Leaderboard

No more people in the seats.

You^ vs the guy she tells you not to worry about

Larkin scoring in the stars and stripes showdown. All-Star game-esque final score, but fun to watch some hockey finally anyway.

It is weird how some American Indians embrace the use of their tribal or national names in sports (Florida State Seminoles) and how others seem to be offended by it and try to remove it (North Dakota Fighting Sioux). I see the validity in arguing against using names like "Redskins" for example. But removing any other references to American Indian heritage like "Indians" or "Braves" or even "Totems" and removing mascots and characters of an Indian heritage seems too far IMO. As long as the purpose of these team names are to honor our Native American past, and as long as those of American Indian heritage living in the area where the teams are based are not bothered by it, then changing it is just PC run amok and an example of people being offended for others needlessly.

The saddest thing is, it seems that it's The SJW "White" America who are the ones that complain and call things like this "racist" or "bigotry." BTW @Mckinley25 that was a hell of a worded post! I too enjoy when a sports team or even a local business "honors" the local heritage. I was actually more offended and upset when Eastern Michigan switched from the Hurons, to the Eagles, although Eagles is a great Mascot, I felt that Huron's actually celebrated the heritage. Anyhow, I do hope that when Seattle has a team, they adopt a name that also celebrate local history and or heritage. Heck they could always bring back the Whalers logo! There are whales in Seattle. Although the star attraction are Orca's (which would clash with the Canucks Logo obviously) Seattle is also know for Minke, Gray and Humpback whales, which are also very common during the peak whale watching season. Seattle Whalers....nice ring to it!

I'm glad the organization is finally accepting that they're no longer relevant.

Already done. What’s after that? No more Zetterberg. Whats next?

Little Caesars meijer BELFOR Little Caesars Burns & Wilcox CHEVROLET MARTY

the millennial generation is for the most part ******* retarded (trigger warning) Imagine if they decided to name the team the Seattle ChirstoperReeve'sLegs or the Seattle Number9's... would I be mad? Hell nah, that'd be like the highest honor ever. I would rejoice. Naming a multi-million dollar sports team after a Native American icon is celebration of Native American culture. It's sad that liberals want us to white wash the team name. A Pacific Northwest Totem team would be badass.

I've mentioned before around here that I go fishing with an Islanders scout about once a year. I used some connections to dip my toe a lil bit into the scouting world about two years back when I was on hiatus from this website. Never found an industry more built on who you know, and gave up very quickly. Glad to see Toronto doing things like this, wish the Red Wings would to:

I like it - very plain, and to the point. The 'Hockeytown' moniker was great at the Joe, but now I feel the team needs to move on...Also - please take the 'Mr. I' patches (and any other patch for that matter) off the jerseys as well please, and thank you.

I'm an Eliasson guy now. f*** Filip Larsson.

No it's not. Playing an extra year for the same money is not the same. If your Boss told you he was going to pay you $500 for 6 days of work instead of 5 and then told you that $500 is $500 whether its 5 days or 6, would you do it? I hope not. Which is exactly what he did, whether Z plays or not. No. His contract is "team friendly" because it's below market value, whether Z plays or not doesn't change this. Yes this. Again Z has nothing to do with making his contract team friendly. No it wouldn't. By your own admission, Larkin is already taking less than he could get. So why would he have to take an even smaller salary to be "team friendly"? And no, $30 million over 6 years is not the same salary as $30 million over 5. It's not an opinion. No it's not "obvious". 1. Opinions are not "obvious". 2. The timing of Larkin's contract had nothing to do with Z or any other player. If it did, then why not wait until right before training camp to sign it. Wouldn't that give them a better idea of Z's health, or any other player for that matter. To me, this is the more "obvious" logic. Why on earth would any player take less money to get rookies onto the roster? Don't players generally take less to get better players (older, more experienced, veterans) on the roster in order to make the team more competitive? Nope. You admitted that Holland signed Larkin for less than he could have gotten. That means Holland did a good job on that contract whether Z plays or not, it's still a smart move. Hello, Erik? Ken Holland here. We're interested in trading with Ottawa for your services this year and re-signing you to a long term contract. How does 9 million for 7 years sound? Oh, you think 10.5 is being generous? That is more than fair. You could probably get 12 in free agency, so 10.5 would be good value for sure. Here's the problem tho...If I don't get you to take 9, then I will have to trade or waive someone from my roster, so I'm afraid that 10.5 isn't a "team friendly" contract. I will have to pass. Thank you for your time tho. Nope. We all understand what ur saying. I am not so sure that you do.

LGW.com YouTube channel plz.

didn't read