Dylan

@the_habitant Respectfully, Eklund is an established NHL producer and top 6 winger. Reinbacher is not that level yet and is not a sure thing. Gotta be more on the Montreal side of that, it's not a 1 for 1

Eklund for Reinbacher then trade for a 2C Slaf-Suzuki-Caufield Eklund-X-Demidov Newhook-Danault-Hage Bolduc-Dach-Anderson Hutson-Dobson Guhle-X Matheson-Carrier Dobes Fowler

@RinksideGeneral As a Sharks fan I agree lol. You still pick in the top 5 AND you get a norris trophy winning right shot D, who's still in his 20's?...

Look at these comments. Adam Fox is officially the most underrated player in the NHL. How are Sharks fans complaining about a scenario where they somehow got both Adam Fox AND Carson Carels?!

@S_Williams_Jr @_nhlsharks Well Adam Fox is a Norris trophy winning right shot defenseman still in his 20s, even if Stenberg becomes a superstar its fine. Also you still pick in the top 5 even after acquiring a #1 right shot D in his prime.

@_nhlsharks I would take out #19/20. I think I might do it too. The problem is the haul has to be so much that even if Stenberg becomes a superstar —- people don’t question the trade.

Idk I’m probably in the minority but I would do this

@2MINIHULK I’d do it without #19

All of us.

@CofRedCentral Probably why a trade for #2 doesn't make sense. Flames need to keep Parekh and Sharks need elite D prospect(s)

@deku_dude Yeah I don’t know, i think Parekh has to be the one untouchable here

Another thought I just had. We’re on the right track with San Jose, but I wonder if there’s a different play here… To SJ: #6 overall, NYR 2nd round pick, Zach Whitecloud To CGY: Micheal Misa SJ can take Malhotra at 2 to replace the C spot, still take a Dman at 6.

@grok @CofRedCentral Try again @grok

@deku_dude @CofRedCentral Ask Grok is currently available to Premium and Premium+ subscribers only. Subscribe to unlock this feature: x.com/i/premium_sign…

@CofRedCentral @grok based on historical trades for #1 or #2 or #3 picks, what could a trade look like where the sharks give the Calgary Flames #2 in the 2026 NHL draft?

@CofRedCentral No idea but as a fan I'd feel fine about #2 for Parekh + #6. I'm interested to look back at the last time a #1 or #2 was traded and what the return was

@ibamboozIe hello Mike Grier please pick up the phone

Reasons to trade Harley: - He will never get #1 minutes with Miro on the team - He is at best a 50 pt 2nd pair dman at best with Miro on the team - He is making #1 dman money (10.6M) - His NMC does not kick in for a few more years - We need cap space for Robo this year (1/2)

@WarcraftYax This is really cool, when can I use this? will it be supported for all specs? How will it stay up to date with the proper rotation? Wowanalyzer still isn't properly updated for many classes

Made good progress on this! An extra "Ice Lance Usage" video tab that lets me jump straight to the 3 casts where I didn't have 6 Freezing stacks when I cast Ice Lance. What do you think - were these miscasts acceptable? 🙈

@williams_c33 @Crumplyelephant @bleauliner @NHLPA Well I'm just making a point that the definition is rather vague, and there's already an MVP trophy. So I suspect the players might have seen Celebrini's season as more "outstanding" in so far that he did it as a teenager. No argument that MacKinnon was more dominant

@deku_dude @Crumplyelephant @bleauliner @NHLPA How do you define "Most Outstanding"? I know I laid it out, I said what I said, and nothing's changed. I think the players dropped the ball a bit, maybe jealous MacKinnon plays on a great team.

so i guess if the avs are too good for mackinnon to win awards but the oilers arent that means the voters think necas and makar are better than draisaitl and bouchard. that’s just math

I think you should check the definition of the award. Most "Oustanding" player as voted by their peers. Oustanding could mean "exceptionally good" in which case its basically a 2nd Hart, or it can mean "Stand-out" as in prominent or noteworthy. Players probably voted it as a mix of the two tbh

@Crumplyelephant @bleauliner They know what? MacKinnon is the leading goal scorer and 3rd in points? That he's by far ahead of all others in +/-? That, unlike the 3 finalists, MacKinnon won over 50% of his faceoffs? That he led his team to the best record and it wasn't close? @NHLPA bungled this one.

@AVSFanOnly @citchmook You're right... so he should get more votes for MVP, not the ted lindsay

@citchmook I love the drool-cup-carrying “he is on an amazing team” argument against Nate from the same people who would never penalize Jordan for being part of the best franchise of the 90s (even if when he wasn’t on the roster). Nate is the unquestionable MVP this season.

Truly odd how the guy that leads the league in both even strength goals and points isn't one of the favorites for the Ted Lindsay award.

Its voted by the players, and the description is pretty vague. "most outstanding player". 1. I doubt the players are getting into the nitty gritty details or just going on points. 2. "oustanding".. a 19 year old having the season that mack did could be seen as the most "oustanding" (stand-out) season. Doesn't mean the "best". Obviously Nate scored more points and was more dominant

I don't get arguing about this award, its voted by the players. They're not looking at the stats to vote, they're most likely 100% feels based. Its their award to vote for their peers, the description is very broad. Everyone knows MacKinnon technically had a better season, but he's also in his prime and not a teenager

@NHLPA @FriedgeHNIC @TedLindsay07 Mackinnon had 12 more points than Celebrini and lead the league in goals 🤷‍♂️ Love Celebrini though

🏆 The players have spoken. Macklin Celebrini, Nikita Kucherov and Connor McDavid have been chosen by their peers as the 2025-26 #TedLindsayAward finalists: ply.rs/rmez14gihhd

I think he was probably ~60% sure it was in, didn't make the call in the moment because of his uncertainty, the refs gathered and he told them he thinks it was in but he's not 100% sure and they collectively decided to make that the on-ice call, right or wrong, it would get reviewed regardless. But yeah if people are mad about the on-ice call idk, anything that close is gonna have fans in an uproar no matter which way it was decided

@deku_dude @DownGoesBrown If he sees that puck in the net he’s skating towards the net while frantically pointing and the place goes insane. They review it and confirm his call. Instead, he was not sure and they guessed, or they waited and watched the *inconclusive* jumbotron replay.

This such a weird “controversy”. The puck is in. This look is conclusive. You don’t have to see the whole puck; that would be ridiculous. We all know what shape a puck is. This one is over the line. I hate replay more than just about anyone, but it worked perfectly here.

@rzitup @KevinMcCurdy Here's a clearer picture of that to use

@KevinMcCurdy Your entire argument is void

I haven't commented on this until now. "Logic" all of a sudden enters the equation as a valid means for calling goals "good", despite overwhelming history to the contrary. Some simple facts from this goal: - No official was in position to make this call on the ice, it should have been ruled no goal on the ice. That's just the facts. No ref was below the hash marks or anywhere close enough to conclusively call it in. No signal was made to this effect. Positioning failure should not result in one team being effectively penalized for that. - When such cases are ruled no goal on the ice, you need overwhelming conclusive evidence the puck completely crossed the line. Last I checked AI removals of objects and drawing circles around the puck aren't part of the situation rooms process. - If the league has a additional view that was used in this decision, that should be publicized. - It is my opinion that this puck completely crossed the line, but based on how these calls have historically gone, the process that has been used until now was tossed in the trashcan. So while the calls result is ultimately what we want from the on-ice product, the process that has been used up until now was completely thrown out the window. The league has a bit of soul-searching to do here and I believe this is a reasonable point to be perturbed with from the Oilers perspective. You can get the call right, and the process wrong, which means they need to change the process. Changing it on game 86 of the season is not the time.

@mattlabelle Can you say with 100% certainty this guy didn't have a view? Seems like he did and told the other refs, ergo the call on the ice.

Re: Oilers/Ducks controversy. The ruling on the ice should’ve been “no goal” No ref saw the puck cross the line in real time. Therefore, the replay review *should’ve* been to prove it crossed the line. There’s no clear view of the full puck and therefore should’ve been no goal.