I guess 7 points in 6 playoff games and leading Montreal in playoff points last season is disappearing?

6 games, what happened then? no heart

He got 7 points in 6 games, Paul. I don't know how to translate that to Broonz speak, but that's actually pretty good.

In the playoffs, it means quite a bit, yes.

Yes, and i don't know for sure, but i thought he wanted to stay. Whether he should have wanted to stay or not, and whether they should have wanted to bing him back or not, i believe they both wanted to get a deal done, and they didn't because of money.

One idea I've always liked is making a players Cap Hit be based off of their take home salary after taxes.

Take Stamkos for example. Playing in Tampa with no state tax, he gets to take home a lot more of the 8.5 mill contract he's offered than if he signed in, say, Toronto or Montreal.

However, if we based it on their take home salary after taxes, then Montreal could offer him a higher theoretical salary, but Stamkos still takes home the same money and still counts the same against the cap.

Basically, it keeps the cap in place but doesn't punish teams in high tax markets.

I don't care if players leave for economic reasons. The way I think about it is this: if I had multiple firms pitch me to work for them, money will factor in. If Firm DAL can offer me more than Firm MTL, that will sway my view on which firm I will choose. Factor in that Firm DAL has told me that, if I join, our firm will be competing with other top firms for the grand prize. Firm MTL cannot offer me that incentive.

Money matters a lot to players - the off-ice life a player is hard (relative to how easy individuals assume it is). They have kids, bills, rent, etc that could change at the hands of their boss. Normal individuals don't have to worry about going in the next day to work and finding out that they are being transferred to another branch thousands of miles away.

In terms of pure hockey changes, I'd like to take away a team's ability to ice the puck when killing a penalty. Makes taking a penalty sting a little bit more, especially with the long change in the 2nd period and OT.

I'll add onto the pure hockey changes and suggest eliminating the coach's challenge.

I don't mind it because if a team is shorthanded, they first have to get the puck, so it's not an 'easy' way to get rid of time. The team with the power play can try to keep it in the shorthanded team's zone and if the shorthanded team ices the puck, the team on the power play can try to get more chances after. They just go back and get the puck and bring it into the other team's zone again.

but only lasted 6 games.....weak, didn't raise his team to another level, weak

So McDavid's not that great because the Oilers are bad?

Ridiculous thread