends Mironov to the minors. get this kid some play and action and get used to the game. I see him coming up in January and looking a lot better

I thought after a coach's challenge resulting in them getting it wrong they lose their ability to challenge? I don't understand why the Blues were allowed to review the offside Rantanen goal? Are coach's allowed numerous reviews? One for an offisde and one for goalie interference?

Good game, solid come back effort. This team is exciting to watch and they should continue to build chemistry and get better. This is the second youngest team in the NHL going through some bumps. This team will be competitive very soon

I thought after a coach's challenge resulting in them getting it wrong they lose their ability to challenge? I don't understand why the Blues were allowed to review the offside Rantanen goal? Are coach's allowed numerous reviews? One for an offisde and one for goalie interference?

Good game, solid come back effort. This team is exciting to watch and they should continue to build chemistry and get better. This is the second youngest team in the NHL going through some bumps. This team will be competitive very soon
- Szela93

They can challenge offside as much as they want but it still should have counted. They can only challenge the offside as the team goes into the zone. Ghetto was offside, then brought it back out, and then came back in. Him coming back into the zone was the only thing that should have been challenged and he wasn't offside then.

I thought after a coach's challenge resulting in them getting it wrong they lose their ability to challenge? I don't understand why the Blues were allowed to review the offside Rantanen goal? Are coach's allowed numerous reviews? One for an offisde and one for goalie interference?

Good game, solid come back effort. This team is exciting to watch and they should continue to build chemistry and get better. This is the second youngest team in the NHL going through some bumps. This team will be competitive very soon
- Szela93

Changed this last off season. Now that penalty for losing an off-sides challenge is a delay of game penalty, instead of losing your timeout, you can pretty much challenge as many goals as you like for off-sides, win or lose. Goalie interference challenges remain the same.

They can challenge offside as much as they want but it still should have counted. They can only challenge the offside as the team goes into the zone. Ghetto was offside, then brought it back out, and then came back in. Him coming back into the zone was the only thing that should have been challenged and he wasn't offside then.
- westonie

No, it never should have counted in the first place. They didn't call the rules correctly when not calling the obvious offsides, then also didn't cal the rules correctly during the challenge. The result was what it should have been in the first place, and complaining that they blew two calls making the game fair instead of just blowing one and favoring Avs would be a little ridiculous.

No, it never should have counted in the first place. They didn't call the rules correctly when not calling the obvious offsides, then also didn't cal the rules correctly during the challenge. The result was what it should have been in the first place, and complaining that they blew two calls making the game fair instead of just blowing one and favoring Avs would be a little ridiculous.
- Antilles

It should have been blown dead in the first place but it wasn't. The rules say you can only challenge the offsides coming into the zone. They looked at the play before he cleared the zone and then re-entered which they can't do. Plays get missed by officials all the time but you can't because you think it's fair. Doesn't matter if it was out of the zone for 2 seconds or 2 minutes.

The Avs got screwed on a goalie interference call last game after they already lost their challenge. They can't and didn't bend the rules allowing it to be challenged just because it's fair. You just have to stay consistent with the rules and and hope the bad calls against and in your favor even out over the course of the season.

It should have been blown dead in the first place but it wasn't. The rules say you can only challenge the offsides coming into the zone. They looked at the play before he cleared the zone and then re-entered which they can't do. Plays get missed by officials all the time but you can't because you think it's fair. Doesn't matter if it was out of the zone for 2 seconds or 2 minutes.

The Avs got screwed on a goalie interference call last game after they already lost their challenge. They can't and didn't bend the rules allowing it to be challenged just because it's fair. You just have to stay consistent with the rules and and hope the bad calls against and in your favor even out over the course of the season.
- westonie

I agree here. Goal should have counted since the play went back on-side.

Blues players shouldn't have stopped playing when off-side wasn't called, which resulted in a great scoring chance.

I am kind of surprised that the situation room didn't allow the goal to stand. I guess they couldn't let Colorado get another blown call result in a goal.

No, it never should have counted in the first place. They didn't call the rules correctly when not calling the obvious offsides, then also didn't cal the rules correctly during the challenge. The result was what it should have been in the first place, and complaining that they blew two calls making the game fair instead of just blowing one and favoring Avs would be a little ridiculous.
- Antilles

Antilles, the goal should have counted. See Carcus' post in my blog comments. The Avs got screwed which really surprises me as I would have thought someone (Toronto?) would have been watching and called to clarify.

Antilles, the goal should have counted. See Carcus' post in my blog comments. The Avs got screwed which really surprises me as I would have thought someone (Toronto?) would have been watching and called to clarify.
- Jason Millen

You are talking exclusively about challenges, and ignoring the rules about offsides. The goal should not have counted. It should have been blown dead, as the player was clearly offside. The Avs didn't get screwed in the sense that the end result was exactly what it should have been for the plays that occurred. The linesman screwed the Blues, not blowing the clearly offside play dead, and then screwed the Avs as well, not following the rules correctly for offside challenges. Bad, but fair officiating.

The fact the challenge should not have overturned the goal does not mean the goal should have counted. In this situation, 2 wrongs did make a right. Pretending the Avs somehow came out worse because the linesman screwed both teams equally instead of just screwing the Blues is ridiculous.