All Activity

Steve Yzerman was 32 when he won his first Cup. He went on to win 2 more Cups with Detroit. He was patient and stuck with the team that deafted him. Larkin hitting the eject button at 29 is a classic example of instant gratification engrained into today's society thanks to social media and modern entertainment outlets. Patience is no longer a respected virtue. Instead you're labelled a fool for your loyalty.

To answer my own question, I suspect Sneaky Joe was exaggerating about Hahn deciding in October. "He already had his mind made up." Not to be taken literally.

Anything to add? It's an interesting call and situation. I'm not convinced the NHL doesn't want everyone talking about and debating these calls. It's hard to believe they can be THAT bad at the rules.

You don't want to show your source. Who's Pinder? More proof? I just want to see any proof that one voter was going to vote Cooper this season no matter what happened. We already have Hahn admitting his vote for Cooper last season was somewhat "outside the box." It's a subjective award. The Hammies of the NHL get to decide. They can vote however they want. There are no criteria. He didn't break the rules. He didn't deserve to be stripped of his vote this season. Sneaky Joe and his Gen Z. cancel culture. Next up: Punch says he's done here.

Haha. Sure, Cornpop. This conversation is as adult as one trying to determine whether The Hulk could beat Thanos 1v1.

According to Pinder he said it again and he did it again. The video with Warrener is this year, last week. It is becoming a theme from you to discount and question my content and my sources. The podcast is about what just happened. You desire to see more proof is exhausting. If you don't believe then fine.

I'll go Thorny here. Thumbs down? There's no evidence yet that Hahn said he decided in October 2025 to vote for Cooper. Not saying there isn't. But if I see that story from June 2025 again, imma scream.

Please. The adults are talking.

And the video cites the same story.

That's the spirit!

Round and round we go. That's the Hahn story from a year ago.

3:00 mark 3:45 mark and this

I think an angry email to someone is the appropriate course of action at this point.

Watched it again in super duper slo mo. 100% he said I blew the whistle.

If the ref is saying no goal I blew the whistle, that raises a lot of questions. I can't read lips, but I'd say it's >50% that's what he said.

Yes, because nothing says I want to win more than staying with a failing mngt team. Lets ask Eichel his opinion on this.

LOOOOOOL

He's quitting on his team, pass.

Flight booked, I’ll be at game 5. It is a hard pill to swallow to actually root for Carolina, but I got my southern best friend in to hockey, he wants me to be a part of his experience so I’ll swallow my pride and share his lived hockey experience. But if they win it, and he ever says to me “Buffalo’s never won a cup”, he’ll find my boot so far up his ass people will think he has a leather tongue.

I'm confused. Is there a link backing up the claim he decided in October 2025? Joe DiBiase of GR just tweeted that Hahn's vote should have been thrown out (edit: before the season, for what he said a year ago), but he linked to the same article I did, from a year ago.

Larkin would help any team and immediately becomes the Sabres top centre. But as good as he might be, is it OK to say that he comes across as a whiny red-faced prima Donna and I don’t like him?

Alexander Command is a Swedish centre that sounds like he would be right in the Sabres wheelhouse if he is available at the end of the first round.

Don’t need to read lips: “The ruling on the play was goaltender interference,” Stephen Walkom, executive vice president and director of officiating, told a pool reporter. - - - Greenway call was different: “An official blew the whistle seconds before the puck crossed the line, believing Dobes had possession of the puck. That blew the play dead, so the shot by Beck Malenstyn to send it to the back of the net didn't count.” Buffalo’s didn’t count cause ref blew/intended to blow the whistle, believing it be covered. There’s been some conflation that this was the issue with the Vegas goal but it was not. What is interesting is what would have happened had the ref not blown it. His desire to blow it came before the potential interference, so we don’t know the refs thoughts on that. Based on the Vegas non goal, I’d imagine the sabres goal gets called back for interference anyways, if not by the ref by a challenge, should Montreal challenge. But, maybe, if the ref doesn’t make the interference call, Montreal doesn’t challenge (they probably do), or, maybe, they don’t overturn goal call on ice cause they do frequently default to call on ice In order to know what the ref on ice’s thoughts on the interference was, he would have had to move on from his analysis that it was covered, which he never had to do - he never proceeded down that line of succession

It was the TV coverage that talked about the whistle first because one ref blew the whistle and signaled no goal. The mysterious goalie interference call came after the discussion on when the whistle blew and the intent thing. I was just trying to clarify the that the whistle on the replay is not the defining point in the play, it is the time the ref says he decided to blow it. Officially it was called goalie interference, Torts challenged it and lost. The whole play was a mess and even the announcers did not know what was happening, which is becoming more common these days.

The ref appears to be in the process of blowing the whistle before the puck crossed the line. Anyone read lips? The ref explains the call to one of the Knights. Anyway, if that's goalie interference on the Knight for contacting Anderson's glove (more than incidental contact), would that have been the call on Greenway in Game 7?