Krams
Registered User
- Feb 13, 2012
- 8,042
- 1,982
Thank you.I believe he means that their numbers must remain the same.
Fast and the 90 million times he's had to change his number were only because the team made him do it.What does he mean that veterans can't change their numbers?
Why did he have to switch from 91?Fast and the 90 million times he's had to change his number were only because the team made him do it.
Fast and the 90 million times he's had to change his number were only because the team made him do it.
Why did he have to switch from 91?
Is this the Rangers' rule? The league's? Is it new? I have questions.
17 is low-key sniperish."Son you're not a sniper, change your name to something more on brand."
17 is low-key sniperish.
Did not get that vibe from Dubinsky at allTo me 17 feels like responsible two-way forward who will take your daughter out to dinner and bring her back before curfew.
Huge mistake not to sign M Stone for at or slightly above 700 k. He had interest but management balked. Oh well, like Drury said...
Peer pressure, Tony D
I mean, @Fitzy, if they think this, isn’t it a pretty good sign they don’t understand the material and therefore deserve a shit grade?Which is honestly 99% about politics, and is ridiculous either way.
I have students each year who legitimately think Stalin did no wrong, doesn't mean I give them **** grades for no reason.
He's Mike f***in Stone that's how.Mike Stone doesn't score much himself, has had under a 50 CF% six years in a row (excluding this past season where he played 14 games - and also bad relative to team numbers), and has also been a below 50% GF% player every year of his career outside of his rookie season. He doesn't play on the PP, doesn't get heavy defensive usage and has awful penalty killing results. How is this a big deal?
@BBKers, if this is correct, this is a big miss. Stone, when healthy, is a good hockey player. This really surprises me. He would have made a lot of sense for the Rangers.