Emily Kaplen did mention the contracts of Malkin and Letang last night durring ESPN's broadcast, but she said that they both were willing to take pay cuts but couldn't agree on price and term. I don't remember reading/hearing anywhere that Letang was willing to take a paycut. (And if he plays the same all series, he will be that much more outnof our price range) She also was trying to stir the pot by asking Guentzel what he thought of the hit on Rakell inbetween periods. Mess, a notorious Rags homer, said that the hit was high and was surprised the penalty was reduced, and it was definately goalie interference on the goal.that was disallowed.
- Beatnic57

Letang shouldnt need to take a paycut. Malkin certainly does. I would be kinda annoyed if we lose one or both of them because of term. Hextall had no trouble giving 2 years to Jeff Carter.

I'd honestly give Letang what ever he wanted. For Malkin, I'd look for a reasonable deal with less money and maybe 3 years to match Sid's remaining years.

seider is a stud thats for sure...hopefully he wont have a sophmore slump, but no reason to think he would. raymond had a great first half of the season and didnt produce nearly as much in the 2nd half, didnt watch many wings games so I am not sure what to attribute his fall off to.

then we have the pens who literally have no young promising prospects hahaha...but we have had a good run these last 15 years so no complaints here!
- JLT168

Any fan in hockey would trade empty prospect cupboards for the Pens Sid/Geno era.

Emily Kaplen did mention the contracts of Malkin and Letang last night durring ESPN's broadcast, but she said that they both were willing to take pay cuts but couldn't agree on price and term. I don't remember reading/hearing anywhere that Letang was willing to take a paycut. (And if he plays the same all series, he will be that much more outnof our price range) She also was trying to stir the pot by asking Guentzel what he thought of the hit on Rakell inbetween periods. Mess, a notorious Rags homer, said that the hit was high and was surprised the penalty was reduced, and it was definately goalie interference on the goal.that was disallowed.
- Beatnic57

Honestly.. I like that she didn't throw Jake a softball question. Hearing the same robotic answers from players is tiring.

- Feds91Stammer

Could be.
But, it also seems Pens fans are kinda butthurt over the Lindgren hit. They reviewed it and said it didn't meet the criteria for a charge and reduced it to 2 minutes because he hit the chest first. But, I know all those facts won't mean anything to you guys because I cheer for NY. Funny how a call for is cut and dried and a call against is league favouritism.
And before crying about lotto fixes, take a moment to reflect on a threat of moving your team and fortunate draw that landed you the best player of a generation.

Don’t need to win the lotto when you have a good GM.

I take Seider and Raymond over Kakko and Lafreniere all day.
- Feds91Stammer

Of course you would, today. You are conveniently forgetting that every single GM and scout had both LAF ad Kakko right where they were drafted at the time. Now everyone acts like we did something wrong.

Letang shouldnt need to take a paycut. Malkin certainly does. I would be kinda annoyed if we lose one or both of them because of term. Hextall had no trouble giving 2 years to Jeff Carter.

I'd honestly give Letang what ever he wanted. For Malkin, I'd look for a reasonable deal with less money and maybe 3 years to match Sid's remaining years.
- SuperHenderson13

the term really doesnt bother me. if geno wants an extra year or two in exchange for taking a cut, will it really matter? whether they are sporting geno while hes pushing 40 on the team or not, the team during that year or two will suck either way.

same for letang. if he is willing to play ball with you on the actual dollar amount per year, sign him as long he wants. those years literally are not going to matter.

CDS, Rak and Zuck are all D2D

Of course you would, today. You are conveniently forgetting that every single GM and scout had both LAF ad Kakko right where they were drafted at the time. Now everyone acts like we did something wrong.
- Tonybere

They just drafted inferior players. It happens. It also fits with the inferiority complex thing you guys have going on.

Blatant goaltender interference, and perfectly clean hit. Rakell shouldn’t admire passes like that.

They just drafted inferior players. It happens. It also fits with the inferiority complex thing you guys have going on.
- Feds91Stammer

I have no idea what made me think I should converse with someone who prides himself on being a douche bag.

Blatant goaltender interference, and perfectly clean hit. Rakell shouldn’t admire passes like that.
- Grinder47

Admiring a dump in on the goalie, yeah, don't do that.

Admiring a dump in on the goalie, yeah, don't do that.
- j.boyd919

Yeah exactly. Wtf was he doing?

Of course you would, today. You are conveniently forgetting that every single GM and scout had both LAF ad Kakko right where they were drafted at the time. Now everyone acts like we did something wrong.
- Tonybere

Sounds eerily familiar to a Conversation here a couple months ago. Something about Clarke, Hextall, Patric, and Makar.

CDS, Rak and Zuck are all D2D
- Rinosaur

Alex D'Orio called up.

Didn't like our chances before the series and not liking them any better if Rakell is out. Not concerned as much with Domingue in over DeSmith. Two career backups with something to prove, both playing for an NHL paycheck next season.

Zucker would be an upgrade over just about anybody that Sullivan would sit. Although McGinn played one of his best games of the year. Saying that despite the fact the wife gave me confused looks when I was swearing at the TV to get McGinn/Carter/ERod off the ice.

Didn't like our chances before the series and not liking them any better if Rakell is out. Not concerned as much with Domingue in over DeSmith. Two career backups with something to prove, both playing for an NHL paycheck next season.

Zucker would be an upgrade over just about anybody that Sullivan would sit. Although McGinn played one of his best games of the year. Saying that despite the fact the wife gave me confused looks when I was swearing at the TV to get McGinn/Carter/ERod off the ice.
- Thunderbolt

I thought McGinn had a strong game last night, very noticeable, and for the right reasons, lol

I thought McGinn had a strong game last night, very noticeable, and for the right reasons, lol
- 1stCavVet

Playoff Brock is awesome. He always seems to find that extra gear to make things miserable for the opponent.

Honestly.. I like that she didn't throw Jake a softball question. Hearing the same robotic answers from players is tiring.
- j.boyd919

Then you must have loved Jake's response, "Sorry I didn't see it." LOL
Most players are going to avoid answering questions that will mativate the other team...

Well we're not the only team down to goalie 3...Pasta with a scumbag hit on Raanta. And of course star player... major reduced to a 2.

Well we're not the only team down to goalie 3...Pasta with a scumbag hit on Raanta. And of course star player... major reduced to a 2.
- Pags

Maybe I'm nuts, but I rewatched that a few times. He's out of the crease, so is that really interference? I don't think it was a scumbag play. I think he tried to block the clear and he misjudged.

Maybe I'm nuts, but I rewatched that a few times. He's out of the crease, so is that really interference? I don't think it was a scumbag play. I think he tried to block the clear and he misjudged.
- Rinosaur

I say scumbag because he wasn't pushed, wasn't leaned on at all, had plenty of room and time to simply take one step right and made no attempt, and hit Raanta hard enough in the head to draw blood despite the mask. Technically I don't believe it is interference by the rule book, but it gets called every time as such.

Yessss. Let the hate flow...

Went and looked it up, it IS a penalty even if the goalie is outside the crease -

69.2 Penalty - In all cases in which an attacking player initiates intentional
or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, whether or not the goalkeeper
is inside or outside the goal crease, and whether or not a goal is
scored, the attacking player will receive a penalty (minor or major, as
the Referee deems appropriate). In all cases where the infraction
being imposed is to the attacking player for hindering the goalkeeper’s
ability to move freely in his goal crease, the penalty to be assessed is
for goalkeeper interference.
In exercising his judgment, the Referee should give more
significant consideration to the degree and nature of the contact with
the goalkeeper than to the exact location of the goalkeeper at the time
of the contact.

Went and looked it up, it IS a penalty even if the goalie is outside the crease -

69.2 Penalty - In all cases in which an attacking player initiates intentional
or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, whether or not the goalkeeper
is inside or outside the goal crease, and whether or not a goal is
scored, the attacking player will receive a penalty (minor or major, as
the Referee deems appropriate). In all cases where the infraction
being imposed is to the attacking player for hindering the goalkeeper’s
ability to move freely in his goal crease, the penalty to be assessed is
for goalkeeper interference.
In exercising his judgment, the Referee should give more
significant consideration to the degree and nature of the contact with
the goalkeeper than to the exact location of the goalkeeper at the time
of the contact.
- Pags

I think the trapezoid is the exception though, right?

Also, I thought in the case of goalie interference when a goal is scored, if the goalie was outside the crease, won't the goal count?

I think the trapezoid is the exception though, right?

Also, I thought in the case of goalie interference when a goal is scored, if the goalie was outside the crease, won't the goal count?
- Rinosaur

Honestly, I have zero clue lol. Rules looks to be absolute as written, but makes no mention of the out the refs use all the time, incidental contact...no goal, no penalty. Like most penalties, it seems to be up to what the refs feel like calling at the moment, rather than a real rule.