Contempt

You could get Carter Hart for a song right now

I disagree. Oettinger initiated contact outside the crease. I'm also enjoying all the bench shots of Rick Bowness. We can have more of those. Ay dios mio.

It's still stupid.

That's a bush league move and begs for retaliation. Why you'd want to do ANYTHING to give a team the slightest bit more fuel for a playoff game I have no idea.

Give me all the goals. What allowed the NHL to grow into non hockey areas and expand to become what it is was offense, not the intentionally negative play of the Devils and the clutching and grabbing garbage. People want to be entertained. Holding isn't entertaining. Goaltending CAN be entertaining but only when it's foiling high quality chances. When it's just covering up the puck on a wrister from the point it's boring. Goal scoring, speed and skill is fun to watch. It's always fun to watch and it can be just as tense as a 1-0 game. A one goal game is a one goal game whether it's 1-0 or 6-5. What's usually more fun to watch in between? In all but the rarest of exceptions it's the 6-5 game so let's have those.

that would be horrendous

That's unfortunate on all levels. Dunleavy needs to go. Yesterday.

I'm not happy about it either.

I'm aware of that. I mention it because that's the sort of thing they are actively removing from the game at lower levels. It's going to go away.

Can we have the Amerks PBP guy? There's a touch of Mr. Krabs in there that I'm enjoying and Dunleavy is as entertaining as a wet dishrag.

That's a penalty according to USA hockey. Stick off the ice, no attempt to play the puck.

Depends. Winnipeg and Edmonton grow enough prospects. Maybe a kid really wants to play for the Oilers or the Jets. Or maybe those teams are really good already. Lower level teams that aren't as good are also able to offer NHL ice time sooner which accelerates their contracts sooner. There are certainly potential issues. But as we've seen with the Sabres and Oilers, picking at the top (snagging the top prospects) isn't necessarily a recipe for success either and it might be that teams like that would be better served to acquire extra slots in order to use them to sign more players and develop them. There would certainly be bidding for players all the way through but the slot pools would dry up pretty quickly in some case and the only teams left would be the ones "nobody wants to sign with" Would a bad team like Buffalo have been better served to have the #1 every year for 3 years and only those 3 players, or 6 of the top 100 for 3 years in a row because 15 teams used up their entire slot pool (or at least most of it) to take 1 guy each year?

That is an interesting question. I guess the question for them would be do they, internally, believe that they will be substantially better next year. If they believe that then they should keep the pick at 6 and give away next year's. If they don't think that then they should give 6 to Buffalo. How much better will 27 or 28 next year be than 6 this year? I think the other aspect would be if they kept next year's pick they would be able to trade it again to add at the deadline which seems to be their MO.

Well. Guys want jobs first and foremost. They'd still be going back to jr or the NCAA except for the top few players and to sign one of those players those teams would forgo their ability to sign anyone else so those guy would still be motivated to sign somewhere. The slot and total pool limit would prevent teams from stockpiling and hoarding. There could be other things you do to prevent shenanigans but teams wouldn't want to just sign one guy a year that often so they wouldn't max out that often. If you did that a couple years in a row your whole system would be screwed. In order to acquire extra slots or extra cap you'd be trading away other assets and additionally weakening yourself. Are some guys worth that? Maybe, and maybe that might happen every year to an extent, but it would be hard for one team to do it over and over again. How many years in a row could you have just one draft pick and be successful? Even if that draft pick was McDavid or Matthews? You'd have nothing else.

How about not having a draft at all. Each team has x number of signing slots and a certain pool of money they can use but not exceed. You want to spend your entire pool on one person and not sign anyone else then so be it. You could acquire additional slots and signing pool space from other teams via trade. The owners would probably want slot values and slot caps but I dont think it's necessary.

Decline meaning refuse to make a pick or decline meaning waiving the lottery protection to give Buffalo the pick this year?

IMO it was a shot carefully crafted to leave room for interpretation. It's more like an opportunity that wasn't passed up. Harrington certainly could have chosen to tweet something else and didn't. Why he chose to tweet what he did seems relatively obvious but can also be played off as simply factual and of local interest. Sort of like how many of us bemusedly watched Eichels point totals as Vegas was imploding down the stretch.

Girthy

What amuses me is the ppl who complain about those laws are usually the ones complaining about the destruction of the American middle class.

He went from getting booed for one night, which would have happened virtually anywhere, to ensuring that he will get booed every time he comes back into the building forever. There aren't that many players who have gotten that honor. Even in Buffalo, land of the think skinned juveniles. That's like Stephane Richer territory.

He made one wise ass comment, after a loss, after forcing his way out of a town that did nothing but kiss his ass. It's bit more than one thing.

I hope so.

When you act like an ass you get the most crap. Had he had even a SMIDGEN of class the crap level would be much less.

Who woulda thought they'd blow a bunch of shootouts in a row and have it NOT be Lehner's fault. Bizarro world.

Glad I could help.