marcaractac

If you believe a dude with clear small man syndrome who has the IQ level of a 7 year old, then yes. I know all there is to know. Well, he was right about the travelling the world part. I am fortunate enough to see some cool s***.

In all fairness, Al Montoya not really doing much to argue in favor of drafting a goalie early haha

Sure beats taking a ******* goalie at #6

Not to mention Fleury rode the bench for not one, but TWO Stanley Cups in Pittsburgh.

The only thing you have proven is that I hide my profile from a raging man-child on LGW.

Your continued attempts at slander never cease to amaze.

Oh no, threats of posting social media in public!

You care enough to respond, because you are a man-child who must get the last word. Prove me wrong.

For someone who claims to ignore my posts, you don't do a very good job of it.

Don't you have a Mantha trade to go whine about?

You take the subjectiveness out of it. Head contact? Suspension. Accidental or not. Slew foot? Suspension. Knee on knee? Suspension. Charing to make a huge hit? Suspension. Left feet? Suspension. Sometimes these plays are accidents, yes. But players would adjust accordingly. By only punishing hits by injury as they do now, players will take the gamble. Especially in the playoffs. You'll get the freak accident stuff like Perry on Tavares, which was clearly an unavoidable accident. Those plays should be the only things that have to be reviewed case-by-case.

If my stupidities involve correcting your grade-school level grammar, then no, I am not finished.

Ahh yes, your classic creative comeback. My Twitter is very much public. Not my fault you're too much of a simpleton to find it. I guess you're just jealous because I can afford to travel the world, yet you have to bum articles from The Athletic from other LGW members because you can't spare the pocket change for a subscription.

This. And as far as severity of the punishment? Somewhere between what they do now for injured vs not injured, while still factoring in player history and what not. 2 games for a play that doesn't hurt a guy and 6 if he does? 4 game suspension standard. Double suspension for each repeated offense. You'll still get the crazy outliers every 20-30 years where someone gets Bertuzzi'd. Those events should be the ONLY ones taken on a case by case basis rather than every single situation like we do now. The writing was on the wall for that one as there was known ill intent before that game even started. There was intention to hurt that was known. There is a huge difference between a premeditated intention to hurt vs a hit that goes wrong in the heat of the moment.

Yeah, how DARE people enjoy the things they are into. Hardcore sports fans are far more pathetic than nerds. They think sports give them this alpha male status. Really you're just a sad man who does nothing but ***** and complain on the internet about the teams you root for.

This is hockey, not crime. You keep assuming I'm saying everyone should be punished based on how they currently punish based upon no injury. At no point did I say that. I clearly said the system needs to be reviewed. Punishment needs to be severe enough for the action committed regardless of consequence. Is it that difficult for you to understand? But please continue to cling to a case from nearly 20 years ago.

We're pretty much 100% on the same page

This doesn't make any sense. Dangerous plays should be eliminated by punishing potentially dangerous plays, not by waiting until someone is hurt by one. That's where the deterrence comes from. If a player is hurt in a play, the offender is still punished. They don't simply get away with it because a player got hurt. I said that the injury should not have any impact on the severity of the punishment, not that the player shouldn't be punished period. So your first point: the player is still punished. The injury simply doesn't impact the duration of suspension. The action itself and player history should be the only factors at play. Whether or not players get hurt in these plays is basically a coin flip. If a player doesn't get hurt, why would the punishment be less because of it? Punish the action the same way, regardless. You're literally thinking backwards here. Point 2: Who said anything about a game misconduct and fine being the only punishment? We're talking about actions getting the same punishment whether a player is hurt or not. Meaning suspending dangerous plays. Period. Point 3: Consistent punishment takes luck out of it. Players would be deterred knowing they'll get punished for wreck-less plays regardless of outcome. Your "point" makes no sense.

Inflated KHL numbers vs the numbers of an 18 year old in a very defensive men's league. Imma wait and see how this one pans out first. Askarov also s***s the bed on the big stage in IIHF hockey, where as Raymond thrived. My guess is both teams end up with a pretty important player though. #stillbetterthanwallstedt

This is my thought on this hit more or less. You could argue charging at best due to the distance covered to make the hit. But besides that it was clean by definition of the rules. Having said that, it was gross and shouldn't have happened. More black and white rules must be added to protect players in the end. Head contact, distance covered to make a hit, leaving feet, etc. should all be heavily reviewed. There would be frustrating cases early on where players get punished for a legit accident. But players would adjust accordingly, and we'd see cleaner hits where guys don't leave on stretchers with scrambled egg brains. Also, punish the action whether the player on the receiving end is injured or not. The condition of the player on the receiving end should have zero implications when deciding punishment for a hit. It's as stupid as getting 4 minutes for drawing blood. Comes down to sheer luck.

No, because the internet was not available back then to generate said hype.

This is why we need a high end skilled center to complement Larkin in the top 6.

Yes because he seems to want to finish school, in which case the Wings still retain his rights.

This.