In the Olympics, if McKinnon had buried that shot on the wide open net in the final game, and the US had never won the gold, would chuckie still be a Sen? Would Hellebuyck still be a Jet. Had they never gone to the white house and kissed the orange ass, would any of this stuff have happened? Would the anti-maga player backlash have happened?
Or, maybe it would have made no difference. Apparently chuckie wanted out anyways. But, who knows?
I'm not up on the Hellebuyck drama (at least the backstory), but Chuckie...yeah, I think he'd still be gone. Was there a lot of backlash after the initial event? Other than getting boo'd at the first games back, I feel like the backlash dissipated VERY quickly. Maybe a Canadian thing though and we're just more likely to have outrage slip to apathy very quickly in US.
yes, there was backlash but it wasn't because the US won the medal, it was about the anti-Canadian and pro-trump stuff.
In the Olympics, if McKinnon had buried that shot on the wide open net in the final game, and the US had never won the gold, would chuckie still be a Sen? Would Hellebuyck still be a Jet. Had they never gone to the white house and kissed the orange ass, would any of this stuff have happened? Would the anti-maga player backlash have happened?
Or, maybe it would have made no difference. Apparently chuckie wanted out anyways. But, who knows?
I'm not up on the Hellebuyck drama (at least the backstory), but Chuckie...yeah, I think he'd still be gone. Was there a lot of backlash after the initial event? Other than getting boo'd at the first games back, I feel like the backlash dissipated VERY quickly. Maybe a Canadian thing though and we're just more likely to have outrage slip to apathy very quickly in US.
In the Olympics, if McKinnon had buried that shot on the wide open net in the final game, and the US had never won the gold, would chuckie still be a Sen? Would Hellebuyck still be a Jet. Had they never gone to the white house and kissed the orange ass, would any of this stuff have happened? Would the anti-maga player backlash have happened?
Or, maybe it would have made no difference. Apparently chuckie wanted out anyways. But, who knows?
Kuchrov in last year of his $9.5M contract wants out of Tampa. That's a big (bigger next year) salary to absorb under the cap. A salary would need to go back the other way.
Agree, plus he’s going to get anywhere between 17 and 20 million per season
on a guy that's 33? You'd better win the cup in the first 2 years of that contract
I feel bad for the guy, but thank God we traded him. As for the Sabres, they should have done their homework. Hell, any of us could have told them he was a bad risk.
All they need to do is when these teams make trades is go to the Reddit on these teams and some of the fan boards they’ll tell you what’s going on. Of course you don’t believe it all, but you’ll get a sense of what the hell is happening
-- Edited by tjlincoln on Saturday 31st of October 2026 06:41:43 PM
Kuchrov in last year of his $9.5M contract wants out of Tampa. That's a big (bigger next year) salary to absorb under the cap. A salary would need to go back the other way.
Agree, plus he’s going to get anywhere between 17 and 20 million per season
Kuchrov in last year of his $9.5M contract wants out of Tampa. That's a big (bigger next year) salary to absorb under the cap. A salary would need to go back the other way.
I feel bad for the guy, but thank God we traded him. As for the Sabres, they should have done their homework. Hell, any of us could have told them he was a bad risk.
I've been preaching this for a couple of years now:
The NHL may consider canceling no-trade clauses if a player demands a trade, as NHL commissioner Gary Bettman has expressed concerns about how these clauses are being used. Bettman indicated that the original purpose of no-trade clauses was to provide security for players, not to allow them to dictate their trade destinations after requesting a move.
That's why the "guarantees he'll be a Sen through 2035" always bugs me. No, it just guarantees he'll be *paid* through 2035.
Not sure how I feel about the NTC "abuse" though...it takes two to tango. I think I'd be okay with NTC/NMCs automatically coming with a "you will provide your team a list of N destinations any time, upon demand" clause. Or something similar as a middle ground. I don't see the NHLPA giving up too much ground on this but I don't see teams being happy forced to keep someone who doesn't want to be there.
I've been preaching this for a couple of years now:
The NHL may consider canceling no-trade clauses if a player demands a trade, as NHL commissioner Gary Bettman has expressed concerns about how these clauses are being used. Bettman indicated that the original purpose of no-trade clauses was to provide security for players, not to allow them to dictate their trade destinations after requesting a move.