SDS

I will concede that has gone over my head. Carry-on.

Why would noting that change someone’s answer? What does his contract have anything to do with the the remaining length of his career?

I asked the question how long he would play in the NHL, regardless of contract or team.

My fact-free guess is actually 3-5, which crosses two choices. It think it plays out like you stated.

Lastly, why would the NHL determine that a top tier, Stanley Cup winning coach of an undefeated team needs to go, but the GM nobody of the NHL's smallest market had no culpability? Clearly, the NHL had the balls to go after Q - a much bigger fish. They could have went after Chevy just for the optics. Nothing was stopping them. If people in that meeting didn't have the full story and later only certain individuals were privy to the allegations of assault - I think that changes the dynamics completely.

https://hfboards.mandatory.com/posts/180862192/ I don't now where this quote was pulled from, but if true this would be exactly why he isn't being punished. According to the quote, sexual harassment was being discussed, not sexual assault. It is reasonable to think, if this is true, that firing a person over sexual harassment was the club addressing the situation.

You got me Curt! You got me! I can only be grateful I didn't dangle a participle. Now that you're hopped up on your pedantic English wizardry, the only question is how will you parley this sick burn into some Grade A tail tonight at Shooter's...

What's the point of your statement?

If you are the low man on the totem pole in a meeting with all your bosses, it is indeed a bystander effect. It has been reported up the chain to multiple people. There is every reason to think someone else is supposed to handle this. Even then, walk us through this. Chevy, being one of the lowest ranked people in the room hears this. What are his exact actions afterwards and when? Who does he call? The police? The NHLPA? OSHA? Does he call right after the meeting? Does anyone, including the investigators, know exactly what was said that day? When does he follow up on any action/inaction? A day? A week? A month? A year? What does he say? Me, as the junior employee in the room, demand to know how this was settled. Is it possible he thought there could have been a payoff and settled with cash? Is it possible he thought Beach would go to the NHLPA/police/legal route on his own, when he was ready? Should he have followed up in year 6? I'm trying to figure out exactly what he rationally should have done that day given the circumstances?

How long will Jack Eichel play hockey?

There is the real possibility that the bystander effect is also at play here. If employee D knows employee C knows about it and employee C knows employee B knows about it… then it is hard to blame employee D for their superiors failings.

It appears to be a fan design anyway, which is another reason not to disparage people for no reason.

My point is, we don’t know how it went down. I don’t think it’s wrong to give people the benefit of the doubt instead of prescribing negative attributes to them before knowing who it went down. And they designed an entire kit. They used the logo as inspiration. That’s the only commonality with the 1987 team Canada jersey. And if I’m not mistaken this is an alternate jersey. Why do we have to assume nefarious attitudes for an alternate jersey? Why can’t it just be fun?

What bothers me about the last part of this argument is that no one in this situation is smarter than anyone else per se. Adams doesn’t know what’s going to happen. Other GM’s don’t know what’s going to happen. People can guess correctly, but nobody actually knows, so it’ll be hard for me too assigned credit and blame when all of this is sorted out. It’s all mind games.

Count me in as one of the people who thought since the beginning that the return was going to be significantly lower while his neck issues remain unresolved. If fans need any more reasons to consider the inherent risk of the situation, you only have to look at the fact that a generational 1C Center has not been moved and reported sticking points include giving up players who haven’t even proved themselves yet.

To me it’s the difference between “hey, if you guys really want to cash in let’s just steal the design of the 1987 jersey and just make it blue and white” and “the 1987 team had a classic look. What do you think about a nod to history and base our jersey around that moment?“

Absolutely that the biggest hockey city in the world knows exactly what they’re doing with regards to the history of their national team. You can look at it as a grift or you can look at it as a homage. I prefer to think it is the latter unless it’s proven that it is the former.

Did Team Canada rip off the NBA with the hockey player in the middle and contrasting colors on either side? Did the Sabres rip-off the Rangers with their neck laces? Is it possible, TML contacted TC and got a thumbs up for their design? If TC balks, then maybe there is something there. If not, it is much ado about nothing.

That is still a cynical description. Another way to look at it is that TC and TML both have maple leafs as their logo and TML was paying homage to them. TML has more money than God. I'm certain they understood what they were doing and why.

I don't think cynically is the only way to look at this.

I guess I am in the minority. I think it is a sharp kit.

His play didn’t turn into points for the Ducks, which is what ultimately matters in his case. However, he was all over the ice last night, in stark contrast to Cozens, who has had a painfully quiet start to the year.

I didn’t say that.

What was awful about their goaltending other than maybe the first big far side rebound?

As a sidenote, Q is out in Florida.