As for Warrener, I am hearing the Flyers, Sabres, Sharks, and Senators all have interest.

Looking at his player page I'm curious as to why we would want him.

Flyers don't Eklund is talking out of his a-hole.

E4 = Fail Thanks for the Update

what do those (e1) - (e5) things mean?

They mean nothing, really.

Perfect!!

I'll take not helpful for $400, Alex

It's the way Eklund rates his rumors on hockeybuzz. If it's a big rumor it's an e5, just a trickle it's an e1 (or vice versa). Moose is a big Eklund follower, he would know better than I. Right, Moose?

Here's the official definition:

e1 = eklund made it up
e2 = eklund made it up
e3 = eklund made it up
e4 = eklund made it up
e5 = eklund made it up

Oh yeah. He's my favorite. O & B has it correct below:

Sorry, Ferrarimn7, I just get worked up over Ek-clowned. But for real, an e5 is pretty much official word; e3 is something he heard somewhere. Rarely will this dope put anything up below an e3, but on occasion he'll put up an e2.

This made me laugh !!!

For 2.5 mil? An underachieving defenseman for that money? And one that's often injured? An emphatic No Thank you. End of story.

I suppose Calgary waived him for a reason!

Yep, in favor of Vandermeer.

With only 2 posts, I'm curious how you ended up starting this topic.

We have to many defense as it is.

I don't want to see us get another one with a 1 way NHL contract unless he is darn good.

Getting this guy would give us 8 projected NHL defensemen and 7 with 1 way deals. It wouldn't make any sense. Especially since he is making as much as it is.

I think we're done with Defense, unless we trade Hatcher, Kukks, or Parent.

i dont think we have even seen the surface on holmgren;s game plan for the offseason.
We might pick up one offensive guy, but this offseason focus is retooling our blueline

I want no part of Warrener unless he's coming very very cheap. And even then I don't think I really have that must interest in him.

yeah, we've got a bunch of the kinds of d-men now. Homer is going to make a trade soon. We keep looking at RFAs and UFAs, but maybe there is a straight uptrade in the works.

He's not going anywhere cheap, since he's carrying a $2.5 million contract with him for one more year.

Warrener is a pylon, horrible defensively and cannot keep up with the new NHL. He would be a waste of roster spot.

It says you only have two posts. I'm just curious, how did you post a new topic? I thought you needed 200 posts to post a new topic.

agreed...although, i don't think parent is going anywhere. for me, i think they're at the same point with their defense, as the eagles are with their wide receivers. i don't want another, unless he's a number one.

e1 - Eklund's a dick
e2 - eklund's gay
e3 - eklund has no life
e4 - eklund's on crack
e5 - eklund is really really bored

Yeah, I was just nicely saying I didn't want him at all, ha ha.

You know we don't have enough to talk about when a thread about Rhett Warrener makes it to a second page.

So true....so true.

i think it said when i first joined that you can post new topics but there has to be a 48 hour span in between or something like that

No. The rule is new members are supposed to only be able to post in created threads. Once you accumulate 200 posts and become a "Full Member", then you're supposed to be able to create new topics. But it's pointless to have rules that the software used for the site isn't capable of enforcing.

It's weird. I was able to post a few topics when I first joined, and then it wouldn't let me for a while, until I hit 200 posts.

ya i had the same thing when i first joined i could. now i cant but im not a the 200 post yet

Breaking news from Eklund!

Mark Howe has come out of retirement and plans to return to the Flyers roster by training camp!

They updated the way the message board works by only being able to start a new topic after 200 posts. They had to enforce it during the playoffs because of all the unwanted trolls. At first you could post whenever, but it started getting loaded with threads so they had to do something.

Then how do you explain how Vidal was able to create this thread if it's now being enforced suddenly?

hahahahaha

u can never have to many denfensemen. i believe that last year we used almost 8 - 9 denfensemen. so how could u say that having eight half dcent dman is a bad thing, especially when most of them are cheap.
And where are u getting 8 denfenseman from , Jones and Smith still arent signed and Hatcher's still not definetly gonna play

Smith >>>>> Warrener


I would rather see Smith re-signed than pick up the plugg Warrener whose injury prone and can't even keep up with the new NHL.

Honestly, I have no idea. Glitch maybe? That's so weird...


This!

Weird. For the record, I am not trying to bother you for starting a new thread. I was just curious how you were able to do it.



It's probably just a programming error. Maybe the application has a little flaw in it that doesn't prevent people with zero posts from starting a thread?

Vidal, was this thread your first post?

I think it's good to enforce the 200 post rule because I know I posted a few topics in the wrong forums. They weren't stupid topics, but I didn't know the layout well enough to be posting them in he right place.

Are we still talking about Rhett Warrener?

Can we all agree resigning Smith would be preferable. I'd rather have a too-slow defenseman who plays with passion than a too-slow defenseman who doesn't care

+1 and +1 on both points. So, +2, I guess.

Yeah someone else do all the + math......but I agree

Three posts in a row where people agree! Must be a board record.

Hahahaha