Taro T

Can't see a scenario when Eichel would waive it for a full year, but there is nothing preventing him from doing so. The NMC is a benefit to HIM, not the club. If he has a reason to waive it for whatever reason, he has that right. And, players waive NTCs/NMCs all the time. There is nothing in the CBA nor the MOU preventing it. And actually, the MOU specifically states that the clause must be honored by a team acquiring a p,ayer w/ such a clause.

Obviously, the Pegulas haven't made the deal with the devil like Jacobs did. Or, God forbid, maybe they did for the Bills & the Sabres were the price. Hope not.

The players don't want compliance buyouts as they count towards the players share of revenues. (At least they did in the last CBA.) And that full amount essentially comes out of everybody's salary. Would expect some combination of increased cap with additional escrow to be how this moves forward until the players have paid back their extra pay from last season & this season. Which would effectively keep payrolls constant but would reduce take home $'s of players on existing contracts. (I.e., the guys that got overpaid these past 2 seasons per the CBA as the players actually ended up with more than 50% of HRR end up taking the brunt of the hit (technically, everybody takes the hit, but guys signing deals after such a deal has been worked out between the PA & the league know ahead of time that they'll get say 90% of their nominal contract unless revenues really shoot up but the guys on existing deals expected those to pay roughly 100% of the nominal value) and guys that weren't on those deals get more. Just like it always works as the cap goes up. Briere's hoped for $5x5 deal would've been a monster in '06 but who wouldn't be ecstatic should Reinhart accept that tomorrow.)

It wasn't a voiding of a contract, but when the Sabres thought it was in LaFontaine's LT interest to retire and he refused, they gave him to the Rags for a 2nd rounder.

Sweeeeet. Nailed that one. 😉

Shhhh. Doesn't fit the narrative that Hall was playing the dupes from the start.

Let's hope.

Really not wanting to be a part of this thread, but this post brings up a Q, as had not realized K Pegula was the president of pretty much all the organizations under the PSE umbrella. Is PSE (or are any of the subsidiaries) a WBE or, if not, is it or are any subsidiaries applying for that status?

Regardless of the course forward, really hoping they're back on the same page.

You are very correct that signing Hall & bringing in a goalie could both have happened last season. Not wanting Larsson back with the corresponding ability to have arguably 1 of the 2 best 4th lines in the league (had Girgensons stayed healthy) was a huge blunder & @Randall Flagg is right that several of us wanted him back. But the Eichel line not working like expected wasn't on Krueger. It was on Eichel breaking his ribs training. But even with the line "not working" until he suffered additional injuries, Eichel was over a ppg player & Hall was at/nearly at a ppg. (Nealy all those points by both being assists, but that just means somebody else was getting fed by them.)

Yep. If Winnipeg comes out of the North they would necessarily be the lowest remaining seed with Nashville & Moe-ray-all eliminated and the top seed will necessarily come from the West now that Vegas escaped Minnesota in 7.

What's telling is you won't answer questions. Apologies if minor details were off at 11:30PM on a Friday night after a long week and a long time of not going back on it. (At least however long it's been since you dragged me into this discussion the last time. So, probably 2 years and more than a pandemic ago. Have had a lot of other thoughts on the mind since the last time you dragged this up.) The relevant parts that he entered the crease without control of the puck while the puck was not in the crease & that the decision was the refs to make still stand as correct and the former is the driving factor in why there was NO GOAL. You've exhaunted my interest in this discussion a good decade ago. Good to know you claim to be at that point as well.

At least now, the next time you start this again we've got a fresh reminder that you admit that it wasn't a legit goal, regardless of the extent to which you might wish it was. And, that by that, the Stanley Cup was not won but rather was awarded. Brett Hull might feel disrespected by that, but don't care. Respect is earned, not awarded. And his lying to himself & everybody else that he scored a good goal is not respectworthy. That Lewis & Bettman haven't changed their story doesn't make it any less false than the day they came up with it. Your repeating their story doesn't make it any less false either. And, ftr, there was no conspiracy before the game to give the SC the Stars. But the league's handling of the call and the aftermath has been beyond controversial. You can pretend that people aren't capable of reading and understanding the rulebook, but that wishfulness doesn't make it so. The rule in place at the time was very straightforward, on matters about whether the player was in the crease before the puck, the final call was the refs, not the VGJ's call and CERTAINLY not the Director of Officiating's call. Why in the world would you want it to go to the Director of Officiating rather than the people being paid to do their job? Especially now, when you admit this person of authority made the wrong call, why say "of course, it had to go to the director of officiating?" Why stop there? Why not take it to HIS boss? He was in the building as well. Isn't his decision carrying even more weight? If they're making stuff up as they go along, and you seem to support it, why stop there? Can we blame Lewis for getting the call wrong? Are you serious or just being disingenuous once again? Of course we can blame him. He's proving to be the worst of all bosses - the one who refuses to delegate authority to his staff even when there are documented procedures for him having delegated that authority. Heck, his subordinate is ON RECORD as saying it was his own call and had the procedure been followed he would've made the correct call. Given that knowledge, do you still want to take the decision from the guy that was delegated that authority to give it to the guy who hadn't even been a ref when video review was introduced? (Not sure where you're getting he'd made that call 100's of times. The rule was much different in the '60's-'90's when he was a ref. But no biggie.) Does it make sense that Lewis would make this call on his own, this 1 time, and as you correctly acknowledge, get it wrong, without a reason? Not really IMHO. But, what if the league had screwed up & let something like allowing what seemed to be 100 reporters onto the ice before they'd confirmed the goal was good and THEN realized they'd screwed up not just that but also that the video clearly showed the goal was not good? Might they now be forced to decide QUICKLY which of 2 courses of action they could take? Those being, annoy ESPN (& likely CBC as well) and tell them they have to eat more advertising revenue for whatever show had been scheduled to be showing at that early hour & embarrassingly pull those reporters off the ice, & then continue the game for God only knows how long; OR make up a reason for allowing the goal to stand and avoid the ire of the network(s) & the bad look of shooing the reporters off the ice. We know which 1 they chose. And that option ONLY works if they take the decision on the goal from the refs. And that is what they did. And Occom's Razor says that's WHY they did it. 100% for expediency. You really seem to be disingenuous on this issue. You've known and have acknowledged that it was Clarification 10 rather than Clarification 9 that was controlling on this, yet you only bring up Clarification 9. You know that a player does not maintain control of the puck after shooting & that at the time of the play a player could not gain/regain control (aka recover the puck) by kicking the puck and that in no way did Hull maintain control of the puck through the play, yet that is what you claimed was the key issue.

It's the closest of all the clarifications per those who actually had access to the memo. And when the play is broken down into components it does match the description. After the shot, the rebound remained in the crease (Dallas possession, NOBODY in control, puck in the crease, no player in the crease.) While puck is in the crease, Hull enters crease, kicking puck out of crease. (Dallas possession, NOBODY in control, puck out of crease, player IN the crease.) Now, attacking skater has entered the crease post shot and the puck is out of the crease. Hull THEN gains control (aka has recovered the puck) while he is in the crease & the puck is out of the crease after a shot. Which now is EXACTLY what Clarification 10 recites. And a puck entering the net in that situation is NO GOAL. And while you try to claim the distinction that moves this from Clarification 9 to Clarification 10 (or vice versa) is the word "maintain" it isn't. You CAN'T maintain control after you shoot the puck. Don't believe that? Shoot the puck and then intentionally make it change direction 10' after you released it in a particular manner. (Obviously a deflection off somebody isn't control.) The real world doesn't work like video games. The key is when "control" is gained after the puck is shot & saved. Under the rules in effect in 1999 a player needed to play a puck with his stick to GAIN control. Kicking the puck was not enough to gain (establish) control. Though, once control was gained, it could maintain control provided it was in a controlled manner. The player hadn't "recovered" the puck until he had obtained "control". Under today's rules, kicking the puck can establish control. But they used 1999's rules in 1999, not today's rules. So, once again, NO GOAL. The rule itself was very simple & clear. If a player is in the crease before the puck enters the crease, any goal would be disallowed. The memo was to allow minor exceptions to this when a player kept control of the puck from outside the crease and then was in the crease while maintaining control provided he didn't interfere with the goalie. The memo clouded issues to a degree to allow the league to not have to waive off all scoring plays but the Hull play didn't meet one of those exceptions. But rather, it nearly identically matched one of the situations that was explicitly NO GOAL. And this continuous rehashing of this issue by you is dull.

It certainly does. Dave Kingman's laughing somewhere.

Doubt they'll replace the Peace Bridge / add another bridge in our lifetimes. They had the money for it & pretty much all the necessary approvals ~30 years ago, but activists that wanted a "signature bridge" rather than the twin span killed the project. Once again, the perfect became the enemy of the good.

Agreed. Doubt Rutherford would be brought in over Adams. (For good or bad, the hockey department is Adams' to run.) And don't expect them to bring JR in as an advisor. But it makes a ton of sense & am hoping it happens.

You appear to be intentionally falsifying things to fit your narrative. Control absolutely mattered & Hull didn't have it. Because control wasn't maintained NOR was it gained until AFTER Hull had entered the crease & the puck had left it, and thus HE preceded the puck into the crease, clarification 9 was irrelevant & clarification 10 was the controlling interpretation & that said NO GOAL. And you are trying to cloud the issues by staing the memo came out in March. Nobody credible EVER claimed differently for more than a day or 2 after the game. The issue wasn't the timing of the the memo's distribution to the teams, it was the fact that Bettman & crew pointed to the wrong clarification that was the issue; as you are WELL aware. Brian Lewis was not the Video Goal Judge, so he had no business being involved. Even if he WERE the VGJ, on the question as to whether the puck precedes the opposing team player into the crease or vice versa, per the rulebook the VGJ was to merely ADVISE the ref as to who & what were where and when; it was the ref's job to make the ultimate decision. Both refs were kept out of the decision making process. And that IS on record. But, feel free to continue to make stuff up to try to recloud the issue. Just like you have ever since you admitted you were wrong way back when after too many years to mention of being shown the evidence. As I've maintained since that summer and as even you have begrudgingly agreed to in the past, the game should have resumed with a faceoff at the Sabres blue line to the left of Hasek. Too bad the search function around here is so poor. All of the details to this have been hashed & rehashed & rehashed yet again. It would be nice to be able to have a reference section of archived threads forsubjects like this so that your biannual revisiting of this issue might be reduced to quadrennial or even less often. And, the debate has NEVER been about whether the crease rule as written should ever have been implemented. (It was a horribly ill conceived rule.) The issue at hand was always that the league had a rule in place & procedures to enforce the rule & they disregarded all on the biggest stage at the most important moment and changed rules both overtly (removal of the in the crease rule as written at the very next leaguewide meeting) & covertly (changing later the definition of gaining control to allow for a player to gain control before he used his stick on the puck) and lied all the while; and all in the name of expediency. Again, Dallas didn't win nor earn the Stanley Cup. They were awarded it. And that awarding should ALWAYS have an asterisk next to it.

Thought the league was going to assign opponents in the semifinals based on records w/ the team w/ the highest regular season point total playing the 1 with the least. Did that change? If that's still the plan, should the Loafs come out of the North, they could still end up playing a team from the other 2 divisions, right?

Dude, you have admitted that the goal was not legit. All the rest of this is obfuscation & YOUR bitterness at having had a pearl you desperately & lovingly clutched at to have been proven to be paste. Not going to go back through it all, because it's a waste of time. You know how this one ends as you've lived this rerun many times. Spoiler alert: the goal wasn't legit. And no amount of crying by Hull about how mean the fans were nor obfuscation by you will change that fact. Say it w/ us, loud & proud: NO GOAL!!!

That IS what they said. And they were lying through their teeth. The search function here stinks, but I've laid out the case proving that on several occasions here. Not going to rehash it all again. But the Reader's Digest version is they lied about control, they lied about the interpretation of the memo, & they lied about who & how the play was reviewed. Gregson is also on record as saying he would've overturned the call had he been given the details. (He couldn't see the play clearly because Holzinger was in the way.)

You are sooooo predictable. You know there is a huge difference between missing a call (and there were calls that went the Eulers way as well - non offensive pass interference & roughing the passer that were highly questionable just to name 2) & actively disregarding ones rules, procedures, & protocols & then still further going so far as to changing a definition in the rule book to cover that up. (As you know, the definition of gaining control of the puck has since been altered from what it was in '99.) You FINALLY agree that Hull did not score a legal goal, which is at least a start. Amazing how bitterly you clung to that falsehood that it was legit for years. Good for you on getting that part right.

Dallas took home the 1st AWARDED Stanley Cup. They did NOT WIN it.

It's no "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo." But it does have a ring to it.

That may be another one. But it needs to be done in an intelligent way. What needs to be hardwired and what can be done wirelessly? And, should that be publicly funded, privately funded, subsidized, or what versions of hybrids & where? In 1 of the few things NYS did well, they installed myriad fiberoptic lines along the Thruway. What's the proper next step? And how does that get phased in so that the money that gets spent today doesn't serve a technology that is obsolete in 5 years?