Nope. Bruins said they wanted rask to play less.
- Fakepartofme

Rask still sucked. Made it a very very easy decision. If he was playing during the season like he is now and Halak wasn't outplaying him for stretches, they wouldn't have stuck to it.

Kakko has as many points as Marincin.

Leafs should explore trading Marincin for the 2nd overall pick. Could be a win-win for both teams, though I think the Leafs are taking more significant risk because you never know if a draft pick turns into an NHLer
- TheMussel

Cup 'o Kaka is probably worth a little more than Marachino, maybe throw in a 3rd.

So, pointing out the lesser competition and no physical contact is now "tearing him down"?

It is more about noting, correctly, that this is not the same as playing in the NHL playoffs, where we need him to play well.
- Aetherial

so a player getting 2 points in 1 game is worth pointing out?
As a negative?

Nylander is not a physical player, he has never been one. the NHL is full of really (frank)ing good players who play the same way.

its just nauseating day after day of the same poop.

so a player getting 2 points in 1 game is worth pointing out?
As a negative?

Nylander is not a physical player, he has never been one. the NHL is full of really (frank)ing good players who play the same way.

its just nauseating day after day of the same poop.
- senstroll

i know bro, being wrong every day must suck

Can we trade him for nick ritchie already?

so a player getting 2 points in 1 game is worth pointing out?
As a negative?

Nylander is not a physical player, he has never been one. the NHL is full of really (frank)ing good players who play the same way.

its just nauseating day after day of the same poop.
- senstroll

Who said it was a negative... it does have an asterisk.

Since you seem to be a guy who trusts numbers, how do you like the scoring stats that Fake posted?

It is equally nauseating to see people ignore the valid point being made.

Rask still sucked. Made it a very very easy decision. If he was playing during the season like he is now and Halak wasn't outplaying him for stretches, they wouldn't have stuck to it.
- GreatGigInTheSky

Yes they would've. The general manager explicitly said that's why they signed Halak. What about when they had a 18-20 game winning streak? Halak still played often despite the fact that Rask was unstoppable at the time and Halak actually wasn't playing that great during that stretch.

Who said it was a negative... it does have an asterisk.

Since you seem to be a guy who trusts numbers, how do you like the scoring stats that Fake posted?

It is equally nauseating to see people ignore the valid point being made.
- Aetherial

huh? I am talking about what he posted.

Yes they would've. The general manager explicitly said that's why they signed Halak. What about when they had a 18-20 game winning streak? Halak still played often despite the fact that Rask was unstoppable at the time and Halak actually wasn't playing that great during that stretch.
- RickJames77

Management says a lot of things. How things go, determines whether or not they completely follow-through on it.

Things went for the Bruins (for the most part), so they stuck with it. They didn't with the Leafs (Sparks, hell every backup they used ), so they didn't. Only reason Freddy played less was because he got hurt. Otherwise he'd have played as much/more than previous seasons, even though they wanted him to play less.

Nylander.

Cup 'o Kaka is probably worth a little more than Marachino, maybe throw in a 3rd.
- Aetherial

throw in Z and we have a deal

throw in Z and we have a deal
- 21peter

Done!

Management says a lot of things. How things go, determines whether or not they completely follow-through on it.

Things went for the Bruins (for the most part), so they stuck with it. They didn't with the Leafs (Sparks, hell every backup they used ), so they didn't. Only reason Freddy played less was because he got hurt. Otherwise he'd have played as much/more than previous seasons, even though they wanted him to play less.


- GreatGigInTheSky

Yes, ok, but I'm addressing a particular point you made with a question you didn't really answer, but rather skirted around. You said that Rask played less because he sucked at the beginning of the year. Yes, he had a bad month, but they still alternated games. Also, you said if Rask was playing spectacular they wouldn't have stuck with limiting Rask's starts, which is actually exactly what they did when they went on a 18-20 game lossless streak (or whatever it is). So, why then would they still play Halak, who wasn't playing too great, if their sole intent wasn't to limit his starts?

Also, and I'm aware this is general statement, Blues fans kinda suck. They're acting like Islanders fans

Rask still sucked. Made it a very very easy decision. If he was playing during the season like he is now and Halak wasn't outplaying him for stretches, they wouldn't have stuck to it.
- GreatGigInTheSky

They wanted to reduce his games.
If halak was garbage and they had to play rask more, who knows they may not be in the finals.

Nylander.
- Zezel

Chocolate sauce

Also, and I'm aware this is general statement, Blues fans kinda suck. They're acting like Islanders fans
- RickJames77

Like theres only a 100 of them

so a player getting 2 points in 1 game is worth pointing out?
As a negative?

Nylander is not a physical player, he has never been one. the NHL is full of really (frank)ing good players who play the same way.

its just nauseating day after day of the same poop.
- senstroll

Chocolate sauce
- Fakepartofme

Damn you

Okay, totally 100 per cent cereal guys, who's gonna win the final? I need to make my money back from my gambling addict buddy and he's willing to take either side of the bet. I need to harness this degenerate pool of hockey knowledge for my own personal gain. Who's gonna win and why, I need some insight to consider.

Okay, totally 100 per cent cereal guys, who's gonna win the final? I need to make my money back from my gambling addict buddy and he's willing to take either side of the bet. I need to harness this degenerate pool of hockey knowledge for my own personal gain. Who's gonna win and why, I need some insight to consider.
- Zezel

Straight up bet or are we talking odds here?

Straight up bet or are we talking odds here?
- RickJames77

Straight up

Straight up
- Zezel

St. Louis is going to win, let's get that straight.

But if you're taking even money then put it on the Bruins. It's literally a "smart" bet as vegas has the Bruins around 60% favorites. They wouldn't give you that bet nor would anyone else.

It's the smart thing to do, but not the right thing. Blues baby!

Okay, totally 100 per cent cereal guys, who's gonna win the final? I need to make my money back from my gambling addict buddy and he's willing to take either side of the bet. I need to harness this degenerate pool of hockey knowledge for my own personal gain. Who's gonna win and why, I need some insight to consider.
- Zezel

If it's a straight up bet, I'd pick Boston. They've been too good all playoff long, they don't make any mistakes, they get away with everything.. Chara is playing like he's only 42 and they have all 4 lines rolling, from Bergeron's line to Kuraly's line.. Coyle is playing well, so is Krejci.


#GoBruins

I'm leaning Bruins because they are rested, their top line, Rask, and they have gathered momentum in the playoffs. Also home ice and finals experience. I don't know as much about the Blues because of Eastern Media Fake News bias.

St. Louis is going to win, let's get that straight.

But if you're taking even money then put it on the Bruins. It's literally a "smart" bet as vegas has the Bruins around 60% favorites. They wouldn't give you that bet nor would anyone else.

It's the smart thing to do, but not the right thing. Blues baby!
- RickJames77

😂👌