Neomaxizoomdweebie

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.

This is what I am used to seeing (Pittsburgh) Penguins do:

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/607880-top-5-sidney-crosby-dives#slide5

Larkin's contract had nothing to do with Z. Why would a player sign for less term or money based on another player's status? And if I had a choice between Z being on the roster vs any of Rass, Zadina, or Hronek, I choose Z every time. Even if his abilities are weakened, he's still better than any of those 3. Plus, he has earned the right to call it quits when he wants to. If this team isn't a contender, then it doesn't hurt anything to keep him on the roster.

Kicking Z and Trading Glenny is not required to make room. As was said, there are waiver and trade options to make room.

Who would need to eat crow? I don't recall anyone saying that he was going to play. Only that some of us are being optimistic and haven't given up on the idea of him playing this season. When Z says he's done, then he's done. Not before.

Sure. Let's go with that.

I think I saw this video.......but it wasn't pandas......

NO

Yeah, we know.

Really. That's what u remember from 98? Poser.

Pretty much this. All of these players (football too) knew there were risks to their sport, although admittedly not fully understood. I feel sympathy for anyone who has lifelong brain damage from playing any sport, but at what point do you stop suing others and admit to some degree of personal accountability.

I think Chayka is a mackeral in a shark tank.

via celebrityhockeyclassics.com If there’s one draft the Maple Leafs could go back in time and select all over again, hands down, it would be 1989, and more specifically, that entire first round. After some wheeling and dealing, the Leafs owned not one and not two, but three selections in that year’s opening round and what should have been a very bright future with all the inbound young talent. Unfortunately, that talent never materialized. The Leafs picked 3rd, 12th and 21st in the overall, taking forwards Scott Thornton and Rob Pearson and defenseman Steve Bancroft respectively. Altogether, those three players combined played 225 games for Toronto, scoring just 95 points. In fact, Bancroft only played in six NHL games his entire career. Oh, and the guys in that same draft the Leafs could have picked? Just some no-namers like Sergei Fedorov, Pavel Bure, Nicklas Lidstrom, Adam Foote. This did not copy and paste well. LOL. Pretty much all of the Leafs drafts up until the last few were dreadful. Included on team picture, but left off the Stanley Cup #44 Mark Hartigan (C – played 23 games, 4 playoff games of Detroit, 48 games in the minors) – was left off for the 2nd year in row for not playing in the last 2 rounds of the playoffs. #52 Jonathan Ericsson (D – played 8 games for Detroit, 69 games in the minors), #4 Kyle Quincey (D – played 6 games for Detroit, 66 games in the minors), #35 Jimmy Howard (G – played 4 games for Detroit, 54 games in the minors), #8 Justin Abdelkader (LW – 2 games for Detroit, 48 games for Michigan State University.), #43 Mattias Ritola (LW – played 2 games for Detroit and 72 games in minors), #46 Jakub Kindl (D – played 76 in minors, no games for Detroit), Sergie Tchekmarev (Team Masseur), Lynn Newman (Massage Therapist) – All 9 members were left off the Stanley Cup, but received Stanley Cup Rings.

I think that might have something to do with it.

Correct. He did not play enough regular season or playoff games to qualify. But he was on the roster thru to the last finals game, which would be his last as an NHL player, although he didn't play in it.

He's lazy and he sucks.

Was watching the 2008 Championship DVD when I caught a glimpse of Mark Hartigan. Totally forgot about that guy, career tweener. Game 6 of the SCF was his last in he NHL. Went to Europe after that and played a few more years before hanging them up in 2012.

Would u consider him among the top 5o players? I wouldn't. That's just my opinion. It's subjective.