Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
So. What do they need to add to Robertson in a deal for Rickard Rakell? Kampf for salary, Hildeby and the first 2028? Not sure they have the assets for it without giving up Cowan which would likely be a mistake.
The Penguins are not trading their #1 goal scorer before the season starts with Crosby still on the team. If the Penguins really suck and blow it up at the deadline, then it might happen. But it’s not going to happen now.
And they’d need to add A LOT more than Robertson to make that happen. Probably Cowan and/or a 1st round pick, neither of which the Leafs can afford to trade for a poor man’s version of Nylander with bad playoff stats to boot.
It’s not happening.
Robertson for Tomasino could happen. That’d be an upgrade for the Leafs. Otherwise, it’s a dream.
And UG trashes this opinion…
Oy-vey.????♂️
UG’s definition of being a Leaf fan:
Trash the team and all of its fans on a full time basis.
Yeah he doesn’t seem to fit on the Leafs unless you believe he is due for a big breakout year. I don’t see that happening.
Even the big breakout year… what line? He’s a shooter.
Line one it’s Matthews
Line two it’s NylanderAnd Robertson is no bottom six type guy under Berube.
As for the HB comments being made yeah, that site is simply unappealing now
I think trading away contracts is more likely and more advantageous. Robertson, Kampf and and Jarnkrok are all very moveable. They were able to get something back for Reaves.
Only makes sense. Kampf and Jarnkrok simply no longer fit the more physical bottom six the leafs have built and Robertson is NHL capable but he’s basically a 2nd line shooter which means on the leafs he’s Nylander’s backup. On other teams he’d be very useful and probably would land a decent return.
Oh well at least they signed him and avoided losing him for nothing. I gotta think they are going to try to trade him.
Me too, I like him, he’s not a bad player, but he’s essentially a second line shooter. So on the leafs he’s practically Nylander’s backup whereas on other teams he’d be a regular guy. Not more than $2 mill either, could probably get a decent return for him.
I thought the same thing. They can trade anytime except if they turn down the arbitrator decision then he becomes a UFA and cannot trade his rights.
Yup, the only trade they got now is to either somehow strike a deal with him before the third, or sign the arbitration decision on the third.
Other than that it’s letting him become a ufa by saying no to the arbitration as you mentioned.
But if arbitrator gives him what he’s looking for team is stuck with it. Not worth taking the chance
The chance has been taken, since they can’t trade him while on arbitration.
ohho hat …. crusty and all …
The cane!!! It’s the cane that’s important to his style!!! He doesn’t use his body ????
It has the same type feeling as this site …. for me
Yeah, they both feel like they need a separate map app lol
Took a look at the new Hockeybuzz earlier. Way too cluttered. To much to see and where do you go to see your teams threads? I guess they could have spruced it up, but it’s definitely overkill.
Yeah looked at it via phone and laptop and neither seemed all that smooth yet. But yeah, it’s definitely a “yet” scenario I’m guessing, change will happen.
let’s talk about how glad we are that pencil neck bitch is shopping for big hats in vergas rather than TO????
in berubae we trust ????????
I want to say that word so I hope that he finds a sweet hat and cane deal there in Vergas rather than TO ????
Ok I agree with Azure on this topic, despite it also being the opinion of someone here I have zero respect for and has zero ability to present his opinion in any way other than the most offense way riddled full of insults etc.
The court case has happened, the judge ruled and it’s done. If the NHL decides to try and prevent these players from playing by claiming they breached a morality clause I think they face an issue with the players perhaps coming at the league (if it was a league decision, the teams if it was an individual team decision) for lost wages for the time they were suspended as a start. They will layer in some defamation element and perhaps even some loss of future earning potential all of which would equate to big dollars.
I think the league will simply (quietly and not publicly) tell the players/teams in the league that these guys can be signed / play and it’s up to teams to decide if they want to do so – pushing all of the potential risk of poor public reaction etc. onto teams and avoiding any litigation.
I agree with what you said Dozzer but there is that one sticky point that I’ve read from a few people in difference places and that you have to factor in – who the players were in terms of how big a superstar they are or were. The NHL has proven over and over again big time stars get different treatment and let’s not pretend the media don’t do the same.
If these 5 players had names like Bedard, Matthews etc. in them do the players get suspended right away? Is the outcry to ban them from the league the same?
I personally don’t think so.
If you strip emotion, bias and personal morality out of the equation and simply ask if the players should technically, legally be allowed to resume their careers I think the fairly obvious answer is yes.
The league can say the players broke the morality clause and as I said I think they have to fight that in court but who knows until / unless it happens.
I question if the league/players had the legal right to even suspend but without seeing what the contracts say or the CBA (and I don’t care enough to go research it or even see if it’s public) and the fact the players just took the suspension maybe they have language in there that allows it. IF the suspension is unpaid I would be surprised the NHLPA agreed to it.
What has not been mentioned but I think may pop up soon is the fact that the finding of not guilty does not prevent any civil action that the alleged victim may decide to peruse. Now if she took some settlement from Hockey Canada she may not be able to sue the players or HC but again maybe that settlement only protected HC and she could try to sue individual players – I guess we will see.
The case and charges were criminal, not civil proceedings and they differ greatly in many ways including the need to prove “beyond a reasonably doubt” that something did or did not occur.
Well technically like it or not unless the charge is “dropped” or put “on hold” til the day before court those players would have to be suspended no matter who they are. It’s the current standard. I’m guessing the bigger names who magically get that to happen like you’re saying though. I’ve heard the NHLPA have recently started pushing to have the overall suspension dropped though. I kind of wonder that myself, being charged isn’t being found guilty, still, could be a media frenzy though.
I’m kinda rambling here, but I think that an underlying theme to this whole trial is that many are uncomfortable with the idea that a young woman could be the sexual aggressor. There’s a disbelief that she could have wanted to have sex with multiple partners in a hotel room.
It’s an incredible double standard – would anyone blink if they heard of a 20 year old male who was happy to have sex with multiple female partners – all successful, incredibly fit athletes?
That’s precisely why I’m using the word orgy. It’s been around for a long long time. It’s not illegal, and you risk being socially judged, however the modern day has a pretty notable difference…
The internet. So the knowledge of your orgy’s existence has the potential of being spread around far more quickly and openly.
Also, anyone who thinks there weren’t orgy’s that existed that involved multiple men and very few women (if any) prior to this is also in denial.
Yup.
Probably the same type of people that whined about hilary’s emails for years.Nah, not the same as political arguments, you have to accept that you’ll always be at war if you want a career in politics and that’s the end of that.
This is pretty simple though, when it comes to the orgy it really leads to three things.
Was it illegal? No.
Was it immoral? To some no, but to many yes.
Was it disgusting? To some no, but to many yes.
And no matter what, the people who think it was immoral and disgusting behaviour are never ever going away, it’s called society, and no, not everyone forgives alongside law.
When it comes to Matthews was it rude? Sure. Did it involve his sexual organ and sleeping with someone? No. Therefore not nearly as many people were insulted by it, not even close.
