Fifth Avenue Forum

Good. F'em.

I'm getting so tired of these "teams" claiming rights to what I consider to be common names. logos I can see but names? give me break. all these words are in the dictionary and someone used them before so unless they're going to call it the U.S. Army Golden Knights rather than Vegas Golden Knights I see no issue.

In related news, the US Army Rangers will be suing a hockey team in NYC.

I think there is a distinction between 'CITY Noun' and 'CITY Adjective Noun' when it comes to these kinds of things. If they were the Vegas Knights you wouldn't hear a peep.

I think there is a distinction between 'CITY Noun' and 'CITY Adjective Noun' when it comes to these kinds of things. If they were the Vegas Knights you wouldn't hear a peep.

Except from London.

Meh.

if anything, Clarkson's hockey team should have a bigger gripe with the name






edit: hahahahahahahahahaha

Foley had to get approval from the NHL and they had to clear the use of the Golden Knights name with Clarkson College in Potsdam, New York, which also uses the Golden Knights as its nickname.

Clarkson "College"?

Why would anyone give a **** about the Parachute Team having a problem with the name? Piss off

Seriously. Parachute team is basically Airborne practice and 99% of people have no idea they exist.

They shouldnt even have a name.

The exhibition parachute team or the soon-to-be failed experiment in Vegas?

On the former, I agree. @tifosi77

The parachute team.

lol... the army is reviewing the situation.

1. It's not a situation.
2. You have better things to do.

Lanham Act, 2(b)

From Spectors:

Matheson suggests the possibility of the Oilers and Russell reaching a verbal agreement on a new contract and waiting until after the draft to announce it. The expansion Vegas Golden Knights could pass on Russell if he’s still unsigned before the draft. ...it could be a costly decision. League deputy commissioner Bill Daly said that teams who violate the rules of the expansion draft would lose their first-round draft pick. A verbal agreement with a pending UFA could be interpreted as skirting those rules.

Well I guess that throws a wrench into Murray related strategies.

It might be worth retaining a known asset and giving up that pick, especially for a playoff team.

It might be worth retaining a known asset and giving up that pick, especially for a playoff team.

Are you talking about Fleury or Godric?

It might be worth retaining a known asset and giving up that pick, especially for a playoff team.

So... You would end up out Fleury, a 1st and whoever does get picked by Vegas, and up whatever return you got for Fleury.

A first is a lot to give up simply due to poor planning or not really trying.

I was speaking broadly. I had not seen that penalty mentioned before. I'm okay with Fleury leaving if it happens.

That's if you trade Fleury. I believe dodint's hypothetical is in a scenario where both Fleury and Murray are kept and the Pens finangle a deal to keep both.

I don't think trading Fleury would break that rule.

That's if you trade Fleury. I believe dodint's hypothetical is in a scenario where both Fleury and Murray are kept and the Pens finangle a deal to keep both.

I don't think trading Fleury would break that rule.

It is the "finangle a deal to keep both" with Vegas that would break the rule. Trading Fleury is not an issue.

Would it break the rules if you do it well before the draft or whenever the protection deadline occurs, though?

Source of the post That's if you trade Fleury. I believe dodint's hypothetical is in a scenario where both Fleury and Murray are kept and the Pens finangle a deal to keep both.

Yeah, I'm just saying if any team happens to broker some slick deal with Vegas to avoid having some valued player be overlooked it might be worth it to that team to lose a draft pick if they already have someone in the bottom six that they like.

Basically I'm saying the penalty isn't that bad and I wouldn't be surprised to see a team or two not be deterred by it.

So I made up a scenario and realized that this is actually more interesting than people give it credit for...

So, instead of going 7/3/1 for protection, we might want to go 8 skaters/1 goalie protection.

Two scenarios-ish...

@Fleury - Waive your NMC, we have an idea.

@NHL - Protect: Crosby, Malkin, Hornqvist, Kessel, Hagelin, Sundqvist/Rust/Wilson (2 of that group) + Letang, Maatta, Dumoulin/Pouliot (1 of those two) + Murray

@Vegas - Give us a 3rd and we'll expose Pouliot to you...otherwise we'll do the below... (this step is actually out of order, technically)

---

Alternatively, just protect 8
@Fleury - waive your thing, we're working this out...

@NHL - Protect: Crosby, Malkin, Kessel, Hornqvist, Letang, Maatta, Dumoulin, Pouliot + Murray

@Vegas - Here's a 3rd to look the other way on Fleury and Hagelin, take one of the young players with no term...