Stevie Yzerman leading charge to ban fighting

[yave1964]

   Stevie Yzerman General manager of the Tampa Bay Lightning is pushing for an end to fighting in Hockey.

  "In all other major sports fighting leads to at the least an automatic ejection if not potential for suspension. In Hockey it leads to a five minute penalty." he was quoted in the local Tampa paper as saying.

 

   OK. I loved Stevie as a player, no player in the game gave as much as he did over the past few years of his career, bone on bone for his knees having to work out for hours before and after games just to be able to play the game, he left it all on the ice and was THE Captain of the Red Wings, and he was the guy I hoped would replace Kenny Holland when Holland retired or was finally pushed/nudged out of the door. But I gotta tell ya, I feel Stevie is wrong as can be here.

  The Code has been in effect since the early days, in one form or another. Fighting has always been a part of the game and is a big part of enforcement of the rules, both written and unwritten. Fighting in Hockey is now and always has been and hopefully always will be a part of the game.

  I cannot stand goons, the Colton Orr Mike Brown type of players. Waste of a roster spot to me. But players like David Clarkson who can punch in 25-30 goals and drop the gloves have always been a favorite of mine.

  So lets throw a hypothetical,:

  Your club, lets call them the Flyers for lack of a better game is playing the Wings. Lets say Giroux is crossing the Blue line and gets destroyed by my favorite player in the game, lets call him Nick Kronwall. Absolutely crushed, maybe clean maybe a bit dirty and Giroux does not know who or where he is. The ref sees nothing wrong and no penalty is even called.

  Under the current system Rinaldo would watch his minutes go from ten in a typical game to being the clubs most active forward, a heat seeking missile looking for anything in an opposing jersey to hit, especially going for the skill players to even up the hit on Giroux, at least until someone for the Wings finally said, fine, it is evened up, someone like Brendan Smith or Tootoo  fought Rinaldo and both teams called it even. The game might be chippy but the message would be sent, Zetterberg or Datsyuk would be a little worse for wear and there might be bad blood but the Flyers would answer the bell and the message sent.

  Under the rule with no fighting it would be: Kronner destroys Giroux. Rinaldo hits everything that moves until he has either cost his team the game by living in the penalty box or until Tootoo and he fight and get ejected, leaving the Flyers TWO forwards down for the remainder of the game.

 

  I think it is a terrible idea. The instigator rule killed a lot of the goons, it also gave liberties to cheap shot artists that they never had. Guys like Matt Cooke and to a lesser extent Kronwall know they can do whatever the hell they want and face little retaliation. Take fighting out completely and the dirty stuff will become more prevalent. Fighting for the sake of fighting, the Orr and Brown types does little for me but fighting within the context of the game, to even things up or to give your team a spark should be left the hell alone. Taking it out of the game actually will cause more reckless play.

[Polaris922]

I agree there has to be room for players to police themselves.  You can't do that if you're getting suspended and hurting your team in the long run.  The ONLY way it works is if the rules are enforced more consistently with greater penalties for going off the reservation.  Until that happens, and we're a long way from that, the fighting has to remain.  

[TretiakCCCP20]

@yave1964 I agree 110%. Fighting is part of the game and always should be. The NHL doesn't have enough fans to ban fighting and still keep them around. Everybody in management positions in the NHL is trying to figure out how to make the game more popular yet they want to ban fighting? Absurd! The NHL will lose a lot of fans if they ban fighting. It sells tickets and the fans love it. Like it or not it sells the game of hockey. This is just another moral crusade put on by the NHL higher ups in order to take their attention away from other more pressing matters. In the end, if this goes through hockey will sink in popularity. I respect Yzerman, but this idea I cannot agree with. I think it's a terrible idea and as you said Yave it will lead to more reckless play as well as a giant dip in attendance and popularity in the sport.

[Polaris922]

I've never met anyone who said "I'd watch hockey but can't stand the fighting" that I felt would really watch the game.  The two I can remember were both posers who never had the interest and are bandwagon fans already in other sports.  Not the loyal types anyway.

[Habsterix]

The day that the NHL bans fighting, it will be a sad day. It would once again go against what fans want and when you keep on doing that, you are dangerously playing with fire.

[hf101]

I'd have no problem watching hockey if fights were few and far between, for the most part imo,fights are mostly just a sideshow and they interrupt the flow of a game.  Removing players such as Rosehill, Parros, Orr, wouldn't stop me from watching one less minute of hockey.

 

@TretiakCCCP20

For the fans who only watch hockey for fights really should leave the game.  Seriously there are fans who only watch hockey for the possibility of a 30 second meaningless fight?  Fights are not that common in the playoffs as the goons of the league take to the booths upstairs.  Most of these games are sellouts -  I don't see fans sitting home because their favorite enforcer is made irrelevant.

 

@yave1964

 

 

Lets say Giroux is crossing the Blue line and gets destroyed by my favorite player in the game, lets call him Nick Kronwall. Absolutely crushed, maybe clean maybe a bit dirty and Giroux does not know who or where he is. The ref sees nothing wrong and no penalty is even called.

 

So you are saying a matchup of enforcers here where they both go off with 5min penalties evena this up?  How?

After a 15 sec fight - two nobodies are in the box, and Giroux is still out for a few games?  What did that prove?

 

How does fighting prevent that from happening?  How has it stopped Kronwall from taking out Hossa or Voracek? 

 

I'm in favor of making fighting a game misconduct.  Let the players decide if a fight is really worth an early shower.  -- Then we will see fights that have meaning and have an actual consequence to teams chance of a W or L.

[Haliax]

There's a problem with making fighting a game misconduct in that you'll get coaches sending goons out to try and force star players to fight. You see it happen already with it being a 5 minute penalty. I think you'd also just see fighting put off until the end of games where a game misconduct doesn't make as much of an impact.

 

I think end game solution will be to ban fighting all together, just like any other team sport. 

Edited October 8, 2013 by Haliax

[goalnut3133]

Pretty much verbatim everything that @hf101 said above. There's nothing more frustrating to me sometimes when your team is in the opposing end about to make a play, or worse yet, a 3 on 2, or 2 on 1 rush up the ice, when everything is blown down cuz 2 idiots dropped their gloves & either it becomes a 'non-fight' or a meaningless one (to me, most are). Now, don't get me wrong, if it's someone like Marchand or Cooke, hell yah, I'd love nothing more for guys like that to get their faces pounded into dog meat. But at the same time, not at the expense of seeing one of your player's heads smashing into the ice. What cost is too great? Career-ending concussions? Near-death? Death? It may not happen often, but what will it take to change the rules or ban fighting? Or as usual, when changes need to be made, are they gonna wait til it's too late?

[Commander Clueless]

    So lets throw a hypothetical,:

  Your club, lets call them the Flyers for lack of a better game is playing the Wings. Lets say Giroux is crossing the Blue line and gets destroyed by my favorite player in the game, lets call him Nick Kronwall. Absolutely crushed, maybe clean maybe a bit dirty and Giroux does not know who or where he is. The ref sees nothing wrong and no penalty is even called.

  Under the current system Rinaldo would watch his minutes go from ten in a typical game to being the clubs most active forward, a heat seeking missile looking for anything in an opposing jersey to hit, especially going for the skill players to even up the hit on Giroux, at least until someone for the Wings finally said, fine, it is evened up, someone like Brendan Smith or Tootoo  fought Rinaldo and both teams called it even. The game might be chippy but the message would be sent, Zetterberg or Datsyuk would be a little worse for wear and there might be bad blood but the Flyers would answer the bell and the message sent.

  Under the rule with no fighting it would be: Kronner destroys Giroux. Rinaldo hits everything that moves until he has either cost his team the game by living in the penalty box or until Tootoo and he fight and get ejected, leaving the Flyers TWO forwards down for the remainder of the game.

 

I see what you did there. Sick burn! That's pretty harsh - kicking them while they are down!

 

Anyway, let me start off by saying that I find the fighting entertaining. I admit it. Call me a brutal savage if you like, but I find it fun, including the random meaningless fights (although less so than more "meaningful" fights).

 

However, I've always found that while fighting is a component of the game in a sense, it's more of a secondary thing that has little bearing on the actual game of hockey. While it is a part of the game and can certainly generate energy and momentum for one or both teams, I find that it's "true purpose" of enforcing the no cheap shot policy is overstated. If enforcers are required to keep a game from getting out of control and to keep players from cheap shotting each other, then to me that speaks more of the officiating (or lack thereof) in the game than it does about the necessity of fighting. Players shouldn't have to police themselves.

 

I will be disappointed if fighting is removed from the game. I will not stop watching hockey, but I will be disappointed.

[yave1964]

@hf101

What I am saying is the current system, even with the ridiculous instigator rule in place works. In the scenario above, Rinaldo would run Datsyuk and Zetterberg to voice the Flyers displeasure over the hit by Kronwall on Giroux, and it would end with a good old fashioned fight between the two teams, and end there.

  I cannot stand the instigator rule it allows cheap shot artists free reign without fear of retaliation because to do so sets your team up to be forced to play short handed or even short a man. Guys like Matt Cooke can go out and do their number and know they are free of personal retribution. Taking away fighting altogether would give those players even more of a free hand and IMHO would make the game more, not less violent with it being much more likely to end in personal injury to players. Allowing the players to police themselves has been part of the game since their was a game and needs to continue.

[J0e Th0rnton]

There's a problem with making fighting a game misconduct in that you'll get coaches sending goons out to try and force star players to fight. You see it happen already with it being a 5 minute penalty. I think you'd also just see fighting put off until the end of games where a game misconduct doesn't make as much of an impact.

 

I think end game solution will be to ban fighting all together, just like any other team sport. 

I used to hate this idea as a fan of Hockey before the old instigator rule, but I am kind of falling into this mindset now. Fighting no longer serves the purpose it once did, and is in fact usually a sideshow with enforcers fighting enforcers for no reason other than to fire the team up, or the targetting of star players by goons to get them off the ice.

[Habsterix]

How many of you saw Wayne Gretzky play for the Oilers? Do you know a guy by the name of Dave Semenko? Or I'm sure you've heard of Marty McSorley, right? I'm assuming that many of you know that it was Gretzky who asked Bruce McNall, then Kings' owner, to trade for McSorley back then, right? Yet, the fact is that if Gretzky managed to have such a long and successful career, it was because of guys who would impose respect. Players knew that they hit the Great One (let alone cheapshot him), there would be trouble.

 

So let's stop the excuses of "hating fights after a legal hit" crap. If your star player gets hit, someone better darn well jump and kick the crap out of the culprit who dared doing it... legal or not! As that's the guy who will make you win, or lose if he's hurt!

 

I fully agree with yave1964 about how dumb the instigator rule is, as we know it. Take fighting out of the game and I swear that this league will be infested by rats, as Brian Burke and Don Cherry have often said. The league has proven over, and over, and over again that it cannot regulate everything, Same goes for the referees on the ice as the refereeing is as bad as it's ever been since they've brought a second judgment on the ice after the lockout of 2005. How much proof does one need, really, to understand that the players need to be able to hold each other accountable for their action? There's no fighting in other sports? Fine, watch them! I do. But I love my NHL hockey more than the IIHF and part of it is the fighting aspect. Looking at pools on hockey forums, it seems like the majority of fans think that way as well.

 

So Yzerman, you want to ride on your high horse and forget how you managed to have a good career? You want to ignore your good buddy Bob Probert? I say to you: hypocrite!

[iban3z]

I spoke with a few NHL reps and they all came under the same consensus that before the league even considers the thought of removing fighting, a death would have to occur. 

[Jam1986]

Just remember best years hockey for me where late 80's-early 90's.  Brown,Miller,Nilan and Probert all played reg season.playoffs and cups. Remember that up and down hockey with big hits and rough times! Great Times! Stevie Y better remember that! Red Wings great team but they haven't one a cup in awhile most people say playoff time not tough enough.

[J0e Th0rnton]

How many of you saw Wayne Gretzky play for the Oilers? Do you know a guy by the name of Dave Semenko? Or I'm sure you've heard of Marty McSorley, right? I'm assuming that many of you know that it was Gretzky who asked Bruce McNall, then Kings' owner, to trade for McSorley back then, right? Yet, the fact is that if Gretzky managed to have such a long and successful career, it was because of guys who would impose respect. Players knew that they hit the Great One (let alone cheapshot him), there would be trouble.

 

So let's stop the excuses of "hating fights after a legal hit" crap. If your star player gets hit, someone better darn well jump and kick the crap out of the culprit who dared doing it... legal or not! As that's the guy who will make you win, or lose if he's hurt!

 

I fully agree with yave1964 about how dumb the instigator rule is, as we know it. Take fighting out of the game and I swear that this league will be infested by rats, as Brian Burke and Don Cherry have often said. The league has proven over, and over, and over again that it cannot regulate everything, Same goes for the referees on the ice as the refereeing is as bad as it's ever been since they've brought a second judgment on the ice after the lockout of 2005. How much proof does one need, really, to understand that the players need to be able to hold each other accountable for their action? There's no fighting in other sports? Fine, watch them! I do. But I love my NHL hockey more than the IIHF and part of it is the fighting aspect. Looking at pools on hockey forums, it seems like the majority of fans think that way as well.

 

So Yzerman, you want to ride on your high horse and forget how you managed to have a good career? You want to ignore your good buddy Bob Probert? I say to you: hypocrite!

Hey. I am with you Joce, but the way the wind is blowing......

 

The NHL seemed more concerned with image than the game when they put in that dumb instigator rule. it opened the door for a million Ulf Samuelsson's

[flyercanuck]

I'll say it again...I don't recall Stevie complaining about fighting when he had Bob Probert and Joey Kocur pounding the crap out of anyone who so much as looked at Yzerman when he was on the ice.

 

 There isn't fighting in other sports? Go figure. In football, they actually play a little over 5 minutes in a 3 hour span. How can you get mad over that? Most of these guys are trying to remember their choreographed showboat moves to contemplate fighting anyway. In baseball you stand in a field miles away from your opponent wearing sunglasses and chewing tobacco. Either that or you're sitting on a sofa eating burgers and drinking beer watching one guy on your team at bat. Basketball is the only other sport where you've got continuous contact over the duration of the game, and most of those guys don't know how to fight without knives and guns.

[hf101]

I'll get back eventually to respond to a few comments in this thread, but in the meantime....... I still think we will see game misconducts and eventually suspensions for fighting eventually. 

 

Someone mentioned above it won't happen until someone dies.  It really shouldn't come to that.
 

 

The United States Hockey League will hold a special meeting to review its rules regarding fighting after an 18-year-old player sustained a seizure during a fight on Saturday.

Dylan Chanter, a defenseman for the Dubuque Fighting Saints, hit his bare head on the ice during a fight in the second period and began convulsing for approximately two minutes. Paramedics were on the scene within 15 minutes of the incident and transported Chanter to a hospital. Fortunately, Chanter remained conscious and has already been released.

However, the incident has inspired league commissioner Skip Prince to call a meeting of the competition committee to evaluate the USHL's stance on fighting, via Jeff Z. Klein of the New York Times:

    "I'm convening a special meeting of our competition committee to see whether we're being too tolerant of fighting."

Fighting debates have grown more consistent in the wake of the incident involving Montreal Canadiens forward George Parros and calls for hockey leagues of all levels to ban fighting have grown louder as a result. Three NHL general managers expressed that fighting needs to be phased out, while the majority of players have expressed its importance in the game.

As Klein writes, college hockey punishes fighting by ejecting players and suspending them for one game. This could be a procedure adopted by the USHL in lieu of an outright ban.

 

 

 

 

source

[B21]

  So lets throw a hypothetical,:

  Your club, lets call them the Flyers for lack of a better game is playing the Wings. Lets say Giroux is crossing the Blue line and gets destroyed by my favorite player in the game, lets call him Nick Kronwall. Absolutely crushed, maybe clean maybe a bit dirty and Giroux does not know who or where he is. The ref sees nothing wrong and no penalty is even called.

  Under the current system Rinaldo would watch his minutes go from ten in a typical game to being the clubs most active forward, a heat seeking missile looking for anything in an opposing jersey to hit, especially going for the skill players to even up the hit on Giroux, at least until someone for the Wings finally said, fine, it is evened up, someone like Brendan Smith or Tootoo  fought Rinaldo and both teams called it even. The game might be chippy but the message would be sent, Zetterberg or Datsyuk would be a little worse for wear and there might be bad blood but the Flyers would answer the bell and the message sent.

  Under the rule with no fighting it would be: Kronner destroys Giroux. Rinaldo hits everything that moves until he has either cost his team the game by living in the penalty box or until Tootoo and he fight and get ejected, leaving the Flyers TWO forwards down for the remainder of the game.

 

  I think it is a terrible idea. The instigator rule killed a lot of the goons, it also gave liberties to cheap shot artists that they never had. Guys like Matt Cooke and to a lesser extent Kronwall know they can do whatever the hell they want and face little retaliation. Take fighting out completely and the dirty stuff will become more prevalent. Fighting for the sake of fighting, the Orr and Brown types does little for me but fighting within the context of the game, to even things up or to give your team a spark should be left the hell alone. Taking it out of the game actually will cause more reckless play.

 

OK, Yave. Devils advocate time.  Two of the biggest "pros" for fighting are it allows players to police themselves and prevents the opposition from taking liberties with a team's star player. So....

 

Why didn't the threat of having to fight himself or risk Rinaldo taking runs at Zetterberg and Datsyuk keep Kronwall from delivering the big hit on Giroux in the first place? (No "prevention".)

 

Is Rindaldo fighting Tootoo going to make Kronwall think twice about delivering a big hit on Stamkos when the Wings and Bolts play a few days later? We both know the answer to that one. (No real "repercussions".)

 

And in your example - we aren't even sure if the hit is clean or dirty.  Why should there be any repercussions if a big, hard, clean and legal hit is delivered?

 

Fighting is a dinosaur and the fighting in the NHL today isn't even fighting...it's WWE on ice.  It no longer serves the purpose it was intended to serve.

 

I'm convinced more than ever now that the only real deterrant is a nice long paycheckless suspension. Worked for Cooke. Worked for Torres. Too late for both but it worked. Maybe it works for Kaleta now (just got 10 games). If a team brings up some AHL scrub just for the purpse of taking out a player (ie - someone who doesn't care about a 50 game NHL suspension) then you come up with an appropriate punishment for the team.

 

Fighting deters nothing.  Another example...Cooke's hit on Savard. Cooke certaily knows that any hit like that will mean Boston taking runs at Crosby and/or him (Cooke) having to drop the gloves (he did with Thornton). No prevention. Very little repercussion.  Now if Matt Cooke knows that Player X just got 25 games for a similar hit a month earlier - think he still delivers the hit to Savard?

 

I'm not saying the NHL's discipline is perfect, either. Far from it. But they hold the key to what is by far the most effective deterrent.

[Habsterix]

OK, Yave. Devils advocate time.  Two of the biggest "pros" for fighting are it allows players to police themselves and prevents the opposition from taking liberties with a team's star player. So....

 

If someone claims that fighting "prevents" cheap shots from happening, they are mistaken. Prevent is the wrong word. Fighting DOES however bring accountability for rats' actions, as they know the risk they're taking. Preventing? No. Those who CHOOSE to do it KNOW the risk, with fighting involved. Take fighting out, they'll also KNOW that there will not be retribution on the ice. That's a huge risk. It does allow players to police themselves... somewhat as they've done a pretty good job (if we can call it that) at tying the players' hands with the instigator rule as we know it, the worst rule in hockey, in my humble opinion.

 

I truly hate using that line as it comes across as presumptuous, but it's a fact in this case: those who have played hockey at a level where fighting was allowed know about intimidation and its effect on a game, or on players' actions (and lack of there of) during a hockey game. It's not impossible to understand otherwise, it's just much harder to wrap your head around it and much easier to downplay its effect on a game when one hasn't experienced it for himself.

Edited October 16, 2013 by Habsterix

[B21]

@Habsterix

 

If someone claims that fighting "prevents" cheap shots from happening, they are mistaken. Prevent is the wrong word.

 

Agree. A point I made in my post. So if fighting doesn't prevent anything, what purpose does it serve?  I don't give a rats arse if Derek Engelland pummels Steve Downie into oblivion for slew footing Crosby. I want Downie not to slew foot Crosby because he doesn't want the beat down from Derek Engelland.  Problem is, 99% of guys in the NHL are not intimidated by having to drop the gloves.

 

Fighting DOES however bring accountability for rats' actions, as they know the risk they're taking. Preventing? No. Those who CHOOSE to do it KNOW the risk, with fighting involved. Take fighting out, they'll also KNOW that there will not be retribution on the ice. That's a huge risk. It does allow players to police themselves... somewhat as they've done a pretty good job (if we can call it that) at tying the players' hands with the instigator rule as we know it, the worst rule in hockey, in my humble opinion.

 

Accountability = repercussions.  Different way of saying the same thing.  Using Yave's example (don't mean to pick on you, Yave) - explain to me how Kronwall is held accountable by Rinaldo having to fight Tootoo?  Tootoo - who is not AT ALL shy about dropping the gloves - is going to go back to Kronwall and tell him NOT to make these borderline hits because he (Tootoo) is tired of having to fight the other team's designated pugilist? Really???  To say nothing of the fact that the alleged cheap shot was already made. The whole point of "accountability" is to keep these hits from happening in the first place and since all of this staged fighting is 1) bullshite and 2) intimidates NO ONE these kinds of hits will continue. The argument here is basically that two guys who are basically paid to fight are holding accountable the guy who delivered the alleged cheap shot by doing what they are paid to do.

 

I truly hate using that line as it comes across as presumptuous, but it's a fact in this case: those who have played hockey at a level where fighting was allowed know about intimidation and its effect on a game, or on players' actions (and lack of there of) during a hockey game. It's not impossible to understand otherwise, it's just much harder to wrap your head around it and much easier to downplay its effect on a game when one hasn't experienced it for himself.

 

Utter bullshite. I played hockey in leagues where there was no fighting. You fought - you sat a few games.  You took a cheap shot - you sat a few games.  That was enough for me not take cheap shots at guys. And low and behold - it was enough for two of the biggest violators in recent memory to clean up their acts.  All of this accountability/repercussions that fighting allegedly brings to the game didn't mean squat for those guys...and many others. Long suspensions without pay did.  Your argument is the last grasp of those who can't accept that fighting is nothing more than a sideshow now.  Again - how many NHL players are intimidated by fighting? Maybe a handful? And most of those are probably skilled players who realize the utter stupidity of taking themselves off the ice for 5:00.

 

Did Matt Cooke ease up on Savard knowing a beat down from Thornton was coming? No. Did Matt Cooke clean up his act when he go hit with 17+ games? Yes.

 

Did Raffi Torres ease up on Hossa knowing a beat down from whoever the Hawks' enforcer was? No. Did a 20+ game suspension motivate him? Yes.

 

Wanna bet we've seen the last of Kaleta's nonsense?

 

 

[Chicago Hawkie]

I don't think it should be banned although I can't say I'm a fan of "meaningless" fights (e.g. each team's goon throwing down for no reasin than just because), either.  For me, it depends on the reason for a fight.

 

I'm thinking back to the Hawks-Sharks game last season where Jamal Mayers (who is a better Hawks enforcer, in my opinion, than Dan Carcillo was) dropped the gloves with Raffi Torres during the first game Torres had against the Hawks since his hit on Marian Hossa (when he was with Phoenix, and during a playoff game, no less).  I thought that was better than if Mayers had instead taken a cheap shot or made a dirty hit on Torres.  Since then, I think the Hossa/Torres issue is done.

[rickturpin]

I agree after watching  the game between the Senators and the Leafs.

 

Anybody see that fight? The guys danced around for about 2 minutes (felt like forever) and the ref and linesman just stood there watching as if they expected a fight.

 

I really think it was the stupidest fight I have ever seen.

 

If players want to instigate that kind of a circus atmosphere, kick them out for good.  There are plenty of good players who are better than that.

 

BAN IT,  I totally agree.

[blocker]

Another point that is seldom mentioned is the effect of a probability of a retaliatory thumping.  There are games in which an opponent is told to tone down his actions or risk a whupping.   Hockey is pretty much the only game in which players police themselves. 

 

And,  anyone who claims that fighting is unique to hockey never played football.  I did.  I was punched,  stomped upon, head butted,  kicked in the shins, head, ribs and balls every damn play.  

 

And, you know what?  I'd sell my soul to be young enough to do it again.

[flyercanuck]

Another point that is seldom mentioned is the effect of a probability of a retaliatory thumping.  There are games in which an opponent is told to tone down his actions or risk a whupping.   Hockey is pretty much the only game in which players police themselves. 

 

And,  anyone who claims that fighting is unique to hockey never played football.  I did.  I was punched,  stomped upon, head butted,  kicked in the shins, head, ribs and balls every damn play.  

 

And, you know what?  I'd sell my soul to be young enough to do it again.

 

 

 C'mon blocker....you sold your soul Tuesday for a 6 pack of Long Trail.

[blocker]

you sold your soul Tuesday for a 6 pack of Long Trail

 

Yeah.....But I got some change back.