Around the NHL 2023-24 - offseason part II

[Bad Goalie]

Doesn't NJ have a vehicular homicide charge for killing someone when driving drunk. In my neck of NY he would get charged with 2 counts of vehicular homicide. He openly confessed to the whole thing.

 

[BurntToast]

My brother-in-law died 7 years ago in June, he was only 33. He died 5 days before my son was born and only two months after his wedding. It was a core memory that changed everyone’s lives.

This tragic news hits close to home. I’m just gutted. There are too many factors that magnifies the severity of this situation. 2 brothers dead, a day before their sister’s wedding. Both leaving behind wives and young children, (Matt’s wife is pregnant) and the Blues losing another key player in such a tragic manner. RIP.

 

[ruaware41]

I think there is a subtle recognition by the criminal process that the states have decided to allow alcohol to be quite widespread and that prosecuting otherwise ordinary people for alcohol offenses sort of spotlights the hypocrisy of the system. The federal government has slowly started regulating cigarettes out of existence but have not taken that approach with alcohol and has actually gone thr other way with alcohol ads everywhere.

Unfortunately, alcohol is a so accepted and normal in our society that the people who choose to completely abstain from it are sometimes ridiculed for it or treated like lesser individuals.

Basically it's treated as normal, and if you don't partake in it you're not normal! Sometimes those who have kicked it and gotten sober are treated as exceptions.

just be 21 and don't drive after consuming it! That's how it's marketed. However, if you're over the age of 21 and you don't drink? WHAT THE f*** IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT THE f*** KIND OF PERSON ARE YOU?!

Now, not everybody acts like this toward teetotal people. My last example was a very extreme and rare one. I've always thought it was weird growing up in an era where something like marijuana was demonized (it's not anymore) and alcohol was just so accepted. Alcohol has ruined many more lives than marijuana. I'm not even saying this from a pro-weed standpoint, as I don't partake in that either and haven't since I was 14. It's just always made me laugh how weed was taboo for so many years, but alcohol hasn't been since the prohibition days long before us or shortly after that. And there's always been ''A glass of wine every day with dinner is healthy!'' thing, which I saw a claim recently that this was debunked, which I'm not sure if it's legit or not.

Leafs fan here…. I resonate with what you are saying… There is a lot of hypocrisy in alcohol laws and even in people who complain about drunk driving. As someone who has drank my fair share in school I also realize the hypocrisy in my take on this but I’d rather be a hypocrite on this and correct rather than continue to be wrong to not be a hypocrite, I guess.

We live in a society that glorifies alcohol. We live in a society where alcohol is a very significant part of society. We also live in a society where driving is a very significant part of society. To think there would be no overlap is very stupid. Even the laws confess that they do not want to even try to eliminate drinking and driving. There is a reason the BAC limit is 0.08! No it’s not because certain medications have alcohol so it can’t be 0 – none of those medications make your BAC limit the equivalent to having had a few beers.

The laws openly confess that they want people who have begun the process to become inebriated to make a decision on whether they are inebriated enough to drive. How f***ing stupid do you have to be to think this is a good idea? As if alcohol helps you make good judgements on your sobriety? Maybe it doesn’t hinder your judgement but there’s 10s of millions of people who are swaying in front of the bartender and telling everyone else they are still sober. Like it is some sort of challenge. I’ve done that myself. Effectively we are asking drunk people to make an arbitrary assessment. We do not tell people how many drinks they can have in drivers ed before they are drunk based on their height and weight. The average person doesn’t go on google to determine how much they can drink and be able to drive.

But you propose – hey the drinking limit should be 0 + only whatever amount accounts for prescription drugs/non-intentional miniscule consumption of alcohol and no more for you to be able to drive – and what do you get? A bunch of drug addicted morons saying that is impractical and they don’t want to give up their compulsive desire to have a drink at a get together before going on a drive. These are the same people I’m sure who will come here and bitch about drunk driving.

There is a degree of hypocrisy to partake and encourage the activities of both driving and drinking on a large scale as well as encourage the idea that people after drinking must have the right to make an assessment on their soberiety before driving and then also turn around and start whining when the inevitable happens. This driver is a real piece of shit person – I don’t see American society banning alcohol but maybe we can have a limit of 0.03 or 0.02 and give extremely tough penalties for drunk driving – oh but then the economy will crash if too many people are restricted from driving and the auto industry will suffer. It’s contradictions and hypocrisies everywhere. As a society we have utterly failed any workable solution on a large scale because we can’t put the liquor down.

Edit: To try and make this a little positive, after this I have decided to make the intention to never drink again in my life. I would encourage anyone past the age of 25 to actually think about how their life over the course of and after the next 5 years will be better with alcohol in it as opposed to without it. Nothing will change the sadness of this story or the reality of it but maybe we can try to influence positive change moving forward. If you don’t feel like you can have fun without a drug you are limiting your human experience and should consider addressing the root cause. There is only damage to your health that will occur from drinking any amount of alcohol in life.

 

[My3Sons]

Leafs fan here…. I resonate with what you are saying… There is a lot of hypocrisy in alcohol laws and even in people who complain about drunk driving. As someone who has drank my fair share in school I also realize the hypocrisy in my take on this but I’d rather be a hypocrite on this and correct rather than continue to be wrong to not be a hypocrite, I guess.

We live in a society that glorifies alcohol. We live in a society where alcohol is a very significant part of society. We also live in a society where driving is a very significant part of society. To think there would be no overlap is very stupid. Even the laws confess that they do not want to even try to eliminate drinking and driving. There is a reason the BAC limit is 0.08! No it’s not because certain medications have alcohol so it can’t be 0 – none of those medications make your BAC limit the equivalent to having had a few beers.

The laws openly confess that they want people who have begun the process to become inebriated to make a decision on whether they are inebriated enough to drive. How f***ing stupid do you have to be to think this is a good idea? As if alcohol helps you make good judgements on your sobriety? Maybe it doesn’t hinder your judgement but there’s 10s of millions of people who are swaying in front of the bartender and telling everyone else they are still sober. Like it is some sort of challenge. I’ve done that myself. Effectively we are asking drunk people to make an arbitrary assessment. We do not tell people how many drinks they can have in drivers ed before they are drunk based on their height and weight. The average person doesn’t go on google to determine how much they can drink and be able to drive.

But you propose – hey the drinking limit should be 0 + only whatever amount accounts for prescription drugs/non-intentional miniscule consumption of alcohol and no more for you to be able to drive – and what do you get? A bunch of drug addicted morons saying that is impractical and they don’t want to give up their compulsive desire to have a drink at a get together before going on a drive. These are the same people I’m sure who will come here and bitch about drunk driving.

There is a degree of hypocrisy to partake and encourage the activities of both driving and drinking on a large scale as well as encourage the idea that people after drinking must have the right to make an assessment on their soberiety before driving and then also turn around and start whining when the inevitable happens. This driver is a real piece of shit person – I don’t see American society banning alcohol but maybe we can have a limit of 0.03 or 0.02 and give extremely tough penalties for drunk driving – oh but then the economy will crash if too many people are restricted from driving and the auto industry will suffer. It’s contradictions and hypocrisies everywhere. As a society we have utterly failed any workable solution on a large scale because we can’t put the liquor down.

Edit: To try and make this a little positive, after this I have decided to make the intention to never drink again in my life. I would encourage anyone past the age of 25 to actually think about how their life over the course of and after the next 5 years will be better with alcohol in it as opposed to without it. Nothing will change the sadness of this story or the reality of it but maybe we can try to influence positive change moving forward. If you don’t feel like you can have fun without a drug you are limiting your human experience and should consider addressing the root cause. There is only damage to your health that will occur from drinking any amount of alcohol in life.

The moderate use of alcohol is probably no worse for you than any number of other vices but people overdo it and it can become harmful in that context. The issue is that alcohol leads to excess as you’ve noted and the beer industry certainly makes being over served look glorious (at times). I don’t think the answer is complete abstinence. That suggests you are powerless. Have a couple of drinks but don’t drive or otherwise endanger yourself or others. To be fair thr overwhelming majority of people are able to be at least somewhat responsible.

 

[ruaware41]

The moderate use of alcohol is probably no worse for you than any number of other vices but people overdo it and it can become harmful in that context. The issue is that alcohol leads to excess as you’ve noted and the beer industry certainly makes being over served look glorious (at times). I don’t think the answer is complete abstinence. That suggests you are powerless. Have a couple of drinks but don’t drive or otherwise endanger yourself or others. To be fair thr overwhelming majority of people are able to be at least somewhat responsible.

There’s nothing positive that ever comes from alcohol than without on a long term especially after a certain age and definitely not on a societal scale. People will not want to admit this because this one drug is socially acceptable. Sure you could deem the effects of moderate consumption immaterial but that’s a different story. Other vices don’t usually result in a hangover the next day off setting any positive emotions you felt and at least don’t compromise your sobriety or ability to drive, or tend to increase the likelihood of violence against one’s spouse. You could make an argument against junk food based on health but usually it doesn’t affect your ability to drive a car. The thing is a meth addict will say the same thing about complete abstinence making them feel powerless and they probably would have a point. So would the tons of people who do crack and otherwise live productive lives. Same with people who occasionally do fentanyl. But because you and I have been societally conditioned to this one particular drug the idea of complete abstinence sounds like it is being powerless rather than just not dependent on a drug. Why is your argument, legality aside, any different if you replace alcohol with a wide wide list of other drugs?

I guess it also depends if you are looking at it from an individual perspective or a societal perspective. Sure, you might be wise/unselfish enough to not drive without driving or endangering others, but on a mass scale too many people are not and hence we breed a culture where these deaths are inevitable but as a society we painfully just accept this as a consequence to our “freedoms”.

 

[Satans Hockey]

The moderate use of alcohol is probably no worse for you than any number of other vices but people overdo it and it can become harmful in that context. The issue is that alcohol leads to excess as you’ve noted and the beer industry certainly makes being over served look glorious (at times). I don’t think the answer is complete abstinence. That suggests you are powerless. Have a couple of drinks but don’t drive or otherwise endanger yourself or others. To be fair thr overwhelming majority of people are able to be at least somewhat responsible.

Agreed. Plus if it's not alcohol it's something else, there's tons of shit that is bad for you, basically anything fast food wise and so much garbage food that's in your local stores.

Personally I don't drink at Devils games cause I always drive and I'm never spending $18 on a tall boy at the arena anyway even if I wasn't driving. I really only drink when I'm on vacation where I'm not driving or a big party when I'm not driving.

There's nothing wrong with having some drinks here and there as long as you act like a responsible human being. Which like you said, the majority of people do. It's the small minority of people who ruin shit for the rest of us as usual.

 

[Camille the Eel]

Leafs fan here…. I resonate with what you are saying… There is a lot of hypocrisy in alcohol laws and even in people who complain about drunk driving. As someone who has drank my fair share in school I also realize the hypocrisy in my take on this but I’d rather be a hypocrite on this and correct rather than continue to be wrong to not be a hypocrite, I guess.

We live in a society that glorifies alcohol. We live in a society where alcohol is a very significant part of society. We also live in a society where driving is a very significant part of society. To think there would be no overlap is very stupid. Even the laws confess that they do not want to even try to eliminate drinking and driving. There is a reason the BAC limit is 0.08! No it’s not because certain medications have alcohol so it can’t be 0 – none of those medications make your BAC limit the equivalent to having had a few beers.

The laws openly confess that they want people who have begun the process to become inebriated to make a decision on whether they are inebriated enough to drive. How f***ing stupid do you have to be to think this is a good idea? As if alcohol helps you make good judgements on your sobriety? Maybe it doesn’t hinder your judgement but there’s 10s of millions of people who are swaying in front of the bartender and telling everyone else they are still sober. Like it is some sort of challenge. I’ve done that myself. Effectively we are asking drunk people to make an arbitrary assessment. We do not tell people how many drinks they can have in drivers ed before they are drunk based on their height and weight. The average person doesn’t go on google to determine how much they can drink and be able to drive.

But you propose – hey the drinking limit should be 0 + only whatever amount accounts for prescription drugs/non-intentional miniscule consumption of alcohol and no more for you to be able to drive – and what do you get? A bunch of drug addicted morons saying that is impractical and they don’t want to give up their compulsive desire to have a drink at a get together before going on a drive. These are the same people I’m sure who will come here and bitch about drunk driving.

There is a degree of hypocrisy to partake and encourage the activities of both driving and drinking on a large scale as well as encourage the idea that people after drinking must have the right to make an assessment on their soberiety before driving and then also turn around and start whining when the inevitable happens. This driver is a real piece of shit person – I don’t see American society banning alcohol but maybe we can have a limit of 0.03 or 0.02 and give extremely tough penalties for drunk driving – oh but then the economy will crash if too many people are restricted from driving and the auto industry will suffer. It’s contradictions and hypocrisies everywhere. As a society we have utterly failed any workable solution on a large scale because we can’t put the liquor down.

Edit: To try and make this a little positive, after this I have decided to make the intention to never drink again in my life. I would encourage anyone past the age of 25 to actually think about how their life over the course of and after the next 5 years will be better with alcohol in it as opposed to without it. Nothing will change the sadness of this story or the reality of it but maybe we can try to influence positive change moving forward. If you don’t feel like you can have fun without a drug you are limiting your human experience and should consider addressing the root cause. There is only damage to your health that will occur from drinking any amount of alcohol in life.

The technology exists for automobiles to disable themselves if the driver has any detectable alcohol in their system. We could approach the problem that way. As you noted, it’s politically a very difficult proposition.

 

[Camille the Eel]

The moderate use of alcohol is probably no worse for you than any number of other vices but people overdo it and it can become harmful in that context. The issue is that alcohol leads to excess as you’ve noted and the beer industry certainly makes being over served look glorious (at times). I don’t think the answer is complete abstinence. That suggests you are powerless. Have a couple of drinks but don’t drive or otherwise endanger yourself or others. To be fair thr overwhelming majority of people are able to be at least somewhat responsible.

I suggested above that the tech exists to disable cars when the driver exhibits detectable alcohol. I doubt it’s politically viable to employ it and also I wonder what such an AI world would feel like to live in.

The driver here also seems have been operating very aggressively and that’s also not exactly rare on the highway. In making a long drive I generally run into a couple of incidents a day where someone does something so crazily aggressive in weaving through traffic at high speeds or a couple of cars racing in traffic that I shake my head thinking “somebody’s going to get killed by this guy” and fantasize about calling in a report. But they’re long gone and you don’t have their plate number, nor do the cops have the resources to pursue such reports.

I don’t know how you police that either. There are some horribly irresponsible people around. In the US, with our aversion to rules, I don’t think we have the will to get alcohol completely off the road or to get the real assholes off the road either, supposing we could identify them (which we could in many cases - those who are habitually reckless).

Still very sad about this event. Just a terrible thing.

 

[Patrik26]

This Higgins guy looks like every ass hole I see behind the wheel of a truck/SUV swerving around recklessly without any thought to others on the road. He has that look.

'Merica. You know?

 

[Patrik26]

The technology exists for automobiles to disable themselves if the driver has any detectable alcohol in their system. We could approach the problem that way. As you noted, it’s politically a very difficult proposition.

The extremist ruination of this country. BOTH sides.

 

[SteveCangialosi123]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1829863568931430732

Interesting

 

[Lou is God]

Honestly reading the State Police report, the perp seems like he might be slow. He straight up admits EVERYTHING he did wrong, admitting fault, drinking, how many drinks he had, what led and caused the accident, and that alcohol directly caused his actions. But then you see him at the court hearing and he's upset about having to be in jail for another week and not understanding probably for the foreseeable future. Something just seems off.

He might not be a local or hockey fan and the minute he got arrested was probably cut off from the real world, I wonder if he has any idea the news story that this is since his phone was confiscated and it sounded like he has not talked to anyone outside his jail cell.

 

[Saugus]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1829863568931430732

Interesting

Might bode well for Mercer’s next contract after we bridge him this summer.

 

[Satans Hockey]

He might not be a local or hockey fan and the minute he got arrested was probably cut off from the real world, I wonder if he has any idea the news story that this is since his phone was confiscated and it sounded like he has not talked to anyone outside his jail cell.

You're probably right that unless someone told him he has no idea and he didn't even talk to anyone yet to get his own lawyer. Considering most people would have no clue who Johnny is unless you're a hockey fan it's definitely a strong possibility.

 

[Guadana]

Mercer has the same amount of goals and only 15 points away from Jarvis. Played more games 246\231. Still its a huge argument for asking more. He isnt close to the impact Jarvis did. But he has arguments. Hope Devils will bridge him short term. It will help for both sides.

 

[Zajacs Bowl Cut]

can someone explain how Jarvis' contract isn't a form of cap circumvention? is it just because no one has really agreed to the deferred money until now?

 

[MasterofGrond]

can someone explain how Jarvis' contract isn't a form of cap circumvention? is it just because no one has really agreed to the deferred money until now?

Because it's not actually cap circumvention, if I'm reading the CBA correctly. You're deferring payment, but the cap hit is carried in the year the services to earn the money are performed, at a decreased number based on LIBOR. Works the same in baseball.

It lowers the cap hit, but only because getting paid (say) $1M today is much more valuable than getting paid $1M 9 years from now.

 

[Hockey Sports Fan]

I’m a day late but i can’t get over the Gaudreau thing. So horrible, so preventable, so senseless… as someone who spends a lot of time on the road, it’s been crazy to watch our slow descent into madness on the highways. It’s never been great, and like 95% of drivers or more are just trying to get somewhere safely, but it only takes one person who has no interest in anything but themselves to change the world for the worse forever. This isn’t a complaint and hockey is way down the list of most important things in life but it’s hard not to feel like this is gonna be a cloud over the entire season, and probably beyond.

 

[Camille the Eel]

Mercer has the same amount of goals and only 15 points away from Jarvis. Played more games 246\231. Still its a huge argument for asking more. He isnt close to the impact Jarvis did. But he has arguments. Hope Devils will bridge him short term. It will help for both sides.

Yes. This makes Mercer harder to sign long term. The bridge deal is now a more interesting option. Let him walk in Bratt’s shoes and bet on himself.

 

[Devils731]

Because it's not actually cap circumvention, if I'm reading the CBA correctly. You're deferring payment, but the cap hit is carried in the year the services to earn the money are performed, at a decreased number based on LIBOR. Works the same in baseball.

It lowers the cap hit, but only because getting paid (say) $1M today is much more valuable than getting paid $1M 9 years from now.

The league should still void this contract, imo, even if from a value perspective the cap is fairly reflecting the contract, imo. Alternatively, the league and NHLPA could accept this contract but set strict rules on deferred payments going forward so that it always stays fairly minor.

The league, players, and fans don’t want more financial engineering discussions, it’s interesting but overall detracts the regular fans enjoyment by creating barriers to understanding. Eventually if this stands someone will go with a 40 year deferred payment style contract and fans will think it’s cheating, even if the value is fair from a math perspective.

 

[MasterofGrond]

The league should still void this contract, imo, even if from a value perspective the cap is fairly reflecting the contract, imo. Alternatively, the league and NHLPA could accept this contract but set strict rules on deferred payments going forward so that it always stays fairly minor.

The league, players, and fans don’t want more financial engineering discussions, it’s interesting but overall detracts the regular fans enjoyment by creating barriers to understanding. Eventually if this stands someone will go with a 40 year deferred payment style contract and fans will think it’s cheating, even if the value is fair from a math perspective.

well they can’t, because the language literally exists in the CBA.

If you want this removed as an option, sure, I do think it’s complex and unnecessary, broadly speaking, and its real advantage is as a player tax dodge. But that’s a next CBA thing, pretty sure there’s no legal standing to disallow this one as written

 

[Darkauron]

Yeah other teams have already done these kinds of deferred contract stuff. No one can do anything until the CBA is changed

 

[Guadana]

Yes. This makes Mercer harder to sign long term. The bridge deal is now a more interesting option. Let him walk in Bratt’s shoes and bet on himself.

Mercer isnt proven enough to give him more than 5.6+ long term. But in the modern market he has all ofthe rights to ask 6.5+ long term. I believe bridge him as long as we can would be ideal because even if he will peak, I dont think he will be good enough to ask really much. Especially in the next few years. And if he will develop drammatically - its not a huge problem. But for the next few years I dont think he is 80+ points player to think about sign him for "more now, later it will be cheaper". I dont think its the case.

 

[Devils731]

well they can’t, because the language literally exists in the CBA.

If you want this removed as an option, sure, I do think it’s complex and unnecessary, broadly speaking, and its real advantage is as a player tax dodge. But that’s a next CBA thing, pretty sure there’s no legal standing to disallow this one as written

Once they get large enough you can challenge it under the “good of the league” in the same way the Kovy contract was challenged.

If the deferred payments get silly the league will have to step in, in the same way they did before when nothing violated any specific rule in the CBA.

Better to discuss it earlier, add an addendum to the CBA, and avoid a voided contract in the future.

Yeah other teams have already done these kinds of deferred contract stuff. No one can do anything until the CBA is changed

That’s what people said when they incorrectly thought Kovy’s contract couldn’t be voided.

The league has broad authority to void things designed to manipulate cap hits. Even if they aren’t violating any specific rule.

 

[TheUnseenHand]

What happened to the "Spirit of the CBA"? Doesn't that allow the league to do whatever the hell it wants ultimately?