HamiltonNHL
Parity era hockey is just puck luck + draft luck
- Jan 4, 2012
- 21,230
- 11,791
Game Recap - not sure if it is in there (it isn't)
Was it from the Penalty in the 2nd ? elbowing ?
NHL player safety link
Last edited:
I know, there must have been a reason for it.Title cleared up.
Rielly got hit.
Pocket change
At his current total salary of 9.5mil, prorated over 52 weeks, this represents a 19% reduction in his DAILY income.
So basically, Stamkos didn’t get paid for doing a morning skate...I’m sure he’s SUPER sad.
There are limits to how much they can be fined in the CBA.5K is pocket change for these guys.
If the league thinks an offense is worthy of an official response the punishment should at least be noticeable, otherwise just a waste of energy imo
There are limits to how much they can be fined in the CBA.
I know - but something that’s worth revisiting at the next negotiations, especially if folks on both sides want to get serious about player safety
What makes you think he did anything?I'd still love to know what Rielly did?
It's out of character to do something like that unprovoked.What makes you think he did anything?
Helped the leafs get to a 3 nothing lead.. didn’t seem to do much. Had some words for Stamkos after the factI'd still love to know what Rielly did?
It's out of Rielly's character to provoke - Not sure why you assume Rielly's the one who broke character last night.It's out of character to do something like that unprovoked.
Maybe it's not?
He didn't say that.It's out of Rielly's character to provoke - Not sure why you assume Rielly's the one who broke character last night.
It was a simple question not a Rielly character assassination.It's out of Rielly's character to provoke - Not sure why you assume Rielly's the one who broke character last night.
Their only response to the situation so far has been to find out what Rielly did to make Stamkos act in such an uncharacteristic way.He didn't say that.
Assuming Rielly did something to warrant it seems like a weird way to go about that. You literally said, "There must have been a reason for it"It was a simple question not a Rielly character assassination.
This place some days, wow.Assuming Rielly did something to warrant it seems like a weird way to go about that. You literally said, "There must have been a reason for it"
A better way to phrase it may have been, "Did something happen earlier between the two that would make Stamkos do that?"
Well it was looking like you were going to keep going on about it until someone finally said something - Just trying to help.This place some days, wow.