To be fair you guys dont have much else that would be of interest for the Yotes. Zibanejad?

Also, former draft position doesn't mean anything.
- Cloud

well, I mean, if it really is the 2nd overall pick he'd like, I'd like to know what more he's giving besides Clayton Keller

Some contracts are insured, but most are not. Doug Armstrong talked about it in an interview a couple years back, but I can't find the link. The premiums are too high to insure every contract, so only players with long, high dollar contracts tend to be insured, and then only for career ending type injuries, most of the time the insurance doesn't kick in until a player has missed a season's worth of consecutive games.

It's dependant on their injury history too. This is why / how Columbus and Toronto swapped Horton and Clarkson. Horton's contract is uninsured, probably because of his injury history prior.

well, I mean, if it really is the 2nd overall pick he'd like, I'd like to know what more he's giving besides Clayton Keller
- jimbro83

Yeah I can see that, Kakko/Hughes holds more value then Keller.

This is probably a moot point, since the pick is all Yotes would want for giving up Keller and Rangers will never move that pick. So there is really no point in discussing it. This is the kind of deal that never goes down unless your GM is named Peter Chiarelli.

Some contracts are insured, but most are not. Doug Armstrong talked about it in an interview a couple years back, but I can't find the link. The premiums are too high to insure every contract, so only players with long, high dollar contracts tend to be insured, and then only for career ending type injuries, most of the time the insurance doesn't kick in until a player has missed a season's worth of consecutive games.
- Antilles

That makes sense. I remember the Leafs were able to get out of the Clarkson contract because they had insured it and the Horton contract wasn't.

As to what that other guy said, I remember watching a doctor talking about Sidney Crosby and he said the risk wasn't any more than it is for other players, because concussions don't work that way.

He said that while getting a lot of concussions can lead to long term neurological problems and eventual CTE, that getting concussions doesn't make you more or less susceptible to them in the future.

The reason being that what causes a concussion is that your brain rattles around in your head, and that isn't something that frequency of the injury affects. Basically your brain can take damage and that is cumulative, but what causes them is specific and would happen whether you'd taken zero or ten before.

you're offering a former 7th overall pick coming off a down year for the 2nd overall pick?
- jimbro83

Well not seriously, but the Coyotes need scoring, so in order to trade their best scorer they'd have to win the trade pretty hard, no?

Well not seriously, but the Coyotes need scoring, so in order to trade their best scorer they'd have to win the trade pretty hard, no?
- James_Tanner

ok, great talking hockey with ya

I mentioned in my last post that I was wrong about Skinner's concussion history, but I disagree with you that certain players aren't at a greater risk than others. Some players have multiple concussions and symptoms that are greater than others. Rick Nash, for example was a shell of himself the last two seasons of his career.

Multiple concussion history means that slighter/lesser hits can cause recurrences, which is most definitely taken into consideration when signing a player long term
- rrentz

Being a figure skating midget also increase your chances of getting "Scott Stevened"

ok, great talking hockey with ya
- jimbro83

Asking for a proposal for him is a no win scenario. Only really offers that would make sense would be 2nd overall (huge over payment by the rags), Chytil (over payment by yotes, ~same age, and Keller has proven to be at the very least more effective than Chytil), Andersson (see above statement about Chytil), or Kravstov (might work, but seems like the kind of deal that would piss off both teams, and definitely is more of a gamble for AZ).

That makes sense. I remember the Leafs were able to get out of the Clarkson contract because they had insured it and the Horton contract wasn't.

As to what that other guy said, I remember watching a doctor talking about Sidney Crosby and he said the risk wasn't any more than it is for other players, because concussions don't work that way.

He said that while getting a lot of concussions can lead to long term neurological problems and eventual CTE, that getting concussions doesn't make you more or less susceptible to them in the future.

The reason being that what causes a concussion is that your brain rattles around in your head, and that isn't something that frequency of the injury affects. Basically your brain can take damage and that is cumulative, but what causes them is specific and would happen whether you'd taken zero or ten before.
- James_Tanner

It's not the increased risk of getting a concussion, it's the fact that, like you said, it's cumulative, so the effects of said concussion are worse every time.

ok, great talking hockey with ya
- jimbro83

The shocker was why you would ask, rather than his answer.

That makes sense. I remember the Leafs were able to get out of the Clarkson contract because they had insured it and the Horton contract wasn't.

As to what that other guy said, I remember watching a doctor talking about Sidney Crosby and he said the risk wasn't any more than it is for other players, because concussions don't work that way.

He said that while getting a lot of concussions can lead to long term neurological problems and eventual CTE, that getting concussions doesn't make you more or less susceptible to them in the future.

The reason being that what causes a concussion is that your brain rattles around in your head, and that isn't something that frequency of the injury affects. Basically your brain can take damage and that is cumulative, but what causes them is specific and would happen whether you'd taken zero or ten before.
- James_Tanner

I'm not sure which Doctor you were listening to, but he was being super miss-leading. If 100% healed, one concussion doesn't make you medically more at risk for a second concussion (which is what he was saying), but you are still more likely to have more concussions. The lack of medical causation is not a lack of direct correlation between getting one concussion and your likelihood to get another.

https://bmjopensem.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000092

https://jamanetwork.com/j...s/jama/fullarticle/197667

James tanner I USE TO NOT mind your articles, but your attack on the bruins lately is completely unprofessional and really shows your lack of knowledge. YOU keep talking about how the bruins are getting all the calls, and that is just simply not true every review this playoffs has gone against the bruins so stop crying that the leafs can t beat them, and the coyotes have not been relevant since they left Winnipeg