The Colorado Avalanche saved some money in a forward swap, but took the worse player in the process. Cheap Air Jordan Online . Numbers Game looks at the trade that sees Daniel Briere and PA Parenteau switching spots. The Canadiens Get: RW PA Parenteau and a fifth-round pick. Parenteau, 31, is a late bloomer who didnt reach the NHL for good until he was 27-years-old, but hes been a productive player, scoring 196 points in the past four seasons, which ranks 55th in the league. He fell out of favour in Colorado last season, missing 25 games with a couple of knee injuries and playing 16:57 per game, his lowest average time on ice of the past four seasons. On an Avalanche team that was among the leagues worst possession-wise, Parenteau was nearly break-even, so he wasnt particularly a problem in that respect. In Montreal, Parenteau should have a good opportunity to play in a top-six role, which is suitable for his price tag of $4.0-million over the next two seasons. A fifth-round pick brings with it a less than 15% chance of yielding an NHL player, but its a bit of a sweetener for the Habs taking on an extra year. Given that Montreal is getting the better player, that sweetener might not have been altogether necessary. The Avalanche Get: RW Daniel Briere. Briere is a 36-year-old who is well past his prime as a scoring forward, with a serious decline in productivity over the past couple seasons, managing 41 points in 103 games over the last two years. Briere was dropped down the Canadiens depth chart last season, playing 12:46 per game, his lowest since 2000-2001. While Brieres game has declined -- hes not as quick as he once was -- he does come with a rep as a playoff performer, putting up 116 points in 124 postseason games over his career, which is tied for fourth among active players. Briere signed a two-year, $8-million deal as a free agent last summer, so his deal has one year remaining. He doesnt figure to play a prominent role in Colorado, but Briere should have a shot to play in Colorados top nine. If he does, theres a decent chance that, even if he scores a little bit more with more ice time, Brieres sinking possession stats will only be exacerbated by the Avalanches puck possession troubles. In the grand scheme of things, the Avalanche got away from two years of paying Parenteau, which was their motivation, but the price to pay means taking an inferior player for one year. Scott Cullen can be reached at Scott.Cullen@bellmedia.ca and followed on Twitter at http://twitter.com/tsnscottcullen. For more, check out TSN Fantasy on Facebook. Fake Jordan . At 11:06 of the first period, Neal struck Marchand with his knee when Marchand was down on the ice. Marchand remained in the game. Neal was assessed a kneeing penalty for his hit on Marchand. Air Jordan Sale . You can see all the action on TSN2 beginning at 7:30pm et/4:30pm pt. Chicago won two of three games during its stay at the United Center. The club began the homestand with a 5-1 win over Pittsburgh on March 1 and fell to Colorado on Tuesday before posting another blowout win in Thursdays tilt against Columbus. https://www.wholesalejordanshoeschina.com/ . Granada goalkeeper Roberto Fernandez saved Morenos first two headers from corner kicks taken by Sergio Garcia, but the defender beat him on his third try after Garcia found Moreno unmarked at the near post in the 78th minute.Got a question on rule clarification, comments on rule enforcements or some memorable NHL stories? Kerry wants to answer your emails at cmonref@tsn.ca! Kerry, In the Canadiens/Oilers game Thursday night - third period - Lars Eller crosschecked Taylor Hall directly from behind, face first into the boards. And it was face first - Halls face was the first part of his body to make contact with the boards. He did not get his hands up in time to protect himself (and I watched it several times, frame by frame). But no major penalty? Seriously? In minor hockey that is at least a major and a game, and if you assessed a match, you would be justified. Whats the rationale? Because there was no blood or teeth lost? The non-call is particularly frustrating in comparison to the Mike Fisher hit on Cody Franson on Thursday night, which was not as bad but resulted in a major penalty and a game misconduct because Franson was bleeding all over the place - but only because his visor cut him (and if we want to get into players being driven into stanchions - Chara on Pacioretty is the standard, and there was no penalty on that one). Whats the explanation and wheres the consistency? Cole MacKay Cole: I totally concur with your assessment on this play and the resulting penalty should have been a major and game misconduct (rule 43—Checking from Behind) to Lars Eller for this dangerous hit. A check from behind is a check delivered on a player who is not aware of the impending hit, therefore unable to protect himself, and contact is made on the back part of the body. Any player who cross-checks, pushes or charges from behind an opponent who is unable to protect or defend himself shall be assessed a major penalty and game misconduct. Note also that when a player intentionally turns his body to create contact with his back, no penalty shall be assessed. While Taylor Hall did turn slightly toward the side boards after gaining possession of the puck it would be unreasonable to suggest that Hall did so intentionally to expose his back for the purpose of creating contact as described in rule 43.1. Lars Eller on the other hand travelled from his location in front of the Montreal goal and had sufficient time to alter both his approach and method of contact (cross-check directly from behind to opponents back) once Taylor Hall faced the boards and was placed in a vulnerable position. The visual picture presented by Taylor Halls snap/arch of his back and face-plant into the boards following the cross-check by Eller clearly fall within the languaage and application of rule 43—Check from Behind and should have been penalized as such. Air Jordan Outlet. I am not suggesting that there should be any further discipline to Lars Eller since we should recognize that while the hit was illegal Eller didnt utilize "excessive force" through the hit worthy of a suspension. The correct call (major and game misconduct boarding) was made last night when Mike Fisher pushed Cody Franson from behind creating some additional velocity at the last instance and causing Franson to contact the curved glass/stanchion at the end of the players bench. While Fransons visible injury most definitely had relevance to the application of a major penalty and game misconduct as prescribed in the boarding rule, the fact remains that a dangerous situation resulted from the unexpected push from behind by Fisher. Your call for "consistency" is well taken, Cole. It is imperative that the Referees differentiate between varying degrees of boarding, checks from behind and illegal checks to the head but more importantly not have any reluctance in assessing major penalties when warranted. Too many player suspensions have been imposed by the Player Safety Committee when a minor penalty or worse yet no penalty at all were assessed on the play. Brad Stuarts three-game suspension for what was ruled upon as an illegal check to the head of New York Ranger Rick Nash is the most recent example of this. That will likely change today, pending the outcome of an in-person hearing called for Patrick Kaleta of Buffalo (suspected illegal check to the head of Jack Johnson, Columbus) and a hearing for Vancouvers Alexander Edler (suspected illegal head check on Tomas Hertl, San Jose). Neither Kaleta nor Edler were penalized on the plays in question. I see one of the problems the Referees created for themselves and the game was the elimination of a major penalty (due to Refs reluctance to impose it) when an illegal check to the head is called. Rule 48 provides for a minor penalty or a match penalty. The major and game misconduct provisions were eliminated in this rule. So whenever an illegal check to the head is identified in a game at best it results in a minor penalty and the player remains in the game. Upon further review that player could ultimately be suspended for three plus games pending the outcome of a hearing. Putting consistency aside, for something as serious as the protection of a players head I think the rule and the application by many of the Refs is far too soft and short sighted. ' ' '