25 April, 2014


No Wednesday Dinner with Dad for Bourque

Both Corey and Tarik have reported via Twitter that Chris Bourque has been claimed by the Pittsburgh Penguins.

Corey is reporting that Boyd Kane has been recalled to take Bourque’s place and that Michael Nylander will not play tomorrow night in Boston as the team is still working on a resolution to the “problem”.



14 Comments

  1. turquoise_donkey wrote:

    why wasn’t laing put on waivers instead of bourque?

    30 September, 2009 at 1:53 pm | Permalink
  2. turquoise_donkey wrote:

    why wasn’t laing put on waivers instead of bourque?

    30 September, 2009 at 1:55 pm | Permalink
  3. Katie32 wrote:

    Bourque’s salary is higher. Plus we need a penalty killer more than a goal scorer (I believe we have a few of those). It sucks to see him go, but I don’t think for one minute Laing should have gone in his place.

    30 September, 2009 at 2:03 pm | Permalink
  4. turquoise_donkey wrote:

    so if management had sent laing down we still wouldn’t have fit under the cap? i understand being heavy in certain roles, but if they were really worried about bourque being picked up then why risk it?
    *and sorry everyone for the double post*

    30 September, 2009 at 2:12 pm | Permalink
  5. Katie32 wrote:

    We still wouldn’t have been under the cap and we’d have been down one of our best PK guys.
    Laing’s heart and drive is irreplaceable. People can argue that with me all that want – but I’m a Bears’ season ticket holder. I can tell you Bourque only has heart when he wants to. When things don’t go his way he skates around with his head down and a chip on his shoulder. Not exactly a perfect fit for a team that steals points in comebacks when your energy line guy can’t handle things not going his way.
    I’m sad to see Bourque go – he’s a great player – when he wants to be. I wish him the best, and I think he’ll fit in pretty well out there.

    30 September, 2009 at 2:21 pm | Permalink
  6. turquoise_donkey wrote:

    thanks. sometimes i need the nuances explained to me.

    30 September, 2009 at 2:41 pm | Permalink
  7. Katie32 wrote:

    I’m going to apologize – I got defensive. I’m a huge Laing fan, and possibly a little biased in this situation.
    Laing makes $500,000 in the NHL – Bourque makes $577,750. Its a tight squeeze, but its there.

    30 September, 2009 at 2:53 pm | Permalink
  8. OrderedChaos (Mike Rucki) wrote:

    While this news is definitely disappointing, Katie is correct: Bourque was the victim of a numbers game, nothing more. If he had to be snagged, I just wish Boston had claimed him instead of Pittsburgh.

    30 September, 2009 at 3:20 pm | Permalink
  9. Sarah wrote:

    I’m pretty sure everyone’s with you on that one. We’d probably be a little less hysterical if it was anyone but pittsburgh or maybe Philly.

    30 September, 2009 at 4:50 pm | Permalink
  10. ThePeerless wrote:

    “working on a solution to the ‘problem?’”
    It took less time for Godot to show up.

    30 September, 2009 at 7:14 pm | Permalink
  11. Gary Κriebel wrote:

    The Peerless is making me learn stuff.
    I had to look up what his comment meant.
    Fine work, sir.

    30 September, 2009 at 9:16 pm | Permalink
  12. Grooven wrote:

    Just because he was taken on waivers doesn’t mean the Caps won’t get an opportunity to take him back on waivers. We’ve seen it happen before. If they decide they want him back even.

    1 October, 2009 at 12:51 am | Permalink
  13. TG wrote:

    True, given that Pittsburgh’s got a bunch of forwards, and they’ll have to expose him to waivers to get him to the minors.

    1 October, 2009 at 8:42 am | Permalink
  14. Katie32 wrote:

    Oh no… not another Kris Beech situation – please! Although, after Pittsburgh claimed him he did fall off the face of the earth…

    1 October, 2009 at 9:11 am | Permalink