I thought you were referring to my last comment. The above post was maybe a little bit of a shot, but in a good natured teasing sort of way. The subtleties of conversation are tough in type. I thought we were having fun
- Dkos

The strength of my arguments is what annoys people!
- MJL

I love it when you joke like this

Officially upheld...

This league of the fat rich law firm Bettman & Daly.. 1000$ an hour CALL NOW!.
- dragonoffrost

Really? Bullseye!

bettman is a clown
- 2Real

That was anti semitic

Both players are morons. Bell was asking for 17mil a season because he believed he deserved to be paid as a running back and a receiver. The Steelers offered 14. I'm not sure how much was guaranteed. I think 30mil.

Brown is the new TO. Stone cold crazy. Greatest receiver ever in Pittsburgh, but an awful person. He also wanted more money....and got it. Poor Carr has no idea what he's getting into.
- madmike71

They weren't morons 2/3/4/5 years ago or so were they? Honest answer would be no

See, now we're having a conversation. I read an article that seemed to indicate that Voracek still doesn't think he did anything wrong. Again, not knowing what the appeal was based on, appealing because they disagree on how the hit was ruled on, would've been a mistake. Which was my original point. I would've come with exhibit A, the Malkin ruling and exhibit B, the Gabriel ruling. Both were worse actions in my opinion that received one game. That combined with Voracek's clean record through his entire career would've made a reasonable case for reduction to one game in my opinion.
- MJL

I read that Voracek admitted to it being interference.

While I agree with the premise I have no knowledge of what’s admissible to discuss in these appeals. Other players suspensions might be beyond the scope of what can be discussed in the appeal

Leafs getting trounced

Leafs getting trounced
- THE EVIL WITHIN

They are going to be pissed Friday

They are going to be pissed Friday
- wcorvette

Well then they've been pissed a lot lately with not much push back. Been getting spanked regularly.

Yes, I'm attacking Voracek! I'm following his car around town and staking out his house.


This quote from Voracek indicates other than interference, which is a simple 2 minute penalty call in most cases, he still does not feel what he did was worthy of a suspension. At least that's my read on it.

""There's no question that it was interference. I think the explanation on a suspension is that I went out of my way to make head contact with Johnny Boychuk, which I don't think I did. I think I changed my way drastically and my explanation was that I was bracing for contact. I didn't mean anything by it. Obviously, they saw it differently."

If you read Bettman's letter, it is clear that they came to argue the actual play from Voracek's perspective. That argument never had a chance. As I posted earlier. That was the wrong argument to make. The argument to make for a reduction in games was to reference previous suspensions of other players that were worse actions that only received a 1 game suspension compared to Voracek's actions on this play. That combined with his clean record of the past is the approach they should've taken. This is a repeat of what I posted previously
- MJL

You are being scary.

The quote from Voracek admits to interference with zero intent to injure. This does nothing to support your speculation that the Flyers did a poor job of arguing the appeal. Your criticism is based on the fact that you disagree with how the Flyers interpret the hit. The appeal was not about the hit itself but about the ruling of a 2 game suspension. Bettman acknowledges Jake’s perfect record and chooses to uphold the suspension length.

After that quote, you repeat your poopty speculative claim while subtlety insulting me again. See “If you read Bettman’s letter.” Yeah, I did read Mr. Bettman’s letter in it’s entirety. I’m the one who posted the copy. You can’t seem to accept the fact that intelligent people have an opinion differing from yours.

Both opinions are speculative. We disagree. Once again. Deal with it!

wait are we really arguing if Carter was a good player as a Flyer??
- bulet13

Current hall of famer

I love a good "Fire Stevens, Trade Carter" joke, but are we really re-litigating Jeff Carter's Flyers career?

wait are we really arguing if Carter was a good player as a Flyer??
- bulet13

Just saw this....great minds, sir

I love a good "Fire Stevens, Trade Carter" joke, but are we really re-litigating Jeff Carter's Flyers career?
- johndewar

I don’t hate Jeff Carter but he hasn’t remotely come anywhere near his 46 goals and 84 point season as a Flyer. I respect that he became a really good two way center but his offensive numbers are not that eye popping.

I don’t hate Jeff Carter but he hasn’t remotely come anywhere near his 46 goals and 84 point season as a Flyer. I respect that he became a really good two way center but his offensive numbers are not that eye popping.
- SuperSchennBros

I don't hate him at all. But I was all on board for trading him, only because I thought we could get a good return for shoot first center like him. And the fact is, the return was beyond great.

His time here was a good era in Flyers hockey. It didn't work out all the way like we hoped, but he was a helluva player.

Again, I reserve the right to make a good "Fire Stevens, Trade Carter" joke, because those cracks are reminiscent of comments made on this board frequently at a certain period of time, but if folks are honest with themselves, Carter was a pretty good player here.

Sooooo....anyone else excited for Bundy's expected comments during Pregame Live tomorrow night?

Leafs getting trounced
- THE EVIL WITHIN

leafs just suck

I read that Voracek admitted to it being interference.

While I agree with the premise I have no knowledge of what’s admissible to discuss in these appeals. Other players suspensions might be beyond the scope of what can be discussed in the appeal
- Just5

Good points. Yes, Voracek seems to think it was an interference penalty and not a suspendable play. That was my read on his comments. Possibility concerning the scope.

You are being scary.

The quote from Voracek admits to interference with zero intent to injure. This does nothing to support your speculation that the Flyers did a poor job of arguing the appeal. Your criticism is based on the fact that you disagree with how the Flyers interpret the hit. The appeal was not about the hit itself but about the ruling of a 2 game suspension. Bettman acknowledges Jake’s perfect record and chooses to uphold the suspension length.

After that quote, you repeat your poopty speculative claim while subtlety insulting me again. See “If you read Bettman’s letter.” Yeah, I did read Mr. Bettman’s letter in it’s entirety. I’m the one who posted the copy. You can’t seem to accept the fact that intelligent people have an opinion differing from yours.

Both opinions are speculative. We disagree. Once again. Deal with it!
- NC Flyers Fan

Its speculative but my read on Bettman's letter was that they did argue the hit itself. You contradict yourself by bringing up Voracek's intent to injure. That is arguing the hit. So you're refuting your own point. Voracek's comment that it was interference with zero intent to injure completely reinforces my premise.

The point is what is the basis for arguing the reduction to one game. They argued the merits of the hit to attempt to get a reduction to one game. That argument in my opinion never had a chance of succeeding and was the wrong approach.

Disagreeing with your opinion is not a failure of accepting that other people have a different opinion.

It's pretty clear who has issues dealing with it and who doesn't. Your comments of "you are being scary" and "deal with it" indicate whom.

Yep all his goals were meaningless. Good job MJL
- Richieattack18

The guy is legit impossible to have a debate with

Go look at the latter years of Paul Coffey, Phil Housley, Brian Leetch, Sergei Gonchar and Brian Campbell's careers. The only one to even make it close to 40 was Gonchar. Every single of one of them experienced major dropoffs by the age of 34-35. By the time they retired, they were barely a shadow of their former selves.

The rest of what you said is pre salary cap logic. You sign a player for big money, you invariably end up sacrificing elsewhere at some point, whether in cap dollars, expansion draft protection, roster spot, or all of the above.
- Tomahawk

Forgot Sergei Zubov...

The guy is legit impossible to have a debate with
- sjk540

We had a debate that went on for numerous pages.

Its speculative but my read on Bettman's letter was that they did argue the hit itself. You contradict yourself by bringing up Voracek's intent to injure. That is arguing the hit. So you're refuting your own point. Voracek's comment that it was interference with zero intent to injure completely reinforces my premise.

The point is what is the basis for arguing the reduction to one game. They argued the merits of the hit to attempt to get a reduction to one game. That argument in my opinion never had a chance of succeeding and was the wrong approach.

Disagreeing with your opinion is not a failure of accepting that other people have a different opinion.

It's pretty clear who has issues dealing with it and who doesn't. Your comments of "you are being scary" and "deal with it" indicate whom.
- MJL

Circle of life...from my earlier post where you wished to discuss semantics instead of the appeal...now more word twisting by you.

When the hit is discussed in “Mr. Bettman’s response (it) simply reflects the honesty that Voracek shows in telling his side of the story. Not everyone appreciates honesty, unfortunately.”

You speculation and criticism of the Flyers appeal is based on the fact that you disagree with how Voracek (and a rather large percentage of others) viewed the hit. That was in fact the controversy, I talked about in a previous thread. The hit is discussed in the appeals hearing as it is relevant to the suspension, but saying it is the basis of the appeal is a huge leap on your part. Especially when it is Jake’s record that is placed in the important location of the letter directly before Mr. Bettman gives his ruling.

Circle of life...from my earlier post where you wished to discuss semantics instead of the appeal...now more word twisting by you.

When the hit is discussed in “Mr. Bettman’s response (it) simply reflects the honesty that Voracek shows in telling his side of the story. Not everyone appreciates honesty, unfortunately.”


- NC Flyers Fan

There has been zero semantics in any of my discussions with you. You're arguing against your own point and not even aware of it. Here you are admitting that the merits of the hit from Voracek's perspective was the basis of the appeal. I earlier comments you argued that it was not the basis of the appeal. You argued that the basis of the appeal was to reduce the suspension from two games to one. Based on what? What was their appeal based on? The merits of the hit. So in fact your entire argument was a bad one. Honesty has zero to do with it.

You speculation and criticism of the Flyers appeal is based on the fact that you disagree with how Voracek (and a rather large percentage of others) viewed the hit. That was in fact the controversy, I talked about in a previous thread. The hit is discussed in the appeals hearing as it is relevant to the suspension, but saying it is the basis of the appeal is a huge leap on your part. Especially when it is Jake’s record that is placed in the important location of the letter directly before Mr. Bettman gives his ruling.
- NC Flyers Fan

You're again incorrect here. My criticism of the appeal is not based on how Voracek viewed the hit. It's based on the fact that they made a losing argument that never stood a chance. The NHL (Bettman) was never going to change how they saw the hit. It would not change how Voracek changed his position to initiate the contact. It would not change that Voracek delivered a hit where the head was the primary point of contact. The reason why Bettman included Voracek's record in the letter is to simply agree that based in his record they know that the hit was not malicious with intent to injure. That was already known before the hearing.

You keep throwing the words semantics and speculation around without anything to support it. I stand by my statement that the only chance they could've had was to argue that the punishment was excessive in comparison to other suspensions handed out and actions by other players that did not result in suspensions.

If you want to keep debating this, that's fine but I need something concrete to work with from you in order to make it worthwhile.

Yay Coots..

Is that damn play going to get reviewed ..No wait..this is the NHL..

A minor league org at best.