rrasco

WUT?!

I'm not sure, but I think Conklin is the plunger.

Calgary is crazy. You don't get top dollar for rentals. Especially old ones that are UFA at season's end. Iginla would be nice here, but only at the right price.

Hard to say. Practice? Practice....practice? Practice? Practice......?

Heard this today. Pretty cool I get to see the Griffs play on Thursday.

They should negate the penalty on a blatant dive, and call both of them if it's embellishment. There is a difference between diving and embellishing.

That's funny, I wonder if Khaaaaan! lurks the boards.

No, that's Frking amazing!

They traded a player and a 7th rounder for a 4-5th rounder?

You should just ignore him. I ran across a few of his posts on another board and the persona he is trying to hide here comes out in true color. He was totally right about Suter/Parise (because nobody saw those two come out of left field) and he's right, we missed the playoffs (because the playoff race is over, right?). He's just trolling these boards and it's been allowed for some reason. The best way to get rid of him is to just ignore him. No matter how much I want to lash out, it will only feed the troll. I still find it funny during the offseason when he was all: I'm a Wings' fan but Minny has the best prospects evar!

The problem is, as long as he's allowed to passive-aggressively stir the pot, the pot will get stirred. Especially when his entire message summed up just says, haha I told you so Detroit, we have the Olsen Twins and y'all are not making the playoffs. Same thing happens when we lose to the Blues. There are outsiders that get along here, then there are those two guys....

Dammit Harold. Couldn't I have at least got my post in before your warning? I'll zip it. I recorded the game and watched it starting around midnight. That no-goal call was absolutely wrong. I didn't understand why they wouldn't review it, but it's because the call on the ice was a high-stick with contact made by another player, not a high-stick goal. Had the puck gone in without Toots touching it, they would have reviewed it for height/contact. The fact that Toots helped the puck across the line meant that the play was whistled down prior to the goal, not because of the goal. In the current set of rules, that is a non-reviewable goal and theoretically, by the book, they got it right. However, I think anytime the puck ends up in the back of the net, it should be reviewed. What's more important: having stupid rules or getting it right? Even Edzo got that part right, which I was kind of surprised to hear him continue on about how that should have been reviewed. Was that a Kronwalling or no? I kind of want to update my site and that counter that's approaching 1 year.

I saw this posted in a mlive article linked in another thread earlier today. I just saw the updated tweet now. Great news for Patty, I can't even imagine. If anyone is wondering Z left practice earlier but he's 'fine'. He was seen running later on, so presumptively he is okay. Pavel also left early with flu-like symptoms.

Pure win. Love it. Not with the new Spider Man goalies.

Well, not really the thread topic but it was mentioned in the article so just throwing this out there:

Well, after reading that article these are the things that were on my mind. I hope everyone is okay, but especially Patty. Talk about a flash back.

With the lockout I got more than used to not watching hockey. Now it's almost like...there's another game tonight? Crap, means I can't get anything done.

Yeah yeah. FWIW, I typically (TYPICALLY) actually enjoy reading your posts. But when it's all Franzine this and Franzine that...well, you get it. I hope. I know you don't always bring it up, but you're always there and the one I notice the most, maybe because I actually pay attention to your posts, sometimes. I know there are others, but we are talking about you. Oh, and quit liking my posts that are about you! It's not supposed to work like that.

That's because you normally do. I can't go a day without reading at a minimum of 3 of yours posts with 'Franzine' in them. We get it.

Well there you go. They deemed it reckless targeting of the head, which I can understand why.

I can't believe Bourque did that during actual play....LOL. Shameless plug:

Watch the hit them re-comment. I'm not saying Perry couldn't have let up a little, but he didn't purposely hit Zucker's head.

Right. Targeting can be intentional, or unintentional, whereas it is deemed reckless targeting of the head. Either way, it has to be deemed targeting. I'm not sure how they will rule on it in this case.

A better analogy would be having OT decided by having a QB throw to a single WR defended by a single CB. They keep going following a similar format to the SO. This, would obviously be retarded.

And I am saying I don't think it necessarily will be, because you not only have to make contact with the head (principal point), but you also have to target the head. I don't believe the head was targeted. He could get suspended for interference though, that was actually the call on the play, not an illegal check to the head.